enviro-nut
Posted by: bcihak
enviro-nut - 09/01/10 11:16 PM
For those readers not in the U.S. an enviro-nut, inspired by Al Gore's movie took hostages at the headquarters of the Discovery Channel. He is now dead, having been killed by the police when he aimed a gun at one of his hostages. He attacked the Discovery channel because he wanted them to change their programing. He wanted shows produced that would keep people from having more "parasite" human infants that would just pollute the world. He really did not like humanity very much. Most news sources are not relating the fact that he was inspired by Al Gore. They are just saying that he wanted them to change their programming, and not laying out the specifics of his demands. Imagine if he had been something other than an enviro-nut. We wouldn't hear the end of his wackiness. Oh well.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: enviro-nut - 09/01/10 11:52 PM
So are you trying to draw some completely inappropriate association here? Or are you just saying that those who walk among us who hold themselves in such high regard as to put their personal views above the sanctity of human life come from all types, creeds and ideologies?
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: enviro-nut - 09/02/10 07:24 AM
What does this have to do with self defense? In any case, whether or not he did what he did after being influenced by Al Gore or whomever doesn't make a difference because no one from either side would support his actions. It was about him being a psycho and taking his opinions way too far, not Al Gore's environmental ideas. This guy was nuts whether you're left or right or in the middle.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/02/10 07:24 AM
Blah blah blah. So what, he was a nut. So was Tim McVeigh, and so is the Westboro Church. What's your point, Bill? You think there wasn't enough coverage of this incident - despite it being headline material on EVERY news channel and most internet news sites - because of some possible connection to a movie that Al Gore made? Is this another crackpot conspiracy theory from you about the dreaded left-wing?
Quit your whining, crybaby.
Posted by: Kathryn
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/02/10 08:02 AM
I am sure that readers not in the US have access to news media that covered this story.
From my perspective, the real story is the successful response on the part of the employees and the police. Despite some initial confusion, the employees were evacuated safely, including the daycare center, and the police were able to bring about a resolution within hours.
Kathryn
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/02/10 08:23 AM
Great, see a crazy guy with a gun call 9-1-1 and don't do anything stupid. Sweet, let's move on as that's abotu all this has to say abotu self defense.
Posted by: Kathryn
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/02/10 03:27 PM
No, really, the logistics of this were impressive. 1900 employees and a daycare center had to be evacuated in four stages. If interested, here's a link:
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&pid=0&sid=2042177&page=3(Just my little attempt to salvage something good from this thread...)
Kathryn
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/02/10 11:10 PM
Perhaps the self-defence lesson is to be careful around people who have watched Al Gore's movie.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/03/10 12:58 AM
Why? Because because there is a high probability they can read and do complex fractions?
(sorry but you so had that coming)
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/03/10 01:24 AM
That's like saying watch out for people who listen to m and m or Ozzy. There's nothing in any of that that makes you go homicidal. What abotu the hundreds of thousands of peopel who don't committ criems because of Al Gore's movie? How about watch out for people who're mentally unstable, better yet watch out for anyone you don't know. Maybe we shoudl watch out for you. You could be a crazy conservative who goes aroudn bombing abortion clinics.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/03/10 01:26 AM
I'm someone who has a LOT of conservative views (though I don't label myself conservative because I also have a lot of lbieral views) and even I think this is stupid. What do you want to do, ban movies by Al Gore? How about companies just maintain better security. And then you're creating jobs.
Posted by: Zach_Zinn
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/03/10 02:25 AM
Ignorant people who haven't read up on politics apparently think all environmentalism is the same thing, and fail to understand distinctions. Like any other ideology environmentalism has a history, and a wide spectrum of beliefs associated with it.
Most of the lunacy this guy was talking has more in common with early right-wing libertarian style environmental thinkers than with someone as milquetoast as Al Gore or some other mainstream liberal. He may have been influenced by the movie, but the concept of humans being "filthy", the obsessions with population control, even with doing away with humans for the good of the earth..those ideas have connections to radical right wing environmental movements that came about a number of years ago.
If you don't believe me, read up on the history of the environmental movement, it has a whole right, even far-right tendency within it...environmentalists aren't just yuppies driving hyrbids, there's all kinds.
So yeah, being an environmentalist doesn't automatically make someone left-wing or liberal, he also railed against immigration in one of his writings, he does not appear to hold left wing views in general.
Cheap tactic to try connecting this guy with an ideology you just happen to disagree with, when he was obviously just kind of a loon.
Then again, every time I check in periodically on this site, you appear to be doing that. Nice to know things haven't changed much.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/03/10 11:43 AM
What are you saying Zach? Did he not watch Al Gore's Movie? Was he not Dangerous?
Don't cloud the issue with your socialist use of "facts" or "historical accuracy". That's what you Ivory tower elite's with your left wing media buddies always try and do when you know your on the wrong side of the American People with your Big Government Junk Science Agenda!
The Man watched Al Gore's Movie, and put innocent American's lives in danger. I know it, you know it, and the American people are not going to stand for it!
(so you think I have future in Am radio?)
Sadly, My little rant, as tongue in cheek as it is,is not all that far from the vitriolic rantings we see on a daily basis in the political discourse in this country. And I don't want to hear that it's "coming from both sides" that's BS. This is the tactic of the right that has co-op'd conservatives ideals (they are by no means conservatives) The Left has it's nut jobs for sure, the middle (most people) are silent because they are turned off by the dialog, and the rest are either weak leaders or so few in numbers their voices are drown out by the rabble.
OK MODs...shut 'er down!
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/03/10 08:20 PM
No it's not BS, it does come from both sides and that's because it's a basic political tactic to shut down the other side. Don't act like the right is the big bad enemy. The left is full of idiotic extremists who really are socialists looking to lay waste to thigns like our constitutuion and paint a picture of the right as a bunch of warmongers and rich peopel looking to suck money from the little guy. That's the same reason Russia became a socialist country and then look what happened. That being said, only fringe members of either side actually intend for things like what happened at the Discovery Channel building. Both sides lie their way to success but neither incites this kind of violence purposefully, it's the frigne that does that. Crazy people who take ideologies to severe extremes.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/03/10 08:59 PM
Was what I said, not that there were not 2 sides. For every Al Sharpton you have 10 Rush, Glenn, Sean's and on and on. It's politically correct to say we are hearing from both sides of a debate, but to paraphrase Lou Black, putting a Professor of History across from a Holocaust Denier is not both sides of a debate. It's a farce.
Historically in other nations, if you want to say these tactics were used by those on the left I would agree, Soviets, Castro, Chavez and others. It's not about the political stance or belief system, it's about the tactics.
So, to circle back to my original point. It's not happening on both sides, this is the home field advantage of the far right in the US right now, and oddly enough, it's probably bitten them in the ass because the Tea Party has taken it too another level pushing moderates out of the party and taking things even further to the extreme right.
Again, I am not discussing specific policies here storm, I am talking tactics and posturing. Chicken Hawk BS. Though I do find you shot at the Constitution interesting when the greatest offenders of it come from those who claim to hold it so dear.
Since this is probably going to get shut down as we are well into enemy territory,in terms of rules violations, feel free to PM me, I'll give you my email and we can continue this conversation offline.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/03/10 09:33 PM
The right has done that too, but right now it's more the left in terms of gettign rid of the constitution imo. And political tactics are pretty much the same, posturing is pretty much the same no matter what party we talk about, that's why I say it's both. But, I'll continue this outside of this forum.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/04/10 07:34 PM
I wish people complainig about what I inferred to this nut job did the same thing when Mcveigh blew up the federal building. It was immediately used to attack the most effective critics of President Clinton at the time. Clinton used it personally to try and smear Rush, Hannity and the rest. No, I do not think that Gore is actually responsible for this nut job. However, the next time the main stream media attacks a conservative for the acts of a lone nut job, please remember what you said here. Especially as the Tea Party movement becomes more effective. It is not a racist movement, they want a limited federal government and they want the politicians in washington and in the various states to stop spending our money. The left is currently trying to destroy the Tea Party movement by trying to label them as racist, and dangerous. The only political violence in the last year has come from the left. Check youtube for the beating of the African American man at the townhall meeting by the S.E.I.U. thugs. Check out the beating of Bobby Jindals campaign finance director and her boyfriend after the conservative dinner in Louisiana. The liberal thugs broke her leg in two places and gave him a mild concussion. Check Brietbarts sight for the anti-tea party people throwing eggs at the tea party buses on their way to searchlight Nevada. And yes, they are trying to destroy Breitbart right now because he exposed the A.C.O.R.N. organization as it tried to help two people set up an underage, illegal alien house of prostitution. They did this in several different states and in each case ACORN employees did nothing but help them. So lets not say the burden is on the right. And please, the environmental movement and the zero population movement have always been left wing movements. People who believe in limited government, and the rights of the individual, right wing ideas, do not support the wackiness of the environmental extremists.
*****Also, Mayor Bloomberg in New York did the exact same thing with the attempted Time Square bomber. When asked about who he thought may have done it he said that if he were to put down 25 cents, it would probably turn out to be a middle age white guy upset about healthcare reform. He is a highly visible political figure of the left. He is one of the reasons I did this post. The actual Time Square bomber was, wait for it, a muslim religous radical. Not a guy upset about healthcare reform.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/04/10 10:13 PM
I don't agree with labelling the Tea Party movement as extreme or dangerous either. And I don't think Timmothy Mcveigh's actions should be blamed on conservatives, that's absurd. It's liek saying the Unabomber was made to do what he did by the right. Stupid. You want to know of a group much more worthless and damaging than the Tea Party movement? The ACLU.
