Well now that we get to see the teabaggers back in action, maybe it is time to go back and revist the original teabaggers.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/716

Their intent was to stop the vote recount and they did...masquerading as average Joes, they were anything but average Joes. History shows they were in effect Republican congressional staffers. Which raises another question, why should be be using our money, federal money, to interfere with local elections?

This is a complete and uttter disgrace brought upon us by the Republican Party and their ditto head brigades.

Well now that we get to see the teabaggers back in action, maybe it is time to go back and revist the original teabaggers.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/716

Their intent was to stop the vote recount and they did...masquerading as average Joes, they were anything but average Joes. History shows they were in effect Republican congressional staffers. Which raises another question, why should be be using our money, federal money, to interfere with local elections?

This is a complete and uttter disgrace brought upon us by the Republican Party and their ditto head brigades.

Can you come up with something a little less biased?

Democratic Underground, now really.

What's a teabagger?

What's a teabagger?

Protesters against gov't spending and taxes, after the Boston Tea Party that took place in the 18th century, where the same thing occured (people protesting taxes from England)

The teabaggers are the 'good' ones here, but the motives of some are questionable.

What's a teabagger?


Taxed Enough Already.


People who are fed up with the Government and the incessant rise in all forms of Government taxes.

The US has relative low rates of income tax and no VAT/GST. See here for a comparison:

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthree

The US has relative low rates of income tax and no VAT/GST. See here for a comparison:

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthree

If Obama and the Democrats get their way, that will all change, and why does the rest of the world have such high tax rates?

Because you already are paying for the things Obama want to institute here.

Yeah, all the good stuff like universal health care.

Yeah, all the good stuff like universal health care.

Universal Health Care yes Really?

Like this case in the UK?



22yo dies after being denied liver transplant

July 21, 2009

The sad case of a young sick British man has raised new questions about the fairness of the rules for organ transplants.

Gary Reinbach, 22, an alcoholic, died yesterday after authorities in the UK refused to give him an emergency liver transplant.

Doctors there said he could not jump the queue and had not served the mandatory six-month period of being sober before having the operation.

No teabagging! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi9hgqZr6fs) Not work safe (but no nudity either). You've gotta admit, the idea of a bunch of right wingers calling themselves "teabaggers" is hysterical once you know what it really means.

Sounds fair enough to me, BR.

Universal Health Care yes Really?

Like this case in the UK?



22yo dies after being denied liver transplant

July 21, 2009

The sad case of a young sick British man has raised new questions about the fairness of the rules for organ transplants.

Gary Reinbach, 22, an alcoholic, died yesterday after authorities in the UK refused to give him an emergency liver transplant.

Doctors there said he could not jump the queue and had not served the mandatory six-month period of being sober before having the operation.

you mean like this baffalo


On April 10, 2004, Tracy Pierce Sr. was diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma, the most common type of kidney cancer. The Pierces were insured through Julie's employer, St. Joseph Medical Center, where she works in the intensive care unit. St. Joseph and her insurance provider, First Health Coventry (now Coventry Health Care Inc.), refused to pay for a doctor-recommended bone-marrow transplant, which her insurance provider labeled "experimental."

"For 12 years, I paid out of my paycheck for my insurance, and he'd never used it," Julie Pierce says. "He was never sick a day in his life. Then he got that, and they weren't there for him. You think that, you work for a hospital, you might get good care. But it was like his life was nothing."

The procedure would have cost $250,000 upfront — money they didn't have.

The Pierces appealed three times. They were denied each time. Julie Pierce demanded a meeting with the hospital's board of trustees. On May 11, 2005, the Pierces met with the board.

Pierce recalls one board member expressing sympathy for her husband's sickness.

"Your sympathy's not going to do me any good when I'm burying him next year," Julie Pierce says she answered. "If that was [then-CEO] Bruce Van Cleave's wife, I bet you'd approve it."

Eight months later, Tracy Pierce Sr. died. "I don't know how the people on that board can look in the mirror every day and know that they've killed my husband," Julie Pierce says
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article.php?id=10105

Yeah, all the good stuff like universal health care.

The problem is that you're forcing everybody to pay. You want UHC? You pick up the tab.

And I mean just you, and the people that want it. Not everybody.

Obama's proposed spending is epidemic.

No teabagging! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi9hgqZr6fs) Not work safe (but no nudity either). You've gotta admit, the idea of a bunch of right wingers calling themselves "teabaggers" is hysterical once you know what it really means.

I've never heard a TEA Party participant/activist refer to himself/herself as a "teabagger" (not saying it hasn't happened, but I haven't heard it). It seems that it's usually the pro-taxation/socialist crowd that calls them that.

I've never heard a TEA Party participant/activist refer to himself/herself as a "teabagger" (not saying it hasn't happened, but I haven't heard it). It seems that it's usually the pro-taxation/socialist crowd that calls them that.

We aren't pro-taxation we just want to keep deficits as low as possible while fixing the problem and most of us aren't socialist. More right wing slanders.

We aren't pro-taxation we just want to keep deficits as low as possible while fixing the problem and most of us aren't socialist. More right wing slanders.

Do you want a reduction in taxes?

I've never heard a TEA Party participant/activist refer to himself/herself as a "teabagger" (not saying it hasn't happened, but I haven't heard it). It seems that it's usually the pro-taxation/socialist crowd that calls them that.

The typical play book from the Liberals, go directly to the personnel attack, don't deal with the problem, don't explain exactly what they want to do;

(scares the shit out of them, because then, we can see what they are really up to)

all we get from the Democrats, is their elitist attitude, that we are to dumb to understand they they only want to do what is best for us, and that we are to stupid to take care of our selves.

It's just stating the obvious.

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/6299/story.gif (http://img512.imageshack.us/i/story.gif/)

The typical play book from the Liberals, go directly to the personnel attack, don't deal with the problem, don't explain exactly what they want to do;

(scares the shit out of them, because then, we can see what they are really up to)

all we get from the Democrats, is their elitist attitude, that we are to dumb to understand they they only want to do what is best for us, and that we are to stupid to take care of our selves.

It was the teabaggers who came up with term...not anyone else. Liberals (in your sense of the term, anyone who disagrees with your party line) don;t go to personal attacks...you and your kind do because your cases are weak and you have nothing else to fall back on.

Are liberals afraid of you guys, probably. Because we see what your leadership has brought to the country, economic ruin and an unraveling of personal liberty. Everyone with half a brain should be afraid of right wing extremists who have no use for reason or rational discourse.

Tell me why is it that whenever confronted with reason your right wing icons and leaders resort to yelling and screaming so that no voice but their own can be heard? Why is it that your mobs yell and scream so that no other voice can be heard but their own?

This is The United States of America...all voices deserve to be heard.

It was the teabaggers who came up with term...not anyone else. Liberals (in your sense of the term, anyone who disagrees with your party line) don;t go to personal attacks...you and your kind do because your cases are weak and you have nothing else to fall back on.

Are liberals afraid of you guys, probably. Because we have seen what your leadership has brought to the country, economic ruin and an unraveling of personal liberty. Everyone with half a brain should be afraid of right wing extremists who have no use for reason or rational discourse.

