Woman thrown to ground and stomped on during Rand Paul debate - Video
- Thread starter DrMunkee
- Start date
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Knoell']Oh but it is ok in this case, because you disagree with, dislike, or even hate their ideology. 
[/QUOTE]
It's a party that claims to embrace dissent, but can't rationally handle when its confronted with it.
They can dish it out, but they can't take it.
The contradiction of a pro-individual-freedom party physically restraining, arresting some, while committing aggravated assault against another, speaks volumes to what they consider 'fair tactics.'
If Rand Paul supported freedom, he'd support that woman's freedom to say what she wanted to without being beaten down. Instead, he cues a smile for a photo op with the grown man (not a small dude, either) who assaulted her. He follows this up by not apologizing for the act, not even condemning the act - but, rather, to have his staff blame the response of public services (perhaps the same public services he would cut off upon election).
They can say whatever they want without repudiation, they can make up any kind of claims they want to without rebuke, and now they may engage in ideological vigilantism and you don't see these people as the power hungry living hypocrites they are? There's little I can do about your willful obliviousness.
[/QUOTE]It's a party that claims to embrace dissent, but can't rationally handle when its confronted with it.
They can dish it out, but they can't take it.
The contradiction of a pro-individual-freedom party physically restraining, arresting some, while committing aggravated assault against another, speaks volumes to what they consider 'fair tactics.'
If Rand Paul supported freedom, he'd support that woman's freedom to say what she wanted to without being beaten down. Instead, he cues a smile for a photo op with the grown man (not a small dude, either) who assaulted her. He follows this up by not apologizing for the act, not even condemning the act - but, rather, to have his staff blame the response of public services (perhaps the same public services he would cut off upon election).
They can say whatever they want without repudiation, they can make up any kind of claims they want to without rebuke, and now they may engage in ideological vigilantism and you don't see these people as the power hungry living hypocrites they are? There's little I can do about your willful obliviousness.
Myke,
Chances are the photo-op wasn't after the incident. If it was, then perhaps Rand wasn't aware of what happened.
Why should Rand Paul be held responsible for the actions of supporters outside of a building where a debate was taking place? Furthermore, why should one person be held responsible for the actions of any other?
I wouldn't call the Tea Party a Party as much as a political movement within another party.
I think it's rather safe to say that any politician is a power hungry hypocrite, it sort of goes with the territory of being the egomaniac necessary to make it to national politics.
Nontheless, the stomper guy is a total dick and I hope he gets crucified in the court system.
Chances are the photo-op wasn't after the incident. If it was, then perhaps Rand wasn't aware of what happened.
Why should Rand Paul be held responsible for the actions of supporters outside of a building where a debate was taking place? Furthermore, why should one person be held responsible for the actions of any other?
I wouldn't call the Tea Party a Party as much as a political movement within another party.
I think it's rather safe to say that any politician is a power hungry hypocrite, it sort of goes with the territory of being the egomaniac necessary to make it to national politics.
Nontheless, the stomper guy is a total dick and I hope he gets crucified in the court system.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Myke is in full on opposition mode. He, like most of the politicians he supports, is really only interested in demonizing the opposition instead of attempting to successfully sell their progressive agenda to America. Most likely because they can't.
[quote name='mykevermin']It's a party that claims to embrace dissent, but can't rationally handle when its confronted with it.
They can dish it out, but they can't take it.
The contradiction of a pro-individual-freedom party physically restraining, arresting some, while committing aggravated assault against another, speaks volumes to what they consider 'fair tactics.'
If Rand Paul supported freedom, he'd support that woman's freedom to say what she wanted to without being beaten down. Instead, he cues a smile for a photo op with the grown man (not a small dude, either) who assaulted her. He follows this up by not apologizing for the act, not even condemning the act - but, rather, to have his staff blame the response of public services (perhaps the same public services he would cut off upon election).
They can say whatever they want without repudiation, they can make up any kind of claims they want to without rebuke, and now they may engage in ideological vigilantism and you don't see these people as the power hungry living hypocrites they are? There's little I can do about your willful obliviousness.[/QUOTE]
Still wondering how Rand Paul is even the subject of your argument. Why is he responsible for the actions of one or a few idiots? You take 2-3 incidents, throw them together, and call it the tea party. You are no better than the people who put 2-3 terrorist attacks together and call all muslims terrorists.
Granted they are vastly different situations, but it can be expanded to radical members of any group. You cannot simply apply the actions of a few individuals to a large amount of people simply because you disagree with their ideology. These are your ideals from the mosque thread, and you have repeated them hundreds of times. Regardless of your opposition to the tea party, its members are plentiful, and peaceful.
The funny part is that I would consider the hypothetical situation I stated before as insensitive - that the tea party would be insensitive to hold a peaceful legal demonstration in her neighborhood for tea party members in that neighborhood, to show her that they are and will be peaceful.
They can dish it out, but they can't take it.
The contradiction of a pro-individual-freedom party physically restraining, arresting some, while committing aggravated assault against another, speaks volumes to what they consider 'fair tactics.'
If Rand Paul supported freedom, he'd support that woman's freedom to say what she wanted to without being beaten down. Instead, he cues a smile for a photo op with the grown man (not a small dude, either) who assaulted her. He follows this up by not apologizing for the act, not even condemning the act - but, rather, to have his staff blame the response of public services (perhaps the same public services he would cut off upon election).
They can say whatever they want without repudiation, they can make up any kind of claims they want to without rebuke, and now they may engage in ideological vigilantism and you don't see these people as the power hungry living hypocrites they are? There's little I can do about your willful obliviousness.[/QUOTE]
Still wondering how Rand Paul is even the subject of your argument. Why is he responsible for the actions of one or a few idiots? You take 2-3 incidents, throw them together, and call it the tea party. You are no better than the people who put 2-3 terrorist attacks together and call all muslims terrorists.
Granted they are vastly different situations, but it can be expanded to radical members of any group. You cannot simply apply the actions of a few individuals to a large amount of people simply because you disagree with their ideology. These are your ideals from the mosque thread, and you have repeated them hundreds of times. Regardless of your opposition to the tea party, its members are plentiful, and peaceful.
The funny part is that I would consider the hypothetical situation I stated before as insensitive - that the tea party would be insensitive to hold a peaceful legal demonstration in her neighborhood for tea party members in that neighborhood, to show her that they are and will be peaceful.
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='nasum']Myke,
Chances are the photo-op wasn't after the incident. If it was, then perhaps Rand wasn't aware of what happened.
Why should Rand Paul be held responsible for the actions of supporters outside of a building where a debate was taking place? Furthermore, why should one person be held responsible for the actions of any other?[/quote]
It's the brazenness with which the actions of the people who support him show that they really don't even live by the ideas they espouse. When you have folks who scream 'freedom' and don't act 'freedom,' then the underlying ideals of the party are suspect.
