Dem Leader Clyburn Ties AZ Shooting To Sharron Angle Statement
By Mark Finkelstein | January 09, 2011 | 11:00
Citing no evidence that the Arizona shooter had ever heard of Sharron Angle of Nevada or her remarks about Second Amendment remedies, a top Dem leader has nevertheless tied the shootings to Angle's statement.
Rep. James Clyburn, third in the House Dem leadership, made his allegation on Fox News Sunday today. He began with a general statment, then made a specific accusation.
JAMES CLYBURN: I think that what is happened here is that the vitriol has gotten so elevated until people feel emboldened by this. And people who are a little less than stable, and people aren't thinking for themselves are so easily influenced, they go out and do things that all of us pay a great price for.
Brett Baier, subbing for Chris Wallace, then read to Clyburn a statement from Tea Party leader Judson Phillips predicting that the left would blame the shootings on the Tea Party movement. That didn't deter Clyburn, who proceeded to tie the shootings directly to Sharron Angle.
View video after the jump.
CLYBURN: Well I would say this to the gentleman who wrote that. We just came out of an election. We saw a candidate for the United States Senate saying if you can't get what you want at the ballot box, let's seek Second Amendment remedies. What does that mean? That is a very vitriolic statement, and I think that somebody is responsible for speaking up, denouncing that kind of stuff. And if you don't denounce it, people keep ratcheting it up, and people get to a point where you cross the line. And I think that in this instance, this issue has crossed the line.
- Mark Finkelstein's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Communists like Clyburn are going to do all they can...
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 11:11am.
...to use what happened in Arizona yesterday to try and intimidate conservatives into silence so that comrade Clyburn and his fellow America-haters can go about their destruction of this country with relative impunity.
This is all about nothing more than stifling dissent, which when directed at the left is considered "hate speech."
-Dave
It will be interesting to see them, when the facts come out.
Submitted by wedapeople on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 11:15am.
Guess Clyburn, Obama Mania Media and Keit's "Special Vomit's" kinda forgot about all of these (Future Obama Maniac's held these up, at the top of every hour, as examples of free speech in political discourse):
http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests...
Hillary Screech Rodham: I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration".
Granted Ms. Palin's "Bullseye" is over the top and will effectively stick a fork in any of her higher office ambitions. !
We've already seen what
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 11:41am.
We've already seen what happens. The media goes silent and allows their smear to stand.Granted Ms. Palin's
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 12:22pm.
Granted Ms. Palin's "Bullseye" is over the top and will effectively stick a fork in any of her higher office ambitions.
Dont think so, lots of people used the bulls eye reference. Besides anyone who doesn't understand is ignorant and should be educated.
Hate speech comes from the Democratic leaders
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 11:14am.
This is getting very bad. Reports on this shooter say he was a flag burning kook who was waaaaaayyy left of center but the silent majority is getting blamed by the leftist DNC and it's minions. These people need to be called on this. How? I don't know. I am just glad I am legally armed and have been all my life, just like my Daddy and Granddaddy (without ever shooting or robbing anyone).
Interesting
Submitted by JustAl on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 11:33am.
Catie Parker tweeted that he as "left wing" "quiet liberal" yet when interviewed on NBC was never, ever specifically asked about anything she tweeted.
It seems to me, that a known leftist who goes nuts in a crowd listening to a rouge democrat who wants the border protected and believes in the 2nd amendment was more likely influenced by a certain individual in the White House who admonished his supporters to "bring a gun". There are unconfirmed reports that the alleged shooter's myspace page (now removed) had a photo of Obama on it as he along with other politicians of his ilk; Che, etc. were listed as the shooter's primary influences.
Yet the leftist still lie openly, and proudly. At least they are consistent.
ABC just did the same thing.
Submitted by NeoKong on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 11:52am.
They had her on but somehow left out that part.
Go figure.
It's the old addage . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 12:33pm.
. . . If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question.
FoxNews Sunday KNEW
Submitted by Texndoc on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 11:16am.
They knew exactly what this moron would say and that's why he was on the show. All these big mouths "it's Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin and Glenn Becks fault!" are going to be all over every show from The View to Jon Stewart next week.
I may have another TV political moratorium for at least a week, like I did Inauguration week.
I know it will be difficult
Submitted by richb313 on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 2:47pm.
I know it will be difficult but do not turn away. Everyone needs to witness first hand exactly how low and how distastefull this coverage is becoming. Calls need to be made to not only the networks, but thier sponsers, that this type of hate filled vitriol is not and has never been acceptable after a tragic event such as this.
Sadly I am not surprised by the instant reactions from these predictable loons. May God have mercy on thier souls as thier behaviour shows no mercy at all.
and people aren't thinking
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 11:20am.
and people aren't thinking for themselves are so easily influenced,
Ah, yes, the latest variation on "poor, uneducated, and easy to command." It won't matter to Clyburn if the guy turns out to be a registered Democrat and a flaming lefty who was pi$$ed off that Giffords didn't vote for Pelosi for minority leader. He still will have been egged on to violence by the Tea Party. They know the truth. The facts are a coverup.Bingo, MB
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 11:36am.
"And people who are a little less than stable, and people aren't thinking for themselves are so easily influenced"
And that, boys and girls, is a perfect description of a liberal Democrat voter!
You can accuse these clowns of many things, but not knowing their target audience of voters ain't one of them. Their very survival is wrapped up in people who don't think for themselves and they really know how to play to that audience.
Rep.Clyburn is an embarrassment to people of color - eom
Submitted by Wawaashkeshi on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 11:23am.
Rep.Clyburn is an embarrassment to people of color - eom
And to all of us South
Submitted by Seashell on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 11:35am.
And to all of us South Carolinians.
Clyburn is .another one who
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 12:25pm.
Clyburn is .another one who should have been retired at 65. The older they get, the more outrageous statements (I mean "more" in both number and degree) they are allowed to get away with.
Just saw the interview
Submitted by Nonanon on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 11:29am.
FNS is on air now where I live. I wasn't listening real close, but just before the above statement, Clyburn said something about good people haven't stood up to the bad people. Good people HAVE been standing up to condemn what these bad people do and have been trashed by people such as Clyburn! Every liberal media outlet jump in and condemn us for it! We know the likes of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, NYT, Newsweek, Time, etc. scream about the opposition to bad people, criminals, or terrorists.
They are so far from truth and reality. Even Obama, Democrat, has talked in ways that, by their ruler, promote violence! But when we criticize what he says, these campaigners instantly trash us.
Jeez...of course Clyburn knows that.
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 12:18pm.
Jeez...of course Clyburn knows that.
It doesn't matter.
They operate on the canard that conservatives promote, and don't condemn, violence.
How could conservatives NOT speak out against this kind of atrocity? They certainly wasted no time going to Sarah Palin to see what she had to say about it! And she condemned it!
Whenever something like this happens, they go after every Republican they can find, and demand that they condemn, and of course they do. So how can Clyburn say they don't?
The fact is, he doesn't care. He's saying what will score him political points, and truth be damned.
This from the perveyor of
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 11:34am.
This from the perveyor of blatent racism, along with the rest of the ' Criminal Black Carcus ' that lied directly to the American people, for the entire world to see, regarding him and his ilk being referred to as the N word outside of the Capitol after ObamaCare passed.
Not one black, white, Hispanic, democrat, Republican nor independant out of the hundreds present, not one press camera or individual, although we watched the entire escapade on the evening news captured anyone being a racist or spitting on these criminal politicians.
Anything this individual states should be ignored and or reputiated. He ought to be investigated, along with the other black caucus members and Nancy Pelosi whose lying created the atmosphere which made yesterdays tragic loss of innocent American life possible.
Enough is enough with the race baiting ( screaming fire in a crowded theater ) coming not only from the left wing bomb throwers, but their degenerate democrat representatives in Washington.
Alan Grayson's hate speech being praised, not reputiated by his fellow democrats leaves them all with a bit of the judge, nine year old girl and the other innocent Americans murdered yesterday's blood on their hands, that goes double for the Ass Clown in our White House, no matter how the administration or lame street media spin it.
Barack_Must_Go.....
Clyburn, in this horrific case a mentally deranged individual..
Submitted by JC on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 11:44am.
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said..
DID "bring a gun". And you say???
Knives, guns, for Democrats it's OK.
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 12:14pm.
And where were Clyburn and his liberal buddies to condemn the president's incitement to violence?
Or when Bill Maher said he wanted a black president who would lean back and show off the Glock tucked into his waistband?
The hypocrisy of these guys is staggering.
The hypocrisy of these guys is staggering
Submitted by JC on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 12:46pm.
So much so, that the staggering have now become a drunk with head in toilet. It remains to be seen whether "they" can lift their heads, out of the toilet.
I would imagine that guys
Submitted by PeskyDane on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 12:05pm.
I would imagine that guys like Clyburn are still holding out hope that for that picture of J. Edgar in a dress to surface.
Guys like Loughner are a dime
Submitted by humanzee on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 12:39pm.
Guys like Loughner are a dime a dozen in the third world.
Loughner seems to be a working class kid disillusioned with personal failure. He's obsessed with global conspiracies, mind control, inequallity. He's a left wing radical.
Young anarcho-marxists like him kill people all the time. He has the mentallity of a marxist guerilla.
The Shooters' "Favorite" Books, Communist Manifesto & Mein Kampf
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 1:00pm.
The Shooters' "Favorite" Books?? Communist Manifesto & Mein Kampf (h/t - Warner Todd Huston)
MBM (Make Believe Media), please note that those are communist/socialist favorites, not anything a Tea PArtier would like or enjoy.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
He had one other favorite author that hasn't been publicized yet
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 1:05pm.
This one.
Ouch !
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 1:14pm.
Ouch !
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Why isn't Clyburn and his ilk
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 1:01pm.
Why isn't Clyburn and his ilk crying about Obama's violent rhetoric?
Hmm?
-Dave
Clyburn has zero credibility.
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 1:19pm.
Clyburn has zero credibility.
Remember that he's the guy who lied about racial slurs being yelled at the anti-Obamacare rally last year.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
IT'S BETTER TO BE RIGHT THAN FIRST
Submitted by wilmo on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 1:19pm.
Like the MSM, politicians like Clyburn are all READY-FIRE-AIM experts.
Vile, racist swine who wants
Submitted by Patriot601 on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 1:26pm.
Vile, racist swine who wants to spin the murdering of a 9 year old girl and 5 others to his own political gain. It's hate speech from people like this racist that causes his leftist followers like the shooter to do what they do!
The mantra spewed over the last few years, Yes We Can.....
Asking the left if they can incite violence through their never ending hate speech and cause their weak minded ilk to murder kids and innocents... Yes We Can, Yes We Can!
If the right brings a knife to the fight, you bring a gun said Obama... Yes We Can, Yes We Can!
Can we (leftist) incite violence with hate speech and then blame the right when the left losses what little minds they had left and starts to assault and even kill people... Yes We Can, Yes We Can!
Will the media be in the bag for us when our plan of creating a crisis and spinning it to look like we are trying to solve the problem and the right are the ones doing wrong, can we count on them to always report the wrong story and place blame at whomever we tell them to blame, to be ready at any moment with pre-written stories with fill in the blank names "Blah Blah did this and SARAH PALIN is responsible", "Rush Limbaugh is responsible", "the Tea Party is responsible", "Conservatives are responsible"... YES WE CAN, YES WE CAN!
A Marxist did this, a person who was mentored by the same guy through his words as President Obama, both whom are like minded did this. The students of Karl Marx! The left burn flags, the left follow Marx, the left do this kind of stuff and it's time for them to be held to account!
Liars, All
Submitted by rammingspeed on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 2:07pm.
These people are scumbag opportunists who don't care about the truth, they only care about influencing the weak minded and hopefully getting them to vote for democrats at succeeding elections. They get away with it because the MSM is on their side, leading them, giving them inspiration and ideas on what lousy, miserable, lying thing to say next.
This Creep has no room to talk
Submitted by Kfowler on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 2:56pm.
It was Clyburn who said "Any good news out of Iraq is bad news for the Democrats". Translate this. "The more Americans soldiers that are killed, the more mayham and destruction in Iraq, this is good news for the Democrats. This was how far they would go to get the White house. To a Democrat, it's not about America and it's prosperity. It's all about power for themselves. Does this kind of talk embolden the ememy? Since he was the third ranking Democrat in the house, it had to. That then is the definition of treason. Unfortunatly, that word is no longer in the vocabulary of the Justice Dept. It has been replaced by 'Free Speech'
Did Angle actually say
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 8:09pm.
Did Angle actually say that?!
Did she clarify her remarks afterwards in some way?
~Yeah
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 8:14pm.
Check it out.
1) That is awesome. 2)
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 6:24pm.
1) That is awesome.
2) Sadly, I had already googled it. I found plenty of WTF?! responses to her statement. I did not find anywhere that she backed off from it or clarified that she didn't mean to imply that people should shoot each other to political ends. In deference to Newsbuster's continued insistence that all media I consume is hopelessly liberal, I thought I would give someone here a chance to point me to the obscure corner of the internet where she made herself sound less like a lunatic.
Apparently, that place doesn't exist, or someone would have proudly displayed it here. That is scary. So yeah, she really said that, and that was just a horrible, irresponsible thing to say. Don't say I never give conservatives the benefit of the doubt, though...
~Yes, it is
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 8:29pm.
Totally one of those "Awesome Ideas Come True" kinda things.
Sharron Angle essentially said that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people from a tyrannical government. This is true, and something the Founders spoke of at length. No big deal.
This, however, is a big deal.
I'm sorry, but suggesting
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:13am.
I'm sorry, but suggesting that people can resort to "second amendment remedies" if Congress keeps doing the things it's been doing is not just an explanation of the purpose of that amendment. It sounds an awful lot like a call for armed action against our own government, and I think it is a big deal. She's had plenty of opportunity to back off from calling members of Congress "domestic enemies" of America, and she has very deliberately not done so.
While I am mistrustful of any "exerpt" that involves that many elipses, the Anti-American Manifesto also sounds like a piece of socially harmful crap. I'm a lot more upset about the idea of potential elected representatives inciting violence than I am cartoonists, but maybe that's just me.
I really feel like we've lost sight of something important. Even people who disagree with you completely about how to run this country are probably doing what they think is the right thing. I think it is very different to say "your policies would destroy our country, and "You are trying to destroy our country." I hear that kind of BS about liberals here all the time-- we hate America, we are trying to destroy it, we love America's enemies and hate our fellow citizens. You know it isn't true, but you say it because it feels nice to vent. It's harmful, to all of us.
Dialogue and compromise are only possible if you have just a tiny amount of faith in the people on the other side of the table. In the end, we all want America to be successful, her people happy and healthy. Pretending that isn't true makes it easier to demonize political opponents, but some crazy people out there take that kind of thing seriously. That doesn't make the demonization responsible for the actions of crazy people, but why not just stop doing it? What good does it do?
I see little from liberals or Democrats---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 2:04am.
to disprove your statements about destroying this country. Anyone having "just a tiny amount of faith" in Lib-Dims is a fool. MDIt's not a question of
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 7:47am.
It's not a question of whether they will destroy the country, it is a question of whether you think their GOAL is to destroy the country. Thinking the first thing makes them wrong. Thinking the second thing makes them an enemy. If someone is wrong, you can fix the situation by convincing them of that. If they want to destroy your country, it is much easier to conclude that the only solution is to get rid of them.
Trust me, liberals and democrats don't WANT to destroy our country any more than you do.
~Bull
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:23am.
But I'm sure you believe it.
technically they want to destroy the country to save it
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:32am.