I do think that you can be o nthe right but still agree with a lot of the lefts environmental theories, many do. Mostly because they have soem good points o nthat. A peopel jsut take it too far too quick (by tryign to completely stop logging entirely for instance withotu replacing it as a source of income for certain communities.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/04/10 10:22 PM
I think the unabomber may be a bad example here because he also was a fan of Al Gores book. In fact they have a game you can play called "who said this, Al Gore or the Unabomber." You can google Al Gore and Unabomber and it is the first link. I saw a link to this recently on a site. The unabomber was another lefty. Do you mean his dislike of the right helped motivate him, or do you mean he was on the right when he was blowing people up. Just curious.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/04/10 10:38 PM
If you listen or watch Glen Beck you can hear some really odd thingsabout the early progressive movement. For example, Teddy Roosevelt said some disturbing things about controlling the population among the poor. These early environmentalists were still lefties and not people who were conservative. I am not sure what you mean Zach Zinn. The modern and even old environmental movements were always more leftie than conservative. I mean, look at Planned Parent hood as another example. They are a lefty group, and they were created to control the population in the inner city black communities. When people want these big all controlling solutions from the federal government, they tend to be on the left. Another example of political violence, almost all presidential assasinations were committed by left wingers. The others were comitted by nuts like squeky From, and the guy who shot reagan. Another example, when the G8 or the World trade organization meet, it isn't right wingers rampaging through the streets breaking the windows on Starbucks coffee shops.
Also, before america woke up to the threat of radical muslim terrorism, the number one terrorist activity in the united states was, wait for it, Eco-terrorism committed by A.L.F and E.L.F. against car dealerships, ski resorts, animal research labs and on and on.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/04/10 11:52 PM
Al Gore's movie and book came out long after the Unabomber got started (the late 60's or early 70's I believe?).
As far as him being conservative or left? I don't think he aligned with the left necessairly because the left is generally (not ALWAYS but often) in favor of things like censorship or polital correctness in everything which he wasn't. That's one example. The left is in favor of things like stem cell research (and I say left to simplify things but there is a lot of overlap on some issues it all depends o nthe indivisual but these are just general truths) while the Unabomber (Ted Kazynski) was very much AGAINST (well, any modern sciences or progress).
This is also why I take things o na case by case basis instead of just marking right or left down the line when I vote like some people. I like the left's approach to scientific research and progress but I do not agree with the general left approach to other things.
The right has a habit of not giving 2 s$its abotu the environment which I think you're ignoring or not realizing. The real environmental extremists on the left are there but many or most on the left are not in favor of eco terrorism which is why I think you're reading too much into the origional issue you posted about.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/05/10 01:12 PM
Rush, Hannity and the rest.
They should be smeared, they are using their First Amendment Rights as means to enrich themselves at the expense of the American People they Claim to care so much about. They are Chicken Hawks, they wrap themselves in the American Flag, pronounce their patriotism then look you squarely in the eye and lie directly to you on a nightly basis.
They play upon the fear and prejudice of the population to grab ratings and sensationalism. They convince people to vote against their own best interests on a regular basis.
They are bankrolled by big business and foreign interests, the same people who bankroll the lobbyist they claim to hate so much who control the government they are so up in arms against...please.
You come on here you post your wacky crap calling Rush and "effective critic". How can anyone take you seriously when you don't know a circus clown when you see one?
Let me lay it our for you. These people have agendas, that means it doesn't matter what gets said, or what the facts are, they will always, without exception spin the information to line up with whatever works best for their agenda. Period. Always. No exceptions.
Nothing else in nature or life works this way. That is why it's a complete and utter waste of your time to concern yourself with what they have to say.
Unless you can look yourself in the mirror and honestly think that Bill Clinton was 100% wrong on everything all of the time. Because according to Rush in the 90's he was. Today, it's Obama and now we have Beck who is literally making up history on his chalkboard and reporting as fact while he cries us river.
I really enjoyed when he compared Socialism and Fascism to the Progressive Movement. The fact that those are on the polar opposite political side seemed to escape him I guess was a detail that was of little consequence...but hey, if he can sell it.
OH, FYI the Tea Party may not be a racist movement, but there are a ton of racist in it. No question about that. The Tea Party Movement has attracted a lot of people full of hate for no other reason than they love to hate people who are different. Has nothing to do with my feelings about the ideology, it's just a fact.
FYI-the stimulus package, probably prevented a full on depression. While you might not get this, taking tax dollars and pumping them directly into the American Economy is about the best thing you can do with tax dollars, period. You might see it as waste, but that is a very simplistic view and betrays and basic misunderstanding of the economic cycle and how it works. Spending, even wasteful spending is far better than stagnation, or spending cuts for an economy. As long as the spending is taking place within the economy.
Part of our Pro business problem is we keep laying down for big business, and big business keeps sending our money to other economies, and those economies are not sending it back.
I swear to God, the next RW pundit who rails on Obama for the Stimulus Package (which was a policy continued from Bush because it was a GOOD F**Kin idea) I think I'm just going to punch him in the face, yea right in the Melon. Like a tax on being stupid.
I better end my rant....
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/05/10 01:28 PM
The stimulus package was a horrible idea, and it did nothing to stave off the recession and in fact has been prolonging it. In fact, most of the stimulus has been held back because Barack and the democrats want to spend it right before the next presidential election. So much for using it to help the economy. Socialism, fascism and progressivism are all part of the same idea of big government entities controlling every aspect of the lives of the little people. Pumping tax dollars into an economy is not basic economics it is basic silliness. It never works, it lengthened and deepened the great depression. There are more racists in theNAACP and the SEIU and most other liberal organizations than you will ever find in the tea party. Any racists seen at a tea party event are planted there by liberals as they follow the "Rules for Radicals" created by Saul Olinsky.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/05/10 02:15 PM
The stimulus package was a horrible idea, and it did nothing to stave off the recession
Uh huh, care to find me an economist who actually makes a living in the field who supports your theory? How about I post pictures of all those republicans posing with over sized checks as they brought the projects home to their districts.
If there is a knock on the stimulus it's that it was too small and rolled out too slowly.
You say it's silliness? How exactly is taking money and spending it in an economy silly? Please do tell? I'm dying to have this explained to me. OH in fact it prolonged the recession? How is that even possible? Mathematically?
Socialism and Fascism are two completely different things. Unless you choose to redefine words to suit your own ends you must recognize the differences in order to understand why the world has created the different terms. IF there were not differences, we wouldn't need different terms.
Make no mistake, the people who have your attention are using those associations to tap your anger and by not defining the differences and presenting them as different words for the same thing thing, betray their deception. If they were honest, they could make their case without drawing inaccurate and unnecessary parallels.
I have issues with the NAACP, you would be mistaken to assume by taking you to task that I automatically support groups on the left. I don't. In fact should I ever run for an office, my party would independent of any existing group, and my opening line and theme of my campaign would be " Are you Fuc***g Kidding Me"
But, to say "any racist" are planted by liberals...come on man (see campaign slogan) The hard right is loaded with racist. I have met them personally. So there is no doubt, they are there. Face it, there are people on the earth who hate Black, Mexican, Gays, Muslims, Asians, etc...pretty much because they were born. The Tea party attacks these types of people. Get over it.
News Flash, the Klan votes Republican and/or Liberation. Hippies vote Democratic and/or Green Party.
Certain realities exist period.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/05/10 03:37 PM
Walter williams, Thomas Sowell, Milton and Rose Friedman, Friedrich van Hayek, Adam Smith how about. You can hear Milton friedman take apart your argument on youtube as he discusses big government with Phil Dohahue, check it out. They will tell you the government taking the money out of the private economy, where there are consequences for bad decisions is a bad idea. The government has no accountability, can print money to cover its mistakes, can spend money on waste in order to get votes from particular groups, especially big government loving big corporations. I remember a story of a state that bought 2 million dollars in computers for all of their schools. The computers were lost in the delivery and sat in a state warehouse for 5 years. In a business, where you have to actually cover mistakes like that, you would eventually go out of business. Our country is out of money, our states are out of money. The government sucking up more money to buy votes is not the way to fix the economy. And the tea party movement is taking on our corrupt republicans. The tea party movement is labled a racist movement by the real racists in the democrat party. As long as the minorities give them their vote, they get a basic subsistance, much like the days of slavery but the hard labor has been removed. Remember, Republicans freed the slaves, the Republicans fought the klan to protect the freed slaves, the democrats started the Jim Crow laws and segregated the schools. A Republican President, Eisenhower called on the 82nd airborne to open up the schools that were being blocked by the democrats. Remember also, Dick Durbin and Barack Obama shut down the voucher program that allowed minority kids to have scholarships to Sidwell Friends, the school that Baracks kids go to. They do not believe in helping minorities beyond what little they have to do to get their votes. Remember also that more Republicans voted for the civil rights act of 1964 as opposed to the democrats who fought against it. Bill Clinton's political mentor voted against it, Al Gores dad voted against it, Robert Byrd, the democrat senator who recently died was an honest to goodness Klan member. He was a recruiter for the klan and started his own chapter of the klan. And before you say, he changed, yeah, he saw which way the country was turning and jumped ship. He did his part to keep minorities poor as a senator after "changing"
Socialism and facism are the same thing. They both demand massive, controlling government to dictate every aspect of life to the masses. Choclate and vanilla are different flavors of ice cream but they are the same thing, ice cream, so with socialism, communism and fascism. Fascism was a term coined by Stalin or it may have been Lenin to distinguish their form of totalitarian government from the german totolitarian government. Look it up.
Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin as well as their counterparts in Japan were all lefties. They believed in big controlling government, the government taking huge amounts of money in the form of taxes so that they could spend it where it was needed by the state. They believed in stimulus all the time and look where it got them.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/05/10 03:57 PM
I wonder when we will get locked down. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of the people who blame certain nuts on conservatives but deny their own nuts. That's all. Thanks.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/05/10 04:33 PM
Remember, Republicans freed the slaves
I always love this one, as if those of then are these of now. You do realize the Klan and their types are still cut from the same cloth, regardless of which party courted them right?
Currently the right is courting the racists white voter, they rely on their number to stay in power. There is no debate on this issue so don't try and pretend their is.
Senator Byrd was a racist [censored] of the highest order when he was a young man, in that time it was the Democratic Party of the South that courted the White Racist vote. There is no debate on that issue. They lost that vote with the Civil rights movement FYI and there were plenty of opportunist more than happy to step in and fill the void.
Now you want to claim they freed the slaves? Please.
Socialism is a left wing ideology, Fascism is a right wing ideology. Sorry, you don't get to make up your own definitions because you don't like the real one. Bottom line, they both lead to a very small group of angry men telling everyone else what to do.
As far as Milton Friedman taking apart my argument, you apparently have no idea what my argument is, instead what you have done is pushed some big government idea onto me, and then posted against that. Whatever.
I'm all for free enterprise a limited government. That's why the stimulus package makes sense. It takes our tax dollars out of the hands of the government and puts them directly back into the hands of Americans. It's a huge tax cut, that's all it is. It's not a program or entitlement.
Oh and news flash, you are the government. Business has no accountability. You have all the say even rights when it comes to your government, but you have zero say when it comes to business, they exist for their own sakes and owe you nothing. But they do lobby your government, then do heavily influence your life, you news. Yet you seem to in no way want to hold them even a little accountable for their role in anything that happens.
OK I'm done here.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/05/10 05:07 PM
You read too much left wing propaganda, the right is not courting the racist vote, the left is the racist vote. Republicans opposed slavery as a party, they were founded on that principle. The Democrats at the time of the civil war wanted to restart the slave trade. The democrats wanted slavery to be allowed in the new states, the democrats seceeded from the union when the first republican president was elected because they were afraid he was going to end slavery. A democrat supporter, John Wilkes Booth assasinated the first Republican president. The democrats started the klan to suppress the newly freed slaves, they fought against the reconstruction of the south, started the jim crow laws, the anti-voting measures against the newly freed blacks. The democrats attacked the black civil rights movement with nightsticks, dogs and firehoses. the democrats voted against the civil rights act. The democrats, today, fight school vouchers for inner city minorities, the vouchers meant to help them escape horrible inner city schools. So tell me, which party is the party of actual racists. Businesses have the only real accountability until they become so huge they can buy members of the political class. Small businesses who do not serve the needs of their clientele go out of business because people stop giving them money. The government takes tax money to fund useless and wasteful projects that go over budget and when they fail, the politicians simply raise taxes or print more money or increase the debt. So tell me, who is really better at spending your money, you or the corrupt politician who can raise your taxes and then not Pay their own taxes. Such as John Kerry, Charles Rangel, Tim Geitner, Chris Dodd, and too many of Obamas close political operatives.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/05/10 05:30 PM
Do you want to see your idea of the tea party as racists? Go to Alfonzo Rachel (Zonation) at the Dallas tea party on Youtube. You might see and hear some things about the tea party that you won't hear anywhere else.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/05/10 06:01 PM
What happened?
You are very confused about history-Right-Left-Democrat-Republican...they don't track neatly as you would like to believe.
I don't read left or right wing propaganda...you on the other hand are drowning.
Small businesses who do not serve the needs of their clientele
What do you know of it? I own businesses, I live it every day. You speak in sweep generalizations, all or nothing. Really enough. I went to the horrible inner city schools BTW. And it wasn't Democrats who attacked with nightsticks, it was racists, hateful mean angry people. And if you think those same people are voting democrat today, then you are just lying to yourself. Understand the differnce between the Tea Party being racist and the Tea Party attracting Racist.
Understand the difference between being Racist and being Prejudice? (probably not since you haven't grasped socialism and fascism yet)...OK time to BBQ with my Hippie leftist friends so we can plot the downfall of the commoner.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/05/10 06:14 PM
Chill out, you guys are acting like the state of our country is on the line with the discussion. It's a friggin martial arts forum. You're not accomplishing anything with this it's just friendly discussion.
In any case there are some racists on the left and a lot o nthe right (only difference is the leftist racists are racist agaisnt whites whereas the right is racist towards everyone else but both sides have racists either way).
The problem with the left in this regard is that they promote an overly apologetic and politically correct approach that denies certain truths that may be generalizations but very much true anyway. The right clings to their generalizations so hard that they won't see exceptions when they come (like Muslims that aren't terrorists, what a crazy thought!).
The whole party system is pointless anyway. All it serves is to create these kinds of divisions and conflicts.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/05/10 06:34 PM
With all due respect Stormdragon the racists are on the left, not the right. We are the only ones who actually see that not all muslims are terrorists but you cannot ignore the fear in the muslim community because of the radicals.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/05/10 08:51 PM
Right on, Kimo. But don't get too bent with bcihak. He has swallowed every bit of the koolaide from the wacko far-right. You can't have a sensible debate with someone that far in denial.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/05/10 10:30 PM
It's funny, all of the guys swinging nightsticks at the peaceful, african american civil rights marchers were democrats. When you see people standing in the school house door in front of the little,african american girl, you realize they were democrats don't you? The people who are preventing inner city minorities from getting a good education so that they can escape the life destroying poverty in the inner cities are the democrats, you know that right? It always amazes me when the left complains about how bad the government is, how they are actively seeking to deny us civil rights, and yet, they want these same corrupt politicians to control their access to healthcare, they want them to control their social security, and they don't mind giving up large portions of their hard earned money to these same corrupt politicians, which the politicians use to reward their friends, buy votes and line their own pockets.
What you are saying when you support "government stimulus packages" is that you want to give your hard earned money to corrupt politicians, and then expect these same corrupt politicians to "spread the wealth around" to help the economy. Why don't you see that if you kept your own money, and spent it on the things you want and need, you would stimulate the economy on your own and you would be cutting out the corrupt middle man.
If I gave 20 dollars to someone to go to the store and buy me a loaf of bread, and he came back with no bread, eating a pound of candy, and then told me that I still owe the store 10 dollars because he opened a tab in my name, well, I have to think I would not give him any more money to buy my groceries for me. In fact, I wouldn't let him anywhere near my money again. You guys keep wanting to give the guy even more money. Why is that?
Check the states in the U.S. that are bankrupt, and are unable to fix the problem. What Party is in control of those states? The democrats. Tax and spend does not work. It didn't work in Europe, and it is not working here.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 12:16 AM
Right on, Kimo. But don't get too bent with bcihak.
I'm not getting bent at all, I think he is angry and for good reason, just at the wrong people.
Here is the thing. I am one of those that will say, and have said many times before "beware of the man who reads you his resume". The reason being, you should be able to make your point or your case without the "I know better than you" clause in your argument.
We are once again at a point in our country where the common man has a voice and a right to be angry. And, once again those with power and influence choose too exploit that opportunity and these rights to get a rise out of people like our friend bcihak.
That may sound condescending, but really it's not. I think once we get through the mud slinging we probably want the same things, at least for the most part. The big difference is in my honest opinion, my resume actually matters. I've been very poor, raised in the inner inner city. Attended public schools, been on welfare the whole deal.
Today I run a business that is highly successful and employees several hundred people. I'm not Bill Gates but I'm not slouch either, so I would ask Mr bcihak to present his resume, or some reason why I should bother to take him seriously?
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 12:44 AM
With all due respect Stormdragon the racists are on the left, not the right. We are the only ones who actually see that not all muslims are terrorists but you cannot ignore the fear in the muslim community because of the radicals.
I respect your view and right to say it as I'm sure you have your reasons for it, but I genuinely don't agree that the right is more full of racists or has all the racists. Personal experience and the people I've known tells me that's false. Now it was a lot worse 20 or 30 years ago where the right was almost entirely racist but the right is still full of them too. Now I do differentiate between racists and prejudice or stereotypes (many say I fall under the latter 2) and many people don't get that difference but there still are many racists from the right. We've all known them.
It's one thing to understand that, for instance, the main threats at this point in time come from the Muslim world which is true and reason to watch them closely (just like if a guy is going around dicing people up he's probably white), but to look for trouble with Muslims just because they're Muslim is very wrong. The important thing is to not be afraid to embrace the exceptions or the majority that are good and I know too many people who align with the right and don't follow that, even assuming that being Arab makes you the scourge of humanity in and of itself.
