Radical-left protesters outside the G-20 summit meeting in Pittsburgh last week underlined once again that our friends in the news media see no real enemy or extremist to their left. But conservative protests against Team Obama are an ugly sign of incivility, and according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, even impending violence.
HBO talk show host Bill Maher exemplified the liberal-media atttitude on his Twitter page on September 24: "Even with a face full of tear gas, these G-20 protesters [are] better looking than the teabaggers."
But there’s a big difference between the sea of tens of thousands of conservative protesters in Washington on September 12 and the three thousand anti-capitalist radicals in Pittsburgh. The tone from the podium in Washington was happy and patriotic, which meant nothing to The Washington Post, which covered it as an outpouring of a "spectrum of conservative anger."
But in Pittsburgh, protesters on September 24 assembled with no permit to march, and destroyed property on their route. On radical Pacifica Radio, they championed a guy calling himself Reverend Billy of the Church of Life After Shopping. He sounded like Nancy Pelosi’s nightmare: "Some of us will go to jail today! We will take care of you! We will be there when you get out!" And then this: "Some of us may lose our lives today! We will respect you! You will be our heroes!"
No one heard this rant on national TV.
As usual, network reporters couldn’t even place these fringe activists as "liberal," let alone far-left. On "The Early Show" on CBS, viewers could see wacky signs that read "No Bailouts, No Capitalism" and "No Borders, No Banks." But amazingly, reporter Susan Koeppen portrayed them as nonpartisan police...victims. "Protesters have been hit with a massive police presence," she announced. "During the day, police set off pepper spray, forcing marchers and the media to flee." Koeppen mentioned in passing that the protesters had no permit, but she let the leftists run down the cops. "There is no freedom of speech in this country, there is no right to assemble!," claimed one. "These are all rights that have been violated today!"
Speaking of Nancy Pelosi, her old Democratic primary opponent Cindy Sheehan was outraged at the Pittsburgh police presence as well. She blogged: "Pittsburgh is what a police state looks like!...We’re like ants trying to struggle against anteaters....The cops and soldiers should be ashamed of themselves for allowing their selves to be used as tools of the Robber Class ‘elites.’"
When Cindy Sheehan savaged George Bush, she was the darling of the major media. She was lovingly interviewed by Chris Matthews and he urged her to run for Congress.
In Pittsburgh, she was ignored.
CNN demonstrated a dramatic contrast in protest coverage. For the conservatives on September 12, they found violent radicals. For the leftists on September 24, they found peaceful nonpartisans.
CNN producer Jim Spellman couldn’t find a scary nut in Washington on September 12, so he aired canned footage of a man – somewhere in Michigan – holding an AK-47 and talking of a possible civil war. This allowed our intrepid CNN correspondent to highlight a "dark undercurrent" poisoning the right: "It’s a bit of a dark undercurrent. You have the bulk of the people that are there for low taxes, less government control, but there really is an element that's got these kind of outlandish conspiracy theories about death camps and about the, you know, this takeover, people comparing President Obama to Hitler. That really is a sizable thread. It's not just a couple of people on the edges."
In Pittsburgh, CNN reporter Brian Todd sang from the usual protest songbook, highlighting the "very, very diverse" nature of the protesters: "We're told this is the biggest march in Pittsburgh since the 1970s, estimated at least a few thousand people. But it is much more peaceful, less confrontational. Very, very diverse group of protesters here, everyone from people protesting the Chinese occupation of Tibet, to women's rights groups, to anti-capitalists."
Todd interviewed organizer Pete Shell and asked if he worried that anarchists would cause trouble: "I wasn't that concerned about it, because, actually, they have marched with us in the past, and they have been peaceful." Todd said nothing about Pete Shell’s website, which touts every radical cause from the "Cuba Solidarity Movement" to sympathy for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. There was no "dark undercurrent" in that interview.
For the record, Speaker Pelosi: in Pittsburgh, there three thousand protesters and 200 were arrested. In Washington DC, there were reportedly 75,000 protesters. Try to find a report on a single arrest.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
In St. Paul last summer local T.V. pointed out homes
September 29, 2009 - 22:38 ET by pahuberthat contained either weapons or large quantities of fecal matter that were to be thrown on Republicans during the opening of the convention.
More disturbingly was the fact that lawyers were being dispatched in real time to make sure rights were not violated while the police were doing their investigation. Many radicals were there like the "Republican Greeting Committee" and these same anarchists... among others.
...
X
September 29, 2009 - 22:39 ET by serfer62All you have to do is look at the photos of the 2 events to see how a normal American sees govorment protesters and how the Kommiecrats view their private riotteers.
Has no one thought to ask the people who clean up these messes which group they preferr?
No surprise in those reports
September 29, 2009 - 22:53 ET by KrillinfanThese are, after all, the same people that make US protest in cages outside their National Convention, while they go running through the streets, smashing out shop windows, car windshields, assaulting people without even knowing WHAT their beliefs are during ours, claiming it's in retaliation for OUR supposed venom and in the name of achieving "peace".
Way to go, MSM.
"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress."
-John Adams
I suggest that in the next
September 29, 2009 - 23:19 ET by ConservativeRexI suggest that in the next G-20 meeting held in the U.S. the very first vehicle these type of protesters should be greeted with, is a BFV with several burst of a .30 cal, for effect. That ought to calm things down considerably. I would think every other protest after that would be peaceful.
Were I a smart cop looking for overtime
September 29, 2009 - 23:57 ET by DeskpilotI surely would have chosen Washington DC over the trash in Pittsburgh, nothing about Pittsburgh mind you, just the known element of HIGH risk with the anarchists that always seem to follow the G(8)20(36... hike)
Pitt Police in Riot Gear, D.C., bicycles and standing around sucking down the overtime pay, and nary an arrest record to fill out.
Congress ...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Pittsburgh protesters chose to abandon the peaceably part and therefore were in direct contravention of the law, however it may have been written in PA. Protesters rights end where a bank, business, or another individuals rights to be secure in their property or person are threatened.
In D.C., thousands upon thousands gathered in FULL KNOWLEDGE and COMPLIANCE with the First Amendment and were left alone by local authorities. I would be willing to wager just 1 12 pack that 9/12 was one on D.C. SLOWEST days for police activity. What with the locals knowing so many were coming to town, and so much 5.0 on the street, safety was behind a closed door.
The black-shirts earned everything they get form the American justice system, except their free lawyers of course
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, You're welcome - Deskpilot, AM(H)1 (AW), USN (Ret)
I'd Use A Firehose On Both Types Of Protesters...
September 29, 2009 - 23:59 ET by The7SticksI don't care what side it is that they are on. Every single one of these protesters from both the Pittsburgh G-20 summit and the 9/12 rallies should have had the fire-hose sprayed on them. Neither of these sides seem to have any concrete idea what it is they want to protest or what it is they are protesting. Presidents Bush and Obama don't need to take this b.s. from these Green Peaceniks nor these tri-cornered-hat freaks. We will not tolerate anarchy of any kind.
As far as I'm concerned, the only meaningful vigil that's occurred this month was the one by moderate Muslim Americans who want to help us fight against radical Islam and unite to show their patriotism. They were just about the most patriotic Americans that have marched in Washington DC or Pittsburgh this year.
I was at 9/12.
September 30, 2009 - 00:08 ET by Free StinkerI was at 9/12.
I knew exactly what I was protesting - high taxes.
You need to see a doctor to fix your cranial/rectal inversion.
UPDATE: Even with a firehose, *you* wouldn't be much of a threat to anyone at 9/12, including the women. In fact I'm willing to bet any of them could chased you off unassisted.
7Sticks... You have got
September 30, 2009 - 00:17 ET by bigtimer7Sticks...
You have got to be kidding me!
One of the main organizers for the Muslims was a man who defended/still may be representing the terrorists.
I put a link here long ago about the so-called 'Prayer' Meeting on Capitol Hill, or whatever you want to call it... let me tell you something Mister-Smarty-Pants...they are the same people who want control of this county at whatever cost...including your head on the platter.
They have planned and waited patiently, as they have stated in the past they will proceed with their plans to gain control, no matter the set-backs...I wonder how dumbed down you leftists have to be to not see the real picture...we are in a religious war, the likes we have never seen...we are only at the head of it...what is funny to me is you on the left depend on others to protect and defend your namby-pamby arses, you will end up learning how to do it for your worthless selves or not...it will be your choice for survival, if you want to survive, you will have to go against a lot of what you screech about to do so.