Tell me why is it that whenever confronted with reason your right wing icons and leaders resort to yelling and screaming so that no voice but their own can be heard? Why is it that your mobs yell and scream so that no other voice can be heard but their own?

This is The United States of America...all voices deserve to be heard.

Jesus, Joe; you really drank the Democrat Kool-Aid, didn't you?

There are threats to liberty from both sides of the aisle (the right is bad about some things, the left is bad about some things). And people on all sides of the political spectrum engage in name-calling. As for screaming and yelling (and frequently violence); take a look at a G8 protest. Are those people conservatives?

Jesus, Joe; you really drank the Democrat Kool-Aid, didn't you?

There are threats to liberty from both sides of the aisle (the right is bad about some things, the left is bad about some things). And people on all sides of the political spectrum engage in name-calling. As for screaming and yelling (and frequently violence); take a look at a G8 protest. Are those people conservatives?

The protestors at the G8 were not Democrats. There are left wing whackos as well. But no one takes them seriously, e.g. environmental activitsts, PETA, etc.

The protestors at the G8 were not Democrats. There are left wing whackos as well. But no one takes them seriously, e.g. environmental activitsts, PETA, etc.

Do you think that the GOP takes the equivalent right-wing wackos seriously?

Do you think that the GOP takes the equivalent right-wing wackos seriously?

From what I see, the rigth wing whackos dominate the Republican Party. Republican politicians appear to be afraid of the whacko leadership (e.g. the parade of elected officials appologizing to limbaugh for offending him). Few in the Republican Party appear willing to stand up to the right wing whackos. The only one I can think of is Collin Powell...and he is not running for office.

I think the recent Senate confirimation vote of Sotomayor speaks volumes about their continued influence over the party. The majority of retiring Republican senators voted for her. Almost all of the senators seeking reelection voted against her.

From what I see, the rigth wing whackos dominate the Republican Party. Republican politicians appear to be afraid of the whacko leadership (e.g. the parade of elected officials appologizing to limbaugh for offending him). Few in the Republican Party appear willing to stand up to the right wing whackos. The only one I can think of is Collin Powell...and he is not running for office.

I think the recent Senate confirimation vote of Sotomayor speaks volumes about their continued influence over the party. The majority of retiring Republican senators voted for her. Almost all of the senators seeking reelection voted against her.

If Limbaugh is your definition of a right-wing wacko, then we need to reevaluate your belief that everyone ignores equally wacko left-wingers.

Do you want a reduction in taxes?

on the lower and middle classes. I'm tired of the tax burden being on us to help the rich and powerful.

on the lower and middle classes. I'm tired of the tax burden being on us to help the rich and powerful.

So you are pro-taxation, because you want to expropriate property from groups you dislike. See how easy that was to resolve?

From what I see, the rigth wing whackos dominate the Republican Party. Republican politicians appear to be afraid of the whacko leadership (e.g. the parade of elected officials appologizing to limbaugh for offending him). Few in the Republican Party appear willing to stand up to the right wing whackos. The only one I can think of is Collin Powell...and he is not running for office.

I think the recent Senate confirimation vote of Sotomayor speaks volumes about their continued influence over the party. The majority of retiring Republican senators voted for her. Almost all of the senators seeking reelection voted against her.

joe why do you think they are retiring? because they have lost touch with the People and they see it, RHINOs.

Now if only the Dem could see just how far they are from the People and the Constitution.

Notorious socialist Adam Smith on progressive taxation:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

So you are pro-taxation, because you want to expropriate property from groups you dislike. See how easy that was to resolve?

What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul*dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

http://www.american.com/graphics/2007/november/Guess%20Who%20Really%20Pays%20the%20Taxes.jpg

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

joe why do you think they are retiring? because they have lost touch with the People and they see it, RHINOs.

Now if only the Dem could see just how far they are from the People and the Constitution.

How do you see a falsehood?

What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul*dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

http://www.american.com/graphics/2007/november/Guess%20Who%20Really%20Pays%20the%20Taxes.jpg

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

and what about the rest of the tax burden?

and what about the rest of the tax burden?

How about you proving the information is incorrect.

How about you proving the information is incorrect.

the matter is not its correctness but its completeness. Its only a part of the burden.

If Limbaugh is your definition of a right-wing wacko, then we need to reevaluate your belief that everyone ignores equally wacko left-wingers.

Show me the left wing equilivant of limbaugh or a hannity or a levin or a beck?

Show me the left wing equilivant of limbaugh or a hannity or a levin or a beck?

Obama. Pelsoi. Reid. Rachel Maddow. Keith Olbermann.

LOL, that is truely funny Buffalo Roam. Only two of those mentioned were even in the media. Last I checked limbaugh was not an elected official as are the others you cited. :) You really have been in the koolaid!!

The two journalists you cited are just that journalists who specialize in showing the outright lies in which limbaugh, hannity, levin, beck and others engage in every hour of every day on the radio and TV. There is no reasonable comparison between the Olberman, Maddow and the right wing whacko leadership.

Neither Olberman or Maddow have a group of ditto heads that eat every word that falls from their mouth without question. Olberman and Maddow DO constrain themselves to reporting FACT...not lies...big difference Buffalo Roam.

Mod Note: Buffalo, posting statements like: "Sam's in the air..." is both ridiculous and incendiary. You aren't debating her. Your attempts to drag her into fights that she's not in, REPEATEDLY, is considered spam and flaming.

Cool it.

LOL, that is truely funny Buffalo Roam. Only two of those mentioned were even in the media. Last I checked limbaugh was not an elected official as are the others you cited. :) You really have been in the koolaid!!

The two journalists you cited are just that journalists who specialize in showing the outright lies in which limbaugh, hannity, levin, beck and others engage in every hour of every day on the radio and TV. There is no reasonable comparison between the Olberman, Maddow and the right wing whacko leadership.

Neither Olberman or Maddow have a group of ditto heads that eat every word that falls from their mouth without question. Olberman and Maddow DO constrain themselves to reporting FACT...not lies...big difference Buffalo Roam.

Here's some info on your homeboy Olbermann (not that I expect you to change your mind about anything):

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070216.asp

And the fact that Olbermann and Maddow lack Limbaugh's popularity doesn't make their views any less "extreme". How about the comrades at Air America?

Here's some info on your homeboy Olbermann (not that I expect you to change your mind about anything):

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070216.asp

And the fact that Olbermann and Maddow lack Limbaugh's popularity doesn't make their views any less "extreme". How about the comrades at Air America?

This is where I draw the line, being critical of others with differing views is not by itself partisan in my book, as long as they remain fact based and assertions and statements are grounded in reason. This is what limbaugh used to do before he set himself up as the head of the Republican Party. limbaugh in his early years used to pick fun an the many stupid things the Democrats did...nothing wrong with that.

Thus far Olberman and Maddow have not crossed that line. If they should start trying to deceive people like limbaugh, hannity, levin, beck, then I will have issues with them. But as long as Olberman and Maddow stay grounded in reality and facts, they are not in the same league as limbaugh, hannity, et. al.