Politicians o nthe right try to avoid being seen that way these days but it's still there.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 12:55 AM
My resume, I have a degree in history focusing in my later courses on the rise of socialism, nazism, and the fascists. I was originally a democrat and voted for Bill Clinton the first time when he was promising to cut taxes. My family had been democrats, a legacy handed down to us from our Roosevelt Democrat, Irish and German immigrant grand parents. I work in a government job where I see the waste and the poor motivation of the public sector employees. I was originally listening to Rush Limbaugh because like most democrats, I assumed he was a gas bag who lied every time he opened his mouth. A funny thing happened. I listened and then watched the news and the other media and they didn't cover the things he spoke about, and he was incredibly polite and well spoken. I began reading book recomendations, I especially enjoyed the books recommended by Walter Williams. He was the chair of the economics department at George Mason university and he fills in for Rush during the Christmas break. He recommended Friedrich van Hayeks book, "The Road to Serfdom" and Friedrich Batiates little, but incredibly powerful book,"The Law." Wow, those books are enlightning about the dangers of socialism. Another author I enjoy is Dinesh D'souza, and his book, "The End of Racism." Another author I learned about while Walter Williams was guest hosting on Rush was Thomas Sowell. He is an Economist at the Hoover Institute, has written 43 books on economics and the American society, and is a great guest. The books that you should try to read by him are , "the quest for cosmic justice," and the really great book, " Visions of the Anointed." I am really glad you aren't being condescending, that would make my feelings hurt.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 01:01 AM
Stormdragon, I respect you because you have yet to call me names and are trying to address the issues. In that spirit, when you say right wing racism, to what are you actually referring. What groups or individuals do you equate with the right who you think are racist. As Dennis Praeger says, a radio host that I listen to, it is better in some cases to have clarity when you do not agree. I can name several groups and individuals on the left who I think are clearly racist in their actions. Can you give me some on the right so we know the same concepts. There is really no irrational fear of muslims or the thought that all muslims are terrorists. If you listen to that debate, everyone always starts with, "I know that the terrorists are a small minority of muslims..." Even the mosque issue in New York isn't what the left is trying to portray it as. the right is the first to say, they have a first ammendmant right to build their mosque. The question remains why build it there. If you are looking for religous intolerance to all religions, especially Judaism and Christianity, you have to look at the left again. They even travelled to the middle of the desert to remove a constitutionally protected cross commemorating our heroes from world war 2. The left is supporting the muslim extremists because they just see them as another minority group being oppressed by America.
Remember, there are already at least 32 mosques in New York city already, one of them is even closer to the sight than this mosque. There are about 100 mosques in New york State. That is great. I like religion and religous diversity. The people who want to build this mosque are doing it to lay down a marker against this country. They can build a mosque to show cooperation and community outreach anywhere they want. Most people would like them to honor the dead and build this mosque somewhere else.
You may or may not have heard about the Catholic Carmalit nuns who wanted to build a nunnery near one of the death camps in Germany to pray for the dead Jews that were murdered. The outrage from the Jewish community reached the Pope, and out of respect, remember, out of respect, for the Jewish community, he told the nuns to build their place somewhere else. Why shouldn't we expect the same consideration from the muslim community. Are my views on this racist or anti-muslim. Thanks.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 05:18 AM
What I'm specifically referring to would be the various far-right militias that have sprung up (like the Minnesota militia), The KKK is a radical right wing group still active, including around my old town in Jersey, a few biker groups are still largely racist as well (though not necessairly with that explicitly expressed), and those tend to follow many extreme right ideals (though with an anrchist flavor somehow).
I think that the constitution does not say that a city or state HAS to build something for religion when the peopel of that religion are beyond free to publicly express their beliefs in the general area in question. We don't have to give minorities everything they want. To do so is a terrible attempt to please everyone. Afterall, political correctness is simply "beleiving you can pick up a turd by the clean end".
Big difference between oppression and not letting every small group run things.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 05:19 AM
Thanks for the show of respect by the way. I think an umber of people here are getting too heated over this to the point of making it personal. It doesn't have to be though it seems like it does at times. I just enjoying these discussions.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 08:42 AM
I think that any group that wants to use the power of the government to discriminate against one group of people is essentially a left wing group. It is the left that believes in a large government that controls the decision making process over most aspects of life. They are the ones who believe that the government should hand out government goodies based on group grievances while conservatives really believe in the founding principles of this country, the ideas in the Declaration of Independence and the rules outlined in the Constitution. The constitution and its limits on power, really annoys the left. Also, don't forget that the Klan was created by people who were democrats and believed that the government should discriminate against African Americans. That emphasis on government action really makes them more left than right. The Bikers that you mention tend, probably, to lean more into the neo-nazi belief sysstem. Nazis, are by their own name socialists. Once again they believe in government power to discriminate. Also, these groups are non-existant as far as real influence. Even the militia groups that are neo-nazi are left rather than right. A real right wing extremist would be someone who goes into the woods to have as little as possible to do with any centralized government authority. Also, anarchists are lefties, not righties.
another problem is that the groups you have mentioned are fringe groups with no real political power or influence. The lefty racist groups, the NAACP, ACORN, the Democrat party, are powerful, and exert real influence in the country. They fight against school voucher programs which would let minorities in inner city horrible schools actually get an education. They fight against teaching hispanic students in English, which studies have shown hurts their ability to adapt to the success track of this country. I remember taking an education class in college. We saw the movie about Jaime Escalante, the math teacher in California who taught advanced placement calculus to mainly hispanic students. All of the liberals loved the movie, until later, when they found out that Jaime supported English only teaching. They were destroyed. He said that teaching english was the best way to help his kids succeed in this country. Also, the teachers union and the teachers in his school drove him out of the profession. A lot of the racism is more a warped paternalism by some major liberal organizations, on the one hand, and an outright desire to isolate minorities for political purposes on the other hand. Some of my thoughts. When the guys finally lock down this thread, e-mail me and we can talk in private, until then, let me know what you think. Thanks.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 09:17 AM
Remember too that David Duke was a famous racist who tried to run on the republican ticket. He was cast out by the party and ridiculed every step of the way. The democrats had as one of their most powerful members Senator Robert Byrd, he was an actual member of the KKK, he recruited for them and started his own chapter as a young man. He also stated at one point that he would rather Old Glory, our flag, fall and be trampled in the mud before he would ever allow blacks to serve with whites. He stayed in the democrat party and was praised by Bill Clinton who excused his klan membership by saying that joining the klan was just something you had to do to get elected back then. Also, Bill Clinton's political mentor, Jay William Fulbright was a devout segregationist and yet Clinton claims him as an important person in his life. Barak Obama sat in a church for twenty years that preached hatred for whites and this country. The preacher, reverend Wright, married him and michelle, and baptized their children. Racism of one stripe or another is all throughout the modern democratic party, and yet the Republicans are called the racists.
When Trent Lott, the former Senate majority leader for the republicans, said nice things about Strom Thurmond, how, if he had been elected president we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have now, everyone accused him of supporting racism. Strom Thurmond, in his youth had been a segregationist, but had renounced it. It didn't matter that Lott was just trying to say nice things to an old man at a birthday party, the republicans forced him out of his leadership position. Not too long ago, a democrat said about the same things about one of their old time racists at some function, he not only kept his positions in congress but the democrats closed ranks aroung him.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 10:32 AM
This is an issue I have with the party system, nowadays you really don't know what you're getting, there is so much overlap, though undoubtedly there are general consistencies for each side. I get your reasoning I just don't agree that all the racists or real racists are on the left. There are a lot on each side from what I can tell. That being said, I'm not expert in this I'm not even all that itnerested in politics in any serious way, too much BS.
I do hate how the word racist is just thrown about now for everything. People need to grow some thicker skin. Just because you're being arrested, or checked in an airport, etc. doesn't mean we're racist it means we're looking where the current threat is most likely to come from. It's jsut good security. Like I've said before, if someone is going aroudn dicing peopel up and burrying the bodies in their fridge it's probably a white person. Doesn't mean white people are messed up, it's cultural or something, I don't know, but regardless of cause, facts speak for themselves.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 10:52 AM
I am really glad you aren't being condescending, that would make my feelings hurt.
So if I understand correctly, you are a guy who has read a few books buys other guys books and listens to them when they go on radio shows which are propaganda based programing for the far right. And you are a (apparently disgruntled) government worker with a LAS degree. (some say Liberal Arts and Science others say Lost and Searching, I'll let the peanut gallery decide)
I am a guy who grew up in the inner city and went to public school, lucky I was gifted and through a series of events was able to go to public college which of course was much cheaper then the private option but God Forbid we give the state any credit for that.
Anyway, after a few years working I saved up and opened my own company and after a decade we have grown into a mid sized business that as I mentioned employees several hundred people. I pay a lot of taxes and healthcare, and actually do the things you read about in your little books or listen to on your little shows (in case your wondering, yes I am being condescending:)
So when you preach to me about economics or the tax burden or healthcare, I ask you what do you know of it? When was the last time you had to write a check for it? Because I write them every week my friend. I bet I pay more in taxes this Friday than you make in a year, so don't talk to me about reading to much left wing propaganda. I don't have time for it, and by the way the lefties don't have 2000 radio shows dedicated to left wing propaganda. Despite what your radio clowns tell you, CNN and MSNBC are not left wing media types. They work for the same business interests that your friends do, just a watered down version for a milder viewer who likes their kool aide with a slash of Jessica Alba.
How much time do you spend listening too the BBC or NPR? How about the ED Show or Randy Rhodes or Rachel Maddow?
Of those shows which are left, which are news and which are opinion? Because my guess is you only listen to news sources that are propaganda sources, which means everything you know is wrong, or slanted. How could it be anything but?
I've read through your points and they are so disjointed and mis guided I don't even know where to start.
But I will say that I can understand some of your frustrations. Government workers due to liberal work policies become like union workers in their sense of entitlement. The work ethic is terrible and the days work for the days pay is no where near what it should be. So when I stated earlier that I felt you had good reason to be angry, I truly meant it. I also truly think you've focused your anger incorrectly.
Bigger Government is not the answer, your people have that correct, but unchecked business is the real problem of the last 30-40 years. They have taken over the media, corrupted information driven down wages, gutted the middle class. The list goes on and on. And now they've created an army of people angry at the government, which really had very little to do with the problems they face in their day to day lives.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 11:31 AM
How about we attack the arguments and not the people we're arguing with?
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 11:35 AM
"unchecked business."
Sounds to me that you fall under that category Mr. rich business owner. Not attacking you but you're painting a picture of yourself as being just like any other greedy business owner who does exactly what you're talking about.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 11:46 AM
How about we attack the arguments and not the people we're arguing with?
What? It's labor day? What fun can I have if I can't abuse some laborers?