That could go both ways. They both are and are not the Republican party. It's been taken over by people who speak like anarchists but behave like dictators.
Arrest the man who disagrees with me, said the person who speaks on behalf of freedom!
As for Rand Paul, anyone who is a member of a medical association (he's not AMA, as they have a liberal bias) that doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS, that abortions cause breast cancer, and that Obama hypnotized citizens to vote for him during his campaign speeches in 2008. I'm not making this shit up, either, not even the hypnotism bit.
Any politician who recommends destroying entire government agencies (i.e., dept of education) as a means of repairing those institutions and what they oversee and provide is a fearsome monomaniac who can not be reasoned with. They engage in free-market tautological thinking that will run circles around you, explaining nothing in the process.
Chances are the photo-op wasn't after the incident. If it was, then perhaps Rand wasn't aware of what happened.
Why should Rand Paul be held responsible for the actions of supporters outside of a building where a debate was taking place? Furthermore, why should one person be held responsible for the actions of any other?[/quote]
It's the brazenness with which the actions of the people who support him show that they really don't even live by the ideas they espouse. When you have folks who scream 'freedom' and don't act 'freedom,' then the underlying ideals of the party are suspect.
That could go both ways. They both are and are not the Republican party. It's been taken over by people who speak like anarchists but behave like dictators.
Arrest the man who disagrees with me, said the person who speaks on behalf of freedom!
As for Rand Paul, anyone who is a member of a medical association (he's not AMA, as they have a liberal bias) that doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS, that abortions cause breast cancer, and that Obama hypnotized citizens to vote for him during his campaign speeches in 2008. I'm not making this shit up, either, not even the hypnotism bit.
Any politician who recommends destroying entire government agencies (i.e., dept of education) as a means of repairing those institutions and what they oversee and provide is a fearsome monomaniac who can not be reasoned with. They engage in free-market tautological thinking that will run circles around you, explaining nothing in the process.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='trq']Anyone else see the irony of the stomper wearing a "Don't Tread On Me" button?[/QUOTE]
lol
lol
The lulz just keep on coming.
[quote name='nasum']Why should Rand Paul be held responsible for the actions of supporters outside of a building where a debate was taking place?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Knoell']Still wondering how Rand Paul is even the subject of your argument. Why is he responsible for the actions of one or a few idiots?[/QUOTE]
The guy's not just a "supporter" -- he's the Bourbon County Coordinator for Rand Paul's campaign.
So how about this: if you're running for government and a major pillar of your political philosophy is stopping the government from abusing people with jackbooted thuggery, how about you show us you can control your own jackbooted thugs first?
[quote name='speedracer']The lulz just keep on coming.[/QUOTE]
"Well, see, she deprived me of my Constitutional right to give her a good stompin'! I'm the victim here!" Basically, it's Tea Party philosophy writ small.
[quote name='Knoell']Still wondering how Rand Paul is even the subject of your argument. Why is he responsible for the actions of one or a few idiots?[/QUOTE]
The guy's not just a "supporter" -- he's the Bourbon County Coordinator for Rand Paul's campaign.
So how about this: if you're running for government and a major pillar of your political philosophy is stopping the government from abusing people with jackbooted thuggery, how about you show us you can control your own jackbooted thugs first?
[quote name='speedracer']The lulz just keep on coming.[/QUOTE]
"Well, see, she deprived me of my Constitutional right to give her a good stompin'! I'm the victim here!" Basically, it's Tea Party philosophy writ small.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Funny note about Kentucky: Bourbon County is a dry county, and Christian county is wet.
Carry on.
Carry on.
[quote name='mykevermin']It's the brazenness with which the actions of the people who support him show that they really don't even live by the ideas they espouse. When you have folks who scream 'freedom' and don't act 'freedom,' then the underlying ideals of the party are suspect.
That could go both ways. They both are and are not the Republican party. It's been taken over by people who speak like anarchists but behave like dictators.
Arrest the man who disagrees with me, said the person who speaks on behalf of freedom!
As for Rand Paul, anyone who is a member of a medical association (he's not AMA, as they have a liberal bias) that doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS, that abortions cause breast cancer, and that Obama hypnotized citizens to vote for him during his campaign speeches in 2008. I'm not making this shit up, either, not even the hypnotism bit.
Any politician who recommends destroying entire government agencies (i.e., dept of education) as a means of repairing those institutions and what they oversee and provide is a fearsome monomaniac who can not be reasoned with. They engage in free-market tautological thinking that will run circles around you, explaining nothing in the process.[/QUOTE]
Wow, I wonder if they still believe in bloodletting to get rid of the bad blood.
That could go both ways. They both are and are not the Republican party. It's been taken over by people who speak like anarchists but behave like dictators.
Arrest the man who disagrees with me, said the person who speaks on behalf of freedom!
As for Rand Paul, anyone who is a member of a medical association (he's not AMA, as they have a liberal bias) that doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS, that abortions cause breast cancer, and that Obama hypnotized citizens to vote for him during his campaign speeches in 2008. I'm not making this shit up, either, not even the hypnotism bit.
Any politician who recommends destroying entire government agencies (i.e., dept of education) as a means of repairing those institutions and what they oversee and provide is a fearsome monomaniac who can not be reasoned with. They engage in free-market tautological thinking that will run circles around you, explaining nothing in the process.[/QUOTE]
Wow, I wonder if they still believe in bloodletting to get rid of the bad blood.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']Is there anyone that can do the same for our President??[/QUOTE]
Seriously? Name one radical leftist item that he's pushed on America.
myke made a great list of items he's championed that are so far to the middle they're almost sitting on the right. What do you have, thrust?
Seriously? Name one radical leftist item that he's pushed on America.
myke made a great list of items he's championed that are so far to the middle they're almost sitting on the right. What do you have, thrust?
[quote name='thrustbucket'] only interested in demonizing the opposition instead of attempting to successfully sell their progressive agenda to America. [/QUOTE]
bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
This is the first rule of argument. When your opponent says some dumb shit, you get to point out "Hey, are you aware you just said some dumb shit, you dumbshit?" I mean, some people offer up a thousand clams just for the chance to know that their foot is so far down their throat that their tonsils are going to get fungus all over 'em.
America sure became a pussy nation over the last few years. People get on my case all the time because they'll want to discuss something with me (I'm clearly talking offline mode here), and get mad when I tell them that they are incorrect. "WELL THEN WHAT WOULD YOU DO, SIRE?" they whine as their silly arms gesticulate wildly in the air. And I have to explain - again - that if you've got a poor premise, you don't get to base something upon it. That's not my fault - it's all on you, and my appropriate classification of such isn't me being an ass. It's me pointing out that you are selling a faulty, wholly disingenuous solution and/or trajectory.
