Export thread

Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

Limit: 500

#1

GasBandit

GasBandit

It's 8 years since September 11th, 2001. I don't think much more needs to be said, other than remember what happened, who did it, and what needs to be done to prevent such things from happening again.

Medicare for Dummies ... From The Wall Street Journal

Here's something for those of you who would like to know more about the economics of recovery.

Somebody has a short memory. 5 years ago, Democrats were the party of complete, unflinching obstructionism.

On health care reform ... Obama spreads a few lies of his own. Imagine that!

Krauthammer weighs in on the Van Jones "Truthers" affair.

"Listening to a Liar: Part II" Thomas Sowell nails it again. Oh ... and here's "Listening to a Liar" Part I.

When patriotic desserts go terribly wrong.


#2

Covar

Covar

On health care reform ... Obama spreads a few lies of his own. Imagine that!
but don't you dare call him out on it.


#3

Krisken

Krisken

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]
I'll be looking for a similar article that can avoid phrases like "pull numbers out of Joe Biden's pants". It doesn't exactly scream professional journalism any louder than partisan hack.


#4

GasBandit

GasBandit

professional journalism
No longer exists. Everybody's got their horse to back.


#5

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

WHO in their right mind puts the twin towers on a fucking cupcake!?


#6

GasBandit

GasBandit

Take a look at this picture from Obama's healthcare rally over the weekend. Got the message? Stability and security.

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.

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.

The high unemployment rate is going to remain "unacceptably high" for a number of years, according to Obama's chief economic adviser.

Higher Taxes Are Coming. Are You Prepared?

Mark Steyn has an excellent column ... People see right through Barack Obama's urgency to pass healthcare reform.

Obama says that his healthcare plan "won't add one dime to the deficit" ... yet he won't tell us the details on how he plans to do that.

Why hasn't anyone explained to the president how his mandates and requirements on health insurance is going to drive up costs?

The Federal Census Bureau decided to sever ties with ACORN. Plus: Now ACORN may face scrutiny over federal housing grants.

George Will takes on the book banners.

The fundamental problem for Barack Obama and the Democrats is that the public doesn't trust them.

The Senate's "gang of six" is working on closing any loopholes in the healthcare bill that would allow illegal immigrants to gain access to government health plans or subsidies.

After Rep. Joe Wilson's "you lie" outburst last week during Obama's address to Congress, he has racked up $1 million in donations.

How are federal contract being awarded with stimulus dollars? To big companies with little competition.

The European official responsible for banning incandescent light bulbs turns out to be a former communist.

Yet another "hockey stick" graph on global warming has been published ... and yet another "hockey stick" graph has been found to be fundamentally false.

Taxpayer-funded trips taken by lawmakers are coming under extreme scrutiny lately.

Guess which moonbat is being courted by the Green Party as a possible future presidential candidate? I'll give you a hint ... this party also thought Cynthia McKinney would make a good president.

17 Acorn protesters make something a national crisis, but 1.5-2 million protesters, according to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, "are not indicative" of prevailing American opinion and can be safely ignored.



#7

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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.
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.

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.
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."

The fundamental problem for Barack Obama and the Democrats is that the public doesn't trust them.
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.


#8

GasBandit

GasBandit

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.
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?

The fundamental problem for Barack Obama and the Democrats is that the public doesn't trust them.
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.
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.


#9

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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.
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]

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.


#10

GasBandit

GasBandit

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.
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.

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?


#11

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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.


#12

GasBandit

GasBandit

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 disagree. That same line could be used to apply to pedophiles or any other perpetrator of an act society has deemed anathema. This has been discussed ad nauseum right here on this board, but I'm of the opinion it's merely a trouble with nomenclature. If you gave the term 'civil union' the exact same rights and privileges that marriage has, the problem would go away except for both sides' fringe elements.

But consider what right-wing politicians have used to describe this: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman." That's not exactly aryan philosophy there - it's standard practice for all 3 major religions. Gays are not being oppressed like blacks were, and I think a great many black Americans (especially those who lived through it) would find the analogy insulting.


#13

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

The European official responsible for banning incandescent light bulbs turns out to be a former communist.
So?

Oh, I forgot. Americans.

WAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!! TEH KOMUNITSTS R TAKIN OVR UROP!!!!!111111!!!!11111!!


#14

GasBandit

GasBandit

Heh, usually when people are making fun of people who call "communism," it's not because communism is a good thing, it's because communism is accepted to be such an awful, toxic form of government that nobody could conceivably actually BE a communist any more, outside of the 3rd world and banana republics.

Anyway, on to today's links -

One year after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the Heritage Foundation explains the current state of financial regulation. Notice that none of their suggestions include more government.

The unions have selected their next target: young workers.

Obama's my-way-or-the-highway approach to this healthcare debate (by demonizing doctors and insurance companies) may backfire on him.

Obama is in a big hurry to pass this healthcare legislation ... the more people learn about it, the more they dislike it.

Behind the scenes of the healthcare debate ... intense lobbying from the medical device industry.

Barack Obama didn't make a big deal out of his race when he campaigned, and he still doesn't seem to now that he is president. Why can't others get over it?

A growing number of Republicans are calling for congressional hearings and IRS audits of ACORN. Meanwhile, ACORN wants another $6 million in government funding... and it is threatening to sue FoxNews over the latest undercover video footage.

We keep hearing that the GOP isn't coming up with any ideas on healthcare, but...

Seven out of 10 Americans lack confidence that the federal government has taken safeguards to prevent another financial industry meltdown.

This ought to keep the turbochristians busy for a while ... gay marriage supporters are moving to repeal federal laws concerning same-sex benefits.

The Obama administration may consider changing the guidelines by which we measure poverty in this country.

A friendly moment with Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark.


#15

Krisken

Krisken

The European official responsible for banning incandescent light bulbs turns out to be a former communist.
So?

Oh, I forgot. Americans.

WAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!! TEH KOMUNITSTS R TAKIN OVR UROP!!!!!111111!!!!11111!![/quote]
It does seem rather silly getting panty bunched over something so trivial, doesn't it?


#16



Le Quack

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 disagree. That same line could be used to apply to pedophiles or any other perpetrator of an act society has deemed anathema. This has been discussed ad nauseum right here on this board, but I'm of the opinion it's merely a trouble with nomenclature. If you gave the term 'civil union' the exact same rights and privileges that marriage has, the problem would go away except for both sides' fringe elements.

But consider what right-wing politicians have used to describe this: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman." That's not exactly aryan philosophy there - it's standard practice for all 3 major religions. Gays are not being oppressed like blacks were, and I think a great many black Americans (especially those who lived through it) would find the analogy insulting.[/QUOTE]

Did you just compare Gays to pedofiles?


#17

GasBandit

GasBandit

Did you just compare Gays to pedofiles?
No, I just said that line of argument could be used to champion ANYTHING, and picked something reprehensible.

Would you have felt better if I'd chosen "religious practitioners of human sacrifice" as the macguffin?


#18

GasBandit

GasBandit

My contributions to this thread are officially delayed due to work. I'll be back.


#19

Espy

Espy

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."
It's really hit and miss in China

You know, as someone who owns a factory here in China... they get treated pretty damn well some of them. The ones that work for me that is.

3 healthy meals a day, a clean bed, air conditioning in summer and heating in winter, medical coverage, a pool table, a basketball court, a swimming pool (it's fairly small), TV with Wii, Karaoke room, and don't forget ping pong. We also often take them on trips horse back riding in Mongolia. For free. None of this is taken from their wages and they have the buying power of someone making above minimum wage in Canada.

Most of them are highschool dropouts and average in age around 22 with the youngest at 19. It's better than working for fucking McDonalds.



Now my neighbor on the other hand he's just a slimy bastard. Finds every way he can to squeeze every penny. The things I've heard...[/QUOTE]

You... own a factory in China???
Coooool.


#20

Covar

Covar

This should keep the converstation going until we get back. Surprised this hasn't shown up yet.



#21

Espy

Espy

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.


#22

Krisken

Krisken

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.
Yup, I'm saddened and disgusted by the actions of ACORN. I certainly won't defend the group after this.


#23

Espy

Espy

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?"


#24



Le Quack

Did you just compare Gays to pedofiles?
No, I just said that line of argument could be used to champion ANYTHING, and picked something reprehensible.

Would you have felt better if I'd chosen "religious practitioners of human sacrifice" as the macguffin?[/QUOTE]

See, the thing is that society doesn't know if its act deemed anathema. So comparing the two is a very old school view, which does nothing but keep gays where they are now.
Being gay shouldn't be something "reprehensible."

If I totally missed the point, my bad. But it seems like you are saying that gays are just as reprehensible as pedofiles.

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?"
Can somebody fill me in on exactly what ACORN does?


#25

Krisken

Krisken

Did you just compare Gays to pedofiles?
No, I just said that line of argument could be used to champion ANYTHING, and picked something reprehensible.

Would you have felt better if I'd chosen "religious practitioners of human sacrifice" as the macguffin?[/quote]

See, the thing is that society doesn't know if its act deemed anathema. So comparing the two is a very old school view, which does nothing but keep gays where they are now.
Being gay shouldn't be something "reprehensible."

If I totally missed the point, my bad. But it seems like you are saying that gays are just as reprehensible as pedofiles.

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?"
Can somebody fill me in on exactly what ACORN does?[/QUOTE]
It's an advocacy group for the poor. From what I've read they plan to do an internal investigation.


#26



crono1224

Sounds like they need to clear house or close down and start anew cause clearly they have just shit on any credibility they had.


#27

Covar

Covar

Lets not forget about their voter fraud cases.


#28

GasBandit

GasBandit

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.

No links today. In fact, it might be a while. I just learned that the traffic director who was supposed to be coming back has now decided she's not coming back at all, and the person who was covering for her was already gone. I may be scarce for months while we look for, hire, and I train a new traffic director.

Sometimes I think the only reason I don't start stabbing people in the face is because I'll get tired and have to go to sleep before I'm done stabbing EVERYBODY in the face and then that's when they'll get me.


#29

DarkAudit

DarkAudit



#30

Covar

Covar

:aaahhh:


#31

Krisken

Krisken

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.
Republican Senators. They like Rape. Hell, they should have listed it twice.


#32

Krisken

Krisken

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.


#33



Iaculus

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.


#34

Krisken

Krisken

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]
Yeah, I got nothing on this one. I often say I am shocked, but this really leaves me in awe.


#35

Covar

Covar

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.




dumbass.

On a more serious note, it's not his business to deny them kids. Like marriage stops that.


#36

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Day Two of the liberation. Viva la Revolución!

Left. Right. Doesn't matter who is in "power". When it comes to the economy, Goldman Sachs is the one in charge.

What do you have to hide, Governor? Did Texas execute an innocent man? Rick Perry doesn't want an investigation.

Pundits in the pocket of anti-health care reform astroturfers
. Who knew?




#39

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Rush also bitches that the NFL is a left wing organization, ignoring that NFL owners gave substantially more to GOP than to Democrats.[/QUOTE]

And then he blames Obama. :facepalm:

---------- Post added at 11:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 AM ----------

And in case it got missed in the DADT thread amidst all the other carrying on...

Fox couldn't be bothered to point a camera out the window to cover the gay march, yet they send a satellite truck to cover an empty sidewalk in NJ.

Remember all that hand-winging on Fox about "the media" not covering their publicity stunt on 9/12? See what they do when actual news breaks out.


#40

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

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.


#41



Armadillo

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.
Not the government's fault, NFL is a private organization, free association, all things I agree with.

It does bother me a little bit that one of the main talking points and reasons to drop Rush from the bid was a "quote" from Limbaugh that he in fact never said. I believe it was something along the lines of "Slavery had it's good points."

EDIT: found the "quote":

"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."
This link explains how some of these quotes attributed to Limbaugh came into being:

Urban Legends: Limbaugh Slavery Quote is Bogus

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.
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.

EDIT 2: It's worth mentioning that one of the media outlets that used the fake quotes as evidence of Limbaugh's racism was CNN, the same outlet that fact-checked the SNL skit about Obama.


#42

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

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.
Oh, I quite agree. It's totally unfair to have something attributed to you that isn't.

It's also not like there's a shortage of recent and verifiable quotes, for that matter.

But the self-righteous victim-hood by the right-wing blogosphere is insane. Because the NFL not wanting to sell to Rush is exactly like the Holocaust. :eek:rly:


#43

Krisken

Krisken

"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


#44



Armadillo

"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?


#45

Krisken

Krisken

"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]
I didn't say that and you know it. Stop trying to dismiss the awful things he's said by pointing out things wrongly attributed to him. The stuff I quoted he actually said.


#46

Covar

Covar

"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]

CNN did, reporter pulled the Dan Rather defense. "Doesn't matter if it's not true, the point still stands"

"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."
how is that racist? McNabb was an overrated Quarterback.


#47



Armadillo

"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]
I didn't say that and you know it. Stop trying to dismiss the awful things he's said by pointing out things wrongly attributed to him. The stuff I quoted he actually said.[/QUOTE]

I'm not "dismissing" anything. I also don't see anything "awful" in the quotes you posted; one is a shot at Jesse Jackson, who deserves every ounce of flak he catches, the hypocritical shit. The "bone in the nose" does look bad, but I'd like to see some context before I pass final judgement, and the McNabb thing has been done to death. He was going after the media, not McNabb. Just because race is brought up in a discussion does not make it racism.


#48

GasBandit

GasBandit



#49



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?


#50

Krisken

Krisken

See, if that's not good enough for you, then nothing will be short of a Reverend Wright break down. Excuses are like rectums. Everyone has one.


#51

Covar

Covar

:aaahhh: :aaahhh: :aaahhh:


#52

Krisken

Krisken

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.


#53



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]

Gee, thanks. And?

I don't get what black people and gangs have to do with each other. You see, anyone who links the two are racists.


#54

Covar

Covar

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]

Gee, thanks. And?

I don't get what black people and gangs have to do with each other. You see, anyone who links the two are racists.[/QUOTE]
remember racist Rush is responsible for releasing the racist "Barack the Magic Negro." he totally crossed the line by quoting the LA Times and Joe Biden.


#55

Krisken

Krisken

Man, you guys are impossible. I don't have enough facepalm to answer you both.


#56



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]

Gee, thanks. And?

I don't get what black people and gangs have to do with each other. You see, anyone who links the two are racists.[/QUOTE]
remember racist Rush is responsible for releasing the racist "Barack the Magic Negro." he totally crossed the line by quoting the LA Times and Joe Biden.[/QUOTE]



Yes, quite true. I had not fully considered that. *smokes pipe*


#57

Covar

Covar

Man, you guys are impossible. I don't have enough facepalm to answer you both.
I'll help you out.


#58

Krisken

Krisken

Still not enough.


#59



Armadillo

Man, you guys are impossible. I don't have enough facepalm to answer you both.
OK, let me get out of "obtuse smartass" mode:

You used the term "awful" to describe those quotes. The only one I see that gets close is the "bone in the nose" comment, and I said I wanted context. Taking quotes out of context is a common way to attack someone, and oftentimes the message changes considerably when the context is revealed. With the gangs, if you're going to make a reference to the "gang lifestyle" that everyone will get, you're going to use the Bloods and the Crips, because they're the most widely-known gangs. He could have said the Latin Kings and the Vatos Locos, and the point would have been the same, but not as many people would have gotten it. The racial implication comes from the critics of the quote, not Limbaugh, who never mentioned race.

Jesse Jackson: again, the "racism" comes from the critics, who (I guess) think he meant that all black people look alike. Well, there's two problems with that: not all wanted posters feature black people, and again, HE NEVER MENTIONED RACE.

McNabb: again, done to death.


#60

Krisken

Krisken

Man, you guys are impossible. I don't have enough facepalm to answer you both.
OK, let me get out of "obtuse smartass" mode:

You used the term "awful" to describe those quotes. The only one I see that gets close is the "bone in the nose" comment, and I said I wanted context. Taking quotes out of context is a common way to attack someone, and oftentimes the message changes considerably when the context is revealed. With the gangs, if you're going to make a reference to the "gang lifestyle" that everyone will get, you're going to use the Bloods and the Crips, because they're the most widely-known gangs. He could have said the Latin Kings and the Vatos Locos, and the point would have been the same, but not as many people would have gotten it. The racial implication comes from the critics of the quote, not Limbaugh, who never mentioned race.

Jesse Jackson: again, the "racism" comes from the critics, who (I guess) think he meant that all black people look alike. Well, there's two problems with that: not all wanted posters feature black people, and again, HE NEVER MENTIONED RACE.

McNabb: again, done to death.[/QUOTE]
Keep rolling with that, then. I disagree that someone has to say "black" or "race" in order for a comment to be racist. Rush is smart. He knows what he is saying and what people will take out of it. I maintain it's intentional.


#61



Armadillo

Man, you guys are impossible. I don't have enough facepalm to answer you both.
OK, let me get out of "obtuse smartass" mode:

You used the term "awful" to describe those quotes. The only one I see that gets close is the "bone in the nose" comment, and I said I wanted context. Taking quotes out of context is a common way to attack someone, and oftentimes the message changes considerably when the context is revealed. With the gangs, if you're going to make a reference to the "gang lifestyle" that everyone will get, you're going to use the Bloods and the Crips, because they're the most widely-known gangs. He could have said the Latin Kings and the Vatos Locos, and the point would have been the same, but not as many people would have gotten it. The racial implication comes from the critics of the quote, not Limbaugh, who never mentioned race.

Jesse Jackson: again, the "racism" comes from the critics, who (I guess) think he meant that all black people look alike. Well, there's two problems with that: not all wanted posters feature black people, and again, HE NEVER MENTIONED RACE.

McNabb: again, done to death.[/QUOTE]
Keep rolling with that, then. I disagree that someone has to say "black" or "race" in order for a comment to be racist. Rush is smart. He knows what he is saying and what people will take out of it. I maintain it's intentional.[/QUOTE]

How can a comment be "racist" if race is never mentioned? That's a pretty basic definition, and if you want to go down the road of "implied racism," well holy hell that's going to get awfully messy awfully fast.

There are those who see implied racism whenever someone criticizes the President or when a black head coach gets fired, despite the reasoning used.


#62

Covar

Covar

Man, you guys are impossible. I don't have enough facepalm to answer you both.
OK, let me get out of "obtuse smartass" mode:

You used the term "awful" to describe those quotes. The only one I see that gets close is the "bone in the nose" comment, and I said I wanted context. Taking quotes out of context is a common way to attack someone, and oftentimes the message changes considerably when the context is revealed. With the gangs, if you're going to make a reference to the "gang lifestyle" that everyone will get, you're going to use the Bloods and the Crips, because they're the most widely-known gangs. He could have said the Latin Kings and the Vatos Locos, and the point would have been the same, but not as many people would have gotten it. The racial implication comes from the critics of the quote, not Limbaugh, who never mentioned race.

Jesse Jackson: again, the "racism" comes from the critics, who (I guess) think he meant that all black people look alike. Well, there's two problems with that: not all wanted posters feature black people, and again, HE NEVER MENTIONED RACE.

McNabb: again, done to death.[/QUOTE]
Keep rolling with that, then. I disagree that someone has to say "black" or "race" in order for a comment to be racist. Rush is smart. He knows what he is saying and what people will take out of it. I maintain it's intentional.[/QUOTE]

How can a comment be "racist" if race is never mentioned? That's a pretty basic definition, and if you want to go down the road of "implied racism," well holy hell that's going to get awfully messy awfully fast.