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 11:53 AM
Not attacking you but you're painting a picture of yourself as being just like any other greedy business owner who does exactly what you're talking about.
How do you figure?
I think my point is I have vested interest in smaller government, which lends credibility to why I think the Tea Party is way off the mark. Rush and Beck crowd and selling a product to people who should be buying something else. They are not acting in their own self interest.
I am all for free enterprise, but the playing field needs to be fair. Winner take all leads to Anarchy and the collapse of society. Probably why my friends tag me with the limousine liberal as a joke.
Why do you say I am a greedy business owner?
PS get back to work!
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 12:26 PM
You've mentioned several times the fact that you are in charge of hundreds of people, never have to work again, your business is very successful, and more detail on your lfiestyle in pm's.
Which begs the question, what sets you apart from the unchecked busines owners who you say are the cause of so many ills?
Now I agree there has to be SOME regulation to a degree by the federal government but the key word being SOME. While the current administration is looking for a LOT of regulation. Which in theory makes sense to me but as far as I know that has always ended up decreasing production and quality of performance, results in layoffs and all that stuff.
The bigger a buiness can grow (i.e. becoming unchecked in your words) the more jobs are created. I do think there needs to be regulation in terms of preventing an increase in outsourcing and the hiring of non-citizens for extremely low wages (admittedly very difficult).
I have no issue with you for being the owner of a good sized business, good for you, like I said that creates jobs (and looking at a previous statement you said you worked for a number of years, I'm assuming at a low level before becoming a business owner which gains my respect), but it seems like you have a lot of issues with big business in general and essentially you are one (maybe not a "big" business but big enough). I guess I just don't quit understand where you stand on everything.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 12:27 PM
Nice play on the labor day thing.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 01:00 PM
Remember too that David Duke was a famous racist who tried to run on the republican ticket. He was cast out by the party and ridiculed every step of the way.
How do you know he wasn't cast out simply to avoid the bad publicity of havign an overt racist running in your party? A lot of people on the right are racist, I don't know how anyone can deny that, or not see that it's entirely likely that they hide their views to gain votes. Both sides do that to a great degree. Sort of like Obama promising to end the wars and brign the troops home and then just diverting forces to Afghanistan.
You have to be careful who you support, no matter what side you're looking at.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 01:19 PM
While the current administration is looking for a LOT of regulation. Which in theory makes sense to me but as far as I know that has always ended up decreasing production and quality of performance, results in layoffs and all that stuff.
Well, the issue lies in the happy medium of proper regulation and free enterprise. Antitrust Laws Good, Government run education programs not so good.
It's a mistake to believe profit driven motive creates the best outcome for society in all cases. While it's important to reward those willing to work harder than the next guy and create the incentive to do so, you must also create either an incentive or repercussion for doing or not doing the right thing (following the law/morals). Capitalism/Greed has no moral code. It's a winner take all model, and that has it's place in the buyer beware market. To a point. But no system is absolute. Milton Friedman was wrong in his let them eat cake manifesto. At some point you just have to share.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 01:45 PM
Agreed.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 02:51 PM
Kimo2007, you may have hurt my feelings a little. Wait, let me see, no, I'm O.K. I think I will stick with Milton Friedman and the other guys. I think Europe is about to change directions as well. Hopefully it won't take us as long as it took them to realize massive government isn't the answer.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 03:36 PM
I wonder, why is it that the people on the opposite side of my issues always start the name calling first or feel the need to swear? I've looked back through the posts and some of the others I'm on and it always seems to be the case. Thoughts?
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 03:40 PM
I like sharing too, I just don't like the government saying that over 20 percent is not enough mandatory sharing.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 04:03 PM
I think raising taxes tends to be thrown out there as a be-all-end-all solution when it's merely a bandaid in many ways. I think right now taxes are either a little high or rather they just tax way too many different things, but there should always be a healthy tax rate. Too high of taxes and production is affected negatively, too low and a lot of basic public services aren't fullfilled. It's a tough balance that no one i nrecent years have really managed well. I'm don't see eye to eye with the ones out there who expect taxes to be next to nothing, that doesn't make anything better either.
That said the current administration seems to want to use that as the answer to all of our problems when it's not going to solve the real problems, it'll just buy us time and give us some short term jumps to work from.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 04:15 PM
wonder, why is it that the people on the opposite side of my issues always start the name calling first or feel the need to swear? I've looked back through the posts and some of the others I'm on and it always seems to be the case. Thoughts?
Oh because you drive us to distraction with your wackiness. At a certain point it really becomes more about having some fun because I realize I'm not going to get anywhere. You cannot teach a man something he already he thinks he knows.
You have made completely indefensible sweeping generalizations. You've referenced economists debunking arguments I haven't even made.
Fringe thinkers and elements and movements are incapable of governing, except in the form of dictatorships because they are completely incapable of compromise and devoid of the capacity to accept viewpoints counter to their own. This is why the Tea Party will ultimately fail. It's also why Al Shrapton or David Duke will never move beyond fringe political figures.
But, that said you should continue to fight for what you believe in, despite my words I do admire your passion. I only hope you continue to open you eyes and ears and come to different views not because I think you should, but because you come to them on your own terms.
"America isn't easy; America is advance citizenship. You gotta want it bad because it's going to put up a fight. It's going to say: 'you want free speech, let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.' "
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 04:23 PM
Yeah, I can live with you Kimo2007. As they say, we can agree to disagree, but I would add, if we had a better forum and more time we might see more eye to eye on certain things than we both think. Maybe.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 04:25 PM
I just came across an article by Jonah Goldberg(via Pajamasmedia.com) at National Review Online. Wow, Margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parent hood, and H.G. Wells believed in Eugenics. Some unpleasant people to say the least.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 04:33 PM
Sanger and H.G. Wells were both progressives.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 07:57 PM
You do love your labels don't you:)
The problem with labels is they are meant attach larger concepts to an individual so you can create straw man arguments. It's like saying the scout leader is Gay. (and we all know what that means).
It reminds me of my buddy Bob. Bob sells cars. Bob could talk a nun into a 3 way with Donkey and convince her to pay for the cab ride. Doesn't mean people who sell cars are bad people, it just means Bob's moral compass is stuck on depraved.
That's what pops into my mind when you say so and so is a progressive, or a democrat or whatever. The Catholics have Nuns who care for lepers, and Priests who pork little boys.
Muslims aren't bad people, guys who fly planes into the world trade center are, and so are those people who choose to punish people who happen to look like the guys who did.
I can live with you as well my friend, and I am sure given the proper forum and enough time you are probably right. We might agree on quite a few things. I think most people would agree on 70-80% of most issues given enough personal contact. But too much money is made on keeping us at each others throats so that is not going to happen any time soon.
Are the Mods bored or what? Can't believe this has gone on this long..
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 10:00 PM
Me too. Cord tends to jump on these pretty quick.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 10:39 PM
I liked that quote on free speech Kimo, where did you find it?
I agree you have to be really careful with labels, they do have a place, just like stereotypes have a place, but you have to be very careful not to get so stuck on them you're completely unopen to exceptions or just being wrong. Labels can be rough guidlines but they are not the gospel truth on the nature of anything or anyone.
When I vote I try to ignore what party people are in as much as possible (often that's impossible but you can avoid it soem of the time) and look at the peopel themselves. That label only tells you so much.
"But too much money is made on keeping us at each others throats so that is not going to happen any time soon." Unfortunetly very true, there is a lot of business in playing peopel into conflicts. That occurs on both the international as well as the national and local levels, which seems crazy but someone always gains from it.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/06/10 11:15 PM
I liked that quote on free speech Kimo, where did you find it?
It's from the movie "The American President" there is some great writing in that movie if you can put the liberal bias aside. ( I don't mean your distaste for it, I mean the movie has a liberal bias). There is a great rant about how the people are so thirsty for leadership they will drink sand by Michael J Fox, and there is another line where Michael Douglas calls out his rival for going on talk shows and calling his girl friend a whore...classic stuff.
There is a great scene with Louis Black, which I referenced earlier in this thread where he rants about news putting up a Holocaust denier against a respected historian and calling it a fair and balanced debate. Funny times when it takes comedians to cut through the farce of network news and point out the truth...at least to my eyes.
Labels are tough to avoid though, people gravitate to them as much as people slap them on others. It's a part if the imperfect system, I just like to avoid them whenever possible.
I have no label for myself yet. I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative. Though I share beliefs that would fit with both of those groups. I'm not gay but I love the theatre, I'm highly spiritual but very anti religion (not anti but anti the power religion holds over people and the harm it causes in terms of guilt and shame and worse). I'm pro business, and for limited government but for a strong regulatory body to oversee the rights of the people.
I think I need a George Carlin ruling for a label LOL!
Posted by: Zach_Zinn
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/07/10 01:41 AM
Thought i'd point out:
The democratic party has very different, very mild platform compared to European social democratic parties. I don't have any problems with those personally anyway, but the constant attempt by right wingers to compare the two is total BS, the average democrat here is pretty right wing by the standards of most European left parties.
AS far as Europe "seeing the light"..again there are people considered right wing by European standards that the right here would be shrieking "socialist" at, you can't compare them like that.
All the BS about "socialism" is coming from people who have no idea what the term means, and are using it harken back to the red scare for political purposes. Don't like a progressive? Call him a socialist, or better yet, call him a muslim.
Sometimes the left does the same thing by accusing the right of being racist, problem is at this point in time, there seems to be a lot more overt racism on the right...so hey the shoe seems to fits half the time.
Far as some democrats being racist. Yep, certainly..there is racism in both of the big, corporate parties that dominate American politics, big surprise.