By the way...as I'm sure you know, there are plenty of other factions involved for the defeat of this country...no matter what, they are all in it together for now...power is the main control, who powers it in the end will be fought over until this earth is no more.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
bigtimer, an incoherent rambling as usual
September 30, 2009 - 05:32 ET by chronicIt must be no fun living a life believing everyone is out to get you. You judge a person on what religion they belong to than what kind of person they are. Apparently you can't be patriotic and a Muslim in your mind.
You seem pretty excited for this religious war. If you would spend more time thinking of an argument then resorting to name-calling you might actually be able to make a point. Stop following the Republicans strategy for healthcare.
chronic, RE:bigtimer....
September 30, 2009 - 06:16 ET by Timothy HAs I read the thread it occured to me that, while you called nobody a name, you have said nothing. BT may be passionate, but she also stated her point. You made none. She said nothing about muslims being unpatriotic. She stated that the organizer has known ties to terrorism.
Where was your intelligent rebuttal, troll?
So, to take from your own words.... It must be no fun to live believing you are an ostrich, and that you must stick your head in the sand whenever you, or your ideals, are threated. You judge a person on what ideology they relate to rather than what they actually say. Apparently you can't be conservative and heard, in your mind.
You seem pretty inclined to replace radical muslims with muslims. If you spent more time thinking of an actual argument, and less time resorting to attacking other people's points without any substance of your own, you might actually be able to make a point of your own that was sound. Stop following the Democrats' strategy for everything.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein
and for Blonde and because it fits.....
Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints - Me
What's your point?
September 30, 2009 - 11:48 ET by chronicI think you restated my point; that Muslims are not the threat Bigtimer is making them out to be. That extremist Christians are just as dangerous as extremist Muslims or extremist anything.
My second point was that name calling does not win an argument. If she wants to make a stronger argument, she should argue without resorting to name calling and mud-flinging.
You pretty much made a similar post as mine, except you attacked a little more and used some name-calling yourself. Even copied on saying this was the Democrats strategy, I said this was the Republicans Healthcare plan.
So next time think for yourself before you speak.
Chronic....RE: bigtimer
October 1, 2009 - 08:03 ET by Timothy HUm, again, you really should try living by your own words.
BT was speaking of a specific group, not overall Muslims. She made that point, which YOU chose to generalize, instead of actually thinking about it.
And as for attacking, I used your own template, so how was I more attacking than you? Think. It helps. For example, the Republicans DO have a plan for reforming health care, but you have let the MSM think for you, so you missed that. Try thinking for yourself.
As far as name calling, I did not call you a troll, as in ugly monster under the bridge. I, quite obviously based on the fact that we're on a internet forum, called you a troll, as in one who casts a red herring line out to try and derail threads by trolling that line out there, without actually having any substance in the message itself. That pretty much sums it up, no? You took a direct argument made by BT, and tried to cast a general net encompassing all muslims with it. That is typical troll work. Because it is pretty clear, to anyone who was reading without trying to flame a thread at least, that BT was speaking of radical Muslims, and not the Muslims as a whole, as she qualified her intentions in her second sentence....(emphasis mine)
"One of the main organizers for the Muslims (referring to the vigil referred to by The7Sticks in the post to which she was responding) was a man who defended/still may be representing the terrorists."
And as far as my point about your strategy being the same as that of the Democrats, it is. If they don't have an argument or an answer, they will produce on with a Big Red Herring, infused with misrepresentations (i.e. "Republicans want you to die quickly" or "The Republicans have no plan of their own" or "You judge a person on what religion they belong to than what kind of person they are. Apparently you can't be patriotic and a Muslim in your mind.")
And so, my post wasn't restating your point. And please inform us as to all of the huge bombing that have taken place in the last century as well as the all terrorist hijackings that have been performed by radical Christians. The few that have occurred are, by far outweighed by the many performed oh so often by radical Muslims. Exactly how then are Radical Christians (who I agree are dangerous, but to a far lesser degree due to their relative exclusion from the mainstream of Christianity and the willingness of Christians to turn them in) as dangerous as radical Muslims? Do tell.
So, again, I will refer to your post and your wording. Next time think for yourself before you type.
By the way, the similarities weren't coincidental. Re-read my post.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein
Looky- someone accidently turned over a rock and...
September 30, 2009 - 00:22 ET by Forest for the Trees7sticks crawled out to insult people.
I'd use a 12 guage on
September 30, 2009 - 00:27 ET by NL207I'd use a 12 guage on protesters who are smashing windows or starting fires.
Yeah, civility lost a
September 30, 2009 - 08:41 ET by BDYeah, civility lost a battle last summer when Minnesota allowed a bunch of thugs to get out of hand at the GOP convention. And under a Republican Governor no less.
Sad, for it would have done everyone good if twenty minutes after the property destruction began if Tim Pawlenty had stood in front of the Minnesota National Guard Brigade of the 34th Infantry Division recently returned from Iraq and yelled to them "Red Bulls, lets clean up this city" and led the charge into the chaos.
For the cost of twenty minutes of a good old fashioned thrashing the anarchists learned society will put up with most anything to be allowed to ignore incivility.
Are You Freaking Kidding Me?
September 30, 2009 - 00:39 ET by KrillinfanNo WAy you're serious. Did you not pay attention to ONE WORD that was spoken at the 9/12 rally? Or do you genuinely guzzle from the Propaganda Hose of the MSM?
Either way, a peaceful, civilized protest is in no way deserving of having a fire hose turned on it, Bull Connor! You sound just like that jackass of a sherrif that attacked Dr. King's rallies in Burmingham, fella. (And he was a DEMOCRAT, too.) Next you'll be chanting "White Power" like the Klansman you're channeling right now. Jeez, get a clue!
"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress."
-John Adams
Did anybody pay attention
September 30, 2009 - 00:50 ET by bigtimerDid anybody pay attention to his last paragraph?
That is what should reach out to you...tell you all you need to know.
That is why and what I was responding to..the media for the most part ignored all of this Muslim Prayer on the Hill the 23 I think it was...it is not a little thing, this should have been given much more attention to...then again, we will all go about our daily lives, end up in the messes the other countries have ended in regarding all of this purposeful mess until we will have riots like France did, England is a mess etc ...on and on I could go, but congress and states have been passing laws to give them more laws and power.
Beware...unless we take this country back, this will continue...the likes of which we have never seen.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
There goes
September 30, 2009 - 06:46 ET by HockeyKidThere goes 7sticks-for-brains with his "both sides are the same" song again. Do you ever have more than that one thought? Seriously.
As for who knew what they were protesting, the 9/12 march was very civil, very focused, and VERY easy to understand (for those with more than one brain cell). The G20 protesters were, by their own organizer's admission, professional protesters who don't care what the reason for the protest of the day is.
Seriously, 7sticks, you really need a new tune.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Sticks...
September 30, 2009 - 00:28 ET by JerOf course I couldn't begin to monitor the activities of nearly (cough!) 2 million 9/12 protestors, but there didn't appear to be any significant acts of violence or disruption--or insignificant for that matter--which would even remotely call for hosing. The same cannot be said for the G-20 demonstrators.
Frankly, an overraction by the police and/or other law enforcement authorities against the tea partiers would have been a colossal blunder [think MacArthur and the Bonus Army marchers in 1932], and merely, and quite justifiably, served to reinforce pre-existing anti-government sentiments.
Jer
you know, Jer
September 30, 2009 - 00:31 ET by candanceI still have my suspicions about police reacion in Pittsburgh. Yes I know a bunch of property was damaged, but news accounts all say it got out of control after police confronted them with some jive about a permit.
Is it backwards day again
September 30, 2009 - 00:38 ET by Free StinkerIs it backwards day again already?
I dunno, free
September 30, 2009 - 00:42 ET by candanceSomething about that riot just hasn't been setting well in my mind. I can't put my finger on it.
I'm with the Police.
September 30, 2009 - 00:50 ET by Free StinkerI'm with the Police. Those protestors were wearing masks to conceal their identity. Incidentally, something that is not allowed in New York City, and these other cities better catch on to if they want to keep these mobs from causing widespread destruction.
you do have a point there
September 30, 2009 - 00:56 ET by candanceLike I said the day it happened, either the cops were too aggressive or this country is in serious danger of being destroyed by angry mobs. It's one or the other, and neither sounds much fun.