99% of the time I can ask them if they know the illustration of building a house upon a beach instead of a rock, and they won't know what the
I'm referencing. But that doesn't stop them from, a few sentences later, passing me off as an anti-Christian jerk bent on harassing people for no reason.
If it wasn't such a frustrating premonition for how I perceive the future of this country to be, it would be hilarious. But then I think that in a few decades, these people will be puzzled why Mountain Dew is killing their plants.
bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
This is the first rule of argument. When your opponent says some dumb shit, you get to point out "Hey, are you aware you just said some dumb shit, you dumbshit?" I mean, some people offer up a thousand clams just for the chance to know that their foot is so far down their throat that their tonsils are going to get fungus all over 'em.
America sure became a pussy nation over the last few years. People get on my case all the time because they'll want to discuss something with me (I'm clearly talking offline mode here), and get mad when I tell them that they are incorrect. "WELL THEN WHAT WOULD YOU DO, SIRE?" they whine as their silly arms gesticulate wildly in the air. And I have to explain - again - that if you've got a poor premise, you don't get to base something upon it. That's not my fault - it's all on you, and my appropriate classification of such isn't me being an ass. It's me pointing out that you are selling a faulty, wholly disingenuous solution and/or trajectory.
99% of the time I can ask them if they know the illustration of building a house upon a beach instead of a rock, and they won't know what the
I'm referencing. But that doesn't stop them from, a few sentences later, passing me off as an anti-Christian jerk bent on harassing people for no reason.If it wasn't such a frustrating premonition for how I perceive the future of this country to be, it would be hilarious. But then I think that in a few decades, these people will be puzzled why Mountain Dew is killing their plants.
[quote name='mykevermin']Abso-in-lutely.
He proposed a version of health care reform that Mitt Romney helped sculpt in MA, and that congressional Republicans brought to the table in 1994.
He lowered taxes on households and corporations (no, really: if you think your taxes have gone up under Obama you're living in candyland, as they have not).
His Supreme Court nominees have already shown their conservative side, as Kagan voted against a stay of execution of a VA woman with an IQ of 72. Now, VA does not execute people who are classified as mentally retarded (IQ of up to 70), but this woman was borderline (which is legally important). Nevertheless, she's dead now.
Guantanamo Bay is still open.
We're still at war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We're still misusing habeas corpus in the ways we learned from the Bush administration.
We're still tossing homosexuals out of the military for being homosexual.
Look, lots of people are dissatisfied with Obama. I'm dissatisfied for very different reasons than you. Reasons that are grounded in reality, not reasons that scream DONT TREAD ON ME and claim my taxes have gone up (they have not, just like yours). Reasons that have been concerned about deficit spending for three decades, not two years. Reasons that want to look at policy proposals in the concrete, not deal with relative/comparative concerns ('lower taxes compared to what now?').
But Obama is a moderate just like Clinton was a moderate. Republicans decried that he was a liberal antichrist when he was in office, now they kiss his ass, quite frankly.
When you want to be honest with yourself, you'll recognize that anyone daring to call Obama and his policies 'marxist'/'socialist'/'communist'/'extremist' is laughably out of theirin' mind. Obama is maintaining the status quo in significant, and disappointing ways. He brings a few new approaches to the table, but again, TARP and the Stimulus packages were hella moderate in their size and scope.
Not to mention TARP's profitability. If the most "extremist" thing Obama has done is pass a bill that will *make* the government money in the end (in addition to keeping auto companies solvent and employing people), isn't that something he deserves credit for?[/QUOTE]
Damn this post pretty much sums up my feelings on the big O.
in-lutely.He proposed a version of health care reform that Mitt Romney helped sculpt in MA, and that congressional Republicans brought to the table in 1994.
He lowered taxes on households and corporations (no, really: if you think your taxes have gone up under Obama you're living in candyland, as they have not).
His Supreme Court nominees have already shown their conservative side, as Kagan voted against a stay of execution of a VA woman with an IQ of 72. Now, VA does not execute people who are classified as mentally retarded (IQ of up to 70), but this woman was borderline (which is legally important). Nevertheless, she's dead now.
Guantanamo Bay is still open.
We're still at war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We're still misusing habeas corpus in the ways we learned from the Bush administration.
We're still tossing homosexuals out of the military for being homosexual.
Look, lots of people are dissatisfied with Obama. I'm dissatisfied for very different reasons than you. Reasons that are grounded in reality, not reasons that scream DONT TREAD ON ME and claim my taxes have gone up (they have not, just like yours). Reasons that have been concerned about deficit spending for three decades, not two years. Reasons that want to look at policy proposals in the concrete, not deal with relative/comparative concerns ('lower taxes compared to what now?').
But Obama is a moderate just like Clinton was a moderate. Republicans decried that he was a liberal antichrist when he was in office, now they kiss his ass, quite frankly.
When you want to be honest with yourself, you'll recognize that anyone daring to call Obama and his policies 'marxist'/'socialist'/'communist'/'extremist' is laughably out of their
in' mind. Obama is maintaining the status quo in significant, and disappointing ways. He brings a few new approaches to the table, but again, TARP and the Stimulus packages were hella moderate in their size and scope. Not to mention TARP's profitability. If the most "extremist" thing Obama has done is pass a bill that will *make* the government money in the end (in addition to keeping auto companies solvent and employing people), isn't that something he deserves credit for?[/QUOTE]
Damn this post pretty much sums up my feelings on the big O.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Didn't seem to move thrustbucket or anyone else much, now, did it? Dude's awfully quiet all of a sudden.
[quote name='mykevermin']As for Rand Paul, anyone who is a member of a medical association [...][/QUOTE]
So, let's take a look at all the various groups that Obama has been members of and associated with and tie every one of the group's statements to Obama. That's cool with y'all, right?
"God Damn America!" indeed.
So, let's take a look at all the various groups that Obama has been members of and associated with and tie every one of the group's statements to Obama. That's cool with y'all, right?
"God Damn America!" indeed.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
We're livin' in the digital era baby. Gotta move on from analogue. Or was it analog?
How retarded do you have to be to not understand that Wright's message was "if America s around with shit they shouldn't with, it'll them in the ass" and instead knee jerk reaction to it like a baby who doesn't understand nuance?
So you guys would get mad at hornets attacking you for throwing rocks at their nest, not because you threw the rocks, aye?
But hey, let's not examine the discussion. Let's Fox News it up a little, which is an organization whose board of investors includes a prominent individual from a country their programming says is out to destroy our country at all costs.
s around with shit they shouldn't with, it'll them in the ass" and instead knee jerk reaction to it like a baby who doesn't understand nuance?So you guys would get mad at hornets attacking you for throwing rocks at their nest, not because you threw the rocks, aye?