Neither the reupblican party nor the democratic one have any place claiming they were instrumental in something like the civil rights movement, change in that department came from the people pushing for it, not from the politicians who eventually enacted legislation.
Nevertheless, by definition most of the forces opposing the civil rights movement would have been conservative in nature.
IMO... stop listening to people like Glen Beck. I can respect someone having different beliefs from my own, including being very right wing...however Glen Beck is pretty much full of crap, regularly lies about history, and even lies about current events. Lucky for him his fans don't seem to be the type that spend a lot of time worrying about pesky stuff like facts or reality.
The Planned Parenthood thing...true far as I know, but means very little today in terms of political positions to take on abortion or abortion funding.
There have been crazy )9*& -ups in positions of power from every place in the political spectrum. This idea the far right is blameless for things like racism, terrorism etc. and that all the blame lies with the left, that's so simple minded it's hardly worth mentioning.
A ridiculous position to take, and one that someone would only take when they have an exceptionally narrow, poorly informed view of the world from ignoring voices other than those on the far right of the political specturm.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/07/10 02:25 AM
You're speaking my language Kimo. Big time agreement on those points. Didn't Bush call Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the "axis of evil"? lmao yeah that makes a ton of sense when Iraq and Iran were major enemies following radically different models of government and as far as I know North Korea only recently started giving a small amount of aid to Iran's nuclear program.
And lumping Muslims in with socialists makes not one bit of sense. Saddamn was an Arab Socialist who only payed lip service to his Islamic roots for the sake of winning the support of the Sunni's (though he did put a lot of support into the Sunni cause). He actually followed the soviet model. Iran is a Shia Muslim theocracy. Very different. And North Korea is communist and a world away just about with it's own interests.
I saw someone with a van with writing all over it calling Obama a "godless Muslim racist communist" lmao x10
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/07/10 02:33 AM
I do want to say Glenn Beck is very entertaining and has made some good points in the past. He's also a good balance against the idiot liberals in our country (dare I say Hillary, Pelosi, or tv personalities like Roseanne, good god).
Posted by: MattJ
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/07/10 07:13 AM
Glen Beck is an idiot on a network full of idiots, sorry.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/07/10 08:46 PM
Never said he was a genius, or even all that smart (he apparently took one college class in his whole life). I said he was a good balance for the idiot liberals that I mentioned among others. And the fact that he has little post-secondary education and a lot of crappy ideas DOES NOT mean he is devoid of any good ideas. That my friend is an either-or fallacy. You can have a lot of stupid ideas AND good ones.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/08/10 12:19 AM
I'm going to have to go with Matt on this one, Beck is correct when he says he is a rodeo clown. He is a very confused man, he is not a thinker he is an entertainer and I can't believe we give him a radio show and nationally syndicated talked talk show.
Scary what passes for quality.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/08/10 01:41 AM
Nobody has any issues with liberal old Colbert(who I'm a big fan of by the way), or John Stewart (who I'm not a fan of). By the way did anyone see Colbert's speech at the Republican Correspondent's dinner back a few years ago? Incredibly funny. Did they actually expect him to be serious?
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/08/10 03:07 AM
Storm-
They are openly comedians, if Beck moved his show to the comedy network, I'd have a lot more respect for him.
Truth be told Jon Stewart was a guest on Cross Fire back in '04 I think and he ripped on Tucker Carlson for being a sellout to the right, which he probably had coming.
Carlson shot back at Stewart for not being more diligent with his news show, to which he replied, and I quote(almost) " I follow a show where Muppets make crank calls, it's hardly the same thing" anyway watch it, Carlson lost his job and Crossfire was canceled soon after this, but not not much really got better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/08/10 04:41 AM
I'll be honest, I have no idea what channel Beck's show is on. I saw one episode (barely attended to it) and read his book (which I enjoyed for it's humor and handful of decent ideas). I assumed no one actually took him that seriously, he has a good idea at times in the way that Colbert or Stewart do. A lot of crappy ideas which seem almost too over the top to actually be serious (hence why I compared him to those others) but I guess they are. Which is to be expected from someone with so little education.
Either way, the Republicans apparently thought Colbert was serious.
I still think having a guy like Beck, serious or not, is great for balancing out all the dumba$$ liberals out there with so little actually experience.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/08/10 09:19 AM
Just found out about this. Another fringe group of idiots about to be seen as representative of our country which will undo a lot of progress most likely. Perfect.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.co...despite_pet.php
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/08/10 02:18 PM
OK I'd like you to post for the record who you think the liberal nut jobs are. They are out there, I've cited a few myself, just wondering who you think Beck is balancing out.
BTW, the book burning Bible Thumper, you do realize the right wingers are going to have to claim him right? Lefties don't even go to Church, much less burn books.
He's all yours my brother, our guys are busy putting nails in trees, licking frogs to get high and learning Klingon.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/08/10 03:53 PM
Kimo, you know we can't have you going around spilling all of our left-wing secrets. This insult must be answered.
*slowly reaches for Bat'leth*
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/08/10 06:07 PM
I gave you several examples, did you even ready my earlier posts? Do I really need to give more names? I easily can but it would be a real pain.
You're acting like I'm beating up on the left and making excuses for the right. I can't stand people who go real far either way. I care about common sense decisions and objectivity (not saying I'm completely objective, no one is, but I would like to think I'm more so than most considering my varied, not parties.
But alright I'll claim him anyway if I have to choose, you can go ahead and babysit the frog-licking, nutless liberals, I prefer the narrow-minded religious fanatics, much more fun. It's like the difference between a fat kid playing video games all day or an ADHD kid running around stealing lunch money.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/08/10 06:34 PM
By the way, this means the Muslim world must claim radicals like the Taliban, Al Qaeda or the Mahdi Army right?
You can't understand people like this pastor without understand the history of the Right and the general views of the Right, but that doesn't mean crazy people like that represent the right in general. Or else that guy who took over the discovery channel place has to be claimed by the Left. Make sure to be consistent with your logic.
You can't understand extremist Islam without a general understanding of Islam and where it came from (which is why I'm currently reading the Qur'an), but that doesn't mean those extremists represent all Muslims.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/08/10 08:12 PM
Stormdragon, you might want to check the version of the Qur'an that you have. A lot of the copies here in the west have been edited by the publishers. If you want an interesting read try "the politically incorrect guide to Islam and the crusades." I think that the guy burning the Qur'an has a constitutional right to burn those books. I do not think that he should, much like I do not think they should build the mosque in New York. Keep in mind, the guy has only 50 people in his church and the MSM has made it an international story. Another story not covered so much by the MSM was covered by Rush today on his show. A soldier in Afghanistan recieved a bunch of bibles from home. The U.S. millitary confiscated the bibles because they have a millitary reg. that prevents attempts at conversion in Afghanistan. The U.S. millitary burned those bibles. You do not get a lot of coverage of that story.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/08/10 08:24 PM
The author of "the politically incorrect guide to islam and the crusades," is Robert Spencer, I think he also has the website jihadwatch.com. He is a great guest and is very knowledgable about the islamic extremist movement. Another guy to check out on national security issues is Victor Davis Hanson. He is a pretty good author of millitary history.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/08/10 10:04 PM
Constitutional right? Yes. Stupid and wrong? Oh yeah, for numerous reasons. It's also a very unChristian thing to do. You don't win converts that way. That guy, when it comes to this stuff, has no clue what he's doing. It's wrong on so many levels.
And I am totally on board with the Army for confiscating those Bibles. We're soldiers not missionaries. You want to convert those people, take Bibles and go there yourself, it's not our job or our problem. Or even a good thing. The Army burning the Bibles? I DO NOT believe that. We did not have regulations against having Bibles, just against using them to try and convert the people in those countries. the Army very much respects all religion practiced by soldiers, and gives out Bibles, Torah's, even Qur'ans to soldiers, but if you try to use that to be a missionary than yes the Army will come down on you hard, for good reason.
My experience? 10 months with the U.S. Army in Operation Iraqi Freedom 2009-2010. What's that pastors experience? Or the credentials of the guy who wrote that Qur'an version you cited? The worst thing is for us would be to be seen as Crusaders. Trust me, that is inviting more trouble than 9/11.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/08/10 10:09 PM
And the Taliban/Al Qaeda are NOT representative of Muslims in general or Islam.
Yes Muslims who fully follow the Qur'an do not fit well in modern American and would be seen by most as a little crazy and lawless. That does not make them terrorists. Muslims who're particularly liberal or progressive turn a blind eye to quite a few passages of the Qur'an. Which is fine by me. The Islam of the Taliban are a perversion of Islam in the opposite extreme. We are NOT fighting Muslims.
I may not trust them (the Qur'an says not to be close friends with unbelievers) but that doesn't mean they're terrorists or bad people necessarily and needlessly antagonizing them is pointless and childish.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/08/10 11:36 PM
The bible burning story is at CNN website. They were confiscated at the Bagram Air base and then burned. Good night.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/08/10 11:52 PM
I think that the guy burning the Qur'an has a constitutional right to burn those books. I do not think that he should, much like I do not think they should build the mosque in New York.
OK since we can live with each other, lets touch on this. I think from what you've stated that you agree that both groups have the legal right to do both things, burn and build. You do not think they should do either.
I take issue with you calling the community center a Mosque. Because that would be like calling a YMCA a Cathedral. It's inflammatory on purpose, designed to attach action of one group to another so it can push forward a racist agenda.
That's why it's so important, if you believe in the American Ideal, that the community center be built. It's not an invasion, you would be pushing these American Citizens out of their neighborhood, and why? Because they look like someone else. Not because of their behavior, not because of their beliefs but because a group of people who come from a foreign land, who don't respect our laws, or our way of life co opted a book and twisted it in way that gave them the idea that was OK to murder innocent people. To ask these people to now move their community center, out of their community, where they have lived as American Citizens for 30 plus years is at best intellectually lazy, and at worst pure racism.