Their goal would be to transform the country into something it has never been. That would not necessarily be destroying if they were following the laws and beliefs that serve as a foundation for the nation but they are not.
However, in their minds they need to do this to save the US because they know what is best for us despite all the failures of the left around the globe and the failure of leftest programs here in the states.
Thinking that is okay. I
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 5:59pm.
Thinking that is okay. I think you are wrong, of course, but I don't think that your belief is unnecessarily divisive.
If I do want to save the country by destroying it (whatever that means) then all you need to do is convince me that my method for saving the country is wrong, and yours is right, and we can start working together. I, knowing that you care about your country but are horribly misguided as to how to help it, am trying to do the same thing. It may feel like a fruitless impasse most of the time, but at least we both believe that there is some common goal that could potentially be reached.
I think the problem lies in the belief, and in rhetoric that promotes the belief, that our fellow Americans are honestly trying to ruin everything just to cause trouble or to prove a point, etc. I'm sure there are a handful of people on both sides of the political spectrum who really do want that, but I am equally sure that the vast majority of neither conservatives nor liberals do.
~Saving it by destroying it
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 6:17pm.
I can give you two examples of how you do that.
1. Support for abortion.
You think you're helping people by preventing unnecessary suffering (as you see it). You genuinely think it's a compassionate position to take. In reality, you're promoting the destruction of innocent life and the wholesale hardening of society's heart towards it's most helpless members. It also promotes irresponsible sexual behavior which results in shattered psyches and stunted emotional development.
2. Support for homosexuality as "normal".
Homosexuality is a neurotic perversion of human biology and it's practice precludes a healthy, reproductive, traditional family structure. When the family unit falls apart, society falls apart.
I'd like to keep this
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 9:39pm.
I'd like to keep this discussion on topic, if you don't mind. We can and do argue endlessly on whether conservatives or liberals have the answers. I'd like this time to focus on whether we can at least have reasonable dialogue with each other about where we disagree, and take each other's motivations at face value without always looking to find the worst in people.
~I gave you two examples
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 9:48pm.
of the "saving by destroying" premise you questioned. How is that not on topic? What are your thoughts on my examples?
My thoughts are that the
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:19pm.
My thoughts are that the topic is not whether liberals are destroying this country, for whatever purpose, but whether we THINK we are or WANT to.
For instance, if I were to take your example of homosexuality. That is an extremely personal topic for me. It hurts people I love, it is not just an academic discussion. It is very easy sometimes for me to fall into the trap of thinking that social conservatives are just hateful, bigoted bastards who want to ruin other people's lives.
When I start to think that, and NB often drives me right there, I try to stop myself. Because thinking that is just my way of dismissing you. It is much easier to think that you are a jerk than it is to accept the fact that even nice, well-meaning people can hold views I find so repellant.
I think your attitude towards liberalism is the same. It is easier to think that we want to destroy this country than it is to accept that two people who love their country could have such different ideas on what that country should be like. It requires much less effort to call people names, call them enemies, than it does to really deal with our differences in a straightforward way.
However, I think that attitude is harmful to us as a society and completely useless if your goal is, in fact, to do good things for each other.
~So
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:46pm.
You can't refute the destructiveness of liberal policies, you just claim it's an unintended consequence of good intentions. >.<
The damage is the same regardless of the warm and fuzzy goodness of liberal intentions.
You just slyly called me a hateful, bigoted bastard for pointing out that being in a homosexual relationship precludes being a part of a reproductive traditional family. That's just a simple statement of fact. The fact that you respond in such a hateful way demonstrates the kind of liberal hostility I've been talking about. You gave a knee-jerk reaction of hate, not towards just an opposing opinion that cannot be proven or disproven, but a verifiable fact. That's like if I called you a bigot because you said, "Only women can give birth". Would you be a bigot for stating that? Is it your opinion? No, it's a fact. Why respond with hostility to a biological statement of fact?
Now, I'm sure you'll want to go down the "no one has to have children" road. Well, if we didn't the human race would die out. And no one wants that, right? Bottom line, children are the future. Homosexuality precludes children, thereby precluding the future of the society they want to be accepted by.
You just slyly called me a
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 4:53pm.
You just slyly called me a hateful, bigoted bastard for pointing out that being in a homosexual relationship precludes being a part of a reproductive traditional family. That's just a simple statement of fact.
I most certainly did not! Maybe you need to reread my post. I said that kind of thinking was a trap that I sometimes fall into. And, just for the record, saying that homosexuality does not include reproduction does not make me mad. Calling it a neurotic perversion does. Apparently, it is a trap that you are not immune to either!~Fact
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 5:39pm.
It is a neurotic perversion of human biology. Male and female reproductive organs are made to fit together. Fact.
Males are not physically equipped by nature for the purpose of having sex with other males. Same goes for females. We are made to have heterosexual sex. Fact.
There is absolutely no physical adaptation present for homosexual sex. Gay men do not come with optional vaginas.
Human beings also don't have
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 6:59pm.
Human beings also don't have wings. Fact. Humans are not physically equipped by nature to glide through the air. Fact.
Does that make the pleasure some people get from hangliding a neurotic perversion? What about airplanes-- are they evil?
~That's hilarious!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 8:40pm.
Tell me, when you fly, do you do it by forcing your body to do something biologically unnatural to someone else's body? No?
Then how was that relevant?
Okay then, surgery.
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 8:50pm.
Okay then, surgery. Completely biologically unnatural. Our skin is designed to prevent things from getting into our bodies. Every instinct in us fights against letting someone cut that skin open and mess around in there. Are surgeons perverts, doing that to other people?
~Better and better
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 9:56pm.
Surgery is surgery, it isn't a twisted version of something else. Your analogies grow ever more desperate.
Homosexual sex is a perverted variant of the real thing. It is two people committing acts which go directly against the biological design of their bodies. Men's bodies are not made to have sex with other men's bodies. Likewise with women. That's just the way it is. Biological fact.
homophobe
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:06pm.
Is all they got
Your analogies grow ever more
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:16pm.
Your analogies grow ever more desperate.
Your criteria for "perversion" grow ever less meaningful.
You think it's gross, that's essentially what your criteria comes down to. It isn't about being unnatural, because modern humans do a million things that should count as "unnatural," from preserving our food with chemicals to playing video games. It isn't about the biological design of our bodies, because we do a million things our bodies weren't designed to do, like fly through the air or implant eggs into our uteri without intercourse. It isn't about biological facts, because I doubt you would be impressed with any biological facts about te prevalence of same-sex behavior throughout the animal kingdom.
It's just prejudice. Own it.
Hippiebear LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 7:36am.
You think it's gross, that's essentially what your criteria comes down to. It isn't about being unnatural...
And YOU think it is normal Hippiebear? You enjoy the smell? Tell us about the smell Hippiebear. What does anal intercourse smell like hippiebear? Tell us about the bleeding hippiebear. Tell us the bleeding from the colon walls that were not built for intercourse. Tell us about the bleeding and the blood to blood contact and all the non-venereal diseases that are now venereal.
Tell us hippiebear. Do you enjoy the smell?
Whoa! Where did you come
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 7:51am.
Whoa! Where did you come from? You shouldn't jump out at people like that, it's kind of scary.
And seriously-- I don't want to know what's under the trenchcoat, okay?
Now ask me to take you seriously.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 10:43am.
Pisant nothing troll.
You love the homosexuals. ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. You claim over and over how natural it is and then you take the smart ass approach when it is shown definitively to be unnatural.
Don't EVER expect me to take anything you say with any serious measure you LYING SNIT.
However gay male sex is
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 8:52pm.
However gay male sex is harmful to men. The anatomy of the human body was never meant to insert something into the anus. It does great harm to the body.
And yes, you did call Bru a bigoted bastard. You insult people here all the time with your condescending remarks, which you try to brighten up with exclamation points, as if that makes them not venemous.
~And smileys
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 9:16pm.
Don't forget the little smileys she tacks on sometimes.
And yes, you did call Bru a
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 8:46pm.
And yes, you did call Bru a bigoted bastard. You insult people here all the time with your condescending remarks, which you try to brighten up with exclamation points, as if that makes them not venemous.
Wow, so even when I criticize myself, by saying that I think things I shouldn't, I am somehow being condescending to you. That's some pathological thin-skinnedness you've got going on there. I use smiley faces when I want to convey that I'm joking. Like the "ask nicely," comment. That was meant to be self-deprecating-- an acknowledgement that you are probably getting tired of me sounding like a kindergarten teacher or life coach and telling you to be nice all the time. I like laughing at myself. I think it's healthy, and I'm not going to let your whining stop me from doing it. Maybe you should try having a little sense of humor about yourselves.That was meant to be
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 11:36pm.
That was meant to be self-deprecating-- an acknowledgement that you are probably getting tired of me sounding like a kindergarten teacher or life coach and telling you to be nice all the time.
Then don't make yourself sound like a kindergarten teacher. You obviously know you're doing it, so stop. That's the condescension I'm talking about. It's not pathological thin-skinnedness, you have had this holier than thou attitude ever since you started posting here. It gets old. Fast.
Well, if I knew how to say
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 10:18am.
Well, if I knew how to say that we should be nice to each other without saying that we should be nice to each other, I would. Part of the reason I talked about my own faults in that regard was specifically so that I wouldn't sound holier than thou. You hear what you want to hear, and I only have so much control over how you take my owrds. You clearly have a narrative about me you like, and I am pretty sure it no longer matters what I say.
So, again, you're really
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 5:57pm.
So, again, you're really saying it's my fault, not yours. You aknowledge that you sound like a kindergarten teacher, but then say, You hear what you want to hear.
You're like talking to my daughter when she was 14. "O.k. I did break that rule but really I didn't do anything wrong and it's your fault mom."
So it really doesn't matter what you say, you keep on saying the same thing.
I sound like a kindergarten
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 6:24pm.
I sound like a kindergarten teacher because they tell people to be nice, which is what I'm trying to do in this thread. That's entirely my fault, because I'm doing it on purpose. Whether or not you find my statements that we should be nice to each other condescending has as much to do with you as it does me. You've never yet found anything I said NOT condescending, no matter how I try to word things. Therefore, the scientist in me looks at our conversation and sees only one variable that consistently correlates with whether the people I'm conversing with find me condescending, and that's if the people I'm conversing with are you.
one misunderstanding mamabear,
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 10:10pm.
I don't think that fellow Americans including many on the left are honestly trying to ruin everything. Many are however trying to change things in a way that is not supported by the understanding of human nature nor economics. Like you say there are a few on the extreme right that would probably like to take us back to Puritan style times - though the only ones I've met are in Ohio and Pa, live in their own communities and don't push their ideas on anyone. The socialist left however have a huge megaphone in the media and do force their ideas on others. I'm not talking about the average leftist who just thinks everyone should be taken care of and things just aren't fair unless the government can provide safety nets. While I don't agree with these people they aren't the ones actively trying to replace the foundation of the US government. The left that worry me are the people that are in positions of great influence in our nation and like silver spoon kids are often spoiled by their inherent isolation from what many refer to as the "real world" - Academics including many scientist/Politicians/Media/Actors/Legal and Granted Organizations.
The problem with debate in today's world is that the nation isn't trying to go in the same direction. During the time of the Constitution great debates were waged about the best way to effect a common goal and that goal was an enduring Republic that promoted the freedom of its people. While not perfect they were able to compromise and create an incredible document dedicated to the principals of individual freedom. However, now we have a very large portion of our population that are willing to trade some freedom for increased security and that is not a direction in which people should compromise. Besides the overwhelming historic evidence that socialized programs can only work on a small local scale and that nationally they become to burdensome, corrupt and ineffeceint to accomplish the expected goals their is the problem that America became what it is because people that worked hard, persevered and sometime just plain got lucky had the opportunity to turn their accomplishments into wealth and security - there is not greater motivation to propel a society than the reward of the sucessful individual. Is it perfect? - No. Do we need government and regulations to prevent the exploitation of the population and the environment? - yes. Do we need the intrusive and expansive government we have today? - Not in the least.
I just wish the left had more than a bunch of tear jerking stories to fall back on as proof that we need all the programs that are so necessary but haven't been working for up to the past 60-70 years. I can give one good example of how a social program did (at first) and could have worked in a free market mixed economy but this post is already too long. Some other time if anyone is ever curious.
I think we all still want an
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:22pm.
I think we all still want an enduring republic that promotes the freedom of its people. Again, the difference lies in where we think that freedom comes from and our concepts of how to ensure longevity.
You're hopelessly naïve.
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:25pm.
You're hopelessly naïve.
I'm optimistic. I think that
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 4:55pm.
I'm optimistic. I think that is better than some alternatives.
Realism
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 9:45pm.
Only being a realist is better than the alternatives.
Being a realist also means never being disappointed.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
But I'm sure you believe it.
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 6:02pm.
But I'm sure you believe it.
And that's the important point. If you believe that I believe it, then I'm not your enemy. I'm just an idiot. You can work with that.
~If liberals
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 6:06pm.
didn't believe themselves, they wouldn't be able to live with themselves. They also wouldn't keep on being liberals.
No, I think there are some
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 9:38pm.
No, I think there are some people out there who honestly want to destroy things. I don't really know how they live with themselves, but apparently they manage it-- probably by lacking the imagination to truly appreciate the suffering they would cause if they got what they want. I just think that, in any society but definitely in ours, they are a tiny minority and should not be allowed to convince the rest of us that we have to be at each other's throats all the time.
~Some people
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 9:50pm.
just enjoy inflicting suffering. It's a power thing, like when TSA agents torment people they know to be innocent.
Wrathful,
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 10:14pm.
inflecting suffering is more often done in ingorance, imho. From helicopter parents to paranoid isolationist people do things for reasons that are not in the least hateful or aggresive but in fact are completely ignorant. I can't wait until my daughter grows up and I find out how my wife and I messed up raising her because I'm sure she will let me know as a teenager. Change that - how I messed up - my wife doesn't do that.
~Hahahahahahaha!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 10:47pm.
I was speaking of political-activist types, not average Americans.
Having been a teenage daughter myself a decade ago, the main thing you need to know is: Keep the lines of communication open.
Thanks Wrathful,
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 10:51pm.
Head down and open communications - got it.
Should I throw in a touch of Reagan - Trust but verify?
~Trust
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:18pm.
her until she gives you reason not to. Just don't trust her friends.
There's a great book called "Loving our Kids on Purpose" that deals with building a great relationship with your kids while raising them to make good decisions on their own. (how to actively train them in an attitude of personal responsibility, essentially) Beats the hell out of lecturing them and hoping you'll be the first parent in history who gets listened to. LOL
That's very true, it's the
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 6:15pm.
That's very true, it's the Progressives who want to destroy the country. In order to transform it into the Socialist society they wish it to be, it must first be destroyed. This was learned through experience; efforts to transform it through policy, the law, or the courts have consistently left them short. So all that is left is destruction and rebuilding.
Certainly you cannot argue at this late stage that the Progressive efforts to curb the recession have been successful? And yet they persist with the same thinking; the same quick-fix stategies that have failed time and time again. So either Progressives are literally insane, or they know what they're doing. Destroy the spirit and overwhelm the opposition. Rebuild in a new image. That seems to be the plan and that makes them an enemy of the American ideal.
Right, so there's a good
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 9:31pm.
Right, so there's a good example of the kind of caustic thinking that makes us hate each other.
I don't want to destroy America, not even to rebuild it or save it or whatever other kind of insanity you imagine. I know a lot of liberals/progressives/leftists. None of them want to do that either.
There will always be a few crackpots who do want that, and each of us could, if we wanted to, point to examples that seem to prove our point that our political opponents are actually our enemies.