As for popularity, it has more to do with media control than popularity. There has been a disturbing trend towards concentration of medial control in the US. I would love to listen to something other than limbaugh, but despite living in two states, that is not an option or me. All I get get is Murddock controlled Fox. And we all know what Murddock likes.

Joe are you a dem? If you don't like the Reps then just be an independent, don't switch ideologies! We need more people on the right wing, not less!

I am an Independent, doing what is best for the country. Right now the Dems have the right prescription for the country not the ditto heads.

I am an Independent, doing what is best for the country. Right now the Dems have the right prescription for the country not the ditto heads.

Not the Republicans, I agree; although that's just the reps.

The dems are OK, but y'know what's even better? The libertarians.

Mod Note: Buffalo, posting statements like: "Sam's in the air..." is both ridiculous and incendiary. You aren't debating her. Your attempts to drag her into fights that she's not in, REPEATEDLY, is considered spam and flaming.

Cool it.

String if you care to look the term "SAM" is military short hand for Surface to Air Missle, I was adressing nothing "to S.A.M. or at Her,

US Military Dictionary: surface-to-air missile

SAM
A missile fired from the ground or from ships and directed at aircraft or other missiles.

The Standard defense to a SAM is Chaff and Flairs.

Not the Republicans, I agree; although that's just the reps.

The dems are OK, but y'know what's even better? The libertarians.

I used to be a Libertarian back when Carter was president. Those were the days when the Dems went WAY, WAY overboard with their agenda and were harming the country.

I used to be a Libertarian back when Carter was president. Those were the days when the Dems went WAY, WAY overboard with their agenda and were harming the country.

And they still want to do the same. The American left wing ought to keep their mouths shut.

This is where I draw the line, being critical of others with differing views is not by itself partisan in my book, as long as they remain fact based and assertions and statements are grounded in reason. This is what limbaugh used to do before he set himself up as the head of the Republican Party. limbaugh in his early years used to pick fun an the many stupid things the Democrats did...nothing wrong with that.

Thus far Olberman and Maddow have not crossed that line. If they should start trying to deceive people like limbaugh, hannity, levin, beck, then I will have issues with them. But as long as Olberman and Maddow stay grounded in reality and facts, they are not in the same league as limbaugh, hannity, et. al.

As for popularity, it has more to do with media control than popularity. There has been a disturbing trend towards concentration of medial control in the US. I would love to listen to something other than limbaugh, but despite living in two states, that is not an option or me. All I get get is Murddock controlled Fox. And we all know what Murddock likes.

I didn't expect you to change your mind about Olbermann. Not because his rants were fact-based or grounded in reason (because they clearly weren't), but because he's a wacko liberal and you seem to have a rose-colored view of the political left.

EDIT: I thought I should point out both Limbaugh and Olbermann are political advocates rather than journalists. At this point the only real difference between the two (aside from ideology) is that people seem to want to listen to what Limbaugh says.

And they still want to do the same. The American left wing ought to keep their mouths shut.

They seem to be nuttier now than they were in the late 1970s. I don't want them to keep their mouths shut, though, because people need to know what sort of socialist nonsense we're dealing with.

One major difference is that Limbaugh has a better accuracy record on the facts, and make no pretention of bring a News Anchor.

One major difference is that Limbaugh has a better accuracy record on the facts, and make no pretention of bring a News Anchor.

Right limbaugh gets his facts right:rolleyes: Olbermann has a far better track record and actually issues corrections on air when he fucks up.

Right limbaugh gets his facts right:rolleyes: Olbermann has a far better track record and actually issues corrections on air when he fucks up.

Prove it.

Prove it.

Is this the begaining of OBAMA'S AND NANCY PELOSI'S 1000 YEAR RIECH????

You have seen it with your own eye's in Mo. on CNN And FOX News
People Whom Obama has said share HIS Aganda ,HIS Vision Of a NEW America, Beating up protesters of Obama's UHC plan.
IS THIS HOW OBAMA PLANS TO BRING ABOUT CHANGE, IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH HIM AND HIS DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED CONGRESS?
Beating up lawful Americans in the streets trying to met !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is the SIEU Union And Acorn to Obama, as the Brown Shirts and Gestapo Were to HITLER In 1930's Germany?

The UHC Plan is OBAMA'S Nurenburg Laws for the sick and elderly in America!!
Don't sit and wait for the FINAL PLAN!!!!
Tell your Congressman HELL NO TO UHC!!!!!!

IS THIS FISHY ENOUGH??????????
Do you think this may get me on his Enemy's list? I hope so !
I lived in Germany for many years, and have many older German friends who remember the Hitler years and they look at you and Obama with fear!!!!!!!
:mad:

Show me somethings Olberman said that are not true. Prove your statements about Olberman. limbaugh has been proven to lie on a daily basis. It would be newsworthy should limbaugh say something truthful.

Show me somethings Olberman said that are not true. Prove your statements about Olberman. limbaugh has been proven to lie on a daily basis. It would be newsworthy should limbaugh say something truthful.

You said "This is where I draw the line, being critical of others with differing views is not by itself partisan in my book, as long as they remain fact based and assertions and statements are grounded in reason."

Most of Olbermann's statements in the link I provided weren't grounded in reason by any stretch of the imagination. Olbermann spews partisan hyperbole which, in and of itself, doesn't bother me. It's the fact that some people consider him a "journalist" when he's actually a political commentator like Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, etc.

You said "This is where I draw the line, being critical of others with differing views is not by itself partisan in my book, as long as they remain fact based and assertions and statements are grounded in reason."

Most of Olbermann's statements in the link I provided weren't grounded in reason by any stretch of the imagination. Olbermann spews partisan hyperbole which, in and of itself, doesn't bother me. It's the fact that some people consider him a "journalist" when he's actually a political commentator like Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, etc.

I do love the constipated look on Olbarmann face, could the guy be any more anal retentive, and Madow looks like She just bit into a chocolate covered turd, or had a cup of punch from the Punch Bowl at the prom in Porkys,

The punch has a little wang to it. I've had this taste in my mouth before.

Prove it.
let me stop you right there you need to prove your claim first. You want proof try and prove your original claim first. You and I have had this run in numorous times. If you go down the same path you have before I'll report it for trolling.

You said "This is where I draw the line, being critical of others with differing views is not by itself partisan in my book, as long as they remain fact based and assertions and statements are grounded in reason."

Most of Olbermann's statements in the link I provided weren't grounded in reason by any stretch of the imagination. Olbermann spews partisan hyperbole which, in and of itself, doesn't bother me. It's the fact that some people consider him a "journalist" when he's actually a political commentator like Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, etc.
Your cite is a right wing attack cite that was started when the didn't like mediamatters showing their quotes to the world.

Well now that we get to see the teabaggers back in action, maybe it is time to go back and revist the original teabaggers.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/716

Their intent was to stop the vote recount and they did...masquerading as average Joes, they were anything but average Joes. History shows they were in effect Republican congressional staffers. Which raises another question, why should be be using our money, federal money, to interfere with local elections?

This is a complete and uttter disgrace brought upon us by the Republican Party and their ditto head brigades.