There are those who see implied racism whenever someone criticizes the President or when a black head coach gets fired, despite the reasoning used.[/QUOTE]

Well according to Krisken anyone who criticizes Obama is a Racist because they never explicitly stated that they're not racist.


#63

Krisken

Krisken

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.

Not saying it is right, I'm saying it is understandable that some come to that conclusion. I'll happily disagree when someone puts forth a case I don't think is racism (and have in the past).


#64



Armadillo

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.

Not saying it is right, I'm saying it is understandable that some come to that conclusion. I'll happily disagree when someone puts forth a case I don't think is racism (and have in the past).[/QUOTE]

I don't even think it's understandable, but I bet we'll agree to disagree on that point.


#65

Krisken

Krisken

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.


#66

Covar

Covar

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]

From the Political Picture thread. Relevant part bolded.

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.
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]


#67



Armadillo

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]

From the Political Picture thread. Relevant part bolded.

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.
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]



I have nothing to add, I just wanted to post that picture. It makes me giggle like a schoolgirl.


#68

Krisken

Krisken

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]

From the Political Picture thread. Relevant part bolded.

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.
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]
Yeah, I'm not seeing how that's the same thing. That's ok though. I'm getting used to it.


#69

Covar

Covar

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.


#70

Krisken

Krisken

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.
You win. I can't argue with that kind of logic.


#71

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

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.


#72



crono1224

Lol minus the page linked with all the other Rush racist statements that are at minimum border line and at worst clear racism.


#73

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

It was missed back in 2007, but Terry Gilliam reminded us of Colin Powell warning of the "terror-industrial complex". In short, companies and industries that need the threat of terrorism to stay afloat.

In that vein, does the mission or the founders of "Keep America Safe" come as any surprise?

The purpose isn't to protect you, me, or anyone else. The true purpose is to make Daddy Cheney's stock portfolio safe.


#74



Armadillo

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.


#75

Krisken

Krisken

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]
No, wrong argument. Nobody said he is a racist. We are saying what he said is racist.

For context, listen to this clip. It gives a great explanation why what you are doing is wrong.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&feature=PlayList&p=EAC350B4C62E802B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4[/ame]


#76

Espy

Espy

No, wrong argument. Nobody said he is a racist. We are saying what he said is racist.
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.


#77



Armadillo

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]
No, wrong argument. Nobody said he is a racist. We are saying what he said is racist.

For context, listen to this clip. It gives a great explanation why what you are doing is wrong.

[/QUOTE]

Nobody here has said Limbaugh's a racist? Wasn't that what the whole argument was about?

If all we're arguing about is whether or not the things he says are racist, then good Lord, we're all guilty of that, and therefore Limbaugh is on par with society. However, if the point being made by his detractors is that he harbors racist views, then that's where context becomes important, because it establishes intent. In my view, to be a racist you have to believe that a certain race is superior or inferior to other races. You can tell a racist joke without being a racist as long as you don't actually believe that the message of the joke is true. Does that make sense?


#78

Krisken

Krisken

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
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."
and you want to defend it, I'm pretty much done trying to convince you otherwise.

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.


#79



Armadillo

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
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."
and you want to defend it, I'm pretty much done trying to convince you otherwise.

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.
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.

Now watch, I'd bet good money that within five responses, you'll see a "You listen to that phony asshole Beck? What the fuck's wrong with you?" post.


#80

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

I know GB is aware of what's going on here. It ain't his thread any more!

U.S. Chamber of Commerce gets punk'd on climate change.

Conservatives nearly come to blows over Sarah Palin.

Those Muslim intern 'spies' are still infiltrating Congress. Or so says a few GOP Representatives. Joe McCarthy would be proud.


#81

Krisken

Krisken

Listen to whoever you want Armadillo. I think I understand more than I want to.


#82



Armadillo

Listen to whoever you want Armadillo. I think I understand more than I want to.
What the hell's that supposed to mean?


#83

Krisken

Krisken

Listen to whoever you want Armadillo. I think I understand more than I want to.
What the hell's that supposed to mean?[/QUOTE]
It means that I've gotten all the knowledge I am going to get out of this conversation. We can argue ad nauseum, or one of us can drop out. You're to the point where you're saying the issue is with me, that I have preconceived ideas about Mr. Limbaugh, not that I have come to my opinions based on the things he has said (and yes, some things are taken out of context. He is still saying hateful, divisive things). You don't respect that I have an opinion, or that those opinions are based on my observations. Continuing is pretty pointless.

Ask yourself this- If it was someone on the left, would you react differently? Would you be defending them? If it was Reid, Pelossi, or Obama who said these things?

I know I wouldn't.


#84



Armadillo

Listen to whoever you want Armadillo. I think I understand more than I want to.
What the hell's that supposed to mean?[/QUOTE]
It means that I've gotten all the knowledge I am going to get out of this conversation. We can argue ad nauseum, or one of us can drop out. You're to the point where you're saying the issue is with me, that I have preconceived ideas about Mr. Limbaugh, not that I have come to my opinions based on the things he has said (and yes, some things are taken out of context. He is still saying hateful, divisive things). You don't respect that I have an opinion, or that those opinions are based on my observations. Continuing is pretty pointless.

Ask yourself this- If it was someone on the left, would you react differently? Would you be defending them? If it was Reid, Pelossi, or Obama who said these things?

I know I wouldn't.[/QUOTE]

As a matter of fact, I have defended those very people against similar attacks from the right, just not on this particular forum. I agree that you and I aren't going to get anywhere the way we're going, but I don't appreciate you saying I don't respect your opinion. I DISAGREE with your opinion, but that doesn't mean I don't RESPECT that you have one.

But here I am trying to reason with a liberal from Wisconsin. That's two strikes right there, buddy. :D


#85

Krisken

Krisken

But here I am trying to reason with a liberal from Wisconsin. That's two strikes right there, buddy. :D
We are trying very hard to make up for McCarthyism. ;)



#87

SpecialKO

SpecialKO



#88

GasBandit

GasBandit

I know GB is aware of what's going on here. It ain't his thread any more!
Excuse me, you're in my spot.











What is $1.42 trillion? It's more than the total national debt for the first 200 years of the Republic, more than the entire economy of India, and more than $4,700 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Oh and our 2009 federal deficit.

The Government Accountability Office says that our long-term economic outlook is unsustainable.

Your tax dollars at work ... $2.3 million in federal stimulus money to train hairdressers, masseuses and nail technicians.

A must-read. The destruction of our private healthcare system is already underway thanks to Barack Obama and the Democrats.

The director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wanted the the FCC force stations to provide free time for advertisements calling attention to what he called "the population-resource-environment crisis."

Maureen Dowd in the New York Times: Obama does not want his fatal flaw to be that he compromises so much that his ideals get blurred out of recognition.

Another New York Times columnist who seems frustrated with Obama's willingness to compromise. I guess he's too left for the righties, and too right for the lefties?

George Will explains that Barack Obama may be re-elected solely based on the fact that he will make so many more people dependent on government.

The White House says that the government option is preferred but not required for the president to sign a healthcare bill.

Obama's government pay czar says that the CEO of Bank of America shouldn't be paid for 2009. So there you go.

The Democrats are scrounging to get seniors to support their healthcare plan. Then Barack Obama comes along and says he will give every senior citizen a $250 check. Any connection?

The Wall Street Journal explains: Almost two-thirds of all bad mortgages in our financial system were bought by government agencies or required by government regulations. But it's wall street greed, not social engineering the insolvent into homes they can't afford to pander for votes that caused the mortgage collapse. Of course. Assuredly.

Senators took taxpayer money slated for our troops and earmarked it for projects like an educational institute named after Ted Kennedy. Your tax dollars. Your government.

Remember Barack Obama's urgency to pass the $787 billion economic stimulus plan so that we could "create or save jobs"? Looks like 30,000 were saved or created thanks to the stimulus.

The US Chamber of Commerce reminds us that it is the private sector, not the government, which will create the jobs to bring us out of this economy.

Michelle Obama says that teachers are the key to a successful economy. Government schools ... teachers unions ... this is what is going to turn the tide for our economy? You have GOT to be kidding me.

Nine months into the Obama presidency, tax cheat Timothy Geithner has more than half of the 33 highest-level Treasury Department posts vacant.

Harry Reid explains how $54 billion is not a lot of money.

A former Republican congressional budget chief calls the Obama administration's claims to fiscal responsibility "hypocritical" and "laughable."

Here's a conundrum from CNN: While people want government to solve big problems like health care, they don't trust the government to do it.

Arianna Huffington wants Joe Biden to resign if Obama escalates the war in Afghanistan.

More illustration of the perils of big, invasive government - A justice of the peace in Louisiana refuses to marry an interracial couple because he is concerned for their potential children.

There's a media lynch mob running around with a noose. They're looking for Rush Limbaugh. But even the brits aren't buying it.

This from PriceWaterhouseCoopers should be all it takes to kill the Baucus healthcare bill. But it won't.

Also, last week the dollar hit a 14-month low against the euro and the price of oil futures rose above 75 dollars for the first time in a year.

SEIU, the Service Employee's International Union served as ACORN's thug brigade for years. Now they're providing appointees for Obama's government thug brigade.

Despite what Washington may tell you, the greatest risk to our economy is not Wall Street .... It is Washington's massive debt. Tony Blankley will educate you.

Is CAIR really on a mission to plant Muslim interns in the offices of congressmen who are on committees affecting US national security?

Here's an article about an insurance company in New York that was forced to cover people despite pre-existing conditions, and the company ended up canceling lines of coverage in that state rather than continuing to take the hit.

Democrats in the House now represent the richest regions of the United States.

I like this. A Democratic congressional candidate in Florida returned a campaign check from John Murtha's PAC.

I love it. A birther was fined $20,000 by a federal judge here in Georgia for using the courts "as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action."

The Democrats are showing their cards. Their plot to pass climate change legislation includes linking global warming to national security. And somebody out there is buying this BS and eating it right up.

The FCC Commissioner says that Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd's ideas on regulating free speech are "troubling."

Does Barack Obama have another embarrassing appointee on his hands?

Hey wait .. isn't it still hurricane season? The 2009 Atlantic hurricane season has been the quietest in more than a decade. But isn't all that global warming causing super extra violent hurricane seasons?


#89

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Dang it! I thought I had changed the locks. :p


#90

Orly Taitz

Orly Taitz

I agree with GasBandit


#91

Espy

Espy

Holy crap. He's back and he brought links.


#92

Krisken

Krisken

I agree with GasBandit
You bastard! I was going to do this!


#93

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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? :facepalm:


#94



Armadillo

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? :facepalm:
And you think Beck, Bachmann, and Savage are directly responsible for lunatics making threats?

Beck himself has repeated ad nauseum that violence is not the answer.

---------- Post added at 02:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 AM ----------

White House Urges Other Networks to Disregard Fox News

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.\"
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.

Besides, ISN'T THERE A WAR ON?


#95



crono1224

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).


#96



Armadillo

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).
Saying Obama's policies are bad for the country is hardly the same as calling for violence.


#97

Krisken

Krisken

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.


#98

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

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? :facepalm:
And you think Beck, Bachmann, and Savage are directly responsible for lunatics making threats?

Beck himself has repeated ad nauseum that violence is not the answer.[/QUOTE]

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.


#99

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

The AP article casts things in considerably different light. Apparently, the White House intends to continue giving Fox interviews, but they'll treat them more like talk shows than news shows.

It's also kind of bullshit of Fox to push this, when they cheered on the Bush White House openly musing about freezing out NBC entirely, and are now pretending that neither they, nor the Bush White House, ever did any such thing.

To be 100% fair, I think it would be utterly wrong were the White House to freeze-out a news organization, even a right-wing propaganda machine like Fox, but so far it seems like the White House is just deciding not to give them the benefit of the doubt anymore.


#100



Armadillo

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.


#101

Krisken

Krisken

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.
Except, you know, that's not what they are doing.

Conversation is going like this-
"We shouldn't let them freeze out a news organization"
"We don't consider Fox a news organization, they're more opinion based"
"Yeah, well, they shouldn't freeze out a news organization"
"But they aren't being frozen out. They'll be contacted when they want to deal with the opposition"
"Yeah, it was wrong then, it's wrong now"
"Wait, we heard all this before"

This is what it feels like right now in this discussion.


#102

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Yeah, that false equivalency thing is a bit disingenuous.

Ironically, the Foxnews.com article kind of backs up Axelrod's complaints about the network - they left out key facts (like not being frozen out), ginned up some shocked (shocked, I tell you!) outrage, and played the victim card as hard as they could.

It's not like they couldn't have done one news article about what Axelrod actually said, and then added an editorial piece condemning it, even if it would have been hypocritical of them.


#103

GasBandit

GasBandit

Except, you know, that's not what they are doing.
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."

Frankly the whole issue is a laughable farce to me, but let's not pretend they're not doing what they're doing.

http://www.youtube.com/v/u7VtfGk7Nc8

"... and YOU ought not to treat them that way either."

Frankly, when the AP and pretty much every other network has been rabidly eager to fellate Obama at every possible opportunity since his candidatorial debut, I think Fox can be given a little leeway for leaning a commensurate amount the other direction.

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.
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."

---------- Post added at 11:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 AM ----------

Federal drug agents will no longer pursue pot-smoking patients or suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana. Well, that's one small step in the direction of sanity. Back in 2001 it decided to decriminialize all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. There was no spike in usage. There was no public health crisis. In fact, the rate of drug usage is less in Portugal than it is compared to other European nations. The CATO Institute can give you all the hairy details.

The Community Reinvestment Act is back ... but disguised as a different animal. This report should scare the tar out of you. From the Hill

The Senate Finance Committee has filed its healthcare bill. It weighs in at 1,502 pages.

We are going to spend $1 trillion to insure 5% of the population. Something isn't adding up.

Apparently Senate Republicans have implemented a comprehensive political strategy to delay, define and derail any government takeover of healthcare.

Senator Jim Inhofe reminds us: No matter how many times Congress debates it, and no matter how environmentalists couch it, cap-and-trade will do virtually nothing to stop global warming.

The Prime Minister of the UK says that we have 50 days to save the world from global warming!!!



Part of Ben Bernake's plan to "substantially reduce" budget deficits: ask countries like China to get their consumers to spend more.

The Obama administration has come up with a brilliant way to implement another stimulus package: just don't call it a stimulus package and people will never even know!

Barack Obama's stimulus plan subsidizes .... golf carts?

This article from Forbes says that the stimulus bill may be worse than the health care bill when it comes to its effect on our federal deficit.

Healthcare insurance providers in Colorado say that the current healthcare legislation would lead to a "system collapse."

And suddenly .... Sen. Roland Burris becomes relevant. Here's how.

The White House, the media and the art of controlled public messaging.

Iran vows to seek revenge, claiming that a bombing attack of the Revolutionary Guard was carried out by terrorists trained by America and Britain.

I had "energy star compliant" monitors for years and years... but... this sounds about right for government .... the Energy Department has concluded in an internal audit that it does not properly track whether manufacturers that give their appliances an Energy Star label have met the required specifications for energy efficiency. Maybe my old CRTs were killing the environment! Oh noes!


#104

Charlie Don't Surf

The Lovely Boehner



#105

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Except, you know, that's not what they are doing.
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."

Frankly the whole issue is a laughable farce to me, but let's not pretend they're not doing what they're doing.[/quote]

Asking other news organizations to not treat Fox news reports as news, but as editorial perspectives, while still agreeing to appear on Fox news interviews and events?

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.
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."


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.


#106

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Hey boys and girls! It's time for the Halforums edition of This Week in God!

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.

But this North Carolina church thinks even that version is "satanic", and should be burned. Intolerant much?


#107

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Miss California pageant wants Prejean to pay for her own boobs. If she's involved, it's political. No two ways about it.
:facepalm:

I'm not her biggest fan by any means, but this is just bullshit. They practically outright say that they're doing it because she pissed them off.

:rofl:

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.


#108



Steven Soderburgin

just quoting this for the new page.


#109



Iaculus

Conservapedia? Seventy-five per cent of that site these days is stealth parody.

Think someone just got hoaxed.


#110

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Conservapedia? Seventy-five per cent of that site these days is stealth parody.

Think someone just got hoaxed.[/QUOTE]

Hoax or not, it's still funny. :D


#111

GasBandit

GasBandit

Except, you know, that's not what they are doing.
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."

Frankly the whole issue is a laughable farce to me, but let's not pretend they're not doing what they're doing.[/quote]

Asking other news organizations to not treat Fox news reports as news, but as editorial perspectives, while still agreeing to appear on Fox news interviews and events?[/quote]




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.
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."
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.
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 -

"A little revolution every so often is a good thing."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- - Thomas Jefferson

There was a huge stink over this movie's depiction of the assassination of dubya - which opened at the toronto film festival the DAY BEFORE the assassination occurred in the movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_President

Can we imagine what would have happened if someone had made a game where the objective was to assassinate Obama?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technolog...e-bush-assassination-videogame-virtual-jihadi

Get a load of this - http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=10846

and these - http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/04/assassination-fascination/

As for congressman, of course no democrat congressman would advocate armed uprising... unlike conservatives, the untouchable oppressiveness of government is their goal. They love government too much to advocate rebellion.

But it is the government that lives in fear of the credible threat of revolution that is most beneficial to liberty.


#112

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

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.

:facepalm:

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?


#113

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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.

Liz Cheney is a fucking coward. Softballs ahoy! The only reason her group exists is to funnel more federal dollars to Halliburton by keeping the threat of "terrorism" alive. A textbook case of Colin Powell's "terror-industrial complex" in action.

Congressmen running away from Obama-as-witch-doctor doc.

Bernie Kerik headed to jail. Bail revoked.

---------- Post added at 02:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 PM ----------

And in case I forgot, those Republicans who wailed and screamed and voted against the stimulus sure aren't shy about taking the money when it's time to hand it out.


#114

Krisken

Krisken

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.

:facepalm:

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?
It doesn't. It confuses and misdirects everyone reading it. Welcome back Gas Bandit.


#115

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

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.
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 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.


#116

GasBandit

GasBandit

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.


#117

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

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.
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. Be prepared for austerity measures in the coming decade.


#118

GasBandit

GasBandit

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.
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.

Did you know that banks were forced to take TARP funds even if they didn't want or need them, just so government could then come back later and say "you took public money, we run you now?"

---------- Post added at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------

Sarah Palin on Oprah? PALIN on OPRAH?

This is what it's like
when
worlds
COLLIDE!!

Even Obama's hometown rag is getting tired of his BS.

Harry Reid: king of medical pork.

Even a CNN poll is now showing half the country disagrees with Obama on the issues.

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?


#119

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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!


#120



Armadillo

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]

Except that she...uh...said it.


#121

Espy

Espy

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]

Except that she...uh...said it.[/QUOTE]
Yes but apparently if Fox News says anything about it it is automatically invalid. I heard them say Obama was president the other day so I expect DA to call bullshit any minute now... ;)


#122

Krisken

Krisken

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]

Except that she...uh...said it.[/quote]
Yes but apparently if Fox News says anything about it it is automatically invalid. I heard them say Obama was president the other day so I expect DA to call bullshit any minute now... ;)[/QUOTE]
I was going to respond, but then I thought "This is so absurd, Espy doesn't believe it."


#123

Espy

Espy

I don't really think it's a big deal either way to be honest, I could care less who quoted whom but I find the rabid and irrational hatred of any cable news channel hilarious.

But yes, for those wondering, my comment was... a JOKE. Humor. Funny like a clown. Can a brother get a BAD-A-TUM up in this bitch?


#124



Armadillo

Can a brother get a BAD-A-TUM up in this bitch?


