but don't you dare call him out on it.On health care reform ... Obama spreads a few lies of his own. Imagine that!
but don't you dare call him out on it.[/QUOTE]On health care reform ... Obama spreads a few lies of his own. Imagine that!
Both Democrats and Repulicans are racist... it just that the left side uses Positive Discrimination ("You guys can't compete on a level playing field. Here's a leg up.") and the right side uses Negative Discrimination ("We don't think you deserve to be equals. Get to the back of the bus."). Both are equally obnoxious and demeaning.Maureen Dowd shows that there will always be one weapon at the left's disposal whenever they run out of logic - the accusation of racism.
It is about fairness: America is all about getting a fair deal for itself from outside nations. It's just not interested in giving a fair deal... but then again, China doesn't get to complain about getting the short end of the stick when it's entire trade strategy is "Under cut everyone else by abusing our own population."According to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, we have a trade policy based on \"fairness.\" China doesn't seem to be liking that too much.
Perhaps, but the public already knows it can't trust the Republican party after what it did in the previous 8 years. It's high time for the rise of a third party in this country.The fundamental problem for Barack Obama and the Democrats is that the public doesn't trust them.
Both Democrats and Repulicans are racist... it just that the left side uses Positive Discrimination ("You guys can't compete on a level playing field. Here's a leg up.") and the right side uses Negative Discrimination ("We don't think you deserve to be equals. Get to the back of the bus."). Both are equally obnoxious and demeaning. [/quote]Got a recent example of a republican national politician or pundit using "back of the bus" racism?Maureen Dowd shows that there will always be one weapon at the left's disposal whenever they run out of logic - the accusation of racism.
Quite so, quite so. Libertarianism is poised to... well, to continue festering in ignominy so long as the mechanisms of the legislative branch continue to perpetuate a 2 party system. But it would be the very definition of the "moderate" party... Pro-choice and yet fiscally conservative, and all that.Perhaps, but the public already knows it can't trust the Republican party after what it did in the previous 8 years. It's high time for the rise of a third party in this country.The fundamental problem for Barack Obama and the Democrats is that the public doesn't trust them.
Both Democrats and Repulicans are racist... it just that the left side uses Positive Discrimination ("You guys can't compete on a level playing field. Here's a leg up.") and the right side uses Negative Discrimination ("We don't think you deserve to be equals. Get to the back of the bus."). Both are equally obnoxious and demeaning. [/quote]Got a recent example of a republican national politician or pundit using "back of the bus" racism? [/QUOTE]Maureen Dowd shows that there will always be one weapon at the left's disposal whenever they run out of logic - the accusation of racism.
Not quite the same, is it? And frankly, can you tell me how many non-middle-easterners with arabic names were hijacking those planes 8 years and 3 days ago? And I can see your implied profiling and raise you with the story of TSA refusing to let a white, "non-funny name" war hero board a plane because his congressional medal of honor constituted a "sharp metal object." And unlike your vague accusations, I've got a link. Yeah, he must have been profiled.What, 8 years of profiling brown people with funny names for \"national security\" isn't enough? How about sending them to Cuba to be tortured and treated inhumanely, in clear violation of international law?
Sexual preference seems to be more of the hot button issue this generation though. The whole Gay Marriage fiasco in California (and much of the country) is a good example of intolerance for a petty reason.
The measures they go to aren't as important as their intentions. What the Gay Marriage controversy ultimately boils down to is "You don't deserve the same rights, privileges, and respect that we get because you are different", which is what Segregation was all about, and both were championed by the Right of their time.I support equality of misery for the gay community (why should only heterosexuals suffer?), but as far as infractions of civil liberties go, this one's not exactly Rosa Parks territory now is it? Who's throwing homosexuals into jail for getting married?
The measures they go to aren't as important as their intentions. What the Gay Marriage controversy ultimately boils down to is "You don't deserve the same rights, privileges, and respect that we get because you are different", which is what Segregation was all about, and both were championed by the Right of their time.[/QUOTE]I support equality of misery for the gay community (why should only heterosexuals suffer?), but as far as infractions of civil liberties go, this one's not exactly Rosa Parks territory now is it? Who's throwing homosexuals into jail for getting married?
So?The European official responsible for banning incandescent light bulbs turns out to be a former communist.
So?The European official responsible for banning incandescent light bulbs turns out to be a former communist.
The measures they go to aren't as important as their intentions. What the Gay Marriage controversy ultimately boils down to is "You don't deserve the same rights, privileges, and respect that we get because you are different", which is what Segregation was all about, and both were championed by the Right of their time.[/QUOTE]I support equality of misery for the gay community (why should only heterosexuals suffer?), but as far as infractions of civil liberties go, this one's not exactly Rosa Parks territory now is it? Who's throwing homosexuals into jail for getting married?
No, I just said that line of argument could be used to champion ANYTHING, and picked something reprehensible.Did you just compare Gays to pedofiles?
It's really hit and miss in ChinaChina doesn't get to complain about getting the short end of the stick when it's entire trade strategy is "Under cut everyone else by abusing our own population."
Yup, I'm saddened and disgusted by the actions of ACORN. I certainly won't defend the group after this.John Stewart did a BIG segment on it on the daily Show. It was great. He really went after the beloved cable networks for not getting this story first. He actually was forced to agree with Fox and it almost KILLED him.
No, I just said that line of argument could be used to champion ANYTHING, and picked something reprehensible.Did you just compare Gays to pedofiles?
Can somebody fill me in on exactly what ACORN does?Sounds like they are pretty much done for. Government money is being cut off to them (thank GOD) and between this and the ridiculous fake voter bullshit they pull they don't have any real credibility anymore.
Stewarts raises the most important point: The mainstream media completely ignored this. They didn't do any of the investigative work and other than Fox no one is even covering it. As he said, "WHERE THE HELL WERE YOU?"
No, I just said that line of argument could be used to champion ANYTHING, and picked something reprehensible.Did you just compare Gays to pedofiles?
Can somebody fill me in on exactly what ACORN does?[/QUOTE]Sounds like they are pretty much done for. Government money is being cut off to them (thank GOD) and between this and the ridiculous fake voter bullshit they pull they don't have any real credibility anymore.
Stewarts raises the most important point: The mainstream media completely ignored this. They didn't do any of the investigative work and other than Fox no one is even covering it. As he said, "WHERE THE HELL WERE YOU?"
No, I'm not saying that at all. My point is, if we accepted your argument as sound and valid, logically it could also be used to champion freedom to perform unarguably reprehensible acts as well. Has nothing to do with homosexuality, just the argument itself.If I totally missed the point, my bad. But it seems like you are saying that gays are just as reprehensible as pedofiles.
Republican Senators. They like Rape. Hell, they should have listed it twice.We've been missing out on our daily dose of hyperbole and :aaahhh::aaahhh::aaahhh:, so let me share a few from this side of the aisle.
30 U.S. Senators vote pro-rape.
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
\"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves,\" Bardwell said. \"In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.\"
If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
\"I try to treat everyone equally,\" he said.
Wut.Louisiana Judge denies interracial couple marriage license because they might have kids.
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
\"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves,\" Bardwell said. \"In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.\"
If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
\"I try to treat everyone equally,\" he said.
Wut.[/QUOTE]Louisiana Judge denies interracial couple marriage license because they might have kids.
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
\"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves,\" Bardwell said. \"In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.\"
If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
\"I try to treat everyone equally,\" he said.
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," Bardwell said. "In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."
If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.
Rush also bitches that the NFL is a left wing organization, ignoring that NFL owners gave substantially more to GOP than to Democrats.
Rush also bitches that the NFL is a left wing organization, ignoring that NFL owners gave substantially more to GOP than to Democrats.[/QUOTE]
Not the government's fault, NFL is a private organization, free association, all things I agree with.Par for the course, man.
It's the government's fault that a private corporation made a private decision not to sell to a guy they consider divisive.
This link explains how some of these quotes attributed to Limbaugh came into being:"I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: Slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back. I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."
If the NFL doesn't want to associate with Limbaugh because he's a polarizing figure, that's fine. For him to be dropped from the bid because of words attributed to him that he never said is completely unfair and shows complete cowardice on the part of the bidding group.The earliest attributions anyone has been able to find cropped up in a series of anonymous edits to the Rush Limbaugh Wikiquote page in July 2005 — about a year before Huberman's book came out.
Thanks to Wikiquote's "History" feature, every edit ever made can be isolated and tracked. The slavery quote, for example, first appears at 5:53 a.m. on July 20, 2005.
In any case, all three entries were repeatedly challenged, removed, and reposted over the next few months, and finallydeleted for good on October 13, 2005 with the notation, "Removed fake quotes, including paraphrased Hitler quote."
A year later, two of them turned up in Jack Huberman's book.
Three years after that, the same two quotes reappeared on the Rush Limbaugh Wikiquote page, now labeled "sourced." Can you guess who the "source" was? That's right: Jack Huberman, in 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America.
If, as appears to be the case, Huberman originally came across the statements on Wikiquote (or even in some secondary source citing Wikiquote), the history of their sourcing is perfectly circular and Huberman isn't a credible source himself.
Oh, I quite agree. It's totally unfair to have something attributed to you that isn't.If the NFL doesn't want to associate with Limbaugh because he's a polarizing figure, that's fine. For him to be dropped from the bid because of words attributed to him that he never said is completely unfair and shows complete cowardice on the part of the bidding group.
All or nothing...I say it's unfair to drop him because of false quotes, and you go right to assuming I'm a Limbaugh water-carrier and think he's a "swell guy." So because you don't like him and he's said some controversial things, it's perfectly OK to falsely smear him?"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."
"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."
"I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve."
Rush Limbaugh
Go ahead and check Snopes. Those are the ones that either have been admitted to or have audio clips of him saying it. But you're right, he's a swell guy and it's just politics. /snark
All or nothing...I say it's unfair to drop him because of false quotes, and you go right to assuming I'm a Limbaugh water-carrier and think he's a "swell guy." So because you don't like him and he's said some controversial things, it's perfectly OK to falsely smear him?[/QUOTE]"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."
"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."
"I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve."
Rush Limbaugh
Go ahead and check Snopes. Those are the ones that either have been admitted to or have audio clips of him saying it. But you're right, he's a swell guy and it's just politics. /snark
All or nothing...I say it's unfair to drop him because of false quotes, and you go right to assuming I'm a Limbaugh water-carrier and think he's a "swell guy." So because you don't like him and he's said some controversial things, it's perfectly OK to falsely smear him?[/QUOTE]"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."
"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."
"I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve."
Rush Limbaugh
Go ahead and check Snopes. Those are the ones that either have been admitted to or have audio clips of him saying it. But you're right, he's a swell guy and it's just politics. /snark
how is that racist? McNabb was an overrated Quarterback."I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve."
All or nothing...I say it's unfair to drop him because of false quotes, and you go right to assuming I'm a Limbaugh water-carrier and think he's a "swell guy." So because you don't like him and he's said some controversial things, it's perfectly OK to falsely smear him?[/QUOTE]"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."
"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."
"I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve."
Rush Limbaugh
Go ahead and check Snopes. Those are the ones that either have been admitted to or have audio clips of him saying it. But you're right, he's a swell guy and it's just politics. /snark
The Bloods and The Crips are gangs, Armadillo.Edit function's acting all jinky today, so sorry for the DP.
I realize I missed the "bloods v. crips" quote. Putting those in a contrasting color would be helpful.
What the hell does that even mean?
The Bloods and The Crips are gangs, Armadillo.[/QUOTE]Edit function's acting all jinky today, so sorry for the DP.
I realize I missed the "bloods v. crips" quote. Putting those in a contrasting color would be helpful.
What the hell does that even mean?
The Bloods and The Crips are gangs, Armadillo.[/QUOTE]Edit function's acting all jinky today, so sorry for the DP.
I realize I missed the "bloods v. crips" quote. Putting those in a contrasting color would be helpful.
What the hell does that even mean?
The Bloods and The Crips are gangs, Armadillo.[/QUOTE]Edit function's acting all jinky today, so sorry for the DP.
I realize I missed the "bloods v. crips" quote. Putting those in a contrasting color would be helpful.
What the hell does that even mean?
I'll help you out.Man, you guys are impossible. I don't have enough facepalm to answer you both.
OK, let me get out of "obtuse smartass" mode:Man, you guys are impossible. I don't have enough facepalm to answer you both.
OK, let me get out of "obtuse smartass" mode:Man, you guys are impossible. I don't have enough facepalm to answer you both.
OK, let me get out of "obtuse smartass" mode:Man, you guys are impossible. I don't have enough facepalm to answer you both.
OK, let me get out of "obtuse smartass" mode:Man, you guys are impossible. I don't have enough facepalm to answer you both.
Aaaaaand I disagree with that. That's how the world works though. Funny how hundreds of years of oppressive history can do that to someone.There are those who see implied racism whenever someone criticizes the President or when a black head coach gets fired, despite the reasoning used.
Aaaaaand I disagree with that. That's how the world works though. Funny how hundreds of years of oppressive history can do that to someone.There are those who see implied racism whenever someone criticizes the President or when a black head coach gets fired, despite the reasoning used.
If your trying to brow beat me into not posting by putting words in my mouth I neither said nor meant, it's working.Well according to Krisken anyone who criticizes Obama is a Racist because they never explicitly stated that they're not racist.
If your trying to brow beat me into not posting by putting words in my mouth I neither said nor meant, it's working.[/QUOTE]Well according to Krisken anyone who criticizes Obama is a Racist because they never explicitly stated that they're not racist.
It sure doesn't help when you make excuses for the ones that are racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobes. If you're not part of the solution and speak against it...[/QUOTE]Krisken;255435][quote=Covar said:No. No. Every conservative and Libertarian is a racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobe. We just want to keep the poor down, so we can take all the money they don't have.
If your trying to brow beat me into not posting by putting words in my mouth I neither said nor meant, it's working.[/QUOTE]Well according to Krisken anyone who criticizes Obama is a Racist because they never explicitly stated that they're not racist.
It sure doesn't help when you make excuses for the ones that are racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobes. If you're not part of the solution and speak against it...[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Krisken;255435][quote=Covar said:No. No. Every conservative and Libertarian is a racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobe. We just want to keep the poor down, so we can take all the money they don't have.
If your trying to brow beat me into not posting by putting words in my mouth I neither said nor meant, it's working.[/quote]Well according to Krisken anyone who criticizes Obama is a Racist because they never explicitly stated that they're not racist.
It sure doesn't help when you make excuses for the ones that are racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobes. If you're not part of the solution and speak against it...[/quote][/QUOTE]Krisken;255435][quote=Covar said:No. No. Every conservative and Libertarian is a racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobe. We just want to keep the poor down, so we can take all the money they don't have.
You win. I can't argue with that kind of logic.really? you need help understanding what you wrote? ok, fine.
"If your not part of the solution and speak against it..."
now we fill in those ellipses
"you're part of the problem"
Now I'm sure even you can agree that by the problem you mean racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobes.
So you see, your statement now becomes "If you're not part of the solution and speak against it you're part of the racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobes."
See that wasn't so hard to figure out, now was it.
Oh just to help you along, I find the actions of terrorist groups to be deplorable. Now you know I'm not a terrorist.
Not defending, asking for full context. No matter how terrible a quote sounds, context is paramount. I'm fully prepared for the context to show that what Limbaugh said was horribly racist, I'm just not willing to brand him as such without the full picture.Wow, the fact that you're defending the "bone in the nose" comment kinda freaks me out...
This sort of reminds of the old, old boards when Invader claimed that as long as no one used the N-word, it wasn't racist, just an observation.