But hey, let's not examine the discussion. Let's Fox News it up a little, which is an organization whose board of investors includes a prominent individual from a country their programming says is out to destroy our country at all costs.
Yup yup...
Which, of course, is why Obama stood behind Wright and his statements, standing up for what Wright said when his sermons were shown to the general population.
We deserved 9/11 because we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perfectly reasonable train of thought...
Which, of course, is why Obama stood behind Wright and his statements, standing up for what Wright said when his sermons were shown to the general population.
I
Indigo_Streetlight
Guest
[quote name='UncleBob']Yup yup...
We deserved 9/11 because we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perfectly reasonable train of thought...
Which, of course, is why Obama stood behind Wright and his statements, standing up for what Wright said when his sermons were shown to the general population.[/QUOTE]
Besides the time difference, there's some truth that America has both committed and been on the receiving end of atrocities. I read not too long ago that "Remember the Maine!" was engineered to sell newspapers--so you might have to excuse some Americans for not being completely hysterical for each second that passes on the ol' terror stopwatch.
We deserved 9/11 because we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perfectly reasonable train of thought...
Which, of course, is why Obama stood behind Wright and his statements, standing up for what Wright said when his sermons were shown to the general population.[/QUOTE]
Besides the time difference, there's some truth that America has both committed and been on the receiving end of atrocities. I read not too long ago that "Remember the Maine!" was engineered to sell newspapers--so you might have to excuse some Americans for not being completely hysterical for each second that passes on the ol' terror stopwatch.
Boy, it must be great to base your argument upon dismissing the past few decades of us ing up a region that has seen entire generations of people displaced as a direct result of our actions. How crazy they must be to get angry over countless civilian deaths, a constant state of fear and panic, their cities being blown up, and entire groups used like puppets by foreign governments.
Meanwhile, we routinely hear on the news about people raging in drive thrus over not getting packets of ketchup. And we also have preachers who blamed 9/11 on "teh gayz" and "teh femnists" and "teh athtits" and every other marginalized group their little brains could dream up, despite none of them having any direct correlation to, oh, terrorist activities - something our government can not claim with a straight face, and kept several high profile military and intelligence members in office long after they got done rubbing their dicks on the Middle East map.
See, tomorrow, what I plan on doing is shitting in someone's mailbox. And then when they come home and say "My mailbox smells like shit!" I'll run up to them immediately and say NOT IF YOU DON'T SMELL THE SHIT, STUPID.
ing up a region that has seen entire generations of people displaced as a direct result of our actions. How crazy they must be to get angry over countless civilian deaths, a constant state of fear and panic, their cities being blown up, and entire groups used like puppets by foreign governments. Meanwhile, we routinely hear on the news about people raging in drive thrus over not getting packets of ketchup. And we also have preachers who blamed 9/11 on "teh gayz" and "teh femnists" and "teh athtits" and every other marginalized group their little brains could dream up, despite none of them having any direct correlation to, oh, terrorist activities - something our government can not claim with a straight face, and kept several high profile military and intelligence members in office long after they got done rubbing their dicks on the Middle East map.
See, tomorrow, what I plan on doing is shitting in someone's mailbox. And then when they come home and say "My mailbox smells like shit!" I'll run up to them immediately and say NOT IF YOU DON'T SMELL THE SHIT, STUPID.
[quote name='Strell']See, tomorrow, what I plan on doing is shitting in someone's mailbox. And then when they come home and say "My mailbox smells like shit!" I'll run up to them immediately and say NOT IF YOU DON'T SMELL THE SHIT, STUPID.[/QUOTE]
Why not? You've been crapping on the forum for years now. Might as well move into trolling in real life.
Why not? You've been crapping on the forum for years now. Might as well move into trolling in real life.
[quote name='Quillion']Don't use that word around Sarah Palin.
Two instances of violence/force in as many weeks to halt dissent. Two campaigns refusing to apologize or admit they were in the wrong. A movement touting "personal freedom and responsibility" not living up to its billing.
If you don't get the contradiction, we can't help you. Maybe you can lead a partier to tea, but you can't make him think.[/QUOTE]
There has been more than one Tea Party candidate who has mentioned violence if they don't get their way.
Also, I cannot be the only person who has ever talked to the Tea crowd or hard right people in general.
Resentment is what motivates their base, if they ever get real power who knows what they would pull.
They don't view anyone else as real Americans, hell many don't view others as real people.
Two instances of violence/force in as many weeks to halt dissent. Two campaigns refusing to apologize or admit they were in the wrong. A movement touting "personal freedom and responsibility" not living up to its billing.
If you don't get the contradiction, we can't help you. Maybe you can lead a partier to tea, but you can't make him think.[/QUOTE]
There has been more than one Tea Party candidate who has mentioned violence if they don't get their way.
Also, I cannot be the only person who has ever talked to the Tea crowd or hard right people in general.
Resentment is what motivates their base, if they ever get real power who knows what they would pull.
They don't view anyone else as real Americans, hell many don't view others as real people.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='depascal22']Seriously? Name one radical leftist item that he's pushed on America.
myke made a great list of items he's championed that are so far to the middle they're almost sitting on the right. What do you have, thrust?[/QUOTE]
Sure. First of all, it isn't just what he HAS pushed on America. His ideology and core belief system is "radical" to me. I'll admit that, for whatever reason, he has not transformed this country to the extreme that he has always seemed to want - for better or worse (depending on if you are you or me). We could probably have an entire new large thread just about why that is.
Also, I don't think I have ever claimed that Obama has raised our taxes (yet), as Myke alluded. However, he's spent so much -something has to give at some point spending like he has, and Paul Krugman isn't going to die on the cross for his sins.
Just off the top of my head, however:
he believes that Jesus believed in forced redistribution of wealth
he has spent more deficit money than any other president (the definition of extreme--significantly more than all else)
he has created new executive powers at an astounding rate, creating czars who have no accountabliity to congress
he has nationalized more of our nations economy that most of us believed was even possible in the US of A
how about using his power as the new "CEO" of GM to BUILD A PLANT IN MEXICO, providing who with more jobs?
How about appointing a known and self proclaimed communist to his staff? (although he was later let go)
That's just the tip of why I feel he is extreme, I won't even get into the nutty shit he continues to spout at speeches sometimes. Furthermore, I really think if you put up some scientific polls in this country on who is more radical between Obama and the Tea Party, you'd be surprised at the results.
[quote name='Strell']bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
This is the first rule of argument. When your opponent says some dumb shit, you get to point out "Hey, are you aware you just said some dumb shit, you dumbshit?" I mean, some people offer up a thousand clams just for the chance to know that their foot is so far down their throat that their tonsils are going to get fungus all over 'em.[/quote]
But that's the point. I think people are sick of the arguing, especially when most of the arguing is not about the issues or their commitments if they are elected. They spend most of their time arguing about their opponents college days or interns that got pregnant.