#125

Espy

Espy

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.


#126

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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.


#127

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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...


#128



crono1224

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.
More like cnn continues to fact check dora the explorer. As random guessed facts still get thrown around by pundits on their actual shows.


#129

Terrik

Terrik

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]

This isn't really a hit on DA, but in the Anita Dunn thread, DA had pointed out that because the video of Dunn had come from Beck---whether or not it was her words was immaterial---'the source was crap' therefore 'the video is crap'. If GB disregards the info because it comes from Al "Air America" Franken, would it really be all that different? Honest question, really.


#130

Krisken

Krisken

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]

This isn't really a hit on DA, but in the Anita Dunn thread, DA had pointed out that because the video of Dunn had come from Beck---whether or not it was her words was immaterial---'the source was crap' therefore 'the video is crap'. If GB disregards the info because it comes from Al "Air America" Franken, would it really be all that different? Honest question, really.[/QUOTE]
I'll be honest, I'm fighting like hell to find the source where he got the information, and I haven't yet.


#131

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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.


#132

Krisken

Krisken

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.
Yeah, this I agree with too. I'm juts saying I can't find his source.


#133

Terrik

Terrik

I dont give a shit who it's coming from as long as its backed up with some sort of tangible evidence or fact. It could come from Beck, Hannity, Olberman, or Michael Moore for all I care as long as it passes the litmus test. This is why I oppose the outright dismissal of information or evidence just because it comes from someone you disagree with politically. If Franken has a source and its right, yay for him and his evidence. If Beck can prove Acorn is a corrupt organization and Anita dun carries Mao's red book around with her, then good on him.


#134

Krisken

Krisken

Terrik, one is a pundit who is always wrong. The other is a Senator. I'll take Vitter at his word before Beck, too. It's a matter of credibility.

The entire quote is this-
"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."
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.

As I said, credibility factor.


#135

Terrik

Terrik

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.


#136

Krisken

Krisken

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.
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.

Opposition is a good thing. I've said that multiple times. hell, I've even stated which opposition voices I have a respect for. However, I'm not going to pretend that these two in particular don't cater to the lowest common denominator, or that their words should be taken at face value. They most certainly should not. No more than stories from Daily Kos or Drudge Report.


#137

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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.


#138



Armadillo

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.


#139

Krisken

Krisken

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]
So, it's ok for Beck to make things up since there are crazies who do stupid shit anyways. Am I reading that right?

My counter to that would be abortion doctors don't have some of the most dangerous jobs in the country because the job itself is dangerous. It's because of hate speech.


#140

Terrik

Terrik

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.


#141



Iaculus

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.
Well, I doubt they want to make it public. Not like cyber-warfare is exactly considered a noble profession.


#142

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

China probably doesn't have the huge infrastructure set up online like we do in the US, thus making it inefficient to use cyber warfare on them. Even if that wasn't the case, considering we have military bases across the globe, it would be quite hard to prove anything was done by an American and not a local (unless we were dumb enough to set up shop in the US anyway.)


#143

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

yep.. only america has an international presence... it's nt like more then 40 million chinese live abroad or anything....
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.


#144

GasBandit

GasBandit

You guys were looking for me to dispute that the hudson chick was wrong? She was wrong. Obviously private medical bankruptcies are not going to happen as much (if at all) under socialized medicine. The issue is that socialized medicine will bankrupt our government. Oh, and cause quality of care to spin down the drain. I'd never heard of this chick until the story about Franken tearing into her.

The baucus bill's plan calls for the plundering of social security.

Hey, look at this - Senate Democrats want to address the nation's rising debt ... whether the White House (or congress) likes it or not.

The governor of the Bank of England wants to break-up the banks in order to prevent them from becoming "too big to fail."

In a few weeks, Obama is expected to sign the UN Climate Change Treaty ... which Lord Monckton says would eviscerates US sovereignty.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has decided that all non-union government workers will be forced to take nearly five working weeks of unpaid leave next year to save the city money.

Car dealers are saying that the cash for clunkers program has made it hard to find cheap, used vehicles.

The United Nations says that counterterrorism measures "risk unduly penalizing transgender persons." Are you freakin' kidding me?

Barack Obama, our CEO-in-chief has decided that companies which received the most bailout money will be forced to cut executive pay by 90%.

Yes, Mr. President: A Free Market Can Fix Health Care.

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.

House Democrats are looking at re-branding the government health insurance option as Medicare. Because, you know, Medicare is just such a shining example of a well-run government organization that hasn't cost more several times over than it was supposed to when it was passed.

Harry Reid is upset because efforts to pass his "doc fix" failed .. and it is all the fault of those Republicans! I guess I missed an election where Semocrats lost their supermajority.

Seven months after passing the economic stimulus bill - that was supposed to create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years - 49 out of 50 states have actually lost jobs. The only one, incidentally, that didn't lose jobs was North Dakota.

Well this is interesting ... Politico says that Matt Drudge is responsible for the decline of the dollar. Man, politicians would KILL for that kind of influence.

You mean to tell me that the government bailout program is going to end up costing the taxpayers more than its initial $700 billion? Gee, color me surprised.

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.

God help our men and women in uniform ... the White House says that it is exploring a "larger role" for John Kerry in Afghanistan.


#145

Krisken

Krisken

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.
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, that statement isn't politically motivated or full of fail. And people wonder why I have a hard time taking these jokers seriously.


#146

Bowielee

Bowielee

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.
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, that statement isn't politically motivated or full of fail. And people wonder why I have a hard time taking these jokers seriously.
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.


#147

GasBandit

GasBandit

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.


#148

Krisken

Krisken

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]
Good christ, this is why I had you on ignore. Sometimes I wonder what it is like living in GasBandit world.


#149

Charlie Don't Surf

The Lovely Boehner

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.
Finally, some good news! :)


#150

Krisken

Krisken

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.
Finally, some good news! :)
Well, Trojan's are the most trusted brand in America.


#151

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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.
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, that statement isn't politically motivated or full of fail. And people wonder why I have a hard time taking these jokers seriously.
Then there's this: Pat Buchanan says comparing Obama to Nixon 'idiotic'.

Geez. First Stossel and now Buchanan. What's happening to me today?

---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 PM ----------

Retired Army general: Cheney an 'incompetent war fighter'.

Also a coward who refused his country's call when it came for him as a youth.


#152

Espy

Espy

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?


#153

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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]



#154

Espy

Espy

Well, you know, more Rambo than Rocky but thats the general drift...


#155

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

I put in "John Kerry Rambo" into Google Image Search and that was the first to pop up. I figured it was close enough :D


#156

Espy

Espy

It is :)


#157

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

I'm liking Congressman Grayson more and more. Here he schools a fellow committee member on bills of attainder.

(for those with short memories, he's the "Die Quickly" Congressman from a few weeks before that got the Republican knickers in a twist.)


#158

GasBandit

GasBandit

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]
Good christ, this is why I had you on ignore. Sometimes I wonder what it is like living in GasBandit world.[/QUOTE]

I know you can't handle the truth, but your willful failure to remember the repeated instances of planted questions and astroturfed supporters is truly astounding. Every single week for months there was yet another story about yet another softball question at townhalls and press conferences from people with ties to his campaign/administration. I don't know if you're just pretending not to remember or your feeble, cartmanesque mind is just rewriting history to keep your worldview intact.


#159

Krisken

Krisken

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]
Good christ, this is why I had you on ignore. Sometimes I wonder what it is like living in GasBandit world.[/quote]

I know you can't handle the truth, but your willful failure to remember the repeated instances of planted questions and astroturfed supporters is truly astounding. Every single week for months there was yet another story about yet another softball question at townhalls and press conferences from people with ties to his campaign/administration. I don't know if you're just pretending not to remember or your feeble, cartmanesque mind is just rewriting history to keep your worldview intact.[/quote]
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.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/12/video-astroturfing-at-obamas-nh-town-hall/


#160

GasBandit

GasBandit

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.
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.

FTAs:

Repeated:
\"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?\"\"
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.



"Planted" - The little girl called upon was the daughter of an Obamabot (mom sitting right next to her in the picture in the article)... from Mom's facebook -


But yeah, that must just be a coincidence, and we would be way off base assuming there was collusion going on there. :rolleyes:
(I also love that Mom is a "fan" of Caroline Kennedy. Rofl-copter.)



Astroturfed supporters - easy enough... he BUSSED IN HIS OWN SUPPORTERS to pad the audience. What else is there to say?


#161

Krisken

Krisken

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.
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.

FTAs:

Repeated:
\"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?\"\"
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.



"Planted" - The little girl called upon was the daughter of an Obamabot (mom sitting right next to her in the picture in the article)... from Mom's facebook -


But yeah, that must just be a coincidence, and we would be way off base assuming there was collusion going on there. :rolleyes:
(I also love that Mom is a "fan" of Caroline Kennedy. Rofl-copter.)



Astroturfed supporters - easy enough... he BUSSED IN HIS OWN SUPPORTERS to pad the audience. What else is there to say?[/quote]
Done and done. I was hoping you had something substantial, but of course it is the same old tin-hat crap I hated about Daily Kos, only with a crazy Libertarian slant.

I can't believe you don't have anything new after all this time.

"Obamabot". Egads. You truly are a sad little man.


#162

GasBandit

GasBandit

Done and done. .
Victory is mine, you wimp.


#163



Iaculus

Done and done. .
Aww, come on, stay and play a little longer.

I'll be your friend...[/QUOTE]

How I immediately read this.


#164

Krisken

Krisken

Done and done. .
Aww, come on, stay and play a little longer.

I'll be your friend...[/quote]

How I immediately read this.[/QUOTE]
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.


#165

GasBandit

GasBandit

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 took your ball and went home. Rhetorical forfeit.


#166



Armadillo

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]
So, it's ok for Beck to make things up since there are crazies who do stupid shit anyways. Am I reading that right?

My counter to that would be abortion doctors don't have some of the most dangerous jobs in the country because the job itself is dangerous. It's because of hate speech.[/QUOTE]

No, no...Anita Dunn actually said she admired Mao's philosophical teachings. Mark Lloyd actually said he'd like to see private radio companies taxed at a high rate in order to subsidize public radio. Cass Sunstein actually said "in light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals.” Just because you disagree with the man politically doesn't mean he's "making things up."

And no matter what, free speech is protected, ESPECIALLY unpopular speech and thoughts. It HAS to be, since it's not terribly necessary to protect popular opinions. Until it can be shown that someone willingly incited harm onto another person with their speech, it is protected under the First Amendment. Period. Saying you think abortion is appalling or evil or whatever =/= causing the death of an abortion doctor.


#167

blotsfan

blotsfan

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.
Shouldn't take long for you to figure out.


#168

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

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).


#169

Krisken

Krisken

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.
Shouldn't take long for you to figure out.[/QUOTE]
He was arguing ad infinitim with the same stuff I already showed was meaningless.

I figured it wouldn't take you long to figure that out. I was wrong.

---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 PM ----------

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.


#170



Armadillo

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]

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.


#171

Krisken

Krisken

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]

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.[/QUOTE]
I can understand that. That's part of our opinions on the media being different, though. This is a happy 'agree to disagree' moment for us, I think.


#172



Armadillo

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]

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.[/QUOTE]
I can understand that. That's part of our opinions on the media being different, though. This is a happy 'agree to disagree' moment for us, I think.[/QUOTE]

Oh, bite me.







I mean...







Oh, bite me.







:D


#173

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

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.
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.

He then points out the extent of that hypocrisy by pointing out the depths to which the Bush administration sank to manipulate the media (as yet unequaled by the Obama administration), in many cases openly admitted by the administration, while the media establishment sat around twiddling their thumbs.

Greenwald pretty much talks about two topics: (1) the danger of the abuse of (executive and financial) power and the necessary legal steps that must be in place to prevent it, and (2) how much the mainstream media are a bunch of demonstrably dishonest, self-interested shills who pretend to be real journalists.

He's especially fond of (2).

And then he backs it all up with links.


#174

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Why do I dismiss anything Beck says as a steaming pile of dog mess? It's because of stuff like this: he's claiming Obama wants to spy on Americans via OnStar.

Glenn Beck is fucking moron. A vile, despicable, worthless piece of animal shit. A party-line-parroting hate-spewing chunk of stale vomit.

This is the guy who asked an incoming Congressman "prove to me you're not in league with our enemies" because he happened to be a Muslim. The guy who claimed the reverse of the Mercury Dime, a coin out of circulation since 1945 was proof enough to him that this is a fascist country. OTOH, the "communist" and "socialist" "symbolism" he claims that is all over Rockefeller Center is proof we're a socialist country (dude spent the better parts of at least two shows on this one, boys and girls). The guy who called Obama racist, and that he hated "white culture".

This is just him, not what some nutjob did as suggested by Beck. There's plenty of that out there.

Oh, you didn't notice that Anita Dunn was the one who first called out Fox News a week or two ago. Only then did the dogs come out. Same thing happened to the guy leading the advertiser boycott against Beck's show. Nothing said about either of them until they crossed Fox Noise.

Glenn Beck is uncouth, unethical, and un-American. Fuck Glenn Beck.

(cue the Beck-fellating posts in 3... 2... 1...) :facepalm:


#175

Krisken

Krisken

Oh, bite me.







I mean...







Oh, bite me.







:D
Remove thine beak from my wounded heart.



#176

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Y'know, I'm feeling much happier right now too. :cool:


#177



Armadillo

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'.


#178

Espy

Espy

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]

Oh wow, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were new here.


#179



Armadillo

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]

Oh wow, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were new here.[/QUOTE]

Hey there, nice to meet ya! Hell of a smoking baby you got there! What kind of mileage does it get?


#180

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

*sulk*

You guys are no fun anymore. :p

;)


#181

Krisken

Krisken

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]
No, that's why I dislike him.

Believe it or not, but DarkAudit is not my alt.


#182



Chazwozel

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.

No links today. In fact, it might be a while. I just learned that the traffic director who was supposed to be coming back has now decided she's not coming back at all, and the person who was covering for her was already gone. I may be scarce for months while we look for, hire, and I train a new traffic director.

Sometimes I think the only reason I don't start stabbing people in the face is because I'll get tired and have to go to sleep before I'm done stabbing EVERYBODY in the face and then that's when they'll get me.[/QUOTE]

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?


#183

Krisken

Krisken

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.

No links today. In fact, it might be a while. I just learned that the traffic director who was supposed to be coming back has now decided she's not coming back at all, and the person who was covering for her was already gone. I may be scarce for months while we look for, hire, and I train a new traffic director.

Sometimes I think the only reason I don't start stabbing people in the face is because I'll get tired and have to go to sleep before I'm done stabbing EVERYBODY in the face and then that's when they'll get me.[/quote]

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?[/QUOTE]
Welcome to the Political sub-forum! Please enjoy your stay. Oh, you may want to watch your step, someone left a crap ton of bad arguments on the floor and then covered it up and disguised it as genuine concern.


#184



Chazwozel

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.

No links today. In fact, it might be a while. I just learned that the traffic director who was supposed to be coming back has now decided she's not coming back at all, and the person who was covering for her was already gone. I may be scarce for months while we look for, hire, and I train a new traffic director.

Sometimes I think the only reason I don't start stabbing people in the face is because I'll get tired and have to go to sleep before I'm done stabbing EVERYBODY in the face and then that's when they'll get me.[/quote]

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?[/QUOTE]
Welcome to the Political sub-forum! Please enjoy your stay. Oh, you may want to watch your step, someone left a crap ton of bad arguments on the floor and then covered it up and disguised it as genuine concern.[/QUOTE]

Gays can marry in the U.S.? I think I'll go push for my rights to fuck sheep legally. Makes perfect sense!


#185

Covar

Covar

And crazy sheep fuckers like you are why we can't have gay marriage in this country. :p


#186

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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.

:popcorn:


#187

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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.

:popcorn:
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?


#188

GasBandit

GasBandit

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?
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.






Now, on to the present, and the future!

As many of you know, I'm a fan of Socks and Barney... they have another good one today -




So after weeks of focusing and floundering on healthcare and global warming; and ignoring the needs of our troops in Afghanistan, suddenly we get this announcement from Washington: we are going to cut top executive pay at the biggest corporations that took bailout money. Of course many Americans are now rejoicing! "Great! These evil rich people are getting exactly what they deserve!" Then, the very next day we see the White House pulling away from bearing any responsibility on the issue. Officials in the administration say that they didn't have much to do with the decision at all. It all came from one man: Kenneth Feinberg. The Pay Czar. This Obama appointee (without any sort of Congressional approval), single-handedly decided to cut CEO pay for these executives. Is Obama going to take responsibility for ANYTHING that comes out of his White House? So now the question is ... how far will this go? Just the other day, Obama also announced plans to increase lending to small businesses and give them access to rescue funds. Will Kenneth Feinberg eventually have the "authority" to slash salaries of top executives at these small businesses that take bailout funds? Let's take a closer look at this Kenneth Feinberg fellow ... how did he come to have so much "authority" that he is able to cut salaries at private corporations in this country? If you'll remember months ago, Congress decided that it wanted to crack down on millions of dollars in AIG bonuses. There was only one slight, teeny-tiny little problem - Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to do so. Then magically, Obama creates a new czar in his administration. This man would be a "special master on compensation." Ta-da! Now if the government wants to punish certain companies, all it has to do is call on its compensation czar.
Pretty clever, huh?

The day after our special master on compensation decided to slash executive pay, the Obama administration decided that it would be a good idea to clamp down on banks while we are at it. The Federal Reserve decided to curb executive pay packages "that encouraged bankers and other executives to take the kinds of reckless risks that contributed to the housing bubble." The housing bubble came from Washington, not from bank board rooms. It was Washington that told these banks that their future growth would be halted or curtailed if they didn't make sure that pretty much anyone with a pulse that wanted a home loan could get one. It was Washington that set up these extraordinary systems whereby banks could make the loans and then pass of the liability to the American taxpayers. It was WASHINGTON, not the banks, that took the reckless risks.


Goooin' up! Again. I guess the Democrats got jealous that Dubya made everybody think that the Republicans were the reckless spenders, so they've made damn sure that label stays where it belongs!


George Will explains how Obama has established the Social Security COLA as "the capstone to the architecture of the entitlement culture that is modern liberalism's crowning achievement."


The White House says that the government's economic stimulus spending has already had its biggest impact and probably won't contribute to significant growth next year. So... that was it? Aren't we glad we poured all that money down a rathole, for practically no effect whatsoever?


Where does the Constitution authorize Congress to require all Americans to carry health insurance? The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee can't answer that.


How out of touch are Republicans? This out of touch.


Healthcare is not about your health, it is about control.


The latest Gallup polls show an alarming drop in President Obama's approval ratings ... the worst drop for any president in his first year in office.



Looks like more Americans are figuring out the truth about this global warming scam.



Our Social Security system is going to come crashing down soon. Will that lead to the end of entitlement culture?



Could we be looking at a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet?


Darkaudit's favorite incompetent central Florida Representative is in trouble for bringing a poster on the House floor that could be construed as promoting his re-election campaign.


Victor Davis Hanson says that the real key to being a "popular" America seems to be to empathize with non-Western totalitarians. Hence Obama's popularity.


Our Health and Human Services Secretary says she will donate swine flu vaccinations to foreign countries before meeting US demand.


Want the latest on the ACORN video sting?


The government in Norway has decided to publish all tax returns online.



Fathers, don't let your daughters grow up to be westerners.


#189

Krisken

Krisken

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.


#190



makare

Healthcare is not about your health, it is about control.
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?