To be honest, candance, I
September 30, 2009 - 00:40 ET by JerTo be honest, candance, I must confess that I haven't read many details on the G-20 protests--other than what has been published here at NB. I guess my point is, comparing the two incidents, the only possible case for active suppression would have been with regard to the anti-globalists.
Jer
ALL the Black and Red flag people had to do
September 30, 2009 - 01:28 ET by ChattychitoWas go and get a permit before they marched and no one would have bothered them until someone got hurt or property damaged. they broke the law by not getting a permit. of course the permit application states that if they cause public damage the permit is automatically revoked and the permit holding Organization is responsible to pay for damages.
The Black and Red Flaggers were marching and all was ok until they started breaking windows, so the cops called them on no permit and asked them to disperse. they didn't, because they wanted to fight the police. that's why they didn't get a permit it was a left wing fight against the establishment and no one wanted to be responsible.
These are true Obamaites
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
Not the size of protest but amount of police
September 30, 2009 - 05:22 ET by chronicThe only thing I know about the G20 protests is that over 4000 police were activated for this.
The comparison of violence is probably due to several teabaggers bringing AK's and other guns at rallies while I've heard no reports of G20 carrying weapons.
Riiight...
September 30, 2009 - 05:31 ET by KrillinfanYeah, sure, because one fringe guy takes an AK-47 (besides, wasn't it strapped on?) to a rally not even in DC, and spouts off crazy stuff, suddenly we're the ones turning over cars, smashing windows, threatening cops and the Anarchists were saying nothing but Kumbaya. Anyone with brains can figure out the truth... but sadly, that trait has been fading out there, it seems.
And GOD, I hate that term.
"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress."
-John Adams
what term weapon carrying teabaggers?
September 30, 2009 - 05:41 ET by chronicI think it was also the attitude of protestors. In DC the teabaggers were armed and Pittsburgh was not(who would you pick a fight with, especially when 4000 got dressed to fight). Also the 9/12 would be pretty dumb to cause a distubance on that day.
I thought Fox came up with "teabagger" or maybe it's because they have so many D-bags there I was confused.
There were no guns in DC,
September 30, 2009 - 05:56 ET by KrillinfanThere were no guns in DC, sir, and certainly no disorderly conduct and very little, if any mess left behind. In fact, that one instance of a gun that day was in Michigan, I believe. Nice how you deride people for exercising their 2nd Ammendment rights, and yet defend the loud and disorderly who believe we should have no guaranteed rights.
BTW, you're thinking of MSNBC, and thus are right about the folks who work there. :)
"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress."
-John Adams
Liberal Guns
September 30, 2009 - 10:07 ET by slickwillie2001There was a second gun-carrying incident at a healthcare rally in Mesa, Arizona that was not widely reported because the protester was pro-Obamacare:
A Gun-Toting Protester MSNBC Doesn't Mind: http://confederateyankee.mu.nu
Once the Bamster completes his takeover of the old media, I expect that the word will go out –if the state-controlled media doesn't report it, it didn't happen.
Chronic, you ought to
September 30, 2009 - 06:33 ET by ConservativeRexChronic, you ought to recognize a D-bag. Apparently you don't have any mirrors in your house. You'd see one every time you passed by one.
News reports also say we're
September 30, 2009 - 00:42 ET by KrillinfanNews reports also say we're racist for disagreeing with Obama. You questioning our actions now, too? Gee, who's more likely at fault: the law, or a group of Anarchists who want the cops dead or dismantled, want the Constitution abandoned and want society in chaos?
Hmm, such a toughie...
"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress."
-John Adams
I know what the media says
September 30, 2009 - 00:53 ET by candanceEven Fox News agreed that the riot started over a permit. I'm not defending vandalism or anything they did. I'm just asking if the riot police had an hand in escalating it.
If it wasn't that it would
September 30, 2009 - 00:56 ET by Free StinkerIf it wasn't that it would have been something else. They weren't wearing those masks as a fashion statement.
I saw these same Tools on the streets of Manhatten back in 2004 when they thought they were going to start widespread destrution during the GOP convention.
candance
September 30, 2009 - 01:00 ET by MrShyGotta side with everyone here. They are inviting trouble, and they know it. They WANT police riots, the way they dress, push the envelope, etc..
The thing is, that's
September 30, 2009 - 01:13 ET by KrillinfanThe thing is, that's EXACTLY what they want you to question. Because when you start questioning that, you start wondering if maybe they don't have SOME point to what they stand for. They plant the seeds of doubt in the public, while they tell the cops that someone who killed teir fellow officers was a hero and they deserve the same...
Now I'm not saying the police are ALWAYS in the right; far from it. However, in the case where these Anarchists are clearly the antagonists, and they can STILL make you question that... Then they did their job by plantin' that seed.
"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress."
-John Adams
Left wing Right wing this I know
September 30, 2009 - 01:17 ET by ChattychitoThe Eagle has two wings if they don't flap in unison the Bird don't fly. this is why our country is in the cr**per no one is united to work for our national interests everybody is after their own.
Look we hired BHO for POTUS and it looks as if we have hired his wife as an official as well. seeing she has a personal budget footed by us of $1.5million a year. no presidential wife ever had more than three attendants what make Mrs BHO different? is it because she is BLACK so she has to have all these personal assistants. normally this type of thing comes out of the POTUS pocket.
It seems the eagle is eating its own young and doesn't know how to fly. that's what happens when you teach that a theory (Evolution) is truth and you take away off discipline and restraint from children you create a murderous (see Chicago 666 schools), self centered give me give me give me mentality of our current Administration, as well as the shut up and do as we say you angry hate mongering right wing crackers you got a black master now.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
You Must Be
September 30, 2009 - 02:17 ET by GeneralAlYou must be a RACIST with a tone like that about Lady Obama!
Sounds racist to me too.
September 30, 2009 - 05:12 ET by chronic...right wing crackers you got a black master now
Trying to be clever and reverse the slave termanology shows how far back in time you are stuck. But you don't believe in evolution, probably because your mind hasn't developed enough to comprehend racism... you should still know your history and watch what you say.
I don't get how you're scared to say crapper but not censor the other crap you posted. Better off to stay quiet next time.
Trollgate
September 30, 2009 - 08:06 ET by Chattychitowrong again but keep trollin' on.
As
for Evolution look what it has done for the Chicago school districts
animals all animals. the whole idea is like global warming it is all
theory not one shred of physical evidence.
Nope sorry not a racist, it just it gets me that you would love to spend $1.5 million for her to have assistants. no one voted for Michelle. and why does she get the privilege no other POTUS spouse ever dared too.
You keep on trolling along you bigoted blue dogs. I just used some terminology the
New Black Panthers group told your grandmother on the way in to vote last
November. how easy your little mind forgets.
As for history, My family has a long history in
Missouri, Illinois, Virginia and North Carolina and they were Abolitionist during the Civil war. My
Great Great uncle was Hung for setting slaves free, and killing a KKK member in self defense. My family they were all
Republicans too.
So you would do well to find an old history book, one
that hasn't been rewritten by lefties like Barack and Michelle to sell
you a load of Cr*p as history. The civil war wasn't about slavery until 2 years into the war. That was when the North was losing support for the war. So they changed the Main Stream Media strategy and made it all about slavery. The civil war was over the Individual States right to govern themselves.
so I think you guys need to go and soak your pea brains in a little water to soften them up so maybe some real truth will soak in.
Oh and by the way she may be a female but she aint no "lady" ask anyone who has ever work with her.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
Just admit you were wrong to say that
September 30, 2009 - 11:37 ET by chronicDon't try covering up racist statements with a weak excuse ike forgetting a question mark. That's Fox's strategy, say something that would be bad or even criminal and through a ? on it to ask as a question, not a statement of fact.
You bring up some good points though...
If you need evidence of evolution, how about technology and how we are writing blogs on a computer versus sending telegrams. Or the fact that slavery ended is because society evolved to be more tolerant and humane. Or the simple fact that species go extinct.
Also you point out the MSM was used to help bring an end to slavery... so is it because you are such a racist that you hate MSM?
One more thing, if the First Lady can't spend money to take care of her family, why did Palin spend all that campaign money on her wardrobe? Not too fiscal. So did you work with Michelle that you can personally say those things about her? It's talking out of your @s$ that got you in trouble in the first place.