Ultimately all that matters is their commitments and plans for when they get elected. I think most people are getting over this notion of "qualifications" for elected officials. Beyond respect and understanding for the constitution and a dash of humility, much of the rest is becoming irrelevant - yet that's all opponents talk about.
Maybe.
On a related note, all of those who's faces are getting sore from face-palming tea party-types and constantly trying to marginalize them all the time just need to keep one thing in mind: It only took 12% of the population to be involved in the American Revolution for it to succeed.
myke made a great list of items he's championed that are so far to the middle they're almost sitting on the right. What do you have, thrust?[/QUOTE]
Sure. First of all, it isn't just what he HAS pushed on America. His ideology and core belief system is "radical" to me. I'll admit that, for whatever reason, he has not transformed this country to the extreme that he has always seemed to want - for better or worse (depending on if you are you or me). We could probably have an entire new large thread just about why that is.
Also, I don't think I have ever claimed that Obama has raised our taxes (yet), as Myke alluded. However, he's spent so much -something has to give at some point spending like he has, and Paul Krugman isn't going to die on the cross for his sins.
Just off the top of my head, however:
he believes that Jesus believed in forced redistribution of wealth
he has spent more deficit money than any other president (the definition of extreme--significantly more than all else)
he has created new executive powers at an astounding rate, creating czars who have no accountabliity to congress
he has nationalized more of our nations economy that most of us believed was even possible in the US of A
how about using his power as the new "CEO" of GM to BUILD A PLANT IN MEXICO, providing who with more jobs?
How about appointing a known and self proclaimed communist to his staff? (although he was later let go)
That's just the tip of why I feel he is extreme, I won't even get into the nutty shit he continues to spout at speeches sometimes. Furthermore, I really think if you put up some scientific polls in this country on who is more radical between Obama and the Tea Party, you'd be surprised at the results.
[quote name='Strell']bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
This is the first rule of argument. When your opponent says some dumb shit, you get to point out "Hey, are you aware you just said some dumb shit, you dumbshit?" I mean, some people offer up a thousand clams just for the chance to know that their foot is so far down their throat that their tonsils are going to get fungus all over 'em.[/quote]
But that's the point. I think people are sick of the arguing, especially when most of the arguing is not about the issues or their commitments if they are elected. They spend most of their time arguing about their opponents college days or interns that got pregnant.
Ultimately all that matters is their commitments and plans for when they get elected. I think most people are getting over this notion of "qualifications" for elected officials. Beyond respect and understanding for the constitution and a dash of humility, much of the rest is becoming irrelevant - yet that's all opponents talk about.
Maybe.
On a related note, all of those who's faces are getting sore from face-palming tea party-types and constantly trying to marginalize them all the time just need to keep one thing in mind: It only took 12% of the population to be involved in the American Revolution for it to succeed.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Ho-hum. Try harder. Seriously, we're not even on the same level.
I should also point out that it's hard to scrutinize points when they're so deliberately vague.
cite your source; show us that these positions exist in greater numbers for the Obama administration than they have for prior presidential administrations. If you want to make a comparative claim ("created new executive powers at an astounding rate"), show us the baseline. Compared to what rate? Compared to 2000-2008, he's increased the power of the executive? You're out of your mind.
This is really you taking one point and splitting it up because you couldn't think of other examples. First, cite your source for the Mexico claim. Second, please tell me what you would have done in Obama's position, given the circumstances he's in. Would you have let GM and other auto manufacturers fall, destroying thousands of US jobs, and wrecking the economy? If so, how dare you have the gall to call anyone "extreme"? What alternate, NONEXTREMEBUTMODERATE policies could Obama have put in place that would have saved GM and not nationalized them and/or been cheaper?
Van Jones? GTFO. You're merely supporting the politics of personal assassination when it benefits you. You know who's not pursuing the whole "Christine O'Donnell is a satan worshipping hottentot" angle? Me. Other liberals. Why? Because it'sing stupid (except when it's parodied on SNL, that was just kinda sorta funny). We attack her for being a maniacal crazy bonkers dipshit who has amazingly insipid ideas, philosophies, and policy proposals. We don't go after Rand Paul for worshipping Aqua Buddha, but for being a totalitarian society wrecker conspiracy theorist. We don't go after Sharron Angle for...um, not being a communist?...but instead because her ideas are my-eyes-are-literally-not-figuratively-coming-out-of-my-head stupid at best, racist at worst.
Van Jones? You probably think ACORN is still a corrupt agency that deserved to be defunded, and that James O'Keefe is "da man" (or whatever vernacular you use). You probably thought the same thing about NPR a week ago, yes?
You don't support ideas, you support outcomes, and any idea, no matter how inane or contradictory, that helps get you there. Your arguments about Obama's "extremism" are only "extreme" if you place someone who thinks health care is "kinda expensive" as a "far left radical" and move from there. If you take someone who says "AMERICA HEALTH CARE KICKS YOURING PUSSY TALIBAN ASS, BITCH!
- now, whether or not you believe in free market jesus is irrelevant, as this is a debate about religion, and a religious view that's not particularly extreme. The idea of Jesus being a servant to the poor is evidenced by...his service to the poor. That one thing about the rich man, a camel, and the eye of a needle? That wasn't found in Dianetics. So my point is that you're pointing to a *highly* contestable religious argument, one with a great deal of plausibility, and saying that you think someone is too extreme? If he believed that Jesus, for instance, said "if there's grass in the field, PLAY BALL, dude!" with regard to romantic encounters, then perhaps we could agree that he's a bit off base from the Christian message. But if you think the idea of helping the poor is contentious, I got a book about Jesus I think you should read. It might open your mind about him a bit more.
- you're being vague here. i bet you don't even know what the projected deficits for FY 2009/2010 were. You will, once you respond to this post and google them beforehand. Now that you know them, compare them to year-over-year deficit rates for the past 30 years (inflation adjusted, of course). OMG HE SPENT MONEY ON TARP; that's coming back at a profit to the government. So focus on, you know, the specifics of the overspending. How large does a deficit have to be to meet your definition of "extreme?" Also, there is no such thing as "deficit money." Also, when you say "spent more" do you mean aggregated over full presidential terms (i.e., Obama has outspent 8 years of Bush in 2 years)? You're hardly making any sense at this point - you're just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping it sticks.
I should also point out that it's hard to scrutinize points when they're so deliberately vague.
cite your source; show us that these positions exist in greater numbers for the Obama administration than they have for prior presidential administrations. If you want to make a comparative claim ("created new executive powers at an astounding rate"), show us the baseline. Compared to what rate? Compared to 2000-2008, he's increased the power of the executive? You're out of your mind.
