| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
A Plea For Sanity |
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
A Plea For Sanity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeLe9576sYo |
||
| © Copyright 2010 JenniferMaxwell - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Republicans: Violent Losers http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/37562 |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Re: Teabaggers You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President. You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy. You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed. You didn't get mad when the Pentagon misplaced $2.3 trillion. You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed. You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us. You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war. You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq. You didn't get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos. You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people. You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans. You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden. You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed. You didn't get mad when we let a major US city drown. You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark. You didn't get mad when the debt went up $5 trillion under Bush. You finally got mad when.. when... wait for it... when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all ok with you but helping other Americans... -4chan news |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Eric Cantor's phony victim story His false claim of office gunshots functioned as the Ashley Todd tale of 2010, distracting from right-wing violence You remember the story: A 20-year-old McCain-Palin volunteer told Pittsburgh police that a black man robbed her, and then, when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on her car, he beat her and carved a B – for "Barack" -- into her cheek, and told her she better support the black Democrat. Days later, the clearly disturbed Todd confessed that she made up the attack, and apparently mutilated herself to provide "evidence." But for a few days, the right wing insisted Todd's attacker was the Democratic equivalent of the menacing crowds at Sarah Palin rallies shouting "Kill him!" and "Terrorist!" about Obama. Drudge and Fox News hyped the story, with Fox news V.P. John Moody even claiming the attack might lead some voters to "revisit their support for Senator Obama." No one's accusing Cantor of shooting up his own office, but from the minute he made his claim -- also implying he was targeted because he was Jewish -- it was almost certain to be untrue. In the very first AP report on the incident, the Richmond police said the bullet had been fired into the air, not through Cantor's window. Two photos in Salon show that the nondescript office building is unmarked, with no signs indicating Cantor or his staff have one of the suites inside. Friday Richmond police confirmed the bullet was a stray: Neither Cantor nor his office was targeted, and in fact the bullet didn't even land in his office. A spokesman for Cantor told reporters he was "very happy" his story turned out not to be true. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/sarah_palin/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2010/03/26/phony_eric_cantor_story |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
SEARCHLIGHT, NV - MARCH 27: Ed Reott of Utah holds a sign as people gather for the Tea Party Express' 'Showdown in Searchlight,' rally March 27, 2010 in Searchlight, Nevada. The rally, held in the hometown of U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), serves as the kickoff for a 42-city bus tour that ends in Washington D.C. on April 15, 2010. http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/09vN7VQ25I4VK/x610.jpg |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Another pic from the Seachlight Tea Party: http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/04E26tU6et72z/610x.jpg |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
"You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Clause!" — Chico Marx |
||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer... At first I tuned into your threads because they amused me... the misguided (in my opinion) rhetoric, the over the top accusations, and the hate speech (oh, wait... that is a Republican item solely... the Democrats never indulge in such). The thread about the 9/12 commissions stopping their use for public services was- again- MY opine) actually had me laughing full value... especially the part where you continued to post on the Blue Pages, yet when you were answered with reasoned, well, thought out responses by more than one, you seemed to never make it back to that thread... and now we have this... Well, let's get back to it, shall we? quote: November 10: The Florida machine recount is completed. November 12: Palm Beach County officials vote to conduct a full hand recount of presidential votes; Volusia County begins its own hand count November 13: A federal judge turns down the Bush team's attempt to stop manual recounts. November 15: Broward County decides to begin a hand recount November 16: The Florida Supreme Court rules Palm Beach County can proceed with a manual recount of ballots. November 17: The Florida Supreme Court blocks (Republicans) from any vote certification until it can rule on the Democrats' motion to allow hand recounts to be counted. The midnight deadline strikes for counties to receive overseas absentee ballots. Miami-Dade County reverses an earlier decision and votes to conduct a full manual recount. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denies GOP request to stop manual recounts on constitutional grounds. November 20: Circuit Judge Jorge Labarga says he lacks authority under the U.S. Constitution to order a new presidential election in Palm Beach County. November 21: The Florida Supreme Court orders hand counts to continue, and gives counties five days to complete them. November 29: N. Sanders Sauls, the judge hearing Gore's election contest, orders all ballots from Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties -- more than 1 million -- shipped to Tallahassee for possible hand counts in Gore's contest. December 8: the Florida Supreme Court orders manual recounts in all counties with significant numbers of presidential undervotes December 12: At 10 PM at night the Supreme Court rules that no further recounts can take place HOW MANY RECOUNTS DOES IT TAKE TO GET TO THE CENTER OF A TOOTSIE POP??? quote: Sorry, Sweetheart... the United States has not declared war since Dec. 8, 1943 when FDR signed the official war pact against the Japanese. This, oddly enough, is a fact that I learned from an Opoeration Enduring Freedom protestor, and a member of the Blue Pages. quote: The ENTIRE country got peeved at that one. Congress was beseiged with letters, phone calls, and e-mails demanding action. quote: The levee system was started in 1965 (under a Democratic president, thank you), and was still unfinished when Katrina hit. I believe in that time, there were 3 Democratic Presidents that GOT NOTHING DONE!! And you put the Republicans at fault. In 2004, a Corps of Engineers' study was done on the costs and feasibility of protecting southeast Louisiana from a major Category 5 hurricane, including construction of floodgate structures and raising existing levees. I believe that would have been a REPUBLICAN administration that was in power then. I would also recommend that you go back and research the Archives here at PIP to that fateful day... once you actually know what you are talking about... then you may speak. Until then, I believe silence on a subject on which you hve only minimal information at best is called for. quote: Just what iun the Hell do you think it was that got the 9/12 organizations were in action LONG before the Health care debate occured. I believe the official date of the first protest was 4/15 (tax day) 2009, was it not? Oh, wait, you weren't there. You were at home scoffing the Americans who were exercising their Constitutional rights to peaceful protest... adn the fact that there were NO arrest, nationwide, would lead me to believe that they were peaceful. quote: Again... once you have the facts, the WHOLE facts, and nothing but the facts (and not that Rachael Maddow sewer filler that you are spouting -yes, I watch her show also) then you may speak. Now, as you have shown your true colors on these pages more than once, over the course of more than one subject, and you have shown that peacecable debate and exchange of differing ideas is beyond your realm of possibility (unless those differing ideas agree with yours 100%), I am done playing with you. You may reply with any of the abuse and vitriolic speech you feel it in your heart to answer with as I shant return. Thankfully, the very men and women who have died in the service to their country have offered you that right, though you continuously deny that same right to others. Enjoy the rest of your discussion. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
 |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"The thread about the 9/12 commissions stopping their use for public services"? I have no idea what you're talking about. But since you've decided to do a bash and dash, guess I won't waste my time trying to figure it out. Have a good one! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Dear Ringo, I'm certain you have something specific in mind here. You simply have neglected to mention what that would be in any way that I can identify. If you'd give me an actual quote or something I could sink my teeth into, it'd be a help. In the meantime, it really makes no sense. I'm sure the fault is mine. I know that you try for well thought out responses. Most of us do. But most of us fall short, including me; so I'm especially interested in which well-thought-out, reasoned responses you might be talking about that simply blew Jennifer out of the water. Or anybody, for that matter. Ringo quotes Jennifer: quote: You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President. Then Ringo comments: November 10: The Florida machine recount is completed. November 12: Palm Beach County officials vote to conduct a full hand recount of presidential votes; Volusia County begins its own hand count November 13: A federal judge turns down the Bush team's attempt to stop manual recounts. November 15: Broward County decides to begin a hand recount November 16: The Florida Supreme Court rules Palm Beach County can proceed with a manual recount of ballots. November 17: The Florida Supreme Court blocks (Republicans) from any vote certification until it can rule on the Democrats' motion to allow hand recounts to be counted. The midnight deadline strikes for counties to receive overseas absentee ballots. Miami-Dade County reverses an earlier decision and votes to conduct a full manual recount. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denies GOP request to stop manual recounts on constitutional grounds. November 20: Circuit Judge Jorge Labarga says he lacks authority under the U.S. Constitution to order a new presidential election in Palm Beach County. November 21: The Florida Supreme Court orders hand counts to continue, and gives counties five days to complete them. November 29: N. Sanders Sauls, the judge hearing Gore's election contest, orders all ballots from Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties -- more than 1 million -- shipped to Tallahassee for possible hand counts in Gore's contest. December 8: the Florida Supreme Court orders manual recounts in all counties with significant numbers of presidential undervotes December 12: At 10 PM at night the Supreme Court rules that no further recounts can take place HOW MANY RECOUNTS DOES IT TAKE TO GET TO THE CENTER OF A TOOTSIE POP??? [/quote] Well, you see that's the problem with the devastating logical comebacks, Ringo. They only work when they actually address the issue brought up. As you will notice, there were a lot of recounts started and a lot of disputations begun about those pesky Florida ballots, but if you'll have a look at your list for any re-counts that were actually finished, you'll notice that there aren't any. None. You have just laid out the details of why Jennifer was upset. Lots of folks believed that there was something fishy going on, lots of fuss was made, and the Supreme court did not allow that issue to actually be settled. They appointed the president by fiat. Just as Jennifer said. And, Just as Jennifer said, you weren't upset. In fact, if we are to believe you and your conclusions, YOU DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE. Oops. And there's Mike in the next space, clapping. Ringo quotes Jennifer: quote: You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war. Ringo comments: Sorry, Sweetheart... the United States has not declared war since Dec. 8, 1943 when FDR signed the official war pact against the Japanese. This, oddly enough, is a fact that I learned from an Operation Enduring Freedom protestor, and a member of the Blue Pages. [/quote] Your source is correct. The fact that this Iraq action is not a war is an important piece of information. As a conservative, however, you may have missed a small piece of understanding that you should really consider about our government, Republican or Democratic or, should it happen, some other Party. The Constitution has reserved the power of declaring war for the Congress. It was usurped by the executive branch, I think mostly when Democrats have been in power, sad to say, and that is an attack on the Constitution and on the separation of powers. Beyond that, however, you may have been missing the point about the Iraqi Action. It's cost 600 Billion Dollars so far. You might ask Grinch about the U.K. investigations into the start of that war and how it appears that the Iraqi conflict was planned before the Republicans took office, and certainly well before 9/11. This has been coming out in the U.K. and it has not been coming out over here. I'd like to hear more about it myself. Whatever was going on over there that we didn't like, it is not clear that we needed to become involved as expensively as we did, and the intervention seems to have been made for reasons other than what the American public has been told. It remains obvious that as often as you call Jennifer "Sweetheart," she does not return your affections. This is a passion you would be wise to give up as futile. What would the wife and kids think, anyway, Sweet-buns? Ringo quotes Jennifer: quote: You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed. Ringo replies: The ENTIRE country got peeved at that one. Congress was besieged with letters, phone calls, and e-mails demanding action. [/quote] Certainly a true comment on your part. What needs to be taken into account here, and what you have not taken into account is the cause of some of those conditions, which included attempts to privatize some of the services, and which included attempts to cut back some of the funding for the VA. This cannot be allowed to happen. We need to fund the VA generously, and there should be no room for anybody to squeeze a profit in that generous budget. The move to exclude soldiers from service benefits from PTSD related problems and from other psychological problems was an unhappy part of many veterans experiences in returning home. And that was related to some of the unfortunate attempts to cut back on entitlements stemming from the war. We need to recognize this, make it better and move on. I don't care about laying blame, I only want it made better. Laying blame would only slow things down. Ringo quotes Jennifer: quote: You didn't get mad when we let a major US city drown. Ringo responds: The levee system was started in 1965 (under a Democratic president, thank you), and was still unfinished when Katrina hit. I believe in that time, there were 3 Democratic Presidents that GOT NOTHING DONE!! And you put the Republicans at fault. In 2004, a Corps of Engineers' study was done on the costs and feasibility of protecting southeast Louisiana from a major Category 5 hurricane, including construction of floodgate structures and raising existing levees. I believe that would have been a REPUBLICAN administration that was in power then. I would also recommend that you go back and research the Archives here at PIP to that fateful day... once you actually know what you are talking about... then you may speak. Until then, I believe silence on a subject on which you have only minimal information at best is called for. [/quote] Do you think Jennifer was angry about things that the Democrats could split responsibility with the Republicans for messing up? Perhaps she was. I think that the majority of the rule in recent years has been Republican, but I'm willing to blame the occasional wretched Democrat. On the other hand, what happened when the Hurricane hit the Gulf Coast is something Else indeed, Ringo, and I believe you're aware of that. You may have caught some of my exchanges with Mike at that time, since you speak of the history of things. Relief was hopelessly tangled because of poor management in FEMA, and agency with a previously fine reputation that, during the Bush administration was staffed with Bush's friends and supporters and an occasional Arabian Horse. These folks managed to make a fair amount of money for the Bush bidders on the contracts for the rebuilding — you might try checking the postings at the time, since they're in the records. I have some of that documented in those, and I'm hopeless at using the archives here. The Faux Media was filled with lies and the entire thing was grossly mishandled. One Republican lawmaker at the time actually suggested that we simply let the city rot and try rebuilding elsewhere. Again, what I see you doing here is defending stuff leading up to the actual drowning, and not actually talking about what happened afterward. I think the city could use some extra levee work even now, but the city is still recovering from the poor governmental clean up job afterward. I haven't heard much about that from Democrats or Republicans. Ringo quotes Jennifer as saying: quote: You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark. Ringo Replies: Just what iun the Hell do you think it was that got the 9/12 organizations were in action LONG before the Health care debate occurred. I believe the official date of the first protest was 4/15 (tax day) 2009, was it not? Oh, wait, you weren't there. You were at home scoffing the Americans who were exercising their Constitutional rights to peaceful protest... adn the fact that there were NO arrest, nationwide, would lead me to believe that they were peaceful. [/quote] I feel silly confessing I don't know when the deficit hit a trillion dollars, but I don't. I'm certainly happy that the TEA Party folks were protesting on Tax Day, but if I remember correctly, they were protesting the tax burden, and not the deficit, right? TEA — Taxed Enough Already, isn't it? Now I'm certainly happy that the demonstration was peaceful, but it seems to me that you're not really addressing Jennifer's point here, which is about the deficit and not how upset you are about the amount of taxes you have to pay. Perhaps you feel that upset about having to shell out is something you have a monopoly upon,. and for that reason you can use that anger to address this other issue that Jennifer is talking about, the deficit. That's hardly fair, now, is it? I thought I had a monopoly on how upset I was on how much I was being taxed, and that gave me a right to. . . never mind, that's between me and my psychiatrist. But I want you to know that I was NEVER arrested for it, and all the dogs me loved afterward, and tended to follow me around. I was very peaceful. Ringo quotes Jennifer: quote: You finally got mad when.. when... wait for it... when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Ringo replies: Again... once you have the facts, the WHOLE facts, and nothing but the facts (and not that Rachael Maddow sewer filler that you are spouting -yes, I watch her show also) then you may speak. [/quote] I can't speak for Jennifer here, But I want you to know that, for myself, I find this amazingly confusing. I am glad that I stopped to listen to what your understanding of these particular facts are. I confess that I don't agree with them all, though I have indicated my agreement with some of them, especially the parts about Democratic culpability in the lead-up to the destruction of New Orleans by not making sure the levees were constructed. I also confessed my ignorance of some of the facts, for example, not knowing when the deficit hit a trillion dollars. I frankly am at a loss to understand what Jennifer's done in these pages that folks on the right haven't done as well, and certainly more bluntly, over the years. And this particular closing, Ringo, might have been better revised or omitted: quote: It sounds like the conclusion of a sore loser when, if fact, I don't see you as a loser here at all, though the soreness seems evident. Even if you are sore, I'm uncertain of the reason for it, since you've done pretty well in the give and take, but have had only a bit of difficulty in making sure that you find and stick to the real point. Frustration is something that marks everybody's efforts in learning to do these things, and the urge to withdraw is continually part of that struggle. Learning to write prose is learning to think. It always appears simpler than it is. I'm always struggling with feeling like an idiot because part of me always is an idiot for whom thinking is too hard. If I can make an idiot of myself on a semi-regular basis, why not you too. There's an endless need for fools in this life. Throw yourself in. The water's fine. Love, Bob Kaven |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
There’s nothing entertaining about watching goons hurl venomous slurs at congressmen like the civil rights hero John Lewis and the openly gay Barney Frank. And as the week dragged on, and reports of death threats and vandalism stretched from Arizona to Kansas to upstate New York, the F.B.I. and the local police had to get into the act to protect members of Congress and their families. How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn’t recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht. The weapon of choice for vigilante violence at Congressional offices has been a brick hurled through a window. So far. ... Yet no Republican or conservative leader of stature has taken on Palin, Perry, Boehner or any of the others who have been stoking these fires for a good 17 months now. Last week McCain even endorsed Palin’s “reload” rhetoric. Are these politicians so frightened of offending anyone in the Tea Party-Glenn Beck base that they would rather fall silent than call out its extremist elements and their enablers? Seemingly so, and if G.O.P. leaders of all stripes, from Romney to Mitch McConnell to Olympia Snowe to Lindsey Graham, are afraid of these forces, that’s the strongest possible indicator that the rest of us have reason to fear them too. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html?hp |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There’s nothing entertaining about watching goons hurl venomous slurs at congressmen I'll agree there but where are you when the congressmen are republicans and the goons are liberals? I've never seen you condemn those actions. How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn’t recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht. I agree again. Where were you when the likening to Hitler was Bush and the mob was made up of liberals? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
More Republican Whining and Hypocrisy: Obama's Recess Appointments: GOPers Raging Now, Welcomed Process Under Bush Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) pronounced himself "very disappointed" with the move, charging that it showed "once again" that the Obama administration has "little respect for the time honored constitutional roles and procedures of Congress." The president's team had "forced their will on the American people," McCain fumed in a written statement. just a few years earlier, McCain had succeeded in a one-man crusade to persuade President Bush to install a favored nominee using a recess appointment http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/27/obamas-recess-appointment_n_515978.html |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ah, Bob, I won't go into everything you said because (1) I don't have the time and (2) I'm only allowed to have so much fun in one day. I'll just touch on one or two that I know something about. The presidential recounts was a joke and even Floridians recognized it as such, hanging chads and all. it was the effort of a lost party using the press to try to cast doubt on the results of an election they lost. We had lots of jokes about it down here...even Democrats smiled when they told them, like the blue-haired ladies of Palm Beach who could handle 8 bingo cards at one time without missing a beat but hey couldn't punch one hole in a ballot correctly. Once again it was a tactic by Democrats to cause controversy, regardless of what it did to divide the country. I'll repeat what I've said before...if Gore had carried his own state, he would have been president. He didn't. As far as New Orleans, as you know we had extensive conversations here during that time. We had the pictures of the hundreds of school busses sitting in parking lots instead of being used to evacuate people. We saw many indications of how Nagin did absolutely nothing except hide out in a hotel room. If, as Ringo stated, the levees had been properly constructed over the preceding half-century, the damage would have been a lot less. If Nagin had actually done something as the hurricane was imminent, the human loss would have been less. Instead of acknowledging this, liberals decided to go after the Bush administration for actions after the disaster. Never miss an opportunity, I suppose. As a side-note, Obama responding to charges of bribery with regards to the Louisiana Purchase, spoke solemnly about it being right to help the folks who had gone through such a tragedy. Well, nothing wrong with that. Of course, he came up with this years AFTER the disaster and at the exact time the Louisiana congresswoman had declared she had reservations about voting for the health bill...reservations that disappeared after receiving the money. Obama would have people believe the timing was just a coincidence. He believes the American people are stupid. He has good reason to. They elected him. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Jennifer, Obama is now adopting an "in your face" approach. Flushed with the success of shoving through the health care bill, and having a Superman complex, he will now do whatever he feels like, even sneaking in a former SEIU lawyer onto the NLRB. Good luck, Man of Steal. Kryptonite is coming... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Sneaking? Come on Mike, Obama warned the Republicans in February that he would appoint the nominees using the recess provision if they continued to drag their feet. The Republicans had every chance to voice their concerns via the normal confirmation process but simply twiddled their thumbs and did nothing. If you want someone to blame then blame the Republicans. . |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Two search warrants were executed this week, based on information that a government facility was a potential target for an explosion, Black noted. Charlie Leroy Russell, 50, a Wayne Township resident, was arrested and faces four counts of unlawful possession of dangerous ordnance, which are fifth degree felonies, and five counts of illegal manufacture or process of explosives, which are felony 2 offenses. Black reported that additional charges are pending a review by the grand jury http://www.timesleaderonline.com/page/content.detail/id/516982.html |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You talk as if there is actually any video that one can 'watch' of those alleged verbal assualts at the Congressmen, Jennifer. Nothing has been proven, but if it were proven that there were a couple of nuts, so what? Where was your outrage at the many proven assaults by liberals during the Bush years, the Bush as Hitler signs, the violent anti-war protests, the burning of Bush in effigy, the movie and book on the subject of assassinating Bush? Sorry, you have no credibiity now to feign outrage. And I guess this guy who was just arrested on the explosives charges is a Tea Party kind of guy, huh? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=132565 |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Congressman Spit On By Tea Party Protester (VIDEO) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/28/congressman-spit-on-by-te_n_516300.html |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Spit on by a loonie? Call out the national guard! Impose curfew??? Have him arrested for assault with a wet weapon!  That's what you've got????? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Grinch, you normally research things a little before making comments. Obviously, in this case, you haven't. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I researched Mike. Fire away.  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
This is a good beginning.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ia-l1RASG8 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
This is a good addition.. http://biggovernment.com/brjohnson/2010/02/03/why-you-should-know-about-craig-becker-and-why-you-need-to-be-worried/ Followed by this..... 'Card check' bill loses key supporters With Sens. Specter and Feinstein withdrawing their support, and the threat of a Republican filibuster, backers of the pro-union provision may have to consider less divisive alternatives. March 28, 2009|James Oliphant WASHINGTON — Whether you label it the "card check" bill or the Employee Free Choice Act, you can also call it something else -- in deep trouble. Key senators this week appeared to cripple prospects for passing the highly polarizing measure, the labor movement's top priority in Congress, which is aimed at making it easier for workers to join unions. The latest hurdle came Friday, when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she would seek alternative legislation that was less divisive. Feinstein, a past sponsor of the act, cited the flailing economy as a reason; other critics of the bill have said it would drive up operating costs for businesses at a perilous time. "This is an extraordinarily difficult economy, and feelings are very strong on both sides of the issue," Feinstein said in a statement. "I would hope there is some way to find common ground that would be agreeable to both business and labor." Feinstein's words came days after Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) declared that he would not support the bill. Specter too had supported the act in the past, and his announcement was viewed as eliminating any chance that Democrats could muster enough votes to break a promised Republican filibuster. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/28/nation/na-card-check28 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So, grinch, what you basically have is an appointee who was rejected and a bill that was also rejected. Obama wants him in and has his own major ties with SEIU. What does he do? Brings him in while congress is on recess, denying them the right to vote on the appointment. The card check bill that has been rejected? That can be brought in, too, inside of the NLRB once the nominee gets in, once again with Congress being shut out of the decision. No one sees a recurring modus operandi here with regards to the way Obama is running the country? When something comes up that congress or the American public don't want but Obama does, he simply does end runs and uses loopholes to get it in. Can't pass health care due to a filibuster? Use reconciliation, even though that porcedue has NEVER been used on a bill of this magnitude. Want an SEIU lawyer on the NLRB. Get him in in such a way congress has no voice in it. He is fracturing constitutional procedures like they were mirrors he doesn't want to look into. It amazes me that so many otherwise normally intelligent people cannot see, or refuse to see, what damage this man is doing to the country and the harm he is doing to the constitution. I feel confident that, in a few years when the wheels have come off of his bandwagon and the United States faces incredible domestic and economic upheaval, the same people that are closing their eyes to his actions now will be the ones saying, "We didn't know!", just like the Germans living in the towns surrounding the extermination camps, who actually did know but didn't want to acknowledge. These people know, also...they just don't want to acknowledge it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
You should have researched a little more Mike. Craig Becker is a left wing lawyer that the Republicans didn’t want on the NLRB. I’m not enamoured with his appointment either but I do know who to blame for getting him that appointment – the Republicans. When Carter was in power the Republicans held up one of his nominees for the NLRB and both parties, seeing that this was heading in the direction of a recurring tit for tat farce, sensibly agreed to a compromise. They cut a deal that in future of the 5 members three would always be of the same political bent as the incumbent President and two would be from the opposite party. At present there’s one Republican and one Democrat, Obama duly put forward two Democrats and a Republican and instead of contesting Becker using the normal process they used the filibuster to permanently block a vote on his appointments. Obama warned them that he’d use the recess process if they didn’t play nice and they ignored him. So Obama appointed two Democrats and zero Republicans. Way to go Republicans – now the Dems have 3 versus 1 on the NLRB.  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Check out these photos if you want to see real political hatred with violent undertones, Jennifer. This stuff was very widespread and out in the open during the Bush years. http://michellemalkin.com/2006/08/31/assassination-chic/ I guess that video you provided will be enhanced to actually show the man deliberately spitting, rather than just shouting through his cupped hands? Maybe he did, but all I can see here is that the man is yelling and then the congressman wiping at his face. It could be that the man inadverntly 'sprayed' him during his exhuberant yelling as opposed to deliberatley intending to spit on the man. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Nice, grinch. 3 to 1 on the board and it's the republican's fault...what a surprise. Joining in that filibuster, and making it possible, were Democrats. This was back when Republicans only had 59 votes and were unable to filibuster. They recognized the danger of having this man on the board. And what about Obama's campaign promises? A lawyer for SEIU fits into them? Of course not. The head of SEIU has the distinction of being the most frequent visitor to the White House since Obama became president. Obama has a long history with SEIU. Obama wants the card check in there, which congress will not endorse. The card check provision will pay a lot of Obama debts to the unions. It's sleazy, grinch, and my wording of "sneaking him in" is valid. What are your thoughts on the card check? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Denise.... Kill Bush shirts? Posters of him with his head cut off? Target practice dummies made out of Bush likeness? You expect these to compare with an alleged spitting incident aimed at a congressman?? What are you thinking? You are interrupting the double standard they apply to all incidents....even when it is in black and white...and red. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, How can you call it “sneaking something in” when it’s so out in the open that a dipstick like me can see it from all the way over here in the UK! Card check? I’m marginally against changing the current system but if the Employee Free Choice Act passed with an amendment that ensured that the request for a private ballot was contained on the original card I wouldn’t be too concerned. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I mistakenly thought that once Bush was out of office things would calm down on the left. I was actually looking forward to some peace and quiet, Michael! How foolish of me. But back then I wasn't familiar with the philosophies of Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven. They just never give up. They are like a toothache that never stops throbbing, all designed to wear down their opposition and eventually collapse the entire system and then have their own structure in place ready to go when it collapses. All we can do is shine a spotlight on them and their tactics and hope enough people wake up and vote these miscreants out of office. Here's an article dealing with the manufactured allegations of hatred and bigoty being made by the left against the Tea Party folks. http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/26/how-the-left-fakes-the-hate-a-primer/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I call it sneaking when congressmen wake up and find it has been done. The elimination of the "private ballot" is the most important thing the unions want in. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, The Congressmen should have woken up in February when Obama told them he was going to do it. As it stands the bill contains a stipulation that if 30% of the employees request a private ballot they can have one. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You never did answer my question about whether you've read the people you're bad-mouthing, Denise? Many of us consider that knowing what you're criticizing is considered a useful tactic. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Sorry about that Bob, I was away for the weeekend, and I'm just getting caught up. I've read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and I've read excerpts from Cloward and Piven. They didn't strike me as free-market capitalists, or those who respect the Constitution. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