But why? Why always seek out and revel in the worst examples while ignoring the relatively moderate majority? Why not listen to what the majority of people are saying they want, and try to find areas where we can work together or at least understand each other?
mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 10:17pm.
What purpose does it serve to work with those who have no desire to work with you? We've tried that. For 60 years. All it gets us -and by "us" I mean those of us who honor and cherish this country as it was meant to be; as opposed to "them" who find our country vile, lacking in righteousness, and in constant need of transforming- is closer to the Progressive version.
Can you at least trust me
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:25pm.
Can you at least trust me that it can feel exactly the same from the other side of the fence? Neither one of us has to let ourselves be bitter in that way. It doesn't help us, and it doesn't help anyone else. Occasionally, bitterness and alienation from each other really, really hurts people.
There's no bitterness.
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:32pm.
There's no bitterness. There's no anger. And I harbor no hate. Please don't try to belittle my personal belief system by passing it off as the byproduct of emotion. I have served this great country. I made the committment to lay my life down for her. And I have visted dozens of other countries and experienced -albeit on a small scale- the lifestyle of third world citizens who wholly rely on their government for nearly everything except air. It is no way to live.
Your "why can't we all just get along" schitck holds no sway with me.
hiipebear LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 7:50am.
What is it with antithetical trolls that not one of them can manage to fill out the subject line? I say again, this is because they do not respect you or the community at large. They are completely unconcerned that everyone here has to read the first part of their first sentence twice.
I don't want to destroy America...
LIE. You are fully aware we cannot afford the myriad entitlement programs. You are fully aware they will bankrupt this country. You LIE.
LIE. You are fully aware we
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 7:55am.
LIE. You are fully aware we cannot afford the myriad entitlement programs. You are fully aware they will bankrupt this country. You LIE.
LIE. You are fully aware we cannot afford the myriad entitlement programs. You are fully aware they will bankrupt this country. You LIE.
LIE. You are fully aware we cannot afford the myriad entitlement programs. You are fully aware they will bankrupt this country. You LIE.
Not if we raise taxes :) (p.s. that smiley face is not intended to turn the word "taxes" into or out of an insult. If you find the word "taxes" insulting, then I apologize)
Pack Sand. Pack it tight.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 10:47am.
You think I will be put off by your repeating my posts over and over.
And once again. You blew me off in the most smart-ass way possible.
Don't EVER expect me to take anything you ever say with any serious measure you LYING SNIT.
I am with Unsane. You have no intention of engaging anyone here on any issue. You are here to troll.
I engage all the time with
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 10:58pm.
I engage all the time with people on issues. Just not you, and that lesson was learned through post after post TRYING to engage with you on issues and being met with insults, posts that consist entirely of the word "idiot" repeated 20 times, and other gems of rhetorical eloquence. The idea that I would care what you think of the substance of my posts is hilarious.
Dial it down, please. Use "interact" instead of "engage"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 11:05pm.
It sounds so violenty-military-warry and all.
Ah.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 1:00am.
Whatever Dead nwahs. I guess I will have to respond to your lies more often then. Seeing as how all your broodmates have been banished to troll hell.
Well, if you think we're all
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 8:20am.
Well, if you think we're all the same person, then you really only need to respond to one of us, right? You could save yourself a lot of time that way.
I already said whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 9:37am.
What part of B-R-O-O-D-M-A-T-E escapes your alcohol befuddled mind? Looks like the brains went to someone else in the troll brood, huh?
+++ brood - 1 : the young of an animal or a family of young; especially : the young (as of a bird or insect or troll) hatched or cared for at one time +++
Yeah, you said whatever "Dead
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 8:31pm.
Yeah, you said whatever "Dead nwahs." That's not me, and that's two people, unless I'm mistaken. So I pointed out that you are conflating your opponents.
Whatever Dead nwahs.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 12:49am.
Whine on. Getting busted in lie after lie by numerous users here - okey dokey for Dead nwahs. Spewing leftist propaganda and spreading viscous hate - okey dokey for Dead nwahs. Harassing users by posting the same discredited drivel over and over - ok for Dead nwahs. Getting called by the name of a banned user - oh crap, time to fill your diapers Dead nwahs.
Right, so now you are
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 7:42am.
Right, so now you are explicitly conflating multiple people, and my statement still makes perfect sense.
Then fill your diapers troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 7:49am.
Get your butt all hurt because I called you by the name of a banned user. Stupid trolls don't mind getting busted in lie after lie, slandering users, slurring users, harassing users, insulting users, spewing hate after hate after hate, spewing propaganda, viciously attacking user after user. But call them by the wrong name and their butt gets all aflame and throbbing.
Whatever nwahs. Why don't you quit and never come back now that I have hurt your feelings butt hurt diaper troll.
a valid point mamabear
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 10:23pm.
I understand your point but please allow me to explain what I hear when liberals talk about just two main subjects in this great nation today and what that means to me.
Healthcare - Nationalization or government controlled third party insurance companies
This accounts for approximately 1/6 of our economy and as the boomers age it will account for an increasingly higher ratio.
Energy control - government regulation and control of the energy sources, transport and subsidation of ideas that don't succeed. Energy effects every single part of our economy and it would be difficult to attach a percentage that we could all agree to but safe to say a conservative estimate would be about 1/6.
If you add up the current bloated government and think about the fact that are adding another 1/3 of the economy onto their unapproved accounting books it is enough to make me shudder.
If transferring up to a third of the economy from private to public sector is trying to change the nation I'm not sure what is.
Again, we have plenty of
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:37pm.
Again, we have plenty of opportunity on this site to discuss specific policy points, I'd rather not do that here.
I'll just make the point that these days there is so much dissatisfaction, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who wants America to stay exactly the way it is right now. We all want change, that is not peculiar to the left. The question is just what kind of change. Which direction do you want to go-- forward into uncharted territory, or back to the "good old days?"
~There is no such thing
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:18pm.
as uncharted territory. Homosexuality has been around for a long time*, and it's never worked. Divorce has been around a long time*, adultery has been around a long time*, single parent homes have been around a long time*, "open marriages" have been around a long time*.
*Read: thousands of years
The traditional family unit is traditional because that's what works best. Every society has been based on a family unit composed of a mother and father who are married because it's been proven to be the healthiest, most successful environment in which to raise children.
The sheer arrogance of liberals is astounding. You think you're "progressive"? You think you found something new? You reason like children, who think human history began with their own birth. You treat your heritage like children treat their food, throwing it carelessly to the floor because they have no concept of the work that went into providing it. In your childish self-absorption you think you're going to come up with something the stuffy old grown-ups never dreamed of, and it's going to work, dammit. Keep trying to make square wheels cuz the grown-ups round one is boring and conventional and unimaginative and bigoted against squares and triangles and octagons.
Um. Agnostic was talking
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 4:57pm.
Um. Agnostic was talking about government involvement in healthcare and energy policy, not homosexuality. I was responding to his contention that liberal policies in those areas would change our country by saying that it isn't just liberals who want to change things, and that change sometimes leads to progress.
Exactly why are you so determined to make this discussion about gay people?
~I didn't respond to Agnostic
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 5:04pm.
I responded to you.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who wants America to stay exactly the way it is right now. We all want change, that is not peculiar to the left. The question is just what kind of change. Which direction do you want to go-- forward into uncharted territory, or back to the "good old days?"
My response refutes your "uncharted territory" fallacy.
Well, because I responded to
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 7:01pm.
Well, because I responded to Agnostic, I was also talking about national policy and degree of government influence over aspects of our lives like healthcare and the free market. So when you respond to me, maybe you could stay on the topic.
~So you're admitting
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 9:14pm.
my argument is irrefutable.
Lady, don't even try to play this game with me. The whole point of "progressivism" is using the power of the government to go against the traditional fabric of society. You are on the front lines fighting for the normalization of homosexuality because you think a society that approves of it is a better society. Yes?
Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, John Conyers, John Lewis, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Paul Wellstone.
All of these people want single payer healthcare, cap and trade, card check, and the normalization of homosexuality, among other things. You've put a lot of effort here on this site into promoting homosexuality as normal, don't even try to act like it's a separate issue from the rest of the 'progressive' agenda.
Yes. Your argument that
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 9:53pm.
Yes. Your argument that homosexuality has been around for a long time, as have marriage, childbirth, men, and women is, in fact, irrefutable.
It is also entirely beside the point, because when I talked about moving into uncharted territory, I didn't mean as regards to homosexuality. If anything, the US is behind the timesof western first world countries when it comes to accepting homosexuals, we aren't blazing any trail there!
So yes, you win your completely tangential and meaningless argument. Congratulations!
~Single payer healthcare
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:02pm.
isn't "uncharted territory" in the sense that you're (now) speaking of. It's been around quite a few decades in England, alone. We're behind the times!
You realize that what you just used to pretend I didn't have a point invalidates your own claim that you were just referring to things like healthcare, right?
What is confusing about
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:05pm.
What is confusing about this? Uncharted territory for the United States. Agnostic and I were talking about changing this country, not the course of human events! You were the only one who tried to make it about thousands of year of human history, and all I'm saying is that that is irrelevant to the discussion we were having... which you have apparently very effectively derailed!
~....
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:17pm.
I'm pretty sure that normalizing homosexuality is changing this country. As is normalizing divorce, single parent homes, and "open" marriages. While you liberals are advocating tolerance for "non-traditional" families, you're tearing down the traditional family. "Saving by destroying".
Flail on.
Divorce does tear apart
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:20pm.
Divorce does tear apart traditional families, that's true. I don't hear a lot of liberal cheerleading for divorce. I have no desire to harm traditional families. I'm the product of one, and it was pretty great. I just think that not everyone gets a traditional family full of happiness, support, and love. If those people can find happiness, support, and love in a non-traditional family, who am I to judge?
The liberal view of divorce
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:48pm.
Liberals may not "cheerlead" outright for divorce, but they have made obtaining it very easy. They have simplified the laws to obtain a divorce through "no fault".
Tired argument
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:56pm.
Ah, the "America is behind the times and not nearly as sophisticated as the rest of the Western world argument".
It amazes me just how many Leftists will cheerfully follow Europe off a cliff, instead of trying to figure out why we don't, and shouldn't, follow Europe.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I think it is okay to admire
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 11:24pm.
I think it is okay to admire things in other countries. Just as stupid as following Europe off a cliff would be automatically dismissing different ideas about how to run a country simply because they didn't occur to us first.
I don't admire everything Europe does. We are far ahead of many European countries when it comes to race relations, for instance. But acceptance of homosexuality is one area where we might look to see if it has, just as an example, destroyed Israel's military or not.
Group rights
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 9:20pm.
You fail, and fail, and fail miserably to take into consideration fundamental differences.
Israel has a DRAFT. Every able-bodied male is either active duty or a reservist in the IDF. The same with many women.
Why? Basic geography. You are about as familiar with that subject as you are with history, it seems. Israel is surrounded. Israel is a country the size of New Jersey surrounded by nations and people that are, for the most part, hostile to its very existence.
Therefore, they are things they are forced to dispense with. The will to survive forces people and nations to do strange things.
But thank you for once again telling everyone here how absolutely disgusted you are with the concept of individual rights, and how you are aching for the day when they are totally replaced by group rights.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Why does a draft change how
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 10:09am.
Why does a draft change how open homosexuality affects troop readiness and effectiveness. Either having homosexuals in the ranks makes people uncomfortable or it doesn't-- why would a draft change that?
What total crap
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 3:08pm.
Your density is showing once again. Go back and re-read, very very carefully, about Israel's precarious position. They have no choice.
I could be wrong, but I think that traditional Judaism frowns on homosexual behavior.
Besides, save it. You do not, in the slightest, give a crap about troop readiness and effectiveness. You have made plain that an "aggressive" military bothers you, even though history shows us that the only militaries that are not aggressive are ones that are thoroughly defeated. Meaning, a non-aggressive military is a destroyed one.
If you in fact remotely gave a crap about troop readiness and effectiveness, you would be DEMANDING that Congress purchase a fleet of KC-67s to replace the nearly 50 year old KC-135 fleet. You would be aghast at His Majesty The Shahinshah's decision to stop production of the F-22 well below the level of 381 requested by the AF (and that well below the 511 that would have been ideal). But do you? NO. The ONLY thing you care about are homosexuals and making sure they have more rights and privileges than the rest of the population.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Why couldn't Israel just say
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 4:55pm.
Why couldn't Israel just say "you have to serve but you aren't allowed to tell anyone you're gay?"
Get this through yuor thick head
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 6:15pm.
Because Israel is a country the size of New Jersey surrounded by hostile countries and even more hostile populations that would be more than happy to kill every single one of the Israelis.
The driving distance, IIRC, between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, as an example, is 40 miles.
Israel may, AT ANY MOMENT, be FORCED to fight FOR ITS VERY EXISTENCE. It has been this way since its second HOUR of existence as a political entity. AS SUCH, there are some things that MUST be dispensed with as a matter of SURVIVAL.
If you cannot accept these basic, tiny little facts, do me a favor: SHUT THE HELL UP AND GO AWAY. Other than that, thanks for acknowledging what i already knew: that you do not give a s*** about the United States military and its effectiveness and readiness.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So, you seem to be
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 6:35pm.
So, you seem to be acknowledging that Israel would never do ANYTHING to compromise its readiness and effectiveness because such things are a matter of LIFE and DEATH... and gays serve openly and it apparently works just fine. Thanks for making my point for me.
You lose, hippiebear
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 7:03pm.
Really? I made your point for you? You have now officially lost the argument. Especially when in your zeal for your personal crusade for homosexuals to have more rights and privileges than the stupid "breeders", you FAIL, and FAIL miserably, to acknowledge the very basic fundamental differences between the IDF and the United States military.
Since when has the United States had a DRAFT?
Since when has the United States REQUIRED ALL of its able-bodied males to be in the Reserves?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You still haven't explained
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 10:12pm.
You still haven't explained why the draft makes any difference. If the military is so very important to Israel, and I agree with you there, why is the fact that they function fine with openly serving gay people not evidence that openly serving gay people didn't affect their readiness and effectiveness, and therefore may not affect ours?
You are so ********* dense!!!
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 10:56pm.
I HAVE EXPLAINED IT. REPEATEDLY. You simply REFUSE to read it. I am not going to repeat myself.
Except for one thing: SHUT UP ABOUT THE READINESS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MILITARY, BECAUSE YOU DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT THAT.
At this point the only thing you have succeeded at is showing how obtuse and redundant you are.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uns it's a congenital thing
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 11:08pm.
Uns it's a congenital thing with liberals today. See Dee321. I had to go outside and check if it's a full moon but it's not.
No, you haven't. You have
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 9:45am.
No, you haven't. You have explained something that is clearly different between Israel's military and our own, but not WHY THAT MATTERS. I asked you direct questions about why it matters, and you don't answer them. For instance, Israel, despite being a conscription service, used to discharge people for being gay. In the 80's they stopped doing that, but still barred gay people from holding certain positions. In 1993 they removed all restrictions on gay soldiers. Why do you think they changed that, if effectiveness and readiness is all important to them? Do you think it harmed their effectiveness and readiness? Their experts say no.
The IDF is still, unless I'm mistaken, considered one of the more impressive fighting forces in the world. Having a draft clearly doesn't REQUIRE a country to allow gays to serve openly, because Israel managed to have a draft and not let them serve openly for forty years. So why does it matter that they have a draft?
For the dense, stupid, obtuse hippiebear
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 1:32pm.
I HAVE EXPLAINED WHY THAT MATTERS. ARE YOU F*****G STUPID OR JUST SOFT IN THE HEAD?