Not defending, asking for full context. No matter how terrible a quote sounds, context is paramount. I'm fully prepared for the context to show that what Limbaugh said was horribly racist, I'm just not willing to brand him as such without the full picture.[/QUOTE]Wow, the fact that you're defending the "bone in the nose" comment kinda freaks me out...
This sort of reminds of the old, old boards when Invader claimed that as long as no one used the N-word, it wasn't racist, just an observation.
It probably is, so what's the harm in showing the context? It will probably back you up. Of course, assuming it's not just taken out of context and no one knows the actual context which would be... well... pretty slimy in a Fox News sort of way.No, wrong argument. Nobody said he is a racist. We are saying what he said is racist.
Not defending, asking for full context. No matter how terrible a quote sounds, context is paramount. I'm fully prepared for the context to show that what Limbaugh said was horribly racist, I'm just not willing to brand him as such without the full picture.[/QUOTE]Wow, the fact that you're defending the \"bone in the nose\" comment kinda freaks me out...
This sort of reminds of the old, old boards when Invader claimed that as long as no one used the N-word, it wasn't racist, just an observation.
and you want to defend it, I'm pretty much done trying to convince you otherwise.Rush Limbaugh said:"We thought that it was just liberal welfare policies and all that that kept blacks from progressing while other minorities grew and prospered, but no, it is these wackos from Bill Ayers to Jeremiah Wright to other anti-American Afrocentric black liberation theologists with ACORN, and Barack Obama is smack dab in the middle of it, they have been training young black kids to hate, hate, hate this country, and they trained their parents before that to hate, hate, hate this country. It was a movement. It was a Bill Ayers, anti-capitalist, anti-American educational movement. ACORN is how it was implemented, right under our noses."
Is the above quote untrue in every way, or do you dislike it because it came from Rush Limbaugh and deals with race? We get it; you can't stand Limbaugh. That doesn't make him a racist, it doesn't make those who stick up for him against unfair attacks racist or ignorant, and it doesn't mean that those who go against him some kind of paragon of virtue. I personally can't stand listening to him, but I'm not going to crucify the guy and start implying all kinds of nasty things about him because of it. It's like what you're seeing with Glenn Beck, who I do like. He's become the new whipping boy of the left: they're taking things he's said out of context, ignoring the message he's providing in favor of personally attacking him, and just generally being obtuse little jerks about it.I really don't understand you people. Limbaugh can say anything he wants,no matter how vile, and still you'll make excuses for him. He can say he hopes for riots, say watching NFL football is like watching the Bloods and the Crips, tell a caller to get the bone out of his nose, say that if a white president had ordered the shooting of the black Muslim somoli pirates he would have caught hell, and when an advisor to Obama lists Mao and mother Teresa as philosophical influences it's the end of the world.
When someone says things like this
and you want to defend it, I'm pretty much done trying to convince you otherwise.Rush Limbaugh said:"We thought that it was just liberal welfare policies and all that that kept blacks from progressing while other minorities grew and prospered, but no, it is these wackos from Bill Ayers to Jeremiah Wright to other anti-American Afrocentric black liberation theologists with ACORN, and Barack Obama is smack dab in the middle of it, they have been training young black kids to hate, hate, hate this country, and they trained their parents before that to hate, hate, hate this country. It was a movement. It was a Bill Ayers, anti-capitalist, anti-American educational movement. ACORN is how it was implemented, right under our noses."
How any comment made by someone on the left is filled with subtle nuances, and things Limbaugh says is simple and taken out of context, is beyond me.
What the hell's that supposed to mean?Listen to whoever you want Armadillo. I think I understand more than I want to.
What the hell's that supposed to mean?[/QUOTE]Listen to whoever you want Armadillo. I think I understand more than I want to.
What the hell's that supposed to mean?[/QUOTE]Listen to whoever you want Armadillo. I think I understand more than I want to.
We are trying very hard to make up for McCarthyism.But here I am trying to reason with a liberal from Wisconsin. That's two strikes right there, buddy.
Excuse me, you're in my spot.I know GB is aware of what's going on here. It ain't his thread any more!
And you think Beck, Bachmann, and Savage are directly responsible for lunatics making threats?Unprecedented number of threats against Obama strains Secret Service budget and staffing. And you think folks like Beck, Bachmann, and Savage don't have an impact?
Appalling. Simply appalling. They're going to stray into some serious First Amendment issues if they're not careful. When even Donna Brazille is saying the administration's not doing the right thing, you know they're screwing up.The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece.
Top political strategists question the decision by the Obama administration to escalate its offensive against Fox News. And as of Monday, the four other major television networks had not given any indication that they intend to sever their ties with Fox News.
...
Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is \"not a news organization.\"
\"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way,\" Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. \"We're not going to treat them that way.\"
...
The White House stopped providing guests to \"Fox News Sunday\" after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August.
Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was \"something I've never seen a Sunday show do.\"
\"She criticized 'Fox News Sunday' last week for fact-checking -- fact-checking -- an administration official,\" Wallace said Sunday. \"They didn't say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check.\"
Saying Obama's policies are bad for the country is hardly the same as calling for violence.Confusing message when the campaign against him, call him racist, saying he is bringing down the country. I hear more about him bitching bout the country is dying then i ever hear him rallying against violence (beck).
Yup. Talking out of both sides of their mouths.Confusing message when the campaign against him, call him racist, saying he is bringing down the country. I hear more about him bitching bout the country is dying then i ever hear him rallying against violence (beck).
And you think Beck, Bachmann, and Savage are directly responsible for lunatics making threats?Unprecedented number of threats against Obama strains Secret Service budget and staffing. And you think folks like Beck, Bachmann, and Savage don't have an impact?
Except, you know, that's not what they are doing.It was wrong when Republicans wanted to freeze out MSNBC, it's wrong when Democrats want to freeze out Fox News. I'm getting more than a little tired of so much of the debate in this country coming down to "the other side is a bunch of hypocrites." If it was wrong then, it's wrong now. If you didn't have a problem with it then, you shouldn't have a problem with it now.
Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod BOTH said, on the air, "Fox isn't really a news channel, and you guys [other news networks] shouldn't bother with stories they cover."Except, you know, that's not what they are doing.
I'm loving how NOW, "crazy, inflammatory statements" are suddenly a cause for the imperial hammer coming down on people, when for the 8 years previous crazy, inflammatory statements, songs, movies and articles ranging from libel and slander to outright advocacy of assassination were protected free speech and "dissent [was] the new patriotism."Tekeo said:There is a wide, wide gap between \"impact\" and \"directly responsible\".
DA's point (correct me, if I'm wrong, DA) is that when folks with wide public exposure like Beck, Bachmann, Savage, etc., make crazy inflammatory statements like they have, they're contributing considerably to the atmosphere that brings the crazies out.
Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod BOTH said, on the air, "Fox isn't really a news channel, and you guys [other news networks] shouldn't bother with stories they cover."Except, you know, that's not what they are doing.
I'm loving how NOW, "crazy, inflammatory statements" are suddenly a cause for the imperial hammer coming down on people, when for the 8 years previous crazy, inflammatory statements, songs, movies and articles ranging from libel and slander to outright advocacy of assassination were protected free speech and "dissent [was] the new patriotism."Tekeo said:There is a wide, wide gap between \"impact\" and \"directly responsible\".
DA's point (correct me, if I'm wrong, DA) is that when folks with wide public exposure like Beck, Bachmann, Savage, etc., make crazy inflammatory statements like they have, they're contributing considerably to the atmosphere that brings the crazies out.
Miss California pageant wants Prejean to pay for her own boobs. If she's involved, it's political. No two ways about it.
Conservatives hate the Bible, claim liberal bias. I shit you not.
This on the other hand, just freaks me out a bit, and it has more to do with the book-burning thing than anything else, though the "satanic" declarations are a bit wince-inducing as well.
just quoting this for the new page.
Conservapedia? Seventy-five per cent of that site these days is stealth parody.
Conservatives hate the Bible, claim liberal bias. I shit you not.
Conservapedia? Seventy-five per cent of that site these days is stealth parody.
Conservatives hate the Bible, claim liberal bias. I shit you not.
Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod BOTH said, on the air, "Fox isn't really a news channel, and you guys [other news networks] shouldn't bother with stories they cover."Except, you know, that's not what they are doing.
Well, I guess we know who took an 8 year nap. Not to mention doesn't know the opinons of the founding fathers of the country -You find me a Democratic congressman or national-level pundit calling for armed revolution or assassination in the Bush years, and I will gladly condemn it in the same manner.I'm loving how NOW, "crazy, inflammatory statements" are suddenly a cause for the imperial hammer coming down on people, when for the 8 years previous crazy, inflammatory statements, songs, movies and articles ranging from libel and slander to outright advocacy of assassination were protected free speech and "dissent [was] the new patriotism."Tekeo said:There is a wide, wide gap between \"impact\" and \"directly responsible\".
DA's point (correct me, if I'm wrong, DA) is that when folks with wide public exposure like Beck, Bachmann, Savage, etc., make crazy inflammatory statements like they have, they're contributing considerably to the atmosphere that brings the crazies out.
It doesn't. It confuses and misdirects everyone reading it. Welcome back Gas Bandit.You're seriously equating a Fox news pundit with the heads of state of potentially hostile nations?
And apparently, Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with the revolutionary atmosphere of his time period.
Do you even know what the argument is?
We've been talking about the contributing effects of statements like these from public figures on the public at large.
The links you have demonstrate that when someone makes these statements, they are roundly condemned for that exact reason!
So how exactly does this absolve Beck, Bachmann, etc?
You know, I can't actually get excited about this one. It was a dumb as hell joke, but he treated that whole interview as a joke, and he clearly has no idea what the sportsmen group he's in is actually doing...It gets better. As in worse.
Mississippi Congressman talks of shooting Democrats. Dude, you do know your district is known for the lynchings during the civil rights struggles of the 1960s? I guess he does. He's standing by his statements.
It does seem like poor form to challenge MSNBC to do what they ended up doing, and then run away, but it's hardly unexpected that she feels like she'll get a better audience for her spiel at Fox.
I don't often say this, but good for Coburn and Price.
A co-worker of a friend of mine asked for a raise. His boss said "A job, it is the new raise."In the 90s, under the Clinton administration, 5% unemployment was considered "full employment." Under Dubya, in 2005, it was sign that we were in a horrible recession. Now, apparently 10% unemployment is just going to be the new normal.
Certainly no amount of printed money spent quickly, massively, and haphazardly by a government who actually has no motivation to fix a crisis which increases its own stranglehold on the lives of its citizens.A co-worker of a friend of mine asked for a raise. His boss said "A job, it is the new raise."
The dot.com bust/9-11 recession is no where as serious as the failure of our system of banking, the auto industry, and housing bubble. There will be people out of work for a longer period of time. The Federal Gov't has kept it's Cold War, WWII, Depression Era spending habits. And now no amount of money alone will provide a quick fix.
Discussed to death. It's a Fox Noise/Glenn Beck smear. The end. NEXT!Everybody's heard of this by now, right? Anita Dunn, white house director of communications? Her favorite philosopher is Mao Tse Tung? Say what you will about the fiscally irresponsible bush administration, but is there ANYBODY on the Obama team who isn't a complete looney, fraud or cheat?
Discussed to death. It's a Fox Noise/Glenn Beck smear. The end. NEXT![/QUOTE]Everybody's heard of this by now, right? Anita Dunn, white house director of communications? Her favorite philosopher is Mao Tse Tung? Say what you will about the fiscally irresponsible bush administration, but is there ANYBODY on the Obama team who isn't a complete looney, fraud or cheat?
Discussed to death. It's a Fox Noise/Glenn Beck smear. The end. NEXT![/QUOTE]Everybody's heard of this by now, right? Anita Dunn, white house director of communications? Her favorite philosopher is Mao Tse Tung? Say what you will about the fiscally irresponsible bush administration, but is there ANYBODY on the Obama team who isn't a complete looney, fraud or cheat?
Discussed to death. It's a Fox Noise/Glenn Beck smear. The end. NEXT![/quote]Everybody's heard of this by now, right? Anita Dunn, white house director of communications? Her favorite philosopher is Mao Tse Tung? Say what you will about the fiscally irresponsible bush administration, but is there ANYBODY on the Obama team who isn't a complete looney, fraud or cheat?
GasBandit disregarding that info because it comes from Al Franken in 3... 2... 1...Dude just doesn't get it. Senator Vitter dodges interracial marriage question. So. Pro-racism *and* pro-rape. Stay classy, Senator.
Hudson Institute fellow claims universal health care would increase bankruptcies. Senator Franken's staff already had the data. Number of medical bankruptcies in Europe: zero.
More like cnn continues to fact check dora the explorer. As random guessed facts still get thrown around by pundits on their actual shows.Very nice.
In other news I heard Fox News said the world was round. MSNBC has responded calling for the white house to immediately change any and all geography books that mentions the world as round.
Fox has responded by saying the world is flat as a pancake, leaving MSNBC flustered but charging forward with it's all out geographical attack, saying Cubed but with rounded corners would be a sufficient change. CNN continues to report on the Jon and Kate + 8 drama.
GasBandit disregarding that info because it comes from Al Franken in 3... 2... 1...[/QUOTE]Dude just doesn't get it. Senator Vitter dodges interracial marriage question. So. Pro-racism *and* pro-rape. Stay classy, Senator.
Hudson Institute fellow claims universal health care would increase bankruptcies. Senator Franken's staff already had the data. Number of medical bankruptcies in Europe: zero.
GasBandit disregarding that info because it comes from Al Franken in 3... 2... 1...[/quote]Dude just doesn't get it. Senator Vitter dodges interracial marriage question. So. Pro-racism *and* pro-rape. Stay classy, Senator.
Hudson Institute fellow claims universal health care would increase bankruptcies. Senator Franken's staff already had the data. Number of medical bankruptcies in Europe: zero.
Yeah, this I agree with too. I'm juts saying I can't find his source.I'd posit that a sitting U.S. Senator with a reputation for rigorous fact-checking has far more credibility than a weepy, conspiracy-spouting nutjob who just happens to have a TV show among his fellow wingnuts.
Remember that this, apparently, means Anita Dunn is a lover of Mao and his killing of so many people. Which, of course, means Obama is surrounded by crazy homicidal murderers."The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is 'you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before."
I'm saying that their signal to noise ratio is a little hard to get through. The time it takes me to fact check Beck and Hannity isnt worth listening to them on a daily basis.I think people's beef with that quote was calling Mao one of her favorite political philosophers.
As for Beck, after Congress decided to cut funding to ACORN, I can't really say that he's always wrong, he does get some things right. I also tend to agree with his complaints about printing money, but I also disagree with him on a wide range of issues. You see, here's the thing---the beauty of the American system, is that one guy is always trying to tear up the other guy. You NEED people like Beck and Hannity, disagree with them as you may, to tear up the ruling establishment to keep them clean. The same goes for when the left did it against GWB. Living in China has taught me that no matter how much you hate the other side, thank God they're there, because in places like China, where its one party and they aren't often so keen to go after themselves, and people in the Chinese media are especially not so keen to go after the ruling government, corruption grows like crazy and you aren't sure who to believe.
Dude, you're always going to have lone nutbars who go psycho and do stupid/dangerous shit. 99.9999999999999% of the people who listen to Glenn Beck aren't going to do either of the things you mentioned above, yet you continue to take those isolated incidents and treat them as though they're happening every hour on the hour.If needing Beck means more dead cops because the teevee machine convinced someone that "Obama was coming to take my guns away" and folks showing up at military bases armed to the teeth because "Glenn Beck said it was a FEMA internment camp", then no fucking thank you.
