Congressional Republicans Confuse Me


Off-Topic Discussions

351 to 400 of 757 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Steven T. Helt wrote:
I do not, however, own a gun.

Clearly you don't live in Texas...

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Kirth? Well, he always brought Mao's Little Red Book and spend five hours trying to "reeducate" us.
Derek's just upset because I wanted him to play the game instead of salivating over the "Wealth by Level" tables.

Hey, Adam Smith is the shizznit! :P

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Garydee wrote:
From whom?
I foolishly mentioned to my boss that I was watching the John Adams miniseries. He said, "Oh, that's by HBO, so it's revisionist liberal propaganda." I tried to mention that a lot of the dialogue seemed to have been taken directly out of Adams' letters, and the rebuff was, "Well, I'd be much more aware of the left-wing slant than you obviously are." I gave up after that.

I think I have a pretty good "propaganda" radar, and "John Adams" was anything but. Even "Generation Kill", which I thought would be a "portray all soldiers as baby killing rapists" type thing (sorry, I'm cynical when it comes to these things) was remarkably even handed.

But The Sopranos? Thing may as well have been written by Hugo Chavez...

Dark Archive

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Garydee wrote:
From whom?
I foolishly mentioned to my boss that I was watching the John Adams miniseries. He said, "Oh, that's by HBO, so it's revisionist liberal propaganda." I tried to mention that a lot of the dialogue seemed to have been taken directly out of Adams' letters, and the rebuff was, "Well, I'd be much more aware of the left-wing slant than you obviously are." I gave up after that.

Your boss needs to pull his head out of his ass. I watched John Adams, read the book, and have met the author, David McCullough. There is not a bigger patriot in this country the Mr. McCullough, and he is one of the rare conservative academics. From what I know about John Adams, which is a lot since he is one of my favorite presidents, it is dead on.

Dark Archive

houstonderek wrote:


Kirth? Well, he always brought Mao's Little Red Book and spend five hours trying to "reeducate" us.

[threadjack]Does anyone know how 4E is doing in China? I've heard it's a communist plot after all.[/threadjack]


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Steven T. Helt wrote:
I do not, however, own a gun.
Clearly you don't live in Texas...

I don't have a gun. I don't have a truck, I'm usually in need of a haircut, I wear sandals and shorts nearly all the time, and I don't go to church. I probably break about every conservative stereotype that you can imagine. :)


David Fryer wrote:
Your boss needs to pull his head out of his ass.

This is a guy who won't watch PG-13 movies; he says they're "a bit too over-the-top" for him.

He was reluctant to send his son to a different school, because "there might be gays there."
He thinks G.W. Bush is one of the Founding Fathers.

And you know what? He's one of the nicest, most genuinely decent people I've ever met. I just try not to talk religion or politics with him. Or current events. Or HBO miniseries.


Garydee wrote:
I don't have a gun. I don't have a truck, I'm usually in need of a haircut, I wear sandals and shorts nearly all the time, and I don't go to church. I probably break about every conservative stereotype that you can imagine. :)

I knew I liked you for a reason, Gary.

Liberty's Edge

Garydee wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Steven T. Helt wrote:
I do not, however, own a gun.
Clearly you don't live in Texas...
I don't have a gun. I don't have a truck, I'm usually in need of a haircut, I wear sandals and shorts nearly all the time, and I don't go to church. I probably break about every conservative stereotype that you can imagine. :)

You sound like every other guy I know from Temple, frankly. Heck, every other guy I know in TEXAS, generally. :)


I need a gun ...*sigh* I just been putting it off considering where I live .... I know it'll be a bureaucratic root canal.

Threadjacking question for the gun owners out there:

Shotgun or pistol? Which would you say is better for casual (ie emergency) home defense? Assuming semi-adult children and a secure location to store it.

Dark Archive

Patrick Curtin wrote:

I need a gun ...*sigh* I just been putting it off considering where I live .... I know it'll be a bureaucratic root canal.