Although, what can be expected it isn't like the man's article itself is dependent on citation, reference or fact checking.


and gotta love the slippery slope fallacy at the end.

delicious.


#191



Armadillo

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.

:popcorn:
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.

So yeah, the Republicans will eat themselves as long as they continue to put up Democrat Lite candidates.


#192

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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.


#193

GasBandit

GasBandit

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.
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.

Healthcare is not about your health, it is about control.
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.

and gotta love the slippery slope fallacy at the end.
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.

---------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:13 PM ----------

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.
1) String em both up.

2) The 1st amendment is to protect private citizens against government, not to protect the government against private concerns. Douchebags.

STOP MAKING SENSE DA.


#194

Krisken

Krisken

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.
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.

[/quote][/QUOTE]
Here, since you like to ignore what is in articles except for what you want to read, I'll post it up.

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.
Here, let me help you with that...

Republicans raised ethics questions (probably pissed at being bitch slapped by a Freshman Senator)


House Ethics officials made no comment
The site was launched with personal funds
The poster was O.K.'d by the house majority leaders office (in other words, he checked to make sure it wasn't breaking rules)

So stretch away, Mr. Armstrong. There's nothing concrete about an investigation, or saying he is in trouble. It just says Republicans have their panties in a bunch.


#195

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

LOL @ the Stretch Armstrong reference.

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.
For that matter, they also fail ID Theft Laws if they don't meet the standards for parody.


#196

Krisken

Krisken

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.


#197

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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.


#198

Krisken

Krisken

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.

Nuts? Sure. Not sure why he'd be in trouble though.


#199

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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.

Nuts? Sure. Not sure why he'd be in trouble though.[/QUOTE]

To paraphrase Star Trek, the charge is mutiny, Krisken. You simply do not do such a thing via an official Army *.mil email address. It's little different than standing on a soapbox in the middle of a base urging disobedience. It's a violation of the UCMJ. Not to mention the misuse of government resources.


#200



makare

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.
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.

Healthcare is not about your health, it is about control.
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.

and gotta love the slippery slope fallacy at the end.
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.

[/QUOTE]

That's the fallacy gas. There is no other possible option for me when it comes to breathing I have to breathe there is no alternative. For government action there are about a thousand different ways the choices can go. Faulty comparison.

A legislative bill references a great deal of laws which are very long. They include various potential outcomes and the way to deal with them.
If the bill just said, everyone gets health care. Nice short and sweet it would really be ridiculous.

I do not see how comparing completely different documents with completely different applications makes any sense.


#201

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Any of you read "How to Lie with Statistics"? Certain right-wing hacks need to read it again.


#202

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

I never thought I'd agree with Michael Savage, but he's calling Fox's crying foul about being called out by the Obama administration nothing more than a ratings stunt, and Glenn Beck is stealing his act.

John McCain admits to being a total computer illiterate. So no wonder the telecoms have been able to put him in their pocket and introduce an anti-net neutrality bill.

The new McCarthyism in action: replace "Communist" with "Muslim".

Biden to Cheney: THBBPPTT!!

First John Stossel, and now Geraldo Rivera. Lou Dobbs is too crazy even for Fox.




#205

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

You know things have gotten weird when George Will, of all people, spends more time fighting with so-called "conservatives" than with the "liberal media".


#206



crono1224

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.


#207

Covar

Covar

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]
He was satirizing Dan Rather from 2004 when he forged documents on 60 minutes, as well as a CNN reporter more recently regarding the fake racist Rush comments they had been harping on the past few weeks.


#208



crono1224

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]
He was satirizing Dan Rather from 2004 when he forged documents on 60 minutes, as well as a CNN reporter more recently regarding the fake racist Rush comments they had been harping on the past few weeks.[/QUOTE]

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.

Though I am not sure if you are defending Limbaugh or just saying that everyone in media are tards. Thinking back to the one thread, I think you are defending him.


#209

Covar

Covar

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]
He was satirizing Dan Rather from 2004 when he forged documents on 60 minutes, as well as a CNN reporter more recently regarding the fake racist Rush comments they had been harping on the past few weeks.[/QUOTE]

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.

Though I am not sure if you are defending Limbaugh or just saying that everyone in media are tards. Thinking back to the one thread, I think you are defending him.[/QUOTE]
Just defending the "know he thinks it anyway" comment. Informing you that he simply took the opportunity to turn a potentially embarrassing correction into one of his satire bits.


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.
umm. ok?



#211

Terrik

Terrik

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?


#212



Armadillo

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?
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?

Second link? No mention of the RNC or the Republican Party anywhere. I don't know what exactly you were going for with this one, DA.



#214

GasBandit

GasBandit

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.
Yep, I linked that too, on the page previous to your post. Republicans aren't done shooting themselves. Over. And over. Mark my words.

Sorry I'm still not 100% here folks - I'm still playing catch-up from the 5 weeks where I was working 7 days a week (and NOT coming here) and yet falling farther behind each day.

Some links for you today though -

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.

What if dubya had done that?


Alan Grayson is wearing out his welcome with .... Democrats! His own party! A New York Democrats calls him "One fry short of a Happy Meal."

Harry Reid has officially decided that the Senate will go ahead with a government health insurance option that includes an opt-out provision for states.

Want to know more about the Senate healthcare bill that will be unveiled this week? The Wall Street Journal has the details of what we can expect.

Meanwhile, Harry Reid and the Democrats are making sure that the labor unions are happy with their healthcare bill ... concessions abound.

Medicare fraud.

Democrats. They care about you.

Charles Krauthammer says it best ... Obama's foreign policy strategy is to essentially make America one nation among the many.

Obama's healthcare reform plans rely on the idea that they will achieve both accessibility and lowering costs. One cannot work without the other. Here's why.

This attempt to institute Obamacare is an assault on our values of individual choice, personal accountability, and rewards for ambition.

When times get tough ... tax marijuana!

Barney Frank says that single-payer systems DO work .. we could be like Scandinavia!

Economists are saying that the S&P 500 is overvalued by 40% and is about to fall.

The dollar, again, has hit a 14-month low against the Euro and the Yen.

Senate Republican Lamar Alexander says that Obama is promoting a climate change bill that will deliberately kill American jobs. Barbara Boxer got her thong in a wad over that comment. (Sorry for the mental image)

Despite what the government may tell you, it is still possible for federal employees to make charitable contributions to ACORN through the government's annual workplace charity campaign.

When it comes to cable news networks, CNN has hit rock bottom.

I guess this is what they learn in journalism school nowadays.


#215

Covar

Covar

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.
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.


#216

GasBandit

GasBandit

Barney has let the cat out of the bag. Barney Frank has gone on record saying that the Democrats are trying to do everything they can to increase the role of government in your lives.

If you want to know how to scare away the achievers, just look to New York as a model. New York has managed to scare away the evil wealthy earners. You won't be surprised to learn that this is costing New York a lot of money. Over one million taxpayers have fled New York City since 2000. And of course, they were the ones paying the most taxes.

More on that "conservatives vs republicans" thing I was talking about yesterday.

Seems as though Harry Reid is gearing up to use the reconciliation tactic to get his healthcare bill passed in the Senate. This is the tactic that would require only a simple majority - fifty votes plus one - for final passage. This actually PROBABLY means that Harry Reid wants to attach the health care takeover to some budget bill. Budget bills can't be filibustered ... so they can pass on a simple majority vote. Now, let me remind you of a video from 2007. In this video you will hear Barack Obama say that we cannot pass healthcare reform using this reconciliation tactic.

Barack Obama came out with this line earlier this week for his political opponents. He says that "just because I'm skinny doesn't mean I'm not tough." If you'll recall, there was a columnist who actually proposed that referring to Obama's skinniness was racist. Timothy Noah's "When 'Skinny' Means 'Black.'"

This headline really says it all: Harry Reid is shopping for reelection insurance.

Here's an explanation as to why a health insurance mandate will make people worse off. And you thought this was all about your health?

John Kerry says that Gen. McChrystal's request for more troops is too ambitious. Why are we letting John Kerry dictate our foreign policy, again?

Our pay czar has extended his reach to now include 525 second-tier executives at the seven companies receiving "exceptional assistance" from the government.

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?

Nineteen states are now making moves to reassert your rights as individuals to make decisions about your healthcare.

The New York Times thinks that our economic problems could be solved by more economic stimulus from the federal government.

Chicago is going to pay bounty hunters to rat out businesses that cheat on their taxes.



#217

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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.


#218

GasBandit

GasBandit

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]

More like, paying them LESS would be a good idea. In my opinion, in fact, one should not be able to support themselves in politics (outside of the presidency, of course) - legislating should be a part time labor of love.


#219

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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]

More like, paying them LESS would be a good idea.[/QUOTE]

It still doesn't change the fact that they are doing it for power, not money.


#220

GasBandit

GasBandit

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]

More like, paying them LESS would be a good idea.[/quote]

It still doesn't change the fact that they are doing it for power, not money.[/QUOTE]

Which also doesn't alter that we should be paying them less.


#221

Shakey

Shakey

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]

More like, paying them LESS would be a good idea.[/quote]

It still doesn't change the fact that they are doing it for power, not money.[/QUOTE]

Which also doesn't alter that we should be paying them less.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately they get to decide for themselves how much they make.


#222

GasBandit

GasBandit

Unfortunately they get to decide for themselves how much they make.
Also part of the problem.


#223

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Unfortunately they get to decide for themselves how much they make.
Also part of the problem.[/QUOTE]

Yes, THAT needs to change.


#224

Covar

Covar

So I've been trying to think of a viable solution to this. My first thought was the obvious was have another branch of government set the others salary. However this would give rise to the ease of abuse. Veto our bill? Pay cut. Pass my legislation? Pay raise.

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?


#225

Charlie Don't Surf

The Lovely Boehner

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


#226

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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]

It's not about saving money. It's about keeping them honest... or at least as honest as you can make a politician anyway.


#227

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

After all we are the only bosses that the President and members of Congress have.
:rofl:


#228

Shakey

Shakey

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]

Why not do it every 2 years with the regular elections?

I wonder what the chances are that a raise would ever pass.



#230

Covar

Covar

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]

Why not do it every 2 years with the regular elections?

I wonder what the chances are that a raise would ever pass.[/QUOTE]
I would assume it would be done with the normal federal elections. No need to waste money on organizing more elections.

@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?


#231

GasBandit

GasBandit

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.


Ok, time for MY links :p

Gallup has found that, when you spell it out for people what it actually is to be a Libertarian, 23 percent of America is.

One of the first things you learn in Economics 101 is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Well when it comes to healthcare, Barack Obama is offering free breakfast, lunch, dinner and dessert.

Could Washington's plans to rein in executive salaries eventually result in even higher executive pay?

From Victor Davis Hanson ... All Falling Down . . .

When it comes to banking, size isn't the only thing that matters.

The White House is catching a lot of flak for giving perks to its top donors.

How's that stimulus spending working out for ya? Philadelphia was awarded $157 million in federal funds. It has only spent $1 million so far and only saved 52 jobs.

Obama signed his first defense authorization bill, only after complaining that there was too much pork spending in the bill.

Guess who is back at the government trough ... GMAC! Boy, aren't we glad we bailed them out?

The Senate has agreed to extend the first-time homebuyer tax credit.

Ethics offices in Washington are at odds with each other, so they call in Nancy Pelosi to intervene.

This one ought to get the Turbochristians charged ... scientists have been able to grow artificial sperm and eggs.

Costco says that it is now going to start accepting food stamps.

(Canadian) right wing women rock (?)!

You can't go to Switzerland to die any more.

U.S. Official resigns because he doesn't know what we're fighting for in Afghanistan any more.


#232

Espy

Espy

Oh lord I just got so much dumber. You don't actually read that website do you?


#233

Bowielee

Bowielee

Oh lord I just got so much dumber. You don't actually read that website do you?[/QUOTE]

I'm a bleeding heart liberal, and I agree with you.


#234

Espy

Espy

Oh lord I just got so much dumber. You don't actually read that website do you?[/QUOTE]

I'm a bleeding heart liberal, and I agree with you.[/QUOTE]

Seriously, I'm just... I just... I think I'm forgetting words.


#235

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

@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?
Close. But think bigger.




#237

Krisken

Krisken



#238

GasBandit

GasBandit

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.


#239

Krisken

Krisken

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]
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.


#240

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

You don't see very many white guys tied to trees and beaten to death for being white.


#241

Espy

Espy

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?


#242

Krisken

Krisken

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]
I'm going with harsher punishment is a deterrent. I know it isn't perfect, but then I don't have the answers on what the perfect solution to ending bigotry and hatred is.


#243

Espy

Espy

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]
I'm going with harsher punishment is a deterrent. I know it isn't perfect, but then I don't have the answers on what the perfect solution to ending bigotry and hatred is.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. As far as ending stuff like that, I don't see how getting sentenced to prison for 20 years for murder and getting sentenced to prison for 22 years for hateful murder really makes a difference...

Thinking about that though... isn't that reasoning the same reasoning pro-death penalty people use? Isn't that regularly dismissed by the left as a poor argument?


#244

Covar

Covar

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]

Actually it would just be state-sanctioned discrimination. Ironically the meaning of discrimination is colorblind.


#245

GasBandit

GasBandit

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.
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.

You don't see very many white guys tied to trees and beaten to death
Obviously you've never come to my place for dinner.

But, seriously, even though what you say is correct according to conventional wisdom, it is constitutionally irrelevant.

---------- Post added at 02:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

Actually it would just be state-sanctioned discrimination. Ironically the meaning of discrimination is colorblind.
Touche. I was just calling it something different because, as we all know, only white (and now, apparently straight) people can be racists.


#246

Krisken

Krisken

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]
I'm going with harsher punishment is a deterrent. I know it isn't perfect, but then I don't have the answers on what the perfect solution to ending bigotry and hatred is.[/quote]
Fair enough. As far as ending stuff like that, I don't see how getting sentenced to prison for 20 years for murder and getting sentenced to prison for 22 years for hateful murder really makes a difference...

Thinking about that though... isn't that reasoning the same reasoning pro-death penalty people use? Isn't that regularly dismissed by the left as a poor argument?[/QUOTE]
As I said, I don't have the answers. I wish I did.

---------- Post added at 02:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:50 PM ----------

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.


#247

GasBandit

GasBandit

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]

And once again we see that the true motivation of these things isn't equality - it's revenge, sometimes even if only for the sins of the father.


#248

Krisken

Krisken

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]

And once again we see that the true motivation of these things isn't equality - it's revenge, sometimes even if only for the sins of the father.[/QUOTE]
And once again we see Gas use hyperbole to further his egocentric view of how society would be perfect in his delusional world view.


#249

GasBandit

GasBandit

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]

And once again we see that the true motivation of these things isn't equality - it's revenge, sometimes even if only for the sins of the father.[/quote]
And once again we see Gas use hyperbole to further his egocentric view of how society would be perfect in his delusional world view.[/quote]

Not hyperbolic at all. You would correct an injustice by forcing an injustice, rather than forcing equality. And thanks for yet another ad hominem as well - they're like M&Ms :D


#250

Krisken

Krisken

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]

And once again we see that the true motivation of these things isn't equality - it's revenge, sometimes even if only for the sins of the father.[/quote]
And once again we see Gas use hyperbole to further his egocentric view of how society would be perfect in his delusional world view.[/quote]

Not hyperbolic at all. You would correct an injustice by forcing an injustice, rather than forcing equality. And thanks for yet another ad hominem as well - they're like M&Ms :D[/quote]
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?


#251

Bowielee

Bowielee

I sure feel sorry for all the oppression of those straight white guys. They the shaft all the time.


#252

GasBandit

GasBandit

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?
Even if it was hyperbole, which it was not, hyperbole is not a logical fallacy. Ad hominem is.

And so is...

I sure feel sorry for all the oppression of those straight white guys. They the shaft all the time.
... 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.


#253

blotsfan

blotsfan

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.


#254

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Shots fired near Lou Dobbs' house? Dude, it's hunting season, and you live where the deer are.


#255



makare

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]

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 are alot of state statutes for specific classes of person particularly under tort law like specific protection for people against becoming infected with STDs through negligence or knowing transmission.

It's just that the hate crime legislation gets the most press because it is easy to spin and people are sheep.

Hate crime legislation affects the analysis of the person's INTENT. In your hypothetical if someone comes up and hits you and the guy next to you because you both act like dicks and he doesnt like it, then you would be equally protected. If you get hit because you act like a dick and he doesn't like it. but then he hits the other guy just randomly because he is gay why shouldn't there be a harsher penalty? The law is not allowed to punish people for their status or what they are, only what they do. Why would the law not be specifically critical of criminals who kill someone because of their status?


#256

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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.


#257

blotsfan

blotsfan

I don't think everyone that said Gas was wrong was being sarcastic.


#258



JONJONAUG

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 can agree to some extent that trying to add extra sentencing time for motive (not intent, they're two different things entirely) can be pretty bullshit from case to case, but this gets a homosexual agenda a foot in the front door in Congress, which is good news even if there are problems with the idea of a hate crime act to begin with.


#259



makare

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 can agree to some extent that trying to add extra sentencing time for motive (not intent, they're two different things entirely) can be pretty bullshit from case to case, but this gets a homosexual agenda a foot in the front door in Congress, which is good news even if there are problems with the idea of a hate crime act to begin with.[/QUOTE]

Explain your use of the word intent there because from what I have learned hate crimes are issues of intent. Before I go off on a big spiel about it I want to know what you mean first.


#260

Krisken

Krisken

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 have a hard time taking someone seriously who suggests that the reason for a crime being committed should have no bearing on the sentencing of the crime.


#261

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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 have a hard time taking someone seriously who suggests that the reason for a crime being committed should have no bearing on the sentencing of the crime.[/QUOTE]

Though, to be fair, I personally believe the reason should only ADD years, not subtract them. The only justifiable homicide is self-defense.


#262



makare

Ok I need confirmation that blotsfan was actually being sarcastic because if he wasn't consider my mind completely blown.


#263



JONJONAUG

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 can agree to some extent that trying to add extra sentencing time for motive (not intent, they're two different things entirely) can be pretty bullshit from case to case, but this gets a homosexual agenda a foot in the front door in Congress, which is good news even if there are problems with the idea of a hate crime act to begin with.[/QUOTE]

Explain your use of the word intent there because from what I have learned hate crimes are issues of intent. Before I go off on a big spiel about it I want to know what you mean first.[/QUOTE]

Intent=What you intended to do.

Either way, you're committing a crime. But there's a pretty big difference between accidentally running someone over with a car and shooting them in the face after mulling it over for a week or two on how you're going to go about shooting them in the face.

Motive=Why you're doing it

Personally, I don't see why someone should get an extra ten years in jail for beating the shit out of someone because he was black rather then beating the shit out of someone because you wanted to rob them or they made advances on your girlfriend or something of that nature.


#264



makare

Under the statutes that protect classes of people, perpetrators have the general intent to injure a person of a specific type either intentionally or through negligence. he could be doing it because he hates a certain kind of person but that isn't what the issue is. The issue is the intent to hurt a specific type of person. It's about how targets are chosen.

They are not being punished because they hate a group of people, they are being punished because they intended to hurt people based on a status.

Motive is not an element of the crime of murder but intent is.


#265



Armadillo

-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.


#266

Krisken

Krisken

-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.
I said you are unreasonable. Which applies to all people who see everything in black and white.


#267



crono1224

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.

Also there are huge problems with deterrence for certain things they have been proved to not be a factor in the death penalty.