This is really you taking one point and splitting it up because you couldn't think of other examples. First, cite your source for the Mexico claim. Second, please tell me what you would have done in Obama's position, given the circumstances he's in. Would you have let GM and other auto manufacturers fall, destroying thousands of US jobs, and wrecking the economy? If so, how dare you have the gall to call anyone "extreme"? What alternate, NONEXTREMEBUTMODERATE policies could Obama have put in place that would have saved GM and not nationalized them and/or been cheaper?
Van Jones? GTFO. You're merely supporting the politics of personal assassination when it benefits you. You know who's not pursuing the whole "Christine O'Donnell is a satan worshipping hottentot" angle? Me. Other liberals. Why? Because it's
ing stupid (except when it's parodied on SNL, that was just kinda sorta funny). We attack her for being a maniacal crazy bonkers dipshit who has amazingly insipid ideas, philosophies, and policy proposals. We don't go after Rand Paul for worshipping Aqua Buddha, but for being a totalitarian society wrecker conspiracy theorist. We don't go after Sharron Angle for...um, not being a communist?...but instead because her ideas are my-eyes-are-literally-not-figuratively-coming-out-of-my-head stupid at best, racist at worst.Van Jones? You probably think ACORN is still a corrupt agency that deserved to be defunded, and that James O'Keefe is "da man" (or whatever vernacular you use). You probably thought the same thing about NPR a week ago, yes?
You don't support ideas, you support outcomes, and any idea, no matter how inane or contradictory, that helps get you there. Your arguments about Obama's "extremism" are only "extreme" if you place someone who thinks health care is "kinda expensive" as a "far left radical" and move from there. If you take someone who says "AMERICA HEALTH CARE KICKS YOUR
ING PUSSY TALIBAN ASS, BITCH!speedracer
Banned
[quote name='thrustbucket']he has nationalized more of our nations economy that most of us believed was even possible in the US of A
how about using his power as the new "CEO" of GM to BUILD A PLANT IN MEXICO, providing who with more jobs?[/quote]
Quick note on this one. His "big" nationalization was the car companies, universally panned by the capitalists. Howls of derision were lead by The Economist, whose sole purpose is to espouse the virtues of the free market. They came down hard on Obama for nationalizing. So how do they feel now?
how about using his power as the new "CEO" of GM to BUILD A PLANT IN MEXICO, providing who with more jobs?[/quote]
Quick note on this one. His "big" nationalization was the car companies, universally panned by the capitalists. Howls of derision were lead by The Economist, whose sole purpose is to espouse the virtues of the free market. They came down hard on Obama for nationalizing. So how do they feel now?
Yea. Credit where it's due? Course not.
It seems really utilitarian. You have "the end" that they desire, whatever it is. The means is irrelevant to them, do whatever it takes to accomplish "the end" and justify it accordingly.
It isn't saying, "Here is what we're going to do and what we hope to accomplish." It's saying "here is what we want to accomplish and we're going to do whatever it takes to get there." Doesn't matter if it takes putting forth some of the most amazingly stupid candidates this century has seen so far, doesn't matter if it means intimidating people, doesn't even matter if it means getting violent, we gotta do what we gotta do to succeed.
And keep in mind I'm not necessarily talking about the candidates themselves, although they are certainly complacent in it, I'm talking about the overall mentality of the supporters.
It isn't saying, "Here is what we're going to do and what we hope to accomplish." It's saying "here is what we want to accomplish and we're going to do whatever it takes to get there." Doesn't matter if it takes putting forth some of the most amazingly stupid candidates this century has seen so far, doesn't matter if it means intimidating people, doesn't even matter if it means getting violent, we gotta do what we gotta do to succeed.
And keep in mind I'm not necessarily talking about the candidates themselves, although they are certainly complacent in it, I'm talking about the overall mentality of the supporters.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Ho-hum. Try harder. Seriously, we're not even on the same level.[/quote]
I'm really not interested in arguing (i.e. citing sources for feeling why I do), so you can do as you please. You asked how he is extreme. Since "extreme" is a pretty relative position to the any given individual, it's really no surprise that someone you already view as batshit "extreme" (Me) feels that someone is extreme, that you, at one time, punched the chad out on your ballot with your penis for.
Arguing whether someone's FEELINGS on someone being extreme are valid or not is an asinine endeavor.
We aren't going to agree. Boohoo.
That being said, I'll clarify a few points you seem to be confused on.
Holy shit (no pun intended) you're incredible. What part of the word "FORCED" did you not get?
If you feel that the Jesus documented in the bible spent his entire life teaching to love one another and mastery of self and the natural man, but made a small exception for trusting governments to help others through social programs - then we might as well take the discussion to which planet Jesus was really born on.
Sure it's a contentious point, but something I feel strongly about and view anyone with the opposite view as "extreme", let alone dangerous.
And bailing out GM was extreme, and should not have been done. One of my biggest complaints of Obama.
I'm really not interested in arguing (i.e. citing sources for feeling why I do), so you can do as you please. You asked how he is extreme. Since "extreme" is a pretty relative position to the any given individual, it's really no surprise that someone you already view as batshit "extreme" (Me) feels that someone is extreme, that you, at one time, punched the chad out on your ballot with your penis for.
Arguing whether someone's FEELINGS on someone being extreme are valid or not is an asinine endeavor.
We aren't going to agree. Boohoo.
That being said, I'll clarify a few points you seem to be confused on.
Holy shit (no pun intended) you're incredible. What part of the word "FORCED" did you not get?
If you feel that the Jesus documented in the bible spent his entire life teaching to love one another and mastery of self and the natural man, but made a small exception for trusting governments to help others through social programs - then we might as well take the discussion to which planet Jesus was really born on.
Sure it's a contentious point, but something I feel strongly about and view anyone with the opposite view as "extreme", let alone dangerous.
I should have also qualified much of what I listed with also stating that I viewed Bush as an extremist as well.
Google it yourself, as I stated before, I'm not here to apply for the Mykevermin stamp of approval on my "feelings of extremist" application.
And bailing out GM was extreme, and should not have been done. One of my biggest complaints of Obama.
Van Jones? GTFO. You're merely supporting the politics of personal assassination when it benefits you. You know who's not pursuing the whole "Christine O'Donnell is a satan worshipping hottentot" angle? Me. Other liberals. Why? Because it's
Van Jones? You probably think ACORN is still a corrupt agency that deserved to be defunded, and that James O'Keefe is "da man" (or whatever vernacular you use). You probably thought the same thing about NPR a week ago, yes?
You don't support ideas, you support outcomes, and any idea, no matter how inane or contradictory, that helps get you there. Your arguments about Obama's "extremism" are only "extreme" if you place someone who thinks health care is "kinda expensive" as a "far left radical" and move from there. If you take someone who says "AMERICA HEALTH CARE KICKS YOUR
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']Holy shit (no pun intended) you're incredible. What part of the word "FORCED" did you not get?