You really didn't follow the links well did you? In short, I am doubting the veracity of your original link since it is linked to a political humor site.

In other words joe, you've been had and fell for it.

It was the teabaggers who came up with term...not anyone else.

This is The United States of America...all voices deserve to be heard.

Here is your history of referring to tea parties participants as tea baggers. As usual for the left when opposition arises attempt to marginalize through insults and attacks.

And yes all voices deserve to be spoken, not heard or believed. That is a conflation of rights. But isn't it interesting that this principle only applies when a republican is in office?

Here is your history of referring to tea parties participants as tea baggers. As usual for the left when opposition arises attempt to marginalize through insults and attacks.

And yes all voices deserve to be spoken, not heard or believed. That is a conflation of rights. But isn't it interesting that this principle only applies when a republican is in office?

I did not start, organize or name the teabag movement. The whackos decided to use the name "Tea Bag" to refer to their movement and called themselves teabaggers. By the rules of our language one who participates in the Tea Bag movement is a Tea bagger. Then the teabaggers discovered the meaning of the term teabagger and are rightly embarased. So who's fault is that...not mine. But I think it just goes to show how little knowledge goes into the positions of the teabaggers.

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=89676

The movement encouraged followers to send tea bags to Dems. The act of sending tea bags is tea bagging. Those that do it are called tea baggers. That is how the language works.

As for the rest of your post, it seems pretty incoherent and rambling to me. Is there a point to it? That also includes post http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2337161&postcount=58

Here is your history of referring to tea parties participants as tea baggers. As usual for the left when opposition arises attempt to marginalize through insults and attacks. No that is the right. The left uses reason,logic, and facts for the most part.


And yes all voices deserve to be spoken, not heard or believed. That is a conflation of rights. But isn't it interesting that this principle only applies when a republican is in office?

No it applies when a dem is in officce but you seem to think every idea has the right to be treated as if its intelligent it doesn't. stupid ideas should be treated like stupid ideas.

Your cite is a right wing attack cite that was started when the didn't like mediamatters showing their quotes to the world.

Are you saying that the quotes from Olbermann are fabricated?

Are you saying that the quotes from Olbermann are fabricated?

No i'm saying that they are devoid of context and rationale. Yes he said all of that but it is not as you, the right wing, and your fake media watch dog groups as to attack them but to highlight that what they are doing is illegal, dangerous,or harmful to the american people/country.

No i'm saying that they are devoid of context and rationale. Yes he said all of that but it is not as you, the right wing, and your fake media watch dog groups as to attack them but to highlight that what they are doing is illegal, dangerous,or harmful to the american people/country.

Some of those comments would be irrational in just about any context. And if Olbermann is saying these things to highlight actions that he believes are dangerous to America, then Rush Limbaugh and company should be given a free pass for the same reason.

Some of those comments would be irrational in just about any context. Um no they wouldn't.
And if Olbermann is saying these things to highlight actions that he believes are dangerous to America, then Rush Limbaugh and company should be given a free pass for the same reason.

Your missing the big difference between the two; Olbermann and the left answers the why the right doesn't.




to show an example look at how media matters sets up info and MRC.org. big difference in that media matters has clips and transcripts

Um no they wouldn't.

So comments like "the person Ken Starr has reminded me of facially all this time was Heinrich Himmler" and accusing Chris Wallace of being "a monkey posing as a newscaster" are actually fact-based journalism on some planet?


Your missing the big difference between the two; Olbermann and the left answers the why the right doesn't.

Are you claiming that nobody on the right ever explains why they think gun control or socialist healthcare, for example, are bad?


to show an example look at how media matters sets up info and MRC.org. big difference in that media matters has clips and transcripts

I'm watching a video clip from the MRC page on Olbermann right now...

Are you claiming that nobody on the right ever explains why they think gun control or socialist healthcare, for example, are bad? not in factual ways.




I'm watching a video clip from the MRC page on Olbermann right now...

how long

not in factual ways.

So every conservative who's ever argued for or against a position has lied about everything? Can't wait to see your proof of that.


how long

I didn't keep track. There is more than one video clip there. Look for yourself.

So every conservative who's ever argued for or against a position has lied about everything? Can't wait to see your proof of that. not lied been wrong.




I didn't keep track. There is more than one video clip there. Look for yourself.

I have i didn't really see any.

not lied been wrong.

Been wrong about what? Facts? If so, let's see your proof that every conservative argument has been factually incorrect about everything.

While you're at it, let's see some proof that every liberal argument has been right about everything.


I have i didn't really see any.

You didn't look very hard. There were several video clips there with different media formats to choose from.

By the way, PJ, you neglected to answer a question I asked in post 66:

"So comments like "the person Ken Starr has reminded me of facially all this time was Heinrich Himmler" and accusing Chris Wallace of being "a monkey posing as a newscaster" are actually fact-based journalism on some planet?"

Been wrong about what? Facts? If so, let's see your proof that every conservative argument has been factually incorrect about everything. what the point as a conservative your never oiung to accept the proof? It is heavily based in perception.


While you're at it, let's see some proof that every liberal argument has been right about everything. That doesn't follow.




You didn't look very hard. There were several video clips there with different media formats to choose from.

where. I saw alot of embedded links but no transcripts or video clips on the site.

what the point as a conservative your never oiung to accept the proof? It is heavily based in perception.

I'm actually a Libertarian for the most part, not a conservative. If you had concrete evidence, I'm assuming you'd post it. Even if I was unconvinced, it would at least work to discredit your political foes in the eyes of others.

And if it's "heavily based in perception", then it's probably bullshit. Facts are objective, not based on the perception of individuals.


That doesn't follow.

Sure it does. If you're going to accuse conservatives of either lying or being wrong about ALL facts they present, you should be willing to demonstrate that liberals are never wrong or dishonest. You're basically claiming that one group of people sucks and the other walks on water. I'd like to see proof of both claims, please.


where. I saw alot of embedded links but no transcripts or video clips on the site.

Did you scroll down the page and see the pictures on the right-hand side? Many of these have link to sound/video clips underneath them. There are about 20 of them.

I'm actually a Libertarian for the most part, not a conservative. If you had concrete evidence, I'm assuming you'd post it. Even if I was unconvinced, it would at least work to discredit your political foes in the eyes of others.

And if it's "heavily based in perception", then it's probably bullshit. Facts are objective, not based on the perception of individuals.



Sure it does. If you're going to accuse conservatives of either lying or being wrong about ALL facts they present, you should be willing to demonstrate that liberals are never wrong or dishonest. You're basically claiming that one group of people sucks and the other walks on water. I'd like to see proof of both claims, please.



Did you scroll down the page and see the pictures on the right-hand side? Many of these have link to sound/video clips underneath them. There are about 20 of them.

Are you sure that you are a libertarian? I would have placed you as a Constitutional Republican, fully grounded in the Constitution and the absolute limits it places on the Actions and Scope of State and Federal Government, and absolute embodiment of all Rights belonging to the People, as a Natural and Just State of Human Existence.