You must consider a couple things:
A) Heat of the moment you didn't think of the consequences
B) You don't think you will be caught.


#268

blotsfan

blotsfan

Well in my world murder gets you the death sentence. Doesn't matter the motivation. Motivation doesn't mean shit if you've been murdered.


#269



crono1224

Meh, you are rediculous, if you think justification doesn't exist and can't grasp the concepts that death sentence does nothing but occasionally kill innocent people.


#270



crono1224

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.
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.

For the lack of belief in reform, I guess if you kill them you can't really prove they would have committed the crime again.

But all that should be said is if one innocent person dies it should be a huge deal, from the jury that sentences to the guy who injects him.

And to the arguement if you didn't kill him he would get out and kill again, just lock him away for forever, then maybe if you are wrong in 30 years you can let him out, cause you sure as hell aren't going to ressurect him.


#271



makare

intent is a key element. motive is not. It might be a factor in premeditation but it is not a single stand alone factor in murder. Intent is.


#272

Charlie Don't Surf

The Lovely Boehner

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.


#273

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.


#274

Espy

Espy

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.[/QUOTE]
Weren't you the guys ragging on people who saw things in black and white terms?

What was it Krisken said about people who view things in such black and white terms?
I said you are unreasonable. Which applies to all people who see everything in black and white.
Thanks. That was it.


#275

GasBandit

GasBandit

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.
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.

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.
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.

After, all, if you increase the penalty for a given crime to the "hate crime" level of penalty but without the discrimination, the effect should still be the same benefit for those more at risk. To argue otherwise is to merely embrace the revenge/reparation motive, even if only subconsciously. Equal protection under the law. Equal protection. Not disproportionate protection according to status to assuage white guilt.

---------- Post added at 10:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 AM ----------

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

:twisted:


#276

Covar

Covar

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.[/QUOTE]
Weren't you the guys ragging on people who saw things in black and white terms?[/QUOTE]

That's completely different Espy. :rolleyes:


#277

Espy

Espy

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.[/QUOTE]
Weren't you the guys ragging on people who saw things in black and white terms?[/QUOTE]

That's completely different Espy. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Are you implying a double standard is in place? I am SHOCKED. SHOCKED.

I just hope charlie never has to work at a job where people could die by using their product, like... a CAR company. Or a PHARMACEUTICAL company. Or a CHEESE company. Dude's gonna have to quit within like five minutes.


#278



makare

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.
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.

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.
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.

After, all, if you increase the penalty for a given crime to the "hate crime" level of penalty but without the discrimination, the effect should still be the same benefit for those more at risk. To argue otherwise is to merely embrace the revenge/reparation motive, even if only subconsciously. Equal protection under the law. Equal protection. Not disproportionate protection according to status to assuage white guilt.

---------- Post added at 10:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 AM ----------

[/QUOTE]

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.


#279

GasBandit

GasBandit

So the health care bill clocks in at $2.2 million per word.

The US has bullied Honduras into taking their ousted president back.

Years down the road, remember when this was noted: US Admiral concerned over Chinese military buildup. You load a gun when you intend to shoot it, don't you?

It's fallacy to even think you can measure "jobs saved or created" as the Obama administration keeps claiming to do... that's like me measuring "people I haven't murdered." I should be a candidate for sainthood, or at least a Congressional Medal of Honor, for all the lives I've saved by that logic... but anyway, it turns out that the Obama admin. has overstated, by as much as 300% in some places, the number of jobs "saved or created."

But don't worry, Sting is keeping faith with the messiah. Because Celebrities know what's best for us, always.

Holy crap. This has got to be the best goddamned sauerkraut I've ever tasted. I mean.. whoa.

What's George Soros blowing $50 million on?

Planning your future? You might want to read about the highest stress, lowest pay jobs. And keep clear of them.

---------- Post added at 10:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 AM ----------

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.
It makes me giggle every time lefties accuse ME of being optimistic about humanity.

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.


#280

Covar

Covar

Damn optimists. Always assuming the best in people.


#281



makare

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.
It makes me giggle every time lefties accuse ME of being optimistic about humanity.

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.
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.

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.

Damn optimists. Always assuming the best in people.
heartless bastards do not get to speak about seeing the best in people.


#282

Covar

Covar

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.
It makes me giggle every time lefties accuse ME of being optimistic about humanity.

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.
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.

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.

Damn optimists. Always assuming the best in people.
heartless bastards do not get to speak about seeing the best in people.[/QUOTE]

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.


#283



makare

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.
prevented how? by disregarding family?


yeah that is why you dont get to talk about appreciating the best in people because you don't appreciate it or understand it.


you truly are a heartless bastard.

Also I never said the parents were going into bankruptcy I said they were going to sell their house.


#284



Iaculus

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

:twisted:
You know, there's a reason Western civilisation isn't run like the Imperium of Man.

We don't have Standard Template Constructs yet.


#285

Krisken

Krisken

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.[/quote]
Weren't you the guys ragging on people who saw things in black and white terms?[/quote]

That's completely different Espy. :rolleyes:[/quote]

Are you implying a double standard is in place? I am SHOCKED. SHOCKED.

I just hope charlie never has to work at a job where people could die by using their product, like... a CAR company. Or a PHARMACEUTICAL company. Or a CHEESE company. Dude's gonna have to quit within like five minutes.[/QUOTE]
I think what you guys are missing is we are not the same people. I have my views on things, and they have their views on things. There are degrees with which I agree with them, and degrees where I disagree. Don't be so SHOCKED. SHOCKED.


#286

Espy

Espy

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???????


#287



Armadillo

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.
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:

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.
I don't see what's to misinterpret there.

Damn optimists. Always assuming the best in people.
heartless bastards do not get to speak about seeing the best in people.
When all else fails, name-call.


#288

Krisken

Krisken

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???????
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.


#289



makare

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.
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:

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.
I don't see what's to misinterpret there. [/QUOTE]

Ive already explained why this wrong and since I hate redundancy I am not doing it again. REREAD THREAD.

Damn optimists. Always assuming the best in people.
heartless bastards do not get to speak about seeing the best in people.
When all else fails, name-call.[/QUOTE]

What failed? Anyone who would throw a sick relative away into poverty and not help them is a heartless bastard. Not so much name calling as stating the obvious.


#290

Krisken

Krisken

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.
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:

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.
I don't see what's to misinterpret there.

Damn optimists. Always assuming the best in people.
heartless bastards do not get to speak about seeing the best in people.
When all else fails, name-call.[/QUOTE]
Only when logic fails to break through the senselessness and lack of reason. :heythere:


#291

Espy

Espy

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???????
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]

I was being half serious, but I wasn't saying anything to you, just using your good point to bolster my half serious one to DA and CDS.


#292

Covar

Covar

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.
prevented how? by disregarding family?


yeah that is why you dont get to talk about appreciating the best in people because you don't appreciate it or understand it.


you truly are a heartless bastard.

Also I never said the parents were going into bankruptcy I said they were going to sell their house.[/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.
Silly me, how could I have ever have gotten the idea that you said they were going into bankruptcy.


#293

GasBandit

GasBandit

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:

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.
I don't see what's to misinterpret there.
Ive already explained why this wrong and since I hate redundancy I am not doing it again. REREAD THREAD.



[/QUOTE]


There, that rounds that off nicely.


makare said:
heartless bastards
Appeal to emotion ftw?


#294



makare

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.
prevented how? by disregarding family?


yeah that is why you dont get to talk about appreciating the best in people because you don't appreciate it or understand it.


you truly are a heartless bastard.

Also I never said the parents were going into bankruptcy I said they were going to sell their house.[/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.
Silly me, how could I have ever have gotten the idea that you said they were going into bankruptcy.[/QUOTE]

the subject is clearly my mom's friend son. I said nothing about his parents.


#295

Covar

Covar

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.
prevented how? by disregarding family?


yeah that is why you dont get to talk about appreciating the best in people because you don't appreciate it or understand it.


you truly are a heartless bastard.

Also I never said the parents were going into bankruptcy I said they were going to sell their house.[/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.
Silly me, how could I have ever have gotten the idea that you said they were going into bankruptcy.[/QUOTE]

the subject is clearly my mom's friend son. I said nothing about his parents.[/QUOTE]

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 arguement.


#296

GasBandit

GasBandit

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?


#297



makare

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?
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.

the subject is clearly my mom's friend son. I said nothing about his parents.
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]

Yeah I should have said he but since the subject is my mom's friend son I dont see why you would assume the they refers to the parents plural more than a plural regarding the son.


#298

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.[/QUOTE]
Weren't you the guys ragging on people who saw things in black and white terms?

What was it Krisken said about people who view things in such black and white terms?
I said you are unreasonable. Which applies to all people who see everything in black and white.
Thanks. That was it.[/QUOTE]

I think you missed my point. Governor Perry of Texas has been "So what? We killed the fuck and that's that." and has done all he can to derail any investigation into whether or not Texas really did execute an innocent man. The sheer arrogance with with he's done it just turns one's stomach.


#299

GasBandit

GasBandit

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.
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!"

What you've demonstrated nicely is the leftist tendency toward the criminalization of thought. Crimes are actions, not thoughts. The action is what is being punished. You can't make people stop hating by reinforcing their hatred through unjust and unequal application of protection by law. If anything, you will only exacerbate the feelings of hate.

---------- Post added at 01:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:54 PM ----------

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.
Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.[/quote]
Weren't you the guys ragging on people who saw things in black and white terms?

What was it Krisken said about people who view things in such black and white terms?
I said you are unreasonable. Which applies to all people who see everything in black and white.
Thanks. That was it.[/quote]

I think you missed my point. Governor Perry of Texas has been "So what? We killed the fuck and that's that." and has done all he can to derail any investigation into whether or not Texas really did execute an innocent man. The sheer arrogance with with he's done it just turns one's stomach.[/quote]
His point was that saying "if capital punishment kills 1 innocent man then it is unacceptable," is putting things in very black and white terms. You apparently agree that it is black and white, and that it's ok for THIS to be a black and white ascertainment, but not other things. So much for shades of grey.


#300



makare

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.
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!"

What you've demonstrated nicely is the leftist tendency toward the criminalization of thought. Crimes are actions, not thoughts. The action is what is being punished. You can't make people stop hating by reinforcing their hatred through unjust and unequal application of protection by law. If anything, you will only exacerbate the feelings of hate.

[/QUOTE]

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.


#301

blotsfan

blotsfan

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.


#302

Charlie Don't Surf

The Lovely Boehner

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]

What. I'm not saying let everyone on Death Row out of prison.


#303

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

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]

What. I'm not saying let everyone on Death Row out of prison.[/QUOTE]

If we close Guantanamo, we'll be releasing hundreds of terrorists onto American soil!!


#304

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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]

What. I'm not saying let everyone on Death Row out of prison.[/QUOTE]

If we close Guantanamo, we'll be releasing hundreds of terrorists onto American soil!![/QUOTE]

Actually... if it ever did come down to releasing the prisoners in Guantanamo, we'd basically be setting them adrift on a boat at sea. Most of their countries of origin are unwilling to take them back. Only the most blatantly innocent have been allowed back into their countries of origin.


#305

Bowielee

Bowielee

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]

And here I was mistaken that our justice system was supposed to be centered around protecting the innocent... silly me.


#306

Krisken

Krisken

Before panties get twisted, no, those are not the men you are looking for

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.

Thought it might be nice to nip this before someone says these controversial figures were at the White House.


#307



crono1224

While tech I agree that hate crimes are excessive and 'shouldn't' occur because assault is assault is assault, you must then ask yourself if there is greater crimes for attacking children, then you say they can't defend themselves as well, so the next question becomes at what age, then the last question is why, do children develope exactly at the same age?

It's a bunch of bullshit no one is going to be able to answer.

But regardless yes, killing one innocent man is worth letting them go free..... TO JAIL FOR LIFE fuck me, people act like if you don't kill them they will be out raping your mom and shitting on your dad.


#308

Eriol

Eriol

And here I was mistaken that our justice system was supposed to be centered around protecting the innocent... silly me.
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!



#310

Espy

Espy

So this fun little "pro-rape" thing is this years "pro-baby killing" huh?


#311

Krisken

Krisken

So this fun little "pro-rape" thing is this years "pro-baby killing" huh?
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."

I don't understand clauses like the ones people who work for these companies overseas are asked to sign. It's like asking people to be indentured servants without rights. I think companies working for the United States overseas should still be subject to the laws here, including OSHA requirements and basic human rights (like the right to work for a company in another country and not get raped by other employees and have it covered up by the company).


#312

Covar

Covar

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.


#313

Krisken

Krisken

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?


#314

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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.


#315

Covar

Covar

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]
OSHA Standards = absurd
Rape by company = bring on the lawsuits.


#316

Krisken

Krisken

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]
OSHA Standards = absurd
Rape by company = bring on the lawsuits.[/QUOTE]
OSHA standards would have kept American Soldiers from being electrocuted by faulty wiring in showers in Iraq.

I can't imagine anyone who has been protected by OSHA standards calling them absurd. Work a blue collar job once and maybe you'll understand how important some of those standards are.


#317

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

So the standards that would have kept 18 soldiers from dying in the barracks showers is "absurd"?

Go tell the families of those 18 that the standards that would have kept them alive is absurd.


#318

GasBandit

GasBandit

An excellent summary of the current American political situation, from a UK perspective - particularly the last paragraph about the woeful two party system.

I don't know what is more astounding... that Newsweek is giving Karl Rove space to talk about why cap and trade is bad, or that CNN is publishing an opinion that all government subsidized health care is bad. Through the looking glass, we are.

Medicare fraud: $60 Billion annually. Annual profits of top ten insurance companies combined: $8 billion. Hrmmmmm.

Barney Frank's legislation in the House affirms the assumption that too-big-to-fail is not only a reality but a reality that should be acknowledged in law. Frank also wants financial institutions to pay into a pre-funded trust that would cover the cost of a government takeover, if ever necessary again.

Healthcare reform has become nothing more than a cheesy Washington soap opera starring Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

This week will test Obama's political clout, where Obama has endorsed threatened Democrat candidates up for re-election in Virginia, New York and New Jersey.

Is this what President Obama meant when he said this would be the most "transparent administration in history"? Rather than coming up with plausible lies, the administration seems to be fine using the transparent kind.

A simple calculator could figure out that the taxpayers have spent $160,000 per job "created/saved" by Obama's stimulus plan. But the White House calls this "calculator abuse."

Federal banking regulators seized nine more banks.

One of our favorite brain dead politicians is under full-scale investigation by the House ethics committee. With great "who the $#@^ are you, you nobody? I'm Maxine F%$#ing Waters!" pic.

Taxpayer funded studies on how Congressmen can avoid constituents. Sounds about right.

The dollar continues to fall. Time to start learning chinese?

Not exactly political, but - punches thrown in the Washington Post newsroom! Fight! Fight! Fight! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

---------- Post added at 02:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------

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.
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.


#319



makare

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.


#320

Krisken

Krisken

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]
Didn't you hear? Repeating your argument ad nauseum without supplying new points or information is how to win arguments here! Even if it's already been proven incorrect.


#321

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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]
Didn't you hear? Repeating your argument ad nauseum without supplying new points or information is how to win arguments here! Even if it's already been proven incorrect.[/QUOTE]

So you're saying GB is our version of Goebbels? Sounds about right.


#322

GasBandit

GasBandit

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]
Didn't you hear? Repeating your argument ad nauseum without supplying new points or information is how to win arguments here! Even if it's already been proven incorrect.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, are you referring to me, or to her? Because the information I supplied was the 14th amendment of the constitution, which is pretty clear on the issue, and it was basically dismissed with a "nuh-uh!"

makare - YOU say it's not unjust and it's not unconstitutional, despite the constitution's 14th amendment clearly stipulating that the law must be applied EQUALLY. Not unequally in case of minority crime. You just say it isn't unjust and unconstitutional because you don't want it to be.

1) The constitution says equal protection for all under the law.
2) Hate crime law applies penalties/protections to SOME but not all.
ergo,
3) Hate crime law is unconstitutional. QED.


#323



makare

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]
Didn't you hear? Repeating your argument ad nauseum without supplying new points or information is how to win arguments here! Even if it's already been proven incorrect.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, are you referring to me, or to her? Because the information I supplied was the 14th amendment of the constitution, which is pretty clear on the issue, and it was basically dismissed with a "nuh-uh!"

makare - YOU say it's not unjust and it's not unconstitutional, despite the constitution's 14th amendment clearly stipulating that the law must be applied EQUALLY. Not unequally in case of minority crime. You just say it isn't unjust and unconstitutional because you don't want it to be.

1) The constitution says equal protection for all under the law.
2) Hate crime law applies penalties/protections to SOME but not all.
ergo,
3) Hate crime law is unconstitutional. QED.[/QUOTE]

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.


#324



Armadillo

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.

Equal protection MEANS equal application! People of differing races, genders, sexual orientations, or whatever the hell other trait you want to apply are seen as equals in the eyes of the law. As Gas has said numerous times, once you start applying the law differently based on physical traits, you run afoul of this clause. Punish the ACTION, not the THOUGHT.

Also, you've mentioned before that hate crime law "evens it up" or something to that effect. Well, when will the situation have been "evened-up" enough for hate crime statutes to be no longer "neccessary?" Is there a benchmark, or is this an open-ended thing, destined to continue no matter how many generations removed we become from slavery, Jim Crow, or any other inequity in our past?


#325

Krisken

Krisken

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.

Equal protection MEANS equal application! People of differing races, genders, sexual orientations, or whatever the hell other trait you want to apply are seen as equals in the eyes of the law. As Gas has said numerous times, once you start applying the law differently based on physical traits, you run afoul of this clause. Punish the ACTION, not the THOUGHT.

Also, you've mentioned before that hate crime law "evens it up" or something to that effect. Well, when will the situation have been "evened-up" enough for hate crime statutes to be no longer "neccessary?" Is there a benchmark, or is this an open-ended thing, destined to continue no matter how many generations removed we become from slavery, Jim Crow, or any other inequity in our past?[/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....

It's ok. I don't expect you to understand what it's like to not be a white male. I'll never understand either. If you could walk a mile in their shoes, I imagine you'd be singing a different tune though.


#326



makare

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.

Equal protection MEANS equal application! People of differing races, genders, sexual orientations, or whatever the hell other trait you want to apply are seen as equals in the eyes of the law. As Gas has said numerous times, once you start applying the law differently based on physical traits, you run afoul of this clause. Punish the ACTION, not the THOUGHT.

Also, you've mentioned before that hate crime law "evens it up" or something to that effect. Well, when will the situation have been "evened-up" enough for hate crime statutes to be no longer "neccessary?" Is there a benchmark, or is this an open-ended thing, destined to continue no matter how many generations removed we become from slavery, Jim Crow, or any other inequity in our past?[/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.


#327

Terrik

Terrik

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)
Not always, mind you -_-

Damned Beijing taxi drivers.



I do agree with makare to a point. Legislation does change as needed. Look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964===its purpose was to expand the reach of, and enforce the 14th amendment. The amendment was there but the law wasn't adequate to meet the current needs.


#328



Armadillo

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.

Equal protection MEANS equal application! People of differing races, genders, sexual orientations, or whatever the hell other trait you want to apply are seen as equals in the eyes of the law. As Gas has said numerous times, once you start applying the law differently based on physical traits, you run afoul of this clause. Punish the ACTION, not the THOUGHT.

Also, you've mentioned before that hate crime law "evens it up" or something to that effect. Well, when will the situation have been "evened-up" enough for hate crime statutes to be no longer "neccessary?" Is there a benchmark, or is this an open-ended thing, destined to continue no matter how many generations removed we become from slavery, Jim Crow, or any other inequity in our past?[/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....