Threadjacking question for the gun owners out there:

Shotgun or pistol? Which would you say is better for casual (ie emergency) home defense? Assuming semi-adult children and a secure location to store it.

One of Each. A pump shotgun w/ #1 buck shot and a revolver would

be ideal. But first, educate yourself. Learn the local and
state laws. Go to your local gunstore and ask questions. If they
won't talk to you, find another store. Go online, lots of great
sites with lots of info out there. Then practice at the local range.
And learn how to clean and maintain your firearms. And always treat
your firearms with respect. If you do, they will always be there
when you need them. If you don't, don't get any to begin with.
And make sure the other residents of your home respect them. Lay
down the law early.

And be patient. The FBI has done 1.2 million background checks
between November and February over the same time frame a year
before. Many stores are out of stock and there is a backlog at
most manufacturers.

I won't speculate as to why a rush on firearms began in November...

Tom Carpenter


Tom Carpenter wrote:
...good advice ...

Thanks Tom! I do have a bit of experience with firearms, though of the M16A2 variety, which is a little bit different. I do respect weapons, and I will be attending classes and going to the range to familiarize myself with the weapon I purchase. One thing I haven't checked is how difficult it will be in Massachusetts to obtain an FID card. I am assuming pretty hard (even with a spotless record and veteran status) . Ah well.


Tom Carpenter wrote:
I won't speculate as to why a rush on firearms began in November...

You don't need to, NPR already has done a report on it.

Gun Sales Rise On Fear Of Democratic President

So evidently Obama has been able to stimulate at least one part of the economy. Which brings a thought ...

"Did you hear? Obama wants to take away your automobiles. You better buy all the cars you can now before he gets the chance to close the dealerships."


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Garydee wrote:
From whom?
I foolishly mentioned to my boss that I was watching the John Adams miniseries. He said, "Oh, that's by HBO, so it's revisionist liberal propaganda." I tried to mention that a lot of the dialogue seemed to have been taken directly out of Adams' letters, and the rebuff was, "Well, I'd be much more aware of the left-wing slant than you obviously are." I gave up after that.

Not to defend your boss, but just because something was taken directly from some notes doesn't mean they weren't "selectively" choosen to present a certain point of view. Just pointing out that claims of direct from the source is not a guarantee of an accurate view.


pres man wrote:
Just pointing out that claims of direct from the source is not a guarantee of an accurate view.

That's an excellent point... but have you seen the miniseries?

Left-wing propaganda???


Kirth Gersen wrote:
pres man wrote:
Just pointing out that claims of direct from the source is not a guarantee of an accurate view.

That's an excellent point... but have you seen the miniseries?

Left-wing propaganda???

No. As I said, I wasn't trying to make the issue specificly for that situation, just in general. In general a claim that "actual statements" were used doesn't necessarily guarantee an accurate picture of the person or situation. It might, but only if actual statements are given context and different sides to the person or situation are explored.


pres man wrote:
In general a claim that "actual statements" were used doesn't necessarily guarantee an accurate picture of the person or situation. It might, but only if actual statements are given context and different sides to the person or situation are explored.

Indeed; for example, I kept waiting for Jefferson's anti-church ranting to begin (and for Adams' famous reply), but that would have been pretty far off-topic, I guess, and would certainly have gotten a lot of Dominionists out with their torches and pitchforks...

Otherwise it seemed pretty well-balanced though. Two things I kept wondering:

  • What happened to James Madison in the miniseries, anyway? You'd think the "father of the Consititution" would at least get a cameo appearance!
  • Alexander Hamilton was sort of caricatured as a total buffoon. Granted, I agree with Jefferson's politics much more than Hamilton's, but I'd still have liked the guy to be presented a bit more fairly.

  • Dark Archive

    Has anyone seen this? It appears that the Obama administration is more concerned about conservatives then Al-Quida.