If you feel that the Jesus documented in the bible spent his entire life teaching to love one another and mastery of self and the natural man, but made a small exception for trusting governments to help others through social programs - then we might as well take the discussion to which planet Jesus was really born on.
Sure it's a contentious point, but something I feel strongly about and view anyone with the opposite view as "extreme", let alone dangerous.[/quote]
First, Jesus is not a supporter of the free market. Capitalism is prohibited in the bible, sweetcakes. Or at least profiting off of labor - and I suspect you can't have capitalism without it. So what, pray tell, if your point? Jesus supports deregulation? Jesus is a Republican?
And the very term "redistribution of wealth" is a red herring. ANY taxation is redistribution of wealth. Bush's tax cuts were a redistribution of wealth. We subsidize farmers, we offer tax cuts and tax subsidies to corporations. The public pays for the cost of building a new football stadium via a sales tax - publicizing the cost of operating a corporation, keeping the profit-side private.
Let me be clear, as this point is absolutely irrefutable: ANY GOVERNMENT USE OF PRIVATELY EARNED MONEY IS REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. If you don't get that, we can't continue in this conversation. It's a moot point, as it occurs anytime the government does something with money.
YOU'RE DODGING THE ISSUE. STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU SAID.
You were too lazy to qualify or specify your point in the first place, that's why I'm asking you. Out of genuine inquiry. If you can't be arsed to stand behind your own words, perhaps you should rethink the words that you choose.
WHAT ALTERNATE CHOICES WERE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME? I asked you a simple question, and you can't respond to it.
In his college years. Ger'off it. Avowed = current, Van Jones was in his past. You WANT to convince people he STILL IS a Communist because it suits your narrative, but it's no more true than is the ACORN scandal. You seek to believe a worldview that is contradicted by fact, but suits your political needs. If you maintained your dreadful strategic approach, but were a progressive instead, you'd be railing about how we elected a "drug addict" in 2000 because Bush had a brief fling with cocaine in college. You're grasping at straws, you want to use the image of a man decades ago and pay no attention to the man's work since that time. You want to ignore Van Jones of today and tell us he's Van Jones The College Years. I'd be embarrassed if that were all I could muster.
If you feel that the Jesus documented in the bible spent his entire life teaching to love one another and mastery of self and the natural man, but made a small exception for trusting governments to help others through social programs - then we might as well take the discussion to which planet Jesus was really born on.
Sure it's a contentious point, but something I feel strongly about and view anyone with the opposite view as "extreme", let alone dangerous.[/quote]
First, Jesus is not a supporter of the free market. Capitalism is prohibited in the bible, sweetcakes. Or at least profiting off of labor - and I suspect you can't have capitalism without it. So what, pray tell, if your point? Jesus supports deregulation? Jesus is a Republican?
And the very term "redistribution of wealth" is a red herring. ANY taxation is redistribution of wealth. Bush's tax cuts were a redistribution of wealth. We subsidize farmers, we offer tax cuts and tax subsidies to corporations. The public pays for the cost of building a new football stadium via a sales tax - publicizing the cost of operating a corporation, keeping the profit-side private.
Let me be clear, as this point is absolutely irrefutable: ANY GOVERNMENT USE OF PRIVATELY EARNED MONEY IS REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. If you don't get that, we can't continue in this conversation. It's a moot point, as it occurs anytime the government does something with money.
YOU'RE DODGING THE ISSUE. STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU SAID.
You were too lazy to qualify or specify your point in the first place, that's why I'm asking you. Out of genuine inquiry. If you can't be arsed to stand behind your own words, perhaps you should rethink the words that you choose.
WHAT ALTERNATE CHOICES WERE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME? I asked you a simple question, and you can't respond to it.
In his college years. Ger'off it. Avowed = current, Van Jones was in his past. You WANT to convince people he STILL IS a Communist because it suits your narrative, but it's no more true than is the ACORN scandal. You seek to believe a worldview that is contradicted by fact, but suits your political needs. If you maintained your dreadful strategic approach, but were a progressive instead, you'd be railing about how we elected a "drug addict" in 2000 because Bush had a brief fling with cocaine in college. You're grasping at straws, you want to use the image of a man decades ago and pay no attention to the man's work since that time. You want to ignore Van Jones of today and tell us he's Van Jones The College Years. I'd be embarrassed if that were all I could muster.
[quote name='UncleBob']We deserved 9/11 because we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perfectly reasonable train of thought....[/QUOTE]
Stripping away the intentional hyperbole, isn't that also basically Ron Paul's position?
EDIT: Ah, yes, here it is.
"Unfortunately, the biggest failure of our government will be ignored. I’m sure the Commission will not connect our foreign policy of interventionism – practiced by both major parties for over a hundred years – as an important reason 9/11 occurred. Instead, the claims will stand that the motivation behind 9/11 was our freedom, prosperity, and way of life."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul174.html
Stripping away the intentional hyperbole, isn't that also basically Ron Paul's position?
EDIT: Ah, yes, here it is.
"Unfortunately, the biggest failure of our government will be ignored. I’m sure the Commission will not connect our foreign policy of interventionism – practiced by both major parties for over a hundred years – as an important reason 9/11 occurred. Instead, the claims will stand that the motivation behind 9/11 was our freedom, prosperity, and way of life."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul174.html
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='trq']Stripping away the intentional hyperbole, isn't that also basically Ron Paul's position?
EDIT: Ah, yes, here it is.
"Unfortunately, the biggest failure of our government will be ignored. I’m sure the Commission will not connect our foreign policy of interventionism – practiced by both major parties for over a hundred years – as an important reason 9/11 occurred. Instead, the claims will stand that the motivation behind 9/11 was our freedom, prosperity, and way of life."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul174.html[/QUOTE]
But he's not as scary as an angry black man at the pulpit...
EDIT: Ah, yes, here it is.
"Unfortunately, the biggest failure of our government will be ignored. I’m sure the Commission will not connect our foreign policy of interventionism – practiced by both major parties for over a hundred years – as an important reason 9/11 occurred. Instead, the claims will stand that the motivation behind 9/11 was our freedom, prosperity, and way of life."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul174.html[/QUOTE]
But he's not as scary as an angry black man at the pulpit...
usickenme
CAGiversary!
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='trq']Stripping away the intentional hyperbole, isn't that also basically Ron Paul's position?
EDIT: Ah, yes, here it is.
"Unfortunately, the biggest failure of our government will be ignored. I’m sure the Commission will not connect our foreign policy of interventionism – practiced by both major parties for over a hundred years – as an important reason 9/11 occurred. Instead, the claims will stand that the motivation behind 9/11 was our freedom, prosperity, and way of life."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul174.html[/QUOTE]
Ron's been saying this for over 30 years. I believe he went on Fox and defended Reverend Wright on this issue (while he was still campaigning, mind you), too, and also brought up MLK's opposition to empire.