AND IF YOU REMOTELY GIVE A CRAP ABOUT MILITARY READINESS AND EFFECTIVENESS, WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN REGARDS TO EFFORTS TO ACQUIRE THE KC-67 or KC-45 AS A REPLACEMENT FOR KC-135s? DO YOU SHARE MY OUTRAGE AT YOUR GOD CANCELING THE ACQUISITION OF F-22s AT THE LEVEL THE USAF CONSIDERS ACCEPTABLE???
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I'm going to respond below,
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 6:12pm.
I'm going to respond below, this is too skinny.
~Relativism strikes again!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:22am.
It isn't about people "doing what they think is the right thing", it's about adhering to the Constitution. The Constitution is the law of the land, and if the people who make up the government violate their solemn oaths to uphold it and flagrantly violate it instead, it is the duty of every loyal citizen to stop them. Period.
You do realize I'm not making
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 5:55pm.
You do realize I'm not making a point about policy, right? I'm trying to make a statement about the way we relate to each other.
~If you're sincere
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 6:03pm.
you'll be able to admit that an astonishing amount of hatred comes from the Left towards those who disagree with them.
Show me a liberal woman who's been the target of rape threats from mainstream conservative voices.
Yeah, it does. But just as
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 9:34pm.
Yeah, it does. But just as much comes from the right. If either side of the political spectrum tells you they are better than the other side when it comes to respectful discourse and reasonable dialogue, call bs. We all have idiots and @$$#0!$ in our ranks, no one has a monopoly on that.
~Nope
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 9:45pm.
Show me the kind of signs about Obama that people made about Bush.
You're doing that thing again
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:30pm.
You're doing that thing again where you deliberately look past the way that most people think and feel to find the very worst examples you possibly can. The secret service just released their analysis about the spike in racist death threats that Obama got when Palin started using the "palling around with terrorists" line.
I choose not, however, to use that as an example of how all conservatives are racists. There are people out there who wanted to kill Bush, and there are people out there who want to kill Obama. We don't need to let either direct the way we all relate to each other. Otherwise, terrorists and racists both win!
~Oh please
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:44pm.
You pride yourself on your scientific creds, how credible is their conclusion? Is it Palin's fault that the McCain campaign ordered her to use the phrase? Looking at the way she was treated by those people and their cohorts in the GOP establishment, I'd say she was picked to be the running mate of a doomed campaign in order to discredit her as an up and coming conservative star. It backfired like hell, but the media is still in there swinging away at it.
Bristol Palin received numerous death threats for the heinous crime of advancing to DWTS finals. WTH?
Do you know how many death threats Palin gets? How many death threats Bush got? How many death threats sitting presidents on average get? How many assassins have been conservatives? How many riots have conservatives started? How many nasty conservative signs can you find? Do conservatives as a whole tolerate nasty signs that appear in their midst? Are people marching proudly with racist signs while the rest of the crowd condones it? Did those calling for Bush to be shot/hung get thrown out of the assembly by the rest of the liberals present? Have MSNBC cameras ever encountered anything like this?
Has the TEA party burned anyone in effigy? Where is your evidence?
You pride yourself on your
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 5:11pm.
You pride yourself on your scientific creds, how credible is their conclusion?
Part of being unbiased involves trusting other experts. I trust the secret service to know what they are talking about when it comes to threats to the president. Why are you calling their analysis into question? Do you have a reason to mistrust it, or do you simply not like what it says? According to a book about the Secret Service, Obama received 4 times as many death threats when he first took office as Bush did in an average year. So the question is-- are protest signs or credible threats a better indication of the level of hatred that either side engages in? Personally, I say who the hell cares? Let's just all stop doing it and we won't have to waste time pointing fingers at each other! In the end, I think that neither anarchists at anti-war rallies nor racists with guns represent mainstream liberals or conservatives. I'm not an anarchist and you're not a racist, so why should we let those people determine what we think of each other?~Other experts
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 5:27pm.
You're an expert on what?
What makes you think all those threats are from conservatives?
There's ample evidence of mainstream liberals openly calling for Bush's death. Find me a mainstream conservative who calls for Obama's death. One will do.
Behavioral ecology. Your
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 7:06pm.
Behavioral ecology.
Your link is about an apology for a statement about wanting to kill Bush. It talks about how the conference the person was speaking at distanced itself from her comments, what a controversy they caused at the event, and how badly she felt about saying it. Incidentally, what she said was "Right now, I could kill George Bush. No, I don't mean that."
That is exactly the response I think comments like that should get, and the kind of response I'd love to see from the right when Angle tells people that it's okay to shoot their elected representatives. It kind of makes me feel better about my own side that that's the worst you could come up with!
~Actually
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 8:54pm.
That's one thing I picked at random out of millions of results for "kill Bush". The fact that she was a Nobel Peace Prize winner struck me as ironic.
She didn't walk it back, she emphasized it. You didn't read that whole thing, did you?
It wasn't the first time Ms. Williams has spoken critically of Mr. Bush. Last July, she made an almost identical comment about wanting to "kill George Bush" to a group of schoolchildren in Brisbane, Australia. She said her point was that it is hard to be nonviolent when there are so many atrocities in the world.
Nice. Nobel Peace Prize winner tells kids she wants to kill someone. Great use of her moral pedastal.
Then the article gives a few quotes from others..
Several women at the conference said they admired Ms. Williams for having the courage to say what she thought – even if unpopular.
"It was an incredible act of bravery to make that statement in Texas," said Lucinda Marshall of Louisville, Ky., who added that the anti-Bush rhetoric appealed to her. "When you have a president that's consistently breaking the law, you do not have a democracy. You have a dictatorship."
"Betty Williams was right on target in a lot of what she said," Ms. Pirtle said. "On Sept. 11, he had the world at his feet. He dropped the ball. He let the neocons around him take advantage of him."
There's lots more, you know good and damn well how George Bush was treated. Do you think anyone's going to make a movie about assassinating Obama? Would it get a review like this?
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Eleanor Ringel Gillespie
"Ethically debatable, but still a fascinating 'What if?' film."
Oh, and Angle never said it was "okay to shoot your elected representatives". How sloppy of you to make such a clumsy smear attempt.
So a quick question-- had you
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 9:49pm.
So a quick question-- had you ever heard of Betty Williams before you found those articles? Is there some reason why you consider her to be particularly representative of the liberal mainstream?
I'm not defending the statements. I just think that I could find random people to say they support Ted Nugent's comments as well. In fact, check out the YouTube comments for plenty of ardent supporters, and plenty of people reacting with horror.
I'll tell you the truth, I thought George Bush was treated pretty unfairly sometimes, until I saw how Obama has been treated. Apparently, this is just the way we treat our presidents now, and I think that's sad.
Angle said that people can resort to 2nd amendment remedies if Congress keeps acting the way it has been acting. What did you think that meant? It sounds to me like she's giving permission. You yourself even said that she was affirming people's right to take up arms against their government if it becomes tyrranical! She made it more than just hypothetical when she used the current behavior of Congress as justification. If they keep doing what they are doing, you can resort to second amendment remedies. That sounds like "go ahead."
Like I said, I asked for some evidence that she didn't mean what it sounded like. No one offered any.
~What Angle said
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 11:22am.
was correct. The 2nd Amendment was put in place to ensure that a tyrannical government, ours or anyone else's, would never subjugate the American people. She didn't say, "it's okay to shoot your elected representative", as you claimed. You twist her meaning to imply she's crazy, and the only way you could take it that way is if you're incredibly historically ignorant.
In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:
In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
You aren't addressing my
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 8:25pm.
You aren't addressing my point that saying that Congress' current actions, if they continued, would be a reason to resort to second amendment remedies takes the statement beyond mere historical musing. It says these things that are happening now can be stopped by second amendment remedies if they don't stop without them. I think that's pretty directly threatening. As to whether or not she's insane, I don't really know.
~Well
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 8:32pm.
That's only logical. If those in government flagrantly violate the Constitution and thumb their metaphorical noses at the electorate, they need to be thrown out. Immediately. That's exactly what the Founders intended.
Thrown out, as in voted out
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 9:03pm.
Thrown out, as in voted out of office, or removed through the use of arms?
~Playing dumb
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:12pm.
If the government is tyrannical, it's obviously too late to try to vote them out. Ever hear of a dude named Ahmadinejad? Do you think he really won that election? How many dictators have ever voluntarily abdicated power?
So then do you agree with
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:24pm.
So then do you agree with Angle that our government has become tyrranical ,and if they don't stop they need to be removed from office through methods other than voting, like guns?
I really don't see how I'm doing anything more than taking your argument, and hers, to the logical conclusion. You've very carefully not said anything like "but obviously I'm not talking about now, or our current elected representatives." Why not?
Oh, and Ted Nugent. You
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 7:13pm.
Oh, and Ted Nugent. You might not consider him mainstream, but he shows up on Fox News, writes in the Wall Street Journal, and many more people have heard of him than Betty Williams. He said this:
"I was in Chicago last week, I said, 'Hey Obama, you might want to suck on one of these, you punk!' Obama, he's a piece of sh*t and I told him to suck on my machine gun! Let's hear it for them. I was in New York and I said, 'Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless b*tch.' And since I'm in California, how about Barbara Boxer? She might want to suck on my machine gun! Hey, Dianne Feinstein, ride one of these, you worthless whore!"
~Link?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 8:54pm.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 9:39pm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy8RIiTyhMI
and here's a link about Hannity defending Nugent. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/60922/ None of the YouTube links work anymore, but there are enough similar articles out there that I believe Hannity refused to condemn the remarks. That's NOT the response I want to see to comments like these.
~I'd never heard of Nugent
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:16pm.
till a reference was made to him on NB in '09. Is he a big deal? Has he won any international awards for peace? Is he invited to speak at children's schools?
My impression has always been
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:11pm.
My impression has always been that he is a minor deal. But a deal.
And no, he hasn't won any international awards for peace, but neither have most big or little deal liberals or conservatives! I don't know if he's asked to speak in Autralian elementary school classrooms, but he is asked to speak on the biggest news network in the most important media market on the planet. Does that count?
~So is Al Sharpton
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 11:31am.
.
The quote I gave you came from a Nobel Peace Prize winner. I'd say she has a little more standing in the international community than an aging rocker of some sort.
If I'd quoted Kanye West or Ashton Kutcher I could see you bringing a musician-type person up in response, but not compared to someone like her.
Look, you said "Just one will
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 6:54pm.
Look, you said "Just one will do." I certainly understand why you want to move the goal posts, but this is pointless.
Why not just say that Nobel peace prize winners shouldn't threaten to kill presidents and neither should rock stars? Stop trying to pretend that conservatives never say anything mean!
~Goalposts
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 8:13pm.
The guy didn't say, "I want to kill Obama" or imply that he should be killed. You can keep equating a rocker being crude at a concert with a Nobel Peace Prize winner making death threats in a formal venue, but that won't do anything other than make you look desperate.
You still haven't responded to Senator Kerry's death threat against Bush.
"Why don't you show me a Republican Senator making jokes about killing Obama."
I'm not so much concerned
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 8:36pm.
I'm not so much concerned with Ted Nugent's statement as I am with Sean Hannity's defense of it. He is a big deal, and he seems to think it's okay for Nugent to talk like that about Obama. Do you remember how furious Hannity was with the Dixie Chicks, for heaven's sake?! That's blatant hypocrisy, and we should stop doing it. That kind of speech is either wrong, or it's right. It isn't only wrong when liberals do it or only wrong when conservatives do it. Stop making excuses.
I think it is very interesting how completely incapable you are of saying "Yeah, we both talk sh!t and we should stop." Why is that so hard? Righteous indignation should not be that important to you.
~No, I don't remember
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:07pm.
because I don't have cable, I've never seen Hannity's show, and didn't know who he was till the fall of '08 when I joined NB. I didn't know who Nugent was till Jer brought him up in a discussion about Perez Hilton last year.
When conservatives march en masse through the streets carrying Kill Obama signs while the media gives them glowing coverage, then, then you can complain.
I love it. First you make
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:42pm.
I love it. First you make the issue about people being important enough to matter-- your Irish activist is more important than my rock star, so conservatives are nicer than liberals. That's completely illogical, but I went with it. Then I bring up Hannity, who is probably one of the most well known conservatives in the US, and it stops being about cultural influence and starts being about whether YOU know who they are.
Maybe you could give me a list of people you've heard of that I can choose from? Otherwise you can obviously play this game forever. I'm not defending people who marched with signs about killing Bush. I'm wondering why you are being morally relativistic about statements from the right. Is eliminationist rhetoric wrong? Or is it only wong if someone else didn't do it first?
Where do we go to ask the
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:49pm.
Where do we go to ask the liberals to condemn all the hate speech against conservatives? You know, the hate f!@# of liberal women?
I'm not sure what you are
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:12pm.
I'm not sure what you are looking for here. I think you can go anywhere and ask for that! And you should. Just remember to ask nicely ;)
~Oh look, a smiley
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 11:45am.
A winky smiley, even. Awwwwwwww
Geez, you're a real Debbie Downer
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:37pm.
Find the nearest drum circle, stat.
/s
~I did
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:55pm.
but they got offended when I jerked them around by their sissy ponytails and took all their chocolate.
I've noticed!
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 7:18pm.
Mamabear! likes to use lots of :)! and exclamation points! to pretend she's not! being offensive ;) or condescending! Here! She's pretending to not know I was countering ! her argument conservatives :) should apologize!
~It's ironic
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 8:19pm.
that someone who constantly ;) vaunts her intellectual credentials! periodically plays dumb :) and expects everyone to! buy it.
Where am I playing dumb?
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 9:01pm.
Where am I playing dumb?
Right now!
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 9:11pm.
Really?
O.k., you're not playing
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 9:25pm.
O.k., you're not playing dumb.
Daym
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:00pm.
I was trying to be nice : o
O.k., you're not playing
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:51pm.
O.k., you're not playing dumb.
You know what I've realized? There is one thing on NB that makes me snarky and condescending-- you calling me snarky and condescending. That's a little ironic, I guess.
You know what I've realized?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 11:28pm.
You know what I've realized? You're disingenous. You've got cause and effect confused.
Nope. You like calling me
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 10:25am.
Nope. You like calling me arrogant, so you will whether I am or not. Expressing my opinions is arrogant, answering people's questions is arrogant, discussing my own faults is arrogant, apologizing is ignored, thinking about my negative reactions is disingenuous. If you make it clear I'm never going to win with you, you remove all incentive to try. Just a tip.
Lip service is all you give.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 6:00pm.
Lip service is all you give. You don't change your arrogant and rightous tone, so I will continue to call you arrogant.
When you repeat the same behavior over and over expecting different results, that's insanity. Just a tip.
I'm not actually expecting
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 6:26pm.
I'm not actually expecting any improvement in attitude from you, so I don't think that counts as insanity any more.
Oooh, mommy doesn't expect
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 8:48pm.
Oooh, mommy doesn't expect any improvement in my attitude! Here comes the kindergarten teacher again. And no, my attitude won't change because your tone never changes.
See, I didn't say anything
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 10:15am.
See, I didn't say anything like that. Apparently, you think that the word "attitude" can only be referenced by some authority figure-- only kindergarten teachers and parents complain about attitude. That is your issue, not mine! So when you complain about my attitude, as you do endlessly using different terms, does that make you arrogant and condescending? I'm sure you don't think so.
Your wrote:
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 10:23am.