As it stands the bill contains a stipulation that if 30% of the employees request a private ballot they can have one. Interesting. So, as long as 30% of the workforce is non-union and none of them have any desire to join the union and they all vote against it, then it will not be used. Sound feasible to you? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, The current law says that if >30% of any workforce signs a card requesting that a union is recognised by the employer the NLRB will organise a private ballot. If the ballot returns a result >50% of all employees the union has to be recognised by the employer. The new proposal is that the union should be recognised based on the card check and that a private ballot will only be called if requested by 30% of the workforce. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Why not just keep the ballot private to begin with? If they want to change to card check, why not a majority vote requirement? On what basis do they think 30% should qualify? Why not turn it around and say that the private ballot will stand unless requested otherwise by 30%? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
and that a private ballot will only be called if requested by 30% of the workforce. ..which takes me back to the question I just asked? Isn't it strange that a country that prides itself on the privacy of the ballot as far as political elections are concerned, would be willing to give up that right under union pressure? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The measure — widely known as card check and formally as the Employee Free Choice Act — would allow a union to form after enough workers in a shop sign cards, or petitions, rather than voting by secret ballot. Surely you see the scenario here, grinch. Those who do not sign to allow unions in would be made public and ostracized. You know how unions work and I'm sure you know the tactics they have used since their beginning...threats and intimidation. Let's suppose you don't want the union in your place of work. You vote no. Your vote is public. Union leaders show up at your door. You get threatening phone calls. Other members who did vote for unions taunt you. Picketers show up on your front lawn to make your life a living hell. Would you consider that fair? Please don't try to say that wouldn't happen. I don't know how unions work in England but I can assure you they work like that here. ACORN lived by those actions. The unions want that provision in. They DEMAND that provision in. The new member of the NLRB wants it in. Do you support that? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
This will make your brain hurt - from Sarah Warning: Subject to New Politically Correct Language Police Censorship Today at 1:59pm March Madness battles rage! My family and I join millions of Americans enjoying college basketball’s finest through March Madness. Underdogs always get my vote as we watch intense competition bring out the best in these accomplished teams. The Final Four is an intense, contested series (kind of like a heated, competitive primary election), so best of luck to all teams, and watch for this principle lived out: the team that wins is the team that wants it more. To the teams that desire making it this far next year: Gear up! In the battle, set your sights on next season’s targets! From the shot across the bow – the first second’s tip-off – your leaders will be in the enemy’s crosshairs, so you must execute strong defensive tactics. You won’t win only playing defense, so get on offense! The crossfire is intense, so penetrate through enemy territory by bombing through the press, and use your strong weapons – your Big Guns – to drive to the hole. Shoot with accuracy; aim high and remember it takes blood, sweat and tears to win. Focus on the goal and fight for it. If the gate is closed, go over the fence. If the fence is too high, pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, parachute in. If the other side tries to push back, your attitude should be “go for it.” Get in their faces and argue with them. (Sound familiar?!) Every possession is a battle; you’ll only win the war if you’ve picked your battles wisely. No matter how tough it gets, never retreat, instead RELOAD! - Sarah Palin |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Seven people have been arrested for allegedly selling pipe bombs in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana, Fox News has learned. The arrests and raids in Michigan and Indianapolis are related to alleged militia activity in the region, but are not related to international terrorism. There is not a current threat to the public, according to a law enforcement source. An official for the FBI's Michigan bureau said initial court appearances are expected in Michigan on Monday. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/28/arrests-alleged-militia-activity-midwest |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
But it’s not a political election Mike, it’s a request to join a union and have that union represent you during collective bargaining. You either want to join or you don’t. Under the current law if you do you fill in a card, if you don’t .. you don’t but currently even if 100% of the workforce fill in cards you still have to have a private ballot. Why do you need a private ballot if more than 50% of the workforce fills in cards to say they want to join a union and have that union recognised by the employer? They’ve already registered their intention. Isn’t a ballot at that point just a waste of time, money and effort? Edit………………. Mike, I agree completely that there is a potential for intimidation – the early years of unionisation are rife with examples but at the level of intimidation your talking about even a private ballot isn’t a guarantee of a fair result. As I said earlier my preference would be in favour of the current system – marginally. However if they include the suggested provision that 30% of the workforce (pro or anti union would be my preference) could instigate a private ballot if they requested it. If they also stipulated that all cards contained an option for the signatory to also request a ballot, which would count towards the 30% watermark. Then I wouldn’t have a problem with the proposed bill. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ya gotta love Sarah's sense of humor! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ok, thanks for your thoughts. Focus on the goal and fight for it. If the gate is closed, go over the fence. If the fence is too high, pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, parachute in. You may have missed the point, Jennifer, that that phrase was taken from Pelosi's speech about what they would do to pass health care. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
"Get in their faces and argue with them." ...and this is courtesy of The One, Barack himself. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Not to mention that Crossfire was a popular show on CNN |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Addendum to the "You didn't get mad list" re Teabaggers You didn't get mad when we gave people who had more money than they could spend, the filthy rich, over a trillion dollars in tax breaks. You didn’t get mad with the worst 8 years of job creations in several decades. You didn’t get mad when over 200,000 US Citizens lost their lives because they had no health insurance You didn’t get mad when lack of oversight and regulations from the Bush Administration caused US Citizens to lose 12 trillion dollars in investments, retirement, and home values. You finally got mad when an African-American man was elected President and decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, job losses by the millions, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, and the worst economic disaster since 1929 are all okay with you, but helping fellow Americans who are sick...oh hell no. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Just curious, Jenn. SInce you have shown lately to have an affinity for posting pics to try to prove some point, what are your thoughts on the pics Denise referred to in #28? Perhaps you missed them?? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here are some really cool pics! http://americanpatrol.com/10-FEATURES/100327-FEATURE2/PHOTOS/100327-Photos.html |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Man Charged With Threatening To Kill Rep. Eric Cantor PHILADELPHIA - Today, a two-count complaint and warrant was filed charging Norman Leboon with threatening to kill United States Congressman Eric Cantor and his family, and threatening to kill Congressman Eric Cantor, who is an official of the United States, announced United States Attorney Michael L. Levy and FBI Special Agent in Charge Jan Fedarcyk. As set forth in the affidavit to the complaint and warrant, in or about late March, 2010, Leboon created and then transmitted a YouTube video to Google over the internet, in which he threatened to kill Congressman Cantor and his family. No harm came to the Congressman or his family as a result of Leboon's threats. http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/man-charged-with-threatening-eri c-cantor.php |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
9 Hutaree members face federal charges of conspiracy, attempting to use weapons of mass destruction Nine members of Hutaree - described by authorities as an anti-government extremist organization - have been indicted on federal charges of attempting to use weapons of mass destruction. http://www.annarbor.com/news/9-hutaree-members-face-federal-charges-of-conspiracy-attempting-to-use-weapons-of-mass-destruction/ |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
So, Denise, What about Alinsky's Rules for Radical's did you think was anti-constitutional? I got no such vibe from them at all. Nor did I get any such vibe from Cloward and Piven, one of whose texts we used at Simmons. One of the major social work areas of practice, by the way, is community organization and group work and empowerment. It has been since Noah was a boy scout. That's part of what the whole notion of The Settlement House was all about. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. authorities have arrested and charged a man with threatening to kill the No. 2 Republican in the House of Representatives, Eric Cantor, and his family, according to court documents filed on Monday. Norman Leboon, 38, was accused of making the threat in a video on YouTube in which he said, "You receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads," according to an FBI affidavit accompanying the charge. A bullet was fired through a window at Cantor's Richmond, Virginia, campaign office last week, but police said it had been shot into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, suggesting it was a stray bullet. Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Congress have been trading accusations that each side was encouraging threats that have been made against lawmakers in the wake of the new healthcare law that Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed last week. Authorities tracked Leboon to an address in Philadelphia where there was a state warrant pending in connection with other threats, according to an affidavit filed by an FBI agent with the two-count complaint. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100329/pl_nm/us_usa_congress_threat |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
#52 |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Hatred as a Political Strategy By clarifying, Gingrich helps us get why health care became the most divisive social-program debate since Gingrich's successful attack on welfare in the 1990s, an attack that had racial overtones. Health care is breaking the backs of millions of families of all colors, but the Republicans chose to gin up the masses with unbridled fear, with House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio declaring the vote "Armageddon.'' No Republican had the courage to remind the rabid that America, at other great crossroads, did put government into their lives. The wealth of countless white middle class families today stems from World War II veteran housing bills that too often, we conveniently forget, discriminated against black veterans along with housing segregation. Surely, more than one tea partier has Medicare or uses a VA hospital. Yet most Republicans do anything they can to deflect responsibility for the frenzy. In the final stages of the health care debate, Palin and other Republican leaders resorted to telling their masses to "reload'' or get ready for the "firing line'' in November. Republican Congressman Randy Neugebauer had to apologize for shouting "baby killer'' when anti-abortion Democrat Bart Stupak of Michigan gave his support for the health care bill. The Republicans need to find someone with courage to disarm the rhetoric, before someone reloads for real. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/27-3 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Sounds like Mr. Leboon was an appropriate arrest. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's it, Dems...keep stoking the fires until you get what you want. Yes, Jen, I duplicated your post because mine seemed a little more complete, such as the fact that Cantor was a Republican and it was originally deemed that he may have made the whole thing up or it was just a stray bullet that had nothing to do with an attempt on his life, little things missing from your version. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
And when asked about incidents of vandalism and threats that followed the bill's passage, Americans are more inclined to blame Democratic political tactics than critics' harsh rhetoric. Forty-nine percent say Democratic tactics are "a major reason" for the incidents USA TODAY/Gallup Poll |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Republicans Block TRICARE/VA Amendment that Addresses their Concerns Even though nothing in the health care reform bill that recently passed the House of Representatives in any way indicated that VA or TRICARE benefits would be affected, or that anyone would have to pay a fine for those benefits being their source of health insurance, Republicans raised hell about it anyway. That's what they do. Make things up and feign outrage. "Alright," said the Democrats. "We'll placate your fear-mongering based in fantasy." So the majority in the House passed a bill that explicitly stated that nothing would be effected in regards to VA or TRICARE benefits. That must have angered Senate Republicans, because they decided to block the same measure in their Chamber. If they had any legitimate concern for reassuring us that our benefits would be protected, Republicans in the Senate would not have blocked the amendment. However, allowing it to pass would not support their fear-mongering narrative. Instead, they punted the Vets and military families that they use as a Political football. http://www.vetvoice.com/showDi ary.do?diaryId=3868&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+VetvoiceBlog+%28VetVoice+-+Blog%29 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
There's nothing wrong with advocating for the poor, Bob. But a line is crossed when it degenerates into inciting class hatred, teaching people that it is okay to take from the haves to give to the have-nots, and teaching that the ends justify the means, a totally morally bankrupt concept. It's bad enough when private sector activist groups do it. It crosses the line even further when governments do it, which of course is the goal of the those activists groups to begin with, to get like-minded Marxists and socialists into power. The government has no authority given to it by the Constitution to take from one group to give to another group. Coercion is not charity, and you don't advantage the disadvantaged by giving them freely what others have earned. That just entrenches them in their poverty. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
This week, Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) told KUSI in San Diego that one of the most offensive parts of the health care reform law is that it will move TRICARE, the health program covering servicemembers and their families, out of the Defense Department and “to the department that handles welfare.” He added that once members of the military find out, “all hell is going to break loose”: BILBRAY: When the retired military finds out that their TRICARE has been moved out of the Department of Defense to the department that handles welfare — when you tell somebody that’s served this country in the military, that now their programs are going to be administered like welfare programs, rather than earned military benefits, all hell is going to break loose. I can’t wait for mom to hear that her TRICARE now is going to be administered by the welfare people. Q: That’s just one of the things we keep finding out as we keep peeling the onion on this day after. There is no basis to Bilbray’s claim, which he has repeated to other outlets. The Administration for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services administers the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, aka “welfare,” and nothing in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says that TRICARE will be going there. “Those who depend on TriCARE should rest assured — TRICARE will not change under health insurance reform,” HHS spokesman Nick Papas told ThinkProgress. TriCARE spokesman Austin Camacho has also said, “Tricare is a DoD agency, and I’m quite sure it will stay that way.” Even Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), appearing on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal on Monday, insisted that the Affordable Care Act won’t affect military care." |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I agree Denise, Medicare, Medicaid and social security along with all the other socialist redistribution schemes like VA supplied health care should be discontinued, unless of course that’s what the people want. Would you be in favour of abolishing all social schemes? . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I don't know of anybody's who's advocating getting like minded socialists and Marxists into power here except perhaps me, and I'm not a marxist, Denise. Even if that were the case, the constituation feels that's fine, and even encourages it because it is another political party, and the constitution encourages free commerce in political ideas. Even the Supreme court thinks it's fine as long as it does not involve advocating the overthrow of the government by force. The idea is that the government be freely elected, not that you love it or that it even be popular. It is constructed so that only the House is supposed to be affected by large shifts in popularity, which says a significant amount about what the Founders thought of Government by Polls, doesn't it? If you want to talk about taking from the haves and giving to the have nots, you will open up the equally frustrating topic of taking from the have-nots and giving to the haves, which has been the theme of much of the past thirty years in American politics. It has not been good for us, and has eroded the numbers of our once robust middle class. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I am in favor of a safety net for people who genuinely need it, Grinch, and I think that such safety nets, if needed, should go no higher than the individual State level. Ideally, charity should come from individuals, religious institutions and the private sector. It should never be coerced by government by redistribution of wealth tactics. Bob, socialism and communism violate the very spirit of the Constitution by making a mockery of its intent, the protection of personal liberties, and private property. Socialism and communism have never been shown to foster them, but have been shown to lead instead to repression of liberties and confiscation of private property. Statism violates the princple that power is vested in the "we the people", and not in the government ruling class. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: So you’d close Medicare, Medicaid etc. and provide health care via various private and charitable means. It's a valid position. What would the services and level of services supplied be? For instance would the network of church/private groups supply health care and to what level? Would there be limits on the procedures available and if so how will each case be judged? – will there be some sort of a panel or assessment group? . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The more syllables you use, Denise, the harder it get for me to understand you around stuff like the following: quote: My first reaction is to say, "Nonsense!" and to let it go at that, but I that doesn't say what the nonsense is. Some forms of private property were wrong from the beginning, and most of the founders knew it. Not making that clear almost killed the country at the start. Slavery was wrong. It's still wrong. People aren't property. We've been fighting every since about what is property. It's a slippery notion. The Romans thought children were their parents' property. A father had the right to kill his children for displeasing him as long as he was alive, if I remember my Roman law correctly. What the colonial laws were about property are not the same as ours. Perhaps you would wish to stand up for them, perhaps not, but I think you'd want to know more about them — as would I — before making that decision. You act as though you already know. As for your outrage about personal liberties, I'm sure that you feel it right now. I have not heard you urge repeal of The PATRIOT Act or of other attacks on our personal liberties in recent years. Thus I have reason to believe that your feelings, while genuine, are not well thought out and contradict themselves in some very basic ways. Neither communism nor socialism mock the constitution, though I can't say that I believe that communism is particularly workable as a form of government. Both are choices for how a particular party may govern. Those choices are for the electorate to make. The constitution says that. It doesn't say that we must restrict the choices the people are allowed to make because the Republican party hates socialists. I see that noplace in the constitution. The Constitution says that you can say whatever you like about the socialists and the communists, but it offers the communists and the socialists the right to say whatever it wants to say about you as well. I can agree with you that the communists haven't done a great job in governing. I think the socialists have done fairly well, on the whole. I don't see that we've done a great job with an unregulated market economy those times we've come closest to having one. The same oppressive traits that you ascribe to big government seems to adhere to big business as well, and "we the people" need something powerful enough to keep those business interests somewhat in check. Though it gets more and more complicated the closer you look at the parts. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, I wouldn't close those programs, Grinch. They are too entrenched in our economy at this point. Perhaps in time they could start to be phased out. But seeing as how those programs are going broke, I don't know how we are supposed to afford the newest program. Levels of care by private organizations or churches, etc., would have to be determined by those groups. That's funny, Bob, your commenting on my "number of syllables".  I never said that socialists and communists shouldn't speak. Of course they have that right. They just aren't very good in the preserving of liberty and governing departments. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
So the churches etc. will be running the death panels? Would that work? I mean people are pretty reluctant to trust priests with their kids right now, would they trust them with their lives? Mind you, I guess beggars can’t be choosers. As far as shutting down health care and social security etc. goes I agree it’s probably a good idea to phase them out over time but there are possible economic advantages to minimise the timescales. If you start by repealing the new health care law while simultaneously removing VA cover and rolling back Medicare you’d almost certainly get a bonus knock on effect in the other social schemes as the number of poor people dying increases exponentially. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No Grinch, I said that there should be a safety net for the truly needy. Charity by churches and private organizations could help people out before they needed a government safety net. The government should be the last resort for helping the needy, not the first or only resource. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, Do you really think that churches and charity could replace Medicare, Medicaid and social security? Look at the numbers Denise, they couldn’t even come close. Dismantling the social programs is a legitimate option, pretending that they’ll be replaced by an unorganised and ad hoc network of churches and charities isn’t. If you want to dismantle the American social system you need to have confidence in you convictions and accept that there will be serious consequence – there’s no such thing as a free ride. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The great depression is an example of what happens when you depend on the churchs and voluntary charity to substitute for more competent safety nets, as do the horrible effects of most of the economic crashes we've recorded before that time, here and on the continent. The right wing keeps reasserting the failed solutions of a prior idealized time as though they had worked to keep people from starving and dying in large numbers. Yet they keep making these assertions as if they could prove they were effective. As Denise has said in the past: It's the responsibility of somebody who makes the assertion to lay out the proof. Yet here, once again, is her assertion. Once again she passes by it by as though it were not her responsibility to show us the figures and the facts to back up her claims. If what she says is true, the facts out to be right there, writ large in the constructions of the past. All she needs to do is to show how much better they've worked than what we do today in keeping people from dying from starvation and disease in times of distress. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The truly needy in this country are a very small portion of the population. To have a government safety net for them with a combination of private sector/church assistance should be doable without breaking the bank. There will always be a need for a safety net. But that doesn't require the government to take over 1/6 of the economy and force everyone to purchase health insurance. That is just a scheme to redistribute wealth from one sector to another. One sector pays and another sector gets reimbursed. That's what this is all about. There is nothing in this new law that makes healthcare or insurance premiums more affordalbe. There is nothing in it that lowers costs. It's not reform, it's simply a government takeover. It takes more money from the ones who are paying already and uses that money to help cover the costs of the ones the government is currently paying for and for the ones the government will add into the mix. And everybody will lose because the government has a peculiar knack for screwing things up. You can lay out for me, Bob, how the government has ever made anything better for anybody. Many experts believe that government 'help' extended the Great Depression by a decade. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Denise, you made earlier statements about the safety net. You didn't support them. Now you make more statements about the safety net. Again, no support. I am playing by your rules, here: You said, the person who makes the statement, supplies the support. So supply it. Restatement of the same thing by you without facts or figure doesn't count. If you're going to use facts and figures, use neutral sources or sources on the right with excellent reputation for checking their facts, such as The Economist. That's what I try to do. If the private sector is enough, show it. If the amount of poverty and need is so small, demonstate it. If the research shows that these private sources were enough to solve the great depression, I look forward to seeing the figures you come up with and the sources from which you gathered them. Did I tell you that Harry Hopkins was a social worker? Just thought you might like to know. Did I mention that social workers like to have their programs done in such a way as to be able to evaluate their effectiveness, and that there should be effectiveness ratings for most of the govbernment programs done with social work help? Head Start, for example, has such ratings. You see, I would consider head start as a part of the government safety net because oif the effects it may have on long term education rates for those who attend it. You may think Head start is not a part of the safety net, though. Consider the effects that Head Start may have had of the populations that it served. Ask yourself if the investment was worth the price. Also, you might consider why you believe that the government has taken over one sixth of the economy. That's the health care industry. The Government doesn't run the Health care industry, nor does it run the insurance industry, yet somehow you are using figures that would support the assumption that it runs the health care industry. Having made that assertion, you have yet to show proof for that, either. I am curious what objective facts and figures you will find to support such curious statements. quote: I think that you may not be using the word sector in a standard fashion here. Exactly what you mean is unclear. Are you speaking about the manufacturing sector and the labor sector, for example, or is there some other form of sector that you are speaking about here? quote: If you wanted to make the question one of affordability, then why would you wish to include profits for private companies in the mixture, for goodness sake? Then, why would you include separate opperating costs and bonuses for different companies in the picture when you could have a single structure and no bonuses to pay at all? Sorry, Denise, but you rejected that option yourself; don't try to blame other people for rejecting it when you were very clear about your opposition to it, and when you succeeded in having your way. You got what you wanted; don't moan about it. The Democratic plan was far from the best plan that could have been suggested. I wanted a single payer plan with controls on drug companies and on insurance costs. I didn't get what I wanted either. Saying the government screwed it up doesn't quite get it right, though. The government tried to put a plan together that gave everybody something of what they wanted. The flaws in that have to do with the disagreements among "we the people." quote: You every go to school? Were your roads all constructed by private doinations. What about the sewers that haul the waste stuff away, and the water systems that bring fresh water in. Perhaps you're in the country and you have a well, but what about your electricity? Got your money in a bank? It's insured by the government. Feel confident that the food you eat is reasonably safe? Federal food inspectors or state food inspectors? What about the safety of the drugs you take? Feel reasonably safe in your local comings and goings? — police and fire are government services. I think you were expecting that was a rhetorical question, though, weren't you, Denise? It would have been difficult to have given that question much thought and still raise it as an actual issue. We haven't mentioned the various defense forces yet, for example, or the legal system of which we occasionally feel so proud. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You every go to school? That's our Bob. I suppose that comment adds to the thread in some positive way? Why not just channel your insults to me, Bob? I'm used to them. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Taking me out of context again, Mike? Denise asked me a straightforward question. If you bvelieve I asked her if she had ever gone to school because I thought she hadn't, he is very much mistaken. Denise suggested that she believed the government had never done anything for the people and I started with the first contact with the government that many people remember. If you confuse that with a swipe at Denise, you are incorrect, in the same way that you would be incorrect to confuse any of the other items on that list as being a swipe at Denise. I try to be reasonably clear if I feel upset. And I try to be clear what my upset is about. I disagree with Denise about a fair amount, but her schooling has never been an issue with me. She and I appear to have political issues about what government can and should do. You, in this case, seem to be trying to put words in my mouth that are not and were not there. The way in which my comments add to the thread, especially take in the context they were placed rather than the context from which you extracted them, is to place the discussion on grounds more closely connected with facts. The facts are that government does fill many useful functions, and the rhetoric of the right wing often puts people in the position of either forgetting this fact or denying this fact. Forgetting such things can lead to making uninformed or distorted decisions that do not serve the country well at the ballot box. In economic terms, these decisions are often known as "guns or butter" decisions in which the interests of the community must often take precidence over the wishes of individuals. Right? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Taking me out of context again, Mike? You, in this case, seem to be trying to put words in my mouth that are not and were not there. No, I didn't change your words, Bob, although I could have corrected your misspelling of "ever". How could I take it out of context or put words into your mouth? That was your complete statement, word for word. It was a stand-alone statement right after quoting Denise. There is no wiggle room to get out of it....there is not even a "It all depends what "is" is" defense. You said it - it was meant to be an insult and the point is made. At least be honest enough to admit it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Please tell me you’re joking Mike. Denise asked a question - how the government has ever made anything better for anybody - and Bob answered with a bunch of rhetorical questions to highlight areas where they had clearly made things better. Or are you saying Bob was claiming Denise didn’t have any money when he said, “Got your money in a bank?”. If you’re going to express outrage regarding insults Mike you'd do better picking some of the real insults kicking around these forums. One of them being your attempt to insult everyone's intelligence with faux outrage. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Faux outrage, grinch? Hardly, but certainly resigned outrage. You may substitute "you ever go to school" with "you stupid?" or "you got a brain in your head?" and they would all be the same. It is certainly not the same as "You have your money in a bank" because there are possible exceptions to that, like credit unions or the simple fact of not having much money. Since education is mandatory in the United States, there is no such alternative to such a statement. He meant it to be insulting and it was. Bob and I have gone at it many times in different ways, from little giggle jabs to outright insulting. Denise really doesn't fit into that scenario. She is respectful in everything she says, when either agreeing or disagreeing. She would never direct a statement like that one at Bob, or anyone else. For Bob, a fellow who makes occasional appeals for respect on the threads, it is out of line....and he knows it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