Really?
September 30, 2009 - 11:48 ET by BlondeSlavery has ended?
I think you are the one who needs to do a little fact check. It may have ended HERE, but it goes on all over the world.
I just love it when you little liberals come here and try to lecture us.
EPIC FAIL.
I hope he fails, too.
I concur, I have been in
October 1, 2009 - 08:20 ET by BDI concur, I have been in three countries in my life where Slavery is permitted. I wonder how that jibes with Chronics theory of evolution curing slavery. Perhaps his theory is the Saudi's and others are somehow gentically different than you or me?
I admit
October 1, 2009 - 01:57 ET by Chattychitoit sounds racist and I did forget to put a ? whether you believe me or not.
Computer programs are the worse model to prove anything global warming advocates have been doing that for a few years now. only to have their models crushed by physical evidence.
Changing attitudes are no proof of evolving physically. that is fools gold to use such an example. It is proof that man has in him MORAL compassion. You could use the words that say his thinking has evolved or his attitude has evolved but it proves nothing about physical Evolution that Chicago punks grew from a wet rock some 110,000,000,000 years ago give or take a few billion so today they are animals just acting out of instinct. take a bill go watch animals they are more compassionate than the ones in Chicago.
History already proved and showed that Slavery was on a down turn around the world at that time. the MSM of that day just sped it up. it is like settling for cheap gas from someone along the road after you ran out it gets you to the next station but it ain't so good for your car.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
Chatty: Although I agree
September 30, 2009 - 08:08 ET by QueenMumChatty: Although I agree with some of what you have to say here, I don't understand why it was necessary to suggest that Mrs. Obama's race has anything to do with how many assistants she has. She has two young children. If she's trying to be a good mother, I imagine she may need a bit more help. I have no problem with that. Her husband was elected President. Like it or not, it's only reasonable to consider that she would move into the White House with him. What should she have done? Stayed behind in Chicago for four years? As far as who pays for her personal assistants, can you provide documentation re: who traditionally pays this bill and proof that Mrs. Obama is using taxpayer funds that she shouldn't be using?
Despite your protestations to the contrary Chatty, your attitude smacks of racism. JMO
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
Actually I
September 30, 2009 - 09:28 ET by Chattychitothought I was asking a question as to why? I forgot my Question mark. It would be a wonder that not one spouse of a president has ever needed such a budget as she. and Well seeing she is the first black first lady it seems awful strange she needs to have such an enormous budget. by the way most of these Assistants have nothing to do with her being a good mother or wife.
Most are go between for her and the media, the houses of Congress, the Czars, and other political offices in Washginton that have nothing to do with mothering or being a good spouse. why is she needs them when Hillary didn't? Why is it she needed them when Jacky didn't? both of them were mothers too? as a matter of fact most of this that these staffers too actually and traditionally was done by the POTUS staff.
I see what you are saying about my statement. But I wasn't trying to be racist. I was asking is it because she is black? That she can get away with something so extravagant that no other POTUS spouse ever did? Why couldn't she just be like all the other first Ladies. No she has got to be something bigger than life just like her hubby and why? to stick us in the A**? or is it to say we are different and we will do it our way cause so many people have been stepping on the poor blah blah blah that we can do what we want and there isn't anything anyone can do about it. An so far that rings true.
please read the article below my signature quote
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants
By Dr. Paul L. Williams
Quote from Michelle Obama: "In my own life, in
my own small way, I have
tried to give
back to this country that has given me so much," she said.
"See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a
career in public service."
No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve
as the First Lady and she
doesn't perform any official duties. But this
hasn't deterred her from hiring
an unprecedented number of staffers to cater
to her every whim and to
satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great
Recession.
Just think a second,
Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china
for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie
Eisenhower had to
shell out the salary
for her personal secretary.
Hillary
Clinton had three assistants, Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one;
and prior
to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own
pocket.
How things have changed! If you're one of
the tens of millions of Americans
facing certain destitution, earning less
than subsistence wages stocking the
shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up
McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream
and then come to realize that the
benefit package for these servants of Miz
Michelle are the same as members of
the national security and defense
departments and the bill for these assorted
lackeys is paid by John Q. Public:
1. $172,000- Sher, Susan (Chief Of
Staff)
2.. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and
Director of Policy And Projects
for First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the
President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille
Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications
for First Lady)
5. $100,000 -
Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to
First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the
First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary
to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling
and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy
Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough,
Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $64,000 -
Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12.
$62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. Deputy Director, Scheduling & Events
Coordinator For The First Lady
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director
of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M.
(Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 -
Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First
Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and
Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A.
(Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 -
Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 -
Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First
Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social
Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 -
Jackson, Deilia A.. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First
Lady)
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has
created
such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of
the First Lady's
social life. One
wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when
even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura
Bush one; and prior to
Mamie Eisenhower
social help came from the President's own pocket...
Note: This does not
include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and
"First Hairstylist" Johnny
Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air
Force One to Europe
.
Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652
Yeh, I know, The Canadian Free Press has to
publish this because the USA
media is too scared they might be considered
racist. Sorry America !
IT'S IN YOUR FACE from your own
government...
SICKENING.........ISN'T IT???
Chatty: First of all, the
September 30, 2009 - 09:43 ET by QueenMumChatty: First of all, the Williams piece is opinion and should not be considered if one is to be fair. The question mark defense is a lame defense on your part.
I offer the following as a rebuttal: M. Obama's staff vs. Laura Bush's staff. The difference in dollars is $491,800. Given that the comparison is between a 2nd term and a 1st term and given that Mrs. Obama does not have the same familiarity with all the protocols of being First Lady, as well as the fact that Mrs. Obama has two young children to attend to, one would expect a difference. I don't understand why you would dismiss Mrs. Obama's role as a mother. It only stands to reason that if she's to have time to be with her children, she needs a bit more help with her First Lady duties. Would you prefer that she stumble about trying to figure things out?
There are plenty of serious issues with the Obama presidency. I don't see that focusing on the expenses related to the First Lady somehow validates the true concerns. I stand by my opinion that your argument smacks of prejudice.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
One mans Opinion
September 30, 2009 - 10:59 ET by ChattychitoIs another mans prejudice.
The left side smacks of prejudice. and I am sorry but there is no way to get around ethnic backgrounds and culture. I did not say she was black so she needed special help. As a matter of fact a few of you have hinted that without bringing up the race card.
My wife, God Bless her, takes care of three children, herself and I, helps with Wednesday night worship, does a Woman's Bible study on Thursday nights, helps with children's ministry on Saturday afternoon, goes shopping once a week for food and other needs, washes the cloths and dishes, does Gardening, cleans the house everyday and makes the payment of our utilities bills. She also helps me to counsel youth and women as needed, translates English when necessary into three other languages, comes with me on Embassy duties to visit Americans who are sick, dying, or dead and counsel the families of deceased Americans. By the way she is black and I am white.
I have offered to get a nanny for the kids or at least a house helper to wash clothes and prepare meals she refuses.
If my wife is able to do that and more to help keep our budget down. How much more the FLOTUS she should lead by example for other American women follow?
So Mrs Bush's Budget was $400,000 or so less than Mrs O's. How many personal staffers did she have? None of the maimed stream media pushed a pencil to report on her budget but if it had been Mrs. Bush or McCain or Palin they would have gone through buckets of ink to say how outrageous the spending is. So why not with Mrs O? you can beat around the race bush and just say everyone is in Obama's corner. But the truth of the matter is everyone is afraid of looking like a racist so they go along tread on glass in fear of being labeled a racist. but what you don't see is these people manipulate and use these poor ethnic groups and want to keep them there while they get rich and that includes Obama, he is more of an uncle tom than everyone realizes.
P.S. I was born in Chicago, I lived there a good portion of my life and it would be the last place on earth I would want people to go to to see the 2016 Olympics.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
I get all that, Chatty.
September 30, 2009 - 13:36 ET by QueenMumI get all that, Chatty. What you're not getting is that your personal situation in life and your political bias is getting in the way of common sense. Not everything the Obama's do or don't do is cause for outrage from the right. If you can't see the difference between real life in the White House and your real life, then I have nothing more to offer in the way of argument. Class envy goes both ways.
Please explain:
"I did not say she was black so she needed special help. As a matter
of fact a few of you have hinted that without bringing up the race card."
Be serious. It's reasonable to assume she needs some extra help: a.) because she's a first-time First Lady and b.) because she has two young children. How does this "hint" at racism?