I'm not actually expecting any improvement in attitude from you,
So I wrote: Oooh, mommy doesn't expect any improvement in my attitude! And now your saying See, I didn't say anything like that. You are seriously confused. This comment So when you complain about my attitude, as you do endlessly using different terms, does that make you arrogant and condescending?is reminicent of "I know you are but what am I?"
So "mommy" is apparently
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 10:16pm.
So "mommy" is apparently inherently implied by the word "attitude?" Huh, not in my English language!
As for your second point, no, it isn't. It is a question. Why is it inherently condescending and apparently indistinguishable from maternal disapproval for me to mention your attitude, but not inherently condescending and maternal for you to mention mine?
I didn't notice the
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 9:01pm.
I didn't notice the continuation of the thread above, sorry about that. I wasn't ignoring you deliberately. I do sometimes get mixed up carrying on multiple conversations at once. I've responded now.
Exclamation points are actually intended to convey emphasis, not remove offense. So if I say "I can't believe you think that!" then the exclamation point emphasizes my disbelief. It has nothing to do with being offensive. If, however, I say "You're a jerk!" the exclamation point is not intended to remove the sting, it is intended to mean that I really think you're a jerk. Really.
Is that a little more clear?
~No
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 9:43pm.
I think you need to type it again, more slowly.
I always wanted to know
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 9:59pm.
what all of those dohickies meant
Next week we'll cover
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:43pm.
Next week we'll cover commas. ;)
(P.S. That was a joke. I'm not actually going to tell anyone about commas.)
~Down here, mb
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 9:13pm.
The thread is too thin to reply to up there. Here ya go.
Then I bring up Hannity, who is probably one of the most well known conservatives in the US, and it stops being about cultural influence and starts being about whether YOU know who they are.
I'm going to type slowly for you here.
Do you remember how furious Hannity was with the Dixie Chicks, for heaven's sake?! --you
~No, I don't remember
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 9:07pm.
because I don't have cable, I've never seen Hannity's show, and didn't know who he was till the fall of '08 when I joined NB.
You asked me if I remembered something Hannity did because you saw him as hypocritical. I told you I didn't remember his reaction and explained why.
Before I joined NB the only 'prominent' conservative I'd heard of outside of Limbaugh was Ann Coulter. Let me clue you in. I don't watch news shows. I don't have cable. I don't listen to talk radio. I've never read a political book more recent than Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. I haven't read any of Coulter's work, I haven't read Palin's book, I'd never heard of Hannity or O'Reilly till I started reading NB, and I've never seen their shows or read their books. (I presume they have each written a book or two)
All of my personal opinions have been formed by studying history and human nature, so all pop culture/cable media references are lost on me. You probably have more crap in that post that needs to be addressed, but I'm too tired of it right now to scroll up and read it again.
Suffice it to say, if you can't admit that Pres. Bush was openly threatened with violence for years while the media gloated over it, you're even more of a partisan hack than I gave you credit for. You can't find a single damn sign like that in the crowds of millions of people that turned out for TEA parties all across the country. When liberal plants tried to show up with racist crap the crowd drove them out, which shows a hell of a lot more decency than the raving left ever demonstrated.
Oh, and on the Sharron Angle thing. When the government becomes tyrannous all the members of it need an armed escort out of the Capitol building and off the premises. Period.
Question
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 9:25pm.
Bru,
Kicking ass and taking names as usual, I see.
I wonder what hippiebear has to say about the movie made in 2007 about an assassination of Bush? It was referenced repeatedly back then right here on NewsBusters.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You asked me if I remembered
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 10:39am.
You asked me if I remembered something Hannity did because you saw him as hypocritical. I told you I didn't remember his reaction and explained why.
You asked me to provide one example of a prominent conservative making/joking about/defending/etc a death threat against the president. I did so. Your only response to my success was to explain that you don't know those people and they aren't that important. That's fine, but regardless you completely ignore the fact that I met your challenge. That's a cop out. Since you didn't have any other way of dismissing my attmept to meet your challenge, but you also didn't acknowledge that I did what you asked, I made the natural assumption that your statement that you don't know those people WAS your way of dismissing my point. In which case I think you are moving the goal posts.
Suffice it to say, if you can't admit that Pres. Bush was openly threatened with violence for years while the media gloated over it, you're even more of a partisan hack than I gave you credit for.
I absolutely did admit that. Several times I made it clear that I am not defending death threats against president Bush. Here's a quote: "I'll tell you the truth, I thought George Bush was treated pretty unfairly sometimes, until I saw how Obama has been treated. Apparently, this is just the way we treat our presidents now, and I think that's sad." That's me saying neither is okay. Here's another quote: "I'm not defending people who marched with signs about killing Bush." Hmm, how did that one get past you?
I'm not surprised that Unsane is a fan of yours, because you are engaging in his favorite activity: ignoring what I actually say and think if it doesn't fit with your dearly held anger at how disingenuous evil liberals are.
Let me make this absolutely clear: I do not think it is okay for ANYONE to threaten ANY president or other elected representative. I don't know that you've shown any evidence so far of the media "gloating" over it, but I'm happy to admit that they didn't take it seriously or condemn it. Now people are dead due to an assassination attempt on a member of Congress, and we should all be looking hard at how we deal with our anger when politics doesn't go the way we want.
You have still, steadfastly refused to admit that conservatives have any self-examination to do. I am absolutely admitting that liberals do, I just want you to admit that conservatives are not perfect paragons of civility, and you won't do it. You are so invested in your sense of righteous ingidnation that you can't say "Yeah, Ted Nugent shouldn't have done that, and Hannity should have said so." Prove me wrong, give just an inch and I'll leave this thread happy!
Oh, and on the Sharron Angle thing. When the government becomes tyrannous all the members of it need an armed escort out of the Capitol building and off the premises. Period. Here is the important question that I keep asking and you kep dodging: do you think, or think that Sharon Angle thinks, that those conditions that justify armed action against the government have been or will shortly be met? If the answer is yes, that is the difference between making an interesting historical point and telling people that they are justified, or will be soon if things don't change, in taking up arms against the government. I think we can all agree that if Obama installed himself as dictator for life, took our children away to work in salt mines, and then tried to take your guns, the American people should fight. But she didn't just make a hypothetical statement. She's talking about now, our current elected representatives and what they are doing right now. Do you think that it is time for armed rebellion?~
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 11:59am.
1. I looked at the link. Ted Nugent did not say he was going to shoot Obama. He made a crude sexual reference that I find extremely distasteful no matter who it is directed towards. Regardless, telling someone to "Suck it" is not a death threat.
2. You made your admission about the hatred towards Bush impotent by going on to imply that what is directed towards Obama is worse. That is patently false, as pictures of liberal gatherings and TEA party gatherings clearly demonstrate.
3. Self-examination? Go look at pictures of the TEA party and tell me what those people look like. Look at the pictures of the Mall after their events and tell me what it looks like. Conservatives respect this country, it's flag, it's culture, it's history, and it's public spaces. They also respect themselves enough to not act like a-holes. The Left gets away with violent riots while conservatives get bashed for not turning the other cheek when falsely blamed for a murderous shooting spree.
4. You're still spreading this bullsh!t about how "we need to look at how we deal with our anger when politics doesn't go the way we want" when everyone and his half-sister knows that the Tucson shooting didn't have one single damn thing to do with politics.
Stop spreading lies, you disingenuous hateful bigot. !!:)!
5. When the President is openly confronted with flagrant violations of the Constitution by himself and his party (by the Supreme Court, for instance) and he refuses to change anything, then yes, it's time for them all to be removed from office.
What you're trying to do is get me to suggest murdering government officials, which shows how utterly confused you are by the way this republic is supposed to work. It also demonstrates that you have no clue as to what conservatives are about. Running wild shooting people you disagree with is what anarchist leftists do.
Regardless, telling someone
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 7:45pm.
Regardless, telling someone to "Suck it" is not a death threat.
Telling someone to suck it is a sexual innuendo. Telling someone to suck on a machine gun is a threat. Ted Nugent did the latter.
You made your admission about the hatred towards Bush impotent by going on to imply that what is directed towards Obama is worse. That is patently false, as pictures of liberal gatherings and TEA party gatherings clearly demonstrate
No, I equated the two when I said "this is apparently just how we treat our presidents." That doesn't imply that one is worse than the other, it implies that they are the same. While people may have been more public about their death threats against Bush, the fact that Obama has received more actual death threats makes it pretty clear that that is simply an issue of visibility, not level of hatred. Bush got more signs. Obama is apparently getting a whole lot more of other types of threats that don't lend themselves to google searches. The fact that I can find pictures of the 400% increase does not mean it isn't real.
the Tucson shooting didn't have one single damn thing to do with politics.
He shot a politician. So, it had at least one damn thing to do with politics, didn't it?
What you're trying to do is get me to suggest murdering government officials, which shows how utterly confused you are by the way this republic is supposed to work.
Okay, so if you agree with Angle that it is getting to be time to remove our elected officials through the use of guns, but you don't want to shoot them, what exactly do you mean? I'm not trying to get you to suggest anything. I'm trying to get you to actually step up and explain why my pretty logical interpretation of that statement is wrong.
~Really?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 9:10pm.
Sucking on a gun kills you?
You said that you thought the way Bush was treated was unfair, till you saw how Obama was treated. Now you say it's because he gets a proportionately greater quantity of death threats. So, what are you "seeing"? Are you reviewing these death threats? I pointed out that all these threats are not necessarily from conservatives and provided you with a link to back it up.
Loughner also shot a federal judge, a little girl, an old married couple, and pretty much anyone who happened to be standing there. Does that mean kids had anything to do with his motivations? Judges? Married people? Crazy Dude met Giffords in 2007 and his sick mind targeted her. His rantings weren't political (left or right), he was a conspiro-fruitcake.
You wanted to know what Angle meant by her remarks, I explained the Constitutional basis for what she said. Other than that, I can't read her mind. My own opinion of the matter is irrelevant to the discussion of what she meant by it.
If you want to start personal interrogations, I'll press you about all the abortions you've had.
Sucking on a gun kills
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 10:25am.
Sucking on a gun kills you?
Oh give me a break! You are really going to pretend that that wasn't a threat of violence? Now I know there's no point in talking to you. You're shameless. I hope you feel embarassed when you realize what a shill you are being here! I could just as easily, and more logically, argue that "Bush is a disease and death is the cure" is not a threat of violence, it is just expressing hope that Bush dies of natural causes! Another sign, listing how many people Bush "killed" and asking "Lee Harvey, where are you?" Well, that's clearly not a threat! Asking people where they are doesn't kill anyone, right? You're ridiculous.
All I am asking for is that you admit that conservatives also sometimes say stupid and hateful things. You can't do it. That's a pretty amazing level of intentional blindness.
Whether or not Bush was treated "unfairly" in comparison to Obama doesn't really have anything to do with whether the threats came from the left or the right, does it? According to the book the increase was largely attributed to racist groups. But I think given the increase you'd have a hard time arguing that Bush received more hatred from the American people than Obama has, signs or no signs.
Laughner called his action an "assassination." You assassinate political and cultural leaders, not random people. Clearly he intended to go on a rampage in addition to assassinating someone, but I don't think anyone is suggesting at this point that Giffords was a random target who just happened to be at the Safeway he wanted to shoot up. You're really reaching here!
My own opinion of the matter is irrelevant to the discussion of what she meant by it.
Well, your explanation of her words have pretty much confirmed my worst fears about what she meant by them, and you have been completely unable to present any indication that she wasn't calling for people to shoot their Congress people if they don't change their tune. I think that language is disgusting, and I think defending it is equally disgusting. We all have first amendment rights that let us walk right up to the line of real threats of violence as long as we don't cross it. But why? Why use such nasty, horrible rhetoric to stoke people's anger and turn their thoughts in that direction.
Because it sells, that's why.
Question Time about Question Time
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 3:09pm.
hippiebear, if political rhetoric inevitably leads to violence, why aren't their stabbings and riots across the UK following each Question Time?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
When did I say that political
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 4:56pm.
When did I say that political rhetoric inevitably leads to violence? That would be a pretty stupid argument, good thing I'm not making it! That's a nice try at a strawman, though. Want to take another go?
An honest question
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 6:17pm.
Not a strawman. An honest question. If you don't want to answer it, just say so.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Okay, here's my honest
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 6:41pm.
Okay, here's my honest answer: I don't think that political rhetoric inevitably leads to violence. Therefore, I think the premise of your question is a fallacy, and the question becomes meaningless. Ignoring the premise and simply answering the question, I would say that riots and shootings don't follow question time in the UK for the same reason that they don't follow every political speech made in the US: because most people are reasonable and and very slow to resort to violence when given other options to change political realities. And I think we're all very thankful that that is the case!
Freewill
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 7:09pm.
I think that we all need to drop this "fake civility" in Congress. It should be more like Parliament. I'd pay money to see the opposition boo the President in the middle of His State of the Union address, for example.
Would you therefore concede that, just as the words of the President have not made me bring a gun to a knife fight or go and find out "who's ass to kick", that Angle didn't incite anyone to do...anything? Or that Palin never incited anyone to do anything, for that matter?
Freewill is a hard concept for Leftists to accept but it is very much there.
It's just words, and talk is cheap. But hey, if the Left insists on making it an issue, there are more than enough quotes from their side that will serve to shut them up.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Raising the level of civility
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 7:24pm.
Raising the level of civility just a notch isn't a bad idea, but this 'buddying up' idea for the SotU address is taking it too far.
Jer
You look to parliament for an
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 10:27pm.
You look to parliament for an end to fake civility? The place where leaving "honorable" off the front of "gentleman" means "go f--- yourself?" They just have different kinds of fake civility. Trust me, Britain is not a place where people are more open and honest about their feelings in a public arena!
Would you therefore concede that, just as the words of the President have not made me bring a gun to a knife fight or go and find out "who's ass to kick", that Angle didn't incite anyone to do...anything? Or that Palin never incited anyone to do anything, for that matter?
I actually think that Angle's comment was qualitatively different from either Palin or Obama. She wasn't using a euphemism, slang, or metaphor. Obama was using slang. Palin was using a metaphor. I'd love to hear that "2nd amendment remedies" is actually a euphemism for sending angry letters, or voting against people, or tp'ing their houses, for goodness sake. But at least the way Brunette tells it (where did she slink off to, by the way?) Angle is very serious about people using the guns that they have the right to bear as per the 2nd amendment to change the course of the current Congress. Please, please tell me another way to interpret that. I don't like thinking bad things about people, it goes against my lefty nature! :)
(p.s. for people confused by doohickies, that smiley face means that I'm joking. The joke is about myself. I'm not trying to be condescending)
Either way, I've made it very clear at this point that I don't think anyone is responsible for actions but the people who take them. You can't point at any one thing and say "That. That thing there made the crazy person go crazy." But that doesn't mean we can't look for ways to reduce the chances that someone else does the same thing. And unless someone can point to some aspect of hateful, eliminationist rhetoric that is good for us, why NOT stop it?
You put your foot in it
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 11:04pm.
at least the way Brunette tells it (where did she slink off to, by the way?)
As has been discussed here, by you even, we all come in and out of this site. Bru has not "slunk" anywhere, she's been in and out. Would you like her to put an alarm on so whenever you post she can rush to answer it?
I always check, before
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 9:50am.
I always check, before commenting like that, that the person in question has been posting elsewhere on the site, which she was all day yesterday. We all have lives that require our attention, but she has time to start a new conversation with what seems to be an easier target, but not to continue this one. I call that slinking away, and I point it out only because she stooped to make a nasty personal comment before doing so.
~Oh, hello
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:57pm.
I didn't know you were in here talking about me. How nice. What did I miss?