It's ok. I don't expect you to understand what it's like to not be a white male. I'll never understand either. If you could walk a mile in their shoes, I imagine you'd be singing a different tune though.[/QUOTE]

EDIT: WAY too angry of a response. You pushed a HUGE button of mine, pal. I'll let it slide this time, but next time let's try to avoid the "you're a white male so you don't get it" bullshit, shall we?

---------- Post added at 04:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 AM ----------

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.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I just flat out don't agree with you.


#329

Krisken

Krisken

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.

Equal protection MEANS equal application! People of differing races, genders, sexual orientations, or whatever the hell other trait you want to apply are seen as equals in the eyes of the law. As Gas has said numerous times, once you start applying the law differently based on physical traits, you run afoul of this clause. Punish the ACTION, not the THOUGHT.

Also, you've mentioned before that hate crime law "evens it up" or something to that effect. Well, when will the situation have been "evened-up" enough for hate crime statutes to be no longer "neccessary?" Is there a benchmark, or is this an open-ended thing, destined to continue no matter how many generations removed we become from slavery, Jim Crow, or any other inequity in our past?[/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....

It's ok. I don't expect you to understand what it's like to not be a white male. I'll never understand either. If you could walk a mile in their shoes, I imagine you'd be singing a different tune though.[/quote]

EDIT: WAY too angry of a response. You pushed a HUGE button of mine, pal. I'll let it slide this time, but next time let's try to avoid the "you're a white male so you don't get it" bullshit, shall we?

---------- Post added at 04:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 AM ----------

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.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I just flat out don't agree with you.[/QUOTE]
Why, are you a black woman?


#330



crono1224

white people are revered some where? Man that shits went out of style long ago here.


#331

Terrik

Terrik

Damned Beijing taxi drivers.
I've never had a problem with a taxi in Beijing. were you trying to catch a cab near Tiananmen?

but this damn H1N1 thing made everyone check my temperature (while ignoring the Chinese people around me)[/QUOTE]

Qianmen area mostly. Im also not use to the Beijing system (restricted pick up areas, for instance)--or the fact that I've had taxi drivers tell me to "Take a bus"..and yes, the H1N1 thing is ridiculous.. surprisingly happens far, far less in Tianjin. I've had taxi drivers in Beijing tell me that they won't pick up foreigners because they think H1N1 is a foreigner disease and they don't want to catch it.

white people are revered some where? Man that shits went out of style long ago here.
I'm tellin' ya Crono--find a school asap :p


#332



JONJONAUG

So this guy here is running for Congress in North Carolina and OH GOD MY EYES.

http://www.georgehutchins.com/


#333

Terrik

Terrik

Surely this is a joke


#334

Espy

Espy

So this guy here is running for Congress in North Carolina and OH GOD MY EYES.

http://www.georgehutchins.com/
IT BURNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


#335

Covar

Covar

HOT DAMN THAT'S MY DISTRICT!

:rofl:


#336

Charlie Don't Surf

The Lovely Boehner

hey is this the go to thread to laugh at republicans


because




holy shit



#337

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Wow... that is fucked up.


#338

Krisken

Krisken

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.

Hey Covar, since it's your district, can you verify this?


#339

Krisken

Krisken

Joe "You Lie!" Wilson says Obama is responsible for shortage of H1N1 vaccine. even though he voted against increased funding for vaccines.


#340

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Told ya the GOP has no real use for latinos.

Or Senator Olympia Snowe. What would they say about folks like Nelson Rockefeller today? Denounced and denied I would guess.

And here goes Fox again. Not covering news, but organizing anti-government protests.

And that big "ratings jump" that Fox Noise allegedly got? The real numbers say different.


#341

Covar

Covar

near as I can tell he's not legit, as a Republican Candidate at least. At the very least he hasn't been picked up by local news, and there's connections to his page from a National Independents Movement party.

My Guess. Either a really complex hoax or a cook third party.


#342



makare

legitimate or not, dear god, someone send that guy a web designer that is not on acid. thank you.


#343

Bowielee

Bowielee

Joe \"You Lie!\" Wilson says Obama is responsible for shortage of H1N1 vaccine. even though he voted against increased funding for vaccines.
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.

I know it's a time honored political tradition, but calling someone on the carpet for naying on a bill which has a rider they do agree with (though I'm not saying that he did) seems even more hypocritical, IMO.

I know this is hyperbole, but say they introduce a bill abolishing slavery with a rider that it will also abolish abortion.

Saying yay to that bill doesn't necessarily mean that you're anti abortion, but more that you're anti slavery.


#344

GasBandit

GasBandit

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....
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.

It's very simple though to address the other things you mentioned though. Increase the penalty for dragging to death or hanging nooses or any other kind of such activity, WITHOUT MAKING MENTION OF RACE anywhere in the legislation. Voila.

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.
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.


#345



makare

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....
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.

It's very simple though to address the other things you mentioned though. Increase the penalty for dragging to death or hanging nooses or any other kind of such activity, WITHOUT MAKING MENTION OF RACE anywhere in the legislation. Voila.

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.
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]

in the hate crime 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.


#346

Covar

Covar

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....
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]

Don't bother Gas, the song even says were every criticism comes from.


#347

GasBandit

GasBandit

The New York tiff between Republicans and Conservatives continue - Dede Sco.. Scozti.. Scozza... the RINO has dropped out and polls show the "Conservative" candidate in the lead. This has led to what politico is now calling a Republican Civil War. Things are neck and neck in New Jersey, a historically bluer-than-blue state, and looking close in Virginia as well despite Obama heavily pushing and campaigning for the Democrat.

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.

Harry Reid has some gonads. He is accusing the Republicans of not having any healthcare plans, when he himself technically does not have a completed healthcare bill to show the world. Last week, he sent off pieces of healthcare legislation for a CBO cost analysis. So the Republicans said they wanted to see the bill that he sent to the CBO. Well the truth of the matter is that this bill hasn't even been written yet. Unfortunately for Harry, there have been some Republican submitted health care plans. Me, I wonder why the republicans are even an issue, seeing as how the Democrats have an unassailable majority. What's stopping Obamacare is not Republicans, it's swing state Democrats that are reluctant to toe the ultraleftist party line Pelosi and Reid are demanding.

While the big battles are being fought in Washington, Democrats are quietly racking up smaller victories that have been on their wish lists for years. The Wall Street Journal has more.

Do you wonder why Al Gore refuses to debate the global warming nonsense? Could it possibly be because he has a huge financial stake in promoting this fraud?

Seems that the voters in Iowa are starting to figure out that they were conned by this hopey-changey thingy. And if you're still signed-in to Obama's hopey-changey message, for goodness' sake don't read this. You don't want to find out that to The Community Organizer, it's all about money .. money flowing his way.

Jeremiah Wright is back in the news. This time over a video where he praises Marxism. Sounds about right.

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.

And then we get this news ... Taxpayers are unlikely to recover their full investment in General Motors or Chrysler.

Has anyone read the Copenhagen agreement? What exactly are we about to get ourselves into.

Hillary Clinton is doing a bangup job of handling the Middle East peace process. Or not ...

Obama says he wants to get serious about creating jobs. Wait, wasn't that what his economic stimulus package was for?

A report from the Congressional Research Service shows that the United States has the largest energy reserves on Earth. But because of our government, we can't do a darn thing about it.

What does immigration enforcement have to do with national security? Here's something the Democrats (and Republicans) don't want you to see.

An analysis found that 3 million registered voters are dead and 12 million are ineligible to vote.

The government of Venezuela is having to ration water, and the leftists blame this on ... capitalism??

A massive wind energy project off the coast of Massachusetts could be held up indefinitely because ... it could harm the rituals of a local Indian tribe.

Is a Muslim headscarf considered a hat? Here's a story from Dallas that has the Muslims in a rage.







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.


#348



makare

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.

Well if there is a way to win or lose this argument, with that stupid comment you just lost. Good day sir.


#349

GasBandit

GasBandit

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.

Well if there is a way to win or lose this argument, with that stupid comment you just lost. Good day sir.[/quote]

To quote Krisken - you wish.



makare1 said:
Good day sir.


#350



makare

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.

Well if there is a way to win or lose this argument, with that stupid comment you just lost. Good day sir.[/QUOTE]

To quote Krisken - you wish.[/QUOTE]

I said good day.


#351

GasBandit

GasBandit

Well if there is a way to win or lose this argument, with that stupid comment you just lost. Good day sir.
To quote Krisken - you wish.
I said good day.

FTFY.


#352



makare

:blue: so sad the impotent baying of the loser. Breaks my heart.


#353

Covar

Covar

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.
Robert Gibbs makes me ashamed of my University.

\"GasBandit\" said:
Jeremiah Wright is back in the news. This time over a video where he praises Marxism. Sounds about right.
Every week for 20 years and not a word heard. :rolleyes:

\"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.
Good thing they're not making things like Trucks and SUVs that no one wants.

\"GasBandit\" said:
And then we get this news ... Taxpayers are unlikely to recover their full investment in General Motors or Chrysler.
what's next? The earth is round?

\"GasBandit\" said:
Obama says he wants to get serious about creating jobs. Wait, wasn't that what his economic stimulus package was for?
pfft, clearly you know nothing about economics.

\"GasBandit\" said:
An analysis found that 3 million registered voters are dead and 12 million are ineligible to vote.
pfft, everyone knows that rigging the electronic machines are the way to go.

\"GasBandit\" said:
The government of Venezuela is having to ration water, and the leftists blame this on ... capitalism??
:confused: I've got nothing.


#354

GasBandit

GasBandit

:blue: Nuh uh!
Yuh huh.


#355

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Yep it's election time, and the right automatically screams fraud. :pud:


#356

GasBandit

GasBandit

Yep it's election time, and the right automatically screams fraud. :pud:
The Diebold corporation just called, they said your extra strength irony shipment is ready.


#357

Krisken

Krisken

Oh, Rep. Virginia Foxx. If I had time, I'd start my blog of crazy shit people say with you, my dear.


#358

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Yep it's election time, and the right automatically screams fraud. :pud:
The Diebold corporation just called, they said your extra strength irony shipment is ready.[/QUOTE]

You're the last guy who should be mentioning Diebold.


#359

GasBandit

GasBandit

Yep it's election time, and the right automatically screams fraud. :pud:
The Diebold corporation just called, they said your extra strength irony shipment is ready.[/quote]

You're the last guy who should be mentioning Diebold.[/QUOTE]

Why do you think I mentioned it? Last decade or so the instant screams of FRAUD!! have been coming from the LEFT, not the right.


#360



Iaculus

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?


#361

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Oh, Rep. Virginia Foxx. If I had time, I'd start my blog of crazy shit people say with you, my dear.
Nah. She's just a despicable human being. Really the lowest of the low.

You can't go any further after you denounce the memory of a murder victim. In public. While the victim's mother is in the gallery.


#362

Krisken

Krisken

Yep it's election time, and the right automatically screams fraud. :pud:
The Diebold corporation just called, they said your extra strength irony shipment is ready.[/quote]

You're the last guy who should be mentioning Diebold.[/quote]

Why do you think I mentioned it? Last decade or so the instant screams of FRAUD!! have been coming from the LEFT, not the right.[/QUOTE]
I have a link that calls you a liar too.

http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/


#363

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Yep it's election time, and the right automatically screams fraud. :pud:
The Diebold corporation just called, they said your extra strength irony shipment is ready.[/quote]

You're the last guy who should be mentioning Diebold.[/QUOTE]

Why do you think I mentioned it? Last decade or so the instant screams of FRAUD!! have been coming from the LEFT, not the right.[/QUOTE]

Liar.


#364

Krisken

Krisken

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.


#365

GasBandit

GasBandit

Oh, Rep. Virginia Foxx. If I had time, I'd start my blog of crazy shit people say with you, my dear.
Nah. She's just a despicable human being. Really the lowest of the low.

You can't go any further after you denounce the memory of a murder victim. In public. While the victim's mother is in the gallery.[/QUOTE]

Which is not what she did.

From your article -

"I also would like to point out that there was a bill -- the hate crimes bill that's called the Matthew Shepard bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. This -- the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills," said Foxx.

You can argue whether or not she was wrong in ascertaining the motive of the murder (she said he was killed as part of the robbery and just so happened to be gay, not killed BECAUSE he was gay), but you paint a picture of Foxx extending her middle finger to the gallery and saying "Your fag son deserved to die!"

Not quite how it went down.


#366



Iaculus

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]

Man, and you didn't even try to use the bridge as a fuel source? Think of the fourm, people! THE FORUM.


#367

Krisken

Krisken

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]

Man, and you didn't even try to use the bridge as a fuel source? Think of the fourm, people! THE FORUM.[/QUOTE]
Shit, I thought we could harvest the windbaggery here as a fuel source!


#368

GasBandit

GasBandit

Yep it's election time, and the right automatically screams fraud. :pud:
The Diebold corporation just called, they said your extra strength irony shipment is ready.[/quote]

You're the last guy who should be mentioning Diebold.[/quote]

Why do you think I mentioned it? Last decade or so the instant screams of FRAUD!! have been coming from the LEFT, not the right.[/quote]

Liar.
[/QUOTE]

You linked Talking Points Memo. I'm going to remember that next time you accuse me of just parroting talking points. Grats on losing one of your favorite fallacious lines of attack.

Second of all - all but one of the items in that link are talking about ONE RACE. The one left out is from way back in 1993. Leftists called fraud in every election pretty much from 2000 to 2008. And you know it... because you've been right here screaming yourself hoarse about it since the day you registered.

This is really a textbook case of attempted distraction by the pot trying to call the kettle black

---------- Post added at 02:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 PM ----------

Late addition to today's links - Even Arianna Huffington wants to know what happened to the hope and change and audacity and whatnot?


#369

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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. :Leyla:


#370

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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. :Leyla:
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!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M52Dep_Ht9I[/ame]

I mean honestly... it's a fucking casino. Yes, crime may go up. You know what? Crime is ALREADY out of control here in Ohio. A fucking Casino isn't going to make it much worse than it already is.


#371



JONJONAUG

The government of Venezuela is having to ration water, and the leftists blame this on ... capitalism??
There's a pretty big difference between most leftists and Hugo Chavez.

Also, the comments for that article are hilarious.


#372

SpecialKO

SpecialKO



#373

DarkAudit

DarkAudit



#374

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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.


#375



Armadillo

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.
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.

Oh, and somehow I doubt that an avowed left-winger has conservatives' best interests at heart when you dispense such advice.


#376

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

If it didn't matter, what the smurf were Gingrich, Palin, Pawlenty, Armey, Malkin, Limbaugh, and Beck doing there? It sure as hell mattered to them. Gloating over gaining a seat that would have easily gone red if the national wingnuttery had butted out? HELLS YEAH!

The governors races were done deals weeks ago. There were no surprises there. This was the battle for who leads the Republicans. The current answer is NO ONE. The infighting cost them the safest of all safe seats. Can you even grasp the significance of that?

:popcorn:


#377

Charlie Don't Surf

The Lovely Boehner

I was actually hoping the wingnuts would win, and cause the Republican party to go even crazier heading into the midterms


#378



Armadillo

What's amusing is that the NY-23 race was being billed as a battle between "moderates" and "far-right" Republicans. Calling Dede Scozzafava a "moderate" is being kind on an epic scale. She was endorsed by both ACORN and Andrew Martin, founder of the Daily Kos. She supported card check, the stimulus, and the Democrats' health-care reforms (although not the public option, to her credit.) After she dropped out, she wasted no time endorsing the Democrat. Folks, that's not a "moderate Republican," that's a liberal. The battle here isn't between rational people and Bible-thumping crazies like some would have you believe, it's to determine whether the Republicans want to continue being "Democrat Lite" or actually become a conservative party. 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.

EDIT: Some of the quotes I've read online confirm my theory that the quickest way to be called "crazy" or a "wingnut" is to quote the Constitution or the Founding Fathers.



#380



Armadillo



#381

Espy

Espy

So...blackmail then? But it's all good because SHE DOEZN'T LIK TEH GAYZ!!![/QUOTE]

Either way, the sooner that girl disappears from the public spotlight the better.


#382



Armadillo

So...blackmail then? But it's all good because SHE DOEZN'T LIK TEH GAYZ!!![/QUOTE]

Either way, the sooner that girl disappears from the public spotlight the better.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I agree. But blackmail? REALLY? And SHE'S the bad guy in all of this?



#384

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Andrew Martin, founder of the Daily Kos.
DKos was founded by Markos Moulitsas, FYI.

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.
Unlikely, Hoffman was backed by folks who really don't care about any of that stuff as long as its a "Conservative" in office.

And by the way, actual voting records suggest that Scozzafava kind of was.



#386



Armadillo

Andrew Martin, founder of the Daily Kos.
DKos was founded by Markos Moulitsas, FYI.[/quote]

Whoops. You're right, it was Moulitsas who endorsed Scozzafava. So the point still stands, but now I have to figure out where I got Andrew Martin from.


#387

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Andrew Martin, founder of the Daily Kos.
DKos was founded by Markos Moulitsas, FYI.[/quote]

Whoops. You're right, it was Moulitsas who endorsed Scozzafava. So the point still stands, but now I have to figure out where I got Andrew Martin from.[/QUOTE]

I was wondering that. I found a couple guys who ran for congress is random districts, but no one who rises to the level of nationally-prominent political figure or pundit...


#388

GasBandit

GasBandit

I have to chuckle at how shrill and maniacal DA's getting in his posts. Yelling, screaming, repeating the same word over again. If I didn't know better, I'd think he was a Republican trying to portray a stereotypical left wing nutcase stereotype.

I'm especially laughing at how he thinks the New York special election was a crushing defeat for the right, when the stated purpose was exactly what happened - Conservatives would rather guarantee a Democrat the seat than elect another Liberal in Republican clothing. Yeah, the Liberals can have that little NY district... they just lost the governorship of freaking Super-Uber-Blue NEW JERSEY. Big victory there, Democrats :rolleyes:

What you didn't get was chasing that New York district into democrat hands was exactly what needed to be done. The Republican party is sick, diseased and hypocritical. It needs to be beaten and beaten and continued to be absolutely beaten down like a rented mule so long as it continues to put up candidates that are simply "Diet Democrats."

The idiots who constantly harp on the media about how the Republican party is further marginalizing itself by "chasing out all the moderates" are making 2 critical mistakes - 1) they weren't moderates, they were RINOs, and 2) pandering to moderates never won the Republicans anything, in fact it lost them the 2008 election. What energizes people to vote republican is when they actually go hardcore conservative. Reagan didn't get Elected twice by appealing to the Lindsey Grahams and Olympia Snowes of the world... he got elected twice by taking a hard conservative stance.

Well, let's get some links going, I suppose - Sorry for my continued absences, training 3 people at work here and sometimes it horns in on my free time :p

Did you know that Nancy Pelosi thinks that she and her fellow Democrats are ready to vote on a bill even though they don't know the price tag?

Senate Democrats have blocked a Republican attempt to require the next census forms to ask people whether they are a U.S. citizen.

For any of the scientists who do not buy into this global warming scam, Barack Obama says "We'll just have to deal with those people."

Spending in Washington right now isn't all thanks to Democrats. Republicans have had their share of earmarks lately.

How does the government pay to extend unemployment benefits? It extends a federal unemployment tax on employers. THAT'LL get them hiring again :rolleyes:

In the aftermath of the government's cash for clunkers program, we learned that people who traded in their pickup trucks traded them in for ... pickup trucks.