I did not start, organize or name the teabag movement. The whackos decided to use the name "Tea Bag" to refer to their movement and called themselves teabaggers. By the rules of our language one who participates in the Tea Bag movement is a Tea bagger. Then the teabaggers discovered the meaning of the term teabagger and are rightly embarased. So who's fault is that...not mine. But I think it just goes to show how little knowledge goes into the positions of the teabaggers.

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=89676

The movement encouraged followers to send tea bags to Dems. The act of sending tea bags is tea bagging. Those that do it are called tea baggers. That is how the language works.

As for the rest of your post, it seems pretty incoherent and rambling to me. Is there a point to it? That also includes post http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2337161&postcount=58

No, thats not how the language works. Tea bagging was a derogative (uncomplimentary) term coined by the left in reference to tea party participants. That's how it works.

I understand reason is a little hard to come by, but sending tea bags as a message to congressmen & women is not the same as referring to yourself as a tea bagger.

And as for the rest of your _______ it "seems pretty incoherent and rambling to me".

I'm actually a Libertarian for the most part, not a conservative. If you had concrete evidence, I'm assuming you'd post it. Even if I was unconvinced, it would at least work to discredit your political foes in the eyes of others. not really most of the people here aren't open


And if it's "heavily based in perception", then it's probably bullshit. Facts are objective, not based on the perception of individuals. politics is heavily subjective. say violent crime goes ten factors 7 don't change. and gun ownership, median income, and income parity change 20% towards the way that would reduce crime and crime goes down 6% what caused the drop?




Sure it does. If you're going to accuse conservatives of either lying or being wrong about ALL facts they present, you should be willing to demonstrate that liberals are never wrong or dishonest. You're basically claiming that one group of people sucks and the other walks on water. I'd like to see proof of both claims, please. The claim of rights are always wrong doesn't mean that lefties have to always be right.
put into a syllogism



Did you scroll down the page and see the pictures on the right-hand side? Many of these have link to sound/video clips underneath them. There are about 20 of them.
ah that's why i missed it i so used to that shit just being adds i ignore it. My bad.

No, thats not how the language works. Tea bagging was a derogative (uncomplimentary) term coined by the left in reference to tea party participants. That's how it works.

I understand reason is a little hard to come by, but sending tea bags as a message to congressmen & women is not the same as referring to yourself as a tea bagger.

And as for the rest of your _______ it "seems pretty incoherent and rambling to me".

Yes it is, the tea baggers arranged the tea parties and made the tea bags a big part of their agenda. And they called themselves the teabaggers. Then they learned there were other meanings for the term teabaggers and tehy want a do over, a mulligan.:) You guys are funny, going back now and saying we really didn't mean it. But they have not yet put forth a new name for their movement.

Now the teabaggers are in to the fake "mobs" showing up a Democratic town halls and shouting out everyone else in order to shut down the discussion on healthcare reform. I saw a sign today from one of the protestors saying, "We are not a mob". Well stop acting like one, and people will stop calling you a mob...pretty simple stuff:) But the teabaggers want to be a mob and not be called a mob...ok. But that is not how it works. This is the right wing whacko version of politically correct.

let me stop you right there you need to prove your claim first. You want proof try and prove your original claim first. You and I have had this run in numorous times. If you go down the same path you have before I'll report it for trolling.

Why? you have never done so.

Are you sure that you are a libertarian? I would have placed you as a Constitutional Republican, fully grounded in the Constitution and the absolute limits it places on the Actions and Scope of State and Federal Government, and absolute embodiment of all Rights belonging to the People, as a Natural and Just State of Human Existence.

I don't object to the term "Constitutionalist", since I believe in the Constitutional principles of limited government and individual rights as was intended by the Founding Fathers (none of this "living document" horseshit that is used to justify limitless erosion of our liberties and/or expansion of the government). It's the term "Republican" than I no longer embrace, since the GOP as a whole (not necessarily all politicians or GOP members) seems to have strayed from these principles.

Our last Republican president believed in affirmative action, gun control, military adventurism, socialism, bans on same-sex marriage and open borders. That doesn't seem particularly Constitutional to me.

not really most of the people here aren't open

Then why do you bother talking politics at all?


politics is heavily subjective. say violent crime goes ten factors 7 don't change. and gun ownership, median income, and income parity change 20% towards the way that would reduce crime and crime goes down 6% what caused the drop?

My point stands. If it's so subjective, how can you claim that conservatives are always wrong when it comes to facts?


The claim of rights are always wrong doesn't mean that lefties have to always be right.
put into a syllogism

But you've implied that the right is always wrong and the left is, at the very least, less wrong. Both require proof if your argument is to be taken seriously.

Why? you have never done so.

As I have explained to you more than once in the past I don't need to untill you prove your original claim. and yes I have always proved my claim when the burden has been on me.

Then why do you bother talking politics at all? I like to argue and debate.

What's a teabagger?

someone who bags tea

I don't object to the term "Constitutionalist", since I believe in the Constitutional principles of limited government and individual rights as was intended by the Founding Fathers (none of this "living document" horseshit that is used to justify limitless erosion of our liberties and/or expansion of the government). It's the term "Republican" than I no longer embrace, since the GOP as a whole (not necessarily all politicians or GOP members) seems to have strayed from these principles.

Our last Republican president believed in affirmative action, gun control, military adventurism, socialism, bans on same-sex marriage and open borders. That doesn't seem particularly Constitutional to me.

No I didn't mean Republican as in the Party, I meant Constitutional Republican as supporting the Republic as constructed under the Constitution.

someone who bags tea

I don't think they are teabagging any more. Now they are into town hall roasting according to the national GOP website. So I guess we can call them roasters as that is what they claim they are doing or maybe grass rooters but clearly they are not grass rooters. So I guess they are now roasters.

someone who bags tea

&


I don't think they are teabagging any more. Now they are into town hall roasting according to the national GOP website. So I guess we can call them roasters as that is what they claim they are doing or maybe grass rooters but clearly they are not grass rooters. So I guess they are now roasters.

How frighteningly simple.

Here's the typical Obama hater. Old, rural, and conservative. The same demographic that voted against him in overwhelming numbers in the general election. Once again, this isn't a grassroots effort.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/r-LIONS-large.jpg

Here's the typical Obama hater. Old, rural, and conservative. The same demographic that voted against him in overwhelming numbers in the general election. Once again, this isn't a grassroots effort.


The typical Obama supporter, young and stupid, without a clue of knowledge about politics, that only voted for him because he's black.

See, I can make generalizations too

It doesn't matter if some of them are 'old, rural, and conservative'; are you trying to insult people by saying what they are?

The typical Obama supporter, young and stupid, without a clue of knowledge about politics, that only voted for him because he's black.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama leads John McCain by a significant margin among voters with the most education, but trails the likely Republican nominee among voters with the least formal education.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106381/obama-education-gap-extends-general-election.aspx

checkmate


It doesn't matter if some of them are 'old, rural, and conservative'; are you trying to insult people by saying what they are?

Yes it does matter. That demographic will continue to oppose any and everything he proposes. Based on his skin color only. The Obama tax cuts benefited them since they were making under 250k a year. However, the same old, rural, conservative block fought against the tax cuts because it was coming from a Democrat. That's why those rural parts of the USA will continue to be the poorest areas in the nation. Because they continue to vote against their own interests.