I don't know where you get this "all day" BS, but I don't answer to you or anyone else where I post, when I post, how often I post, or who the hell I talk to.
If I decide to tell you to shove it and I ignore you after that, you're going to just have to live with it.
Now, I'm going to get the quote I came to this thread for. See ya.
Well, I got the "all day" BS
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 8:34pm.
Well, I got the "all day" BS by looking through your track and seeing when you had posted that day. It isn't exactly rocket science. Of course you are free to post wherever you want, but I'm also free to draw conclusions about your ability to stand up to tough arguments based on what you do with yourself here. I wasn't demanding that you come back, I was just commenting on what I think your behavior says about you.
Fox terriers
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 1:50pm.
hippiebear is revealing herself once again to be a spoiled brat. To her, all of humanity is at her beck and call. We are all her little fox terriers. So she thinks.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
No, I just think it is
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 8:22am.
No, I just think it is impolite to spend your time starting another conversation if you don't have time to finish one you are already deeply involved in. If I didn't think that was impolite, I'd comment on many more stories on NB!
Hmmmm...
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 11:07pm.
hippiebear, you haven't seen Question Time, I see. By contrast, Congresspeople constantly run around saying things like "I so respectfully disagree with..."
Differences between political systems aside, can you imagine Question Time in the United States? Could you imagine the President facing a weekly grilling the way British PMs do?
Yes, there is a LOT of fake civility in Congress.
Indeed, I remember the "Go f*** yourself" episode - because people were SO SHOCKED by it. If I had my way, people would be numb to hearing that in Congress.
And the way I see it, that would STILL be civil compared to the days when duels nearly broke out on the Senate floor and Senators drew guns.
Actually, BECAUSE of your Leftist nature, you think the absolute worst of people. By being a Leftist, you tell me that you hold me and the rest of humanity in extreme, total contempt.
The way I interpret Angle's comment is completely different from the way you do. But then, I have a grounding in history that you repeatedly demonstrate you do not have and do not want to have. Brunette has a grounding in history and it shows in her comments.
All rhetoric is GREAT. And if it is TRULY hateful and "eliminationist" - so what? I LIKE knowing where the idiots are. Seems that you favor censorship. I do not.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I don't favor censorship,
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 9:55am.
I don't favor censorship, just self-restraint.
Actually, BECAUSE of your Leftist nature, you think the absolute worst of people. By being a Leftist, you tell me that you hold me and the rest of humanity in extreme, total contempt.
You know I love it when you tell me what I think isn't actually what I think because you know me so much better than I know myself!
(p.s. that exclamation point is not intended to be an insult, nor to remove an insult. I include it only because when reading the sentence in my head, it sounds like an exclamation point belongs there)
The way I interpret Angle's comment is completely different from the way you do.
Right, but you won't say what that is, will you? You guys are weird.
I do, actually think it would be fun to have question time in Congress. However, I think the function would be more putting the President on the spot and making him answer questions. The booing and jeering is entirely incidental and completely unnecessary. After elementary school I think we all stop being moved to honesty by "nyah nyah," don't we? The point is to ask questions that you want the President to answer, and there are other ways to express when you don't like those answers.
Will you please quit your whining?
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 1:47pm.
It's true. To be a Leftist, you must hold a good portion of humanity in extreme, total contempt. You have to put at the conrnerstone of your political beliefs that people are simply too stupid to take care of themselves, and that as a result, the government must be staffed with their "betters", with smart people, smarter than the rest of the public, to baby the idiots.
You may not THINK you do, but trust me, this is your angle. Ponder on that for a long time. Before you come in here again whining about how I am telling you what you believe, step away from your keyboard, walk away, engage in some very serious soul-searching, and try to unravel why I think that. For rest assured, I don't reach that conclusion lightly.
I think the booing and jeering is 100% necessary. I prefer pure, total honesty, and not holding things back, over fake civility and papering things over. Maybe you like it when people are fake. I don't. But then, I confess, I love Question Time.
Other than that, I'm sorry that you are miffed that I (or Bru) am not writing you a 25-30 page paper with countless citations showing you what Mrs. Angle said, and what it meant. Maybe if you PAID me to do so, I would do it.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Nope. I don't think people
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 6:34pm.
Nope. I don't think people are stupid, I think that sometimes people suffer bad luck that no amount of intelligence can overcome. You want me to examine why you might think that? My impression of conservatives like you is that you don't like thinking you don't have complete control of your life. Therefore, as long as you are making it in this world, you attribute your success to hard work/intelligence/other internal characteristics (or sometimes God), and you attribute other people's failure to the same thing. Therefore, you don't have to feel responsible for helping people who are suffering, because they probably deserve it. You can leave compassion to voluntary acts of charity, because people who might slip through the cracks are losers anyway. The other side of that is that the only way you can explain my beliefs is that I must think everyone is inherently a loser in order to want to put things in place to protect them. I don't. I like social safety nets to save people, whether they are losers or not, from really unfortunate circumstances.
As for Angle, you could probably answer my concerns in a couple of sentences. The only reason I can see for either you or Brunette to dodge the question is because you can't come up with an answer that doesn't admit the woman was calling for armed insurrection. If I'm wrong, it should be a simple matter to explain why.
Quit being a busybody
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 7:56pm.
You are right, I don't have complete control of my life. (For instance, right now, as I sit at the keyboard, I can drop dead from any number of causes. Or I can live another 101 years.) But one of the wisest things I have ever picked up from religion, even though I am a non-believer, is the following, it goes something like this:
"God grant me the strength to change the things I can, the courage to accept what I cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference."
Bad luck, you say? The last five years of my life have not been a bowl of cherries. They have sucked, mostly, due to some seriously bad rolls of the dice fate has sent my way. I had no control over them either. But I have perservered for the most part. I continue to. And through it all, I have NEVER, NOT ONCE, asked for people to feel sorry for me or for people to baby me. Nor will I. And nor should I think anyone else should. Life's a bitch and then you die. It's that simple. (Or, as BD likes to say, "Life is tough, wear a cup.") I like safety nets too: safety nets people construct FOR THEMSELVES. You want a safety net? MAKE YOUR OWN. Quit trying to use the government to steal from ME to assauge YOUR guilt.
There are elaborate safety nets I have been constructing for the past 12-15 years from my own labor. I'll be damned if someone like you is going to wreck it for me because you think my money is really yours, or society's. The way I see it, i am doing society a favor by not being a burden on others. Let me pay my taxes for Constitutional items. Beyond that, I give to charity even during the hard times. I have given my time to causes elsewhere. Find your own way to contribute and LEAVE ME THE F*** ALONE.
Mrs. Angle simply was not calling for armed insurrection. Your problem is that you will never accept that under any circumstances, not even if Mrs. Angle tells you that to your face personally.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yes, you are awesome and
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 10:48pm.
Yes, you are awesome and amazing and the rest of us aren't. Fine, can we stay on topic?
I would be happy to believe that Angle wasn't calling for armed insurrection. But no one seems to be capable of giving me a reason to believe that. I keep asking about the part that bothers me-- the part where she refers to this current administration and Congress as something that can be stopped by 2nd amandment remedies, i.e. guns-- and no one has offered an alternate interpretation. Brunette kept saying that she was just talking about history, but that clearly isn't true, because she is talking about now and the near future.
You could just say that the statement was poorly worded and only accidentally implied it was almost time to start shooting Congresspeople, and I would totally buy that. Everyone makes statements on ocassion that don't sound the way we intended them. But that would require you to admit that a conservative could do something wrong, which Brunette, at least, seems completely incapable of doing.
hippiebear...
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 11:26pm.
On the contrary, I am awesome and amazing and unlike you - and this is the key - I think everyone is. I'm not special. I don't need to be babied, and I don't think anyone else needs to be babied either.
YOU want a "social safety net" because YOU think people are simply too stupid to weave their own. So people need their "betters" - the smart people in Washington you have such deep faith in - to coddle, spoil, pamper, nanny and baby them. Because you see, in your world, people are just a bunch of idiots. That's your world and the world of the Left.
Your whine of "Fine, can we stay on topic?" is nothing more than you fearful of admitting that you got your ass thoroughly kicked. It's a concession. I'll take it.
It doesn't matter what I say, what Brunette says, what freaking Sharron Angle says (if she were to directly say it to you). You have your interpretation of what Angle said, and absolutely NOTHING will convince you of otherwise. It is as if your purpose on NB is to convince everyone here how obtuse, redundant, and unwilling in any way to critically think you are.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
2nd ammendment solutions
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 11:40pm.
If Angle wanted armed insurrection she would simply have said so. Have you seen her leading any armed insurrections? Certainly the left has advocated that enough.
As far as your pontificating on government charity being superior to private charity, your argument calls for government to act as morality police. It's a moral imperative according to your argument. We have a government that condones and finances the murder of unborn children. They are trying to force medical personnel and students to participate in this even if they find it morally and ethically objectionable. From this viewpoint the government has no standing to enforce morality for the common good.
The hippiebear psychosis
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 9:53pm.
hippiebear supports government babying over private charity for several reasons. One of them is very simple: hippiebear sees government as a very big United Way. And she sees her paying taxes as giving to charity.
Part of this is, I suspect, is due to her being a self-absorbed, spoiled brat who refuses to get off her ass and do anything for anybody, especially herself. She happily proclaimed on one thread some months back that her parents were wonderful because they never once hit her for any reason. I say that she is proof the the adage "spare the rod and spoil the child". Her parents did her a disservice by not thrashing her good for some infraction of the rules.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Part of this is, I suspect,
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 11:03pm.
Part of this is, I suspect, is due to her being a self-absorbed, spoiled brat who refuses to get off her ass and do anything for anybody, especially herself.
That's odd-- because I thought I worked hard, took care of myself, never took a handout from any government, and donated at least some of the time and money I have left at the end of that to charity. I'm no Unsane, mind you, but I thought I was doing okay. Huh, I must have myself confused with someone elseYes, but...
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 7:09pm.
And yes, this is a stupid argument, yet for some reason Leftists are making it en masse.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I HAVE EXPLAINED WHY THAT
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 6:25pm.
I HAVE EXPLAINED WHY THAT MATTERS. ARE YOU F*****G STUPID OR JUST SOFT IN THE HEAD?
AND IF YOU REMOTELY GIVE A CRAP ABOUT MILITARY READINESS AND EFFECTIVENESS, WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN REGARDS TO EFFORTS TO ACQUIRE THE KC-67 or KC-45 AS A REPLACEMENT FOR KC-135s? DO YOU SHARE MY OUTRAGE AT YOUR GOD CANCELING THE ACQUISITION OF F-22s AT THE LEVEL THE USAF CONSIDERS ACCEPTABLE???
You have explained very clearly why the US and Israel are different. To summarize: you have said essentially that Israel has conscripted service, so everyone has to participate in the military. You have also said that Israel is a small country surrounded by enemies, and that their precarious situation means that they are "forced to dispense with some things." Those are all true.
What you haven't done is explained why that makes a difference. For instance, how can a draft mean that they have to let gays serve, if a draft didn't always mean that they had to let gays serve? Also, they could have said that gays could serve openly for their conscripted service, 3 years, but not become professional members of the military. They didn't do that. If their situation is so precarious, why would they let gays serve openly if there was any chance that would harm their ability to defend themselves? Since they have let gays serve openly, do you have any evidence that the change has harmed their ability to defend themselves? If traditional Judaism does frown on homosexuality, and yet gays are serving successfully, what does that say for the ability for gays to serve openly in our military despite traditional Christian views that frown on homosexuality?
You haven't made any attempt to address these issues at all, or to explain why your very simplistic answer is in fact an answer. Adding bold to your all caps doesn't make your argument any more substantive, and neither does swearing at me!
I have no idea what KC-67s and 45s are. I bet most Americans don't either. I'll look it up, since you don't seem to be in a mood to provide information.
Seriously?
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 8:01pm.
How about: Anyone wishing to sidestep conscription would just claim to be gay? They need warm bodies, which is why service is mandatory in the first place. This shouldn't be a concept that's over your head.
So then why did they
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 10:58pm.
So then why did they discharge them for forty years before making the change? If anything, they need fewer warm bodies now than they used to, since the number of 18 year olds is a growing proportion of the population, and relations with some of their neighbors are calming down. Also, a discharge from the military used to carry huge consequences in Israel-- you couldn't find a job, get a loan, rent a house-- you carried that stigma with you for the rest of your life. Not something that used to be common.
It is apparently more common today for young people to seek Profile 21 exemptions by pretending to be crazy.
Here's another interesting thing I found reading about the Israeli military-- apparently there is one restriction still place on gay service members-- they can't hold security-sensitive positions if they are IN the closet. Not out, in. Which makes complete sense! I'd never thought of it that way before, but DADT potentially put people in vulnerable positions with huge career and family destroying secrets hanging over their heads. That's just stupid. Openly gay service members are less of a security risk than closeted gay service members, because they don't have that potential for blackmail.
Those Israelis are pretty darn clever!
The Obsessive Devotion
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 9:56am.
Why do you have such a deep, overwhelming obsessive devotion to homosexuals? Why is it that the only thing you remotely care about in this world are the group rights of homosexuals? Why do you so desperately need homosexuals to have more rights and privileges than anyone else in the population?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
This just happens to be the
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 11:04pm.
This just happens to be the social issue that comes up most often on NewsBusters that I feel very strongly about. It seems like it has been coming up here more often in the last year or so, which is interesting.
Try The Golden Rule
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 12:34am.
You don't feel "very strongly" about it. It's a freaking obsession of yours.
Me: I just apply The Golden Rule and move on with my life. Simple. Done.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Homosexuality is coming up
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 7:27pm.
Homosexuality is coming up more often because of the current administration. They have promoted DADT, as well as the safe school czar who believes in educating children about homosexuality, and the promotion of gay marraige. We are not being told to live and let live, we are being told we must promote homosexuality even if it violates our religious beleifs.
That's fine, but that's also
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 7:46am.
That's fine, but that's also why I'm talking about it a lot.
I'm trying to make sense of your response
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 10:42pm.
I don't know when Israel began accepting open gays into the service, but I would assume it was when service became conscripted. If, at some point since 1947, conscription was determined to be the law, then I would assume they discharged gays prior because their service was deemed less than desirable.
And if you're trying to get out of the service, you might want to do something the service doesn't allow- being gay apparently isn't it so claiming to be crazy might be a better approach.
I can't find a date on this article, but it purports what I've read other places and understood to be true about homosexuals serving in the Israeli Army. Additionally, many other countries that allow gays to serve also discourage it through various means; a fact that is often ommitted by our media.
Regardless of all of this, I'm not going to re-debate the merits of homosexuals serving in the the US Military. I believe it to be a grave mistake. Fortunately for your side, Obama has already ordered the coverup; a significant reduction in forces will allow those who now wish to terminate their service due to repeal will be able to do so under the cover of planned force reduction. Sly move, but equally obvious to those of us with internal knowledge of military workings.
Well, if you read your own
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 11:19pm.
Well, if you read your own article carefully, it gives some things away.
It says that women have been drafted as early as 1947, which means that military service has been mandatory since at least the 1940s. Israel started accepting gays in the military with restrictions in 1983, at which time they were denied from holding upper level positions. Ten yearts later, in 1993, an officer testified to the Knesset about the discrimination routinely visited on gay soldiers, and because of the controversy new rules were drafted up that prohibit discrimination in promotions and removed all restriction to service by gay people, with the closet exception I mentioned above.
Your article cites as the size of the Israeli Defense Force its size "at the end of 1991." I would guess, then, that your article is from 1992, which would fit very neatly into the timeline as I understand it. Otherwise they would use a more recent figure.