Looks like Russia is gearing up for round two in a war with Georgia.

It's already time for these stories again ... Christmas tree vs. holiday tree.

Consider yourself warned. Two Republicans in the House yesterday warned the Obama administration that Congress cannot bailout the Financial Housing Administration. Rep. Darrell Issa and Rep. Spencer Bachus released a letter warning that if Washington does not take swift action to address the problems of the FHA, it may result in another massive taxpayer-funded bailout, which we cannot afford. First it was Fannie and Freddie. The next big shoe to drop is the FHA. One quarter of all home loans made this year were through the FHA, and 80% of those loans were to first-time home buyers. But the FHA may be in need of a bailout after suffering losses of $54 billion. And how does this happen? By making loans to people who can't afford to pay them. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

A list from the Politico: Obama's best, and worst, moves so far.

Did you know that CBO estimates on Pelosicare assume that the government will collect $167 billion over the next ten years from people who fail to buy insurance?

This is government ... a House panel set up to "bring meaningful change" to earmark reform has done nothing in last year except request more earmarks.

Some pundits believe that these elections this week showed that Democrats have lost the middle class vote, unless they get spending under control.

Barbara Boxer continues to work on her climate change bill in committee .. by herself.

The blog Big Hollywood has uncovered more videos of government school children singing the praises of Barack Obama. They are officially calling it an epidemic.

Apparently getting a raise in salary is considered a 'job saved' according to the federal government.

How about federal stimulus money that claimed to create/save 473 teaching jobs in an Illinois district that only employs 290 teachers.

When it comes down to it, CNN did not crack the top 30 cable networks in prime time.

Who knew there was such drama over what paintings hang on the walls of the White House?

-----------------------------------------------------------
So the Republicans have come up with a 230-page healthcare alternative. It took the Democrats 1,990 pages. Wonder why it took so much more. Could it be perhaps because the Democrat plan grossly expands the federal government and bureaucracy?What does the Republican alternative include? Glad you asked. Some of the highlights are:

  • Increasing incentives for people to use health savings accounts
  • Capping non-economic awards in medical malpractices cases
  • Incentives for states to drive down premium costs
  • Allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines
What does the Republican plan NOT include?

  • No employer mandate
  • No individual health insurance mandate
  • It doesn't require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------

California Rep. George Miller has proposed new federal legislation that would force employers to provide paid time off for any workers that are told to stay home when they are sick. The excuse at hand is the Swine Flu. The real excuse? Labor unions ... and power.

White House Budget Director Peter Orszag warned Tuesday that large federal deficits will eventually imperil the U.S. economy. Gee, ya think?

After Northwest pilots overshot an airport by 150 miles, lawmakers now want to ban the use of computer laptops and other personal electronic devices in airline cockpits.

Hollywood receives help from the government, why no salary caps?

Sesame Street - teaching your kids to dis Fox News -


#389



Armadillo

Andrew Martin, founder of the Daily Kos.
DKos was founded by Markos Moulitsas, FYI.[/quote]

Whoops. You're right, it was Moulitsas who endorsed Scozzafava. So the point still stands, but now I have to figure out where I got Andrew Martin from.[/QUOTE]

I was wondering that. I found a couple guys who ran for congress is random districts, but no one who rises to the level of nationally-prominent political figure or pundit...[/QUOTE]

OK, I think I figured it out. It's kind of funny, really.

Andrew Martin was a professional wrestler who worked under the name "Test." He died earlier this year, and I'm a semi-fan of wrestling, so that's probably where the name came from. It doesn't explain how I associated him with politics.

For that, we look to Andrew Breitbart, founder of conservative sites Breitbart.com, BigHollywood.com, and BigGovernment.com. So to sum up, I managed to mash-up the DailyKos, Breitbart, and WWE in one fell swoop. Looks like I picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue.


#390

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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.


#391

GasBandit

GasBandit

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.
I must applaud you, DarkAudit. Applaud!





You have reached a level of absolute insanity I thought was possible only in comic books and subversive animated comedy.


#392

Covar

Covar

I'm confused. Did DarkAudit go off the deep end or is there context in one of his links he posted? (which I would probably read if he linked with some context)


#393

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

You have reached a level of absolute insanity I thought was possible only in comic books and subversive animated comedy.
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.


#394

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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.

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.


#395



Armadillo

Going after coal, I see.

I sure hope you don't enjoy having cheap electricity. That would make you a hypocrite.

---------- Post added at 09:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 PM ----------

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.

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.[/QUOTE]

Oh, thank you so much for bringing this up!!!

AP sources: Suicide eyed in Kentucky census worker case

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.
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.


#396

GasBandit

GasBandit

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.

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.[/QUOTE]

IMO, we SHOULD be doing more to track down and deport illegals. If we need census workers armed and working in pairs to ensure their safety, then so be it.


#397

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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.
I agree, they are here illegally and should be deported. That being said...

1.) SUICIDE? Unless it was some bizarre attempt to stir up shit by making it look like a murder, the circumstances indicate that something else went down. It seems to me the cops are just trying to close the case and get rid of it, instead of actually doing their god damn jobs.

2.) Turning Census workers into boogie men for illegals would prevent them from doing their jobs. If we want to know how many of them are around in a district, we need them to trust the Census enough to know they aren't there to ruin their lives. Your right, INS -IS- a law enforcement. The Census is not. You want them to collude? Talk to your congressman. I prefer to live in a country were everyone in the Government isn't out to get you.


#398

GasBandit

GasBandit

I prefer to live in a country were everyone in the Government isn't out to get you.
Hah, good luck finding one.


#399

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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 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.


#400

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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.

It may not matter to you out in Texas or wherever else, but mountaintop removal is a hot button issue over here.


#401



Armadillo

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.

It may not matter to you out in Texas or wherever else, but mountaintop removal is a hot button issue over here.[/QUOTE]

Minnesota, actually. If mountaintop removal is big in West Virginia, that's for West Virginia to decide. I'm just not ready to decry an industry that has provided cheap, abundant energy, and isn't nearly as dirty as it once was.


#402

GasBandit

GasBandit

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 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.[/QUOTE]

Less power, yes. But I am not an anarchist, I believe in the rule of law. If there is one power that government IS supposed to have, it is this. The problem is we are selectively enforcing laws to fit political agendas, and that must also stop. This is not in conflict with Libertarianism. We don't want to privatize the police or army either, as some of our critics lampoon us.


#403

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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.

It may not matter to you out in Texas or wherever else, but mountaintop removal is a hot button issue over here.[/QUOTE]

Minnesota, actually. If mountaintop removal is big in West Virginia, that's for West Virginia to decide. I'm just not ready to decry an industry that has provided cheap, abundant energy, and isn't nearly as dirty as it once was.[/QUOTE]

Maybe not as dirty once it gets to the power plant, but the toll on the ecosystem during extraction is far higher. And just damn ugly.


The underlying message of the Friends of Coal to the state is "We own you. Body and soul we fucking own you." Blankenship had to be told by SCOTUS that he wasn't allowed to buy himself judges anymore.


#404

Terrik

Terrik

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 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.

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.
.

I don't see a conflict here. Having less government doesn't mean that laws don't get enforced.


#405

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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 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.
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 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.
I don't see a conflict here. Having less government doesn't mean that laws don't get enforced.
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.


#406

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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?


#407

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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]

I do believe those are the links I was talking about earlier.


#408



JONJONAUG

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.


#409



Armadillo

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."


#410



JONJONAUG

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]

Whatever, watching Fox News now and laughing at delicious tears.


#411

Krisken

Krisken

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]

Whatever, watching Fox News now and laughing at delicious tears.[/QUOTE]
:party::horn:


#412

Espy

Espy

I hope this didn't stay in:
“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]
That what I want to do. Go to prison for 5 years if me or my wife decides to not have health coverage. Lovely.


#413



Armadillo

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]

Whatever, watching Fox News now and laughing at delicious tears.[/QUOTE]

No, no...don't let my worry about the most bloated, inefficient body in this country taking over 1/6th of the economy and unconstitutionally requiring its citizens to purchase a product under penalty of imprisonment get in the way of your partisan glee. :eyeroll:


#414

Krisken

Krisken

I hope this didn't stay in:
“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]
That what I want to do. Go to prison for 5 years if me or my wife decides to not have health coverage. Lovely.
I agree man.


#415

Espy

Espy

I hope this didn't stay in:
“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]
That what I want to do. Go to prison for 5 years if me or my wife decides to not have health coverage. Lovely.
I agree man.[/QUOTE]


Wha... wh...what? You do? Well. :peace:
I have to warn you though Krisken, you shouldn't have done that. Now SHE is coming after you:


#416

Krisken

Krisken

I hope this didn't stay in:
“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]
That what I want to do. Go to prison for 5 years if me or my wife decides to not have health coverage. Lovely.
I agree man.[/quote]


Wha... wh...what? You do? Well. :peace:
I have to warn you though Krisken, you shouldn't have done that. Now SHE is coming after you:
[/QUOTE]
It was a stupid move in trying to appease the Health Insurance industry so they wouldn't fight reform so hard. It's giving the enemy your sword so they will give you a shield. Eventually you'll still get stabbed.


#417

Krisken

Krisken



#418

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Bill and Ted and... Sarah? Fancy pageant walkin' is not a qualifier to be President.

Let the Ft. Hood witch hunts begin. All this anti-Muslim grandstanding is going to do nothing productive.

Republican != conservative. The howler monkeys in the media and on this board don't want you to know that. To them, the former bedrock of the Republican Barty, especially in the Northeast, like Nelson Rockefeller and the Lodge family would be mocked as "RINO"s and purged from their ranks. Their latest target? Florida Governor Charlie Crist.

Given the choice between whoring themselves in front of Fox Noise cameras and voting on national security bills, what does the party of Keeping Us Safe do?


#419

GasBandit

GasBandit

Bill and Ted and... Sarah? Fancy pageant walkin' is not a qualifier to be President.
But apparently, "community organizing" is? :rolleyes:

Republican != conservative. The howler monkeys in the media and on this board don't want you to know that.
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.




Time for my links!

Over the weekend, in an unusual Saturday vote, Nancy managed to twist enough arms and her PelosiCare legislation passed. The vote was within five: 220-215. That means 39 Democrats aren't going to be attending Nancy Pelosi's Christmas party, and one Republican will be an honorary guest. Republican Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao of Louisiana voted for the bill. So now we head to the Senate. There are already rumblings that the bill may not pass the Senate, but even if that comes to be true, it's only temporary. The American people have rescinded ownership of their own destiny, proving out the moral assertions of every two-bit tyrant and comic book supervillain - people don't want to be free, they want to be kept. The only freedom Americans still want is the kind that comes without responsibility - the freedom to pick whether they watch American Idol or Dancing with the Stars.

Apparently, links have been found between the Fort Hood shooter and the 9/11 hijackers. That such a man was still in the army is an embarrasment.

The slippery slope of government is no more - there's no slope, now it's just an immediate vertical drop.

This is a list of the winners and the losers, hand-picked by Nancy Pelosi and outlined in her healthcare bill.

Black protesters in Washington over the weekend believe that "Obama is white power in black face."

http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2NlYTJjZGQ1MDMyNjZjNjU1MGE0NTc5YzJkZjQ3ZGM=Mark Steyn points to a potentially fatal flaw at the heart of what we have called, since 9/11, the "war on terror."

Have you ever noticed that higher income taxes do not translate into smaller budget deficits? Seems that many politicians have yet to notice this.

George Will expounds on this global warming fraud in the lead up to Copenhagen.

Residents in a village in New York will be allowed to cast as many as six votes for one trustee candidate, after a judge ruled that the village voting system was unfair to Hispanics.

The G-20 wants to tax banks and other financial institutions to help fund future government emergency aid, but Timothy Geithner says that the US won't back that plan.

LA Times - Taking a look at polling trends, it seems that the Obama administration has managed to return America to "politics as usual" rather than living up to expectation.

One Congressman's idea of "transparency" includes installing cameras in every room on Capitol Hill.

Looks like Russia may be changing its tune on sanctions against Iran. Maybe this is why ... a secret watchdog report believes that Iran may have already tested an advanced nuclear warhead design.

Freddie Mac posted a $5 billion loss and it predicted that it would need more taxpayer support. BOHICA!

Hugo Chavez is readying his military for war as a deterrent to any US-led attack.

Our debate about healthcare reform has come down to this ...


#420



Armadillo

Republican != conservative. The howler monkeys in the media and on this board don't want you to know that.
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.
We're kind of a clique that way.



---------- Post added at 05:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:01 PM ----------

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.


#421

Covar

Covar



:D


#422

ElJuski

ElJuski

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.


#423

Covar

Covar

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]

He was a Major. The amount of people looking after him is much smaller than most.


#424

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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.

---------- Post added at 12:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------

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]

He was a Major. The amount of people looking after him is much smaller than most.[/QUOTE]

By all accounts, a push-button Major. Standard practice is for Army doctors to start as a Captain, then advance to Major upon becoming a specialist.

---------- Post added at 12:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 PM ----------

We're kind of a clique that way.

When you're a Jet you're a Jet all the way...



#425



Armadillo

Which one are you?

OR


#426

Covar

Covar

OR WHAT!!!!!?!?!?!


#427



Armadillo

Fixed. It worked before, honest.


#428

DarkAudit

DarkAudit


3x Stanley Cup Champions.

Combined total for Sharks & Jets/Coyotes: 0


#429

Covar

Covar

pfft, sure.

just like social security (oh snap).

[edit] above @Armadillo


#430



Armadillo



My bear-animal-landscape-thingy can eat your penguin for breakfast and crap out the stick by lunch.


#431

Covar

Covar

Oh god, you're a fan of the Minnesota Shit-Pukes aren't you.

Most repulsive sweaters in sports.


#432



Armadillo

Oh god, you're a fan of the Minnesota Shit-Pukes aren't you.

Most repulsive sweaters in sports.


You take that back.


#433

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Oh dear, have I caused a rift? :devil:


#434



Armadillo

Oh dear, have I caused a rift? :devil:
Stay out of this, Cindy-lover. This is between me and the Whalers fan.


#435

Covar

Covar

WHALERS FAN!


#436

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Bill and Ted and... Sarah? Fancy pageant walkin' is not a qualifier to be President.
But apparently, "community organizing" is? :rolleyes:

[/QUOTE]

She doesn't just revel in her stupidity, she makes it a plank in her campaign. :peace:

She's railing against moving "In God We Trust" to the edge of U.S. coins. Just one problem there, Sarah. They did that in 2007. The Obama administration moved it back.

So much concentrated stupid in one place. It's gonna reach critical mass soon.


#437

GasBandit

GasBandit

This Fort Hood business gets worse and worse. The FBI was all over him in 2008. Apparently the Army already had knowledge that Hasan was in contact with Al Qaeda. At the risk of being repetitive, HOW was this guy not drummed out a long time ago? Some heads had seriously better roll in this guy's chain of command.

This is the story of Congressman Jim Costa. He's a Democrat (big surprise there) from California (another big surprise). Costa decided that it could help the government seize control of our health care system, but there was a price. Some big bucks would have to be spent in his district. So ... here come the big dollars in the form of $120 million dollars for a medical school ... and there goes his vote in favor of PelosiCare. Don't you love the way congress works? There are probably dozens of stories just like this one.


After months of indecisiveness, Barack Obama finally has his strategy for Afghanistan. He is going to pretty-much honor General McChrystal's request and will send four combat brigades and thousands of support troops. Looks like the dithering is over ... for now. At least we finally have a decision from the President. I'm happy to say that leftist panties are already in a wad over this one. Let's take Barney Frank. Barney has already decided that he will oppose a troop increase in Afghanistan.

Anybody remember Kelo vs New London? The worst supreme court decision EVAR? That allowed government to sieze the private homes of private citizens so the land could be handed over to Pfizer so they could expand and pay more taxes? Well, turns out Pfizer's packed up and left town, and the siezed property is now just weeds and dirt.


Guess who is back at the government trough? Fannie Mae! After being seized by the government last year, Fannie Mae may have to ask the government taxpayers for more money. The company is unable to sell $5.2 billion in tax credits to Goldman Sachs. Last week, the treasury decided that Fannie Mae couldn't sell $2.6 billion in low-income housing tax credits because it would result in a loss of tax revenue. Overall, we have poured $60 billion into this sucker.


Chris Dodd is going to unveil his financial regulation bill today. That we still let this man anywhere near our national financial policy is tantamount to evidence of national insanity.

It's beginning to look a lot like the late 70s.

Foreign papers say that Obama did not attend the Berlin Wall ceremonies because they were not centered around him.

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.

British spies managed to foil a terrorist plot by a suspected al Qaeda operative to blow up the New York subway.

The White House has indicated that is won't rule out using budget reconciliation rules in order to pass healthcare reform.

Even the bleedingest of hearts are seeing that the health care DEform bill takes us one step closer to bankruptcy.

This article pretty much sums is up: government force is at the heart of Obamacare.

The Supreme Court turned down last-minute appeals from the DC sniper mastermind John Allen Muhammad.

This story is certainly making the rounds. An Obama protester who was apparently beaten by union thugs.

As of right now, 58% of Americans believe that a Republican will be our next president. Great, get that knife out of our chest, so you can stab us again properly, yes?

Do you remember Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson, convicted on federal charges of bribery, fraud, money laundering? The feds want to lock him up for up to 33 years.

Republicans say that the Democrats are putting their agenda ahead of the country. Same could be said for the Republicans too.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele plays the race card.

I guess this is what they mean by free speech in Cuba.

The state of New York: Broke by Xmas?


#438

Krisken

Krisken

You really should stop posting health care stuff.

Gasbandit said:
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.

In this case, Real Clear Politics lives up to it's name. It's clearly politics. Unfortunately, it's very low on anything resembling understanding of how healthcare works in this country.


#439



JONJONAUG

A rebuttal to McCaughey's latest health care misinformation

Also contains a lot of accurate information about the health care bill by quoting the bill itself, if anyone wants to read it.


#440

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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.
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.


#441

Espy

Espy

@ash So you think the government has your best interest at heart but might screw it up?


#442

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

@ash So you think the government has your best interest at heart but might screw it up?
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.

Honestly, I think the best option would be for the government to choose a well run private organization, or even a handful of them, and simply pay them to run it and accept everyone. It seems to work well in other countries.


#443

Covar

Covar

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...


#444

Krisken

Krisken

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]
I call "damned if you do, damned if you don't" on this one.

He goes to Germany, Republicans here say "He cares more about other countries than America". He stays and it's "He doesn't properly honor historical events."


#445

Espy

Espy

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]
I call "damned if you do, damned if you don't" on this one.

He goes to Germany, Republicans here say "He cares more about other countries than America". He stays and it's "He doesn't properly honor historical events."[/QUOTE]

You know, normally I would agree but in this case? I don't think anyone would have said a thing about him attending the Berlin Wall ceremonies. I really don't think the majority of conservatives and republicans would have said a damn thing about it.
It's... a rather big deal, especially to the party that's "greatest" modern leader helped to bring about.


#446

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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]
I call "damned if you do, damned if you don't" on this one.

He goes to Germany, Republicans here say "He cares more about other countries than America". He stays and it's "He doesn't properly honor historical events."[/QUOTE]

You know, normally I would agree but in this case? I don't think anyone would have said a thing about him attending the Berlin Wall ceremonies. I really don't think the majority of conservatives and republicans would have said a damn thing about it.
It's... a rather big deal, especially to the party that's "greatest" modern leader helped to bring about.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, but it's also been a very crucial time for the Healthcare bill too. It seems like his time was better spent helping that along, at least to me.