Not everybody that opposes Obama opposes him because he's black. I'm not black or white, but I don't like Obama because of his economic policies. And I'm sure the reason they opposed his tax cuts for them is because it is a matter of principle....doesn't that mean anything to you? He's giving them tax cuts because he's raising taxes on the rich.

No not everyone who opposes Obama is racist. But there is a large block of those who are racists...especially in the older generation of white folks. I have an aunt who is a prime example, nice lady - but definately racist. Her brother, my father was equally racist. No matter what Obama does or does not do, she will never see past his skin color and that is very sad. But I think typical of many in her generation.

And the irony is that she is so very dependent on government...Social Security and Medicare. She and her husbands probably never paid more than 1 thousand dollars into the Social Security and Medicare System throughout their entire working careers. Yet she is currently drawing almost a thousand dollars a month plus Medicare benefits to which she feels so very entitled. And she has been drawing on those benefits for the last 22 years. Yet she still feels she is entitled, she paid for these benefits in her mind. She thinks all of our problems result from the illegal aliens...going back to race.

Ok well not everyone that opposes him is racist, is the point; and alot of people that voted for him did so because of race.

The point is, he's backwards and anti-progress.

No not everyone who opposes Obama is racist. But there is a large block of those who are racists...especially in the older generation of white folks. I have an aunt who is a prime example, nice lady - but definately racist. He brother, my father was equally racist. No matter what Obama does or does not do, she will never see past his skin color and that is very sad. But I think typical of many in her generation.

And the irony is that she is so very dependent on government...Social Security and Medicare. She and her husbands probably never paid more than 1 thousand dollars into the Social Security and Medicare System throughout their entire working careers. Yet she is currently drawing almost a thousand dollars a month plus Medicare benefits to which she feels so very entitled. And she has been drawing on those benefits for the last 22 years. Yet she still feels she is entitled, she paid for these benefits in her mind.

So your family is representative of the Majority? joe again you are giving me sore sides from the uncontrollable laughter over your hyperbole.

So your family is representative of the Majority? joe again you are giving me sore sides from the uncontrollable laughter over your hyperbole.

After you look up fascism and election in the dictionary you might want to look up the word hyperbole as well.

And yeah I do think my aunt and father are representative of their generation, is that not what I said previously? Their generation grew up in an era when racism was the norm...schools were segregated along with restaurants, bathrooms, buses and water fountains.

So your family is representative of the Majority? joe again you are giving me sore sides from the uncontrollable laughter over your hyperbole.

That's not what he was implying.

That's not what he was implying.

Implying hell, he is stating that His raciest family is the norm for the country.

Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, and you wonder why I am spliting a gut.

Not everybody that opposes Obama opposes him because he's black. I'm not black or white,

Doesn't disqualify you as a racist.

Some of the most virulent racists I've ever encountered - especially when it comes to black people and Africans - have been Arabs.

Not sure whether you're an Arab, but you stump for Syria enough that it seems like a reasonable guess.

Although I'd note that, technically speaking, Arabs are white people.

Ok well not everyone that opposes him is racist, is the point;

Subtract out the racists, and the remaining opposition wouldn't merit national attention.



and alot of people that voted for him did so because of race.

Which is not the same thing as racism.



The point is, he's backwards and anti-progress.

:facepalm:

Implying hell, he is stating that His raciest family is the norm for the country.

Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, and you wonder why I am spliting a gut.

Ahh no Buffalo Roam I am not and did not, let me try this again. I said I thought my aunt and father were representative of their generation...not the nation. The nation has many generations not just one!

Maybe you should spend less time splitting your gut and more time reading and thinking.

It was the teabaggers who came up with term...not anyone else.
I have never heard anyone even remotely sympathetic to the tea party movement use the term "teabagger". That is a disparaging term meant to equate members of the tea party movement with various sexual practices http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Teabaggin. If you have any proof that shows otherwise, please provide it.

I have never heard anyone even remotely sympathetic to the tea party movement use the term "teabagger". That is a disparaging term meant to equate members of the tea party movement with various sexual practices http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Teabaggin. If you have any proof that shows otherwise, please provide it.

Do you have proof otherwise? What would you logically call someone who participates in the Teabag Movement? A teabagger...this is not rocket science. What would you call someone who digs ditches? A ditch digger.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/inside-the-tea-partiers-anti-health-care-organizing-campaign.php

Do you have proof otherwise? What would you logically call someone who participates in the Teabag Movement? A teabagger...this is not rocket science. What would you call someone who digs ditches? A ditch digger.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/inside-the-tea-partiers-anti-health-care-organizing-campaign.phpDoes the assistant manager refer to himself as the Ass Manager? Does Richard Head refer to himself as Dick? Does Michael Hunt go by Mike? For similiar reasons, no member of a group meant to emulate the Boston Tea Party would go by the name "tea bagger". That should be obvious. As you said, it's not rocket science.

Maw don't allow no name-gamin round here.

1 point for madanthonywayne (he caught us fair & square).

I actually met a person named Harry Dick, though. But he didn't bag tea.

No I didn't mean Republican as in the Party, I meant Constitutional Republican as supporting the Republic as constructed under the Constitution.

Oh, okay. That's different then.

Subtract out the racists, and the remaining opposition wouldn't merit national attention.

Are you fucking kidding me?


Which is not the same thing as racism.

Then what is it?

Does the assistant manager refer to himself as the Ass Manager? Does Richard Head refer to himself as Dick? Does Michael Hunt go by Mike? For similiar reasons, no member of a group meant to emulate the Boston Tea Party would go by the name "tea bagger". That should be obvious. As you said, it's not rocket science.

Those are not relevant comparisions. I don't know anyone with the name Richard Head and even if I did, who is to say he would not go by the name Dick. Assistant managers are generally refered to as assistant managers or manager...notice the "er" again indicating one who managers. When abreviating titles the only the last word is carried forward. The term teabagger indicates one who teabags and teabagging was the act if mailing teabags to public officials...caused quite a secuity problem in the old capital.

The teabaggers did not initally know the other use of the term when they started the movement. Initially they were quite proud to be called teabaggers. Then they found out folks were laughing at them and some wanted a muligan.

This disgusting sexualization of politics has got to stop.


We must raise our clenched hands, and shout THIS IS ENOUGH!

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/8664/fistdv9.gif

Fisters, Unite!

Or we could all yell..

"I'M MAD AS AS HELL, and I'm NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE"
-Network, 1976

Or we could all yell..

"I'M MAD AS AS HELL, and I'm NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE"
-Network, 1976

Yeah me too! But I am mad at the dittoheads and teabaggers and whatever else they want to call themselves. I am upset with all the fear and hate mongers. The strange thing is, when our society our liberty was really under attack, they were no where to be found. No that the threat has largely past, they are complaining...a little late me thinks.

Yeah me too! But I am mad at the dittoheads and teabaggers and whatever else they want to call themselves. I am upset with all the fear and hate mongers. The strange thing is, when our society our liberty was really under attack, they were no where to be found. No that the threat has largely past, they are complaining...a little late me thinks.