Dude, you're always going to have lone nutbars who go psycho and do stupid/dangerous shit. 99.9999999999999% of the people who listen to Glenn Beck aren't going to do either of the things you mentioned above, yet you continue to take those isolated incidents and treat them as though they're happening every hour on the hour.[/QUOTE]If needing Beck means more dead cops because the teevee machine convinced someone that "Obama was coming to take my guns away" and folks showing up at military bases armed to the teeth because "Glenn Beck said it was a FEMA internment camp", then no fucking thank you.
Well, I doubt they want to make it public. Not like cyber-warfare is exactly considered a noble profession.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125616872684400273.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories
The Chinese are invading!
You know, with all this talk of cyber warfare, I'm kind of wondering what our own boys are doing. I find it hard to believe the Chinese are out pacing us in the cyber battlefield, but I don't often hear much of what the US is doing themselves or doing to prevent such attacks.
To be fair, this whole thing is basically business as usual. "Oh noes! The Chinese are starting to become like us! Let's stir up anti-Asian sentiment again and put a stop to that!" and such. It was basically the same thing with the Russians in the Cold War.yep.. only america has an international presence... it's nt like more then 40 million chinese live abroad or anything....
Gasbandit said:The third-ranking Republican in the Senate says the Obama administration is launching a Richard Nixon-like political strategy of making an \"enemies list\" of people who disagree with the president.
Yeah, that statement isn't politically motivated or full of fail. And people wonder why I have a hard time taking these jokers seriously.FTFA said:Alexander offered no evidence that Obama is developing an actual list, as Nixon famously created for his opponents. But, he said, \"I have an uneasy feeling only 10 months into this new administration that we're beginning to see the symptoms of this same kind of animus developing.\"
Yeah, the way that Obama has town hall meetings where he has them weed out all the "undesirables" and only allow them to use pre approved questions that don't in any way contradict his authority....Gasbandit said:The third-ranking Republican in the Senate says the Obama administration is launching a Richard Nixon-like political strategy of making an \"enemies list\" of people who disagree with the president.Yeah, that statement isn't politically motivated or full of fail. And people wonder why I have a hard time taking these jokers seriously.FTFA said:Alexander offered no evidence that Obama is developing an actual list, as Nixon famously created for his opponents. But, he said, \"I have an uneasy feeling only 10 months into this new administration that we're beginning to see the symptoms of this same kind of animus developing.\"
That was this one even more. WAY more. Obama has perfected the art of the planted question, except that he keeps getting caught at it.Yeah, the way that Obama has town hall meetings where he has them weed out all the "undesirables" and only allow them to use pre approved questions that don't in any way contradict his authority....
Oh, wait, that was the last president.
That was this one even more. WAY more. Obama has perfected the art of the planted question, except that he keeps getting caught at it.[/QUOTE]Yeah, the way that Obama has town hall meetings where he has them weed out all the "undesirables" and only allow them to use pre approved questions that don't in any way contradict his authority....
Oh, wait, that was the last president.
Finally, some good news!Despite all our sound and fury, we've known for years socialized medicine was inevitable because the American people have cared more about security and comfort than liberty and responsibility for years. And the "public option" is the trojan horse that is finally going to get single payer inside the gates.
Well, Trojan's are the most trusted brand in America.Finally, some good news!Despite all our sound and fury, we've known for years socialized medicine was inevitable because the American people have cared more about security and comfort than liberty and responsibility for years. And the "public option" is the trojan horse that is finally going to get single payer inside the gates.
Then there's this: Pat Buchanan says comparing Obama to Nixon 'idiotic'.Gasbandit said:The third-ranking Republican in the Senate says the Obama administration is launching a Richard Nixon-like political strategy of making an \"enemies list\" of people who disagree with the president.Yeah, that statement isn't politically motivated or full of fail. And people wonder why I have a hard time taking these jokers seriously.FTFA said:Alexander offered no evidence that Obama is developing an actual list, as Nixon famously created for his opponents. But, he said, \"I have an uneasy feeling only 10 months into this new administration that we're beginning to see the symptoms of this same kind of animus developing.\"
I assume he will be given a red headband and a large machine gun then air dropped into the mountains?God help our men and women in uniform ... the White House says that it is exploring a \"larger role\" for John Kerry in Afghanistan.
I assume he will be given a red headband and a large machine gun then air dropped into the mountains?[/QUOTE]God help our men and women in uniform ... the White House says that it is exploring a \"larger role\" for John Kerry in Afghanistan.
That was this one even more. WAY more. Obama has perfected the art of the planted question, except that he keeps getting caught at it.[/quote]Yeah, the way that Obama has town hall meetings where he has them weed out all the \"undesirables\" and only allow them to use pre approved questions that don't in any way contradict his authority....
Oh, wait, that was the last president.
That was this one even more. WAY more. Obama has perfected the art of the planted question, except that he keeps getting caught at it.[/quote]Yeah, the way that Obama has town hall meetings where he has them weed out all the \"undesirables\" and only allow them to use pre approved questions that don't in any way contradict his authority....
Oh, wait, that was the last president.
Wow, you are self-deluded. Just put me back on ignore and go on your merry way if you're going to look at an orange and insist it's green.You keep rolling with that. I won't jump in front of ya. He didn't dictate the question in \"repeated\" and left it up to the person asking the question (even though he knew it was going to be on Iraq and invited the person specifically because he knew he had a question on Iraq), \"planted questions\" has no proof of being planted question, and \"astroturfed supporters\" didn't show me anything (which is probably why it's called \"Hot Air\").
Wow, I wasted 10 minutes on Gas links that didn't even prove what he was supposedly trying to posit. What a surprise.
Planted. And it was Iran, not Iraq. But I guess you can't spend a whole lot of time reading things too close that make you hide under the bed.\"Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. \"I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet,\" Obama went on. \"Do you have a question?\"\"
Wow, you are self-deluded. Just put me back on ignore and go on your merry way if you're going to look at an orange and insist it's green.You keep rolling with that. I won't jump in front of ya. He didn't dictate the question in \"repeated\" and left it up to the person asking the question (even though he knew it was going to be on Iraq and invited the person specifically because he knew he had a question on Iraq), \"planted questions\" has no proof of being planted question, and \"astroturfed supporters\" didn't show me anything (which is probably why it's called \"Hot Air\").
Wow, I wasted 10 minutes on Gas links that didn't even prove what he was supposedly trying to posit. What a surprise.
Planted. And it was Iran, not Iraq. But I guess you can't spend a whole lot of time reading things too close that make you hide under the bed.\"Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. \"I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet,\" Obama went on. \"Do you have a question?\"\"
Aww, come on, stay and play a little longer.Done and done. .
Aww, come on, stay and play a little longer.Done and done. .
You took your ball and went home. Rhetorical forfeit.I'm still trying to figure out what he won. For a guy who espouses opposition is essential to the process, it sure sounds like he lost to me.
Dude, you're always going to have lone nutbars who go psycho and do stupid/dangerous shit. 99.9999999999999% of the people who listen to Glenn Beck aren't going to do either of the things you mentioned above, yet you continue to take those isolated incidents and treat them as though they're happening every hour on the hour.[/QUOTE]If needing Beck means more dead cops because the teevee machine convinced someone that "Obama was coming to take my guns away" and folks showing up at military bases armed to the teeth because "Glenn Beck said it was a FEMA internment camp", then no fucking thank you.
You were arguing that Obama doesn't pad the town-halls with supporters. Gasbandit offered proof that he does. You quit.I'm still trying to figure out what he won. For a guy who espouses opposition is essential to the process, it sure sounds like he lost to me.
You were arguing that Obama doesn't pad the town-halls with supporters. Gasbandit offered proof that he does. You quit.I'm still trying to figure out what he won. For a guy who espouses opposition is essential to the process, it sure sounds like he lost to me.
Yes and yes.Some good one's from Glenn Greenwald's blog:
DNC tactics of depicting opponents as helping terrorists no less shameful than when the GOP did it.
The media are complaining about the Obama administrations critique of Fox, but are completely ignoring how they shamefully allowed the Bush administration to completely walk all over them.
I've always liked Greenwald. I don't always agree with him, but he backs up everything he says with sources, and he's a huge critic of executive authority (he's a constitutional lawyer).
Yes and yes.[/QUOTE]Some good one's from Glenn Greenwald's blog:
DNC tactics of depicting opponents as helping terrorists no less shameful than when the GOP did it.
The media are complaining about the Obama administrations critique of Fox, but are completely ignoring how they shamefully allowed the Bush administration to completely walk all over them.
I've always liked Greenwald. I don't always agree with him, but he backs up everything he says with sources, and he's a huge critic of executive authority (he's a constitutional lawyer).
Yes and yes.[/quote]Some good one's from Glenn Greenwald's blog:
DNC tactics of depicting opponents as helping terrorists no less shameful than when the GOP did it.
The media are complaining about the Obama administrations critique of Fox, but are completely ignoring how they shamefully allowed the Bush administration to completely walk all over them.
I've always liked Greenwald. I don't always agree with him, but he backs up everything he says with sources, and he's a huge critic of executive authority (he's a constitutional lawyer).
Yes and yes.[/quote]Some good one's from Glenn Greenwald's blog:
DNC tactics of depicting opponents as helping terrorists no less shameful than when the GOP did it.
The media are complaining about the Obama administrations critique of Fox, but are completely ignoring how they shamefully allowed the Bush administration to completely walk all over them.
I've always liked Greenwald. I don't always agree with him, but he backs up everything he says with sources, and he's a huge critic of executive authority (he's a constitutional lawyer).
Not exactly. Re: NBC, all he points out that is that the same folks de-crying the administration's critique of Fox turned a blind eye, or outright supported, the Bush administration's critique of NBC. It's a condemnation of the hypocrisy of the commentariat.I'll say yes and kind of. "Kind of" because while he's right that Bush's people were wrong to go after NBC, and they're hypocrites, he pretty much flat out excuses Obama's crew going after Fox. I would argue that they're both wrong.
Isn't one of the main reasons you hate him because you claim he says things like that about his ideological foes? Just sayin'.Glenn Beck is uncouth, unethical, and un-American. Fuck Glenn Beck.
Isn't one of the main reasons you hate him because you claim he says things like that about his ideological foes? Just sayin'.[/QUOTE]Glenn Beck is uncouth, unethical, and un-American. Fuck Glenn Beck.
Isn't one of the main reasons you hate him because you claim he says things like that about his ideological foes? Just sayin'.[/QUOTE]Glenn Beck is uncouth, unethical, and un-American. Fuck Glenn Beck.
Isn't one of the main reasons you hate him because you claim he says things like that about his ideological foes? Just sayin'.[/QUOTE]Glenn Beck is uncouth, unethical, and un-American. Fuck Glenn Beck.
No, I'm not saying that at all. My point is, if we accepted your argument as sound and valid, logically it could also be used to champion freedom to perform unarguably reprehensible acts as well. Has nothing to do with homosexuality, just the argument itself.If I totally missed the point, my bad. But it seems like you are saying that gays are just as reprehensible as pedofiles.
No, I'm not saying that at all. My point is, if we accepted your argument as sound and valid, logically it could also be used to champion freedom to perform unarguably reprehensible acts as well. Has nothing to do with homosexuality, just the argument itself.If I totally missed the point, my bad. But it seems like you are saying that gays are just as reprehensible as pedofiles.
No, I'm not saying that at all. My point is, if we accepted your argument as sound and valid, logically it could also be used to champion freedom to perform unarguably reprehensible acts as well. Has nothing to do with homosexuality, just the argument itself.If I totally missed the point, my bad. But it seems like you are saying that gays are just as reprehensible as pedofiles.
That's interesting, but here's the real question... if the Republican party DOES implode and become irrelevant, what party is going to take it's place? Aside from the Libertarians (who, quite frankly, don't have a chance in hell) are there any right leaning parties that could step up and fill the void?This one nearly got past me until this week: GOP will eat itself - schism on the right puts Democrat candidate in NY 23rd Congressional district into the lead. A major split amongst right and far-right factions has allowed a Democrat to do and end-around them both. In a district that hasn't elected one since before the Civil War.
Holy crap that's an old post. No, that's not what I was saying. I wasn't saying the act of legalizing gay marriage itself would, I said the argument they were using to do so could have been used for pretty much anything. It should just be enough to say that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies here, have a whole bunch of big gay weddings and be done with it.I'm catching the end of this and I don't feel like reading the rest of the thread, but please don't tell me you're using the 'gay marriage opens pandora's box of legalizing taboos argument. Please?
that guy completely lost me after the whole pages argument at the beginning. What does the length of the bible have to do with the health care bill which amounts to a legal document?Healthcare is not about your health, it is about control.
I'm not SUPER up on this race, seeing as how it's not my district, but what I have heard is that the Republican candidate is about as conservative as Richard Simmons is straight. For the stimulus, for Obama's health care reform, endorsed by ACORN. Endorsed by the founder of Daily Kos.This one nearly got past me until this week: GOP will eat itself - schism on the right puts Democrat candidate in NY 23rd Congressional district into the lead. A major split amongst right and far-right factions has allowed a Democrat to do and end-around them both. In a district that hasn't elected one since before the Civil War.
Yeah, I guess if being called on ethics violations were being in trouble, Charlie Rangel would have been gone a long time ago... among many others.I checked a couple of links and gave up. I wish I had more time to refute this nonsense. Heads up for others reading this crap-
Grayson isn't in trouble, and the article doesn't say that. Just, you know, FYI.
that guy completely lost me after the whole pages argument at the beginning. What does the length of the bible have to do with the health care bill which amounts to a legal document?[/quote] It is noteworthy to me that the health care bill is 250 times as long as the document which created our government, 65 times as long as the Communist Manifesto, but about equivalent to the length of a religious text. Apropos, even.Healthcare is not about your health, it is about control.
The there's no slope too slippery to be fallacious when describing the objectives of government. The government always wants more governmental control. That's no more a slippery slope than to say if I let you take your next breath then you'll only want to take 10,000 more.and gotta love the slippery slope fallacy at the end.
1) String em both up.Republican != Conservative. But in today's GOP, folks like Nelson Rockefeller would be run out of town on a rail in an instant.
Looks like the Congressman leading the fight against Charlie Rangel has problems of his own. Glass houses much, Congressman?
Twitter shuts down fake accounts run by Connecticut GOP. Party officials fail Consitutional Law 101 by claiming 1st amendment rights. Sorry folks. Doesn't apply. Twitter's a private concern, and can do as they damn well please with their service.
Yeah, I guess if being called on ethics violations were being in trouble, Charlie Rangel would have been gone a long time ago... among many others.I checked a couple of links and gave up. I wish I had more time to refute this nonsense. Heads up for others reading this crap-
Grayson isn't in trouble, and the article doesn't say that. Just, you know, FYI.
Here, let me help you with that...From the Article said:Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) is causing a stir on the House floor again, but this time it’s a poster, not Grayson’s words, that has Republicans screaming.
Wednesday afternoon, Grayson brought to the floor a poster emblazoned with “NamesOfTheDead.com” — the name of a website he launched with personal funds to memorialize those who have died as a result of lacking health care. The site allows the visitor to fill out a form with the name of a loved one — and his or her personal story.
But the site contains a link to his campaign website, raising the question of whether it could be considered a contribution to his reelection effort. A spokesman for Grayson said the House majority leader’s office OK’d the poster. But Republican operatives were also quick to raise ethics questions, saying it is improper to speak on the House floor about a website that contains a link to a campaign site, which is used to solicit funds.