So there were times when service was mandatory, and gays were discharged. Why is almost certainly the same reason they were discriminated against in many countries and many walks of life for many years. But that does put to bed Unsane's argument that Israel is FORCED to allow gays to serve openly because of their conscription. That is clearly not the case. And there were times when gays in the military suffered discrimination, but that doesn't seem to be the case any more.
Here's a study from 2004 attempting and failing to find any evidence that inclusion of openly gay soldiers damaged Israel's military: http://www.filmforum.org/films/yossi/israelstudyafs.pdf
Nasty fact
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 12:39am.
Here's a nasty fact you refuse to acknowledge:
Israel is surrounded. Israel is tiny in population and size compared to the enemies who want to push Israel into the Med. THEREFORE, they are FORCED to do all sorts of things other militaries wouldn't do.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
They are FORCED to do those
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 8:28am.
They are FORCED to do those things because it is so important that their military is effective, right? So if, as you believe, letting gays serve openly is harmful to military effectiveness, then they would by your argument be FORCED NOT to let them serve openly. If they did it, then it is because it DOESN'T hurt their military.
America isn't interested in their experience because of why they made the change in the first place-- we want to know what effect it had so that we can consider what effect it will have if we do the same, right?
This is why I'm saying you are making my argument for me. If they are forced to forego lots of things that other countries take for granted in order to survive, then letting gays serve openly must be a part of that. While I think survival is a really hard reason to have to forego your prejudices, they appear to have done so and there is no evidence that they suffered any ill effects from it.
Question(s) mamabear?
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 7:31pm.
If you had to name the one country on this planet with the most powerful military, which would it be?
[edit] And what is it about that country that made you select it?
[edit 2] Another one: What is your favorite automobile and why?
I'm not sure why you are
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 8:43pm.
I'm not sure why you are asking this, but okay:
1) The US
2) Well, I don't know that I know enough about military matters to know why we are so effective, but I think we've proven ourselves to be. My uneducated impression is that while China probably has more manpower, they lack our reach and flexibility. But that might just be because I know more about what our military has accomplished than theirs, so maybe my perspective is skewed.
3) That's a toss up. I like dependable cars. I have driven ancient Volvos all my life, because those things used to be built like tanks. But now that I live in a snowy place I wouldn't trade my Subaru Outback for anything! That car hasn't let me down yet, no matter how nasty the conditions are.
Maybe you asked this just to get me to make a stupid answer, which I probably just did! If not I hope you'll explain why those questions are important.
mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 9:34pm.
And I'm not trying to embarrass you with "gotcha" questions, but there is a point behind the vagueness.
The US certainly is the most powerful military in the world. This has been achieved through steadfast training of ever-evolving, state-of-the-art strategies and technology, and of course, money. It is also the product of an all-volunteer force; this should never be overlooked.
As the most powerful military in the world, it should be fair to say that while we always strive for improvements, our military prowess is in fact, the envy of the world. And as of this moment, the most powerful and envied military in the world does not allow open homosexuals to serve. It would not be prudent for the US military to look to other countries for examples of how to run a military.
Similarly with a vehicle. You like the Subaru because it is reliable and accomplishes what you need during the most critical, as well as dangerous conditions. However, the 2010 Jeep Wrangler is certainly another vehicle that has the potential to be quite comfortable in the snow AND it comes with a cool new MP3 player which your Outback probably lacks. (Maybe it doesn't, -I don't know- this is just an example...) Of course, this doesn't make the vehicle run any better, and, according to Edmunds the Jeep has a "[g]utless and thirsty engine, noisy cabin, long braking distances, security issues with zippered windows, no power mirrors, hard plastic interior, poor crash ratings without side airbags."
So, my point is that even though openly serving gays may be the trendy new thing or otherwise tolerated in other countries with lesser armed forces, we shouldn't be looking to them to tell us how to improve upon the best military on the planet. Just as you wouldn't look to Jeep and ignore it's poor safety ratings, engine power, braking, etc, to replace your Outback just because you can get an MP3 player in the Wrangler.
I would absolutely agree that
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 7:54am.
I would absolutely agree that we should hold our own military in higher regard than others, and that we shouldn't follow other ideas willy nilly.
But since you brought up cars, think about technology as an example. If another country came up with a piece of military hardware that improved their effectiveness, even a little bit, would we say "Sorry, that's not the way we do things in the US" and ignore it? Treading water doesn't really seem like the way to STAY the world's most effective military.
Now I'm not saying that openly serving homosexuals will make anyone's army more effective because of that nature. But widening the pool of qualified applicants that you draw from, and no longer discharging competent soldiers for reasons unrelated to the quality of their service, should make us just a little more effective. The worry is that complications involved in having gay service members open about their sexuality might outweigh those benefits, and THAT is where we can look to other countries that have made the change to see if it is likely to be a problem.
I haven't seen any evidence presented here or in any of the reading I've done on this (which is necessarily minimal, this not being my job!) that indicates that countries that have allowed gays into the military openly have had significant problems. So to me, that's an argument in favor of the switch.
mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 12:16pm.
Qualified is the applicable word there. Drug users are also potential applicants but not necessarily qualified ones. And again, the 'discharge competent soldiers' argument has been rendered moot. See the link I supplied in the DADT forum. It just wasn't happening by any meaningful measure and all the data supports that fact.
But you're still staying "well, the Smart Car didn't have any problem with the lighter, 8" diameter front disc brakes, we should put them on our 5th wheel F350." You can dip an apple in caramel and have a nice treat, but dipping oranges might not be such a good idea... (Variation of the apples and oranges metaphor. Like it? :-) )
The fact is, allowing gays to serve openly in the US military is an experiment with an unknown result. As someone with a scientific background, you surely must admit that no credible scientist would consider the little known results regarding readiness and cohesion within the ranks of foreign armed forces, enough to argue a statistical liklihood for ours. It doesn't even reach the level of hypothesis; especially considering the vast amount of opposition within the ranks of our own services.
The difference in positions is that those for repeal are less concerned about a possible negative effect than advancing a political agenda. The other side acknowledges that gays currently serve and aren't willing to take the chance that repeal could have a negative effect on readiness and unit cohesion. This is, and has never been about military effectiveness for repeal advocates.
The coming battle is women in combat. Further proof that the liberal agenda behind DADT repeal was simply that; liberal politics.
Qualified is the applicable
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 7:06pm.
Qualified is the applicable word there.
Yes, which is why I used it. You certainly haven't supplied any evidence that gay people are less qualified to serve.
'discharge competent soldiers' argument has been rendered moot. See the link I supplied in the DADT forum. It just wasn't happening by any meaningful measure and all the data supports that fact.
No. You refused to believe that it was happening. Not because you produced any evidence disproving the idea, but just because you couldn't imagine that people were discharged only because they were gay. That's not evidence, that's just instinct and personal impression. I thought I read every link you put up there, and I don't remember one that proved that no significant numbers of people were discharged under DADT. Is that your contention? That it doesn't happen often, or that it doesn't happen to qualified people?
I do like the apples and oranges analogy :) (p.s. for people concerned about such things-- that smiley is intended to convey the fact that I am smiling while I type this, in a completely sincere way. I am not being sarcastic, nor trying to be insulting)
As someone with a scientific background, you surely must admit that no credible scientist would consider the little known results regarding readiness and cohesion within the ranks of foreign armed forces, enough to argue a statistical liklihood for ours.
Whoa there. Science uses models to predict what will happen in systems all the time. The fact is that there is no way to test a change without making it-- we can't replicate our army 10 times, let gays serve openly in five of those militaries, and then compare our experimental and control groups! The only things we have to go on is data and logical extrapolations and predictions based on that data. The experiences of other armies is one form of data. The survey is another. You add all of those together and you decide whether the change is likely to succeed.
It doesn't even reach the level of hypothesis; especially considering the vast amount of opposition within the ranks of our own services.
Okay, I know we got into some heated debate about what the numbers from the survey meant, but in no reasonable interpretation that we have discussed could you call the negative numbers "vast opposition!" At best there was a significant majority of people thinking that the change would be beneficial or make no difference at all. At worst there was a narrow majority disagreeing. But on no level that I've read or heard about could you call that oposition "vast."
I'm not sure why wanting women to serve in combat means that we weren't earnest about DADT. We aren't allowed to want two things?
Well, you obviously missed
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 7:45pm.
Well, you obviously missed the Congressional Research Service's Homosexuals and the U.S. Military: Current Issues dated July 22, 2009.
Specifically: The total number of annual homosexual discharges under DADT reached it's peak in 2001 at 1,227 - a grand total of 0.089% of the total active force. In 2008 that number was 634 or 0.045% of the total active force. By any measure, this is not a significant number of discharges which clearly dispels the "witch hunt" analogy that was so often argued prior to repeal.
Further: "Critics contend that the activists are trying to have it both ways when “analyzing” data. From the data, it can be seen that homosexuals who are discharged represent an extremely small percentage of the force. For instance, if it is assumed that homosexuals make up only 1.6% of the total active force of approximately 1.4 million, 25 there would be an estimated 22,400 homosexuals in uniform. In 2003, 653 or 2.9% of the estimated homosexuals in uniform were discharged for homosexual conduct."
Additionally: "With over a decade (1993-2008) of experience under the most recent changes instituted during the Clinton Administration, other explanations as to why individuals may announce their homosexuality have come forward. Most notable is the observation that the vast majority of those discharged for homosexuality are discharged because they made voluntary statements identifying themselves as homosexual, bisexual or having such an “orientation.” Some have speculated recently that these statements are made by service members so as to enable them to terminate their military obligations before their term of service is completed regardless of their sexual “orientation.”22"
The footnote:
This evidence backs up my claim that discharges have beenthe number and frequency of dishcarges under DADT were, in fact, not a occurring in any meaningful measure.
The competancy issue revolves around the political nature of today's gay agenda. How many vehicles do you see with bumper stickers extoling the drivers heterosexuality? Yet there is a whole segment of the bumper sticker industry devoted to rainbows. This is but one example of the "look at me" mindset that permeates -at least- the visible gay community. And that mindset is the exact opposite required for a competant service member. You can disagree with my assertion, but clearly a significant number of current service members agree with me.
And we can argue the verocity of the Pentagon's survey that required every member -including family members- to attach their name. You can also deny the oversampling of non-deployed units, non-combat units, and the "pre-survey education seminars" at locations that returned the highest percentages of competed surveys. And you can deny the language of the questions within the survey that insinuated repeal was inevitable rather than under consideration. But you'd wrong. The survey retrieved the results it had hoped in every area accept combat veterans.The service members who are fighting and dying overwhelmingly opposed repeal.
I disagree that the experience of other armies is a viable measure as I've detailed above. You might as well say that open homosexuals work and play well in the field of nursing, so lets add them to the rolls of the military. Additionally, you don't experiment with the armed forces while fighting two wars and you don't force it through a lame duck session after taking heavy losses. If this was such a nobel issue; a social priority; a civil right- Clinton would not have settled for DADT and Obama would have "improved" our military on day one of his administration.
I have no reason to dispute
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 11:02am.
I have no reason to dispute those numbers. The total number of discharges that I've heard thrown around is 14,000, which would fit with those yearly figures depending on how far back you go. I recognize that that isn't a large percentage of our armed forces, but it is kind of a lot of people!
The argument is not that this will revolutionize our armed service by providing an inpouring of people or stopping a huge exodus! The point is why discharge otherwise qualified people-- while that might hurt us in an incrementally tiny amount, it is still a hurt. I would also argue that whomever decided that "voluntary" statements must reflect some will of the person to out themselves is probably someone who doesn't participate in social media. There are countless personally verifiable stories out there of people accidentally making "voluntary" statements. Meaning, "I said something to someone that I thought wouldn't get back to my superiors and it did." The report you linked did not study why or under what circumstances those discharges happen. The report is on judicial decisions and policies, and everything you are quoting here is part of the background introduction. When they say "Some have speculated recently..." that is the same level of relevance as "Homosexual activists have claimed..."
You took the witchhunt term from the report, but I would actually say that the exact opposite argument was made for repeal-- no one was saying, at least this time around, that military commanders were seeking out gay people to discharge. Rather, the interviews I heard with those military commanders said the exact opposite-- they very much did NOT want to discharge the people that they had to because of statements that they couldn't ignore. To my mind, that is a much stronger argument for repeal, and that's the one that has been made.
Once again, your bias against gay people shows up in the "all gay people care about is getting attention" crap. I really find this assumption deeply insulting. I would argue that people who join the military differ from the general population, both straight soldiers and gay soldiers. Knowing that straight soldiers that join are willing to sacrifice aspects of their personal lives that others enjoy, that their personalities are probably different on average than people who aren't interested in the military-- less self-serving, for instance--, I think it is telling that you won't acknowledge the possibility that gay people who join the military might be very different people from gay activists.
And incidentally, if you recognize that 95% of people with bumper stickers that makes jokes or reference to sex are, in fact, heterosexuals celebrating their heterosexuality, then I think there is probably a lot more blatant heterosexuality on our roads than blatant homosexuality!
We addressed the combat issue before-- the statistics in the study corrected for that bias. The language simply said, "what do you think would happen if this gets repealed"-- I don't see how that makes people assume it will. The if is the important word there! It didn't ask "when DADT gets repealed..." If it did you would have a valid argument.
The report you're citing also seems to think that we can learn things from other countries' experience with gays in the military, as long as we keep in mind important differences. I think that is perfectly reasonable. And I actually agree that now isn't the best time to make this change. If I had any confidence that a republican administration would even consider moving forward on this issue, I'd want Obama to hold off and wait. But we all know that if this doesn't happen now, it is very unlikely to happen any time in the near future.
Shut up dead nwahs.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 12:30pm.
Go write your 16 page screeds somewhere else. No one cares to spend 45 minutes reading your mini-books full of lies.
mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 7:10pm.
Lengthy reply below.
bk
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 7:20pm.
I read your reply to mamabear. I'm so impressed by your service. Thank you.
Aw shucks Rad. Thanks so
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 7:24pm.
Aw shucks Rad. Thanks so much. :-)
But sadly it is...
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 10:06am.
It is! It most definitely is over hippiebear's head. Remember: the ONLY thing she cares about is ensuring that homosexuals have more rights and privileges than anyone else - their group rights trump ALL.
I have explained the circumstances surrounding Israel's policies and what does she do? Whine, over and over again, that I haven't addressed the issues or explained it to her.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Continue to expose yourself
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 10:03am.
I have repeatedly addressed the issues. You simply refuse to read them. That only shows how obtuse you are, and also shows your lack of critical thinking.
You desperately need to have your teaching certification revoked, and you need to be prohibited from looking at a school again, much less entering a classroom.
You have no idea what KC-67s and KC-45s are because you simply don't give a crap about the military. You definitely do not care in the slightest about their effectiveness and readiness. If you did, you would know about that issue COLD (among others). Considering your views on the military, I would wager you are pissed that the DoD's budget isn't $0.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Relations with their neighbors calming down?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 11:48pm.
Have you heard about Iran trying to get nukes? Have you heard about this http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4013827,00.html? Might want to check facts before posting.
Yeah. Calm, like when the eye of the hurricane passes over.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 10:11am.
Unbelievable.
Sorry, I keep getting to the
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 8:30am.
Sorry, I keep getting to the bottom of the page right as I run out of time and have to go to work. I promise I'll address this soon.
So, the dicussion has been
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 8:51pm.
So, the dicussion has been about the history of the IDF, so I only mean "calming down" in comparison to the 1970's. Israel has formal peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and trades with Syria and Saudi Arabia (in theory). It certainly isn't great, and there have been some significant setbacks in the last few years. But it isn't 1973.