No Mike, you could replace “You ever go to school? “ with: You ever go to school? Because that’s a good example of something that the government made better. In the same way that you could replace all the other rhetorical questions that would elicit responses that proved that the government had in fact made things better. If you really think Bob has insulted Denise Mike instead of huffing and puffing simply report the post and ask for him to be banned from the site for breaking the rules. Because if you’re right and I’m wrong and he did mean it as an insult then that’s the least he deserves. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Huffing and puffing, grinch? I had no idea you were so eloquent Spitting on the sidewalk is not enough to arrest someone, even though it is illegal. Neither are Bob's small efforts at sarcasm. I was simply speaking up for Denise in the same way Bob has done for Jennifer when I have directed something at her he didn't care for, and actually the same way you are doing for Bob right now. I didn't see you around defending me then but you do show up for Bob. That's interesting enough. I'm not sure why you have decided to involve yourself in this particular area of conversation, anyway, since you were not mentioned and it really didn't pertain to you in any way but I suppose you felt the need for some reason. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I can't speak for Grinch's motives, Mike, but he's accurately assessed mine here. You haven't. This feels like you are actively harassing me, though, Mike, and I wish you'd stop it. Take a deep breath, and simply deal with the stuff that I'm saying about the issues at hand. I have no desire to attack Denise. It's her politics that I have issue with, and occasionally her sources. I think it's possible she might think the same way about me. I also have no particular wish to pick a fight with you. I enjoy the point of view you bring to the table, though I try to make those places and ways I disagree clear. Basically, for your information, when you take a person out of context you don't have to change the words they say. You simply put them in a context in which they are not appropriate. I never suggested you didn't get my words right, Mike, I suggested you got the context wrong, which changed the meaning of the words. You act as though you don't understand the distinction. I find this difficult to believe, but I have taken you at your word, and have tried to explain the concept to you. For example, if I mention to my friend that I'm dieting and am now drinking at least eight glasses of water every day, that suggests I'm on some sort of a health kick, and good for me. If my friend tells somebody else, using that same information, that I'm drinking like a fish, that's taking the same information out of context and using it to suggest something very different. My friend would essentially be putting words in my mouth about my efforts at maintaining my health to give the wrong impression. Correct information — a lot of fluids — wrong context, one is in the context of health damaging in the form of alcohol consumption, the other is an attempt to help my health by giving my kidneys a boost. You were taking me out of context. Sometimes I think you do it on purpose. I would think that you might to better than bring up your comments about Jennifer. I have been trying to drop them. If this is your attempt to place me in the same position that you placed yourself in with Jennifer, I am unintrested in following up. Nor am I interested in attempts to place me in that position. If you want to get out of that position, why not simply treat people in a friendly, open and welcoming fashion. You may be assured that I have in the past and will in the future make mistakes that I find humiliating, and that you need not push to find them. They will be there for sure, try as hard as I might to avoid them. If I thought this was one of them, I would say so, because I hate being in the wrong any longer than I need to be. It's simply too uncomfortable for me. In the meantime, what I experience as harrassment takes you away from the points that, if I understand the purpose of these forums, we are supposed to be here for. You don't make the political points that you might wish to make while you concentrate on making points off me. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, Bob, it's the same story. When your words contradict you in some way, they receive the "out of context" excuse. Months ago when I showed your earlier quotes tht you felt Clinton was instrumental in dealing with the financial meltdown, you claims them to be out of context, since you were trying to pin it all on "the past eight years" at the time. Hard to refute what one puts into writing...but you keep trying. No, I[m not trying to pick any fights with you, Bob. Lately, you have been calling for civility and respect, which simply does not coordinate with your remarks to Denise. If you are sincere about your call, these types of comments are not appropriate. I will welcome you call for civility when I see you practice it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"Democrats last week began a well-orchestrated campaign to change the subject from Obamacare by declaring Republicans the newest terrorist threat. House Majority leader Steny H. Hoyer claimed that Democrats faced threats of violence in their home districts. He demanded that Republicans take a stand against it. 'Silence gives consent,' added Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, who accused Republicans of 'aiding and abetting this kind of terrorism.' Democrats promptly exploited their own fear-mongering by rushing out a fundraising letter. Meanwhile, a shot was fired through the window of Republican House Minority Whip Eric Cantor's Richmond office. Instead of attempting to fill his campaign coffers over the incident, Mr. Cantor denounced Democratic recklessness in creating 'media vehicles for political gain.' To hear Mr. Clyburn talk, you'd think the Capitol had been bombed -- like President Obama's spiritual mentor Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground did in 1971 or the communist Revolutionary Fighting Group did in 1983. We don't recall Republicans placing the blame on Democrats for those bona fide terror attacks committed by the Democrats' ideological cousins. For the party's leaders to make such insinuations now rings hollow. The Democrats and their supporters have consistently demeaned and mischaracterized the broad, nationwide, nonviolent grass-roots movement that arose in opposition to their radical agenda. A willing press establishment relays baseless claims that these protesters are violent uncritically and without investigation. ... Any leftist thug is now free to toss a brick through a Democratic congressional district office window secure in the knowledge that the act of vandalism will be blamed automatically on Tea Partiers or Republicans. Such hoaxes are tickets to instant press coverage. ... This victimization sideshow is meant to hide the fact that Democrats are pursuing policies that the American people oppose, and they are beginning to face a political price." --The Washington Times |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'd be interested in "The Washington Time's" source material on some of this. Have they proved that Bill Ayers Bombed Washington in 1971, for example. Their notion about The bullet hole is Mr. Cantor's building is not apparently born out by fact, so I'd like to see what references they have to support that claim. While it's entirely possible that SDS bombed Washington in 1971, being the widely denounced wing-nut organization that they were, the possibility does not in itself constitute proof. Mike's running the piece without comment is a bit of a puzzle. Is Mike agreeing with The Washington Times, here? Or is he simply trying to find a way of getting unsupported allegations into these pages without having to stick his own neck out and saying that he agrees with them. The logic of the allegation of having left wing folks assault left wing politicians for publicity is particularly grotesque, suggesting that all the complaints that Mike is fond of making against the left for its comments and attacks on the last Republican administrations are actually the work of right wing extremists, trying to give the left a bad name. Both are possible, but vanishingly so. The Nazis did attack one of their own radio stations on the Polish Border in 1939 with troops dressed in Polish uniforms. The dead left behind — CZ camp folks, if I remember correctly — were touted as proof as Polish agression. Willian F. Shirer has an account of the incident in The Rise And Fall of The Third Reich as I recall. It is possible, as I said, simply really really unlikely. I'd like to know how the left managed to get all those leftie protesters to dress up as TEA Party folks and shout those tooth crackingly obscene comments. For the left that's like garlic and vampires, Mike. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Mike's running the piece without comment is a bit of a puzzle. Is Mike agreeing with The Washington Times, here? Or is he simply trying to find a way of getting unsupported allegations into these pages without having to stick his own neck out and saying that he agrees with them. There's just no stop in you, is there, Bob? Providing a link without comment is hardly uncommon here. Jennifer has made it into an art form. Have your accusations ever headed in her direction? Of course not..you can only fire in one direction. Apparently you believe I am the type willing to sneak unfounded allegations in when no one's looking....hence the question of the possibility? You also seem to feel that I can look for these ways not to stick my neck out. Failure to stick my neck out in the Alley has never been a problem for me...I do it all the time. It was a Washington Times post, period. If you want to call it filled with unfounded whatevers, then you can protest to the newspaper. I doubt they post things like that without verification and open themselves up for libel suits but who knows? Maybe, if you protest loudly enough, they will respond to you. I'm finding out that the ways you comment with innuendos and veiled little gotchas are not really insulting. They just must be your normal way of speaking since they are constant and it's foolish of me to be insulted by them....easier to just ignore them. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"I'd be interested in "The Washington Time's" source material on some of this. Have they proved that Bill Ayers Bombed Washington in 1971, for example. " - Bob Ayers, 63, spent 10 years as a fugitive in the 1970s when he was part of the "Weather Underground," an anti-Vietnam War group that protested U.S. policies by bombing the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and a string of other government buildings. Nobody was hurt in the attacks by the defunct organization, which the FBI labeled a "domestic terrorist group." http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/902213,CST-NWS-ayers18.article He went underground in 1970, after his girlfriend, Diana Oughton, and two other people were killed when bombs they were making exploded in a Greenwich Village town house. With him in the Weather Underground was Bernardine Dohrn, who was put on the F.B.I.'s 10 Most Wanted List. J. Edgar Hoover called her ''the most dangerous woman in America'' and ''la Pasionara of the Lunatic Left.'' Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn later married. In his book Mr. Ayers describes the Weathermen descending into a ''whirlpool of violence.'' ''Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,'' he writes. But then comes a disclaimer: ''Even though I didn't actually bomb the Pentagon -- we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.'' He goes on to provide details about the manufacture of the bomb and how a woman he calls Anna placed the bomb in a restroom. No one was killed or injured, though damage was extensive. Between 1970 and 1974 the Weathermen took responsibility for 12 bombings, Mr. Ayers writes, and also helped spring Timothy Leary (sentenced on marijuana charges) from jail. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/11/books/no-regrets-for-love-explosives-memoir-sorts-war-protester-talks-life-with.html?pagewanted=1 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"Their notion about The bullet hole is Mr. Cantor's building is not apparently born out by fact, so I'd like to see what references they have to support that claim." - Bob WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. authorities have arrested and charged a man with threatening to kill the No. 2 Republican in the House of Representatives, Eric Cantor, and his family, according to court documents filed on Monday. Norman Leboon, 38, was accused of making the threat in a video on YouTube in which he said, "You receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads," according to an FBI affidavit accompanying the charge. Yes, Bob, you can claim that the Washington Times didn't actually have a man on site to see the Pentagon bombing nor did have anyone to actually see Leboon shoot the bullets but their claims seem pretty accurate to any rational person, I would believe. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Under the "Babe the Pig" video, Leboon also said he killed Pharaoh's first-born. Sun Yung Moon reported on that yet? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You're right, Jenn. The congressman made it all up and Leboon is probably a model citizen, misunderstood by all. The bullet probably came from some republican shooting at a democrat. Are we all happy now? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thank you for supplying the material on Bill Ayers. I know it must have felt beyond the call of duty to do so, but it was helpful, and it appears that The Washington Times was right in suggesting that Mr. Ayers was involved with the bombing of the Pentagon. I hadn't known that he'd been in hiding for ten years, though I probably should have known. I was actually surprised to find that he was married to Bernardine Dohrn. The business with Representative Cantor seems clear to you. It is not at all clear to me. The reports a few days ago said that the bullet hole was in a downward direction and was not consistent with an attack but consistent instead with an accidental discharge. This doesn't mean that the wing-nut that was arrested isn't responsible. It does mean that I find it hard to believe and that there might be considerable difficulty in actually proving the allegation. I tend to think that the allegation is not true because it sounds as though the guy has confessed to just about everything, without much regard to reality. Doesn't mean he didn't do it. Does mean that it seems reasonably implausible. Doesn't mean that Republicans don't have to worry, either, near as I can tell. It seems like the situation overall is unstable. You already know my thinking on that, and you've already expressed your disagreement with it. Seems like Leboon is responsible for making threats on the intertube, and with any luck, he'll have to deal with some reality in facing those charges. The Washington Times statement about the bullet in Mr. Cantor's building sounded to me as though they were claiming that Mr. Leboon did it. This is inflammatory, and way ahead of fact. I have no idea what Mr. Leboon's politics may be, left or right or something else entirely. The Washington Times has not proven a case here. Thank you for providing the details and the references. They cleared up confusion in my mind about Mr. Ayer's history. I would like to remind Mike, however, that the incident about Mr. Ayers' past was raised by The Washington Times as a distraction of what is happening in the country today, and how the Republicans have been trying to whip up the more agitated members of their base over the past year or so. In order to do so, The Washington Times found it useful to reach a good 40 years into the past, smear Mr. Ayers, who has been a fine and useful citizen since he surfaced and who has written frankly about his thoughts and experiences in the SDS, and then use the smear of Mr. Ayers to suggest a smear of The President. This is the method The Washington Times has chosen to refute allegations of rabble rousing on the part of the radical right. I would characterize this more as an example of exactly that rabble rousing than a refutation of it. I see no conciliation attempted by Reverend Moon's publication, though perhaps others may see charity where I see only more attempts to fan the fires of hatred. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The Times tried to create a distraction by printing facts? They only went 40 years in the past because Ayers is still part of the scene NOW. Yes, you may claim that, since he is a model citizen now, it's no harm, no foul, but wouldn't you consider it just a little strange that a man involved in bombing the Pentagon and other things would ever be a close friend of a President? The thing is that he is not the only one. There are other such radicals right there with him, close to the President. If you can't find that a little strange, especially in light of the fact Obama is making moves in the direction these past radicals endorse, then I won't try to convince you any further. Your plan seems to attempt to target the Times. I believe you have said in the past "Don't shoot the messenger" and "Just because the source may be one you don't favor doesn't mean they can't print true statements.", or thoughts along those lines. Apparently you don't give such leeway to the Times. It's interesting that you won't accept the deliberate firing of a bullet into the congressman's office because there were no witnesses and yet to accept with faith the other congressman's allegation that tea-partiers hurled racial insults at him. This allegedly occured with cameras and microphones everywhere, especially on congressmen, and yet it was never caught either on video or tape. That appears to you to be a done deal while a bullet in the wall doesn't. I don't know Leboon's political affiliation, either. That's not the point. It doesn't matter. The point was not that democrats were firing at republicans. The point was that republicans are getting the same insults and actions against them as democrats are. You may continue to feel that this hysteria is being fueled by republicans but you are in a large minority. The democrats have been doing everything in their power to make sure every incident gets full coverage, complete with them pointing fingers at republicans. This is understandable, since Obama has made finger-pointing so popular as a way of avoiding blame for anything. They are doing everything possible to keep the fires burning and, in doing so, foster more of the same. The public is not buying it and neither do I. Not everything has to be partisan, Bob. Democrats are under attack and so are republicans. Instead of democrats spending their time pointing fingers, they should be spending it downplaying the incidents and working towards having them stop. Undoubtedly, the Times felt the need to print what they did because of the democrats' actions and constant accusations in one direction. One can only be falsely accused so many time before the other responds. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
So much to say, so little time. I'll just have to leave it at this for now: Thank you Michael.  |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"Republican National Committee paid $1,946 for a gathering at a sex-themed Hollywood club and later listed a phone-sex number on a fundraising letter." Wonder where the Teabagger Express is headed next - the Cherry Patch Ranch? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Nah, they are just going to hire gals and call them into their offices, cigars at the ready, and save all of that time and expense, like slick willie did. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
What were the expenses submitted to the RNC again, Mike? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You're asking me??? Ask Jennifer. It's her detour.... |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Almost two grand, Bob. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Republican family values - $2000 worth of BDSM for the under 45 and a Doughnut Hole for Granny. “Turns out the Republican National Committee staffer who accompanied a group of donors to Voyeur, a bondage-themed nightclub in West Hollywood, and then turned in an expense account seeking reimbursement for the nearly $2,000 tab, is one Allison Meyers, director — make that former director — of the RNC's Young Eagles program of donors under the age of 45.” “As described by the Los Angeles Times, the club, "inspired by the film 'Eyes Wide Shut,' is intended to be 'risque and provocative' and 'a combination of intimidation and sexuality,' " in the words of partner David Koral. "Scantily clad performers play out bondage and sadomasochistic 'scenes' during the night." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2011499736_marcus02.html |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: And which past do you say that Ayers endorses, Mike? Bombing? Nonsense! That's an outside the system tactic. It was when the SDS advocated it 40 years ago and it still is. Ayers is an inside the system guy, and his solutions may or may not be as radical on the left as yours are on the right. How do you measure that? The facts that The Times chose to dredge up have little to do with the way the Republicans have run their opposition over the past year or so and the way that it's turned around on them over the past few weeks. It's old stuff dredged up from the election, trying to rally the radical right base of the party. It seems to work well at doing so. How well it will continue to work will depend on the level of violence that shows up in the country and how actively the Right Wing continues to encourage it. quote: I asked about the reality of what The Washington Times had to say. That's hardly "an assault." And when you supplied data, which they should have supplied themselves, I acknowledged my mistaken assumption and the gaps in my own information, as was appropriate for me to do. Their information was better than mine, and I acknowledged my ignorance. I believe that is offering Leeway to The Washington Times. If you don't believe so, you might suggest why that's the case. I certainly didn't kill the messinger. I questioned the messinger. I also found the messinger lacking in some areas, as you might have noticed. I said that as well. quote: Why would I accept "the deliberate firing of a bullet" into Congressman Eric Cantor's Richmond office when the police investigation said that it appeared accidental. I believe the initial reports said it was into the Congressman's office, but that there were other reports that say it was into the building where the Congressman had his offices. Am I incorrect here? This seems to be begging the question, overall. Beyond all of this, I deplore anybody shooting a gun into the air anywhere. It's terrible gun safety. Any member or former member of the NRA should agree with me and should want whoever did this arrested for such idiocy. It endangers public safety. If it was on purpose, as a political gesture, it is even worse, no matter who did it. It certainly raises the issue of gun control at a time when The Republican Party should be uncomfortable having it raised, and the Democratic party, trying to appease the right wing members in its own ranks can't be happy either. As for the aim of Cameras and microphones, as any sound recordist or camera man can tell you, you have to be pretty lucky to get things on film that you even plan to get on film, let alone get them on film and on sound recording in any way that can be deciphered later. Once again, the folks who write these sort of talking points seem to trust you not to trust your own experience and not to think, all at the same time. Hearing the questions raised once again simply makes the questions sound silly once again. Sound check! Sound check! Hello! Hello! quote: You'd think that everybody would love the Republicans, wouldn't you, given the amount of help they've offered in governing the nation, and the way they've tried to help bring the country together after the election. Certainly, everybody thinks of the Republicans as the Party of Amity and concilliation, which is why the hostility toward them is such a big shock. Not to mention the way they were able to make so many people so happy during the previous eight years. Of course people are unhappy with the Republicans too, Mike. The country is unhappy with everybody in Congress, Democrats and Republicans, and we need to stop blaming each other and have a good solid look at our political process and start thinking deeply about why that is. I think it's got a lot to do with the feeling that the government is for sale to the highest bidder, and a lot of that has crystalized with the recent supreme court decision. I don't know that people actually consciously link it with that decision, but since that time, I've felt a real sense of fatalism and futility in the air. Money equals speech. Right. Corporations are people. Right. quote: You may be noticing which direction my finger is pointing. My finger is pointing at the infusion of money into the electoral process. Anybody's money. Chinese money, mafia money, wall street money, defense contractor money, union money, you name it money. It doesn't even have to be American money that can be used to buy an American election. Saudi Money has an interesting and to my mind at least, a historical ring to it. quote: We have agreement, though we are looking, I think, in opposite directions. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The country is unhappy with everybody in Congress, Democrats and Republicans, and we need to stop blaming each other and have a good solid look at our political process and start thinking deeply about why that is. I think it's got a lot to do with the feeling that the government is for sale to the highest bidder, and a lot of that has crystalized with the recent supreme court decision. I don't know that people actually consciously link it with that decision, but since that time, I've felt a real sense of fatalism and futility in the air. Money equals speech. You may be noticing which direction my finger is pointing. My finger is pointing at the infusion of money into the electoral process. Anybody's money. Chinese money, mafia money, wall street money, defense contractor money, union money, you name it money. It doesn't even have to be American money that can be used to buy an American election. Saudi Money has an interesting and to my mind at least, a historical ring to it. Very timely statements, Bob. Figures came out today that 2009 set a record for money spent by lobbyists, 3.4 billion, I believe, the majority of it going to Democrats. What makes that even more interesting was that it was a major point in Obama's platform that he promised to keep the lobbyists out of Washington, not to allow them to set a spending record....just another promise up in smoke, like so many others. you have to be pretty lucky to get things on film that you even plan to get on film, let alone get them on film and on sound recording in any way that can be deciphered later. You can't be serious, Bob. There are cameras and audio devices everywhere in those situations, especially on every congressman. Everyone has a camera pointed in some direction. How well it will continue to work will depend on the level of violence that shows up in the country and how actively the Right Wing continues to encourage it. Ok, Bob, let me ask you this. I would like for you to try to think of your response in an honest manner, devoid of bias, which I know you can do if you want to. The congressman volunteered the unsolicited information that he had allegedly been called the N word, an event not witnessed, reported, or viewed by anyone else. Why would he do that? What are the positive and negatives of such an act by a congressman? The negatives are easy. It is a comment that could infuriate and enrage blacks. It could create civil unrest and set off violence that a certain section of blacks look for as excuses to revolt. it could set a racial tone, pitting blacks against whites. The positives? Well, it could label Tea Partiers as bigots. It could draw sympathy for Obama and democrats, I suppose. I can't think of any other positives. So which avenue would you expect a congressman, a person committed to do what is good for the country, to travel down? One would think that he would choose the path most beneficial to the country, wouldn't you? This congressman chose the opposite path. He was willing to promote and cause civil unrest for nothing more than the opportunity to tarnish the Tea Partiers. One could almost think him disappointed that at least one riot didn't break out in some city. These are not the actions of a decent congressman, or even man. This is not the action of a man doing what is best for the country. This is called promoting civil unrest, Bob, and it is done by democrats. The level of violence that shows up down the road will be on their shoulders. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I already posted one video showing it did happen and even pointed out the time 44/45 sec in where it was clearly audible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SCs6pSE8_I&feature=related Members of Congress were spat upon, subjected to racial and homophobic slurs. Bricks were hurled through their office windows. They received death threats and threats directed at their families. There are videos, audio tapes of calls made to their offices and homes, letters, police reports showing the threats were indeed made. Now Republicans/teabaggers want to blame the victims for speaking out, for asking that the rhetoric of hatred be toned down before someone actually got hurt? Typical Rovian tactics - very sad and very sick. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, I just listened to it 5 times, replaying the section you pointed out, Jennifer, and I couldn't hear it. Can anyone else? Yes, the rhetoric of hatred should always be toned down...unless creating more hatred is the goal. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You're asking me a "why would he do it?" question, Mike, and you ask me in terms of saying that I can answer you objectively, if I try. If this is the incident that I remember, there may not have been a camera or a tape-player there, but there actually was a Capitol Policeman. The Capitol Policeman apparently witnessed the incident, if I recall correctly, and made an arrest. The Congressman refused to press charges. He was unhappy about being called the name, but understood that a certain amount of abuse comes with the territory. The Congressman tried to play the incident down, not up, which was why, I suppose, there were not widespread outbreaks in response. I would not have been happy about it either. The tone in Congress has been less than civil. It was only a couple of years since one of the Texas (I think it was Texas) delegates spoke of Barney Frank as Barney F-- in public. It wasn't all that long ago that you yourself posted a video here that a couple of us objected to that featured a narrator slapping his hand with a bat while he was talking about Congressman Frank in unflattering terms. The video went through a bunch of other democrats in highly unflattering fashion as well. You thought this was simply good sport, for the most part and had trouble understanding what the upset was about. Now you expect the rest of the country to believe that The Republicans, who find this sort of thing apparently perfectly good fun to do with those who disagree with them, have suddenly grown sensitivity when they speak of it being done to themselves? Have you been speaking out against it right along? This is from the same party that believes that torture is perfectly good treatment for prisoners under their care. These are examples of Republican values about violence and exploitation of others, values that Republicans have argued for openly in elections and pushed into legislation. Treating other people as things, acting in a dehumanizing fashion toward them, provoking and instigating violence for immediate gain, heedless of long-term consequences. I saw no evidence of Republicans trying to put these values aside by, say, offering some sort of positive and mutually beneficial health care program for the American people. I see no evidence of Republicans refraining from demonizing The President and the Democratic members of Congress. I see only a wish to sidestep the consequences of the anger of voters over the incivility and potential violence. That, I predict, will pass quickly enough, and with that, theRepublican rhetoric will quickly return to its usual level of rage and vitriol. This seeming concern is at best temporary. The Republicans have an election to fight, and they really know only one way to fight them. I predict it will not be pretty. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, I got no answer to my question but I really didn't expect one. I gave it a try. It's a shame you avoided it completely but I understand why. We will just have to agree to disagree. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Rovian tactics, so predictable 1. attack the messenger, 2. kill the message. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Wow, Jennifer, you're tougher on Bob than I was! |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
3. repeat 1 & 2 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