House ethics officials did not immediately return calls for comment about whether there was any problem with Grayson listing his website on the poster.
The Federal Election Commission does not comment on specific incidents.
For that matter, they also fail ID Theft Laws if they don't meet the standards for parody.Party officials fail Consitutional Law 101 by claiming 1st amendment rights. Sorry folks. Doesn't apply. Twitter's a private concern, and can do as they damn well please with their service.
Is there a stipulation by the Army that the email can't be used for that type of purpose? I guess I don't understand why he would be in trouble.The tea partiers are getting more brazen, and in this guy's case more stupid.
It's one thing to spout this garbage on your own time and your own personal email address. It's another thing entirely to do so using an Army email address. Retired or not, this moron is in for all sorts of trouble.
Is there a stipulation by the Army that the email can't be used for that type of purpose? I guess I don't understand why he would be in trouble.The tea partiers are getting more brazen, and in this guy's case more stupid.
It's one thing to spout this garbage on your own time and your own personal email address. It's another thing entirely to do so using an Army email address. Retired or not, this moron is in for all sorts of trouble.
Yeah, I guess if being called on ethics violations were being in trouble, Charlie Rangel would have been gone a long time ago... among many others.I checked a couple of links and gave up. I wish I had more time to refute this nonsense. Heads up for others reading this crap-
Grayson isn't in trouble, and the article doesn't say that. Just, you know, FYI.
that guy completely lost me after the whole pages argument at the beginning. What does the length of the bible have to do with the health care bill which amounts to a legal document?[/quote] It is noteworthy to me that the health care bill is 250 times as long as the document which created our government, 65 times as long as the Communist Manifesto, but about equivalent to the length of a religious text. Apropos, even.Healthcare is not about your health, it is about control.
The there's no slope too slippery to be fallacious when describing the objectives of government. The government always wants more governmental control. That's no more a slippery slope than to say if I let you take your next breath then you'll only want to take 10,000 more.and gotta love the slippery slope fallacy at the end.
This was Limbaugh fell for then turned it around by saying well he probably thinks this stuff anyways. To be fair I don't see much fact checking on a lot of these news shows, since its basically a race to get news out and praise/condemn it. Rather than verify then you know report.
This was Limbaugh fell for then turned it around by saying well he probably thinks this stuff anyways. To be fair I don't see much fact checking on a lot of these news shows, since its basically a race to get news out and praise/condemn it. Rather than verify then you know report.[/QUOTE]
This was Limbaugh fell for then turned it around by saying well he probably thinks this stuff anyways. To be fair I don't see much fact checking on a lot of these news shows, since its basically a race to get news out and praise/condemn it. Rather than verify then you know report.[/QUOTE]
This was Limbaugh fell for then turned it around by saying well he probably thinks this stuff anyways. To be fair I don't see much fact checking on a lot of these news shows, since its basically a race to get news out and praise/condemn it. Rather than verify then you know report.[/QUOTE]
umm. ok?Meh, I don't care if CNN sucks I already knew it by them fact checking SNL and not guest on their show. Also i think its been proven that rush is atleast a bit racist by the list of quotes actually attributed to him that krisken linked.
This. The first link sounds like some random asshat posted something racist on the RNC Facebook page, not that the RNC themselves either posted or supported it. News flash: some people are racists. It did get removed, correct?I don't know this time DA. I don't have much to say about the first link, that's pretty bad---but lets not forget people like Michael Steele, who was African American last time I checked. I'm a bit curious about Link #2...I read it, but I didn't see any mention of the Hotel owner's political affiliation. How does it relate to the GOP?
Yep, I linked that too, on the page previous to your post. Republicans aren't done shooting themselves. Over. And over. Mark my words.Looks like the GOP doesn't just want to make fake twitter accounts, but also send out fundraising letter disguised as official census letter.
Disgusting.
I hope they do split the vote. Putting a liberal RINO will be the exact same thing as voting for the liberal Democrat. I'd rather lose and be able to live with my vote than to vote for someone who is against my politics in every way possible just so I can stick it to someone with a (D) on the end of the ballot.There's a huge tussle going on between Republicans and Conservatives (yes, the two are different) in New York - the GOP has put up a candidate that many call a RINO (though that term has lost its meaning lately). She's apparently \"too liberal.\" So this guy named Doug Hoffman is running against her as an independent, and polls show that it will surely split the vote and hand the election to the Democrats (together the (R) and (I) candidates have the majority in the polls, but since they split that majority the (D) is ahead with 30-something percent)... but many Conservatives are saying this is a good thing! There are rumblings going around that Conservatives (and a recent gallup poll shows there are more conservatives - 40%- than moderates or liberals) are going to do this EVERY TIME the GOP puts up a non-conservative candidate. In this manner, they want to force the Republican party back to the principles for which they purport to stand, rather than just trying to win whatever they can just to perpetuate the party for its own sake. It'll be interesting to watch.
Are you honestly suggesting that the reason anyone becomes a Congressman is for the pay or that paying them more would actually help fight the corruption? I'm supposed to be the naive one, not you Gas.Could it be that one reason Congress has performed so poorly is because, for 100 years, its members' compensation has been totally unrelated to their performance?
Are you honestly suggesting that the reason anyone becomes a Congressman is for the pay or that paying them more would actually help fight the corruption? I'm supposed to be the naive one, not you Gas.[/quote]Could it be that one reason Congress has performed so poorly is because, for 100 years, its members' compensation has been totally unrelated to their performance?
Are you honestly suggesting that the reason anyone becomes a Congressman is for the pay or that paying them more would actually help fight the corruption? I'm supposed to be the naive one, not you Gas.[/QUOTE]Could it be that one reason Congress has performed so poorly is because, for 100 years, its members' compensation has been totally unrelated to their performance?
Are you honestly suggesting that the reason anyone becomes a Congressman is for the pay or that paying them more would actually help fight the corruption? I'm supposed to be the naive one, not you Gas.[/quote]Could it be that one reason Congress has performed so poorly is because, for 100 years, its members' compensation has been totally unrelated to their performance?
Are you honestly suggesting that the reason anyone becomes a Congressman is for the pay or that paying them more would actually help fight the corruption? I'm supposed to be the naive one, not you Gas.[/quote]Could it be that one reason Congress has performed so poorly is because, for 100 years, its members' compensation has been totally unrelated to their performance?
Also part of the problem.Unfortunately they get to decide for themselves how much they make.
Also part of the problem.[/QUOTE]Unfortunately they get to decide for themselves how much they make.
because having an election costs more than what we'd saveI think I have it with my second idea. Require all pay changes of top level government employees and elected officials to be approved by a referendum on the ballots. After all we are the only bosses that the President and members of Congress have. Why shouldn't we have a say in their compensation?
because having an election costs more than what we'd save[/QUOTE]I think I have it with my second idea. Require all pay changes of top level government employees and elected officials to be approved by a referendum on the ballots. After all we are the only bosses that the President and members of Congress have. Why shouldn't we have a say in their compensation?
because having an election costs more than what we'd save[/QUOTE]I think I have it with my second idea. Require all pay changes of top level government employees and elected officials to be approved by a referendum on the ballots. After all we are the only bosses that the President and members of Congress have. Why shouldn't we have a say in their compensation?
because having an election costs more than what we'd save[/QUOTE]I think I have it with my second idea. Require all pay changes of top level government employees and elected officials to be approved by a referendum on the ballots. After all we are the only bosses that the President and members of Congress have. Why shouldn't we have a say in their compensation?
Lesse, what was it K-dawg said yesterday? Something to the effect of "You mean [he] apologized for it and so now everything completely fine?" :mmhmm: Guess everybody has to stop hating on Fox now, huh?
Heh, good for her, doubly so for sticking it to republicans, who were happy to ride her coattails of popularity during the election and then throw her to the wolves when she was no longer politically convenient. After all, if Bill Clinton can make 31 million in speaking fees in 4 years, I don't see why Palin can't get some scratch too.
You mean, while the commissioner was in washington anyway, he asked about another issue of recent national attention in which the commissioner was involved? And why the hell is the NFL commissioner being called to Washington to talk to a committee about sports injuries? Why is this a good use of our legislators' time?
I don't approve of Bush signing a flag, but really, this is just reaching. Bush signed a little dollar store flag that probably would have ended up in the garbage otherwise after the rally (it's not like all those little flags get full "burials with honors" like proper flags do), and the Glenn Beck thing is absolutely just a bunch of tilting at windmills. It wasn't even a real flag, it was a depiction of a flag. Beck did pretty much what innumerable political cartoonists and satirists have done in the past - change the iconography of the flag to something else to make a point.
Oh lord I just got so much dumber. You don't actually read that website do you?[/QUOTE]
Oh lord I just got so much dumber. You don't actually read that website do you?[/QUOTE]
Close. But think bigger.@DarkAudit You're right. I forgot that the president and Congress have to answer to the UN. Wait that's not right. Oh right, the states hold them accountable. No, that's not it. Well shucks, it seems that only the voters have the ability to hire and fire people in those positions. Golly what could I be missing?
Oh. maybe you think it's these guys that are the bosses?
Calling something a "hate crime" makes my eyes roll. Equal protection under the law gets thrown UNDER THE BUS for such things. If I am standing next to someone who is gay or otherwise enjoying minority status... and someone else comes up and punches each of us, why is the assaulter punished less for punching me than for punching the person next to me? The same (increased) penalty should apply to all, not just a select few. And frankly, I think the penalty for a great many crimes should be made more harsh, especially for violent crimes. But you have to treat everyone equally, otherwise it's just state-sanctioned reverse-discrimination.
Calling something a "hate crime" makes my eyes roll. Equal protection under the law gets thrown UNDER THE BUS for such things. If I am standing next to someone who is gay or otherwise enjoying minority status... and someone else comes up and punches each of us, why is the assaulter punished less for punching me than for punching the person next to me? The same (increased) penalty should apply to all, not just a select few. And frankly, I think the penalty for a great many crimes should be made more harsh, especially for violent crimes. But you have to treat everyone equally, otherwise it's just state-sanctioned reverse-discrimination.[/QUOTE]
I'm not arguing against whether we should have hate crime's etc, but how is it "extra protection"? It doesn't provide protection, it provides harsher punishment for those who others decide did it for "reason A" rather than "reason B" right?Maybe when everyone is attacked equally we won't need it, eh? Until then, people who are targeted for being different need extra protection from bigoted, self righteous assholes.
Funny how that works.
I'm not arguing against whether we should have hate crime's etc, but how is it "extra protection"? It doesn't provide protection, it provides harsher punishment for those who others decide did it for "reason A" rather than "reason B" right?[/QUOTE]Maybe when everyone is attacked equally we won't need it, eh? Until then, people who are targeted for being different need extra protection from bigoted, self righteous assholes.
Funny how that works.
I'm not arguing against whether we should have hate crime's etc, but how is it "extra protection"? It doesn't provide protection, it provides harsher punishment for those who others decide did it for "reason A" rather than "reason B" right?[/QUOTE]Maybe when everyone is attacked equally we won't need it, eh? Until then, people who are targeted for being different need extra protection from bigoted, self righteous assholes.
Funny how that works.
Calling something a "hate crime" makes my eyes roll. Equal protection under the law gets thrown UNDER THE BUS for such things. If I am standing next to someone who is gay or otherwise enjoying minority status... and someone else comes up and punches each of us, why is the assaulter punished less for punching me than for punching the person next to me? The same (increased) penalty should apply to all, not just a select few. And frankly, I think the penalty for a great many crimes should be made more harsh, especially for violent crimes. But you have to treat everyone equally, otherwise it's just state-sanctioned reverse-discrimination.[/QUOTE]
But that's not how the LAW works. It is supposed to be blind and treat all equally. So if society is having problems with increased assaults against -whoever-, the concept of equal protection under the law says that ALL punishment for that crime must get harsher, not just when those of a subgroup are the victim. To do otherwise the very definition of discrimination.Maybe when everyone is attacked equally we won't need it, eh? Until then, people who are targeted for being different need extra protection from bigoted, self righteous assholes.
Funny how that works.
Obviously you've never come to my place for dinner.You don't see very many white guys tied to trees and beaten to death
Touche. I was just calling it something different because, as we all know, only white (and now, apparently straight) people can be racists.Actually it would just be state-sanctioned discrimination. Ironically the meaning of discrimination is colorblind.
I'm not arguing against whether we should have hate crime's etc, but how is it "extra protection"? It doesn't provide protection, it provides harsher punishment for those who others decide did it for "reason A" rather than "reason B" right?[/quote]Maybe when everyone is attacked equally we won't need it, eh? Until then, people who are targeted for being different need extra protection from bigoted, self righteous assholes.
Funny how that works.
Which, of course, is a stupid comment that completely ignores the trends of our society. But living in your perfect, harmonious world where everyone is treated equal, gays, blacks, hispanics, women, elderly, and disabled aren't discriminated against must be nice.Touche. I was just calling it something different because, as we all know, only white (and now, apparently straight) people can be racists.
Which, of course, is a stupid comment that completely ignores the trends of our society. But living in your perfect, harmonious world where everyone is treated equal, gays, blacks, hispanics, women, elderly, and disabled aren't discriminated against must be nice.[/QUOTE]Touche. I was just calling it something different because, as we all know, only white (and now, apparently straight) people can be racists.
Which, of course, is a stupid comment that completely ignores the trends of our society. But living in your perfect, harmonious world where everyone is treated equal, gays, blacks, hispanics, women, elderly, and disabled aren't discriminated against must be nice.[/quote]Touche. I was just calling it something different because, as we all know, only white (and now, apparently straight) people can be racists.
Which, of course, is a stupid comment that completely ignores the trends of our society. But living in your perfect, harmonious world where everyone is treated equal, gays, blacks, hispanics, women, elderly, and disabled aren't discriminated against must be nice.[/quote]Touche. I was just calling it something different because, as we all know, only white (and now, apparently straight) people can be racists.
Which, of course, is a stupid comment that completely ignores the trends of our society. But living in your perfect, harmonious world where everyone is treated equal, gays, blacks, hispanics, women, elderly, and disabled aren't discriminated against must be nice.[/quote]Touche. I was just calling it something different because, as we all know, only white (and now, apparently straight) people can be racists.
Even if it was hyperbole, which it was not, hyperbole is not a logical fallacy. Ad hominem is.I know. It's the only thing you understand. You certainly don't respond properly to reasoned arguments.
Why the hell should I play by the rules of proper debate when you happily throw them out the window at every opportunity?
... appeal to emotion, even when hidden behind sarcasm. The 14th amendment says "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." We all seem to agree that harsh penalties are a deterrent, which constitutes protection under the law. I am not as protected by this law as a gay or minority, hence it is unconstitutional.I sure feel sorry for all the oppression of those straight white guys. They the shaft all the time.
Calling something a "hate crime" makes my eyes roll. Equal protection under the law gets thrown UNDER THE BUS for such things. If I am standing next to someone who is gay or otherwise enjoying minority status... and someone else comes up and punches each of us, why is the assaulter punished less for punching me than for punching the person next to me? The same (increased) penalty should apply to all, not just a select few. And frankly, I think the penalty for a great many crimes should be made more harsh, especially for violent crimes. But you have to treat everyone equally, otherwise it's just state-sanctioned reverse-discrimination.[/QUOTE]
Gas is completely right. Murder is murder. Killing someone because he sleeps with your wife is no different than killing someone because he's black.