And, in answer to your question:
"So Mrs Bush's Budget was $400,000 or so less than Mrs O's. How many personal staffers did she have?"
Did you actually read the information from the link I provided? I thought it was pretty comprehensive.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
It makes me wonder
September 30, 2009 - 19:05 ET by ChattychitoHow did poor ol' Mrs O ever get along without a personal staff before she got into office er I mean became FLOTUS?
Laura Bush had ten. I emphasized the question to get you to go back and read the link your self. It said FLOTUS only had 16 when in fact she currently has 25, 9 more than the article you linked to says. Laura bush had less than half as many. Not only that each time the POTUS adds a czar she has added a staffer. peculiar and interesting.
Lets do a reality check though, I have made hundreds of post here on NB and this is the first and only time where I was called a racist because of what I said, can I have the benefit of a doubt here please, I think my post record proves otherwise. which proves my point it is all the way you read it. And my life style proves otherwise.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
Chatty...
September 30, 2009 - 19:18 ET by JerI'll give you the benefit of the doubt on race, but not on math. I suggest a recount.
Jer
Chatty: It was not my
October 1, 2009 - 09:05 ET by QueenMumChatty: It was not my intention to label anyone a racist. I was labeling your statements as I understood them. I didn't see the purpose of using the word "black" in bold as part of your argument. If my words said otherwise, I apologize.
I emphasized the question to get you to go back and read the link your
self. It said FLOTUS only had 16 when in fact she currently has 25, 9
more than the article you linked to says. Laura bush had less than
half as many. Not only that each time the POTUS adds a czar she has
added a staffer. peculiar and interesting.
Please provide documentation showing that Mrs. Obama currently has 25 personal staffers and that each time the President adds a czar she has added a staffer; and, if this is indeed the case, what does it prove? You've also stated elsewhere a number which is merely a prediction of how many more staffers Mrs. Obama will add in the future.
Added later for reference purposes:
"however, what is here reasoning for having 20 plus staffers and a
41.5million budget for it, and that will double by the time the POTUS
and FLOTUS leave office in 2010."
I must ignore the projection of the number of staff doubling by 2010 as being merely speculation. And please provide documentation of the 41.5 million number.
I'll repeat for your consideration that the numbers for Laura Bush were for a second-term First Lady who, by the way, was already familiar with such duties due to her time as a governor's wife and the daughter-in-law of Bush 1. Conservies were laughing their butts off when Mrs. Obama screwed up with Queen Elizabeth. Would you have known the proper protocol for greeting the Queen of England or any other foreign dignitary as part of your general knowledge?
There are other instances in which I might agree that the taxpayers have reason to complain. I just don't find your example of Mrs. Obama's personal staff very compelling.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
Ever hear of Inflation?
September 30, 2009 - 12:21 ET by chronicThe only 'sickening' thing is your twisted point of view and continual use of race as a reason for "extravagance." People's wages do go up as the cost of living rises. So by the same logic, CEO's and even minimum wage employees are making more money than when Kennedy, Clinton, or Eisenhower were president. Michelle's being black has nothing to do with inflation, it just shows your racist tendancies.
Hey, if all the staff is hired only to help her, at least she is helping the unemployment numbers. And at least their not Cheney's death squad, how much do you think that cost?
So, if everyone in the US
October 1, 2009 - 08:24 ET by BDSo, if everyone in the US was drafted tomorrow you would be in favor since we would have 100% employment?
And WHO was on Cheneys Supposed Death Squad?
How is Junior High School going?
Oh, the anguish! To be
October 2, 2009 - 18:50 ET by BDOh, the anguish! To be ignored by Chronic...
But then again he HAS probably been sparking up ever since my reply and that procludes rational thought or action.
Just so you won't feel
October 2, 2009 - 20:18 ET by JerJust so you won't feel neglected, BD...
I know who is on Cheney's Death Squad, but I value my life too much to give up the names.
Jer
Am I on it? A "Los Pepe"
October 3, 2009 - 08:06 ET by BDAm I on it? A "Los Pepe" as it were?
*
October 2, 2009 - 20:20 ET by Jerdouble
what make Mrs BHO
September 30, 2009 - 08:14 ET by JasonCwhat make Mrs BHO different? is it because she is BLACK so she has to have all these personal assistants.
the shut up and do as we say you angry hate mongering right wing crackers you got a black master now.
Okay, see these are racist statements. They are the very definition of racism, in fact, imputing race as a reason for some sort of special treatment in the first and assuming that Obama's only mission in life is a personal vengeance for the evils of slavery in the second. This is why so many of us on the left have a hard time remembering that the TeaParty movement is not, by and large, based on the racial aspects of white middle-class angst.
As for the difference between Pitt and 9/12....[big shrug]. In the current political scene, it's odd that the most notorious group in the former, the anarchists (ooooh, anarchists were boogeymen on par with communists in what, 1915?), are being aligned with the left when the fundamental goal of anarchism dovetails with what the Nouveau Right is calling for. I was under the impression that the biggest beef with Obama (aside from his skin color of course) was his alleged expansion of big government, and how this is what makes him the most liberal president of all-time, etc, etc. Anarchism is about dismantling the apparatus of government. Yes, thy probably want to take it further than most of the TeaPartay attendees, but the spirit of the idea is a lot closer to the right than the left.
Furthermore, the right can continue to harp on the disparity in property damage, but it will only get you so far. I know the 50 gazillion 9/12 attendees shuffled quietly out of D.C. at the end of the weekend without so much as a blade of grass out of place on the mall, but that doesn't mean that
a) Their ideas are superior.
b) They are, by and large, more genuine Americans.
No!
September 30, 2009 - 10:43 ET by JPR1These are not racist comments and are not even close to defining racism. Either your reading comprehension skills are extremely weak or your thinking is corrupted with mindless bias.
“…is it because she is black…” With or without punctuation, this phrase is a question expressing uncertainty; in written form it asserts nothing. Expressed verbally, depending on intonation, it may or may not indicate racial prejudice but in this case, as a reader, you and others have given meaning not intended. Stop it, you sound foolish.
The anarchist / Nouveau Right allusion is also foolish, again you seem willing to ascribe meaning or intent when none has been expressed. People protesting the socialist agenda are not attempting to dismantle anything. Their efforts should correctly be considered to be resistance or fortifying.
Your underhanded assertion that the Rights biggest beef with Obama is his skin color is a sophomoric cheap shot.
And the waste and destruction left behind by the Pitt crowd might mean what?
The original poster is
September 30, 2009 - 10:54 ET by JasonCThe original poster is welcome to correct me here, but no, sorry, you are giving a benefit of the doubt to someone who is - in my reading at least - not exactly putting out an innocent line of questioning. If I were to say "Gee, how come Halliburton got all those contracts in Iraq? Could it be cronyism based on Cheney's connections?" I highly doubt that you would let that slide on the basis that it was phrased as a genuine question. There's such a thing as a "rhetorical question," in case you were unaware, and that's what I read it as.
The Nouveau Right's fundamental complaint is expansion of government. The stated goal of the anarchist is a dissolution of government. The latter may have a more extreme goal in mind, but it is fair to say that their goal is simply a logical extension of the former's. There are superficial differences between the two groups involving fashion sense, lifestyle, and (probably) attitudes about social issues. But from an economic/governmental standpoint, it is oxymoronic to align anarchists with liberals. Liberal economic philosophy (in the contemporary, not classical sense, of course), as NBers are wont to point out on a regular basis, involves more government, not less.
I'd let it slide...
September 30, 2009 - 11:22 ET by JPR1..for several reasons.
1. Cronyism makes the world go around. It’s existed in some form or another since man took the first step toward civilization.
2. If laws were broken, prove it. The issue’s been hashed to shreds and Mr. Cheney is still a free man.
It’s oxymoronic to align anarchists with liberals or conservatives. The significant difference being that the anarchist wants to dismantle government but has no freaking clue as to what should replace it. Conservatives today are trying to defend something that has been effective for generations. Liberals don’t want to compete so they are simply grabbing for as much power as possible; hoping they can keep the whole show running. They’ll fail.
JPR you sound foolish for defending racism
September 30, 2009 - 12:08 ET by chronicI think you miss the point with the Cheney/Haliburton example. The fact that you defend it is one thing, but you are completely missing the point that stating a question like that is a leading question that implies Cheney's guilt. So the post saying the same thing about "Michelle spending money because she's black?" is the same scenario.