Upgrade your analytical abilities please
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 12:45am.
There may be formal peace treaties, but the people surrounding Israel do not like Israel. Reference, for instance, the #1 hit song in the Arab world from about a decade ago. Its title? "Akrah Israel", or "I Hate Israel". And its lyrics are as despicable as the song title suggests. There are still countries that will refuse entry to you if you have a Israeli visa in your passport.
I would be very interested in seeing how Syria and Israel does ANY trading overland. Probably through third parties. Because they don't do ANY through their land border, that I can assure you. And some of the methods the Israelis engage in to defend their side of the border in the Golan Heights would make you vomit, and might even make you hate the IDF. (But sad to say, I can't blame the IDF, not one bit. If I were Israel, I wouldn't give up the Golan.)
Is it 1973? No. But it can go back to that quite quickly, and faster than you might think. I could see that happening, if, say, the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt in the wake of Hosni Mubarak's death, for example. (Or perhaps they could lead a coup against him; he is quite old and ailing. History tells me to expect the unexpected and to never assume things are static and unchanging.)
Whether you want to admit it or not, Israel today is still very much like West Berlin, 1949-1989: an island of sanity in a sea of insanity. And it very much leads a tenuous existence. The IDF trains its soldiers knowing that it may yet fight again, as soon as tomorrow.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I know. I certainly didn't
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 7:58am.
I know. I certainly didn't mean to imply that Israel is free and clear or that things are going well. I apologize if that wasn't clear. I meant simply that they are in a better position than they were in 1973. I know it could go back, and I'm certainly not surprised that they still have conscripted service. I just think the pressure on that service must be a little lighter now than it was 40 years ago.
BECAUSE
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 9:52pm.
BECAUSE of 1973, the pressure on the IDF is constant. They nearly blew it that year. And things can change drastically in the Middle East without warning.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I'll say it.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 10:54am.
Dead Zippers is gone. Looks like we are left with hippiebear's ME ME ME Snitstorms.
Yet another troll that can't fill out the subject line, puts 2 spaces between sentences, loves it homosexuals and killing the unborn, 'and gets uberhostile when called on it's lies.
Wazzamatter Dead Zippers little broodmate? Torqued because your little brother bit the dust?
The Vet
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 3:40pm.
Don't forget hippiebears cute use of exclamation points everywhere! and cute smiley faces :) as she condones the murder of the unborn and the theft of private citizens to give to others. Sheesh.
mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 7:09pm.
First- read this editorial from the Washington Times. I know it's opinion, but there are facts within that backup the idea that inevitable repeal was implied to the troops. Besides, Obama campaigned on repeal as part of his platform; the idea didn't just materialize out of thin air, the troops knew what was up.
Second- I haven't seen any evidence that the results of the survey were weighted. In fact, responses from combat units -especially those in theater- were relatively low. From active duty units, the response was Army 19%, USMC 29%, USN 28%, USAF 39% and USCG 54%. Furthermore, of the 400,000 survey sample, half were active duty and half reserve. Clearly the reserves would be less effected by the policy shift so it seems if it was weighted at all, it was in that direction. Even more evidence provided by the Times showed that 63% of respondents lived either off-base or in civilian housing. Weighted toward combat troops? I think not.
Third- I fully acknowledge that most of the homosexuals who serve do so within the confines of the military lifestyle. In fact, I never advocated that DADT be repealed and the policy return to the pre-DADT position. What repeal did was open the service to those who likely won't operate within the good standards and discipline and will be protected from discharge; unlike a one-time pot user, for example. Or a heterosexual who commits adultery. Or a heterosexual who writes rubber checks. Or has a DUI. Or a domestic. All of these offenses can result in discharge yet a (excuse the term- I'm only trying to emphasize the point) flaming homosexual who offends or otherwise puts off the balance of his or her unit will be shown extra care and given extra leeway so as not to invoke a PC backlash. Deny this if you want, but that is guaranteed to occur.
You keep talking about these "good" homosexual soldiers that have been discharged and how a discharge weakens the service. You couldn't be more wrong. Straight or gay, anyone discharged under other than honorable conditions is a benefit to the service. If a gay soldier who did his job to the minimum standard -or even to an exceptional level- caused a portion of his unit to operate less efficiently; or if it resulted in two average or exceptional soldiers to seek separation, than which is better for the service? If you think two homophobes willing to die for our country is better let go than one the one gay who helped solidify that decision, then you're clearly placing the worth of homosexuals above heterosexuals. Personally, I don't have a problem with gays serving so long as they serve the same way as everyone else; no special protections, no diminished standards.
Finally, you seem to think that soldiers live just like civilians, and that gays are somehow forced to live some secret life or give up a part of their personal life while wearing the uniform. In November 1986, I got off the bus on Parris Island. I spent 13 weeks in recruit training, graduated a PFC and had three weeks of leave. During that time I worked with the local recruiter going around to the local high schools wearing my uniform and talking to students about my time on the island. After that, I got on a plane and headed to Ft. Sill, OK for 9 weeks. During that time, my girlfriend flew out from MD to visit for the weekend. On that Saturday, I proposed to her. That was the middle of March, 1987. She flew home the next day and we were engaged. In May, 1987, I graduated Artillery School a LCpl and got on a plane to California. I checked into my unit at Camp Pendleton and within two weeks I was on a ship for a week conducting a pre-deployment exercise. Between May and June 1987, I was in the field at least 50% of the time in workups, and preparing for inspections the rest of the time. In June, I boarded a ship and left for Southeast Asia. I was deployed on the USS Germantown until mid December 1987. I got leave on the 14th of January, 1988, flew home and was married on the 16th. (For the entire ten-month engagement, I saw her 4 days and I was out of the country for more than half of the time. While on ship I may have spoken with her by phone on 3 or 4 occasions while I was in the Phillipines.) On the 17th, we loaded the car and drove back to California, arriving on the 21st. On the 25th, I reported off of leave. I spent the first two weeks in February in the field and my new wife had to find her way around new environs and find a job. This was her first time living anywhere other than with her parents and her first time in California. During the period January 1988 to June 1989, I was in garrison, but spent about 30% of that time in the field including three month-long trips to the desert (29 Palms) and another week-long workup on ship. Then in June 1989, we left for another 6-month at-sea deployment. And this was all during peacetime.
My point here is that the above schedule emphasizes a well known USMC axiom: "If the Corps wanted you to have a wife, they'd have issued you one." In other words, your personal life is entirely secondary, especially in the Marine Corps. Gays aren't giving up anything that straights aren't. It's a tough life; especially for families. You can be assured that more "outings" had to do with that rather than some slip up on Facebook or MySpace. A little hint: lots of straight guys do things to try and get discharged as well. Sometimes the service is just too taxing.
There are no facts in there
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 10:48pm.
There are no facts in there that back up the claim that the survey led soldiers to assume that DADT would be repealed. I read the survey. Every statement the respondents are asked to rate began with the word "if." It is very clear that the survey is intended to assess what people's feelings and attitudes would be IF DADT were repealed. I have enough respect for our troops to think that they can probably understand the meaning of those statements.
The information exchanges were one of the data gathering methods. There were a source of information contained in the final report. If you read it, the authors were looking for more detailed information than they could get through a survey, so they conducted interviews with smaller numbers of troops and allowed the troops to ask questions. This gives you better, if less quantifiable, data, but you can't sit down and talk with every member of the armed services, so you use the survey to capture breadth.
One of the things they learned from those exchanges was how much misperception there was about what "open" service means. You should read that section of the report, it begins on page 121, because it pretty much exactly describes the stereotypes that you regurgitate when you imagine what openly gay service members would be like. A couple of interesting things from that-- 69% of respondents in the survey think that they have served with someone gay at some point in their careers. People who have served with someone have hugely more positive perceptions of the results of repeal than those who don't. Why? Because they know a real person by whom they make predictions about gays as a whole, instead of relying on stereotypes. Even among people who have had some experiences with gays in the military, their description of how that person affected moral and effectiveness is much better than their prediction of how they think others will if DADT is repealed. That seems indicative of the same worry that you have-- that somehow open service will cause good soldiers to start behaving badly. Fortunately, the study addressed that as well, because they also serveyed current gay service members. Obviously they have much smaller sample of those, since it is risky for people to participate, but they found no evidence that gay people currently serving would change their behavior, especially not in the short term. Here's a quote they heard: “I think a lot of people think there is going to be this big ‘outing’ and people flaunting their gayness, but they forget that we’re in the military. That stuff isn’t supposed to be done during duty hours regardless if you’re gay/straight.”
Straight or gay, anyone discharged under other than honorable conditions is a benefit to the service. If a gay soldier who did his job to the minimum standard -or even to an exceptional level- caused a portion of his unit to operate less efficiently; or if it resulted in two average or exceptional soldiers to seek separation, than which is better for the service?
First of all, DADT discharges are honorable. Second, among people who thought or knew that they had served with someone gay, 92% said that the unit affected had neutral, good, or very good ability to work together. There is no evidence that gay service members are causing bad morale, or that they would if they got to stop lying.
As for the weighting, it is explained at the bottom of page 63. Because you can't guarantee representative response in an online survey, you weight the results to accurately reflect the make up of the force. So if more non-combat troops responded than is proportional to their number in the total military, you discount their responses when making statements about overall percentages. They don't go into detail, but they say they did it. They also initally tried to over sample groups which traditionally have a low response rate to surveys to avoid the skew in the first place, but they don't say exactly which groups were included in that. It sounds like a very robust servey to me.
Your experience trying to start a life with someone in the service sounds incredibly hard. But it is so strange that you can remember how hard it is and still not think that gay service members have it harder. Try to imagine this-- everything happens to you exactly the way it did, but you had to keep your relationship secret. You couldn't get married, of course, but you also couldn't have your girlfriend visit you or live with you on the base. When away, you couldn't talk on the phone even those three of four times. When lonely and missing her, you couldn't talk to any of your friends or confide in anyone about how hard it was. In a situation where maybe (I don't know, of course, because I haven't served, so this is a guess. Feel free to correct me) one of the things that helps get you through the hard times is the shared suffering and the knowledge that everyone is going through the same thing, you couldn't fully be a part of that camaraderie because you had a secret that would ruin your chance to serve if anyone found out. You really don't think that would have made it just a little bit worse?
Finally, no one is planning to change the standards of conduct for homosexuals in the military. Of course there will be some difficulty adjusting. There will be a small number of cases where someone gay isn't treated as harshly as they should be because of sensitivity, but there will also be a small number of cases where they are treated more harshly because of resentment and prejudice. I think we'll get through them, and the vast majority of people will go through their service quietly, doing their best to do their jobs, relieved of the burden of lying in order to do so.
Here's the report, if you want to read it.
A couple of interesting
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 01/22/2011 - 12:15am.
How do you reconcile those two statements?
Um, the word "think?"
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/22/2011 - 9:55am.
Um, the word "think?"
More likely
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 01/22/2011 - 10:12am.
The word "imagine".
I see.
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 01/22/2011 - 2:02pm.
So, if you had to guess, what percentage of that 69 do you think was fooled?
I don't think I have any
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/23/2011 - 6:28pm.
I don't think I have any information that would let me make an educated guess about that. The survey didn't distinguish between "think" and "know" you served with someone gay. It would certainly be interesting to have some data on that, and maybe it exists, but not in this survey.
mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 01/23/2011 - 8:28pm.
So then let me just reiterate for the record-
You note a particular part of the survey saying: "A couple of interesting things from that-- 69% of respondents in the survey think that they have served with someone gay at some point in their careers. People who have served with someone have hugely more positive perceptions of the results of repeal than those who don't."
And then you go on to suggest that gay service members have to live a lie in order to serve, even though a majority of service members already know who's gay and who isn't (which means that if they're living this supposed lie, they're doing a pretty poor job at it.)
I asked you to reconcile that dichotomy and in doing so, you draw doubt upon the very survey that you rely so heavily upon. Then, you go on to suggest that gay service members somehow had it more difficult than I, or anyone other heterosexual who has served.
Let me conclude by saying that you're free to feel however you wish about gays in the US military. You can base your opinions on whatever document you feel best supports your pre-conceived notions. And you're free to tell me that my service required less courage than others; I actually wore the uniform in part so you could denegrate me in that regard. But I don't have to take it. So at this point, I'll just pull out of this conversation rather than subject myself to further accusations of homophobia and comparitively soft service.
Please don't feel a need to respond as it'll just go ignored.
What a ridiculous piece of
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 12:01am.
What a ridiculous piece of grandstanding this is.
They asked people about what they think their experiences have been serving with gay people, since in many cases people WON'T know, and because people answered, you take that to mean that a majority of service members "already know" who's gay and who isn't. Anybody should recognize that conclusion as completely baseless.
I absolutely did NOT draw doubt on the survey. I simply indicated that there was a piece of information that you were interested in that wasn't in it. The goal of the survey was to try and make predictions about what would happen if DADT was repealed, not to find out how many gays are out in the military, so the primary information of interest was people's perceptions, not whether they were right or wrong about who's gay. The survey also didn't tell us if a majority of service members like vanilla or chocolate, and that doesn't invalidate the conclusions it actually draws. Seriously, if you want out of the argument, just say so, you don't need to make yourself sound foolish to do so.
You also don't have to play up the wounded pride. You tell me that it wouldn't have been harder to have to keep your relationship secret, and I'll believe you. But you aren't saying that, I presume because you realize it isn't true, so all you can do is act offended. I never said, nor would I, that your service was more or less hard than anyone else's, or that it doesn't count in some way. Everyone has different experiences, different challenges, and different reactions to those challenges. I'm simply suggesting that this is one factor that I think would make relationships harder. That doesn't mean, nor did I say, that all homosexuals have a harder time in the military than all heterosexuals. That really smacks of a deliberate exagerration of my position designed to deflect from the real discussion. As for you, there are almost certainly, given the size of the armed forces, people who had it worse than you and people who had it easier for a variety of reasons. That doesn't make the service of any of those people, or you, less meaningful or less valuable.
Look, I respect your service, and if you don't want to talk about this in a personal way that's fine. I asked you to imagine something that might have made life harder to try and provoke some empathy in you for people who are actually going through that, but if that hits too close to home or rubs you the wrong way, just say so. You don't have to accuse me of saying things I'm not in order to end the topic.
I engaged with you again on this issue because you sound like a reasonable person who might be able to understand another person's perspective. I don't know you, so maybe I'm wrong, but this reaction seems really beneath you.
grislybear says---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 01/22/2011 - 3:05am.
"Finally, no one is planning to change the standards of conduct for homosexuals in the military".
This is a liberal who just cannot grasp any concept that exists outside her closely held beliefs or liberalism itself.
It doesn't matter if we are talking DADT, the homosexual lifestyle not connected with the military, illegal aliens, or abortion.
Common sense and real world experience just have no bearing on what she has to share with those not of her outlook.
She is not homosexual, but as a liberal, has no problem telling straight conservatives how they should view and accept the visions of GLAAD and the GLBT'ers.
She hasn't served in the military, but knows intrinsically both how and why the military and conservatives should view and accept her take on the dilemma.
Liberals.
A breed, indeed, apart.
MD
I'm curious why that
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/22/2011 - 9:56am.
I'm curious why that particular statement prompted a general condemnation of liberalism. Were my qualifiers about inevitable problems not strong enough?
Liberalism, itself, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 01/23/2011 - 2:22am.
as it stands, and as it is promoted by liberals, is what prompts me to condemn it generally, specifically, and perpetually. Howzat? MDSure
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/23/2011 - 6:30pm.
Sure