But Mike, the situation was not as you described it. You offered a "How many time a week do you beat your wife?" sort of question, then act put out when I tell you that my wife remains unbeaten. I notice you don't dispute my account. I offer you again a chance to do so. Perhaps I don't have my facts straight, and a solid correction with appropriate references would then allow me to give you an answer. Short of that, you'd be asking me to respond to a fiction as though it were reality. Why in Heaven's name would I wish to do that? And why would you want me to? It makes no sense. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No sense beating a dead horse, Bob. The situation was exactly as I presented it and you went all the way to prisoner torture to get away from it. I asked for your objective response and you couldn't or wouldn't give it. The conversation has run it's course. Have a nice evening. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/6239001/2/istockphoto_6239001-dummy-spit.jpg |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I gave you a chance to correct my facts. A denial is not a correction of facts. It offers no new information, no data, no references and no new logic. It is an impoverished reassertion of of a position which has already been addressed and exposed as "begging the question," a logical dead end, and a classical logical fallacy. Once again, I offer you the chance to correct my facts or offer a new perspective so that I might construe your request as something other than begging the question and offer an answer in you terms... If I am as off the mark as you suggest, this ought to be a snap. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ah, Bob.... The using of the n word is unsubstantiated. No one heard it. There is no video of it. As a matter of fact, one republican has offfered a 10,000 offer to anyone who could show anything to substantiate it. No one has been able to. The congressman offered his version of it unsolicited. Those were the facts that I presented, the ones you claim is wrong. Show me where. The only "fact" ypu appear to have presented with regards to the question is there actually was a Capitol Policeman. The Capitol Policeman apparently witnessed the incident, if I recall correctly, and made an arrest.. Apparently? If you recall correctly? That's your fact? Show me a link or proof validating that "fact". What is the arrestable charge for using the N word, anyway? I didn't dispute your "facts" because there was no fact to dispute. Actually, don't bother. You have show by your replies that any objective thought relative to this question is beyond your capabilities. What you have shown is that you will go to any lengths to avoid answering it and that your disdain for democrats is so great that objectivity is impossible. There is no need for us to continue and I won't. I will let other readers of this thread judge whether my facts are valid or not and whether my question was a fair one. Don't bother taunting me to continue. The merry-go-round has come to an end. I thought perhaps we could have a reasonable discussion on this point but I see that expecting that was expecting too much. I won't make that mistake again. Have a good day. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
witnessed, reported and viewed but if you didn't see it on faux news pretend it really didn't happen - put beans in your ears, your head in the sand and just keep on teabagging. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I also listened several times to the time-frame given by Jennifer in the link and I couldn't hear it either, Michael. I don't know if Grinch could hear it as he didn't reply to Jen's question about it that I can see, so I guess he probably couldn't either or maybe he just didn't see her question. Andrew Breitbart has upped his offer from $10K to $100K for evidence of the alleged racial slur. It will be interesting to see if there are any takers. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=135145 Obama is getting in on the act now to try to discredit the Tea Partiers. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
'Armageddon' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pUeDfoukpk |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
He's very talented...at mocking those who disagree with him and obfuscation. No, we aren't likely to see big changes in 3 to 6 months as we are still sitting in the doctor's office...the doctor of our choice, leafing through the 'old people magazines' (can he become any more offensive?) The biggest changes will come in 2014 when the plans are actually implemented. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2010/04/02/oreilly-explores-racial-makeup-tea-parties |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Will you Tea Bag the Liberal Dems before they Tea Bag you http://www.sodahead.com/living/will-you-tea-bag-the-liberal-dems-before-they-tea-bag-youwhat-a-display-of-faillol/question-286274/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
100,000?? Wow...Jenn, why are you standing in line to collect that? That's a lot of Tea! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Here is what I have been able to determine after looking into the material more closely. A man was handcuffed and detained by Capitol police at the incident. The Congressman did not identify the man as the man what spat at him and who used the offensive language. Accounts differ as to why. There is no dispute that the man was handcuffed and detained on the spot by the police. The Police later issues a statement saying that no arrests were made, which was true; because the Congressman did not identify the man, there were no grounds for holding him. That there were grounds for detaining the man has not been disputed. Perhaps he would like to come forward at some point and do so. That remains an interesting possibility, doesn't it? I would very much like to see that happen. Initial press reports said that the N****r word had been used, and that Congressman Clearver had been spat upon. Others in his party verified those events. I have seen no reports of protestors in the area denying those events, though there may be some. You would think they would be featured prominently in the opposition press. Instead, what has been featured are reports of lack of video and sound recordings of the incident. Video and sound recordings are difficult to achieve in a spontaneous fashion, as any professional will tell you, depending mostly on chance. Evidently the Republican offering the reward has declined to pay out for the testimony of the Democrats keeping Congressman Cleaver company and who were on that spot. Evidently he has not found any demonstrators who were willing to report evidence that the contrary, and the reports are reduced to being negative reports of what video didn't capture. Evidently the reasoning is that if it wasn't on video and recorded on tape, then it wasn't real. This apparently doesn't carry over to Republican notions of weapons of Mass destruction, which many Republicans still believe to be real despite similar lack of evidence. You asked me to show you where your facts were wrong. See the above. For a more detailed run through of the process, I offer you the sources through which I tracked these details: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/20/90772/rep-john-lewis-charges-protesters.html http://wchbnewsdetroit.com/detroit/angelohenderson/rep-andre-carson-and-rep-john-lewis-called-the-n-word-15-times-rep-emanuel-cleaver-was-spat-on-by-anti-health-care-reform-protest or-what-does-these-times-remind-you-of/ Kristie Greco, spokeswoman for Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said a protester spit on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., who is black and said police escorted the lawmakers into the Capitol. Cleaver’s office said he would decline to press charges, but Sgt. Kimberly Schneider of the U.S. Capitol Police said in an e-mail later: “We did not make any arrests today.” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589776,00.html I trust they meet with your approval. quote: Again, I refer you to the articles above. I would assume that the use of the word would not be grounds for arrest; but that the spitting would be. The "arrest" was indeed reported, but those initial reports were mistaken. I had remembered correctly. The "arrest" turned into "detainment" in the Fox version, and you may check that version for your verification. That is where I got mine. If there had been no fact to dispute, I would say so. quote: I absolutely love your Freudian slip here, Mike. I love the comment about objectivity. The facts are fairly clear. At your request, I backed up and reviewed them, and I presented them with references. If more information becomes available as time goes on, then it stands to reason, my point of view may well change to fit the facts; but these are the facts as they appear to me now. It appears that Representative Cleave was abused verbally and physically, and his assailant was detained. The Representative, whatever his reasons, declined to press charges, and his assailant was released. There were witnesses in the Congressman's party. There may well have been witnesses in the crowd who could have exculpated the assailant, but if so, they have not come forward. The assailant has not pressed charges for any sort of rough or unreasonable treatment. One is left to wonder why; if the statements made by the publicity arm of the Radical Right is correct, he certainly should have. I continue to suggest that you would have me beg the question by asserting that the Congressman did something wrong. I say to you that I see no evidence that he did. Only more Republican flummery. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, first of all. thank you for actually addressing the question and making an effort to answer it. I appreciate that. Initial press reports said that the N****r word had been used, and that Congressman Clearver had been spat upon. Others in his party verified those events. I have seen no reports of protestors in the area denying those events, though there may be some. You would think they would be featured prominently in the opposition press. Instead, what has been featured are reports of lack of video and sound recordings of the incident. Video and sound recordings are difficult to achieve in a spontaneous fashion, as any professional will tell you, depending mostly on chance. Bob, I would think nothing of the kind. They are fewer things more distasteful than having to stand up and declare your innocence for something you haven't done. I don't care for it and I doubt you do, either, yet you seem to feel the people there should have. I don't call that a valid argument. As far as video and sound recordings being difficult to achieve in a spontaneous fashion...... Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., told a reporter that as he left the Cannon House Office Building with Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a leader of the civil rights era, some among the crowd chanted “the N-word, the N-word, 15 times.” Both Carson and Lewis are black, and Lewis spokeswoman Brenda Jones also said that it occurred. Now we are not talking about a single, spontaneous act that the cameras and sound devices missed because they were not in position. We are talking about a CHANT, a prolongued chant that used the N word fifteen times. Do you really believe that could happen around a group of congressmen and not be captured on any video or sound device??? With the headline-seeking barracudas that comprise our news agencies, do you REALLY find that to be realistic? I would consider it almost impossible. Evidently the Republican offering the reward has declined to pay out for the testimony of the Democrats keeping Congressman Cleaver company and who were on that spot. As he should. Would you pay out a hundred grand to someone based on their word only, with nothing factual to back it up? I find that unlikely. The facts are fairly clear. At your request, I backed up and reviewed them, and I presented them with references. What you presented were the words of others, not factually backed up. I will not say the event didn't happen. In any group, be them democrats, republicans, hari krishnas or boy scouts, there will always be hotheads and rebels. It very well could have happened. All I am saying is there is nothing factual to back it up. I continue to suggest that you would have me beg the question by asserting that the Congressman did something wrong. I say to you that I see no evidence that he did. Only more Republican flummery. No, my question was not whether or not he did something wrong. My question was were his actions the actions of a congressman with the best interests of the country at heart. Did he and his people say anything that could produce something positive or something that would simply further fuel dissention and outrage...and, if so, what was their motive? You may respond by saying thay said it because it happened. Ok....the next time you feel your wife looks horrible in a new dress, I suggest you don't tell her. Even on a personal level,we often choke back truisms for the greater good of a relationship or situation. For congressmen, that same restraint should apply to anything that could negatively affect the good of the country. The congressman and his entourage did not seem to care that their words could enrage and encourage retaliation...with no positive benefits. My question to you was do you agree with that way of thinking? That's all. Once again, I thank you for your reply. You put in effort and research, you stuck to the topic and you were honest and decent in your presentation. Conversations like this are beneficial to all concerned. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Very interesting to note there’s no discussion about the recorded and written death threats directed at Democratic members of Congress and their families, the bricks through windows, the cut gas line, etc.. I wonder why that is, perhaps because there’s so much evidence showing those things really happened? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Simple....they weren't part of the conversation between Bob and I. If you would like to start a thread for them, go ahead. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
The recorded and written death threats directed at Democratic members of Congress and their families, the bricks through windows, the cut gas line, the coded language of violence being tossed about by Replublican pundits and teabaggers, etc. are all a part of what this thread I started is about. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, you simply started it with vitriol against teabaggers and Cantor's "false" story...little more than rants. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4Wfkz-5LEA |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I wonder if there was a point for Pelosi, with her oversized gavel, and the Black Democratic Caucus to take the route they did that day, straight through the heart of the crowd of protestors. I heard that the normal route is through a private tunnel conntecting the buildings. Were they perhaps hoping for an incident of some sort? And when they didn't get what they wanted, they just made it up anyway? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That same point was on the news last night, Denise...definitely not standard practice. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
“Since Democrats retook control of the House in January 2007, the gavel hasn't been just a symbol of the speaker's power. It has been a particularly volatile image from the moment she was photographed receiving it from John Boehner. The outgoing Republican majority leader wasn't just yielding power after an electoral thumping, he was yielding it to a woman, the first woman to sit only two heartbeats from the presidency. Right-wing blogs frequently use that image, often without explanation, as if it is manifestly obvious that the world is upside down if a woman from San Francisco in a tailored cabernet-colored suit is brandishing the implement” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/22/AR2010032203564.html |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There you have it, Denise. She used a volatile image to walk through the crowd of protesters. Obvious what her reasons were.... |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Robin: Wow! I think I'll be hard of hearing for a while! Batman: What?!! Robin: I said, WOW! I THINK I'LL BE HARD OF HEARING FOR A WHILE! Batman: You'll have to speak louder, Robin! I think I'll be hard of hearing for a while! |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Rep. Steve Cohen was on The Young Turks last night and he brought it. He said the Republicans in Congress seemed to be encouraging the Tea Party protests to the point of nearly inciting a riot. He said it was like "mob rule." In Tennessee people were throwing rocks through windows. Talking about the local and national protests, the Congressman said, "It was the verge of Kristallnacht." Finally, imagine if there were a group of well-organized Muslims in the country leading rage filled protests. That they were being led by Democratic congressmen and left-wing commentators. And they started throwing bricks through windows, cutting gas lines, sending white powder to congressmen's offices and sending death threats. What do you think the general attitude of the nation and the press would be? My guess is utter panic and an enormous backlash. So, why aren't people reacting the same way when it's right-wing zealots doing these things? Does it appear to be less scary when it's done by white people? By right-wingers? The last time the extreme right-wing movement got this worked up, someone blew up a federal building in Oklahoma. We have already had several federal buildings attacked and the size of the militia movement is even larger now than when Clinton was president. When is it time to get concerned? What are we waiting for? For the attacks to get larger? To get deadlier? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/rep-steve-cohen-sarah-pal_b_523647.html |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Denise, Am I to understand that the "oversized gavel" was the one that the Republicans were using before? And that it was given to her by the former Republican Speaker? What do you think would have been the reaction if she'd gotten a more dainty gavel, Denise, or painted this one pink? I can imagine no circumstance under which you would not find something to criticize about her, including, as in this case, doing nothing. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thanks for your 125. I appreciate the tone of the reply, the civility and straightforwardness of it. I don't demand agreement, that would be silly of me, especially from somebody who disagrees. Understanding the possibility is more than enough; graciousness is wonderful. Telling my wife that she doesn't look her best when in fact she doesn't look her best is a difficult thing. I try to remember that I don't have to do difficult things in a blunt and unpleasant way, and that I have to make a judgement call about it. We've gotten to the point where she can tell me, not those pants, and not that shirt and I can do the same because we trust we're looking out for each other. I sometimes go shopping with her and will make suggestion about what I think is flattering on her and what I think isn't. She likes me being involved in the shopping, mostly, so that makes it easier. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Maybe it's not mostly right wing zealots responsible for the violence, Jen, and maybe it's not as widespread as the Democrats and media are attempting to portray the incidents. I don't remember anyone in the past putting on a show like that, Bob. What was the point of the parade through the crowd instead of taking the normal route? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, the last time I tried to correct mine on anything was when I said her nylons were wrinked and she told me she wasn't wearing any! The famous gavel... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ9eiyQtXyI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKIcQ0xYNZA |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
We know why she did it, Denise. It was an "in-your-face" gesture towards the protesters...and then she complains about right-wing incitement. That's our Nancy...all class. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I ran across some new information on the IRS Agents that we've been hearing about from folks on the Right when I was browsing on fact-check. I thought I'd post the reference because the actual fact-checked data does seem to be a breath of sanity: http://factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/ Enjoy! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: This may be obvious to you, but it is not obvious to me. Are you saying that Speaker Pelosi walked through a crowd while waving the gavel from the house of Representatives and that this set off a wave of spitting and verbally abusive Radical Right wing folks into assaulting Congressmen other than Speaker Pelosi? That is in fact what it sounds to me that you are saying, though that chain of events makes no sense to me at all. I'd appreciate one of you filling me in on exactly what this obvious chain of events may be, Hmm? Share the wealth of understanding here. I'm also unclear as to how somebody might use a volatile image to walk, since it seems to offer little support. Nowhere near that of feet, for example, or crutches, or even a cane. Being volatile, I'd be nervous about it either evaporating or exploding, myself. In regard to an earlier conversation, one may have the right of free speech in regard to political speech in this country, but I believe that other speech may have limits on it. I know that the "assault" in the phrase "assault and battery" may be defined — at least in some states — as a verbal assault, and is illegal. One should not have to suffer the indignity of suffering a verbal assault, as distinguished from the freedom and (I would say, obligation) to express ones' self politically. The "battery" part is the physical pummeling. The spitting, could well have run the charges into "Assault and Battery upon a Federal official," which could have run into serious jail time indeed for something of this sort. Enough so that pressing the charges might well have backfired, which makes more sense to me than any other explanation than I can think of. The political calculus was not in Congressman Cleaver's favor to press charges. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thanks for the link, Bob. I don't have time to look at it thoroughly tonight but a couple of things have stuck out... Its first task is to inform many small-business owners of a new tax credit that the new law grants them — starting this year — which will pay up to 35 percent of the employer’s contribution toward their workers’ health insurance. I don't know what they mean by "inform". As grinch said, most IRS work is done by computers. What will they do to "inform"? Send out letters? Send out agents to explain the new system to businesses? If that't the case, then there definitely would be a need for new agents - and a lot of them. In any case, the bill signed into law (on page 131) specifically prohibits the IRS from using the liens and levies commonly used to collect money owed by delinquent taxpayers, and rules out any criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to pay the tax or those who don’t obtain coverage. That doesn’t leave a lot for IRS enforcers to do. I wonder, then, who is in charge of enforcement. If the IRS is in charge and yet they don't have enforcement powers, who does? Or does it mean there will be no enforcement? GOP Analysis, March 18: IRS may need to hire as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents and other employees. Notice the words "may" and "as many as." This is the highest figure the GOP analysts thought they could support. Notice also the phrase "other employees," which covers everyone down to file clerks and support staff. The analysts based their 16,500 figure on an assumption that the IRS budget "could" require an additional $10 billion over the next 10 years as a result of the law, a figure they attribute to the Congressional Budget Office. But what CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf actually said in a March 11 letter to congressional leaders is this (with emphasis added): CBO Director Elmendorf, March 11: CBO has not completed an estimate of all of the discretionary costs that would be associated with H.R. 3590. … [S]uch costs would probably include an estimated $5 billion to $10 billion over 10 years for administrative costs of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Ok, if the republicans want to use the top figure, I don't see a problem with that. The CBO said 5-10 billion. Nothing wrong with going with the top figure, since any congressional spending always seems to go over the top of projections. Finally, regarding Ron Paul's claim that they would all be armed, I can't buy that at all and consider him dead wrong for saying it. That would be ridiculous. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Are you saying that Speaker Pelosi walked through a crowd while waving the gavel from the house of Representatives and that this set off a wave of spitting and verbally abusive Radical Right wing folks into assaulting Congressmen other than Speaker Pelosi? Nope, not saying that at all. I have no idea what she set off. I do know that she did it as a provocative gesture, obviously uncaring as to whether it would set off anything or not. Her "strut" was more important to her than any repercussions it could cause. She is well-deserving of her 7% approval rating. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
OMG was that little 70 year old size zero woman threatening the teabagger mob with the gavel? They must have been absolutely terrified. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Another brilliant statement, Jennifer. Interesting how you wish to present yourself. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
See post # 1 and think about it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Post #1 doesn't show me anything but someone not to be taken seriously. After some of your comments today, you have joined that group. Congrats... |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Stop watching Fox News and listening to dim bulbs like Bachmann, it will rot your brain out. "I bet the main reason the police keep people away from a plane crash is they don't want anybody walking in and lying down in the crash stuff, then when somebody comes up act like they just woke up and go, 'What was THAT?!'" - Jack Handey Anyway, back to the gavel. The gavel Pelosi carried was the one used when the Medicare bill was passed. Carrying it as she left the final Dem caucus was a symbolic gesture showing she had the votes for passage of HCR. It was a signal - Dems knew what it meant. If she’d gone through the tunnel we wouldn’t have seen it and had a chance to party before the Pugs filled up the pubs weeping bitters into their pints. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
She reminds me of Thor. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Are you referring to Pelosi or Jennifer, Ess? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Well, Ess, perhaps Pelosi would find the comparison amusing, flattering even. Personally, I'd kind of like to have it as my PiP avatar. http://www.marvel.com/universe3zx/images/9/97/THOR_GIRL.jpg |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: What is the source of your "knowledge," Mike? I would suggest to you that, since it appears your "knowledge" can have no other source than a secret pipeline into Speaker Pelosi's brain, unless you have some direct quote from her saying that your assumption is correct, that you are indulging in a bout of mind-reading. Your conclusions, based on your skill at mindreading, are also somewhat suspect.. This doesn't mean you are wrong. How would I know? It does mean that you'd need actually to base them on hard data before you could make assertions with anything like the confidence you seem to show here. Not that I object, in this case, since we are talking about a Plea for Sanity, and it seems to me that the discussion should be able to cover most anything as long as it's done in a rational and sane fashion, but what is the connection between this and the incidents with Rep. Cleaver and Rep. Frank and so on? Is it part of the same series or is it a separate incident entirely? Is this incident caught on video, with sound, or not? And so on? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Here you go Bob, a link showing the Pelosi "strut". Characterizing it as a "strut" seems a bit of a stretch, but hey...whatever. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYNV08ufTRI |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, Bob, it's not mind-reading. It's more like mind-using. Pelosi decided not to use the standard path through the tunnel but directly through the protesters with gavel held in fron of her. One doesn't need to be either a mind reader or Sherlock Holmes to deduce her intent. One only needs to be a mind user. Pretend she is Bush. That should change your mind Still waiting for an answer as to whether you consider it feasible that a continued chant, with the N word being used 15 times, would not reasonably be captured by at least one Video recorder or listening device. Surely the chant alone would draw reporters, wouldn't it? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"Pretend she is Bush." "Bring 'em on" A swagger strut across the USS Lincoln - AWOL in Top Gun gear. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The press is distinct from the Pazarazzi, Mike. They don't mob the politicians wherever they go. That's why politicians call press conferences and tell editors where to send the cameras and the sound people, so they can have the cameras set up in advance, and have the sound systems set up, and they can get good pictures and good sound. Where stories break, say between places where one would expect something to happen, the presence of press is catch as catch can. They may be there, they may not. If they're there, they may have the cameras on, and they may not. Were there any press covering this particular stroll at all? Was there any tape at all of this particular progress. If so, who was there? Were they there during the alleged incident. What do they say? For that matter, was Fox news with the politiciaqns during the Cleaver walk in which the alleged chanting took place. If they were, then you would clearly have film of the incident NOT happening. If they were not there, why were they not there? That would liikely be the same reason other press people were not there as well. My thinking, that they expected that there would be vanishingly little chance of a story appearing there, and thought that being there would be a waste of their time and money. I might be wrong about that. So in answer to your question, for the reasons I have just gone into, I think it is very likely there was no press around to take video, and that of the protestors, nobody was thrilled enough to step forward with any video they might have taken, since it does not make they look good, and for the Congress folk, I suspect that it was too scary a situation to allow them to do much good thinking, though I couldn't say for sure. Is that a straighforward enough answer for you? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
And no, mind user doesn't work here. You're assuming that press was close enough to hear and quick enough to respond. Too many assumptions. You still appear to be mind reading. You still do not appear to be offering evidence. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, Bob, it is not straightforward at all, although I'm sure it is to you. A mob with continued chants of a racial slur would not go unnoticed. I realize you cannot admit that because that would blow the possibility of it not happening so that's fine with me. You inhabit your world where something that newsworthy would not be seen and I'll inhabit mine where cameras and sound devices are everywhere congressmen gather. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
If they were everywhere Congressfolk gathered, they'd be inside half the dinner parties and restaurants in Washington, or clustered like flies outside on the off chance of something happening. Where were the film clips from Fox news showing the uneventful progress of Congressfolk that they claim happened, if what you say is true actually is true. They should have wasted film everywhere. They should have reporters rushing forward to say, I was there, personally. I saw the whole thing and nothing like the Democrats claim actually happened. That would support your theory, Mike. That is where the logic lies. If it's logical that the press follows congress everywhere, as you say, then there would be press witnesses, film and sound recordings of the whole thing not happening, in fact of the whole progress. There's where your actual logic lies. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
In this age of electronics, when virtually everyone has a camera, cell phone, or video recorder, Bob, if those chants happened, they'd be splashed across the internet for all the world to see and hear. We wouldn't just be reading unsubstaniated allegations. And I can't believe that there were no professional news organizations positioned near the foot of the Capitol, that day of all days. The absence of any incident captured by the news media on camera doesn't mean that the news media were not there. It could quite likely mean that there were no incidents to capture. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0UIUdDMbeU |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
...and of course no paparazzi or right-winger would be concerned about not collecting the 100 grand reward. Paparazzis have too much class and right-wingers are all rich. So Bob says if it didn't happen there would be video showing it didn't happen. How does one argue with logic like that?  "I refer you to the curious incident of the dog barking at midnight....." |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Teabaggers need to stop and think for a change. The crowd was mostly teabaggers. Does it seem likely they’d post a video showing one of their own pack of vipers hurling racial insults at a civil rights hero? And should they actually find the reward too tempting to refuse, do you honestly think Breitbart would release the video after he paid for it? Like duh Anyway, the slurs directed at Barney Frank and the spitting incident were both captured on video, the death threats against members of Congress and their families were captured on audio as well as in written form intercepted by the Capitol police. Rather strange the teabaggers have nothing to say about those events. So typical, what has and can be proven they sweep under the rug. More of the same, nothing to see here, move along folks attitude left over from the Bush Administration. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Sick thinking: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36316 |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OERxYJFYW4&feature=related |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