So you agree that the crowd in Pitt was not liberal, as reported here at NB. I agree, because protestors are usaully on the fringe of either party and disagree(that's why they protest). I have no problem with protestors that don't cause problems and who aren't slandering someone else (like some of the posters at the Teabaggers rallies).
Final point... depending on intonation
When you are trying to say people are being foolish and trying to sound really intelligent don't make up words. I think you were looking for "connotation."
Chronic
September 30, 2009 - 12:12 ET by RESTLESS 1Intonation is a word. Acutally works well for the poster. Study up before criticizing. You'll look less unintelligent.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Actually, he used the word
September 30, 2009 - 12:16 ET by JasonCActually, he used the word correctly.
Intonation (noun)
1. the pattern or melody of pitch changes in connected speech, esp. the
pitch pattern of a sentence, which distinguishes kinds of sentences or
speakers of different language cultures.
2. the act or manner of intonating.
But you are correct about his misreading of my Halliburton example. I was not trying to make a point about cronyism - though it's interesting to learn that JPR is in favor of a non-meritocratic system - but to show that phrasing something as a question can still STRONGLY imply an accusation.
Jason
September 30, 2009 - 12:42 ET by RESTLESS 1Shouldn't you credit your source?
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
dictionary.com?
September 30, 2009 - 12:47 ET by JasonCdictionary.com?
Shouldn't that be...
September 30, 2009 - 13:51 ET by JPR1...something like:
"Sorry JP I defer to your magnificent command of the English language." :-)
There ya go again...
September 30, 2009 - 13:47 ET by JPR1Ascribing meaning that does not exist. What is it with you people?
I in no way defended cronyism. My point, (expressed with a measure of brevity, which should have been a clue), was that I would not bother to make an issue out of your Cheney/Halliburton question (rhetorical or not) because I would deem it a waste of time.
Agree? WHERE in my statement did I intimate that the morons in Pitt were anything at all? You described them as anarchists and that works for me (though I get the impression you would love to spend the next ten hours regaling everyone with your understanding of their mind set).
Final point….best chuckle I’ve had all month.
Young and overeducated. Ask Santa for a thesaurus.
But the point isn't whether
October 1, 2009 - 08:13 ET by JasonCBut the point isn't whether the Halliburton issue should be investigated. The point was to show you what a rhetorical question is.
Bozell described them as anarchists (well, and some of them described themselves as such). I was working from that.
I was over the top in saying you were against a meritocracy. Nonetheless, your cavalier acceptance of cronyism was a little surprising, esp. given that that's something a lot on the right are tearing their hair out over Obama's presidency.
I need a thesaurus...why?
JasonC
October 1, 2009 - 23:22 ET by JPR1First off, the thesaurus. My apologies. Trying to make lunch, feed the dog and reply at the same time I read Chronics response above as being yours. My bad and thanks for pointing out the correct word use (though inflection may have been a better word).
I’m more than capable of recognizing a rhetorical question, a wry and often dramatic statement of something obvious or well known. The fact of the matter is your question, as phrased, failed rhetorically and to me merely expressed cynicism; an all too common attempt at implying knowledge or intelligence. I’m much too old and reasonably well-read to be sucked in. The word “Gee” was a dead giveaway.
Making the long scroll back up to re-read Chitos comment, I still find nothing in her statement that qualifies as racist. Misguided cynicism? Sure. Unwarranted stereotyping? Probably. Racist, as in characterizing black people as inferior and undeserving? Sorry, it’s just not in there.
Meritocracy vs. cronyism? Funny thing is, they’ve “co-existed” for a long, long time. Meritocracy gives people a sense of purpose and optimism. The upside of cronyism is that stuff that needs to get done, gets done, without a lot pointless, warm and fuzzy, lets-review-it-in-committee nonsense. The problem is that this group at the helm now really has no clue whatsoever where we’re headed or how things will work when we get there.
Not sure what your Middle school education was all about, but the best advice I can offer anyone who doesn’t understand core conservative principles is to go back and dig deep into the American Revolution. Get a real clear picture of just why those folks found the courage to tell King George they’d had enough. And the sacrifices they made to achieve independence.
Obama and Co are basically doing a 180 and their thinking no one should complain only defines their ignorance.
Even Chitos subsequently
October 2, 2009 - 00:07 ET by JerEven Chitos subsequently conceded his/her statements "sounded racist", and the conclusion that they were at the very least racially insensitive is, in my opinion, inescapable. Under your exceedingly narrow definition, calling the Obamas "ni**ers would fall outside the scope of racist language--inasmuch as there were no imputation of racial inferiority. To simply dismiss (excuse?) Chitos rhetoric as "misguided cyniciam" or [perhaps] "unwarranted stereotyping" is naive in the extreme.
On a side note, I have done a fair amount of reading with respect to the American Revolution. So I'll close with this brief observation: The Tories were conservatives.
Jer
Jer
October 2, 2009 - 09:00 ET by JPR1That Chito acknowledged the weakness of her comment is commendable, but unless she has a distinct history of expressing “racially insensitive” ideas, nothing here constitutes blatant racism.
Wow you guys sure do have problems with definitions. If use of the word ni**er doesn’t impute inferiority, what the hell does it mean? Fill me in. Tackle racism while you at it. I know you’d love to expand the definition of any word as long as it increases your opportunity to accuse or impugn those with whom you disagree.
Yes indeed the Tories were “conservatives”. They were also “subjects” to a monarchy. Trying to equate them with a modern American conservative is about as pointless as comparing the modern American conservative to anarchists.
Distinctions, distinctions, distinctions.
JPR
October 2, 2009 - 13:16 ET by JerPerhaps you should take another look at my post and well as those earlier in the thread before you wander any farther down the path you're taking. You're lost.
I never accused Chito of even implicit racism, much less "blatant" racism. In fact, as you'll note, my problem was with her math in failing to accurately count and post the comparative number of salaried members on the staffs of Michele Obama and Laura Bush. That said, I don't think it unfair to highlight the racial insensitivity of her words, whether the reader concludes such inferentially or by pointing to the unambiguous language employed. Once again, Chito concedes that it "sounded racist." For you to suggest it was merely "cynical" or maybe "inappropriate stereotyping"--leaving race entirely out of the parameters of permissable criticism-- is, to put it mildly, absolutely astounding. Yet you complain that "we" are making distinctions. The irony is overwhelming.
"I know you’d love to expand the definition of any word as long as it increases your opportunity to accuse or impugn those with whom you disagree."
Really? And you know this...how? That's a serious accusation, JPR, and I find it highly offensive. Back it up, please.
Finally, re modern conservatives and philosophical linkages: Your dismissivenes is interesting, to say the least, in light of the repeated comparisons of contemporary liberal Democrats to Nazis, Marxists, Fascists, communists, socialists, and, yes, even anarchists.
Jer
I'm lost? What path?
October 2, 2009 - 23:47 ET by JPR1I’m lost? What path? Good Lord man, go back and start at the top of the thread and read until you reach my reply to JasonC. That’s where I stated my opinion regarding his ridiculous assertion that Chitos comments were the “definition of racism”. Read that comment carefully. I made zero reference to any other aspect of the discussion and I stand by every word. (Hope this doesn’t constitute a serious violation of some obscure protocol.)
Now, please reread my reply to you and attempt to find so much as a syllable implying you accused anyone of anything. You won’t find one but take your time.
And….read carefully, then think, it’s not that you are making distinctions, it’s that you aren’t and IMHO, this is exactly what causes you to reach invalid “inescapable conclusions”.
“That's a serious accusation, JPR, and I find it highly offensive. Back it up, please.”
My apologies, the statement does come off as being directed specifically at you and that was not my intent. In general terms however, definition and meaning are routinely corrupted by left leaning advocates and I believe it is often done simply to confound legitimate discourse in an effort to avoid uncomfortable facts. Examples abound and “racist” is the most egregious. Damn, if a guy criticizes the wheels on a car and then learns it’s owned by a black guy…suddenly he’s a racist pig. It’s gone beyond pathetic.
“… repeated comparisons of contemporary liberal Democrats to Nazis, Marxists, Fascists, communists, socialists, and, yes, even anarchists.”
Uh Jer, if you’ve been doing any reading on the leftie sites over the past 7 or 8 years you’d know this sort of behavior is not something exclusive to conservatives. You have encountered the numerous references to Bush is Hitler right?