In between, I can see where there is some sense of concern for those who lost loved ones on 9-11. They are not racist and their immediate visceral reaction is understandable, and should be recognized and addressed. But their anger, is misplaced. It's insensitive, in fact cruel to hold innocent people accountable for the actions of terrorist, when they were in no way involved or supportive of them.
To ask them to move, not build or go away in any form is to say the perceived slight of one group somehow trumps the innocence of another. And if that is not the basis of racism, nothing is.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 12:09 AM
The bible burning story is at CNN website. They were confiscated at the Bagram Air base and then burned. Good night.
I just read the story. The Bibles were burned because they were printed and sent in local languages by a private organization but made somehow to appear to be from US Military Sponsored sources.
They were burned because if they got out to the highly fanatical religious Afghanistan community it might appear the US Military was fighting a religious war to spread Christianity.
SO, Mr. I say Good Night and think I've made a point, as usual there is more to the story. Not only did we need to get the Bibles out of there, but I imagine the Military had to make a spectacle of the matter to show they were not behind the distribution in the first place.
I hope this bothers you, since the type of war our boys and girls are fighting involves winning hearts and minds, and this type of stunt not only undermines that effort in the name of someone's version of mythology, but more importantly means the loss in trust will result in an extra son, husband, daughter mom or dad will not coming home.
Good Night.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 12:22 AM
lol Kimo I didn't know Islam was a race. Always with the race card. What a joke. I love it, everytime liberals hear something they don't like, no matter how justifiable "oh no racist!". I like a lot of what you say but please don't jump on the racist bandwagon. It's like cops who arrest black people. "U arrest me cuz i black!"
"No I arrested you because you broke the law."
This would be like Catholics getting arrested by an asian cop and saying "you're racist!". So funny it's hysterical. I swear people pull the race card on literally EVERYTHING. To the point that it has lost meaning. Are you telling me it was all whites of the right not wanting the Mosque? Show me evidence of that one.
It has zip to do with race man, it's an issue of cultural respect. We respect their cultural by allowing dozens of mosques to be built there and public worship/expression of Islam, they can respect us by not building a Mosque/community center where most people there don't want it. If they want to have a section with a Mosque, a section with a Church and one with a Synogogue (sp?) THAT would be a sign of peace and very acceptable imo.
And you're blatantly wrong, it's NOT just a community center, it's a Mosque with a section that is a gym and Rec. center. Do you really want to say there is no Mosque involved? Because that would be straight up lying my friend. Don't make me lay down suppressive fire with quotes and sources. lol
Totally agree on the military and Bibles thing.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 12:26 AM
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 01:24 AM
Pretty sure it's at least partly a Mosque. Nobody (literally nobody) supports what you're saying the nature of this structure.
No and no.
First of all, there is a room for Islamic Prayer in the Pentagon, no one not a soul would call the Pentagon a Mosque. Nor would they call it Church or anything else.
The word Mosque is meant to define a Church or Cathedral in our American Vernacular. You know that, I know that, everyone who reports on this issue knows that, and they also know that is not what is being nor has it ever be proposed.
What is being proposed is an Islamic Cultural Center, that has facilities which included prayer or service rooms. Like a Church, or a Y or a Chapel, but with other facilities as well.
So, to say it's a Mosque is misleading On purpose and we both know thats the truth.
It's also not at ground zero. It's 2 blocks from t The World Trade Center Campus, and 5 blocks from the location of the North Tower's closest point. If you are familiar with NYC at all, you would know that is fairly far away in city terms from ground zero. It's not in the shadow, it's not visible, it's not in the same neighborhood. It's close, sure but if you were at ground zero you'd have to walk a fair distance, and know where you were going to even find it. It most certainly is not at ground zero.
So, the "Mosque at ground zero" is completely a BS statement.
Further, of all people, the Muslim community has been the one ( excluding the right) who has said, maybe for the sake of getting along with the west maybe this project is not a good idea. I applaud their sentiment, but disagree with rewarding the xenophobic behaviors that would push these people out of their neighborhood.
Again, they didn't come in from the outside, they have been there for 30 years. While your point about Islam not being a race is valid, it doesn't change the facts. Just because others have overplayed the raced card, doesn't mean racism doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean that this issue isn't about racism. The details are different, but the motivation and philosophy holds. The problem is not who they are but who some people think they are, the rest is just semantics.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 08:28 AM
In my experience a "prayer room" is a worship center i.e. Church, which for Muslims is a...yep you guessed it a MOSQUE!
And no I'm not even going to pretend I'm familiar with NYC, never been there.
And I never said racism didn't exist (which you can gather yourself if you read my earlier posts), it absolutely does but huge progress has been made in the west in that area (which we're almost never given credit for, it's no wonder there's been a bit of a resurgence lately-don't give credit where it's due and people stop bothering) and it's thrown about randomly these days on nearly everything when overly liberal, touchy-feely people hear things they don't like.
What you're talking about is prejudice, not racism. And it seems to me that what you're saying is that if a person doesn't consider all cultural values and world-views equally good than they are prejudice or racist. You know what, if that makes me those things fine, whatever, I don't care, I have no problems with Muslims being in America and openly worshipping their god, but no law says we have to allow them to put up structures supporting their world-view wherever they want. Islam is not synonymous with terrorism or the views of the Taliban, however the teachings of the Qur'an, whether radical or not, are not in line with traditional American (or western actually) philosophy in terms of government and law (i.e. separation of Church and state, basic punishments for crimes, place of evidence, religious freedom, democracy, etc etc-this comes from my reading of their book and from what I've seen in Muslim countries I am NOT saying there is nothing beautiful or respectable about Islam-there is).
To put ANY religious institution so close to a place that represents America should not be forced. And personally I'm not on board with the idea. Now if they want to put a place that ties all religions together, fine, despite my atheism that's a possible aid in peace so ok, but a Muslim cultural center? Why Muslim only? That benefits no one but Muslims. Why not something that ties us together? How many Muslims actually seek out other religious leaders for talks on various issues, like, say, the Catholic Church maybe they do, idk, not that I can tell though).
I would have an issue if they put up a Baptist Church that close to ground zero.
Trust me, I'm the last person who is in favor of throwing out Muslims or messing with them in America, hell I think we need to train Muslim Chaplains here in the states under strong, moderate, devote Muslim Imams and send them back to Afghanistan and Iraq. I think we should build bigger Mosques or rebuild broken down Mosques in those places, that is the way to show we are not the enemy, but come on, lets respect our own people's wishes as well. As far as I'm concerned, what it comes down to is what the majority wants. This is a democracy afterall. No law is broken by blocking this thing from being made.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 09:12 AM
Stormy -
Hate to be pedantic here, but Kimo is correct - a mosque is not the same thing as a prayer room, anymore than a chapel is considered a church.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 11:11 AM
I think we'd be better off, if we all just listed to Matt
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 11:34 AM
Psh semantics.
Gotta give me credit for consistency, I don't single out one religion.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 11:42 AM
Please, let's not be silly. We three jolly guys agree that the mosque has the right to be built. However, let's not pretend, the Rauf guy wants to build the mosque there as a statement of victory. That is why it was initially refered to as the Cordoba mosque, once it is built it will be a magnet for the radicals of the faith. There are apparently over 100 mosques already in the city so intolerance is not, not an issue. The funding of the mosque is being held in secret, the builder of the mosque has said some radical things that make his motives suspect. It technically is attached to ground zero because some of the air craft landed there. There is also another mosque, which has been there longer, even closer to the site. Intolerance is not the issue, arrogance of the mosque builder is. Much like the Carmalite sisters who wanted to build near the death camp, a decent religous person would move the mosque. Pleas, let's be real.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 12:00 PM
Oh, I was mistaken, the nut who is going to burn the Koran's doesn't have 50 followers, he only has less than 24. This goes to my original post, so long ago. The main stream media, in its eagerness to portray americans, especially christian, southern americans as intolerant islamophobes has pumped up a story that should never have been given national air time. He has less than 24 people and they have made this into an international story and used it to the possible endangerment of Americans around the world. Every major American religous leader of almost every faith has said he is doing the wrong thing and asked him to stop. Imagine if he was an environmentalist who was going to burn a pile of bibles. How different would the story be?
Posted by: MattJ
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 12:21 PM
Well, this is certainly uncomfortable. I actually agree with bcihak. Moderate muslims should recognize the backlash this is causing in NY, and move the center somewhere else.
I also wonder why the news stations are giving so much air time to that nut in FL and his few followers. Stop putting him on TV and the story will go away.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 12:51 PM
Moderate muslims should recognize the backlash this is causing in NY, and move the center somewhere else.
They are, many have come out and said that very thing. All the commotion is working against the very unity they were seeking in the first place.
The media really is fan the flames of the book burning wack job, thats what they do and it's sad.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 01:02 PM
Well, this is certainly uncomfortable. I actually agree with bcihak.
Matt....you should have stuck with your first Instinct.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 02:03 PM
Please, let's not be silly. We three jolly guys agree that the mosque has the right to be built. However, let's not pretend, the Rauf guy wants to build the mosque there as a statement of victory. That is why it was initially refered to as the Cordoba mosque, once it is built it will be a magnet for the radicals of the faith. There are apparently over 100 mosques already in the city so intolerance is not, not an issue. The funding of the mosque is being held in secret, the builder of the mosque has said some radical things that make his motives suspect. It technically is attached to ground zero because some of the air craft landed there. There is also another mosque, which has been there longer, even closer to the site. Intolerance is not the issue, arrogance of the mosque builder is. Much like the Carmalite sisters who wanted to build near the death camp, a decent religous person would move the mosque. Pleas, let's be real.