Calling something a "hate crime" makes my eyes roll. Equal protection under the law gets thrown UNDER THE BUS for such things. If I am standing next to someone who is gay or otherwise enjoying minority status... and someone else comes up and punches each of us, why is the assaulter punished less for punching me than for punching the person next to me? The same (increased) penalty should apply to all, not just a select few. And frankly, I think the penalty for a great many crimes should be made more harsh, especially for violent crimes. But you have to treat everyone equally, otherwise it's just state-sanctioned reverse-discrimination.[/QUOTE]
Calling something a "hate crime" makes my eyes roll. Equal protection under the law gets thrown UNDER THE BUS for such things. If I am standing next to someone who is gay or otherwise enjoying minority status... and someone else comes up and punches each of us, why is the assaulter punished less for punching me than for punching the person next to me? The same (increased) penalty should apply to all, not just a select few. And frankly, I think the penalty for a great many crimes should be made more harsh, especially for violent crimes. But you have to treat everyone equally, otherwise it's just state-sanctioned reverse-discrimination.[/QUOTE]
He thought you were being sarcastic. That's how absurd your comment was.I don't think everyone that said Gas was wrong was being sarcastic.
He thought you were being sarcastic. That's how absurd your comment was.I don't think everyone that said Gas was wrong was being sarcastic.
Calling something a "hate crime" makes my eyes roll. Equal protection under the law gets thrown UNDER THE BUS for such things. If I am standing next to someone who is gay or otherwise enjoying minority status... and someone else comes up and punches each of us, why is the assaulter punished less for punching me than for punching the person next to me? The same (increased) penalty should apply to all, not just a select few. And frankly, I think the penalty for a great many crimes should be made more harsh, especially for violent crimes. But you have to treat everyone equally, otherwise it's just state-sanctioned reverse-discrimination.[/QUOTE]
I said you are unreasonable. Which applies to all people who see everything in black and white.-I believe all people should be treated equally regardless of skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.
-According to many here, I'm either naive, stupid, racist, or some mishmash of the three.
-I live in Bizarro World.
So in china it is cheaper not here, cause we have shit ton of appeals and the such and those are done because killing an innocent person should be the worst thing you can do.it also kills non innocent people? stops them from being a strain on the tax payer dollar? stops them from committing the crimes again.
is cheaper then life in prison (in a country like China)
not that I support the death penalty, but it does do more then kill innocent people.
Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.[/QUOTE]If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Thanks. That was it.I said you are unreasonable. Which applies to all people who see everything in black and white.
There are mitigating circumstances such as self defense, sure. But as the man said, those LESSEN sentence, not INCREASE. So, by your logic, hate crime law is ok because "he was white" is a mitigating circumstance, and thus should have a lower sentence.intent and motive are key elements of crimes, in no way can hate not be a 'possible' motive. ALSO there are justifications for crimes, so no murder =/ murder.
That's incorrect. Since severity of punishment is accepted as deterrent, deterrent becomes protection. To provide less deterrent for killing group A than you do for groups B, C, and D is injustice. The litmus test is, if it's equality, then the names should all be interchangeable.makare said:That's not accurate. If a group is particularly targeted they would require a special statute to bring them up to the same level of protection as everyone else. After statute= equal protection, before statute= not equal protection.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.[/QUOTE]If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.[/QUOTE]If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
There are mitigating circumstances such as self defense, sure. But as the man said, those LESSEN sentence, not INCREASE. So, by your logic, hate crime law is ok because "he was white" is a mitigating circumstance, and thus should have a lower sentence.intent and motive are key elements of crimes, in no way can hate not be a 'possible' motive. ALSO there are justifications for crimes, so no murder =/ murder.
That's incorrect. Since severity of punishment is accepted as deterrent, deterrent becomes protection. To provide less deterrent for killing group A than you do for groups B, C, and D is injustice. The litmus test is, if it's equality, then the names should all be interchangeable.makare said:That's not accurate. If a group is particularly targeted they would require a special statute to bring them up to the same level of protection as everyone else. After statute= equal protection, before statute= not equal protection.
It makes me giggle every time lefties accuse ME of being optimistic about humanity.I'm pretty sure that hate crime statutes are about punishment more than deterrence. Since deterrence is generally bullshit anyway. It has nothing to do with white guilt, it has to do with the reality of the world we live in. There are inequalities so severe that the law has to step in and even things out. But I know you have a rose colored view of the world so I don't expect you to see that.
Gas you do have an overly optimistic view of humanity. From what I have seen especially from you the left has a very low opinion of humanity because they dont believe that people can survive alone without help from a community.It makes me giggle every time lefties accuse ME of being optimistic about humanity.I'm pretty sure that hate crime statutes are about punishment more than deterrence. Since deterrence is generally bullshit anyway. It has nothing to do with white guilt, it has to do with the reality of the world we live in. There are inequalities so severe that the law has to step in and even things out. But I know you have a rose colored view of the world so I don't expect you to see that.
You hold an unconstitutional and unjust opinion, that you fight inequality with inequality.
Plus, you keep seeming to labor under the false idea that I'm saying hate crimes should have their penalty LOWERED to standard punishment levels, when I'm saying that standard punishment levels should rise equally.
heartless bastards do not get to speak about seeing the best in people.Damn optimists. Always assuming the best in people.
Gas you do have an overly optimistic view of humanity. From what I have seen especially from you the left has a very low opinion of humanity because they dont believe that people can survive alone without help from a community.It makes me giggle every time lefties accuse ME of being optimistic about humanity.I'm pretty sure that hate crime statutes are about punishment more than deterrence. Since deterrence is generally bullshit anyway. It has nothing to do with white guilt, it has to do with the reality of the world we live in. There are inequalities so severe that the law has to step in and even things out. But I know you have a rose colored view of the world so I don't expect you to see that.
You hold an unconstitutional and unjust opinion, that you fight inequality with inequality.
Plus, you keep seeming to labor under the false idea that I'm saying hate crimes should have their penalty LOWERED to standard punishment levels, when I'm saying that standard punishment levels should rise equally.
heartless bastards do not get to speak about seeing the best in people.[/QUOTE]Damn optimists. Always assuming the best in people.
prevented how? by disregarding family?You know I had meant to respond to that. If thinking that a parent shouldn't go into bankruptcy because of their 32 year old son makes me a heartless bastard then feel free to call me the mother-fucking grinch. Son going into bankruptcy? sure sucks to be him. Parents dragging themselves down with him? Stupid, irresponsible and needless. So yea I don't take sympathy on a couple who go into bankruptcy when it could have been easily prevented.
You know, there's a reason Western civilisation isn't run like the Imperium of Man.There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.[/quote]If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Except that it's NOT being "treated by the law." The law still separates people into groups based on physical characteristics and treats them differently based on those characteristics, which is unconstitutional. Here's the relevant text from the 14th Amendment:My opinion is constitutional you just misinterpret the 14th amendment and compound it with a lack of understanding of subsequent legislative and judicial practice and precedent.
And on your final note I dont even know what your belief about the standard punishment level is and I dont care. My concern is that you do not understand why hate crime statutes exist in the first place and how the inequality you speak of would still exist if you raise everything up a level. That is why it is an inequality that is being treated by law, not an inequality created by law.
I don't see what's to misinterpret there.Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
When all else fails, name-call.heartless bastards do not get to speak about seeing the best in people.Damn optimists. Always assuming the best in people.
heh, sorry. I really hate the phrase "you people". It implies we're drones who all think the same, which is absolutely silly. I think it's a pretty safe bet Covar's sarcasm wasn't a joke, so I assumed you were serious.Calm down there, I was just being a little silly. Not everything in this thread has to be life or death.
I know you and CDS and DA aren't all the same person. Or do I???????
Except that it's NOT being "treated by the law." The law still separates people into groups based on physical characteristics and treats them differently based on those characteristics, which is unconstitutional. Here's the relevant text from the 14th Amendment:My opinion is constitutional you just misinterpret the 14th amendment and compound it with a lack of understanding of subsequent legislative and judicial practice and precedent.
And on your final note I dont even know what your belief about the standard punishment level is and I dont care. My concern is that you do not understand why hate crime statutes exist in the first place and how the inequality you speak of would still exist if you raise everything up a level. That is why it is an inequality that is being treated by law, not an inequality created by law.
I don't see what's to misinterpret there. [/QUOTE]Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
When all else fails, name-call.[/QUOTE]heartless bastards do not get to speak about seeing the best in people.Damn optimists. Always assuming the best in people.
Except that it's NOT being "treated by the law." The law still separates people into groups based on physical characteristics and treats them differently based on those characteristics, which is unconstitutional. Here's the relevant text from the 14th Amendment:My opinion is constitutional you just misinterpret the 14th amendment and compound it with a lack of understanding of subsequent legislative and judicial practice and precedent.
And on your final note I dont even know what your belief about the standard punishment level is and I dont care. My concern is that you do not understand why hate crime statutes exist in the first place and how the inequality you speak of would still exist if you raise everything up a level. That is why it is an inequality that is being treated by law, not an inequality created by law.
I don't see what's to misinterpret there.Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
When all else fails, name-call.[/QUOTE]heartless bastards do not get to speak about seeing the best in people.Damn optimists. Always assuming the best in people.
heh, sorry. I really hate the phrase "you people". It implies we're drones who all think the same, which is absolutely silly. I think it's a pretty safe bet Covar's sarcasm wasn't a joke, so I assumed you were serious.[/QUOTE]Calm down there, I was just being a little silly. Not everything in this thread has to be life or death.
I know you and CDS and DA aren't all the same person. Or do I???????
prevented how? by disregarding family?You know I had meant to respond to that. If thinking that a parent shouldn't go into bankruptcy because of their 32 year old son makes me a heartless bastard then feel free to call me the mother-fucking grinch. Son going into bankruptcy? sure sucks to be him. Parents dragging themselves down with him? Stupid, irresponsible and needless. So yea I don't take sympathy on a couple who go into bankruptcy when it could have been easily prevented.
Silly me, how could I have ever have gotten the idea that you said they were going into bankruptcy.makare1 said:My mom's best friend's son (counts on fingers.. yeah that's it) has some heart condition they can't figure out. Even though he has health insurance they are going to have to declare bankruptcy because they can't afford the bills. They were hoping you could just declare medical bankruptcy so they had me ask my professor about it but no.
I am staying out of the general conversation in this thread and I am not arguing for universal healthcare. It is just weird how I am in the middle of researching bankruptcy related to medical care and it was mentioned here. All in all it is really just plain sad.
Ive already explained why this wrong and since I hate redundancy I am not doing it again. REREAD THREAD.Except that it's NOT being "treated by the law." The law still separates people into groups based on physical characteristics and treats them differently based on those characteristics, which is unconstitutional. Here's the relevant text from the 14th Amendment:
I don't see what's to misinterpret there.Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Appeal to emotion ftw?makare said:heartless bastards
prevented how? by disregarding family?You know I had meant to respond to that. If thinking that a parent shouldn't go into bankruptcy because of their 32 year old son makes me a heartless bastard then feel free to call me the mother-fucking grinch. Son going into bankruptcy? sure sucks to be him. Parents dragging themselves down with him? Stupid, irresponsible and needless. So yea I don't take sympathy on a couple who go into bankruptcy when it could have been easily prevented.
Silly me, how could I have ever have gotten the idea that you said they were going into bankruptcy.[/QUOTE]makare1 said:My mom's best friend's son (counts on fingers.. yeah that's it) has some heart condition they can't figure out. Even though he has health insurance they are going to have to declare bankruptcy because they can't afford the bills. They were hoping you could just declare medical bankruptcy so they had me ask my professor about it but no.
I am staying out of the general conversation in this thread and I am not arguing for universal healthcare. It is just weird how I am in the middle of researching bankruptcy related to medical care and it was mentioned here. All in all it is really just plain sad.
prevented how? by disregarding family?You know I had meant to respond to that. If thinking that a parent shouldn't go into bankruptcy because of their 32 year old son makes me a heartless bastard then feel free to call me the mother-fucking grinch. Son going into bankruptcy? sure sucks to be him. Parents dragging themselves down with him? Stupid, irresponsible and needless. So yea I don't take sympathy on a couple who go into bankruptcy when it could have been easily prevented.
Silly me, how could I have ever have gotten the idea that you said they were going into bankruptcy.[/QUOTE]makare1 said:My mom's best friend's son (counts on fingers.. yeah that's it) has some heart condition they can't figure out. Even though he has health insurance they are going to have to declare bankruptcy because they can't afford the bills. They were hoping you could just declare medical bankruptcy so they had me ask my professor about it but no.
I am staying out of the general conversation in this thread and I am not arguing for universal healthcare. It is just weird how I am in the middle of researching bankruptcy related to medical care and it was mentioned here. All in all it is really just plain sad.
If someone chooses a target based on status rather than behavior or really any kind of motive, there should be a specific punishment. The punishment should be specifically for choosing a person simply based on what they are not what they did.Makare (or anyone else who wants to chime in)-
Situation 1: Man convicted of assaulting gay victim, under hate crime law, gets 20 years.
Situation 2: Man convicted of assaulting gay victim, under constitutional, equally applied punishment, gets 20 years.
How is situation 2 less of a punishment (or for the other people who said punishment is deterrent, deterrent) to the assaulter just because it's the same penalty as if the victim had been straight?
Ah see I assumed when the word they is used that it refers to multiple people, not a single person. My mistake then, that would change the basis of my argument.[/QUOTE]the subject is clearly my mom's friend son. I said nothing about his parents.
Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.[/QUOTE]If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Thanks. That was it.[/QUOTE]I said you are unreasonable. Which applies to all people who see everything in black and white.
Nice try at ducking the question. If the penalty for assault is increased across the board to draconian levels, how is that any less punishment than if it is increased to draconian levels for just certain special groups? Will the redneck say, "You know, when hate crimes made it so I'd get 20 to life for assaulting a black person, I was so much less likely to assault a black person than I am now that it's 20 to life for anyone, regardless of the victim's skin color.. but now that it's 20 to life to assault ANYBODY, I can just go to town on any black guy I see now!"If someone chooses a target based on status rather than behavior or really any kind of motive, there should be a specific punishment. The punishment should be specifically for choosing a person simply based on what they are not what they did.
Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.[/quote]If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Thanks. That was it.[/quote]I said you are unreasonable. Which applies to all people who see everything in black and white.
Nice try at ducking the question. If the penalty for assault is increased across the board to draconian levels, how is that any less punishment than if it is increased to draconian levels for just certain special groups? Will the redneck say, "You know, when hate crimes made it so I'd get 20 to life for assaulting a black person, I was so much less likely to assault a black person than I am now that it's 20 to life for anyone, regardless of the victim's skin color.. but now that it's 20 to life to assault ANYBODY, I can just go to town on any black guy I see now!"If someone chooses a target based on status rather than behavior or really any kind of motive, there should be a specific punishment. The punishment should be specifically for choosing a person simply based on what they are not what they did.
Thats where we disagree. You save 99 criminals to save 1 innocent man. I don't.If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Thats where we disagree. You save 99 criminals to save 1 innocent man. I don't.[/QUOTE]If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Thats where we disagree. You save 99 criminals to save 1 innocent man. I don't.[/QUOTE]If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Thats where we disagree. You save 99 criminals to save 1 innocent man. I don't.[/QUOTE]If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Thats where we disagree. You save 99 criminals to save 1 innocent man. I don't.[/QUOTE]If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
The Washington Post said:Many of the names appear, on first glance, to be boldface ones -- such as Michael Jordan, William Ayers, Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright, Robert Kelly (\"R. Kelly\") and Malik Shabazz -- but the White House warned on its blog that these names in particular were \"false positives.\"
\"The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House,\" wrote Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform.