#447

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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]
I call "damned if you do, damned if you don't" on this one.

He goes to Germany, Republicans here say "He cares more about other countries than America". He stays and it's "He doesn't properly honor historical events."[/QUOTE]

This. He caught hell for going to Copenhagen to campaign for the Olympics. if he had stayed home, he would have been the only head of state not to attend, and would have caught hell for that.

And to go off in another direction entirely...

Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? Why won't he deny the charge? The Internet wants to know.

Fox's right hand doesn't know what it's far-right hand is doing. Nice knowing ya, Britt.

So now the official Fox Noise position is Obama is a racist. It cost Glenn Beck most of his advertisers. How many will bail on the network altogether?


#448

Krisken

Krisken

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]
I call "damned if you do, damned if you don't" on this one.

He goes to Germany, Republicans here say "He cares more about other countries than America". He stays and it's "He doesn't properly honor historical events."[/quote]

You know, normally I would agree but in this case? I don't think anyone would have said a thing about him attending the Berlin Wall ceremonies. I really don't think the majority of conservatives and republicans would have said a damn thing about it.
It's... a rather big deal, especially to the party that's "greatest" modern leader helped to bring about.[/QUOTE]
You have a whole lot more faith in our leaders than I do :)


#449

GasBandit

GasBandit

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]
I call "damned if you do, damned if you don't" on this one.

He goes to Germany, Republicans here say "He cares more about other countries than America". He stays and it's "He doesn't properly honor historical events."[/quote]

You know, normally I would agree but in this case? I don't think anyone would have said a thing about him attending the Berlin Wall ceremonies. I really don't think the majority of conservatives and republicans would have said a damn thing about it.
It's... a rather big deal, especially to the party that's "greatest" modern leader helped to bring about.[/quote]
You have a whole lot more faith in our leaders than I do :)[/quote]

Apparently not, given the relative stances on government controlled health care.

The issue with the olympics trip wasn't simply about Obama going to another country. It's sad that's all you took away from it.


#450

Krisken

Krisken

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]
I call "damned if you do, damned if you don't" on this one.

He goes to Germany, Republicans here say "He cares more about other countries than America". He stays and it's "He doesn't properly honor historical events."[/quote]

You know, normally I would agree but in this case? I don't think anyone would have said a thing about him attending the Berlin Wall ceremonies. I really don't think the majority of conservatives and republicans would have said a damn thing about it.
It's... a rather big deal, especially to the party that's "greatest" modern leader helped to bring about.[/quote]
You have a whole lot more faith in our leaders than I do :)[/quote]

Apparently not, given the relative stances on government controlled health care.

The issue with the olympics trip wasn't simply about Obama going to another country. It's sad that's all you took away from it.[/QUOTE]
Oh do explain, then. Obviously what I took from it was political hee-hawing by people who have nothing better to do during the 24 hour news cycle.

But please, educate me. Explain what is so obvious to you. I can't wait to hear this one.


#451

GasBandit

GasBandit

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).

Berlin is different. Berlin would have been about commemorating the triumph of freedom and democracy over tyranny, oppression and statism... Obama probably didn't find the fall of the wall (or the Soviet Union, for that matter) anything to really celebrate, and found it especially unappetizing to go because the focus would have been on a triumph of liberty (and yes, capitalism) instead of on what a swell guy Obama is.


#452

Krisken

Krisken

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).

Berlin is different. Berlin would have been about commemorating the triumph of freedom and democracy over tyranny, oppression and statism... Obama probably didn't find the fall of the wall (or the Soviet Union, for that matter) anything to really celebrate, and found it especially unappetizing to go because the focus would have been on a triumph of liberty (and yes, capitalism) instead of on what a swell guy Obama is.[/QUOTE]
If I made assumptions about actions like this made by Bush you'd be laughing at me. And rightly so.

Assume I'm doing this now.


#453

GasBandit

GasBandit

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).

Berlin is different. Berlin would have been about commemorating the triumph of freedom and democracy over tyranny, oppression and statism... Obama probably didn't find the fall of the wall (or the Soviet Union, for that matter) anything to really celebrate, and found it especially unappetizing to go because the focus would have been on a triumph of liberty (and yes, capitalism) instead of on what a swell guy Obama is.[/quote]
If I made assumptions about actions like this made by Bush you'd be laughing at me. And rightly so.

Assume I'm doing this now.[/quote]

The assumptions were also made pretty much by everyone who saw it. Reference my link above - FTA:

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.


#454

Espy

Espy

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]
I call "damned if you do, damned if you don't" on this one.

He goes to Germany, Republicans here say "He cares more about other countries than America". He stays and it's "He doesn't properly honor historical events."[/quote]

You know, normally I would agree but in this case? I don't think anyone would have said a thing about him attending the Berlin Wall ceremonies. I really don't think the majority of conservatives and republicans would have said a damn thing about it.
It's... a rather big deal, especially to the party that's "greatest" modern leader helped to bring about.[/QUOTE]
You have a whole lot more faith in our leaders than I do :)[/QUOTE]

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.


#455

Krisken

Krisken

I did read it Gas. I just find it to be a non-story. I'm sure it's as interesting to me as an analysis on Bush's bad speeches is to you. A political non-issue. Or as the Onion calls it, bull-shit.

---------- Post added at 01:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 PM ----------

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.
In a world of terrorist fist jabs, mission accomplished, hair cut costs, cackling laughs, and various other filler stories, nothing is common sense.

Would Bush have drawn fire from the left? Probably. Again, you guys would have probably rolled your eyes and said he had other shit to do here. And rightly so.


#456

Espy

Espy

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.


#457



JONJONAUG

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.


#458

Krisken

Krisken

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.
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.

Is that a better way to put it?:)


#459

Espy

Espy

I suppose, although I'm surprised you don't think it was a big deal. I couldn't give two shits what he did about the olympics but this was, to many, MANY people, hell, most of the world a VERY important historical event. I wish he had been there.


#460

GasBandit

GasBandit

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]

That's why, in his post, he linked to several european news sources. And I never said "everyone."


#461



Armadillo

I really can't imagine anyone save the extreme nitpickers nailing Obama if he had gone to Berlin. Given the history between (West) Berlin and the United States ("Ich bin ein Berliner," "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall"), it would've made complete sense for him to be there.


#462



JONJONAUG

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]

That's why, in his post, he linked to several european news sources. And I never said "everyone."[/QUOTE]

He links to one legimitate news source and a few blogs and opinion pieces, only a couple of which are European.

And actually looking at the news source reveals that the reason Obama isn't going is because he's going on a trip to Asia two days afterward. If I were the President, I'd make sure I have a day or two left open before any planned intercontinental trips in case anything comes up.


#463



rabbitgod

He was at the Ft. Hood memorial thingy today so maybe that was too much traveling.

I still think he should have gone to Germany, I'm just sayin'.


#464

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Billo the Clown's preferred solution to preventing another Ft. Hood? Kill all the Muslims. But since that's admittedly not practical, work on the hearts and minds. but only because we can't kill them all instead. There are a few in the media and in public office who don't seem adverse to the original idea, though.


#465

Covar

Covar

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]
I call "damned if you do, damned if you don't" on this one.

He goes to Germany, Republicans here say "He cares more about other countries than America". He stays and it's "He doesn't properly honor historical events."[/QUOTE]
If your going to get criticized anyway, do the right thing. Go honor a Historical event that marked the Triumph of Democracy and symbolized the end of a 44 year old international political landscape.


#466

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

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.


#467

Krisken

Krisken

hah, I saw that on the Daily Show DA.

Maybe the news shows should be clearly marked as news shows and the "infotainment" should be clearly labeled as such. That might help Fox's credibility problem as of late. They should also be careful not to let the "infotainment" intrude on the news times.


#468



Armadillo

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.


#469

Krisken

Krisken

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]
Elections helped with that.


#470

GasBandit

GasBandit

From The Wall Street Journal: America Leaves Itself Behind.

You'll love this one from Stossel. "The U.S. House of Presumptuous Meddlers"

EPA lawyers step forward to explain why this cap-and-trade bill is "fatally flawed." Needless to say, there are a lot of people in Washington who aren't too happy about this.

Yesterday I told you about Rep. Costa of California who scored a $500 million medical center in his district as leverage for his vote on Pelosicare. Here are some more examples of the backroom deals that took place to get this thing passed.

There are two different bills floating around in Washington right now that want to rein in financial institutions. Here are the differences ...

The city of Las Vegas got a $64.3 million grant to buy houses for low-income families. Eight months later, not a single person is in a house.

Even a liberal admits that with healthcare reform, Democrats are creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind.

Could we be gearing up for Townhall Part II over healthcare reform as Congress returns home for the Veterans Day recess?

Of the 200 amendments the Democrats in the House rejected before passing Pelosicare, 11 would have required for Congress to enroll in the government option.

The latest victim of the global warming movement: golf balls.

The EPA is now accepting grant applications for projects aimed at addressing environmental and public health issues in "communities with environmental justice concerns."

Code Pink .. full of class .. apparently targeted children of military families on Halloween.

Iran's Ahmadinejad says that he is still awaiting "real change" from Barack Obama. Get in line, buddy.


#471

Espy

Espy

That is absolutely disgusting.


#472

Krisken

Krisken

That is absolutely disgusting.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. These women are off their rockers. :mad:


#473

GasBandit

GasBandit

Nice idea. Not a chance in hell of passing, but nice idea.

Pelosi: "It's very fair" to jail people for not buying health insurance.

Republicans in South Carolina are censuring their own Lindsey Graham for being a RINO.

The latest Gallup polls show that Republicans have now surpassed Democrats as the public's choice in the 2010 congressional elections.

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.

Liberals can't compete on the radio and now they are slipping when it comes to book sales. Who knows .. maybe we will soon have segregated New York Times best-seller lists! Or a Fairness Doctrine for books!

Apparently moonbat Alan Grayson's challenger down there in Central Florida is quite a character himself.

Well this column really puts it out there ... Barack Obama despises America.

Joe Lieberman says he has "no other choice" but to filibuster a health care bill that contains a government-run health insurance option.

Forget about peak oil, here comes peak gold.

Lou Dobbs has quit CNN.

More dissent from the purported "consensus" about CO2 and climate change.


#474

Covar

Covar

Pelosi: "It's very fair" to jail people for not buying health insurance.
wow, 18 million Americans in jail. that's fair I guess.


#475

Krisken

Krisken

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]
The entire quote is...

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 should add the question is very disingenuous in these ways-

1. Penalty for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time.

2.
Bill does not impose tax on those below the threshold for filing a federal income tax return.

3.
"Hardship cases" are exempted from the tax

4.
Willful failure to pay income taxes can result in civil or criminal penalties

5.
Fewer than 100 people convicted for "willful failure to file or pay taxes" in fiscal year 2008.

6.
Most delinquent taxes and penalties "collected through the civil process."

So no, it won't lead to jail time for 18 million Americans.


#476

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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.
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.

Well this column really puts it out there ... Barack Obama despises America.
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.


#477

GasBandit

GasBandit

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?


#478

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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]

Oh no... he's going to go into a "Taxes are not lawful" rant...


#479

GasBandit

GasBandit

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]

Oh no... he's going to go into a "Taxes are not lawful" rant...[/QUOTE]

A punitive tax that it a penalty for not obeying an unconstitutional law...?


#480

Krisken

Krisken

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]

Oh no... he's going to go into a "Taxes are not lawful" rant...[/QUOTE]
Yeah, there's no arguing with a belief. There really are no winners in that argument.


#481

Espy

Espy

Hey guys, I just saw Gas' point fly by... I think you missed it.


#482

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Republican Senators voting pro-slavery in 3... 2... 1... Ok, maybe not that extreme (I hope), but there's already mutterings from pro-business lobbyists against legislation that would ban the importation of goods made with child, slave, or convict labor.


#483

Krisken

Krisken

Hey guys, I just saw Gas' point fly by... I think you missed it.
Wanna spell it out for me? I saw him nitpick one thing that somehow made the whole criticism invalid.


#484

GasBandit

GasBandit

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."

Item 1 on your list was the only thing that needed to be addressed to make the others collapse like a house of cards.


#485

Krisken

Krisken

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."

Item 1 on your list was the only thing that needed to be addressed to make the others collapse like a house of cards.[/QUOTE]
What, an absurd assumption that people can't be taxed? That is your ace in the hole?

I give you credit, when you are holding a water pistol, you aren't afraid to pretend it's a gun.


#486



Armadillo

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."

Item 1 on your list was the only thing that needed to be addressed to make the others collapse like a house of cards.[/QUOTE]
What, an absurd assumption that people can't be taxed? That is your ace in the hole?

I give you credit, when you are holding a water pistol, you aren't afraid to pretend it's a gun.[/QUOTE]

Krisken, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to require everybody to buy health insurance under penalty of fines and incarceration. I know you libs have wanted public insurance for a long, long time, but you have to actually follow the supreme law of the land, inconvenient as that may be.


#487

Krisken

Krisken

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."

Item 1 on your list was the only thing that needed to be addressed to make the others collapse like a house of cards.[/quote]
What, an absurd assumption that people can't be taxed? That is your ace in the hole?

I give you credit, when you are holding a water pistol, you aren't afraid to pretend it's a gun.[/quote]

Krisken, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to require everybody to buy health insurance under penalty of fines and incarceration. I know you libs have wanted public insurance for a long, long time, but you have to actually follow the supreme law of the land, inconvenient as that may be.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, you lost me at "You Libs". I instantly stopped reading.


#488

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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."

Item 1 on your list was the only thing that needed to be addressed to make the others collapse like a house of cards.[/quote]
What, an absurd assumption that people can't be taxed? That is your ace in the hole?

I give you credit, when you are holding a water pistol, you aren't afraid to pretend it's a gun.[/quote]

Krisken, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to require everybody to buy health insurance under penalty of fines and incarceration. I know you libs have wanted public insurance for a long, long time, but you have to actually follow the supreme law of the land, inconvenient as that may be.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, you lost me at "You Libs". I instantly stopped reading.[/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.


#489



Armadillo

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.
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.

---------- Post added at 01:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 AM ----------

Sorry, you lost me at "You Libs". I instantly stopped reading.
FINE, strike that comment from the record. Care to reply?


#490

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

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.
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]

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.


#491



Armadillo

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.
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:

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.
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.


#492

Krisken

Krisken

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.
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.

---------- Post added at 01:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 AM ----------

Sorry, you lost me at "You Libs". I instantly stopped reading.
FINE, strike that comment from the record. Care to reply?[/QUOTE]
Sure. On what bases are you saying the Constitution doesn't allow for 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 am incredibly surprised you can argue "The original intent of the document". Were you there? You're older than Ed!


#493



Armadillo

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.
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.

I am incredibly surprised you can argue "The original intent of the document". Were you there? You're older than Ed!
I go by what was written. The Framers were amazingly clear about what they meant.


#494

Krisken

Krisken

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.
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.

I am incredibly surprised you can argue "The original intent of the document". Were you there? You're older than Ed!
I go by what was written. The Framers were amazingly clear about what they meant.[/QUOTE]
With that I don't agree (the They Can't Do It). It gives them the right to make new laws. If you can point out where Congress can't make that law (because it gives them the right to make new laws), because it is somehow against the constitution, then I'll happily come back with a counter.


#495



Armadillo

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.
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.

I am incredibly surprised you can argue "The original intent of the document". Were you there? You're older than Ed!
I go by what was written. The Framers were amazingly clear about what they meant.[/QUOTE]
With that I don't agree (the They Can't Do It). It gives them the right to make new laws. If you can point out where Congress can't make that law (because it gives them the right to make new laws), because it is somehow against the constitution, then I'll happily come back with a counter.[/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.
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.


#496

Krisken

Krisken

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.
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.

I am incredibly surprised you can argue \"The original intent of the document\". Were you there? You're older than Ed!
I go by what was written. The Framers were amazingly clear about what they meant.[/quote]
With that I don't agree (the They Can't Do It). It gives them the right to make new laws. If you can point out where Congress can't make that law (because it gives them the right to make new laws), because it is somehow against the constitution, then I'll happily come back with a counter.[/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.
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]
No, we aren't in agreement.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gs...ves congress the right to create laws&f=false

Oh, and http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html


#497

GasBandit

GasBandit

Not to mention that the comparison to auto insurance is fallacious. You don't need insurance to drive a vehicle within the confines of your own property... but you do if you're going to be using public roads and thoroughfares. The clincher here is you have a choice - you can buy car insurance and be allowed to use the roads, or you can not buy car insurance and choose not to drive on the roads.

A more apt analogy in this case would be a mandate of you having to buy car insurance even if you don't drive, under penalty of fine. I mean, tax. Yeah, tax. We're totally gonna call it a tax because we're allowed to tax, and that gets us around the unconstitutionality of what we're doing.

---------- Post added at 09:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 AM ----------

Some links!

Yesterday we saw, what could turn out to be, one of the biggest counterterrorism seizures in American history. The Feds seized four mosques and a New York skyscraper, all owned by a Muslim nonprofit organization. The organization, the Alabi Foundation, allegedly is controlled by the Iranian government.

Texas Governor Rick Perry has a lot of liberal thongs in a wad. During a recent speech in Midland, Texas he said, "This is an administration hell-bent on taking America towards a socialist country."

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.

Just to remind you how we got into this mess ... here's a bit on ACORN and our housing bubble.

Yet another record breaking fiscal month for our government with an October budget deficit of $176 billion.

The Obama administration wants to use TARP funds to cut the deficit. So... government is bailing ITSELF out?

George Will on what's killing the dollar.

The Obama administration has issued the order to weed out any Bush political appointees.

Here's a blast from the past. Obama on the campaign trail deriding Hillary Clinton for her idea of an individual health insurance mandate.

Did you realize that the House healthcare bill includes a 69% increase in capital gains taxes? Here's how.

Could the Democrats manage to implement a Fairness Doctrine 2.0?

Now we are learning that officials ordered that documents be shredded in the case of the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin.

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.

There are ten states in this country that are on the verge of economic disaster.

This should scare you ... No education secretary has ever had so much money for government school improvement with so few conditions from Congress.

The winner in the war on terrorism is ... China?

This is rich ... ACORN has filed a lawsuit against the federal government, trying to restore its federal funds.

Going up. Again.

Cap and Trade on the chopping block?

Brits to get individual "carbon allowances?"


#498

Covar

Covar

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.
I don't recall having to buy my own Christmas gifts.

Could the Democrats manage to implement a Fairness Doctrine 2.0?
People still won't listen to liberal talk radio.

Now we are learning that officials ordered that documents be shredded in the case of the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin.
more transparent government, two years ago we wouldn't have been told about the shredded files.

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.
still not a terrorist. am i rite.

This is rich ... ACORN has filed a lawsuit against the federal government, trying to restore its federal funds.
You mean funding they never had? ;)


#499

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Bill Kristol hates America. Dude, trial by jury exists precisely because sick fucks like you exist.

Tom Tancredo to run for governor of CO. That is, until his depression crops up again and he quits.

LouDobbs to appear on the Factor on Monday. Give Billo the Clown credit. He's called BS on the birther
movement. Dobbs is a birther. Ladies and gentlemen, start your popcorn!

The GOP civil war has opened a third front. Now it's tea partier on tea partier action!


#500

Covar

Covar

Bill Kristol hates America. Dude, trial by jury exists precisely because sick fucks like you exist.
I will say this. He should be brought up on military charges, not charged as a civilian.


Top