    Spoiler:
    Yes I know that militias are bad news. Down here in southern Utah is one of the centers for it and I hate them. But to make them the subject of the first released threat assessment seems a little crazy to me.

    The Exchange

    David Fryer wrote:

    Has anyone seen this? It appears that the Obama administration is more concerned about conservatives then Al-Quida.

    ** spoiler omitted **

    Um it comes up with a opening page and the rest is blank.


    The topic of this post could be shortened to "Congressmen confuse me" as far as I'm concerned.

    Just some random musings: I think our evolving sense of identity has put congressmen into a bit of a bind. As I understand it, the United States were once viewed as the name implies...that is, an association of independent states. Nowadays, the United states is viewed (note the verb change) as a single unit. As a result of this dissonance, Senators are left with a perplexing conflict of interest: Do they serve the people of the United States, or the people of their state? It seems like we unfairly change the standard to which they are held, as often as convenient.


    David Fryer wrote:

    Has anyone seen this? It appears that the Obama administration is more concerned about conservatives then Al-Quida.

    ** spoiler omitted **

    Timothy McVeigh?


    David Fryer wrote:
    Has anyone seen this? It appears that the Obama administration is more concerned about conservatives then Al-Quida.

    To be fair, I'd hardly call violent White Supremacist revolutionaries "conservatives." That's like referring to Stalin as a "liberal." Or calling Mother Theresa a "religious extremist."


    bugleyman wrote:
    David Fryer wrote:

    Has anyone seen this? It appears that the Obama administration is more concerned about conservatives then Al-Quida.

    ** spoiler omitted **

    Timothy McVeigh?

    Although domestic terrorism is troublesome, it is nothing compared to Al-Queda. Let me give you a few reasons why.

    1) Al-Qaeda has strong financial backing. Domestic terrorism doesn't.
    2) Al-Qaeda has good leadership at the top and is better organized. Domestic terrorism doesn't possess any of these traits. It usually consists of delusional Neo-Nazis who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground.
    3) It's much easier for the Feds to infiltrate groups that contain domestic terrorists and we are able to keep a close eye on them. It's much harder to infiltrate Al-Qaeda.


    Samuel Weiss wrote:

    They did offer an alternative.

    It was rejected pretty much of out of hand.

    By republicans, mind you.


    David Fryer wrote:

    Has anyone seen this? It appears that the Obama administration is more concerned about conservatives then Al-Quida.

    ** spoiler omitted **

    It turns out that the Obama administration also released a report about the danger posed by extreme left-wingers. Further, both reports were apparently initiated under Bush.

    So, unless there is more to the story...


    You lost me at "failing Iraq war", but I'll bite anyway.

    The "stimulus bill" is not a "stimulus" bill. It's a massive expenditure bill supporting pet projects and gearing the US towards additional support of causes du jour such as "global warming", "green/clean energy", etc.

    The economy will recover _despite_ the stimulus bill, and the current administration and party in power will take full credit - a brilliant ploy.

    If the current party in power is to your liking, take heart that they actually use power when they get it. Covered by willing accomplices in the media, I see no end to their reign - hence why I'm personally "clinging to my Bible and guns."


    Tranquilis wrote:

    You lost me at "failing Iraq war", but I'll bite anyway.

    The "stimulus bill" is not a "stimulus" bill. It's a massive expenditure bill supporting pet projects and gearing the US towards additional support of causes du jour such as "global warming", "green/clean energy", etc.

    The economy will recover _despite_ the stimulus bill, and the current administration and party in power will take full credit - a brilliant ploy.

    If the current party in power is to your liking, take heart that they actually use power when they get it. Covered by willing accomplices in the media, I see no end to their reign - hence why I'm personally "clinging to my Bible and guns."

    Ummm...paranoid much? Republicans will be back in power relatively soon. They'll have the Legislative branch by 2014 and the Executive no later than 2016. And then the pundits will line up to ask if the Democratic Party is still relevant, nodding wisely, brows furrowed. Just like they did in 2004 about the Dems, and just like they're doing now about the Republicans. We in the United States apparently have very short memories.