My logic is very straightforward. I believe that video and sound recording of congress is 1) only sporadic; 2)requires a certain amount of skill to pull off; and, 3) is not financially possible at all times and in all places. Therefore, it doesn't happen constantly and there are huge gaps in the record. You believe; 1) that the recording goes on all the time, and that it goes on everyplace that congress as a whole or individuals or groups of congressmen go; 3) that there is high quality video and sound available of everything they do. If your assumptions are correct, then there is a visual and sound record of everything that went on with the Cleaver party; that the detainment is on record; that it can be proven by examination of this record — which by your assumptions would suggest has to exist — whether or not the incident as described by the Cleaver party actually happened. My assumptions would say that this may not be possible at all, that there could well be gaps in the record for very good reasons, as I have previously discussed. Your assumptions say that the record has to exist. It must exist. Therefore, your folks, Fox news, or their friends at The Right Wing Side of the demonstration must, according to your assumptions, have available records of this available. By looking through these records, it should be possible to prove that Congressman Cleaver is a lier, then, shouldn't it? Not from my assumptions, Mike, from yours, since you insist that such a record exists. So where is it, Mike? If your assumptions are correct, all you have to do is produce enough continuous tape to cover that single party during that brief walk, right? I say, it's likely that no such record exists. You say it does and that it must. So show it. It'll quiet down the whole issue. It will still leave you with the other issues that Jennifer mentioned, which we can put aside for now, but this issue we shoiuld be able to put aside. Produce this tape that you insist exists. Produce this high quality, news grade tape that you insist exists, and demonstate the superiority of your assumption here. Of course, you realize that for your assumption to prove true, every action of these people at all times has to be on tape, and that in order to prove mine, only occasional lapses need be proven. But then, I didn't take the incredibly unlikely end of this proposition, Mike, Did I? You're the one who insisted that all this stuff had to be on tape, opening you up to a demand that the tape be produced from the Fox folks who are presumably sure that such things happen because they MUST DO IT THEMSELVES, in order to make a sweeping assertion with any degree of certainty. Where is the Fox Tape? Where is the Tape from the TEA Party crowd? I would say that such tape wouldn't necessarily exist, mind you, because I took the parrt of the proposition that seemed like a rational proposal. You, on the other hand, took the position that was most unlikely and hardest to prove. And you suggest I'm being irrational. Look in your mirror, Friend, before you try to take the side of the proposal that has the smallest sign of logic to recommend it. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I guess you missed my sharing of the denunciation by the Tea Party Patriots and members of the Republican Party of violence and slurs, no matter where it comes from. Either that or you choose to ignore it. You so far haven't shown anything proving that any members of the Tea Party engaged in such activity...just allegations. Martin Luther King is rolling over in his grave at the baseless race-baitng that is going on today. He was a registered Republican, by the way. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Dr. King's Economic Dream Deferred “This is a perilous moment. The individualist, greed-driven free-market ideology that both our major parties have pursued is at odds with what most Americans really care about. Popular support for either party has struck bottom, as more and more agree that growing inequality is bad for the country, that corporations have too much power, that money in politics has corrupted our system, and that working families and poor communities need and deserve help because the free market has failed to generate shared prosperity -- its famous unseen hand has become a closed fist. It is hard to overstate the consequences of choosing more of the same -- the very policies that have sundered our social contract. But hear the judgment of Nobel Laureate Kenneth Arrow, echoing Martin Luther King, Jr.'s life and martyrdom. "The vast inequalities of income weaken a society's sense of mutual concern," Arrow said. "...The sense that we are all members of the social order is vital to the meaning of civilization” http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/03 |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mjg1NTI4M2VkZmNjZWNmZWJjOWVjMWNkNGExOWRjMWI= |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPAiH9XhTHc&feature=related |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Where are the clear taped versions of what went on between that guy with Parkinson's and the TEA Party folks who were throwing money and insults at him, Denise? If all of this is so easy to get, and we have video of that incident, and we do, though the video is incomplete and not very good, where is the actual audio portion that ought to have come along with it in all its crystal clarity, if you are correct in your assumption about the ubiquity of video and sound recording. Even in Hollywood movies, where everything is set up in advance to get the best possible quality for both the picture and sound quality, it is frequent for the pictures to be redone many times to get high quality video, and it is common for the actor to have be get together in a studio sometimes months later to re-record the sound track because the words can't be made out. And this is with the best possible equipment and operators and actors, with time to prepare for exactly the shots they want and with the help of the actors in doing and redoing the action until everything appear to be correct. If there are clear versions, as you claim there are, then Fox ought to have some, and they ought to show exactly what Fox claims to be there. Fox doesn't show these alleged videos because they simply don't exist. If the TEA Party folks had video to prove their case, where is it? I suggest to you that if they had it, they would show it, including the moments during the walk when the protestor was detained,in handcuffs, and then released. Why wouldn't they show it? Either it doesn't exist, it exists but the coverage is only partial and the very partiality and poor quality of the video disproves the case Fox and the Protestors or making or it doesn't show what they claim it should show at all. These are the three possibilities that come to mind. None of them look good for you. After the way that your TEA Party Patriots treated the Guy with Parkinson's in Ohio, I would think that any pretensions to non-violence would be open to some question. Before I would believe the Martin King was a Republican, I'd really want to know your source on that one. Doesn't mean he couldn't have been, it simply means that I want to see an objective source before such an interesting claim would make sense to me. There have been many decent Republicans, I believe, but I don't believe that Martin King would sign on behind any of them in the last 20 years, simply on the basis of the way they've dealt with most issues around peace and civil rights. I remain open, though, if you can offer proof from a source that is generally agreed, by all parties, to be fact based and objective. I agree that Martin Luther King would roll over in his grave at the senseless race bating going on today. He was always against that. It didn't stop the radical right before, though, and it certainly hasn't stopped them now. Nor have they confined themselves to race, this time around. It's very distressing. Religious attacks on Muslims, attacks on gays, slurs against President Obama's heritage and qualifications all carry elements of race bating and prejudice that should have been gone from the American landscape a long long time ago. But racism is hard for all of us to deal with. I have difficulty in dealing with it in myself, and even recognizing it in myself, though it's clearly inside me. I grew up with it as much as anybody in my generation. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
By the way, Denise, I agree with you (in your 166) that Mr. Limbaugh's thinking is sick. Though I must say, I've never seen him venture a healthy piece of thinking, so I'm unsure what you find it necessary to comment about. That's just the kind of mind the man has. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You are surprised that MLK was a Republican, Bob? How could he be anything else? It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s. During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military. Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King. In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968. Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs. Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500 |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Bob, there’s this from Wiki. Haven’t had a chance to check the sources mentioned yet, but they’re there for anyone who wants to investigate further. Also don’t know how unbiased the author of the article, but I do know Rice and Human Events are far right sources. “Yes, Dr. King was a republican according to his neice Dr. Alveda C. King who stated, "My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., or "Daddy King", was a Republican and father of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was a Republican." http://www.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/000143/Alveda%20King%20article.pdf. But, not according to his son. In a statement released through the King Center published in an AP article in July 2008 at http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2008/07/05/kingrepublicans.html, Martin Luther King III said, "It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican. It is even more outrageous to suggest that he would support the Republican Party of today, which has spent so much time and effort trying to suppress African-American votes in Florida and many other states." And this Wash Post article in 2006 says King actually voted for LBJ in 1964. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801754.html In fact, in "The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.," which was published after King's death from his written material and records, King called the 1964 Republican national convention that nominated Goldwater a "frenzied wedding ... of the KKK and the radical right.” Also, worth mentioning, Bob, after skimming some misc. news items, seems there’s a push by the right to claim King as having been a Republican. Here’s an article from, sorry, Fox that touches on that: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/14/billboard-claiming-martin-luther-king-republican-angers-black-activists-houston/ |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks for the article, Michael. It's sad so many today know so little about the facts in our own history. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://www.thecontract.org/2010/04/tea-party-agenda-smaller-government/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No problem, Denise. People see what they want to see. A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In some cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the civil rights movement. Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including: - Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia - J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton - Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to the Civil Rights Act. - Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame - Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators: - Hill and Sparkman of Alabama - Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas - Holland and Smathers of Florida - Russell and Talmadge of Georgia - Ellender and Long of Louisiana - Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi - Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina - Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina - Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee - H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia - R. Byrd of West Virginia Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort. It took the hard work of Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Upon breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Republican Dirksen took to the Senate floor and exclaimed "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!" (Full text of speech). Sadly, Democrats and revisionist historians have all but forgotten (and intentionally so) that it was Republican Dirksen, not the divided Democrats, who made the Civil Rights Act a reality. Dirksen also broke the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by Republican President Eisenhower. http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Rewriting history seems to be their greatest talent, Michael. Bob, the onus is on those who claim that something happened to produce the evidence, not the other way around. And as I have already said, even on the outside chance that something did happen, a couple of nuts here and there does not define an entire movement. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
The Republicans are battling for the African-American/Hispanic vote. Not much time today, but will post bits as time allows. It's obvious now why they would want to fight beyond the point of reason to deny what happened to Lewis and why teabaggers in the mob were trying to hush those booing and hurling insults at him. The pieces come together - amazing - more Republican hypocrisy. From the WP article mentioned in #176 By Darryl Fears Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, October 19, 2006 In the battle for the black electorate, liberals, who make up the overwhelming majority of black voters, have long disagreed with conservatives over ideology, public policy and economic strategies to better the lives of African Americans. But when conservatives placed the civil rights movement in a Republican context, black liberals said, they crossed a line. "To suggest that Martin could identify with a party that affirms preemptive, predatory war, and whose religious partners hint that God affirms war and favors the rich at the expense of the poor, is to revile Martin," said the Rev. Joseph Lowery, the former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which the slain civil rights leader helped establish. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who marched with King in the 1960s, called the ads an "insult to the legacy and the memory of Martin Luther King Jr." and "an affront to all that he stood for." The spot, which ran for a time in the District, Georgia, Maryland, Ohio and Pennsylvania, will soon run again in those areas, as well as in Miami, Orlando and Tampa, Rice said. In 1960, King was arrested for trespassing during a sit-in and held in Georgia's Reidsville prison. Fearing for his son's life, Martin Luther King Sr. appealed to presidential candidate John F. Kennedy to secure his release. When King was freed, his father vowed to deliver 10 million votes to the Democrat, even though Kennedy was only a reluctant supporter of civil rights. That began four decades of black people voting for liberals. The younger King voted for Kennedy, and for Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson four years later. In that election, King publicly denounced the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater. Today, the vast majority of black voters are Democrats, including former ambassador to the United Nations Andrew Young and former presidential hopeful Jesse L. Jackson, two former King aides. That is why the ad was "a joke," said Christopher Arps, a former spokesman for Rice and the association. "Anyone with any sense knows that most black people were Republican at one time. But it's a far stretch to think that in the '60s Martin Luther King was a Republican." Arps and Scoggins resigned from the association board last year when they disagreed with Rice on a separate issue. She wanted to support President Bush when he came under fire for his administration's slow response to Hurricane Katrina. "In terms of what we're trying to do, encourage more blacks to look at the Republican Party, I didn't think we could do that in an in-your-face-type way," Scoggins said. "There were bodies floating in the street." In addition to Scoggins and Arps, at least four other members resigned. Rice questioned their fortitude. The group was founded so that black conservatives could assert themselves, she said, and "when it came time to do something, some stepped back." "It was a 'my way or the highway' sort of thing," Scoggins said. "I was crushed when this thing happened because it turned out to be completely the opposite of what I thought it would be." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801754.html |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, Do you think the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act were honestly representing the views of their constituents? Just a thought, but the list you supplied seems to consist of southern states that made up the Confederacy, could that be a contributing factor affecting how they voted? I mean it’s not surprising that only 7.4% of Dem representatives from states where the populace actively opposed the legislation voted for it. How many republicans from the southern states voted for it Mike, as a percentage? I wonder what the results from northern states were and whether they give a clearer indication of the Republican /Democratic voting trend ? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You write great fiction, Jen. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Can we not keep this from getting personal, please? Dispute the facts, post your pov, but let's not make it personal. OK? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You are attempting to smear an entire movement that you happen to disagree with, on the basis of alleged incidents with nothing to back up those allegations. I call that fiction. And your good at it. And people might tend to believe you after awhile simply because you keep repeating it over and over and over again. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Can we not keep this from getting personal, please? Dispute the facts, post your pov, but let's not make it personal. OK? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
From the archives: Republicans courting black America--again: as Democrats lose ground with African Americans, GOP looks to step in. If the GOP is to attract a greater number of African Americans to its ranks, it will have to neutralize its dubious record regarding support for black interests. That would not have been such a tall order in decades past. After the Civil War, newly freed blacks flocked to the GOP because it was the party of Abraham Lincoln, the "Great Emancipator." Most black Americans belonged to the Republican Party until the 1930s when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt included them in his New Deal programs. Things changed in 1964, however, when Democrat Lyndon Johnson received overwhelming black support at the polls, while black voters rejected the Republican standard-bearer, Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act that year, but Goldwater fought to defeat the measure in Congress calling it a "states rights" matter. Despite Goldwater's failure to win the White House, demonstrating hostility toward the interests of African Americans has since paid off for other GOP politicians. President Ronald Reagan initiated massive funding cuts to time-tested social programs that benefited people of color, working families, and the poor. His judicial appointments are part of his lasting legacy: Only six of his 385 judicial appointees were black, and all three of his Supreme Court appointees are part of the block of five conservative justices whose rulings have reversed many of the hard-won civil rights and civil liberties gains from the 1960s. While he won election to the White House convincingly in 1980 and 1984, Reagan was opposed by 90% of black voters on both occasions. Each subsequent Republican presidential candidate has received similar rejection at the polls. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Republicans+courting+black+Ameri ca--again:+as+Democrats+lose+ground...-a0106028342 |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't have to dispute the facts, Jen. Facts are facts. What I am disputing are your unsubstantiated allegations. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Jennifer Be careful with accusing people of getting "personal" Denise said what she thinks you are doing, not what you are as a person. And she called that "fiction", not you. That isn't getting "personal", unless you expect her to avoid "personal" pronouns too |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
For the GOP, Michael Steele no longer "da man" Republicans are abandoning their stripper-tainted organization, the RNC. So why won't they just fire its leader? So if Steele's leadership is so bad that he’s forced Republicans to abandon their central party organization, why don’t they just toss the guy? This question has come up a few times since he became chairman, and there’s usually one answer: GOP leaders are afraid of how it would look for their all-white party to fire their first black leader. As one high-level operative told Politico in January, "You're not going to dump the first African-American chairman. That's the only reason. Otherwise, he'd be gone." Here it's worth remembering the context in which Steele got the job. He came out on top of a short, intense and racially charged contest, in the immediate wake of the election of Barack Obama. Among the candidates he defeated were two different southern state Republican Party chairmen who’d revealed themselves as something less than paragons of racial egalitarianism. The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait nailed the basic dynamic of Steele’s victory earlier this year, the last time Steele was fighting for his job: "The immediate Republican response to Obama has been to find their own black guy." Chait’s argument is that conservatives have come to believe that candidate Obama's race was an unfair boon, and so have attempted to ape liberal rhetoric and symbolism on race, but haven't appropriated any of the actual anti-racist content. The point for Republicans isn't actually to understand what racism is or where it comes from; it's to show, with an extreme level of self-consciousness, that of course they aren’t racist. Now can they please have some black votes? http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2009/02/19/steele/index.html?source=rss&aim=/olitics/war_room Edited to correct bad link |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Mike, you are 100% correct. This was in my opinion one of the finest hours of the Republican Party, and any Republican should be proud to remember them. It was also a shameful time for the Democratic Party, and I know that I wince inside every time I think of that era. It is for that reason that you may be correct in asserting a Republican past for Martin Luther King, because the Democrats were very much the party that many bvlacks ideentified with slavery. You may also be incorrect, because of FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt and the New Deal, which swayed a lot of the traditionally Republican Black voters toward the Democratic party... What we do know, however, and what you have not mentioned, are the events that happened after the passage of the Civil Rights act of 1964. I know you're familiar with them because we've talked about them before in these pages. The southern wing of the Democratic Party, the so-called Dixie-crats, was so angry at Lyndon Johnson that, almost en-masse, they changed parties and became Republicans. All the racists crazies of the Far Right went Republican, and they took the Republican Party to the far right with them. That is the time when they broke with the Republican party of Eisenhower and Dirkson and became the Republican Party as it sees itself today. All those people that you speak about, and which you and I both so much admire would now be called RINOs, Republican's In Name Only for their beliefs in right-central positions, like the beliefs that Nixon held in Health Care, for example. So, Yes, you are right about that Proud History for Republicans. And yes, you are right about that shameful Democratic history. 100% right. Sadly, the positions of the two parties on some of these issues turned around. If you took those votes today, I don't think they'd be the same. Do you? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Since it really doesn't appear to be a grassroots organization, by chance would anyone know who's funding it? http://www.ragingelephants.org/ |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Threats, Violence Against Congress Show Urgent Need for King Records Act by Thom Hartmann and Lamar Waldron Sunday, April 4, 2010 marks the forty-second anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. The recent spate of violence and threats directed at members of Congress evoke all too well the tumult of the 1960s. Seeing a hero of the Civil Rights movement like Rep. John Lewis (D-Georgia) facing an angry gauntlet of protestors--some using the N-word--as he left the Capitol brought back memories of similar scenes from the 1960s, when Rep. Lewis worked with Martin Luther King. The resurgence in violent acts and rhetoric was building even before the surge that accompanied passage of healthcare reform. This not only includes white supremacist shootings of several police officers over the past year, but arrests in ten different states for serious plots to assassinate Obama, most by white supremacists. Some of the large corporations and mainstream politicians stoking the anger at President Obama may not realize how quickly such an atmosphere of hate can get beyond their control. For them, it's just a matter of money and power, by making sure populist anger that should be directed at them is instead diverted to President Obama and others. It's been said that those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it. But thanks to Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), Representative John Lewis, and others, Americans have a rare chance to finally bring the hidden history of Martin Luther King's assassination to light http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/05-1 |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
These guys are fiction writers too! |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Crazy (R) Tea Party w/ Rep. Steve Cohen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFdXi3wnXyk |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
And exactly what, before you read it, Denise, do you think is fiction? Apparently, your unwillingness to read the health care bill hasn't kept you from telling others it's fiction, despite occasional or even repeated corrections from Grinch. Instead, you tell him the bill is too hard to read, complain about the length of the bill, and continue to act as though you had read it by making assertions based on assumptions that get corrected by Grinch again. Before you speak of unpublished assertions as fiction, you would do well to familiarize yourself with what they may be. How much could that hurt? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
"Seeing a hero of the Civil Rights movement like Rep. John Lewis (D-Georgia) facing an angry gauntlet of protestors--some using the N-word--as he left the Capitol..." I was speaking of this little section. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You presume to know too much about me, Bob. As for Grinch's "corrections", I see them more as his interpretaions more than anything else, for the most part. I'm still waiting for his explanation as to why Fox incorrectly interpreted the section he claims they did. But who can really be sure what it all means, or how it could be interpreted, the way it is written. Lawyers probably have a hard time understanding it. I mean, it's not exactly a straight forward, easy to understand document....like the Constitution, for instance. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Straight forward, easy to understand like the Constitution, hmmm. I wonder. If that were true wouldn't SC decisions dealing with constitutional matters be unanimous? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Rep. John Lewis (D-Georgia) facing an angry gauntlet of protesters... Wasn't that booing just so disrespectful! How do conservatives/teabaggers expect to attract African-American voters when they publicly disrespect African-American members of Congress? The hypocrisy of the right is almost unbelievable. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
We're equal opportunity booers, Jen! The color of their skin doesn't play into the equation. Supreme Court decisions would probably be less divided if they were actually based more on the Constitution rather than on legal precedent. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
What did I say that was untrue, Denise? |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Jennifer, I’d like to introduce you to the beautiful Deneen Borelli. Aside from being beautiful: She’s also smart, black, and a Tea Party Activist, among her many other positive attributes and interests, I'm sure. quote: With Project 21’s Black conservative involvement, the above seems to be lacking in respect for the many voices of conservatism and the Tea Party movement. The threads of hypocrisy span out like a spider’s web and, with enough unrest, everyone gets caught-up in some sticky ideology. The most forgiving thing about that is having faith in something Reagan said years ago “If we’re ever attacked by another planet, we’ll all just be human together.” (bad rendering, perhaps, but you’ll get the drift.) "It should go without saying that racial slurs are offensive and uncalled for," added Borelli. "But progressives seem far more aggressive in hurling racist comments than Tea Party members. I find that all the time on my e-mail after I appear on television or radio." (Borelli) "In an attempt to inject race into the national debate about government running our nation's health care system, Representative Charlie Rangel made false allegations about the Tea Parties when he said that '[y]ou don't see any black folks in these groups. Ever, ever, ever, ever, ever.' Considering he's never invited me -- or any of his conservative colleagues, for that matter -- for insight on reworking one-sixth of our economy, he obviously must not realize I am black. He also failed to see the other black faces I've seen at the many tea party rallies I've attended and spoken at over the past few months." (Borelli) When things tend to get slung-ugly to the right and to the left, it’s usually because something's really wrong down front and center. That’s my idiosyncratic view of things, and I’m sticking to it. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Deneen Borelli Speaks Lovely lady. Lovely impassioned speaker. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I wonder if Deneen has ever met Dale: Dale Robertson, Tea Party activist who operates TeaParty.org http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2735/4245761458_cc8eb8cedc.jpg |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I suspect she's suffered such a meeting, and I'm confident she's aware of how damaging the flaccid reps are and the bad press that accompanies their spectacle. This isn't anything new with any such movement. There's always someone who will lasso an element of a cause and twist it into something sick and wrong. Still, she speaks and supports the Tea Party movement with class and dignity. I always appreciate that in any arena. Some of the comments in response to her Youtube videos are so vulgar and disgusting I avoided posting a link to them. If they were representative of all humans I'd not want to be one anymore. Thankfully, that's not the case. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here is an article about more black conservative Tea Party supporters. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9ETR1380&show_article=1 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I am glad that there are Black and Hispanic members of the TEA Party movement. I am also pleased that some of our Right Wing voices here are pleased by this. The thing that strikes me about the matter, however, and I think this may say as much about me as the situation, is that this information is being treated, and I think appropriately treated, as NEWS. The redoubtable Miss Pfeiffer, she of great wisdom and good sense, my fourth grade teacher in Canton, Ohio, was very clear with us about what was news and what was not news. I don't know if her wisdom was repeated elsewhere, but I suspect it was. "When a dog bites a man, it is not news. It is news when a man bites a dog." I think that is why these stories are news and why they are pushed to the forefront of the publicity wars at this point. I would very much like it to be true that this sort of situation be so common that it would not be news and that it would be absolutely understood that the views of The TEA Party Nation were widely and equally shared by an equal cross-section of people I might disagree with, amiably throughout the land. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9ETR1380&show_article=1 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thanks, Jen. I printed the article out and am using it to cover the bottom of the birdcage. (my parrot thinks it's funny, too) |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Why would you do that, Mike? It seemed like a fairly evenhanded article. It allowed both sides of the situation about equal air time, and when it said that blacks were a decided minority in the TEA Party, I believe that conforms to reality. What was it that you found wrongheaded or offensive about the article? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I can understand your confusion, Bob. You see, Jennifer has a little trick about going back and changing comments after they have been commented on. The link she had there originally was from the Guardian, UK, which was little more than radical garbage. That was what my comment referred to. The title was "When rightwing hate goes mainstream". I've learned to save her comments. It's not the first time.... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks for the clarification Michael. I didn't think you would have made such comments about the link that she has there now. It's identical to the one that I had just previously shared about Black Conservative Tea Party supporters, So I figured that her original link had been changed. Here's another great article from one of my favorite columnists, Erik Rush, who happens to be a Black Conservative: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=137761 |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Actually, if anyone's counting, it's the second time. Anyway, was just trying to offer something a little more suitable for lining the bird cage. Do you really have a parrot, if so what kind? What's his/her name? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
What the link for the original, Mike? We had a family friend who wrote for the Guardian back in the 60's, a man by the name of Michael Goldberg, a South African who had to flee his country because of his uncompromising honesty about the regime in power. My family met him when he was a Ph.D. Student at Cornell, he and his wonderful wife and daughter. So I want to know what the article said that you consider such drivel. The Guardian wasn't drivel then and I haven't seen it publish drivel recently, so I want to see for myself here. What were you saying about South Africa in 1963, Mike? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's your only comment, Bob? You, who do not hesitate to call me on the carpet for anything you think I do that deviates from appropriate behavior in the Alley, that's all you have to say? Nor even a mild rebuke for such a distasteful tactic? Must be hard for you to show how your recriminations are so prejudicial. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, Jennifer, we know exactly what you were trying to do. I'm certain it doesn't matter to you. You can live very well without my respect, I'm sure. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG4K5mX7jgk |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