That's the saddest and funniest thing I've seen in a political thread in a LONG time. People actually think that the western world's legal systems (they are not Justice systems by a LONG shot) are based around the idea of protecting the innocent? HA!And here I was mistaken that our justice system was supposed to be centered around protecting the innocent... silly me.
Sadly, I think it is. Though I think DA is just trying to get a rise out of certain individuals in this case. I prefer to think of it more as "Pro contractors getting away with covering up rape, murder, and other illegal activities while in the employ of the United States Government."So this fun little "pro-rape" thing is this years "pro-baby killing" huh?
What the hell does that have to do with being raped by fellow employees and having it covered up by the company?The issue is you're sending private employees into a warzone, and because of this you can not guarantee them the safety and protection that they would have stateside. Personally I don't think they should be over there at all, but that most likely won't be going away anytime soon. What they need is a way to find the balance.
But that's not what happened, is it? What happened is people in her company's EMPLOY raped her and she was denied the right to seek damages from the company that HIRED them. She wasn't raped by someone outside the company or an insurgent, she was raped by people her company hired, and she wouldn't have been exposed to that danger if the company had been diligent in it's duty.The issue is you're sending private employees into a warzone, and because of this you can not guarantee them the safety and protection that they would have stateside. Personally I don't think they should be over there at all, but that most likely won't be going away anytime soon. What they need is a way to find the balance.
What the hell does that have to do with being raped by fellow employees and having it covered up by the company?[/QUOTE]The issue is you're sending private employees into a warzone, and because of this you can not guarantee them the safety and protection that they would have stateside. Personally I don't think they should be over there at all, but that most likely won't be going away anytime soon. What they need is a way to find the balance.
What the hell does that have to do with being raped by fellow employees and having it covered up by the company?[/quote]The issue is you're sending private employees into a warzone, and because of this you can not guarantee them the safety and protection that they would have stateside. Personally I don't think they should be over there at all, but that most likely won't be going away anytime soon. What they need is a way to find the balance.
That's a dangerous door to open. The government acting in violation of its own constitution to make unjust policy. If the government doesn't have to afford equal protection under the law to whites today... what happens if in 30 years, an unforeseen political situation leads to minorities not receiving equal protection? This is why government must treat all equally and with colorblindness... because the ability to ignore constitutional law for "good" today may be used for ill tomorrow.I didn't duck a question. Intent has always been part of crime it has nothing to do with left or right. Again I do not see hate crime legislation as a deterrent... AGAIN IT IS NOT I REPEAT NOT A DETERRENT. It is a punishment specific to intent. The intent to harm a specific class of person. The increase loses its weight against a specific type of crime when it is not addressing that particular crime. It is a policy decision. As a public policy we wish to specifically punish those who kill or batter people solely based on their status.
So yeah if you insist, 20 years IS 20 years but it doesn't send the same message or establish the same policy.
As I have said earlier, it is not unjust and it is not unconstitutional.That's a dangerous door to open. The government acting in violation of its own constitution to make unjust policy. If the government doesn't have to afford equal protection under the law to whites today... what happens if in 30 years, an unforeseen political situation leads to minorities not receiving equal protection? This is why government must treat all equally and with colorblindness... because the ability to ignore constitutional law for "good" today may be used for ill tomorrow.
As I have said earlier, it is not unjust and it is not unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]That's a dangerous door to open. The government acting in violation of its own constitution to make unjust policy. If the government doesn't have to afford equal protection under the law to whites today... what happens if in 30 years, an unforeseen political situation leads to minorities not receiving equal protection? This is why government must treat all equally and with colorblindness... because the ability to ignore constitutional law for "good" today may be used for ill tomorrow.
As I have said earlier, it is not unjust and it is not unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]That's a dangerous door to open. The government acting in violation of its own constitution to make unjust policy. If the government doesn't have to afford equal protection under the law to whites today... what happens if in 30 years, an unforeseen political situation leads to minorities not receiving equal protection? This is why government must treat all equally and with colorblindness... because the ability to ignore constitutional law for "good" today may be used for ill tomorrow.
As I have said earlier, it is not unjust and it is not unconstitutional.[/quote]That's a dangerous door to open. The government acting in violation of its own constitution to make unjust policy. If the government doesn't have to afford equal protection under the law to whites today... what happens if in 30 years, an unforeseen political situation leads to minorities not receiving equal protection? This is why government must treat all equally and with colorblindness... because the ability to ignore constitutional law for "good" today may be used for ill tomorrow.
As I have said earlier, it is not unjust and it is not unconstitutional.[/quote]That's a dangerous door to open. The government acting in violation of its own constitution to make unjust policy. If the government doesn't have to afford equal protection under the law to whites today... what happens if in 30 years, an unforeseen political situation leads to minorities not receiving equal protection? This is why government must treat all equally and with colorblindness... because the ability to ignore constitutional law for "good" today may be used for ill tomorrow.
And you say WE'RE misinterpreting the 14th Amendment.it says equal protection of the law. that means that if there is an inequality the law gets to step in and rectify it so that there is equality. It is is equal protection not equal application.
And you say WE'RE misinterpreting the 14th Amendment.it says equal protection of the law. that means that if there is an inequality the law gets to step in and rectify it so that there is equality. It is is equal protection not equal application.
And you say WE'RE misinterpreting the 14th Amendment.it says equal protection of the law. that means that if there is an inequality the law gets to step in and rectify it so that there is equality. It is is equal protection not equal application.
Not always, mind you -_-Want to know what it's like being a minority? Move to another country where white isn't the majority.
(except I get positive discrimination)
And you say WE'RE misinterpreting the 14th Amendment.it says equal protection of the law. that means that if there is an inequality the law gets to step in and rectify it so that there is equality. It is is equal protection not equal application.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I just flat out don't agree with you.Yeah, laws change with the times as needed. What is interpreted one way today will be interpreted differently years from now. That is how the law works. And the constitution is the law of the land which it is the responsibility of the judiciary to interpret and apply according to Article III of the Constitution.
Protection and application are completely different words with completely different meanings. And hate crimes punish the action, the action of choosing arbitrary targets by status.
And you say WE'RE misinterpreting the 14th Amendment.it says equal protection of the law. that means that if there is an inequality the law gets to step in and rectify it so that there is equality. It is is equal protection not equal application.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I just flat out don't agree with you.[/QUOTE]Yeah, laws change with the times as needed. What is interpreted one way today will be interpreted differently years from now. That is how the law works. And the constitution is the law of the land which it is the responsibility of the judiciary to interpret and apply according to Article III of the Constitution.
Protection and application are completely different words with completely different meanings. And hate crimes punish the action, the action of choosing arbitrary targets by status.
I've never had a problem with a taxi in Beijing. were you trying to catch a cab near Tiananmen?Damned Beijing taxi drivers.
I'm tellin' ya Crono--find a school asapwhite people are revered some where? Man that shits went out of style long ago here.
IT BURNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!So this guy here is running for Congress in North Carolina and OH GOD MY EYES.
http://www.georgehutchins.com/
Wow, looks like someone threw up on a web page.So this guy here is running for Congress in North Carolina and OH GOD MY EYES.
http://www.georgehutchins.com/
To be fair, which I know is laughable when talking about politics, it's often hard to critisize people for voting against bills with all the riders attached to them.Joe \"You Lie!\" Wilson says Obama is responsible for shortage of H1N1 vaccine. even though he voted against increased funding for vaccines.
Quick point - The phrase "Barack the Magic Negro" was coined by a black man, describing, ironically enough given that we're discussing hate crime, how obama was just a tool to assuage white guilt.Maybe when people aren't dragged to death or songs like "Barack the magic negro" aren't used, or a noose hanging from a tree isn't used to intimidate people, or etc....
No, they assume that any crime committed upon a minority by a white person is a hate crime no matter what the facts of the case may be. If I run over a guy who just so happens to be black because he slept with my wife, it's automatically a hate crime. But if I am cuckolded by a white guy, I automatically face a lesser sentence. Hate crime law is as inane as "zero tolerance" policies in school - they eschew thought and reason from the process and create an intolerable and idiotic system in a well meaning but completely misguided attempt to rectify a perceived social problem.Protection and application are completely different words with completely different meanings. And hate crimes punish the action, the action of choosing arbitrary targets by status.
Quick point - The phrase "Barack the Magic Negro" was coined by a black man, describing, ironically enough given that we're discussing hate crime, how obama was just a tool to assuage white guilt.Maybe when people aren't dragged to death or songs like "Barack the magic negro" aren't used, or a noose hanging from a tree isn't used to intimidate people, or etc....
No, they assume that any crime committed upon a minority by a white person is a hate crime no matter what the facts of the case may be. If I run over a guy who just so happens to be black because he slept with my wife, it's automatically a hate crime. But if I am cuckolded by a white guy, I automatically face a lesser sentence. Hate crime law is as inane as "zero tolerance" policies in school - they eschew thought and reason from the process and create an intolerable and idiotic system in a well meaning but completely misguided attempt to rectify a perceived social problem.[/QUOTE]Protection and application are completely different words with completely different meanings. And hate crimes punish the action, the action of choosing arbitrary targets by status.
Quick point - The phrase "Barack the Magic Negro" was coined by a black man, describing, ironically enough given that we're discussing hate crime, how obama was just a tool to assuage white guilt.[/QUOTE]Maybe when people aren't dragged to death or songs like "Barack the magic negro" aren't used, or a noose hanging from a tree isn't used to intimidate people, or etc....
Yes, because we all know how rare and hard to make stick accusations of racism are these days.Makare said:in the hate law statutes i have read and in cases where they are applied they had to show that status, race, gender, orientation etc was part of the intent. I don't know who the \"they\" you are talking about are but it sure isn't the judiciary.
Yes, because we all know how rare and hard to make stick accusations of racism are these days.makare said:in the hate law statutes i have read and in cases where they are applied they had to show that status, race, gender, orientation etc was part of the intent. I don't know who the "they" you are talking about are but it sure isn't the judiciary.
Yes, because we all know how rare and hard to make stick accusations of racism are these days.makare said:in the hate law statutes i have read and in cases where they are applied they had to show that status, race, gender, orientation etc was part of the intent. I don't know who the "they" you are talking about are but it sure isn't the judiciary.
makare1 said:Good day sir.
Yes, because we all know how rare and hard to make stick accusations of racism are these days.makare said:in the hate law statutes i have read and in cases where they are applied they had to show that status, race, gender, orientation etc was part of the intent. I don't know who the "they" you are talking about are but it sure isn't the judiciary.
FTFY.I said good day.To quote Krisken - you wish.Well if there is a way to win or lose this argument, with that stupid comment you just lost. Good day sir.
Robert Gibbs makes me ashamed of my University.Well ... here's your latest cost estimate on the PelosiCare bill from the house. It's $1.2 trillion. Obamacare - More dangerous to America than terrorism? Robert Gibbs says the white house isn't concerned about the constitutionality of the takeover of health care.
Every week for 20 years and not a word heard.\"GasBandit\" said:Jeremiah Wright is back in the news. This time over a video where he praises Marxism. Sounds about right.
Good thing they're not making things like Trucks and SUVs that no one wants.\"GasBandit\" said:Ford, the only Big Three auto maker not to take a government bailout, recorded a billion dollar profit, thanks largely to restructuring and renegotiating union contracts.
what's next? The earth is round?\"GasBandit\" said:And then we get this news ... Taxpayers are unlikely to recover their full investment in General Motors or Chrysler.
pfft, clearly you know nothing about economics.\"GasBandit\" said:Obama says he wants to get serious about creating jobs. Wait, wasn't that what his economic stimulus package was for?
pfft, everyone knows that rigging the electronic machines are the way to go.\"GasBandit\" said:An analysis found that 3 million registered voters are dead and 12 million are ineligible to vote.
I've got nothing.\"GasBandit\" said:The government of Venezuela is having to ration water, and the leftists blame this on ... capitalism??
The Diebold corporation just called, they said your extra strength irony shipment is ready.Yep it's election time, and the right automatically screams fraud.
The Diebold corporation just called, they said your extra strength irony shipment is ready.[/QUOTE]Yep it's election time, and the right automatically screams fraud.
The Diebold corporation just called, they said your extra strength irony shipment is ready.[/quote]Yep it's election time, and the right automatically screams fraud.
Nah. She's just a despicable human being. Really the lowest of the low.Oh, Rep. Virginia Foxx. If I had time, I'd start my blog of crazy shit people say with you, my dear.
The Diebold corporation just called, they said your extra strength irony shipment is ready.[/quote]Yep it's election time, and the right automatically screams fraud.
The Diebold corporation just called, they said your extra strength irony shipment is ready.[/quote]Yep it's election time, and the right automatically screams fraud.
Hey, that bridge was burned a long time ago. Some of us tried to cross it, but some asshole keeps cutting the ropes.Have we figured out how to get a generator to run off all the schlong-waggling in this thread yet, or did someone sneak in some meaningful debate while I wasn't looking?
Nah. She's just a despicable human being. Really the lowest of the low.Oh, Rep. Virginia Foxx. If I had time, I'd start my blog of crazy shit people say with you, my dear.
Hey, that bridge was burned a long time ago. Some of us tried to cross it, but some asshole keeps cutting the ropes.[/QUOTE]Have we figured out how to get a generator to run off all the schlong-waggling in this thread yet, or did someone sneak in some meaningful debate while I wasn't looking?
Hey, that bridge was burned a long time ago. Some of us tried to cross it, but some asshole keeps cutting the ropes.[/quote]Have we figured out how to get a generator to run off all the schlong-waggling in this thread yet, or did someone sneak in some meaningful debate while I wasn't looking?
The Diebold corporation just called, they said your extra strength irony shipment is ready.[/quote]Yep it's election time, and the right automatically screams fraud.
The shit about legalizing casinos is Ohio is oddly enough the most heated political debating I've seen in years. I mean honestly... how often do you get people claiming Casinos Kill Families!Who says I'm losing anything? I'll link whatever I like and there's not a thing you can do about it. Because the truth BURRRRNNNNSSS.
Also this: The attempt to legalize cockfighting in WV casinos may have really just been a ploy to defeat a casino measure in Ohio.
There's a pretty big difference between most leftists and Hugo Chavez.The government of Venezuela is having to ration water, and the leftists blame this on ... capitalism??
Two governorships go over to the Republicans, and you gloat about a House race that wasn't a blowout by any stretch. OK then. None of the political observers out there seem to think that the governor races didn't matter.SUCK IT WINGNUTS!!
The GOP had held that seat since the 1850s. Not any more. The wingnuts has to butt in where they didn't belong and put up a puppet who knew *nothing* about the local issues, and didn't even live in the district. Handed the seat on a silver platter to the Democrat.
This was the race that mattered. The two governor races were done deals. This fail proves without a doubt that there is no one leading the right. They will surely destroy themselves in an avalanche of wingnuttery if they continue on this path.
So...blackmail then? But it's all good because SHE DOEZN'T LIK TEH GAYZ!!!
So...blackmail then? But it's all good because SHE DOEZN'T LIK TEH GAYZ!!![/QUOTE]
So...blackmail then? But it's all good because SHE DOEZN'T LIK TEH GAYZ!!![/QUOTE]
DKos was founded by Markos Moulitsas, FYI.Andrew Martin, founder of the Daily Kos.
Unlikely, Hoffman was backed by folks who really don't care about any of that stuff as long as its a "Conservative" in office.Small government, liberty, personal responsibility, and devotion to the Constitution SHOULD be what the Republicans are for; they've strayed badly recently. Hopefully this gives them the swift kick in the ass they've been needing.