We never meant to imply
September 30, 2009 - 18:52 ET by ChattychitoWe never meant to imply Michelle was spending money because she was black. that is how you read it. however, what is here reasoning for having 20 plus staffers and a 41.5million budget for it, and that will double by the time the POTUS and FLOTUS leave office in 2010.
and if she is doing becuse she is black and feels she has the right too. then who is the racist really?
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
Breathe Jason, breathe
September 30, 2009 - 11:57 ET by RESTLESS 1Conservatives are not for "no government", they are for "limited government". Anarchists want "no government" for nothing more than unabashed wallowing in their own cesspool of immorality. Liberals seem to be more on board with that than the right. If you want to disassociate yourselves from anarchists, develop some morals. Quit advocating infanticide, (see abortion), and defending pedophilia, (see polanski).
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Well, you've certainly been
September 30, 2009 - 12:22 ET by JasonCWell, you've certainly been keeping current with anarchist literature. Quite a sweeping stereotype you deploy here. Ironic, too, since anarchism's roots are in the workers of the oughts and teens of last century, people who expended more physcial labor in a day than the people they were trying to overthrow did in a lifetime. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about here.
I've never encountered a single anarchist polemic that didn't emphasize the necessity of hard, agrarian/craftsman/industrial labor. Except the primitivists, who want to go back to hunter/gatherer life. But there's a big big difference between wanting to dissolve government and wanting to dissolve civilization, and you're incorrectly taking advocacy of the former to imply advocacy of the latter.
So you admit
September 30, 2009 - 12:40 ET by RESTLESS 1that the protesters in Pitt. were not anarchists, whose beliefs "dovetail nicely" with those on the right. You admit that they were just a bunch of liberal miscreants with nothing better to do than to spread wanton destruction for mere amusement.
I had to take the long way, but I finally got you to the point. You're welcome.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
→ Like pulling teeth
September 30, 2009 - 12:44 ET by Cool ArrowBut you performed an excellent extraction.
Huh? How did I "admit"
September 30, 2009 - 12:49 ET by JasonCHuh? How did I "admit" that? I'm rejecting the idea that anarchism is a rejection of government in order to wallow in moral decay and sloth.
Rejection of government, yes. Which is the antithesis of economic liberalism, no? Hence, at least somewhat aligned with the goals of the TeaParty crowd.
If you've sprung some sort of rhetorical trap here, I'm going to need you to explain it better.
ETA: I'm rejecting the
September 30, 2009 - 12:57 ET by JasonCETA: I'm rejecting the idea that anarchism is NECESSARILY a rejection of government in order to wallow in moral decay and sloth. I'm sure there are some who are in it for exactly that purpose. I doubt they're the type who bother protesting, though.
Jason
September 30, 2009 - 13:03 ET by RESTLESS 1Were you not, with this comment:
"The Nouveau Right's fundamental complaint is expansion of government. The stated goal of the anarchist is a dissolution of government. The latter may have a more extreme goal in mind, but it is fair to say that their goal is simply a logical extension of the former's. There are superficial differences between the two groups involving fashion sense, lifestyle, and (probably) attitudes about social issues. But from an economic/governmental standpoint, it is oxymoronic to align anarchists with liberals. Liberal economic philosophy (in the contemporary, not classical sense, of course), as NBers are wont to point out on a regular basis, involves more government, not less."
...trying to insinuate that the protesters in Pitt were more closely aligned with the right than the left.
Too late to act stupid now, not that it wasn't common knowledge before.
(No more games Jason. I'm not going to copy/paste the entire thread for you.)
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
I was stating, not
September 30, 2009 - 13:07 ET by JasonCI was stating, not insinuating, that their goals, in spite of superficial differences between the groups, more closely resemble the goals of the TeaParty set than those on the left who want to increase government involvement. So yes. What's your point? Did I contradict myself somehow?
→ Jason
September 30, 2009 - 13:13 ET by Cool ArrowHow is it you can claim the Tea Party Movement, which demands a return to a government guaranteed by the Constitution, even approaches anarchy?
Cool
September 30, 2009 - 14:22 ET by RESTLESS 1I thought the "no government/limited government" comparison I posted above would be simple enough for Jason to digest.
I was overly optimistic.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
→ Go figure
September 30, 2009 - 14:28 ET by Cool ArrowWe've got a poster claiming defending the Constitution is anarchy, and a singer thinking Glenn Beck is going to cause blacks to hack each other up with machetes.
Cue Twilight Zone music.
Yeah, not to mention
September 30, 2009 - 15:15 ET by RESTLESS 1the hollywood crowd, and many MSM'ers defending one's right to drug and sodomize thirteen year olds, but only if you've made the world better through your art.
Strange times we are living in.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Cool and Restless, you're
October 1, 2009 - 08:19 ET by JasonCCool and Restless, you're overstating the degree to which I'm suggesting the Nouveau Right and a loosely-organized band of loosely-defined anarchists are associated. I don't believe I said they should exchange business cards and start a coalition. All I'm saying is that if you drew a spectral line representing the level of government involvement that various groups want to have in daily life, modern liberalism would be inching toward the right (directionally ironic, I know, but it's my model and I'm imagining More Government to be on the extreme right), the Nouveaus would be a few points left-of-center, and anarchism, by definition would be way out on the left side of the curve.
Hence: Conservatism would be closer to the anarchists, ideologically, than liberalism would.
This is not to say that I believe conservatives want to toss out the constitution, though I do wish they'd read some of the amendments more literally.
Jas
October 1, 2009 - 08:58 ET by RESTLESS 1Can I call you Jas?
"This is not to say that I believe conservatives want to toss out the constitution, though I do wish they'd read some of the amendments more literally."
You mean like ascribing a right to abortion under the premise of the right to privacy? Or do you want us to give up our firearms under the "militia" argument? Either way, no thanks.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
I don't want you to give up
October 1, 2009 - 09:31 ET by JasonCI don't want you to give up firearms under the militia argument - actually, it's less an argument than a semantic fact - but I would like 2nd Amendment absolutists to at least acknowledge that the amendment involves a "Well-organized" militia; the argument that a militia is synonymous with The People is baloney.
I repeat: I don't want to take away your guns. I just don't buy that the 2nd Amendment is what gives the right to individuals to stockpile and carry handguns. The wording clearly states that such individuals should be involved in a local para-military group.
Psshhht. That was the sound of me opening a can of worms.
Yeah, the words are there
October 1, 2009 - 10:22 ET by RESTLESS 1but, depending on which version you subscribe to, they don't mean what you think.
Congress the amendment written this way: "...the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
The states ratified this version: "...the rights of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Depending on the capitalization of "people", the "well organized militia" can be applied differently. The SCOTUS has ruled several times on this amendment, bringing us to where we are today.
Sadly, the scribes who wrote this amendment did us no particular favors.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
~Looks like I'm late to the party
October 2, 2009 - 09:39 ET by choselife3xBut I'll just say this..
The wording of the amendment meant something different to the culture of the day than it does now. (Obviously)
"A well-organized militia" simply referred to the able-bodied male citizens of the U.S.. Back in the day, every man had a gun to defend himself and his family with and knew quite well how to use it. Before the days of an established police force or standing army, all men were expected to know how to handle those duties. Indeed, those skills were implicit to the "security of a free State".
Now, before some clever wit points out that we have a police force and a standing army now, making an armed populace unnecessary, let me direct you to the words of Thomas Jefferson-
"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that
all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by
themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that
they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of
property and freedom of the press."
Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence,
3rd US President
Source a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright in 1824
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of
arms."
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776
And Samuel Adams-
"...It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control...The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of
their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or
suffering others to invade them."
Samuel Adams
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to
authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of
conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable
citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts -- U.S. Constitution ratification convention,
1788
James Madison-
"Besides
the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people
of almost every other nation... Notwithstanding the military
establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far
as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the
people with arms."
James Madison, Federalist
Papers, #46 at 243-244.
"The highest number to which, according to the best
computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one
hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the
number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States,
an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be
opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in
their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their
common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their
affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus
circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."
James
Madison, The Federalist Number 46 January 29, 1788
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the
people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free
country."
James Madison (1751-1836),
Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
"A people
armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for
the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression."
James Madison
(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed
populace."