When rightwing anti-government hate goes mainstream, the fringe element comes out of the closet. “Larry North: Mailbox Explosives Suspect Had Anti-Government Motives, Feds Say A man accused of dropping more than 30 explosive devices into mailboxes and other locations across east Texas did so out of anger toward the government and was acting alone, federal authorities said Thursday. "These devices, over 30 in number, have caused fear in this community nothing short of domestic terrorism," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/08/larry-north-mailbox-explo_n_530436.html |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: Have you anything to back up your assertion that rightwing hate has gone mainstream, Jennifer? All you've shown so far, in your multiple attempts at smearing the rightwing mainstream, have been the fringe elements and/or baseless allegations. And why are your constant attacks against the right not characterized as 'hate' and engaging in soapbox political opinions, as those of us on the right have been characterized? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You told her that she changed her reference. Do you believe it was an actual tactic designed to make you llok bad? I suspect that this was not Jennifer's actual intention. I think that her intention, in that case, would have had to have been to make you look foolish instead of making a discussion point, and this seems unlikely to me. Not that Jennifer is somebody who doesn't have a sharp tongue or wit from time to time. But then most of us do, at least here. The last sentence of your post is a puzzle to me, I confess. What do you mean? That I only take those to task who disagree with me? That would not be quite true. And I notice you still haven't given me the link I requested to your original quotation. Do you suspect that I might not find it as upsetting as you judge it to be, and the substitution not so offensive as you portray it? Or are you bothered by being reminded that The Guardian may have been slightly mischaracterized by you in your swiftness to respond to Jennifer? I made a reasonable request, I thought, and you've apparently found it very difficult to respond to, especially for a guy who says that he copies Jennifer's originals so he won't be misquoted again. I couild ask Jennifer, I suppose, but then that's going the long way about, isn't it? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I'm sorry Bob, but Balladeer put the Guardian article "When Rightwing Anti-Government Hate Goes Mainstream" in the bottom of his real or imagined parrot's birdcage before you had time to read it. If the parrot is real, then the original is probably pretty nasty by now, I'll see if I can find you another copy. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I really don't care how you find it. Apparently you feel I need to jump whenever you snap your fingers. It's strange that you wouldn't have asked Jennifer to produce it instead of me, but then your not admonishing her for doing something like that is strange also, especially in light of the fact you always seem to be rushing to her defense, as you have done here. Here's the link and, as I said, what you think of it is immaterial to me. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/apr/07/rightwing-extremi sm-republicans I could ask Jennifer, I suppose, but then that's going the long way about, isn't it? The long way? Asking the person who posted it in the first place, instead of the person who reported it as being changed is the long way? No, Bob, it's simply the way you did not want to choose. I really have thought that, on occasion, you could be reasonably impartial. You have shown that's not in you. I won't bother trying to reason with you again....it's pointless. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Two birds with one stone, so to speak - no offense to the parrot of course. From the above mentioned article: “The most recent and oddest manifestation was last week's arrest of nine people involved in what authorities have referred to as a "Christian militia" intent on sparking revolution. But there have been other examples, each treated by the media as isolated incidents. The murder of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller, whose killer was sentenced to life in prison last week. The pilot who crashed his plane into an Internal Revenue Service facility in Austin, Texas, in February. Protesters whipped into a frenzy during the healthcare debate who yelled racist and homophobic slurs at members of Congress, who spat upon one and who phoned in threats of violence. According to Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Centre, the number of rightwing extremist groups has risen exponentially during the past 18 months. And in an interview with National Public Radio's On the Media last week, he was unstinting in placing at least some of the blame for that with their enablers in the Republican party and in the media. Potok said: "I'm talking about when [Republican congresswoman] Michele Bachmann says President Obama is setting up political re-education camps all around the country, presumably to turn our children into Marxist robots. I'm talking about when Steve King, a congressman out of Iowa, says that 25 Americans every single day are either murdered or run over and killed by drunken, as he would say, 'criminal illegal aliens', or when Glenn Beck on Fox News talks about the possibility that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is running a set of secret concentration camps to intern good patriotic Americans, all of that and much more. And that is becoming quite common today." |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
So I did read the link. Thank you Mike, for supplying it. Asking you for it meant that I was sure that I'd get the offense-giving link and not some link you might disagree was the offense-giving link, later. I wanted to get the text before the parrots had gotten to it, for sure. I am puzzled by your missing that. Perhaps I didn't explain it clearly enough, but I wanted it from as much your point of view as I could get it. That seemed to be the only fair way of doing things. Clearly, it must be my own bias here, but I didn't see anything that was actually wrong about the article. I don't mean that you'd need to agree with it or with the conclusions, but I believe that everything the author said was pretty much supported by his references and his references were solid. The fact that you are contemptuous of the conclusions doesn't mean that they are wro ng, nor do you offer any references or reasoning from sources with anywhere near the credibility that his had to offer. Actually, you didn't offer any at all, did you? Withering contempt is very thin stuff indeed without a clear factual basis to build it on. You've been good with the withering contempt, not so good with the actual supporting facts, while The Guardian has you beat in that department hands down. I'm certainly interested in any references or facts that you might be willing to share to disprove the facts The Guardian has offered. I look forward to the chance to see how the cases you and that paper put forward might compare. Please tell me, how do you think I might best judge which case is best in your opinion? I'm inclined to go with accuracy of the facts first and foremost. If, for example, The Guardian has the quotes from these particular Republican Congressfolk correct, it would be pretty difficult to escape the conclusions that The Guardian has drawn will have significant reality to them. Would you dispute these quotes? What about the article would you dispute, specifically, other than the fact that the conclusions are not conclusions that either of us would find pleasant? I can, I think, see why the article so upset you, though not why Jennifer substituted another for it. Nobody said that the truth would make you happy, after all; only that the truth would make you free. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, you keep making sounds like you want a fair conversation but you have already shown that's not possible. As I said, your view of the article is not important to me, just as Jen's little sneak substitution is obviously not of interest to you. Have a nice day. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I didn't see much to dispute in the article, Bob. Maybe that's why the parrot's giving you the brush off - he just doesn't want to admit unpleasant truths? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Oh, boy...a double goad from the dynamic duo. How about that Tom Watson??  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And what if those facts, Bob, should also support Michele Bachmann's contention that your government is setting up political re-education camps for our country's youth? Does the quotation then lead to your same significant reality? (For the writers still among us: when did the verb quote replace the noun quotation? Never mind. I know I really shouldn't encourage Bob and his infamous tangents. )Facts are slippery little critters. It's patently impossible, and usually unwarranted, to consider every possible fact about every possible thing. So we pick and choose which facts we want to attend. Just as the article did, just as Bob is doing. That's why, even when the facts are accurate, they often lead to something other than the truth. Indeed, perhaps the greatest threat to critical thinking is mistaking accuracy for truth. Here's the thing. Trying to muzzle the little boy who cried wolf only serves to leave all the little sheep vulnerable and helpless. The little boy may have been wrong (or lied) any number of times, but he was right at least once. That one time, I believe, justifies all the mistakes and lies. What if Obama really does intend to use one of his proposed social tools to influence the minds and attitudes of our kids? Don't you think that's kind of important? Shouldn't we at least want to take a look at the message he plans to send our children? What if it's a Republican president doing it a few years from now? Shouldn't Americans be warned? And do we really want to characterize those warnings as hate-speech? If you don't agree with Michele Bachmann's interpretation of her facts, it might be best to counter them with your own facts, with education, with persuasion, with even perhaps lies and propaganda of your own. Trying to shut her up is the wrong answer. If nothing else, you're just setting yourself up to be the object of similar tactics down the road. The power to silence others implicitly carries the ever-present danger of being silenced in turn. And for those who have, in these very pages, voiced their own concerns over the erosion of liberty in American, can there be any greater loss than that of your own voice? You cannot limit political criticism in a free country. Not even a little. The minute you do, it ceases to be a free country. It becomes, instead, a reflection of whomever it was you allowed to set the limits. Instead of blaming violence on free speech, how about we put the responsibility where it belongs - on the people engaged in the violence? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Nice to see you, Ron. quote: Perhaps you see me as limiting political criticism in a free country? I don't see myself as limiting political criticism in this country. Telling people that the government is doing x,y, and z is not political criticism; it's a straightforward assertion of fact, and it needs to be buttressed with facts. Especially if such statements are made to people already inflamed, such statements need to be buttressed with facts. If those facts show that Congresswoman Bachman's assertions are true, that our government is setting up political re-education camps for our children for our kids, I'd join her in her upset. In fact, my frequently expressed upset about The PATRIOT ACT, that piece of bi-partisan paranoid trash passed with the active help of the Democrats during the the first administration of the second Bush, hinges on just such issues as this. I have expressed upset about President Obama not working to get it repealed, just as I expressed upset about the Democrats helping get it passed in the first place and about the pivotal roll the Republicans played in getting it passed in the first place, and have played in allowing it to stay in place now. If anybody wants to deal with that, let me know. There is to my mind significant danger and it has no particular party to which it is aimed, only at the liberty of the nation itself. "Only!" I see nobody who wants to deal with that. What I see is an attempt to stir up partisan rage directed at the Administration for partisan purposes. Should Congresswoman Bachman wish to deal with the actual danger to the country, count me in. Even in that case she (and I, because I would then be included) would be responsible for dealing with the issue on a factual basis. Advocating violent revolution is seditious and because of that, illegal. The right wing seems to be heading in that direction, and that is what the article in [i]The Guardian[/i} pointed out. I see myself as wanting people to keep the discussions factual. When you start lying to a bunch of folks walking around with guns, I submit to you that the results can be explosive. quote: Perhaps you heard me say that I wished to consider every possible fact about every possible thing. In that case, you will no doubt be relieved to know that I believe that to be not only impossible, but also irrelevant. You pointed out my weakness for tangents, and this would certainly be an overindulgence. I am not even terribly curious about who shaved the barber and who let the dogs out. When the facts are accurate, they may, in fact, lead to something other than the truth. I agree with you entirely. There are other factors that need to be considered, and I'm interested to know what you think those might be, because I certainly didn't mean to suggest that accurate facts would be the only element to be considered in making a decent decision, and I am, above all, interested in making a decent judgement and a decent decision. What I would like to point out, while I must acknowledge the fact that accurate facts may not necessarily lead to the truth, is that accurate fact are much more likely to lead to the truth than lies, half truths and deliberate evasions. Despite the somewhat checkered record of the Intelligence services of this country, we still fund them because most administrations and most leaders other than, of course, the administration of the second President Bush, have found that accurate facts have proved absolutely vital in the formulation of national policy and in the making of safe and effective governmental decisions. There are, as I mentioned, the occasional exceptions. It's been general governments experience, fronm the time of Sun Tzu on, that it's better to make decisions with a knowledsge of the facts than without it. How well you make the decisions is infinitely more personal. quote: Could be. But here's the thing. In real life, you aren't always limited to a single source of information, as in the example of the boy who cried wolf. If that boy is the only source of information you have, well, gee, you're sort of stuck, aren't you. You have to decide whether it's more expensive in terms of lives, money, safety to keep mobilizing every time you hear "Wolf" come over the loudspeaker, or whether it's more expensive in the same terms not to. You can decide to figure out if the boy is responding to the possibility of a coming wolf, or if the boy is responing to some other stimulus that makes him yell wolf instead, for example the need to have a dinner, go to the john or have a bit of excitement. Idf you can do that, then you can plan around those times, or fire the boy and get another boy or make other plans entirely. You don't have to keep listening to the same boy doping the same thing as though you were silly and helpless. Or you can figure out where the wolf is and go after it, eliminating the threat in the first place. There are also other strategies you can come up with. Why allow yourself to be stuck in a failing dead-end strategy with an unreliable method when you can change it? Surely, Ron, you don't believe that we have only those two choices? I don't. And it's certainly not a good reason to justify all the mistakes and lies. If it were your burglar alarm, you'd probably replace it, wouldn't you? After the cops came out to your place the thirtieth or fortieth time and started coming more and more slowly, and then maybe didn't respond at all once or twice? quote: I asked Mike the same question about the Patriot act a few years ago, and really got no answer. I guess he missed the importance of the question. It remains as important today as it was then. The answer, as it was then, is to repeal the silly Patriot act, which gives the foundation in law for all these pieces of worry that today's Right Wing is (and I think with good reason) worrying about, because there is law there to support such actions as far as I understand it. I was worrying about such actions during the previous two administrations. And I still worry about such actions today, for the very same reason. Also, we have come to a time when ther Posse Comitatus law is no longer in force, a big thanks due to both parties during the last administration. That law needs to be brought back. One can communicate any of this stuff without trying to foment the sort of violence that Ms. Bachman and many of the cohorts seem to be attempting. I don't expect everyone to agree it's hate speech. You do not see the Democrats trying to equal or exceed it, however. Nor is it a question of disagreeing with Ms. Bachmann's interpretation of her facts. She has not shown them to be facts. She makes them as assertions. If they are facts, then she needs to show that they are facts and source them and reference them. My interest in lies and propaganda of my own is zero. I'd rather avoid that. If I find myself voicing any, it is not intentional, and I will willingly apologise for anything that I say that I find to be untrue. I can at least try for as much personal honesty as I can bear, which I hope to be quite a lot. That doesn't mean I lay my life open befoire anybody, but that what I say I do believe to be true. I do not, on the whole, believe that violence comes from free speech. Doing psychotherapy, one of the things that I've found is that for most people, angry speech is in fact a substitute for angry actions, and that if you can get somebody to vent, then the likelyhood of violence may well diminish. This is not, however, always the case, and there are people for whom violent speech raises the level of violent tension higher, just as, for many, sexual speech raises the level of sexual tension. Psychopaths, whose level of excitement is chronically low, really only begin to feel normal when the sense of danger for other folks begins to feel quite uncomfortable. And it is these folks that I worry about. They enjoy putting themselves into the fantasy of violent confrontations, and, after a time, the fantasy is not always enough. You can't curtail the freedoms of the many to control the psychopaths among us. But you can ask those of us who tend toward the more inflammatory sorts of speech to make sure that we're basing what we say in the facts and the truth. And we should feel free to confront those who don't base what they say there. That, too, is free speech. Hopefully, then, there won't be as many people we need to punish for violent actions: Once, that is, people get used to making sure they're telling the truth when they speak, and other get used to confronting them about where they get their facts. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And who is to be the buttressing police, Bob? You? Do you really feel qualified to determine for everyone which facts are or aren't to be added to the buttress? Sorry, but you don't get to say what it political criticism, Bob, and what is a straightforward assertion of fact, at least not for anyone except yourself. Those distinctions have to be left up to each individual to make. That's sort of the definition of freedom? quote: It doesn't matter if they're true, Bob. Nor is this about the Patriot Act, any more than her contentions were about the Patriot Act. The problem is that neither you nor the Guardian ever asked if Bachman was right. Instead, you simply labeled her contention something called hate-speech and implied Bachman shouldn't be allowed to criticize our President that way. That seems, to me, to be a far cry from countering her contentions with facts? quote: And I submit, Bob, that when you start telling the truth to a bunch of folks walking around with guns the results are likely to be equally explosive. The problem isn't with the lies or with the truth. The problem is with the idiots walking around with guns. quote: Agreed. Absolutely. And the fact, Bob, is that no one has shown us any politician or activist advocating violent revolution. quote: At the dire risk of igniting another tangent, Bob, I sincerely and passionately disagree. As just one example from tens of thousands, Orwell's 1984 was absolute political truth masquerading as lies, half truths, and beautifully executed evasions. What we might otherwise call . . . pretty much all of art? We use metaphor in art, Bob, because it is far more powerful than accurate facts. Again, however, that's all tangential. The fact, Bob, is that neither you nor I get to decide what other people can say about the government based just on our own perspective of so-called facts. There are no buttress police in a free society. quote: So, uh, do you want to replace just Congresswoman Bachman, Bob? Or the entire Republican party? quote: Well, yea, Bob. I do. You and articles like that from the Guardian. I remember a few years back, Bob, when the "other side" was trying to do the same thing you are. Their spiel was that we shouldn't criticize that administration because doing so bolstered the terrorists and demoralized our own troops. They tried to make people feel bad about speaking out, tried to make it politically incorrect to call our politicians onto the carpet. Remember those days? From where I sit, Bob, we're looking at different reasons given, different logic followed, but exactly the same results sought. You want to control what people say for what I'm sure you feel are very good reasons. Just like they did a few years back. I didn't agree with them, then, and I won't agree with you now. Giving you or anyone else the right to determine what is "valid" criticism simply doesn't make sense. That's too much power to give anyone. Let the criticisms, the contentions, the assertions, the truth and the lies, let all be heard and weighed. I'll decide for myself, without your help thank you, where lies the truth I wish to follow. Let each man and woman decide that for themselves. And . . . let each man and woman be held responsible for their choices and their actions. That, I think, is both sides of the coin we call freedom. quote: Absolutely, Bob. Just as "those other guys" felt free to tell you and I we were bolstering terrorism and demoralizing the troops. And, of course, just as I can feel free to point out to you and those other guys that you're both, in very similar ways, endangering the freedom you insist on abusing. The power to silence others implicitly carries the ever-present danger of being silenced in turn. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
If you’ll have a look at my post # 225, Ron, which is what I think we’re talking about here, I was having a look at an article that Mike used to line his bird-cage. I was trying to understand why the article was so offensive to him that he would use it for such a purpose without actually explaining what was wrong with it. After looking at the article, I could not find any reason for his offense. You already have the citation for the article; I’m not about to repeat it here. I didn’t suggest that Mike needed to agree with the article or it’s conclusions. I don’t suggest that you do. The reason you can tell that I didn’t suggest Mike needed to agree with the conclusions is this sentence, “ I don't mean that you'd need to agree with [the article] or with the conclusions. . .” which, forgive me, I regard as a dead give-away(the brackets are my substitution, for clarity, for the word “it.”). While the article was several hundred words long, the thesis was presented succinctly. “[R]ightwing hate, aided and abetted by leading Republicans, has gone mainstream.” And the conclusion was equally as straightforward: quote: I pointed out that Mike had not in fact addressed the point of the article, but had said that he’d put it in a bird-cage. The article had made its case. How well it made its case was certainly a matter for debate, and it still is. I think it made its case quite well. I suggested that, ” I'm certainly interested in any references or facts that you might be willing to share to disprove the facts The Guardian has offered. I look forward to the chance to see how the cases you and that paper put forward might compare.” And I asked on what basis, I thought the two cases might be compared. I suggested that accuracy of the facts would be the best. I still believe that is the case. I understand that you like to argue for some of the more interesting positions here, but you should be aware that you are doing so without opposition. The Guardian doesn’t seem to be trying to shut anybody up, and I am not either. The Guardian does seem to be pointing out what the effects of how The Republican Party is handling this whole business seems to be. I agree with the article that it is a sick and cynical game. I agree that it does seem to be provoking a rising cycle of violence, and that the net effect is to destabilize the country. The article was not about whether Bachman was right. It would be an interesting article, should somebody want to write it, but as you would be the first to point out, the newspaper has a right to determine what the subject of the article was about, and the subject was about how “[R]ightwing hate, aided and abetted by leading Republicans, has gone mainstream.” Maybe if you write a letter to that paper you might suggest such a topic, in fairness, ought to be undertaken. It is, of course, my own contention, that the problem that underlies the whole thing is The PATRIOT ACT. I have made reference to it before. One might even go so far back at the McCarren Act, which authorized the opening of detention camps way back when. Even in the most haunted of paranoid fancies, there is often a piece of the truth; nor would you hear me assert otherwise. quote: A fascinating point, and one with substantial merit to it, I agree. I think, however, that it more likely falls under the situation I spoke of this way: quote: Alas, I’m afraid you see me more as an adversary here than an friend. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If there's one thing about Ron, it's that he sees no one as an adversary and no one is exempt from his being called to task for their words or actions. We have all been there The thing is, Bob, you only see things the way you want to see them. You take as gospel things not factually presented and yet demand facts from anyone who disagrees. “[R]ightwing hate, aided and abetted by leading Republicans, has gone mainstream.” And the conclusion was equally as straightforward: What is straightforward about that? Where is the proof of this right-wing hate? Or that any such hate is being abetted by leading Republicans? Instead, today's Republican party coddles and indulges them, hoping they'll put down their guns long enough to vote for them this November. Where is the proof that republicans coddle and indulge extremists? The pathetic offerings they have are simply their thoughts, adding 1+1 and coming up with 6. They speak of Scott Roeder, who shot the doctor almost a year ago and the fellow who flew his plane into the IRS building, making no connection with either to the right wing or the republican party or their actions being caused by the coddling of republican leadership. They speak of the hurling of the N-word against the congressman with absolutely no proof it happened. They denounce the presentations of Beck and Bachmann with no proof they are wrong. These are the things you consider straightforward and yet you call for proof anyone who disagrees with them. Withering contempt is very thin stuff indeed without a clear factual basis to build it on. You've been good with the withering contempt, not so good with the actual supporting facts, while The Guardian has you beat in that department hands down. I'm certainly interested in any references or facts that you might be willing to share to disprove the facts The Guardian has offered. I look forward to the chance to see how the cases you and that paper put forward might compare. Yes, you are right, Bob, about withering contempt and that is exactly what the Guardian is displaying, with no factual basis, only things that "might" have happened or things that "might" be connected to the Republican party....and yet you have no problem with that. I see myself as wanting people to keep the discussions factual. No, you want to see those who DISAGREE with you to provide facts. Thoses who agree with you, like Jennifer or the Guardian, get a free pass. You are not willing to provide facts to back your own claims. You are not will to provide facts that the chanting of the N-word occured, for example. You are not willing to provide facts of "right wing" hatred instead of extremist actions. You will post paragraph after paragraph to get around presenting actual facts, believing that fancy phonetic footwork may cover the non-facts in your arguments. It doesn't work that way. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Death Panels, death panels, oogly boogly they're gonna kill gramma! 17000 armed IRS agents gonna beat down your door and haul your sorry uninsured butt off to jail! Obama - socialist, marxist, fascist, muslim, kenyan, terrorist lover, oogly boogly, duct tape and plastic! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Now perhaps you do? Or at least, as one concerned about personal liberty, you should. quote: That's exactly what the Guardian is trying to do, Bob, and exactly what you have been arguing should happen. Whether you characterize criticism as hate speech or as treason, the only reason to do so is to stop it. quote: Sure it was, Bob. Because if Bachman was right her words could no longer be called hateful. That neither the Guardian nor you ever asked if Bachman was right was, indeed, the point. Labels apparently made it okay to ignore the message. quote: I'm not arguing with you, Bob. Just with the words you have written in defense of an article I find highly objectionable and pathetically biased. quote: The lies you like to effortlessly list are regrettable ones, Jennifer. You should, however, be far more concerned with efforts to silence the lies than simply with the lies themselves. Else surely there will come a day when you are no longer allowed to list them. If the lies can be silenced, so too can the truth. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Hey, wasn't me, it was my parrot. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Please don't give your password to your pets, Jennifer. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
IU don't swallow it, Ron. I believe you have made a noble effort here, speaking up on the side of lies and liers. I believe that there is not not nor has there ever been much chance of shutting liers up by asking them to produce facts. It didn't work with McCarthy, it didn't work with Palmer, and Father Coughlin; and Rush Limbaugh and his friends simply incorporate them into their ongoing stream of conversation. They are a singularly hardy life form. Nor, had I the poiwer, would I wish to shut them up. I am as much in favor as you of the freerdom of political speech. I do not draw as much of a distinction between speech and action as you seem to. I believe in "performatives," those places where speech becomes action, for example when one says, "I do" in the wedding. I think all speech has something of "the performative" in it, and this accounts for part of the magic in speech. It appears you see speech as something much less solid. There is not much I can do against people who lie and distort and mislead with their words; but there is one thing I can do, and that is to make them accountable before their audience for what they say and howe they say it. Of course they have the same freedom with me, and I expect them to take advantage of it, when they can. I do not exist in a vacuum, nor does The Gyardian. The people who don't like what we say or how we say it are perfectly welcome to ask for an accounting from us as well, as they are from The Southern Poverty Law Center. The more they do this anbd the more we do this, the better, because then people begin thinking about what the nature of the actual facts are instead of getting immediately carried away by the misinformation and the lies. This doesn't shut people up, it moves people into a place where they're trying to make statements that they can actually back up with facts. For some reason, you seem to have taken a dislike to facts in political discourse. There's an interesting phgilosophical conversation in there, I think, about the nature of narritive in the social construction of reality and how rthat relates to facts. The more I talk to you this way, the more I think you'd be an interesting guy to talk with about some of this stuff face to face some time. But I don't think we can do that here, and it really would be a very large tangent. If Representitive Bachmann believes that The President is doing the terrible things she says he is doing, she needs to move from assertion to citation. The Guardian is pointing that out. Without facts, what the woman is saying is simply hate speech. To encounter her on a level which offers facts to refute her at this point simply gives the woman ammunition instead of forcing her back to come up with her own sources. Why do her work for her? Why point out that such accusations have been a staple from the left since at least 1968, when I made them myself about the camps built on the authority of the McCarren Act. Why point out that the Government actually used such camps during WWII? It would only fuel the fire, and it would do nothing to prove or disprove her assertion that the President was preparing them. Let her prove that. If McCarthy's words had been right, would they no longer have been hateful? There were old Communists hanging around. So what? The damage that McCarthy did to the country far outstripped the damage that they possibly cound have done. He virtually turned this country into a police state. If Ms Bachman is telling the truth, let her tell the truth so that everybody can hear it, not simply a selective element of the Republican party. Let her speak, not only to them, but to all of us, with facts and figures that will convince us as well, so that we may join her. The fact that she doesn't do so says everytyhing that needs to be said about her message. She doesn't appear interested in speaking to anybody else. Look at how her audiences respond to her speeches. Are they calm and reflective. Are they cheering thrilled, hopeful and newly invighorated with hope for the democratic process, as people are after a speech by the President? Or is the response something darker? If you want to the the intention of a communication, it generally helps to look at the response. Being somewhat rushed this morning, that's all I have time to say, except I'm enjoying having the chance to talk about this stuff. The part I do go along with, and think you're correct about is that anybody has the right to say, at any point, "show me your supportting data." Demonstarte to me the truth of what you're saying to a reasonable standard that a reasonable audience may judge for themselves whether or not you are playing fair with the public. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I believe you have made a noble effort here, speaking up on the side of lies and liers. Ron Carnell, defender of lies and liers, er, was that liars, Bob, or pliers and you forget the "p"? For some reason, you seem to have taken a dislike to facts in political discourse. It's not my fault, Bob. I have warned Ron about that very thing, time after time. Without facts, what the woman is saying is simply hate speech. I love it when you prove my point and expose your own bias, Bob. Let's take two situations here, Bachmann's assertions and the N-word chanting. With regards to Bachmann, you feel she needs to offer proof or else what she is saying is simply to stir up racism. It is not the Guardian's fault to investigate her claims. In the N-word prolongued chanting, you feel that those who claimed it happened, with absolutely no proof to back it up, are right and it is up to the republicans to prove it didn't happen. Why, then, wouldn't it be up to the Guardian, or you, to prove her assertions are inaccurate? Why, then, wouldn't it be democrats stirring up racism for asserting a point they can't prove? You would love to have it both ways, but you can't. Well, you can but only by making your two claims on both sides of the fence dismissable. You have nothing to say about the continued assault on the tea-party movement. They have been called unruly mobs, thugs, racists, Nazis, and all by members of congress, right up to the beloved Nancy Pelosi. Democrats have done whatever they can to paint the tea-pary movement with the blackest possible brush and are not concerned (and even count on the fact) that it will stir hatred towards them. That doesn't seem to bother you. Jennifer's ranting, like her last gem, doesn't bother you, either. Why? Because you WANT those results, therefore, they are forgivable. The tea party movement is dangerous to the democrats, not because grandmas are going to pull out Ouzies, but because they question. They want answers and they want accountability. If you are concerned about dissention disrupting the country you should be equally concerned about the fostering and spreading of lies coming from the Democrats. You don't, though, because your one-sidedness does not allow you to see anything but what you want to see. Anyone who doesn't share your views "dislikes facts". Forgive us for not allowing you to have it both ways. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Not at all, Bob. I do not, however, try to tie the speech of Ms. A to the actions of Mr. B. Mr. B and Mr. B alone is responsible for the choices he makes. quote: Again, not at all, Bob. I simply refuse to let you or anyone else have the definitive voice on what is or isn't a fact. quote: No, Bob, she doesn't. Any more than you do when you assert that she does. quote: No, they're still assertions, Bob, accusations even, but certainly not hate speech. Any more than your accusations about Bachman constitute hate speech. quote: Because she might not be your enemy? And because sometimes finding the truth is more important than being right? For what it's worth (and this is another tangent), while I haven't read Bachman's actual words, her base assertion as quoted in the article is essentially accurate and (dare I say it?) quite factual. Obama is on record as advocating a "re-education" of our young people. He calls it service, of course, but the underlying philosophy isn't greatly different from what Hitler did (who probably also called it service). Nor is the underlying philosophy evil, just because Hitler used it. The devil is always in the details. And, yea, that's where your arguments should lie, too, in the details, not in labels of hate and spite. quote: Why do you insist on making one person responsible for the actions of another, Bob? In doing so, you only serve to absolve all audiences of their own personal responsibilities. It's not greatly different from the mythical Twinkie defense or the not so mythical The-devil-made-me-do-it line of thinking. Culpability lies with choice. So long as each audience member has a choice each audience member is responsible for that choice. Not the Twinkie, not the devil, and not the person standing at the microphone. While I will never be in favor of advocating violence, I will always support the right to advocate discontent. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'm curious, Bob. Would you consider this "hate speech"? /pip/Forum15/HTML/002838.html |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