Progressives can say what they want about his economic views, but if there were 100 Ron Pauls in Congress, the PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, War on Terror, Telecom immunity, and essentially any other warmongering or corporatist Bush awesomeness that has carried into the Obama administration may well have not happened.
Judging by the way Rand Paul is running his campaign (not attacking Conway on abortion or gay marriage, mainly), I'm holding out hope that he's giving meat to social conservatives in Kentucky during the campaign, only to end up being 95% of what Ron Paul is in the Senate.
EDIT: Ah, yes, here it is.
"Unfortunately, the biggest failure of our government will be ignored. I’m sure the Commission will not connect our foreign policy of interventionism – practiced by both major parties for over a hundred years – as an important reason 9/11 occurred. Instead, the claims will stand that the motivation behind 9/11 was our freedom, prosperity, and way of life."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul174.html[/QUOTE]
Ron's been saying this for over 30 years. I believe he went on Fox and defended Reverend Wright on this issue (while he was still campaigning, mind you), too, and also brought up MLK's opposition to empire.
Progressives can say what they want about his economic views, but if there were 100 Ron Pauls in Congress, the PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, War on Terror, Telecom immunity, and essentially any other warmongering or corporatist Bush awesomeness that has carried into the Obama administration may well have not happened.
Judging by the way Rand Paul is running his campaign (not attacking Conway on abortion or gay marriage, mainly), I'm holding out hope that he's giving meat to social conservatives in Kentucky during the campaign, only to end up being 95% of what Ron Paul is in the Senate.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='usickenme']Myke-
Do you read David Brin's blog? Cause you should
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/[/QUOTE]
OMG HERESY
good link. thanks.
Do you read David Brin's blog? Cause you should
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/[/QUOTE]
OMG HERESY
But they don't read, dude. They don't read.
good link. thanks.
[quote name='trq']Stripping away the intentional hyperbole, isn't that also basically Ron Paul's position?
EDIT: Ah, yes, here it is.
"Unfortunately, the biggest failure of our government will be ignored. I’m sure the Commission will not connect our foreign policy of interventionism – practiced by both major parties for over a hundred years – as an important reason 9/11 occurred. Instead, the claims will stand that the motivation behind 9/11 was our freedom, prosperity, and way of life."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul174.html[/QUOTE]
There's a wide difference, to me, at least, between saying that our overseas actions are a part of the root cause of the 9/11 attacks and saying that our overseas actions are an excuse for the 9/11 attacks.
EDIT: Ah, yes, here it is.
"Unfortunately, the biggest failure of our government will be ignored. I’m sure the Commission will not connect our foreign policy of interventionism – practiced by both major parties for over a hundred years – as an important reason 9/11 occurred. Instead, the claims will stand that the motivation behind 9/11 was our freedom, prosperity, and way of life."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul174.html[/QUOTE]
There's a wide difference, to me, at least, between saying that our overseas actions are a part of the root cause of the 9/11 attacks and saying that our overseas actions are an excuse for the 9/11 attacks.
[quote name='UncleBob']There's a wide difference, to me, at least, between saying that our overseas actions are a part of the root cause of the 9/11 attacks and saying that our overseas actions are an excuse for the 9/11 attacks.[/QUOTE]
Which one do you agree with?
Which one do you agree with?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='usickenme']Myke-
Do you read David Brin's blog? Cause you should
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/[/QUOTE]
I'm not familiar with him, but I'll gladly check it out later. Thanks.
Do you read David Brin's blog? Cause you should
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/[/QUOTE]
I'm not familiar with him, but I'll gladly check it out later. Thanks.
[quote name='Clak']No worse an excuse than the ones we've used over the years.[/QUOTE]
I won't disagree with that.
[quote name='IRHari']Which one do you agree with?[/QUOTE]
Who says I have to agree with either?
For the record, I do believe that our recent foreign policy did play a part in why we were attacked on 9/11. I don't believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki had anything to do with it though (Mind you, I've expressed concerns about those events here on this very forum). The actions of our military, however, in no way excuse an unprovoked direct attack on private citizens without regard to military status, age, gender, etc., etc. If Bin Laden had organized an attack solely on the Pentagon, for example, we could be having a different conversation.
I won't disagree with that.
[quote name='IRHari']Which one do you agree with?[/QUOTE]
Who says I have to agree with either?
For the record, I do believe that our recent foreign policy did play a part in why we were attacked on 9/11. I don't believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki had anything to do with it though (Mind you, I've expressed concerns about those events here on this very forum). The actions of our military, however, in no way excuse an unprovoked direct attack on private citizens without regard to military status, age, gender, etc., etc. If Bin Laden had organized an attack solely on the Pentagon, for example, we could be having a different conversation.
iKilledChewbacca
Banned
who gives a shit.
[quote name='Sporadic']
I find it slightly odd how little attention this part of the story is getting. Probably because there's no video.
http://www.moveon.org/team/campaigns/republicorp/
Looks like she actually pretty much got what she wanted.
[/QUOTE]
I find it slightly odd how little attention this part of the story is getting. Probably because there's no video.
http://www.moveon.org/team/campaigns/republicorp/
Looks like she actually pretty much got what she wanted.
[quote name='UncleBob']I find it slightly odd how little attention this part of the story is getting. Probably because there's no video.[/QUOTE]
It's the Breitbart standard of proof, remember? There is no video of John Lewis being called nagger and no video of Barney Frank being called a $$$. QED didn't happen.
[quote name='UncleBob']Looks like she actually pretty much got what she wanted.[/QUOTE]
I think it was reasonable to assume they wanted yelling and screaming i.e. verbal assault. I doubt anyone expected a curb stomp.
It's the Breitbart standard of proof, remember? There is no video of John Lewis being called nagger and no video of Barney Frank being called a $$$. QED didn't happen.
[quote name='UncleBob']Looks like she actually pretty much got what she wanted.[/QUOTE]
I think it was reasonable to assume they wanted yelling and screaming i.e. verbal assault. I doubt anyone expected a curb stomp.
[quote name='UncleBob']I find it slightly odd how little attention this part of the story is getting. Probably because there's no video.
http://www.moveon.org/team/campaigns/republicorp/
Looks like she actually pretty much got what she wanted.[/QUOTE]
Yeah she wanted to get a concussion, seems reasonable.
Just go ahead and say it, she was asking for it.
http://www.moveon.org/team/campaigns/republicorp/
Looks like she actually pretty much got what she wanted.[/QUOTE]
Yeah she wanted to get a concussion, seems reasonable.
Just go ahead and say it, she was asking for it.
bread's done