See, the thing is, you can justifiably accuse the leftists of doing the same thing. They acted like big government was evil and scary when Bush was doing it, but wonderful and humanitarian when Clinton and Obama are doing it.

I think big government is dangerous no matter who is doing it.

See, the thing is, you can justifiably accuse the leftists of doing the same thing. They acted like big government was evil and scary when Bush was doing it, but wonderful and humanitarian when Clinton and Obama are doing it.

I think big government is dangerous no matter who is doing it.

That much power always needs oversight. Passion without rational thought can be a very dangerous thing.

That much power always needs oversight. Passion without rational thought can be a very dangerous thing.

Maybe we should just prevent the government from having that much power in the first place? Just to be on the safe side, you know.

Maybe we should just prevent the government from having that much power in the first place? Just to be on the safe side, you know.

We did it is called the Constitution, and we need to enforce those limitations on government.

We did it is called the Constitution, and we need to enforce those limitations on government.

Yep.

That's why I like the "It's not fascism when we do it!" picture, because both sides use that tactic against their foes but put on the blinders as soon as their own party comes into power.

Yep.

That's why I like the "It's not fascism when we do it!" picture, because both sides use that tactic against their foes but put on the blinders as soon as their own party comes into power.

Straight Up Word.

Listening to the evening news this evening, they had a lady who spoke out at one of the town halls. Something in what she said made me think that she was a Mormon, and that makes a lot of sense.

Mormons are fiercely Republican and moral except when it comes to politics and dogma. They are very close and the church is very autocratic. So it makes sense that a lot of these teabaggers would be Mormon. They are national and the church has a lot of members.

So my question is how much are Mormon/LDS church members behind these mobs?

Glenn Beck (http://pearl-diving.blogspot.com/2009/03/glenn-becks-we-surround-them-and-912.html) and other Mormons (http://mormonbloggers.blogspot.com/2009/06/its-time-for-tea-party.html) were clearly enthusiastic teapartisans.

So my question is how much are Mormon/LDS church members behind these mobs?

In Iowa there's very few Mormons as well as in other towns that meeting are taking place. So I really do not think that there are to many of them participating at all of the town hall meetings overall.

I think you would be suprised. As a Mormon myself, they are active and organized in Iowa and across the nation in every state.


http://www.onlymormon.com/Stake-Directory/Iowa/

What happened to my post ?
I mean..is this another case of the [Selectively] PC moderator?

Mormons are a very top down group. If you want to go to the highest level of heaven, you have to be judged worthy and worthy is the decision of the local bishop. Temple service is critical to every Mormon and in order to go to the temple, again the bishop must judge you to be worthy. It would not suprise me to see them active in this way. They got in trouble in California recently for political activism.

See, the thing is, you can justifiably accuse the leftists of doing the same thing. They acted like big government was evil and scary when Bush was doing it, but wonderful and humanitarian when Clinton and Obama are doing it.

I think big government is dangerous no matter who is doing it.

We didn't attack the principle of big government, only the hypocracy of the Republicans creating the same thing they complain about.

I say we find out who their kids are, so we can go around shoving them into lockers! Oppress them!!! Hahaha!!!!!!!

We didn't attack the principle of big government, only the hypocracy of the Republicans creating the same thing they complain about.

Horseshit. Liberals were constantly accusing Bush of being a fascist (which is big government), spending too much money, etc.

Fascism isn't just big government, it is the merging of corporate and government interests.

The money we didn't like him spending was on Iraq. We are not against spending money on domestic programs that actually help people and represent investments in our future.

Fascism isn't just big government, it is the merging of corporate and government interests.

That merging couldn't exist without big government.

How did liberals feel about the PATRIOT Act? What about all those complaints about how Bush was destroying our freedoms?


The money we didn't like him spending was on Iraq. We are not against spending money on domestic programs that actually help people and represent investments in our future.

And some people would rather spend money on national defense than on programs that put everyone on the government's tit (including foreigners, with foreign aid, overseas AIDS funding, etc.).

Liberals did not like the Patriot act.

Iraq was not a threat to our security it turns out.

Liberals did not like the Patriot act.

They didn't? Why not? What about all those disappearing freedoms? Did Bush threaten our liberty by *decreasing* the size and influence of the government?


Iraq was not a threat to our security it turns out.

Neither was Serbia. Liberals didn't have a big problem with that war, though.

They didn't?
No.

Why not?
It eroded our freedoms and rights.


What about all those disappearing freedoms?
Exactly.


Did Bush threaten our liberty by *decreasing* the size and influence of the government?
He increased the size and influence of our government, but that in itself didn't threaten our freedoms.




Neither was Serbia. Liberals didn't have a big problem with that war, though.
We took the time to recruit allies and didn't invade unilaterally. It was all done within the UN, unlike the invasion of Iraq.

He increased the size and influence of our government, but that in itself didn't threaten our freedoms.

Then what threatened your freedoms?

Do you believe that there is a relationship between the size and power of a government and its ability to oppress its citizens?


We took the time to recruit allies and didn't invade unilaterally. It was all done within the UN, unlike the invasion of Iraq.

So a war that has nothing to do with defending America is okay as long as lots of other countries go along with the scam?

Then what threatened your freedoms?
Bush's unprecedented claims of executive power, warrantless wiretaps, rendition, torture, illegal taxpayer funded propaganda, erosion of barriers between church and state...


Do you believe that there is a relationship between the size and power of a government and its ability to oppress its citizens?
No, it's ability comes from the law and checks and balances in the system.




So a war that has nothing to do with defending America is okay as long as lots of other countries go along with the scam?
Yes. There are other good reasons for intervention.

Bush's unprecedented claims of executive power, warrantless wiretaps, rendition, torture, illegal taxpayer funded propaganda, erosion of barriers between church and state...

Oddly enough, most of these represent increasing and/or misusing government power!


No, it's ability comes from the law and checks and balances in the system.

Did those checks and balances stop power-hungry politicians (or outright dictators) of the past?

How about some of those complaints you just listed about Bush. Where were your checks and balances?

Zimbabwe has a constitution. That didn't stop Mugabe, did it?

What about guys like Hugo Chavez who simply try to rewrite laws that restrict their power?

And when the Honduran system of checks and balances prevented a recent power grab by the president, liberals seemed kinda butt-hurt about it. :shrug:

I say it's easier for the government to misuse existing power than it is to acquire new power that is expressly forbidden by law.


Yes. There are other good reasons for intervention.

Such as? In a previous post you seemed to express disapproval of the war in Iraq because they didn't pose a security threat. What other reasons did you have for opposing it?

Oddly enough, most of these represent increasing and/or misusing government power!
I do think the Bush administration misused their power through fear and intimidation. This is a problem for all government, not just big government.




Did those checks and balances stop power-hungry politicians (or outright dictators) of the past?
Sometimes.


How about some of those complaints you just listed about Bush. Where were your checks and balances?
Our government failed us in this case.


Zimbabwe has a constitution. That didn't stop Mugabe, did it?