DKos was founded by Markos Moulitsas, FYI.[/quote]Andrew Martin, founder of the Daily Kos.
DKos was founded by Markos Moulitsas, FYI.[/quote]Andrew Martin, founder of the Daily Kos.
DKos was founded by Markos Moulitsas, FYI.[/quote]Andrew Martin, founder of the Daily Kos.
I must applaud you, DarkAudit. Applaud!Oh, Gas. Dear sweet deluded Gas. You don't get it, do you? Of course not. You're not From Here, are you? That's why the Friends of Coal have to try so hard to convince people that those pesky mountains and streams are in the way of those geniuses like Don Blankenship getting that those black diamonds within. How ungrateful of them to build a school in the way of the mine that will go there 40 years later.
There are no Democrats. There are no Republicans. There are only the Friends of Coal and their puppets or the goop that isn't worthy of being scraped off of one's shoe. Which are you? I know for damn sure where the folks in Charleston stand.
What you call insanity, we call reality. Where else would a university gleefully name a chair after Robert Murray, the Utah mine owner where six miners and then three rescuers were killed.You have reached a level of absolute insanity I thought was possible only in comic books and subversive animated comedy.
There are some serious issues with doing it actually. The biggest seems to be that people are worried that such information might be used to hunt down illegals and boot them out of the country, which does seem like a legitimate concern. Some kind of guarantee that such information won't be used in retaliation seems to be in order at least.Senate Democrats have blocked a Republican attempt to require the next census forms to ask people whether they are a U.S. citizen
There are some serious issues with doing it actually. The biggest seems to be that people are worried that such information might be used to hunt down illegals and boot them out of the country, which does seem like a legitimate concern. Some kind of guarantee that such information won't be used in retaliation seems to be in order at least.Senate Democrats have blocked a Republican attempt to require the next census forms to ask people whether they are a U.S. citizen
Now, as for the whole census-citizen thing:Investigators probing the death of a Kentucky census worker found hanging from a tree with the word \"fed\" scrawled on his chest increasingly doubt he was killed because of his government job and are pursuing the possibility he committed suicide, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press.
There are some serious issues with doing it actually. The biggest seems to be that people are worried that such information might be used to hunt down illegals and boot them out of the country, which does seem like a legitimate concern. Some kind of guarantee that such information won't be used in retaliation seems to be in order at least.Senate Democrats have blocked a Republican attempt to require the next census forms to ask people whether they are a U.S. citizen
I agree, they are here illegally and should be deported. That being said...Now, as for the whole census-citizen thing:
1. The census (originally) was intended to find out how many people lived in an area in order to determine congressional representation. Since Congress only represents Americans, it makes sense to determine how many AMERICAN CITIZENS live in a locale/state, doesn't it?
2. No matter what you think about immigration issues, illegal immigrants are just that: illegal. They're here illegally, also known as breaking the law. INS is a law-enforcement agency. Their job is to enforce immigration laws, which illegal immigrants are breaking. Now that I've piled on redundancies, why SHOULDN'T illegals be discovered and deported? THEY'RE BREAKING THE FUCKING LAW!!! It's like telling cops they can't go after the guy who just robbed a bank.
Hah, good luck finding one.I prefer to live in a country were everyone in the Government isn't out to get you.
Hah, good luck finding one.[/QUOTE]I prefer to live in a country were everyone in the Government isn't out to get you.
I like the mountains the way they are. Also the streams that for the moment still have clean water. Folks like Blankenship don't give two shits about anyone but himself. The pols and judges are to be put in his pocket to use as he sees fit, and everyone else better be making money for him or getting the fuck out of his way.Going after coal, I see.
I sure hope you don't enjoy having cheap electricity. That would make you a hypocrite.
I like the mountains the way they are. Also the streams that for the moment still have clean water. Folks like Blankenship don't give two shits about anyone but himself. The pols and judges are to be put in his pocket to use as he sees fit, and everyone else better be making money for him or getting the fuck out of his way.Going after coal, I see.
I sure hope you don't enjoy having cheap electricity. That would make you a hypocrite.
Hah, good luck finding one.[/quote]I prefer to live in a country were everyone in the Government isn't out to get you.
I like the mountains the way they are. Also the streams that for the moment still have clean water. Folks like Blankenship don't give two shits about anyone but himself. The pols and judges are to be put in his pocket to use as he sees fit, and everyone else better be making money for him or getting the fuck out of his way.Going after coal, I see.
I sure hope you don't enjoy having cheap electricity. That would make you a hypocrite.
I get what you're saying, but Im personally in favor of more ways to find illegals...It always amazes me that the US is one of the few countries on the world that puts up with this. If I overstayed my visa in China, I'd get my ass deported, and rightfully so.There are some serious issues with doing it actually. The biggest seems to be that people are worried that such information might be used to hunt down illegals and boot them out of the country, which does seem like a legitimate concern. Some kind of guarantee that such information won't be used in retaliation seems to be in order at least.
Considering Census works have been murdered in the last year (you yourself posted the link early in the thread, so I won't) it does seem like a good idea that we let Illegals know that the Census office isn't in collusion with the INS.
.I find it interesting you can reconcile your belief that the government should have less power and then in the same breath call for it to use glorified bookkeepers as front line agents in the war against illegal immigration. You can't have it both ways.
You'd be deported because China is already full of disposable workers ready to work for pennies a day, without benefits or health care. Also, China isn't full of PC nut jobs worried about offending millions of people who shouldn't be there, lest they be called "racist" for it.I get what you're saying, but Im personally in favor of more ways to find illegals...It always amazes me that the US is one of the few countries on the world that puts up with this. If I overstayed my visa in China, I'd get my ass deported, and rightfully so.There are some serious issues with doing it actually. The biggest seems to be that people are worried that such information might be used to hunt down illegals and boot them out of the country, which does seem like a legitimate concern. Some kind of guarantee that such information won't be used in retaliation seems to be in order at least.
Considering Census works have been murdered in the last year (you yourself posted the link early in the thread, so I won't) it does seem like a good idea that we let Illegals know that the Census office isn't in collusion with the INS.
It's a conflict because it's using non-law enforcement personnel in a manner unbecoming of their role. Census workers were never meant to be used in that manner, they are only supposed to be used towards their given purpose. Not to mention you'd be turning them into easy targets for retribution... unless you'd rather start sending them out there with weapons. You'd really be proving my point then.I don't see a conflict here. Having less government doesn't mean that laws don't get enforced.I find it interesting you can reconcile your belief that the government should have less power and then in the same breath call for it to use glorified bookkeepers as front line agents in the war against illegal immigration. You can't have it both ways.
Hasn't that already happened?It's a conflict because it's using non-law enforcement personnel in a manner unbecoming of their role. Census workers were never meant to be used in that manner, they are only supposed to be used towards their given purpose. Not to mention you'd be turning them into easy targets for retribution... unless you'd rather start sending them out there with weapons. You'd really be proving my point then.
Hasn't that already happened?[/QUOTE]It's a conflict because it's using non-law enforcement personnel in a manner unbecoming of their role. Census workers were never meant to be used in that manner, they are only supposed to be used towards their given purpose. Not to mention you'd be turning them into easy targets for retribution... unless you'd rather start sending them out there with weapons. You'd really be proving my point then.
I'm willing to bet there are those who will disagree with the House healthcare bill passing being "good news."http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/07/health.care/index.html
Health care bill passed in the House, also removed most coverage for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the woman's life is in danger.
Good news on top of more good news, not something you see very often.
I'm willing to bet there are those who will disagree with the House healthcare bill passing being "good news."[/QUOTE]http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/07/health.care/index.html
Health care bill passed in the House, also removed most coverage for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the woman's life is in danger.
Good news on top of more good news, not something you see very often.
I'm willing to bet there are those who will disagree with the House healthcare bill passing being "good news."[/quote]http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/07/health.care/index.html
Health care bill passed in the House, also removed most coverage for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the woman's life is in danger.
Good news on top of more good news, not something you see very often.
That what I want to do. Go to prison for 5 years if me or my wife decides to not have health coverage. Lovely.“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
I'm willing to bet there are those who will disagree with the House healthcare bill passing being "good news."[/QUOTE]http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/07/health.care/index.html
Health care bill passed in the House, also removed most coverage for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the woman's life is in danger.
Good news on top of more good news, not something you see very often.
I agree man.I hope this didn't stay in:
That what I want to do. Go to prison for 5 years if me or my wife decides to not have health coverage. Lovely.“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
I agree man.[/QUOTE]I hope this didn't stay in:
That what I want to do. Go to prison for 5 years if me or my wife decides to not have health coverage. Lovely.“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
I agree man.[/quote]I hope this didn't stay in:
That what I want to do. Go to prison for 5 years if me or my wife decides to not have health coverage. Lovely.“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
But apparently, "community organizing" is?Bill and Ted and... Sarah? Fancy pageant walkin' is not a qualifier to be President.
Which howler monkeys? I know I (as well as Covar, Armadillo, and many others) have all repeatedly stated that the problem with the Republican party is it isn't conservative, thus leading to no actual real political choice.Republican != conservative. The howler monkeys in the media and on this board don't want you to know that.
We're kind of a clique that way.Which howler monkeys? I know I (as well as Covar, Armadillo, and many others) have all repeatedly stated that the problem with the Republican party is it isn't conservative, thus leading to no actual real political choice.Republican != conservative. The howler monkeys in the media and on this board don't want you to know that.
So all the evidence that is coming out that Hasan had extremist tendencies, attended the same mosque as a couple of the 9/11 hijackers under an imam known for radicalism, that he shouted the famous "Allahu Akbar!" as he opened fire on American soldiers, that he expressed sympathy for suicide bombers, that he saw the American military as "oppressors," none of this is relevant or important in the investigation? I really wish I could live in that world; it sounds much more pleasant than reality.Let the Ft. Hood witch hunts begin. All this anti-Muslim grandstanding is going to do nothing productive.
More importantly, how the fuck did this guy who OBVIOUSLY has PROBLEMS stay productive in the military for that long? I'm not denying that this single guy is a religious nut whackjob, I'm wondering how they didn't rout out the religious zealot psychiatrist before this could happen.So all the evidence that is coming out that Hasan had extremist tendencies, attended the same mosque as a couple of the 9/11 hijackers under an imam known for radicalism, that he shouted the famous "Allahu Akbar!" as he opened fire on American soldiers, that he expressed sympathy for suicide bombers, that he saw the American military as "oppressors," none of this is relevant or important in the investigation? I really wish I could live in that world; it sounds much more pleasant than reality.
More importantly, how the fuck did this guy who OBVIOUSLY has PROBLEMS stay productive in the military for that long? I'm not denying that this single guy is a religious nut whackjob, I'm wondering how they didn't rout out the religious zealot psychiatrist before this could happen.[/QUOTE]So all the evidence that is coming out that Hasan had extremist tendencies, attended the same mosque as a couple of the 9/11 hijackers under an imam known for radicalism, that he shouted the famous "Allahu Akbar!" as he opened fire on American soldiers, that he expressed sympathy for suicide bombers, that he saw the American military as "oppressors," none of this is relevant or important in the investigation? I really wish I could live in that world; it sounds much more pleasant than reality.
I'm dubious of anything called "evidence" that's not coming directly out of Ft. Hood. If Glenn Beck has taught us anything, it's that you can link everything to everything if you don't let reality get in the way. I'd prefer the investigation be done by law enforcement and the Army, and not the wingnut press of either side.So all the evidence that is coming out that Hasan had extremist tendencies, attended the same mosque as a couple of the 9/11 hijackers under an imam known for radicalism, that he shouted the famous "Allahu Akbar!" as he opened fire on American soldiers, that he expressed sympathy for suicide bombers, that he saw the American military as "oppressors," none of this is relevant or important in the investigation? I really wish I could live in that world; it sounds much more pleasant than reality.Let the Ft. Hood witch hunts begin. All this anti-Muslim grandstanding is going to do nothing productive.
More importantly, how the fuck did this guy who OBVIOUSLY has PROBLEMS stay productive in the military for that long? I'm not denying that this single guy is a religious nut whackjob, I'm wondering how they didn't rout out the religious zealot psychiatrist before this could happen.[/QUOTE]So all the evidence that is coming out that Hasan had extremist tendencies, attended the same mosque as a couple of the 9/11 hijackers under an imam known for radicalism, that he shouted the famous \"Allahu Akbar!\" as he opened fire on American soldiers, that he expressed sympathy for suicide bombers, that he saw the American military as \"oppressors,\" none of this is relevant or important in the investigation? I really wish I could live in that world; it sounds much more pleasant than reality.
When you're a Jet you're a Jet all the way...We're kind of a clique that way.
Oh god, you're a fan of the Minnesota Shit-Pukes aren't you.
Most repulsive sweaters in sports.
Stay out of this, Cindy-lover. This is between me and the Whalers fan.Oh dear, have I caused a rift?
But apparently, "community organizing" is?Bill and Ted and... Sarah? Fancy pageant walkin' is not a qualifier to be President.
This is possibly the worst written article I've seen in a long time. It shows an amazingly poor understanding on health information, how it saves money, and how having conditions that must be met ensure patient safety and the security of patient information.Gasbandit said:This article pretty much sums is up: government force is at the heart of Obamacare.
It's actually closer to "Do I want someone who I KNOW doesn't have my best interests at heart to decide what kind of coverage I get, or do I want to trust it to someone who might fuck it up?" One is a known negative, the other is only a potential negative. I'd sooner take the potential.This whole healthcare debate comes down to one thing: do you trust the government to determine what is best for your life? The answer should be obvious, folks.
I think they are closer to it than a company that has a personal stake (protecting their profit margin) in denying me coverage. The government has a stake in keeping me healthy, as a healthy society is more able to produce. I'm simply unsure of their ability to pull it off.@ash So you think the government has your best interest at heart but might screw it up?
Sure he didn't go, but at least we'll have the 2016 Olympics in Chicago...Foreign papers say that Obama did not attend the Berlin Wall ceremonies because they were not centered around him.
Sure he didn't go, but at least we'll have the 2016 Olympics in Chicago...[/QUOTE]Foreign papers say that Obama did not attend the Berlin Wall ceremonies because they were not centered around him.
Sure he didn't go, but at least we'll have the 2016 Olympics in Chicago...[/QUOTE]Foreign papers say that Obama did not attend the Berlin Wall ceremonies because they were not centered around him.
Sure he didn't go, but at least we'll have the 2016 Olympics in Chicago...[/QUOTE]Foreign papers say that Obama did not attend the Berlin Wall ceremonies because they were not centered around him.
Sure he didn't go, but at least we'll have the 2016 Olympics in Chicago...[/QUOTE]Foreign papers say that Obama did not attend the Berlin Wall ceremonies because they were not centered around him.
Sure he didn't go, but at least we'll have the 2016 Olympics in Chicago...[/quote]Foreign papers say that Obama did not attend the Berlin Wall ceremonies because they were not centered around him.
Sure he didn't go, but at least we'll have the 2016 Olympics in Chicago...[/quote]Foreign papers say that Obama did not attend the Berlin Wall ceremonies because they were not centered around him.
Sure he didn't go, but at least we'll have the 2016 Olympics in Chicago...[/quote]Foreign papers say that Obama did not attend the Berlin Wall ceremonies because they were not centered around him.
When Obama went to denmark, it was not to commemorate a great blow for freedom. It was to smile and schmooze and execute a charm offensive in an insulting and vulgar attempt to sway the IOC so he could put a feather in his cap and say "Look, I brought the olympics to MY TOWN. Because I'm so popular." There was countless media coverage on what he was doing, what his wife was doing, and the utter transparency of the whole affair made it a revolting display. It was all about Obama. It was him being the campaign rock star again. But, it seems the IOC was immune to Hopenosis (pity more Americans weren't).But please, educate me. Explain what is so obvious to you. I can't wait to hear this one.