James Madison, In his autobiography
Amen.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the lying leftist under my heel.
http://newsbusters.o...
Cool...
September 30, 2009 - 14:33 ET by JerThank you for your implicit rejection of the noxious, pervasive meme conflating contemporary liberalism with Marxist/fascist totalitarianism.
Jer
→ Wouldn't think of it
September 30, 2009 - 14:38 ET by Cool ArrowI think there is a fair amount of liberals out there who believe the government is too liberal even for them.
And once again, Jason
September 30, 2009 - 14:19 ET by RESTLESS 1You are wrong.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
double
September 30, 2009 - 13:09 ET by JasonCdouble
Jason,
September 30, 2009 - 13:11 ET by pahuber"I'm rejecting the idea that anarchism is a rejection of government in order to wallow in moral decay and sloth."
They certainly do not exhibit peaceful means during protests.
If they want to do, as you say, work hard & live agrarian then why not do what the Amish do? Get some land and live there peacefully?
They certainly appeared violent with the face coverings & damaging windows, cars, buildings here in St. Paul last summer during the RNC.
If they want to do, as you
October 1, 2009 - 08:26 ET by JasonCIf they want to do, as you say, work hard & live agrarian then why
not do what the Amish do? Get some land and live there peacefully?
That's certainly a good point. And I'm sure some do. However, the inverse of that suggestion would be, why don't the TeaParty folks gets some land and live in a free market paradise without even an inkling of socialist collectivism, where they can be free to keep and bear all the arms they like and make their own untaxed soda? I suppose because at a certain point, having a self-contained society that conforms to your own version of Utopia just isn't enough. Besides, pretty much every author who has allegorized such Utopias has shown why it will fail.
Isn't it our impulse to try to bring our vision to the U.S. as a whole, even if it means imposing our views on others? I mean, I disagree virtualy 100% with the values of the average TeaParty attendee (except on big, general things, like The Constitution is Good), and find their whole movement kind of obnoxious, but that doesn't give me the right to say that they should just go do their own thing and leave the rest of us alone. Which is why my comparative suggestion of a TeaParty Utopia sounds so ludicrous.
So Jason
October 1, 2009 - 09:18 ET by RESTLESS 1You're saying that self-contained societies fail, but you want to make the whole country a self-contained utopia? Do you see how you have contradicted yourself here?
Conservatives do not want to impose their will on everyone. We don't want others doing it to us either.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
You're saying that
October 1, 2009 - 09:34 ET by JasonCYou're saying that self-contained societies fail, but you want to make
the whole country a self-contained utopia? Do you see how you have
contradicted yourself here?
First of all, where did I say I wanted to make the whole country anything. I'm correcting lazy stereotypes about anarchism as an ideology, not advocating it.
Second, my point is that activists of any stripe are generally dissatisfied with SCUs and would prefer to make the culture at large function according to their ideals. Isn't this essentially the basis of protest and political advocacy? "We want the country run the way we think is best."
Jason,
October 3, 2009 - 10:57 ET by RESTLESS 1Sorry, I kinda inferred it from this statement:
"Isn't it our impulse to try to bring our vision to the U.S. as a whole, even if it means imposing our views on others?"
I guess you weren't including yourself when you typed "our", eh?
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Why can't you be fair Jason?
October 1, 2009 - 01:24 ET by JWF1. So anarchists are on the right. (...spirit of the idea is a lot closer to the right than the left.)
Why can't you just admit people that want no government at all are not on the political scale. The political scale is about the amount of government involvement. So you and I can disagree about the amount of government we need in our lives. Why do you have to put idiots on the same scale? This is why I can't take you seriously.
2. So the tea party movement is racist. (so many of us on the left have a hard time remembering that the TeaParty movement is not, by and large, based on the racial aspects of white middle-class angst.)
3. People with racist statements are indicative of all in the right wing.
Why can't someone with a racist statement stand alone. Why do you have to rush to lump them in with an entire group? It can never be a lone with an opinion, can it?
4. So we are wrong to condemn people that want to do away with all government. (ooooh, anarchists were boogeymen on par with communists in what, 1915?)
5. What the hell is the Nouveau Right?
6. Why can't you be honest with us? I have hounded you and pounded on you and really really really not liked you but compared to anarchists, I consider you superior and a more genuine American. Why can't you just look us in the eye and say, no these people are not the same as you and I? We disagree but we are civil, they are not. Why does everything have to be a slam on the right?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
1. Why can't you just
October 1, 2009 - 09:49 ET by JasonC1. Why can't you just admit people that want no government at all are not on the political scale.
Well that's actually a perfectly fine point. I would propose that anarchism would be at the far end of the scale just as authoritarian government would be at the opposite far end. Maybe there's a good argument for leaving them both off. Beats me.
2. No, I don't think it is, my point to the original poster is that comments like his are why some people are willing to assume that it is. Just as some think Obama runs a racist administration because of comments by the likes of Rev. Wright and Janeane G.
3. We're in agreement here. I was trying to make a point, not get out by Racism Broadbrush.
4. Condemn the ideology, fine. But it's disingenuous to portray adherents of it in the sort of stereotypical style that I was correcting. Just as this morning story about the benefits of marijuana is relying on the laziest, quaintest, bourgeois stereotypes of pot smokers in order to make it seem as though they all resemble Cheech and Chong and lay around on park benches (?) all day.
5. It's just something I came up with for when I get tired of repeating "TeaParty Attendees."
6. Y'all heard it hear first. JWF considers me superior to anarchists.
We disagree but we're civil? Uh, okay, sometimes I guess.
I guess I disagree with the idea that believing a society can be run sans government makes a person the detritus of the earth. I mean, I do disagree with anarchism, but I don't think they're idiots or violent criminals across the board.
Maher's a demented
September 30, 2009 - 08:53 ET by mattmMaher's a demented person. His religion of Self-as-God, which he has been practicing for years, has warped his mind. This is true of most liberals, and it's why they get everything backwards and wrong.
"Insanity begins with the rejection of God." - Hank Freud
It's very, very interesting you say that...
September 30, 2009 - 10:10 ET by stage9"And even as they refused to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them
up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not right." Romans 1:28
As the days grow shorter to the end, the minds of ungodly men will become ever more skewed and reprobate in behavior. What brings on this behavior? "They refuse to retain God..." Without God there is nothing to anchor morality. Governments, as we can see, are incapable or even qualified...Democracy is inadequate (note Germany's history). God is the only infinite absolute qualified to anchor morality. Liberals, for the most part have jettisoned God from their thinking. Some try to have the "cool to the touch" morality of God without the accountability to God. Others have rejected Him altogether.
"If God is dead, somebody (or something) will have to take His place." This is why they sing songs to Obama. That's why he is a kind of "Messiah"/"Savior" figure. They want a god they can see, and feel and touch. A man like them. Someone who can save the earth, offer free healthcare, bring them peace and be their savior all wrapped up in one.
The Bible says in Jeremiah that a people will rise up in these days who will scream "peace!, peace!"...but God says... because they rejected His warnings..."there will be no peace." They will become ever more frustrated because they have refused to acknowledge God.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will
be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for
pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner."
— Malcolm Muggeridge
Maher's a demented person.
September 30, 2009 - 10:56 ET by JPR1And probably one of the last people to be making any kind of comment about anyones looks.
Truly the cheapest kind of humor.
You know, I don't see many
September 30, 2009 - 10:33 ET by KevroyYou know, I don't see many black faces in the G20 crowd....especially the anarchists. Spoiled white kids.
Now that sounds Racist
September 30, 2009 - 10:57 ET by ChattychitoBut who am I to judge. Right Guys?
But heck since July 2, 2009, 205 people were arrest in the greater Chicago area. 2% of the crimes were sex related out of those all charge in child pornography were white. One white and one black women for prostitution, 3 orientals for illegal massages, one woman for sexual assault, three black males for rape with murder, one with child molestation. 0.1% were property damage all white boys,the rest of the crimes were strong armed robbery, murder, dismembering a body, 3 women (two white females), four white men, seven Latino and the rest were black males ages from 16-72. In case you need some help around 97.9% were blacks. of course Chi town is the largest black city.
Chi Town was known as the Windy City. Mrs Obama has a new name for it. I think it was the city that could or somehting like that.
But stats like that wont even make it to the Maimed stream media. if you want to see if for yourself. I clicked a link off the Chicago Tribune web site that let me review all then and their mug shots.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"