From Wikipedia quote: I think this isn't a bad working definition. What Jennifer is expressing is personal loathing, and, as I think you can see, it doesn't come under the rubric of "Hate Speech." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I didn't ask if it fit the standard definition of hate speech. I asked if YOU consider it hate speech. Also, do you consider "personal loathing" comments by tea baggers as being hate speech? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
If you speak about personal loathing directed at other members of Pip, Mike, I regard them as against the rules here, and not politically protected speech. If you speak about calling Barney Frank "an aging queen," yes, I do; as you see, it falls into the catagory of hate speech as set forward in that Wiki blurb, and I generally agree with that. I think it's bad taste, as well. Are you actually looking for guidelines within which you can feel free to smear other folks and feel good about it, Mike? If somebody else does it and gets away with it, does that mean that you feel deprived of your chance to say something cruel as well? I'd imagine your sense of fairness might do better trying to do other things than find the exact limits of what's useful in saying things that bother others. If you feel that Jennifer has crossed the line, complain about it to the other moderators, don't try to drag me into your personal vendetta with Jennifer. No, I'm not entirely comfortable with what Jennifer said. I think pearls and fleece are a daring fashion forward statement, and Jennifer ought to know what severe cold weather can do to a person's brain. My preference is for at least attempting to be funny than attempting to be mean, but then you and I are of an age, and we seem to differ along the same lines, too. That may not be clear enough for you, and I do like to be as clear as possible without being nasty. I think that having one's facts in a row goes a long way, and Jennifer tends to do that. I forgive a lot for a solid set of facts. Despite Ron's apparent dislike for them, I find them much preferable to venom and lies as a way of conducting political discussions. Failing that, they are an invaluable adjunct. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If you speak about personal loathing directed at other members of Pip, Mike Where in the world do you come up with these things, Bob? I said nothing about loathing being directed at other members here. Jennifer's thread had nothing to do with other members here. My question about tea-baggers had nothing to do with other members here.....so where do you come up with a statement like that, unless it's just a way to change the subject. Are you actually looking for guidelines within which you can feel free to smear other folks and feel good about it, Mike? Another incredibly ludicrous statement, Bob, an insult to me and having nothing to do with my questions? If you speak about calling Barney Frank "an aging queen," yes, I do How convenient for you, Bob. You get to determine what is loathesome and what is hateful. Anti-republican is loathesome and allowable and anti-democratic is hate speech. Don't you get tired of showing how completely biased you are in your statements?I forgive a lot for a solid set of facts. No, you just forgive a lot if it is anti-republican, that's all. That may not be clear enough for you, and I do like to be as clear as possible without being nasty. You mean nasty by entertaining the possiblilty I may be looking for ways to smear others and feel good about it? That kind of nasty, Bob? No, it's not clear at all. You completely avoided my second question. Let me repeat it, in case you overlooked it. do you consider "personal loathing" comments by tea baggers as being hate speech? You don't need to write paragraphs to avoid answering it. It's not that difficult, really. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Michael, it's quite simple. A rant by someone on the left is an example of free speech. A rant by someone on the right is an example of a smear. A rant against Obama's actions falls under the category of hate speech since he is black, and therefore any criticism is racist. Remember Obama's Fight the Smears website during the campaign? And his link on the White House website for reporting 'lies and misinformation' about Healthcare, where it asked people to forward emails or report neighbors who spoke against it? He seems to characterize every disagreement or dissent as a smear or a lie and thereby seeks to inhibit free speech on that basis, which is faulty reasoning, since even if something is a smear or a lie, it's still protected speech. Determining what truth is can be a tricky business. What seems like truth to one person can be deemed a lie by another. Apparently only he and those who agree with him are entitled to free speech. And his followers and admirers seem to agree. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
It would depend on the comment, wouldn't it, Mike? Would the "personal Loathing" go over the line on any of the Wiki points? If it did, it would certainly be hate speech. If not, it wouldn't be. Would you be willing to take a shot on what hate speech is, then, Mike, or am I the only one in the hot seat today? And how would you distinguish between hate speech and whatever your personal version of "personal loathing" might be? And Mike, I'm sorry if you're taking my responses as insults. I do worry about the things I say I worry about, though. If you're the kind of guy who can say the sort of things about President Obama that you can without turning a hair, surely you can't be offended at having to account for the reality of them. And surely when you're confronted with the tone of them, you shouldn't get all defensive and say you're being picked on for being a Republican. You're not being picked on for being a Republican, I criticize the man myself. I don't even criticize all Republicans for the way they talk about the President, or Democrats in general, for that matter. I disagree with Grinch's politics a fair amount. He's a conservative, albeit an English conservative, and I admire his thinking and even agree with him a fair amount of the time. While his politics are sometimes closer to yours than mine, he seems interested in talking about the facts of the situation, and can be quite convincing on that basis. As I've seen you find from time to time. quote: Like you, if I feel that I don't want to answer something, I really don't feel compelled to answer it. I simply would rather answer most of the time because I feel that a straight answer is an attempt to be straight with myself and with other people and it's good for my giblets. I really do try to answer. I am not always sure that I have answered for one reason or another. If I don't want to answer, I'll usually say, Sorry, guy, that's not something I want to tackle right now, or something to that effect. I don't love the abuse that that particular answer draws, but I've gotten use to it. It's part of the price I pay for drawing that line. In this case, the closest I can come is that it depends on which person's answering — and it has nothing to do with being a member ofg the Tea Party Nation or not — and what they have to say. That's pretty much the same it would be with anybody else. One of the most wild cases of political partisanship leaking over into conversation — and I do hope you enjoy this as much as I do — is from Dr. Johnson, who is reputed to have said to somebody, "I take it, Sir, you are a Whig Dog?" We really don't do it like that anymore, do we? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
And Mike, I'm sorry if you're taking my responses as insults. And surely when you're confronted with the tone of them, you shouldn't get all defensive and say you're being picked on for being a Republican. No, Bob, I don't take anything you say about Republicans as being a personal insult. When you speak about the possibility of my looking for ways to smear people and feel good, I do. Would you be willing to take a shot on what hate speech is, then, Mike, or am I the only one in the hot seat today? Bob, I'm just confused at what you consider to be personal loathing and what you call hate speech. There has been a lot of comment by both you and Jennifer about hate speech coming from tea-partiers and I'm trying to determine just what you define as this "hate speech" you refer to. The example Jennifer provided us with confused me further when you referred to it as only "personal loathing" and also added the comment that you can forgive a lot for someone you feel provides a lot of facts most of the time. I would sincerely like to know what you consider the "hate speech" that has become such a topic here. If you could help me out, perhaps I could understand. For example, which of these would you call hate speech and which personal loathing? Obama is a socialist. Obama and democrats are ruining the country with their spending. Kick these bums out of office. Pelosi looks like a platypus on drugs. We need to kick the dems out of office in November. Obama is only interested in redistribution of wealth. Are any of these labeled hate speech by you? What are the things that tea-baggers are saying that you label hate speech? You have given one example.....any reference to Frank being referred to as a "queen". For some reason, I have a hard time seeing that inciting hatred but if you do then so be it. What are examples that cause so many "hate speech" comments aimed at tea-baggers and republicans? Chanting the N-word would be a good example, if it happened, but since there is no proof of it even occuring, you can't use that one. Can you give me some factual examples, please? Not meaning to put you on the hot seat but I'm just trying to understand your definitions and, therefore, your accusations. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Jennifer was also kind enough to provide the following excerrpt from MediaMatters: A Harris poll released on March 24 found that a majority of Republican respondents believe that President Obama "is a socialist," "wants to take away Americans' right to own guns," "is a Muslim," "wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government," and "has done many things that are unconstitutional." The findings follow a year of such smears and attacks on Obama by conservatives." ...followed by her own personal comment.. Makes you wonder, are Republicans/conservatives/teabaggers really so gullible they'll believe any sort of rubbish as long as it smears the President? Seems like hate is running their brains as well as their mouths. She has made the assertion that the comments listed are hate speech. Do you agree? If so, how? I'm not asking you if you feel they are accurate or not but whether they constitute hate speech or not. Your thoughts.....? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I’m having difficulty understanding why a moderator thinks it’s ok to discuss one PiP member with another, especially when it’s usually in an unfavorable way. I let your $5 hooker personal attack go but I am getting very tired of seeing you, a moderator, trying to press a PiP member into making a comment about another member’s character or intentions. So, Balladeer, I’m asking you to stop. If you want to attack me again, take your best shot, but stop trying to drag other PiP members into your little personal vendetta. Got it? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, I don't have it at all and your accusations are groundless. I have said nothing about judging your character at all, Jennifer. You can say whatever you want to. The entries of yours that I used for examples are entries you posted. You labeled certain comments as hate speech. I asked Bob if he considered them to be that, as well, since the two of you have such similar thoughts and feelings on so many topics. There is nothing out of line there. If you aren't willing to have your comments come under scrutiny, don't post them. She has made the assertion that the comments listed are hate speech. Do you agree? You will find nothing there that impunes or even questions your character in any way. If you do, or if you find anything inaccurate in that statement, please let me know. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: The part about reporting neighbours is untrue. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, we had this.... Forward Your Dubious Healthcare Emails to Flag@Whitehouse.gov On August 4, 2009 Macon Phillips posted to the Briefing Room blog the notation entitled "Facts are Stubborn Things." Within this posting, chain emails and also online videos are referenced, some of which offer false or misleading information on the healthcare debate -- all under the guise of revealing truths that ostensibly are not there. This, of course, is quite annoying in any form of discourse, especially when President Obama wants to speedily push through legislation that changes the way the country does business in the healthcare sector. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2033911/report_your_neighbor_to_the_white_house.html?cat=9 ....which was followed by this... According to 5 U.S.C. § 552a, United States agencies, including the Executive Office of the President shall, "maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity." The White House may take the position that certain of its offices aren't subject to the Privacy Act (that is a longstanding Office of Legal Counsel position, see here), but most Presidents instruct their staffs to comply. This will be a the first significant time the White House has ignored the Privacy Act and may open President Obama up to litigation. This is another example of the Obama administration ignoring long time precedent when it is no longer convenient for them. And ignoring this precedent lets them collect data on and potential harass individual American citizens. http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/08/president_obamas_report_your_n.php ...and finally this... Following a furor over how the data would be used, the White House has shut down an electronic tip box — flag@whitehouse.gov — that was set up to receive information on “fishy” claims about President Barack Obama’s health plan. E-mails to that address now bounce back with the message: “The e-mail address you just sent a message to is no longer in service. We are now accepting your feedback about health insurance reform via http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26188.html Whatever Obama was trying to pull, was discontinued when it was brought to light. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/08/president_obamas_report_your_n.php Yes, it is true, Grinch. Whom else does one have 'casual conversation' with, but with family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, email-buddies? Neighbors is a generic term that covers them all. Sadly, Michael, Obama didn't discontinue anything. Information was just redirected to another email link. And thanks for the links. It's always good to have a refresher course in what actually transpired. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No Denise it isn’t. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Apparently, you're not interested in trying to define Hate Speech yourself, despite my invitation for you to do so. Nor are you interested in defining your version of what I call "personal loathing" yourself. These are the two ways that I tend to divide that sort of conversation at this point in time. Perhaps your interest isn't actually in talking about this material and in talking with me about it, but in attacking me about my views about it, and trying to play Jennifer and me off against each other, sort of a version of divide and conquor? That would be sad. Most of the stuff you've quoted is not hate speech, Mike. The "Aging Queen" remark is because, as you'd see if you'd comp[are it with the Wiki criteria, it is attempting to link Barney Frank with his sexual orientation and then to use language that speaks about his sexual orientation disparagingly. This was from a site you commened to us, and then defended rigorously against any upset. So, what are your definitions of Hate Speech and my personal catagory of "personal loathing," which I realize you do not necessarily share? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
With whom do you have casual conversation, Grinch? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Lots of people Denise, including my neighbours, why do you ask? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Answering questions with questions, Bob? Never mind. Jen gave you a back door to slip through and you have. That's ok. I never really expected you to answer because there is no way that you can without exposing a double set of standards. If you don't want to answer, that's fine. You can just say so with no need for diversion. I understand. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Aging Queen is only disparaging, Bob, if you believe there is something wrong either with growing older or being homosexual. Which of those do you wish to disparage? Still, I suppose that's a different thread for a different day. Essentially, you have now backpedaled and admitted that absolutely not one single quotation from one single activist or politician now meets your apparently new definition of hate speech? Is that a correct assessment? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: Again, from the original message on the flag@whitehouse page, which I read personally before reading any commentary on it, Phillips included casual conversation. And I got the same impression as the commentators did. Even though he didn't mention it again in the next sentence, it's obvious he was encouraging the reporting of 'misinformation' gathered in casual conversation, as well as from chain emails and web content. Why else would he have put that in there? Granted, it doesn't ask to report the names of those engaging in casual conversation, as forwarded emails and web content would provide the government, but if someone is dumb enough or contemptible enough to forward the contents of private casual conversations to the government, what's to prevent them from providing names? I see this as an encouragement, by the government, to attempt to gain access to information they have no right to, by using citizens against citizens. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: But Ron, aren't you the one that said that one should use the dictionary as the authority on words? It says right at dictionary.com under "queen" (bold lettering added by me): 4.Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a.a male homosexual, esp. one who is flamboyantly campy. If you aren't familiar with its offensive use, that is alright, but that doesn't mean others aren't, particularily the people that may be called and ridiculed by such names. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Sorry, Ron, I happen to think "aging Queen" is hate speech. Perhaps you can find a situation where it isn't, but that would be an exception. Should I wish to backpedal on that, I'll let you know, though. quote: None of the above seem to me to be hate speech. Ms. Pelosi is, in addition, too thin to look like any platypus that I've seen. Some of the statements are incorrect, objectively, such as the assertion that The President is a socialist. His politics are far to much toward the center to be thought of as Socialist, and folks that make this assertion do not seem to be familiar with Socialist thinking, or seem to be unable to compare it clearly with accurate renderings of President Obama's policies. I say "incorrect" because I have no indication that the statement is made despite clear knowledge to the contrary, which is what would be required to classify it in my mind to classify the statement as a lie. The statement about spending is unclear. It doesn't specify what part of the spending is to repay debts incurred by the previous administration, and what parts are caused by actually putting the war spending on the budget instead of hiding it, as was done during the Bush years. I would say the statement is naive because it doesn't look at where the debt came from and what needs to be done to deal with it. It is certainly not hate speech. It is a statement that needs a lengthy response impossible to offer in a short space. If you want to start another thread on some of these things, please feel free. Kick the bums out of office is spirited campaigning. I don't even know that it amounts to serious dislike, let alone loathing on the basis of the short snippet you offer here. As for kicking the Dems out of office in November, it's more spirited campaigning. As for the Characterization of The President only wanting to redistribute the wealth, no, it's not hate speech, but is is stupid. Clearly the president wants to eat breakfast, spend time with his kids, and do what he can do to get re-elected. He wants to prevent the economy from collapsing, and has gone about it the way that keynesian economist has traditionally gone about it, by trying to stimulate the economy. Therefore, suggesting that the only thing that the President wants to do is redistribute the wealth is plainly wrong: There are other items on his agenda. The question of whether or not he wants to redistribute the wealth is up in the air as well. I would suggest that he doesn't believe he does want to do so. My own opinion is that every political point of view want to re-distribute the wealth someplace. The Republicans were able to re-distribute it upward very effectively at the expense of the middle and loiwer classes. The tax plans passed during the Bush years were massive wealth re-distribution plans that put billions of dollars into the pockets of the wealthy, and most of the economic policy in the country since the Carter administration seems to have had trhe same effect, that of redistributing wealth upwards. The current fury is, it seems to me, about the possibility that some of it might end up going to peopole in the middle class and the lower classes. When we talk about redistribution of wealth these days, we talk about redistribution downward, from the top perhaps one percent to the bottom sixty or seventy percent. While money going to the rich seems to provoke no concern, money to the poor does. The rich can afford all the great PR. My thinking is that President Obama is still pretty much on the side of the way things are going now, and he'd like not to rock the boat too badly. That's been his history. That's what makes him a decent politician. But I notice you haven't commented on my request for you to say what you think hate speech is, and for you to say what you think simple nasty commentary is, and how you might distinguish them. You do seem to be trying to get me to talk a lot obout what I think without returning very much. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
"Never mind?" Certainly I mind. You make some sort of a nasty back hand comment about ":answering a questing with a questing" to a guy Jewish enough to be gassed for it, and you expect me not to mind? And to let it pass? Certainly I mind. And I did answer your question. And you are avoiding answering mine. That was about as uncalled for a swipe as any I have seen. If you don't want to dialogue here, exactly what is the point of you semblence of conversation? Dialogue, as in back and forth conversation requiring some sort of openness. Is your agenda something other trhan that? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
But I notice you haven't commented on my request for you to say what you think hate speech is For two reasons, Bob. First, I'm still waiting for an answer and, second, both you and Jennifer have commented several times on the "hate speech" coming from republicans and tea-partiers. I have asked simple questions about how you define "hate speech" in your mind. Since you have acknowledged that many of the talking points, like the ones you just addressed, are not hate speech, I still don't know what you mean by your comments. The hate speech comments and accusations have been yours, not mine, and that;s why I am the one asking questions and asking for explanations. I have listed a link and comment from Jennifer that list things that the right wing is saying, like.. President Obama "is a socialist," "wants to take away Americans' right to own guns," "is a Muslim," "wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government," "has done many things that are unconstitutional." She refers to these things as hate speech. My simple question to you, without personal comment or accusations by me, is do you agree with that assessment? It's not an invalid or trick question. Instead of getting an answer, however, I get a complaint from her that I am criticizing her character, attacking her due to some ficticious "personal vendetta". Instead of getting an answer from you, you respond by claiming I am attacking you concerning your views about it, and trying to play Jennifer and you off against each other, sort of a version of divide and conquor. .All of this not to answer a simple question. The answer is fairly obvious. If you agreed with her assessment, you would simply say so. Apparently, you do not but do not wish to say you are not and, therefore, the claims of personal attacks and evasion tactics come into play. You listed a Wiki definition of hate speech but, since none of the comments in that article seem to fit in with it, and since you still will not answer whether or not you agree, I still don't know what "hate speech" is, in your mind. In this case, it appears that your refusal to answer IS the answer, |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
"Never mind?" Certainly I mind. You make some sort of a nasty back hand comment about ":answering a questing with a questing" to a guy Jewish enough to be gassed for it, and you expect me not to mind? And to let it pass? Certainly I mind. And I did answer your question. And you are avoiding answering mine. That was about as uncalled for a swipe as any I have seen. If you don't want to dialogue here, exactly what is the point of you semblance of conversation? Dialogue, as in back and forth conversation requiring some sort of openness. Is your agenda something other than that? quote: While the conclusions about the Harris Poll are by Media Matters, a Left Wing organization, the Poll itself is politically neutral. The feeling and statements do reflect those of some Tea Party Members and Activists.. There is a Library of U Tube videos to choose from showing TEA Party Rallies with all sorts of signs and there are filmed interviews to go with them, some including TEA Party Members actively apologizing for statements that other TEA Party members have made. And Rightfully so. Please have a look at this section from the Wiki definition of hate speech: quote: I'd suggest to you that speech designed to portray the President to vulnerable segments of the population as being part of many of the activities the Harris poll identifies would fall into that category. Portraying the President — an elected official of the Federal Government — in these ways may well incite violence against him. It may or may not come under the "Fighting Words" exception to the first Amendment. I'm not a lawyer, and I have no ambition to become one, That exception appears to be constructed more narrowly these days. It appears to me, though, that there's plenty of Hate speech about Speaking of the President as a Muslim to an audience of far right wing Christian extremists, for example, would be an example of what seems to me to be Hate Speech. And for Far Right Wing Christian extremists to be talking about the President back and for this way between themselves seems to be inciting to violence. It wouldn't bother me except as a lie. But to the wrong audience, it can be very provocative. This, by the way, is the same reason, that calling Barney Frank "an aging Queen" is hate speech. I am not bothered by Frank's sexual orientation, nor by his age, and it seems reasonably clear that The Representative is reasonably at ease with them as well. That doesn't mean that to the right audience, this isn't incitement to violent action, nor that it isn't part of the ritual that some hate fetishists use to work themselves up to a violent attack. Some of the oddest things can be turned to fetishistic uses in the world of violent pornography. In sexual fetishes, a pair of shoes can become hight sexualized. In violence, words can frequently serve the same function, and can arouse a crowd to lynchings, even if the word in other contexts is not particularly terrible. Jews can use the word "Hebe" in a friendly way, but I wouldn't recommend a non-Jew try it, for example. Other groups have similar words. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"Cristina Corbin of FOX News has spent a few weeks embedded with the Tea Party Express, and writes about how tea party leaders are cringing at what the movement is attracting. But while organizers have held the tour as a way to stay front-and-center as a political force, the rallies have also attracted the kinds of mistruths, exaggerations and conspiracy theories that make Tea Party leaders cringe. Though the movement is still trying to shore up its credentials as a grassroots power that’s here to stay, the so-called “fringe” and its accompanying antics continue to give critics fodder. A number of tea party revelers believe Obama is a socialist, a secret Muslim, and someone hell-bend on destroying America. Some suggest Obama wants to keep Americans unemployed so that they become dependent on government-run programs. Lenin and Stalin have become catchwords to describe Obama in the speeches denouncing his policies. Going further, swastikas, as well as pictures of Obama’s face next to Adolf Hitler’s, have appeared on signs at dozens of rallies blasting the president and the Democrat-controlled Congress. Other Tea Party members continue to question the president’s citizenship – a sign reading “Show Us Your Birth Certificate” popped up at a recent rally in Traverse City, Mich. The tea party leaders disavow some of the more radical points of view, but the fringe is not isolated." http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/04/12/4147334-fox-news-reporter-embedded-with-tea-party-express-shocked-shocked-to-find-a-cauldron-of-conspiracy-theories-mistruths-and-exaggerat ions [This message has been edited by JenniferMaxwell (04-12-2010 12:24 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The question isn't about 'citizenship', Jen. The concern is, is he a 'natural born citizen', which is a requirement for the Office of President, which is a requirement only for the Offices of President and Vice President. There's a big difference between 'citizenship' and 'natural born citizenship'. Many legal experts contend that 'natural born citizenship' is that which is according to nature, a person born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country, who don't owe allegience to any other country, and not a citizenship that is dependent on a law. Obama claimed on his website that he was born with British citizenship through his father, making him a dual citizen, partly owing allegience to another country. And he subsequently became a citizen of Kenya after their Independence from Britain, and also became a citizen of Indonesia after his step-father adopted him. He also claimed that he had citizenship through I think it was the 14th Amendment. The courts would have to look at it to see if he is or is not qualified as a 'natural born citizen', or if he is instead perhaps a 'native born citizen' if he was born in this country, or a 'naturalized citizen', if he was born elsewhere. But of course it would help if he would release his documentation to the courts to determine the pertinent facts, which he won't do. He has spent close to 2 million dollars in attorney's fees to keep all his records sealed: birth records, school records, health records, passport records, law firm records, Ill. Senate records, etc. It tends to raise suspicion that he is hiding something about his past, whatever that may be. And it isn't a 'fringe' issue. There are dozens of lawsuits past and ongoing seeking to get an answer from the courts to that question, some of which began during the primary. I also don't see anything wrong with asserting that Obama is a socialist. That seems to be his political ideology. What more would he still need to do to be considered a socialist, in your opinion, Jen? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Q: How do you drive a Birther mad? A: Put him in the oval office and tell him the President's Kenyan Birth Certificate is hidden in the corner. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Very intelligent response, Jen. About what I expected, if anything at all. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Jennifer, please, if you're going to use another person's words we'd all appreciate it if you would use quotation marks, attribution, a link, pretty much anything that let's people know you aren't speaking for yourself nor trying to take credit for someone else's work. Thank you. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Thank you. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Q: What's wrong with Birther jokes? A: Birthers don't think they're funny and other people don't think they're jokes. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I like jokes. They’re all over the place, told by professional comedians in pubs and clubs and spread rapidly through society, passed on via casual conversations, the internet and by email. There are so many I can’t keep track of them all, which is a pity, if you hear any good ones I wouldn’t mind hearing them - send them by email. Denise, In case you're wondering - Jokes only please. Under no circumstance do I want you to send me the name, address or inside leg measurement of anyone who may have told you a joke. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Humor me, it's my unbirthday. Just one more. 100% conservative values Tea Party NY Gov Candidate's E-Mails Exposed: Racism, Porn, Bestiality “An online news outlet in New York state has obtained dozens of emails, many of them racist and sexually graphic, which it reports were sent by Carl Paladino, the Tea-Party-backed Republican candidate for governor of New York, to a long list of political and business associates. One email shows a video of an African tribal dance, entitled "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal," while another depicts hardcore bestiality. Paladino, a wealthy western New York real-estate developer, has become a darling of the Tea Party movement over the last year, and launched his campaign for governor last week after being urged to do so by Tea Party leaders. Paladino is staunchly opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage, and has said he considers himself "the only Republican in the race who agrees 100 percent with conservative values." http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/tea_party_gov_candidates_racist_sexually_graphic_e.php?ref=mp |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I told you what my definition of hate speech was, Mike. I quoted it to you from Wiki. I was specific about which of those quotes I thought were hate speech and why. I spoke to you about the "Fighting Language" exception to political speech and I was very forthcoming. What you wanted me to do was for me to say that I agreed or disagreed with Jennifer. I told you that I wasn't interested in playting a game of watch Bob and Jennifer fight for the amusement of Michael Mack. Was there something unclear about that? Was there some reason for you not to believe me when I said that? Did you think I meant something else when I said that? Or do you think if you keep asking in a provocative enough way, I will give up and start a fight with Jennifer for your entertainment. You know everything about my thoughts and feelings in this matter that I believe it is necessary for me to reveal, and certainly a great deal more than you have shared with me. I don't see that you have risked any exposure in return foir the fairly large amount that you've requested from me, and your response has been to call me a hypocrite. I am reasonably forthcoming, but I am not a masochist and I am not stupid. If you want something more from me, perhaps you can address why I should stick my neck out for you here. It seems a pretty much one way street in return for which you give me a fair amount of personal abuse. "Hypocrite," is a pretty good example for a guy who has defined what he thinks defines hate speech — responding to your request — and who has gone further in defining "personal loathing" as a separate personally defined catagory of unpleasant but understandable commentary. You press me for further details without venturing any notions of your own. Hah! Not to mention your "Answering questions with questions" business, a comment that you should know better than to try with me without expecting to get called on it. As in the old Jewish Joke, which you know as well as virtually everybody else on tyhe planet: "Why do Jews always answer a question with a question?" and ,— "Why shouldn't we?" Good one, Mike. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, would you make up your mind? You call things not hate speech by it's definition and then show how the same things can be hate speech due to some scenarios you create. You didn't have to type all of that just to avoid answering my question which still goes unanswered. Why would you and Jennifer fight over anything? It was simple question and your faked outrage is not even well-done as a diversion. I should have expected it. As I said before, as far as the question is concerned - never mind. As far as your fascination for the "Barney the aging queen" being hate speech is concerned, my answer would be "so what?" It was a line in a comedy video on the internet. Did a republican create it? I don't know....do you? Could be an independent, could be a disgruntled democrat. Does he have any connection with the tea party movement? With the Republicans? I'm sure you don't know. How then can one apply his Frank line as being connected to either republicans or tea-partiers? Do you see the RNC selling 25,000 copies of video to raise funds? Are Leno, Letterman an O'Brien hate-mongers, too? They come up with some pretty good ones. I don't know how you can apply the term "hate mongerers" to the republican party or the tea-party movement since it is obvious you can't even define what it is....unless you claim that it is whatever you want it to be, which appears to be the case. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Sure a Republican had something to do with it, Mike. You presented it, and you defended it, and you are still trying to act as though it was a bland nothing. Since you are not a mind-reader, your ability to understand what goes on inside my head is about as good as your training. Where did you train, by the way? Every time you try that mind-reading trick on me, I've been meaning to ask. Leno and Letterman and company seem to leave me out of their jibes pretty well. They don't seem to get touchy about me not enjoying being the butt of anti-semitic remarks that I've noticed, nor do they accuse me of faking my reaction to them. Their jokes, you may notice, cut both directions, as I make an effort to have my own do. It's not the first time folks try to call people overly sensitive for objecting to anti-semitic remarks. Won't be the last. I gave you a good enough accounting of exactly what I meant. Your ability to reciprocate seems to be somewhat vestigial, and I see no reason to confide further in you about this sort of personal information until you've shown your ability for some authentic reciprocity. I know you have it; I've seen it before. If you want to have this conversation as a conversation, I'm happy to comply, but I'm certainly not interested in being the butt of a series of attacks this way. quote: There you have the issue, Mike. You see, I'm not a lawyer. Far as I'm concerned, It's not about me making up my mind. I think there's a line in the New Testament someplace that has Jesus saying something on the order of God created The Sabbath for man, not man for The Sabbath. It's one of the many smart things he said. Rules are supposed to help people, as a general principle, not people help the rules. The way you use the information I give you about Hate Speech, suggests that we are here to serve the absolute rules about Hate Speech or the absolute rules about anything. It appears you want me to lay down a lawmaker's statute around which you can catch me up in contradictions, in the same way that I've quoted, above. I'm not offering you laws. I'm neither a legislator nor a lawyer. Sorry about that. In Jewish Law, there are many many laws about not being allowed to do work on the Sabbath. You're not allowed to cook or clean. You're not allowed to drive. You're not allowed to walk outside of unblessed areas. You're not allowed to turn a light on or off. But if somebody is in danger, no matter what, you are obligated to put everything aside and go to help. Yes, it's a contradiction. You probably could make a case for letting somebody or something die, but you'd be wrong, and that's a pretty solid principle in Jewish law. Life tends to be over overriding importance. It's a contradiction you simply have to live with, even the most rigid of folks have to deal with that contradiction, and there are all sorts of ways people have to explain why it's not a contradiction. Some of them might even be valid. But the reality is that there are contradictions that you just have to live with, like being angry with people you love, or loving people you don't always like. I suspect that Hate Speech is like that. I suspect that it's probably a lot like pornography and obscenity. Who was the Supreme Court Justice who came up with the comment about obscenity, "I can't define it, but I know it when I hear it." Well, I took a shot at defining Hate Speech, and I think I did a pretty decent job of it. I know it when I hear it. Clearly you disagree about what it is; and since you seem to disagree, it's time for you to stick your neck out, Mike, and give it a shot. And good luck to you. Maybe the two of us can do a better job together than I can alone. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sure a Republican had something to do with it, Mike. You presented it, and you defended it, and you are still trying to act as though it was a bland nothing. As it is. Did a republican create it? You don't know. Has it incited a rash of hate? I haven't seen any. Leno and Letterman and company seem to leave me out of their jibes pretty well. I wasn't referring to you, Bob, as I'm sure you know. I was referring to their jibes against Obama, as you also know. They've come up with some pretty heavy stuff lately. Is that hate speech? Is Tina Fey's jabs and insults against Palin hate speech? From what you are saying you must think so. Every time you try that mind-reading trick on me, I don't need to read your mind, Bob. I read your words and I'm assuming they come from your mind although, if they come from another body part, then I apologize, Well, I took a shot at defining Hate Speech, and I think I did a pretty decent job of it. I know it when I hear it. Actually, Bob, you have done just the opposite. This conversation began with my asking you to define what hate speech is to you. Both you and Jen have accused the right as using hate speech so I asked for your definition of it, since it is your accusation. I asked you if you felt Jen's video represented hate speech. You responded with a cut and paste definition of hate speech from Wikipedia. I responded by saying I didn't ask for a standard definition of hate speech, asking if YOU considered it hate speech. You did not answer. I then presented other comments and asked you if they were hate speech to you and you responded by saying none of the things I presented were hate speech. You then present a poll by media matters, go back to the Wikipedia definition and then claim that the examples I gave, which you declared were not hate speech, actually COULD be considered hate speech. You then went back to the Wiki definition by sayiing I told you what my definition of hate speech was, Mike. I quoted it to you from Wiki. The way you use the information I give you about Hate Speech, suggests that we are here to serve the absolute rules about Hate Speech or the absolute rules about anything. Well, I asked you for YOUR interpretation of hate speech and what I got was the standard Wiki definition, which you seemed to feel was the absolute definition, or at least absolute enough for you to respond with. You then go into Jesus, Jewish law and a Supreme Court justice comment to get away from the topic once again. I can assure you that if you, as a prosecutor, present a case to that Justice with your case being "I know it when I see it", good luck on getting a favorable verdict. it's time for you to stick your neck out, Mike, and give it a shot. I'll be happy to, as soon as I understand what your version is. YOU are the one who has leveled the claim that the right engages in hate, not me. You are the one to be called upon to defend that claim. I still have no idea what you consider it to be. We have gone from your presentation of a standardized definition to an admission that examples were not hate speech to a poll, leading to a reversal of your statement to an acknowledgement that you can't say what hate speech is but you "know it when you see it". That's an amazing comment from a man ro constantly demands factual evidence and proof from statements others make. Read you mind, Bob? I wouldn't even make the attempt! I'm reminded of a Judy Collins song, for some reason.. I've looked at hate from both sides now From Left and Right and still somehow It's hate's illusions I recall I really don't know hate at all. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't think one may usually make a case for hate-speech, just from one or two words. "Chick" to refer to a woman is somewhat derogatory and involves gender, but most of the time it is obvious that hate is not involved. But in a very different context, it could be coloured otherwise. If it were part of a speech against women in which there were an apparant intent or character of hate, or violence, in such a speech, I think it could then be considered hate speech. Something needs to be showed to have an apparant intent or character of hate, otherwise there is not enough ground to back up accusing it of being hate-speech. Just one word, such as "chick" or "queen", however, aren't enough to back up an accusation of hate. There is nothing about the use of queen in "an aging queen", even though it may be derogatory, that suggests an intent or character of hate or violence. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I could not agree more, ess. Thank you.. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
What would I call inciteful? Rachel Maddow's Lies Lead To Death Threats Against Conservatives On her MSNBC show last night, the left-wing Air America host Rachel Maddow took a swipe at the conservative Shirley & Banister Public Affairs firm, specifically President and CEO Craig Shirley. Maddow accused Shirley of being behind a grassroots Web site funded by the group Grassfire.org, based on a research provided by the “independent watchdog group Public Citizen,” and she showed still images from an incendiary “Obama=Hitler” video that’s posted on the Grassfire’s ResistNet.com Web site. But Maddow was wrong. The Public Citizen web page she cited is several years old. Shirley & Banister hasn’t represented Grassfire.org since 2004. And Diana Banister, a partner and Vice President at Shirley & Banister, told NewsBusters that Maddow’s false report has led to hate mail and even death threats to the public relations firm. (Let’s see if the left-wing thuggery gets any attention from the MSM.) Craig Shirley and Diana Banister are demanding a retraction and apology from Maddow. http://www.politikditto.com/2009/08/rachel-maddows-lies-lead-to-death.html Strange behavior from a woman with such "amazing loyalty to the truth". |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
What do I call hate speech and incitement? http://crashtheteaparty.org/ For those of you finding that to be a good, worthwhile site, here's more info.. http://www.facebook.com/crashtheteaparty.org http://twitter.com/tpartycrasher Run by a gentleman from San Francisco (what a surprise) who states "Do I think every member of the tea party is a homophobe, racist or a moron? No, absolutely not, Do I think most of them are homophobes, racists or morons? Absolutely." His activities include "Crashing Tea Party Events" Favorite TV Shows: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, Countdown With Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow Show About Me: All I want is to destroy the Tea Party Movement. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Of course, what liberal loony tunes like that don't think about (if they are capable of thinking at all) is that, by announcing their intentions publicly of infiltrating the tea party movement and conducting acts which are despicable, in the future one will not be able to determine whether such actions were done by tea partiers or the infiltrators. In other words, when our anti-tea partiers here say "Look at what the tea partiers are doing!", you won't be able to say that with certainty because you won't really know. Clever, huh? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Oklahoma Republicans Conspire With Tea Parties To Form Anti-Federal Government Militia “The Associated Press reports that Oklahoma tea party leaders, “frustrated by recent political setbacks,” are working with right-wing Republicans in the Oklahoma legislature to create a new “volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.” State Sen. Randy Brogdon (R-OK) and State Rep. Charles Key (R-OK) have met with tea party leaders, like J.W. Berry of the Tulsa-based OKforTea group, to plan legislation for a state-authorized militia. Brogdon, who is running for Governor and sponsored the right-wing anti-health reform “state sovereignty” resolution in his state, explained that he believes his anti-federal government militia has constitutional backing: The founding fathers “were not referring to a turkey shoot or a quail hunt. They really weren’t even talking about us having the ability to protect ourselves against each other,” Brogdon said. “The Second Amendment deals directly with the right of an individual to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from an overreaching federal government.” But critics say the tea party militia idea could “throw fuel in the fire of radicals.” Even some Republicans are opposed to Brogdon’s initiative. “If the intent is to create a militia for disaster relief, we have the National Guard,” said Sen. Steve Russell, (R-OK), a retired Army lieutenant colonel. “Anything beyond that purpose should be viewed with great concern and caution.” Indeed, the news of the state-sponsored militia movement arrives shortly before the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, on April 19.” http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/13/oklahoma-turner-diaries/ |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I've got to say that I think that was a well put together reply, Mike, or set of replies; and that in order to give you a decent response, I'm going to need to think about it. I'm fairly steamed right now, and I'm afraid that if I simply wrote back right now on this subject, what you'd get is more anger and frustration than the sort of reasonable and honest reply you deserve. Your list of our interactions, in particular, seems accurate. I think it is tilted from your point of view, but then I didn't write it, you did, so it would have to be from your point of view; and I need to consider what that means in terms of the discussion. I still believe that the right has indulged itself in a fair amount of provocative speech, and some of it is Hate Speech. Some of the poorly spelled signs using "n----r" in them, for example, seem to me to be hate speech; and who was the guy in the Republican party a few years back who spoke about Congressman Frank as "Barney "F-g?" There really has been a lot of that and it really has been going on for a long time. Typically, there's been a half-hearted back-off from that sort of thing, and typically the statements of explanation have been, to my ears at least, unconvincing. What was the explanation for the Barney Frank line? And the most recent business with the words "Baby Killer" shouted out on the floor of Congress seemed very very thin to me as well. Both that guy and the Guy who called The President a Liar on the floor of the House during The State of The Union speech both apologized for their outbursts publicly. I doubt they returned any of the money that came in from contributions, however. Both comments appeared to crank up the level of tension in the country. Both seemed to contribute to that level of tension. "Baby Killer" on the floor of the House seemed to me to be hate speech, should you want my personal opinion, just as Bill O'Reilly calling the late Dr. Tiller "Tiller, the Baby Killer" seemed hate speech to me as well. It was a bumper-sticker response where a paragraph was called for, calculated to notched the heat of the situation up just a little bit further. Yes, it gets by on Freedom of speech in politics. Yes, it's hate speech. When I'm a bit less worked up, in a day or two, I'll reply more fully. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Jennifer, I think that is a dumb idea. I can understand their thoughts behind it but the cons would outweigh the pros and their energy could be better spent elsewhere. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"I just made the tea party people spend a lot of money that wasn't necessary on all these ads they had to use against me so they can't use it on somebody else. I'll take credit in sucking their treasury dry." --Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Gotta love that maturity exhibited by Stupak! Check out these photos! I never would have spotted these folks a mile away as Crashers! They just blended right in, don't ya think? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=140889 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
...and no hate speech on display or anything! Just a bunch of fun-loving liberals.... |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: Jennifer and Mr. Bob who repeated the above quote in post #366 Polls would find Hitler still alive and well with a million friends on Facebook. If you want to label all conservatives as hate mongering idiots, you’ll need more than a poll or a popular internet-farmed opinion. We can’t even put a person in position of president under those terms. Unless you also believe the Facebook rumors about Obama, too. Inciting attacks on others through speech or propaganda, as well as inciting an attack on one’s self and then screaming “I’ve been attacked!” are known grievances of mischiefs of faction. The U.S. Gov is fully aware of all free-thought scheming one can muster to try and censor one’s critics. They are “strictly prohibited by the First Amendment from regulating the content of speech.” (wiki) They are hard-pressed to define criminal speech as well as find grounds for prosecution within their restrictions, but for the exceptions that apply. So no matter how we try and “define” the things said that we don’t like, our liberty is not repressed to oppose, agree, lash back, remain silent, make charges, file suit, or continue to think about it without being interrogated by the Thought Police or becoming real-life characters within Newspeak. (Orwell) |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I am unsure exactly what I am supposed to have said that is a hateful, baseless smear, that the Harris Organization got such data? This is, indeed, what the data the Harris organization gathered seems to say. Review it yourselves: http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?ResLibraryI D=37050&GoTopage=1&Category=1777&BzID=1963 I drew no conclusions about Tea Party Folk from that data that I can recall other than the data that the Poll reported. And of course the folks in the still pictures were crashing the Tea Party Meetings. And of course it was obvious. That's the problem with the whole notion of secret infiltrators slipping into Tea Party Meetings. The two groups are so much like oil and water, it's really pretty tough for the one to pass itself off as the other for more than thirty seconds. I'm trying to imagine Denise trying to show up a some sort of Dance Rave to check out the local goings on without sticking out like a sore thumb, or me trying to walk into a Tea Party Meeting without my political sympathies being clear pretty much within five minutes. People try to do this sort of thing all the time for one reason or another, for information, for discussion, to be provocative. Being an agent provocateur is probably a bit more difficult. Besides, who needs them when you have situations like the one in Oklahoma, where the State is considering legislation to form and arm a State militia specifically for the purpose of keeping the Federal government out. They may have overlooked that while the second Amendment allows people to bear arms to form well regulated Militias, that the President is The Commander and Chief of not only the Army but of all the state militias as well. A little bit of information would go a long way here. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The two groups are so much like oil and water, it's really pretty tough for the one to pass itself off as the other for more than thirty seconds. Actually, I have to disagree, Bob. These particular examples, yes, obvious infiltrator who WANT to be recognized. Those who do not want to be recognized, however, and don't carry signs would blend in very well. All it would take would be for one of them to scream out the N-word, berate a man in a wheelchair or do something else to cast dispersions on the tea-party movement and they could get away with it very easily. They have claimed they are doing it now. I'm sure they are. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Who says "they" are doing it now? And where are "they" saying it? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Guess you don't read my posts, Bob....not that I blame you. Go to response 283. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
But Mike, you defend sorts of guys anyway. You say you don't support the violence, but you do understand the rage. You don't differentiate between which rageful speech you do and don't support. If these guys are indistinguishable from your regular Tea Party Activists, then you support the more extreme and more violence provoking sorts of speech, don't you? Only if it's uttered by a "Tea Party Crasher," you don't support it. But you don't supply any way of telling the players apart except by the list of names you offer, which may or may not be accurate. Besides, anybody can go to one of these meetings; they aren't restricted, are they? And if they are, to whom are they restricted? Members only? Sympathizers only? Curious folks only? Once you start setting limits like that, you can't say you are having public meetings, can you? And you start abridging the rights of others to Free Speech as well. It gets pretty messy pretty quickly. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I have no idea what your last comment means. Oregon teacher, anti-Tea Party activist put on leave PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon middle school teacher whose "Crash the Tea Party" Internet campaign drew national attention has been put on paid leave while school officials investigate whether he used school equipment or time to work on his website. Beaverton educators were deluged with e-mails and phone messages after Jason Levin's Web page went public earlier this week. On it, Levin encouraged people to infiltrate the Tea Party movement to discredit the conservative activists. The site, crashtheteaparty.org, now links to a different Web page that sells T-shirts in support of the movement. Levin didn't return calls and e-mails from The Associated Press seeking comment Thursday. Beaverton School District spokeswoman Maureen Wheeler says Levin was placed on administrative leave Thursday. That's the same day tea party groups staged Tax Day protests around the country. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-16-crash-tea-party-activist_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-TopStories +%28News+-+Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
What is it you don't follow, Mike? quote: In the past, you've said that you don't approve of violence, but you do understand the rage, isn't that correct? You've made the statement, and defended it in the past? You understand how people are frustrated with The President and the Democrats and feel as though they've been pushed to the wall by the President and the Democrats in Congress, yes? If the person who says what to my mind is such a foolhardy thing is a member of the TEA Party or somebody who is pretending to be a member of the TEA Party, then, what's your quarrel with it? You agree with that outrage anyway, don't you? You understand and sympathize with it, isn't that what you've said? And if you can't tell the difference between what these gate crashers say and what the regular folks in the TEA Party say — at least enough to condemn the position of wanting to take to the streets with guns, for example, or to condemn the racist stuff they're spouting — then for all practical purposes, you yourself can't tell the difference between the two positions, can you? The positions of the "Gate Crashers" who say the evil things that you want no part of, and the regular TEA Party folks whose positions you support. The only difference between the two groups that (was it you, Mike, or was it Denise?) you've supplied is a list of names and a rogues gallery of pictures. The degree of certainly that you and Denise have demanded to prove that this sort of thing is true has been video and sound recordings, not still pictures which could be from anywhere or anytime. I think that it's simply better to believe you that you've got left wing folks showing up with signs at meetings, though what exactly these folks are trying to do doesn't seem as clear to me as it seems to you. Why you would characterize selling Tee-shirts encouraging folks to show up at TEA Party meetings as Hate Speech is beyond me. I don't follow logic. I'm sure you have some; I simply don't follow it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Who says "they" are doing it now? And where are "they" saying it? That was the question you asked and I provided the link. They have publicly announced that they are infiltrating the tea party movement and doing things to discredit the tea partiers. Ok, so how in the world does that relate to your response? You say you don't support the violence, but you do understand the rage. You don't differentiate between which rageful speech you do and don't support. If these guys are indistinguishable from your regular Tea Party Activists, then you support the more extreme and more violence provoking sorts of speech, don't you? Only if it's uttered by a "Tea Party Crasher," you don't support it. But you don't supply any way of telling the players apart except by the list of names you offer, which may or may not be accurate. I'll swear that I have read that half a dozen times or more and I still make no sense of it with regards to the topic. These "guys" are indistinguishable from tea partiers in appearance, not actions. Their violent provoking speech - which I have never supported, by the way - is not rage against the administration, taxes, government take-overs, or any topics the tea-baggers rebel against. Theirs is only to discredit tea baggers, by appearing to be one of them and creating despicable actions like hate speech or violence, which the press can blame on tea partiers. What part of that don't you understand? Why you would characterize selling Tee-shirts encouraging folks to show up at TEA Party meetings as Hate Speech is beyond me. It's beyond me, too, since I have never done it. if you think I have, show me where. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The link refers to not only having people show up at rallies, but to show up, pretend to be tea partiers, and engage in acts meant to discredit tea partiers which could be blamed on them, thus causing dissent and hatred toward the tea party movement. Inciting hate?....you betcha. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Ah, but Mike, what if "they" are secretly members of the Tea Party movement? Wouldn't it be a stroke of genius to introduce the idea that anything bad the Tea Party does is, in actuality, a plant from outside the movement? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thank you, Ron; I hadn't been able to get my point across. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Genius indeed, Ron. or perhaps they could be liberals who could plant the idea that tea-baggers are really behind the actions that they claim have been started by infiltrators in order to convince people that the infiltrators are doing the dastardly deeds when actually it's the tea-baggers all along. Or it could be the tea-baggers who claim that the liberals are planting the idea that the tea-baggers are planting the idea....how long would you like to carry this out? The fact is that the website was created by an Oregon professor who has been suspended from his teaching duties based on his creation of the site and call to action for others to infiltrate the movement to cast suspicion on the tea-baggers. If you want to claim he is secretly a tea-bagger, willing to sacrifice his career for the sake of this diversion, go ahead. That would be a hard sell, I believe. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
To the sound of thundering hooves and the rising cloud of dust from the streets of America, I hear from the Radical Right the clear and certain cry of alarm go up across the land: "The Zebras are coming! The Zebras are coming! Everybody grap your guns and start shooting! The Zebras are Coming!" |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I can always tell when your lithium level is low, Bob! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'm sorry, Mike. That was a reference to Occam's Razor. Zebras are usually used as the example, as in, when you hear a thundering herd of hooved beasts with manes, it's best to assume horses, not zebras. The Computer dictionary available through Pip's Dictionary Application goes a bit further, and applies the sort of example that the scholastic monk, William of Ockham, probably was more concerned with when he devised the principle in the first place: quote: I don't think William of Ockham was thinking specifically of Sparky, mind you. Onb the other hand, there are simpler explanation for the idiocy and occasional acts of violence that tend to happen from time to time around the TEA Party Meetings than the more or less ubiquitous "Infiltrators and Leftists did it." It not impossible that there are infiltrators and Leftists doing stupid stuff. There must be at least some of them. It's simply not the most likely explanation. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I find it extremely likely when there is a website advertising it and asking for volunteers, Bob. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
To show up at meetings, even to show up at meetings with signs is one thing. To create some of the incidents such as some that have showed up on you-tube is something else entirely. And some of the fools with signs certainly showed up well before the Levin guy. I don't buy the notion of the Innocent Radical Right, Mike, especially not the notion of the armed, innocent Radical Right. The KISS principle still holds. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