When Obama went to denmark, it was not to commemorate a great blow for freedom. It was to smile and schmooze and execute a charm offensive in an insulting and vulgar attempt to sway the IOC so he could put a feather in his cap and say "Look, I brought the olympics to MY TOWN. Because I'm so popular." There was countless media coverage on what he was doing, what his wife was doing, and the utter transparency of the whole affair made it a revolting display. It was all about Obama. It was him being the campaign rock star again. But, it seems the IOC was immune to Hopenosis (pity more Americans weren't).But please, educate me. Explain what is so obvious to you. I can't wait to hear this one.
When Obama went to denmark, it was not to commemorate a great blow for freedom. It was to smile and schmooze and execute a charm offensive in an insulting and vulgar attempt to sway the IOC so he could put a feather in his cap and say "Look, I brought the olympics to MY TOWN. Because I'm so popular." There was countless media coverage on what he was doing, what his wife was doing, and the utter transparency of the whole affair made it a revolting display. It was all about Obama. It was him being the campaign rock star again. But, it seems the IOC was immune to Hopenosis (pity more Americans weren't).But please, educate me. Explain what is so obvious to you. I can't wait to hear this one.
There was one world leader absent for today’s commemorations marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Surprisingly enough, it’s President Barack Obama, who found time last year to give a campaign speech there last year, which Der Spiegel summed up as “People of the World, Look at Me”.
The White House has cited a packed schedule, though looking at it he had nothing much on yesterday (brief chat to reporters about healthcare – by far his biggest priority) and just blah briefings and a bill signing today until a metting this evening with Benjamin Netanyahu. This time, Der Spiegel has reported it as “Barack Too Busy”.
But Obama is, of course, making time to trot over to Norway to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in December. Didn’t seem to have too much of a problem clearing the diary for that – though his acceptance of the prize and decision to give a another soaring, historical, epoch-marking etc etc speech there will be looked back on as a colossal political mistake and sign of hubris.
Perhaps Obama felt that celebrating the role of the United States in bringing down the wall would be a bit triumphalist and not quite in keeping with his wish to present America as a declining world power anxious to apologise for sundry historic misdeeds. Maybe he didn’t really want to be associated with that warmonger Ronald Reagan.
Marty Peretz is gloomy about what his non-appearance says about Obama’s world view and his approach on Iran. Newt Gingrich calls the failure to go to Berlin “a tragedy”. Paul Rahe at Powerline wonders if Obama is signalling his administration’s intent to enact a “process of turning its back on our erstwhile allies in Europe”. Certainly, he seems to have a prickly relationship with Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Whatever the reasons, it’s another revealing mistake by Obama. This deserved to be marked by more than just a proclamation penned by a staffer.
Sure he didn't go, but at least we'll have the 2016 Olympics in Chicago...[/quote]Foreign papers say that Obama did not attend the Berlin Wall ceremonies because they were not centered around him.
In a world of terrorist fist jabs, mission accomplished, hair cut costs, cackling laughs, and various other filler stories, nothing is common sense.No, I think it's just common sense that the President going to this particular event would be very unlikely to draw fire from the other side. I understand you don't want to criticize him for this, he's your guy, but you can damn well bet that if Bush had done this he'd get the same treatment from me and far worse from the press and rightly so.
One guy who's every post on the last three pages of his blog indicates a strong anti-Democrat bias does not make everyone.The assumptions were also made pretty much by everyone who saw it. Reference my link above - FTA:
I can't speak for everyone, but for me I don't think it's a big deal. I'd find the same criticism of Bush a little silly if it had been him.You are convinced of it, I can't change that. I think it's a real shame he didn't go and a black mark on America for not being represented by it's President there.
One guy who's every post on the last three pages of his blog indicates a strong anti-Democrat bias does not make everyone.[/QUOTE]The assumptions were also made pretty much by everyone who saw it. Reference my link above - FTA:
One guy who's every post on the last three pages of his blog indicates a strong anti-Democrat bias does not make everyone.[/QUOTE]The assumptions were also made pretty much by everyone who saw it. Reference my link above - FTA:
Sure he didn't go, but at least we'll have the 2016 Olympics in Chicago...[/QUOTE]Foreign papers say that Obama did not attend the Berlin Wall ceremonies because they were not centered around him.
The Ministry of Truth had the power of the state behind them, though. It's fair to say that FOX doesn't enjoy that status.Fox Noise caught falsifying their coverage of the Bachmann rally. I don't care if it is during the \"Opiniontainment\" hours, this is straight out of the Ministry of Truth playbook.
The Ministry of Truth had the power of the state behind them, though. It's fair to say that FOX doesn't enjoy that status.[/QUOTE]Fox Noise caught falsifying their coverage of the Bachmann rally. I don't care if it is during the \"Opiniontainment\" hours, this is straight out of the Ministry of Truth playbook.
That is absolutely disgusting.Code Pink .. full of class .. apparently targeted children of military families on Halloween.
That is absolutely disgusting.[/QUOTE]Code Pink .. full of class .. apparently targeted children of military families on Halloween.
wow, 18 million Americans in jail. that's fair I guess.Pelosi: "It's very fair" to jail people for not buying health insurance.
wow, 18 million Americans in jail. that's fair I guess.[/quote]Pelosi: "It's very fair" to jail people for not buying health insurance.
I should add the question is very disingenuous in these ways-SHOMARI STONE, KOMO 4 NEWS: Madame Speaker, I'm Shomari Stone from KOMO 4 news. I have a question for you that hasn't been pointed out but a lot of Americans feel this way. Do you think it's fair to send people to jail for not buying health insurance?
PELOSI: Well the point is -- is that we want make sure that everyone has access to health care. For a long time now people who haven't had health care or provided it have placed the burden on others. Everybody is paying the price for uncompensated care-I don't need to tell you that-in a hospital. And so this is -- is to say that we all have to do our part and that is the point of the bill.
STONE: But Madame Speaker, I'm just trying to understand, if you don't buy health insurance, you go to jail? You didn't answer my question.
PELOSI: Well, the point, there is -- I think the legislation is very fair in this respect. It gives people an opportunity to have health care, access to quality health care. If they can't afford it, it provides subsidies for them to do so. But do you think it's fair if somebody says, I'm just not going to have any, if I get sick, then I'll just go to the emergency room and send the bill to you. That's my view on the subject.
I think it's going to have more to do with the fact he's the CEO for AIG than anything about wealth envy. It sort of like being the president of NAMBLA: There really isn't anything he can say that WON'T make people angry at this point.AIG's CEO is frustrated by Obama's pay limits. Something tells me he isn't going to get a lot of sympathy from the wealth envy crowd.
This article turned into a joke the moment he criticized Obama for apologizing for Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings. Yes, it probably saved countless lives... there is no argument there. That doesn't change the fact that it wiped two cities off the face of the map (until they rebuilt them), caused severe health problems to people miles outside of the blast zone, and is still the only recorded use of nuclear weapons on an enemy nation. Saying he felt bad for the damage it caused isn't the same as saying it didn't need to be done. The author needs to learn what compassion is before he can criticize it in others.Well this column really puts it out there ... Barack Obama despises America.
The penalty is a "tax." And if you refuse to pay that tax, what happens?1. Penalty for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time.
The penalty is a "tax." And if you refuse to pay that tax, what happens?[/QUOTE]1. Penalty for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time.
The penalty is a "tax." And if you refuse to pay that tax, what happens?[/quote]1. Penalty for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time.
The penalty is a "tax." And if you refuse to pay that tax, what happens?[/quote]1. Penalty for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time.
Wanna spell it out for me? I saw him nitpick one thing that somehow made the whole criticism invalid.Hey guys, I just saw Gas' point fly by... I think you missed it.
Items 2 and beyond were completely irrelevant. "We're going to use the threat of fines, which we'll call taxes, backed up by the threat of government monopolized legal use of force, to require people to buy health insurance. Except we're only going to penalize some people and not others, along economic lines. Because that makes everything ok. And we'll call it being collected through a civil process, even though if you steadfastly refuse to pay the penalty for disobeying an unjust and unconstitutional law, you'll still end up in jail."I saw him nitpick one thing that somehow made the whole criticism invalid.
Items 2 and beyond were completely irrelevant. "We're going to use the threat of fines, which we'll call taxes, backed up by the threat of government monopolized legal use of force, to require people to buy health insurance. Except we're only going to penalize some people and not others, along economic lines. Because that makes everything ok. And we'll call it being collected through a civil process, even though if you steadfastly refuse to pay the penalty for disobeying an unjust and unconstitutional law, you'll still end up in jail."I saw him nitpick one thing that somehow made the whole criticism invalid.
Items 2 and beyond were completely irrelevant. "We're going to use the threat of fines, which we'll call taxes, backed up by the threat of government monopolized legal use of force, to require people to buy health insurance. Except we're only going to penalize some people and not others, along economic lines. Because that makes everything ok. And we'll call it being collected through a civil process, even though if you steadfastly refuse to pay the penalty for disobeying an unjust and unconstitutional law, you'll still end up in jail."I saw him nitpick one thing that somehow made the whole criticism invalid.
Items 2 and beyond were completely irrelevant. "We're going to use the threat of fines, which we'll call taxes, backed up by the threat of government monopolized legal use of force, to require people to buy health insurance. Except we're only going to penalize some people and not others, along economic lines. Because that makes everything ok. And we'll call it being collected through a civil process, even though if you steadfastly refuse to pay the penalty for disobeying an unjust and unconstitutional law, you'll still end up in jail."I saw him nitpick one thing that somehow made the whole criticism invalid.
Items 2 and beyond were completely irrelevant. "We're going to use the threat of fines, which we'll call taxes, backed up by the threat of government monopolized legal use of force, to require people to buy health insurance. Except we're only going to penalize some people and not others, along economic lines. Because that makes everything ok. And we'll call it being collected through a civil process, even though if you steadfastly refuse to pay the penalty for disobeying an unjust and unconstitutional law, you'll still end up in jail."I saw him nitpick one thing that somehow made the whole criticism invalid.
Could you please point to the part of the Constitution that allows Congress to mandate the purchase of a specific product under penalty of law? This is important, because if the Constitution doesn't specifically allow Congress to do something, they can't do it. That was the original intent of the document; to limit the reach and scope of government.Not to mention it's NOT unconstitutional at all. It's not even a situation envisioned by our founding fathers. It doesn't violate a current amendment ether.
FINE, strike that comment from the record. Care to reply?Sorry, you lost me at "You Libs". I instantly stopped reading.
Could you please point to the part of the Constitution that allows Congress to mandate the purchase of a specific product under penalty of law? This is important, because if the Constitution doesn't specifically allow Congress to do something, they can't do it. That was the original intent of the document; to limit the reach and scope of government.[/quote]Not to mention it's NOT unconstitutional at all. It's not even a situation envisioned by our founding fathers. It doesn't violate a current amendment ether.
You're correct, but in addition to the fact that we're not talking about amending the Constitution, your example doesn't make this instance any less unconstitutional. States' rights are covered under the 10th Amendment:Actually, that is patently untrue. While it was designed to limit the reach and scope of government, it still had enough leeway to allow or forbid new, unthought of powers at future dates. This is why we have the amendment process.
Regardless of that, it's already been established that States can revoke or simply not issues licenses to people who don't have auto insurance. This is similar in vein to those laws, but simply on a national level. If you want to argue anything, you could argue that such a health care program should be run by individual states and not on a national level, as it's a States Rights issue.
Plus, you're not REQUIRED to have auto insurance unless you choose to drive. There's no such choice in the health care bill; you MUST buy health insurance, no matter what.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Could you please point to the part of the Constitution that allows Congress to mandate the purchase of a specific product under penalty of law? This is important, because if the Constitution doesn't specifically allow Congress to do something, they can't do it. That was the original intent of the document; to limit the reach and scope of government.Not to mention it's NOT unconstitutional at all. It's not even a situation envisioned by our founding fathers. It doesn't violate a current amendment ether.
FINE, strike that comment from the record. Care to reply?[/QUOTE]Sorry, you lost me at "You Libs". I instantly stopped reading.
But that's just it; if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say Congress can do something, THEY CAN'T DO IT. Refer to the tenth amendment as quoted above. Also, the 2.5% is a penalty, not a tax.taxation? I know it can't be the "taxation without representation" clause since you are represented.
The problem does not lie with "where does it say they can", the problem lies with "where does it say they can't." If you can point to where it is unconsititutional, I'd be happy to point out why it is.
I go by what was written. The Framers were amazingly clear about what they meant.I am incredibly surprised you can argue "The original intent of the document". Were you there? You're older than Ed!
But that's just it; if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say Congress can do something, THEY CAN'T DO IT. Refer to the tenth amendment as quoted above. Also, the 2.5% is a penalty, not a tax.taxation? I know it can't be the "taxation without representation" clause since you are represented.
The problem does not lie with "where does it say they can", the problem lies with "where does it say they can't." If you can point to where it is unconsititutional, I'd be happy to point out why it is.
I go by what was written. The Framers were amazingly clear about what they meant.[/QUOTE]I am incredibly surprised you can argue "The original intent of the document". Were you there? You're older than Ed!
But that's just it; if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say Congress can do something, THEY CAN'T DO IT. Refer to the tenth amendment as quoted above. Also, the 2.5% is a penalty, not a tax.taxation? I know it can't be the "taxation without representation" clause since you are represented.
The problem does not lie with "where does it say they can", the problem lies with "where does it say they can't." If you can point to where it is unconsititutional, I'd be happy to point out why it is.
I go by what was written. The Framers were amazingly clear about what they meant.[/QUOTE]I am incredibly surprised you can argue "The original intent of the document". Were you there? You're older than Ed!
We're all in agreement that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the power to mandate that people buy a product. Since that power is not delegated to the Congress, it is reserved to the States respectively, or the people.Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
But that's just it; if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say Congress can do something, THEY CAN'T DO IT. Refer to the tenth amendment as quoted above. Also, the 2.5% is a penalty, not a tax.taxation? I know it can't be the \"taxation without representation\" clause since you are represented.
The problem does not lie with \"where does it say they can\", the problem lies with \"where does it say they can't.\" If you can point to where it is unconsititutional, I'd be happy to point out why it is.
I go by what was written. The Framers were amazingly clear about what they meant.[/quote]I am incredibly surprised you can argue \"The original intent of the document\". Were you there? You're older than Ed!
We're all in agreement that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the power to mandate that people buy a product. Since that power is not delegated to the Congress, it is reserved to the States respectively, or the people.[/quote]Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I don't recall having to buy my own Christmas gifts.Nancy Pelosi says that we will get government healthcare as a Christmas present. Can I just have my lump of coal instead? At least coal will keep me warm.
People still won't listen to liberal talk radio.Could the Democrats manage to implement a Fairness Doctrine 2.0?
more transparent government, two years ago we wouldn't have been told about the shredded files.Now we are learning that officials ordered that documents be shredded in the case of the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin.
still not a terrorist. am i rite.Major Nidal Hasan proclaimed himself a "soldier of Allah" on private business cards. What a complete failure on the part of our intelligence community .. all because of political correctness.
You mean funding they never had?This is rich ... ACORN has filed a lawsuit against the federal government, trying to restore its federal funds.
I will say this. He should be brought up on military charges, not charged as a civilian.Bill Kristol hates America. Dude, trial by jury exists precisely because sick fucks like you exist.