    Anyway, as far as I can tell, "stimulus bill" is a subset of "spending bill." That is to say that people who oppose the current bill seem to do so because of *where* the money is spent without explaining how they expect to stimulate the economy without spending money.


    bugleyman wrote:


    Anyway, as far as I can tell, "stimulus bill" is a subset of "spending bill." That is to say that people who oppose the current bill seem to do so because of *where* the money is spent without explaining how they expect to stimulate the economy without spending money.

    There is absolutely no reason the federal government should be "stimulating" the free market by spending money. That is completely absurd and to call what the government has done with that "stimulus money" stimulus is equally absurd.

    It's old news that the free market is stimulated by more money - more of *our* money in *our* pockets, spent the way *we* choose. Yet to speak that way today is to invite ridicule and distain, so effective is the control of the language and the media.

    The "paranoid" among us may believe that the massive debt caused by the massive spending has its own nefarious advantages for those currently in power, changing the course of this nation forever. If that be paranoid, then you might just be able to count me among them - only time will tell.

    Quite frankly, I'd rather the reason be nefarious that be the child of incompetence, which is the only other explanation in my humble opinion.


    Tranquilis wrote:


    There is absolutely no reason the federal government should be "stimulating" the free market by spending money. That is completely absurd and to call what the government has done with that "stimulus money" stimulus is equally absurd.

    It's old news that the free market is stimulated by more money - more of *our* money in *our* pockets, spent the way *we* choose. Yet to speak that way today is to invite ridicule and distain, so effective is the control of the language and the media.

    The "paranoid" among us may believe that the massive debt caused by the massive spending has its own nefarious advantages for those currently in power, changing the course of this nation forever. If that be paranoid, then you might just be able to count me among them - only time will tell.

    Quite frankly, I'd rather the reason be nefarious that be the child of incompetence, which is the only other explanation in my humble opinion.

    Trust me, I'm no fan of deficits. Further, I believe that if we don't do something about our debt, it will literally be our downfall. So I can understand opposition to deficit spending, what I don't understand is: Where was all this outrage four years ago, when the supposed "fiscal conservatives" were in power?

    I seriously doubt there is a nefarious conspiracy deliberately increasing the national debt. Or a media cover-up of said conspiracy. Far more likely is that our system of competing priorities and shifting public attention has resulted in a "tragedy of the commons" effect, and so we all lose in the long run. I suppose you could call that "incompetence," but I don't think that is what you meant.

    As for why *who* spends the money is ostensibly so important for full stimulation (heh...he said "stimulation"), I have yet to hear or read a good explanation (though not for lack of asking).

    Dark Archive

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    David Fryer wrote:
    Has anyone seen this? It appears that the Obama administration is more concerned about conservatives then Al-Quida.
    To be fair, I'd hardly call violent White Supremacist revolutionaries "conservatives." That's like referring to Stalin as a "liberal." Or calling Mother Theresa a "religious extremist."

    However, if you look at what indicates a violent White supremecist, it is pretty much the conservative agenda. Support of lower taxes, opposition to illegal imigration and abortion, support of gun ownership; these are listed as just some of the warning signs that someone is involved in a violent militia.

    Dark Archive

    bugleyman wrote:
    David Fryer wrote:

    Has anyone seen this? It appears that the Obama administration is more concerned about conservatives then Al-Quida.

    ** spoiler omitted **

    It turns out that the Obama administration also released a report about the danger posed by extreme left-wingers. Further, both reports were apparently initiated under Bush.

    So, unless there is more to the story...

    The report is right here, no pun intended. However, the report on Right Wing extremists being released just a few days before conservative groups across the country were preparing to protest the tax and spending polices of the government seems a little too well timed to be coincidence.