What about guys like Hugo Chavez who simply try to rewrite laws that restrict their power?

And when the Honduran system of checks and balances prevented a recent power grab by the president, liberals seemed kinda butt-hurt about it. :shrug:

I say it's easier for the government to misuse existing power than it is to acquire new power that is expressly forbidden by law.
Quite so, which is why Bush established a dangerous precedent. Now Obama can exercise unprecedented executive power, which kinda sucks. The law doesn't work unless it's followed.



Such as? In a previous post you seemed to express disapproval of the war in Iraq because they didn't pose a security threat. What other reasons did you have for opposing it?
Bush ignored the UN process for dealing with Saddam, he also lied about WMD's, inspections, a nuclear program, etc...

I do think the Bush administration misused their power through fear and intimidation. This is a problem for all government, not just big government.


Sometimes.


Our government failed us in this case.


Quite so, which is why Bush established a dangerous precedent. Now Obama can exercise unprecedented executive power, which kinda sucks. The law doesn't work unless it's followed.

How about Clinton?

So what has changed, and has Obama really done anything different as to fear mongering, misuse of power through fear and intimidation, it has to be passed now or the world will end as we know it?

No time to even read the bills passed?


Bush ignored the UN process for dealing with Saddam, he also lied about WMD's, inspections, a nuclear program, etc...

Yes, really, and how many years under the U.N. (13)and the problem with Saddam wasn't resolved, and the Intelligence was the same intelligence that Clinton used to justify His actions in attacks on Iraq.

Saddam hadn't complied with the Cease Fire, and that compliance was to disarm under inspection of the U.N. so it could be confirmed and verified, and assured that the weapons were destroyed.

Saddam played games for 13 years, and lost His gamble that nothing would be done, and that at some point in the future He could resume WMD programs.

How about Clinton?
What about Clinton?


So what has changed, and has Obama really done anything different as to fear mongering, misuse of power through fear and intimidation, it has to be passed now or the world will end as we know it?
Yes, he's not inventing phoney terrorism threat levels, or scaring us with nuclear attack. He's just saying this is a very important issue and we should deal with it promptly.


No time to even read the bills passed?
Nothing has been passed.




Yes, really, and how many years under the U.N. (13)and the problem with Saddam wasn't resolved, and the Intelligence was the same intelligence that Clinton used to justify His actions in attacks on Iraq.
Intelligence is time-dependent. Can we still attack Japan? No, that would be silly. At the time Clinton said it, Saddam was creating WMD's, and we destroyed them. He destroyed them too so we wouldn't invade.



Saddam hadn't complied with the Cease Fire, and that compliance was to disarm under inspection of the U.N. so it could be confirmed and verified, and assured that the weapons were destroyed.
We cannot violate the UN on the pretext of enforcing it's resolutions. We cannot unilaterally pick and chose what resolutions to enforce, that is not compatible with the principles of international cooperation which the UN is all about.


Saddam played games for 13 years, and lost His gamble that nothing would be done, and that at some point in the future He could resume WMD programs.
Anyone can create WMDs "at some point in the future". You could kill someone in the future, but I can't put you in jail for pre-crime.

I say we find out who their kids are, so we can go around shoving them into lockers! Oppress them!!! Hahaha!!!!!!!

why ? they do it to themselves anyway..

This is becoming ridiculous, Joe; what does it matter if they are mormons?

What percentage of Obama supporters are black? Human? Educated? Not Educated? Wipe their asses?

Who cares?

Teabagging is about capitalism, not religion.

Teabagging is about capitalism, not religion.

It's just a massive coincidence that most of them happen to be white and conservative.. totally.

It's just a massive coincidence that most of them happen to be white and conservative.. totally.

But what does that matter?

Obviously they're going to be conservative..............isn't that common sense? That's like saying most Obama supporters are left wing nutjobs. Obviously.

No shit, sherlock

Well here is the difference, the teabaggers are representing themselves as "grass roots", representative of all Americans. If they are as I suspect Mormons, then they are not representative at all. They are a well organized and financed group. And then you have the issue of potential tax law violations if the church is in any way involved in coordinating or organizing these events.

I'm pretty sure the "teabaggers" are not one demographic, they're all kinds of different people. All kinds of races, all kinds of religions.

Teabagging is about capitalism, not religion.Teabagging is a repulsive sexual act that is practiced by mentally retarded drunkards.

What about Clinton?


Yes, he's not inventing phoney terrorism threat levels, or scaring us with nuclear attack. He's just saying this is a very important issue and we should deal with it promptly.


Nothing has been passed.




Intelligence is time-dependent. Can we still attack Japan? No, that would be silly. At the time Clinton said it, Saddam was creating WMD's, and we destroyed them. He destroyed them too so we wouldn't invade.



We cannot violate the UN on the pretext of enforcing it's resolutions. We cannot unilaterally pick and chose what resolutions to enforce, that is not compatible with the principles of international cooperation which the UN is all about.


Anyone can create WMDs "at some point in the future". You could kill someone in the future, but I can't put you in jail for pre-crime.

But Saddam had created, and possessed, and used, WMD, on His own peoples and against Iran, and showed no compunction about using them, when it served His needs, and that wasn't the future, that was the reality.

He retained most of His cadre of scientist that worked on His WMD programs, and large stock piles of dual use chemicals.

A lot of cleaning chemicals and insecticides, when mixed with another insecticide, or cleaning chemical, make some very lethal agents, nerve, choking, and blood agents.

Are you fucking kidding me?

No.



Then what is it?

The opposite of racism, mostly.

oh you wrote mormons I read it as morons :p

Oops I thought he was asking about marmots.

I still think he really meant mermen, but the mind control field that protects them changed it in expression.

I do think the Bush administration misused their power through fear and intimidation. This is a problem for all government, not just big government.

All presidents have misused their power via fear and intimidation. And since misuse of power is possible in all governments, it makes sense to strictly limit the power of your government.


Sometimes.

And sometimes not. It depends on how badly the politician wants that power. Take Franklin Roosevelt, for example. Many of his socialist policies were being struck down by the courts, so he increased the number of justices on the SCOTUS (cherry-picked to support his views, of course) to ram through his agenda.


Our government failed us in this case.

Just a little.


Quite so, which is why Bush established a dangerous precedent.

Your bias is showing. Bush didn't establish the precedent of increasing and misusing government power. It was happening long before he was even born.


Now Obama can exercise unprecedented executive power, which kinda sucks.

Like bailing out banks and then trying to control things like executive pay? Or bailing out the automotive industry?

How do you feel about the idea of creating a government-run HMO to compete with the private sector?

What was that you said about fascism being the merging of corporate and government power?


The law doesn't work unless it's followed.

And that's assuming it just doesn't get re-written. Keep in mind that even the 10 amendments to the Constitution that make up the Bill Of Rights can be repealed.


Bush ignored the UN process for dealing with Saddam, he also lied about WMD's, inspections, a nuclear program, etc...

So any war is okay as long as the politicians are honest about why they want the war?

The opposite of racism, mostly.

So choosing candidates based on race isn't racist? In that case, people who hate Obama because he's black aren't racist either, right?