    David Fryer wrote:
    However, if you look at what indicates a violent White supremecist, it is pretty much the conservative agenda. Support of lower taxes, opposition to illegal imigration and abortion, support of gun ownership.

    Hitler liked dogs... and I'm told he breathed air, as well.

  • Pretty much EVERYONE wants lower taxes; they just differ on whose taxes should get lowered.
  • Almost everyone is opposed abortion in principle; leftists simply find its legalization to be less onerous than the old back-alley coat-hanger tragedies.
  • Almost everyone is opposed to illegal immigration. They differ in how to deal with it: open up legal possibilities, shoot them, or some other option.
  • Gun ownership is pretty much the only one that's slightly more clear-cut, and even then, conservatives don't want criminals or madmen to have guns.

    Point is, there's a scale, not a binary situation, for all of these issues. Anybody too far along the scale, to the point where they're in fringe lunatic territory, is potentially dangerous to everyone else, because it means they view their causes as more important than the people those causes are supposed to serve.

  • Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

    bugleyman wrote:
    Trust me, I'm no fan of deficits. Further, I believe that if we don't do something about our debt, it will literally be our downfall. So I can understand opposition to deficit spending, what I don't understand is: Where was all this outrage four years ago, when the supposed "fiscal conservatives" were in power?

    Oh some of us were outraged. Bush was about as fiscally conservative as Imelda Marcos in a shoe store...The differences between the two parties as of late have been pretty thin. Corruption in Washington is rampant on both sides of the aisle and the spending is way out of control and seems to be getting worse. Hence the outrage.


    The whole "Two party system" is bad, and should have never been allowed to grow.

    The problem is systemic... it is the system.


    Abraham spalding wrote:
    The whole "Two party system" is bad, and should have never been allowed to grow. The problem is systemic... it is the system.

    Been that way since the very beginning, when Jefferson and Hamilton formed rival parties in Washington's administration.

    Liberty's Edge

    David Fryer wrote:
    However, the report on Right Wing extremists being released just a few days before conservative groups across the country were preparing to protest the tax and spending polices of the government seems a little too well timed to be coincidence.

    Not just that, but have you read that "contrasting "report?

    Apparently leftwing extremists are only animal rights, environmentalists, and anarchists, and the primary threat they pose is cyber warfare attacks, with a vague nod to some tactics "that, at times, violate criminal law" or "frequently advocate criminal actions of varying scale and scope to accomplish their goals."
    And of course the anarchist groups do not include any mention of groups that seize college campuses, or staged the major anti-war rallies against Bush.
    What a bunch of nonsense.

    Sovereign Court

    What's illegal about staging an anti war rally?
    How can seizing a college campus be a threat to US national security?

    Now, last time I checked, the Department of Homeland Security was set up to monitor threats to US national security. Which it did for groups across the political spectrum.

    Further, I'd find it less amusing if conservatives in the US hadn't viciously attacked anyone protesting the establishment of the DHS on civil liberties grounds. I believe the words used were 'If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear'.

    Sovereign Court

    Samuel Weiss wrote:
    David Fryer wrote:
    However, the report on Right Wing extremists being released just a few days before conservative groups across the country were preparing to protest the tax and spending polices of the government seems a little too well timed to be coincidence.

    Not just that, but have you read that "contrasting "report?

    Apparently leftwing extremists are only animal rights, environmentalists, and anarchists, and the primary threat they pose is cyber warfare attacks, with a vague nod to some tactics "that, at times, violate criminal law" or "frequently advocate criminal actions of varying scale and scope to accomplish their goals."
    And of course the anarchist groups do not include any mention of groups that seize college campuses, or staged the major anti-war rallies against Bush.
    What a bunch of nonsense.

    I'm more concerned about the lack of mention of attacks on non-green corporate holdings, or was there never a movement to firebomb Hummer dealerships, am I just making that up did that not happen?

    Dark Archive

    Uzzy wrote:


    Further, I'd find it less amusing if conservatives in the US hadn't viciously attacked anyone protesting the establishment of the DHS on civil liberties grounds. I believe the words used were 'If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear'.

    Actually lots of conservatives did protest the creation of DHS on civil liberty grounds. Others protested it on limited government grounds.

    Dark Archive

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Abraham spalding wrote:
    The whole "Two party system" is bad, and should have never been allowed to grow. The problem is systemic... it is the system.
    Been that way since the very beginning, when Jefferson and Hamilton formed rival parties in Washington's administration.

    They major reason that most other countries have multi-party systems while the U.S. only has two major parties is because the parties in a multi-party system are much more focused then the parties in the U.S. Thus, the Democrat and Republican parties house groups that would be multiple parties in other countries.

    Liberty's Edge

    lastknightleft wrote:
    I'm more concerned about the lack of mention of attacks on non-green corporate holdings, or was there never a movement to firebomb Hummer dealerships, am I just making that up did that not happen?

    Apparently not. Besides, Obama opposes Hummers, so what is wrong with "community organizers" acting "proactively" to "recycle" them using "alternative energy sources"?

    Then again, this is what is trying to claim it is "reporting" on the Tea Party stuff.

    Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

    David Fryer wrote:
    They major reason that most other countries have multi-party systems while the U.S. only has two major parties is because the parties in a multi-party system are much more focused then the parties in the U.S. Thus, the Democrat and Republican parties house groups that would be multiple parties in other countries.

    My understanding is that the number of parties is mostly a function of how you elections are run. If you have a winner-takes-all system, it will naturally favor a two party system because supporters of minority candidates won't have any reasonable chance of winning and end up throwing their vote in with whichever larger party is closest to their interests. If you get a system where seats are allocated to parties based on their percentage of the votes received, which is how a lot of countries do it, that leads to a stronger party system and an opportunity for more minority parties to participate.

    Please insert the appropriate number of large words and angry jabs to make the above on-topic. I'd hate to detract from the toxic venting taking place, but wanted to pipe in with my limited knowledge of the topic. It's not like politics is a science with one right answer.


    In fairness, I didn't read either report. The description of the report on the dangers posed by "left-wing" extremists makes them sound like a bunch of wussies. :)

    It isn't accurate to say I'm opposed to all aspects of fiscal conservatism; the problem is, there doesn't seem to *be* a party of fiscal conservatism any more. If someone got up and said "We have to balance the budget, right now, at all costs" then they'd at least get my attention. Do I love that Obama wants to increase the deficit? Not at all. I just don't remember seeing protests anything like this under Bush.

    If I ran the show, I'd cut the crap out of pork and then start spreading the pain until we have a balanced budget in 2010; end of story. When the economic cycle turns, I'd start looking to aggressively erase the debt. If we all work hard and sacrifice, I think we could do it in a generation.


    Sebastian wrote:
    David Fryer wrote:
    They major reason that most other countries have multi-party systems while the U.S. only has two major parties is because the parties in a multi-party system are much more focused then the parties in the U.S. Thus, the Democrat and Republican parties house groups that would be multiple parties in other countries.

    My understanding is that the number of parties is mostly a function of how you elections are run. If you have a winner-takes-all system, it will naturally favor a two party system because supporters of minority candidates won't have any reasonable chance of winning and end up throwing their vote in with whichever larger party is closest to their interests. If you get a system where seats are allocated to parties based on their percentage of the votes received, which is how a lot of countries do it, that leads to a stronger party system and an opportunity for more minority parties to participate.

    Please insert the appropriate number of large words and angry jabs to make the above on-topic. I'd hate to detract from the toxic venting taking place, but wanted to pipe in with my limited knowledge of the topic. It's not like politics is a science with one right answer.

    Hey Sebastian, what you described sounds disturbingly like hard-core semi-old school Sith from Star Wars- One to have power, and the other crave it. Is that what politics in this country has become?


    David Fryer wrote:
    They major reason that most other countries have multi-party systems while the U.S. only has two major parties is because the parties in a multi-party system are much more focused then the parties in the U.S. Thus, the Democrat and Republican parties house groups that would be multiple parties in other countries.

    No, the major reason that most other countries have multiple parties is because they have some form of proportional representation (PR) or transferable vote. Being able to achieve electoral success despite being a narrow interest allows them to gather the support they need to continue on and thrive. That's why their parties seem more focused, the system allows focused parties to survive.

    In a system like ours, where candidate who wins a plurality of votes wins the race and no votes are transferable, there's a lot of pressure to not waste your vote on a 3rd party candidate who will likely just split the vote. Third party movements have to rise up fairly quickly and kill off their competitor to have major success at the national level.

    You can see the effect of PR in states like Israel and Italy, both of which have a lot of parties. You can see the effect of a blended plurality system and PR in Germany with two major parties and 3 or so significant minors. The majors clean up in the plurality constituencies while the minors pick up support in the PR voting off the party list (each voter casts 2 votes - one for their home constituency and one for a national party). In fact, the minors have run coordinated campaigns with the majors by saying "you can vote for the SDP, but don't forget us with your second vote".

    Edit: ninjaed by Sebastian but hopefully the additional detail will help

    Dark Archive

    Duly noted and chastised.


    Freehold DM wrote:
    Hey Sebastian, what you described sounds disturbingly like hard-core semi-old school Sith from Star Wars- One to have power, and the other crave it. Is that what politics in this country has become?

    Are you kidding? Those posers learned everything they know about how to control the universe from me.

    Sovereign Court

    Samuel Weiss wrote:
    lastknightleft wrote:
    I'm more concerned about the lack of mention of attacks on non-green corporate holdings, or was there never a movement to firebomb Hummer dealerships, am I just making that up did that not happen?

    Apparently not. Besides, Obama opposes Hummers, so what is wrong with "community organizers" acting "proactively" to "recycle" them using "alternative energy sources"?

    Then again, this is what is trying to claim it is "reporting" on the Tea Party stuff.

    Well that first guy WAS a dumbass "he's a fascist". "why?" "because I think he's a fascist"

    If you're gonna make a dumb statement like that have a reason, don't just repeat the meme because you heard it on Hannity.

    As for the bias from the reporter she was obviously upset from the getgo so maybe she shouldn't have volunteered herself to do the reporting if she knew that it would get to her like that, what did she expect from the tea parties? "We love Obama but can he stop spending?"

    As far as the tea parties themselves, I hate those things. but that's way off topic to go into.


    lastknightleft wrote:

    Well that first guy WAS a dumbass "he's a fascist". "why?" "because I think he's a fascist"

    If you're gonna make a dumb statement like that have a reason, don't just repeat the meme because you heard it on Hannity.

    As for the bias from the reporter she was obviously upset from the getgo so maybe she shouldn't have volunteered herself to do the reporting if she knew that it would get to her like that, what did she expect from the tea parties? "We love Obama but can he stop spending?"

    As far as the tea parties themselves, I hate those things. but that's way off topic to go into.

    Well, all of this is pretty subjective isn't it.

    "She actually says "Do you realize how offensive that is", because a man has a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache. Really Susan Roesgen? Do you remember what you said about President Bush back in January of 2006? When you called a protester who was wearing a Bush mask with a Hitler mustache and Satan horns a George Bush look alike?"

    Anyway, even if the first idiot had any actual reasons for his statement (I seriously doubt he did), would he have even got the chance to say it? The guy with the kid got interrupt half-way through his statement, and he was being polite, I seriously doubt if the other guy had said anything meaningful (not that I can imagine what that would be), he would have been allowed to finish. It is a common tactic to interrupt people to get them to lose their train of thought.

    351 to 400 of 757 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Congressional Republicans Confuse Me All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.