Easily true, but we can't use that as a reason not to put it there without hard evidence. And I think there is reason enough anyway (i.e. the number of peopel who're against it and the fact it's Muslim only which does nothing for making peace between religions or cultures). But that would make sense and some of those Muslims who're against putting it there may know something. There are a lot of radical Muslim fundamentalsits who like to pull that kind of thing.
That's another thing, considering that some Muslims don't even think it should go up, why the hell is it an invalid opinion that we shouldn't put it up? Oh wait I know because anyone can do anythign they want in the name of religion. Awesome.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 02:35 PM
That's another thing, considering that some Muslims don't even think it should go up, why the hell is it an invalid opinion that we shouldn't put it up?
The only valid opinion I've heard that it shouldn't go up, is that things have gone so far in the wrong direction that the original mission of outreach has now been lost.
I disagree with that in principle, I think you cannot let prejudice win, you must stand up to it. Maybe that's not practical, but leadership is tough and this to me requires it. But it's not my land so as long as it's left up to the people who own it and they make the choice and it's not forced upon them then whatever they decide is fine I guess.
I do hope the builders of the (insert whatever word) find a way to bring their community together on this. I'm sure there is a way if they try, and they certainly seem willing too. I do find it promising that for the most part they have stayed out of the fray. I think Newt Gingrich embarrassed himself. For a smart guy he said some pretty dumb things. Keith Olbermann did a nice piece on the issue factually, if he could have left the angry man routine and not used Edward R Murrow's sign off at the end. I do think Kieth is a bit of a pudding head, but if you can put that to the side for a minute, this is a decent report.
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/08/watch-keith-olbermann-on-the-ground-zero-mosque.htmlSo, did anyone enjoy Jan Brewer Governor of AZ and her 16 second freeze frame?? That was special. I think one of staffers was supposed to pull the string on her back, guess they forgot...ooops.
Actually, since we are never going to get anywhere on NYC, and the Mods aren't shutting us down (bored I guess? Hey are we the fat girl in spandex at the bar?)
I figured we could switch up to SB1070. A really bad piece of legislation for Arizona. I knew it would pass when it first came out, but I could also see all the problems it would cause and now here we are a few months down the road and viola, I'm either a Pychic, genius or as Matt likes to say, right
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 04:33 PM
I guess it wouldn't be too hard to guess that I whole heartedly support Arizona. The law made sense, did not discriminate against people from mexico and gave arizona law enforcement a tool to help them against people breaking the law. Is it a surprise that people who want to benefit from virtual slave labor from mexican immigrants oppose the law? For the sake of clarity, why don't we start at what you think was actually wrong with the Arizona law, for those who oppose it.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 04:35 PM
Wow, I just checked the numbers on who is reading our thread. That is a lot. For a short period of time.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 04:45 PM
Kimo do you really think that mosque had anything to do with outreach? Really? As far as the nut burning the Qur'an, the liberal media love to show this because it reinforces their view that all Americans, except for people like them, are irrational islamaphobes, and it helps them defend their position on the New York Mosque. There is a good article on the nut at Breitbart.com's Bigjournalism thread. He explains why the media is covering this guy when he isn't even big enough to be the fringe of the fringe.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 04:54 PM
Love that law Arizona passed (or tried to). I can't believe that Federal judge actually blocked the useful parts. what the hell is the point of having immigration laws if you can't enforce them? Yeah that makes sense. And how do people (luckily few) come to the conclusion that 16 million illegal immgirants, most of whom speak zero english, are a good thing? Where do they think the hispanic gang culture came from? Smuggling of illegals is big business for a lot of Mexican mob members and business for a lto of the cartels.
How is it fair they can just walk over and be allowed to stay with no one trying to get them out when everyone else has to earn their right to be Americans? And than we're criticised for actually, you know, enforcing our immigration laws when most countries have even stricter laws. Personally, I don't give a rats a$$ about them if they aren't willing to fight to get here. And the Mexican government is only too happy to get rid of them. Congratulations, instead of trying to build up your country you just try to send as many of your bad apples here as possible. wonderful. It's not all racism either, Mexico just happens to be where 95% or more of the illegals come from, obviously that makes them all Mexicans. They could be Russians, I still would hate it. Come to America and learn about our society and learn English. Should americans learn other languages? Sure but why should we be forced to learn that one language because so many people jump over here and only speak it? I took 4 years of Spanish, I hated it, I'd rather learn German, but no Spanish is now the only useful language here besides English so we're forced to learn that one. If I go to another country I try to pick up as much as I can of the language spoken by the majority. Kind of makes sense. You go to Mexico or some other Spanish speaking country do you tell them they're wrogn for not speaking your language? No you learn Spanish. Duh. Common sense.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 04:56 PM
I think the mods can see we won't resort to "f- you you stupid f-er you're full of F" lol
Plus there's only 4 of us to watch. You guys must be extremely confused about where I fall in the political spectrum, one moment I sound like a flaming right lunatic and the next I'm an atheist who respects Muslims. I even support gay marriage. PRetty odd combination of views eh?
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 05:52 PM
Finally a good end is in sight to this crap with the burning Korans and the Mospue:
http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx/politic...urning?pageid=1At last people are thinking and being reasonable.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 07:15 PM
Sure, I mean unless you spent 10 seconds in law school. Oh and while I can understand it explicitly did not discriminate against people from Mexico, exactly how many illegals from any country other than Mexico, do you think are in Arizona? Give me a number or a percentage? C'mon on man you know damn well who the target was, don't lie to me or anybody else.
I won't BS you and pretend that Mexican's aren't entering the country illegally OK, we all know they are, so let's not pretend it's not happening fair enough? How about we talk about SB1070?
First, you support Arizona. I get that. It's what the politicians counted on. But if you understand anything about international law, you understand it's a federal issue, it's a federal jurisdiction. Making most of SB1070 illegal right out of the gate, which is why it was gutted by the judge and challenged by the feds. Not because they have some agenda, because that is their job and they are required to do so. Proven right because they won.
Point 2, local law enforcement already had a working agreement with the feds to turn over suspected illegals picked up for crimes. If you got arrested for a crime, and couldn't produce legal ID, guess what? You were vetted for legal status already. So what did SB1070 really do?
Point 3. Many families left the state of AZ because they had 1-5 members who were illegal. The fear was they might be arrested and shipped back to Mexico and away from their family. Result, rents are down, commerce is down, schools are down by 28% in attendance. I could go on.
These families have moved to California, Nevada, New Mexico and other states where the laws are less aggressive toward legal status. For every illegal AZ has removed, they have lost 8-10 legal residents. The tax base and general revenue lose has been devastating to the local economy.
Point 4.
The illegals come and have come for 90 years, because the economy has asked them too come. Passing a law that singles out the poorest people in the equation and assumes the richest people who pay them for their cheap labor bare no responsibility...is just BS. We have 12 million illegal jobs, and we offer 500,000 visas to fill them. That creates a huge economic vacuum sucking these people up into our country, then we kick them in the face and call them criminals for the effort.
The fact is most Mexicans who come here to work, do just that, come here to work. Have been for generations and the US keeps changing the rules as political winds change.
The BS that they don't try and learn English is beyond stupid.
Most first generation immigrants never get beyond broken English, most never let their kids speak their mother tongue, because of the prejudiced against speaking anything other than English in this country.
SB1070 is a great law for those that think that economic failure is cool, who needs capitalism right?
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 10:21 PM
BS that they don't try to learn English? BS my as we coddle them too much for them to actually bother to try and learn English and it makes problems. I worked a year i na store where every other customer spoke zero English. Created more problems than I really wanted to deal with. I tried learning Spanish for 4 years and still had trouble. It's BS if you have no actual real-world experience with that sort of thing. BS in theory maybe. Not BS in the real world.
But alright I'll go move to Mexico and tell them they have to put everything in English and learn English and I have no reason to learn Spanish and you'll call them racists and bigots if they don't right? You'll back me up in that?
And like you said, most illegals in say Arizona are Mexican, duh, because Mexico is the closest country and it's a poor country so they all want to come here. Obviously the illegals are Mexicans. The target is illegal immigrants and they happen to be Mexican because that's where all of the illegal immigrants come from. You call it racism, I call it lack of choice. Who the hell else are we supposed to include in that crack down on illegal immigration? It's not liek there's anything else so obviously they're all Mexicans. You have no grounds to call peopel racists for that unless somehow you get in their heads or they flat out say it.
I'll concede to your point on jursidiction.
As far as the damage done to the Airzona economy, show me your sources with numbers I can see for myself.
And I have to ask you, what about all the damage done to the economy by the huge number of illegals getting health care off our tax dollars ? We're talking billions of dollars. Pay your taxes because 16 million illegal immigrants depend on you.
Then there is the high number of vehicle accidents involving illegals who have no car insurance (I know people hwo have actually had that happen).
Are they illegal or not? Because half the time we treat it like they are, hal'f the time we don't (by giving them rights only really meant for citizens). I'd be happier if we at least eliminated our immigration laws and quit pretending like we actually give a sh#t who comes here and how. It's dishonesty.
We wouldn't NEED 15 million illegals to keep our economy afloat if we hadn't let it get this far out of controlto the point where now our economy is based on it. And I'm not just blaming them I'm blaming the jacka$$ business owners who encourage it. And this is where excessive taxes come in, you cause business to go to hiring illegals and outsourcing for nothing, taking jobs from Americans which is partly where are economic troubles come from. The idea that we just don't want to do those jobs is BS, plain BS. You have any idea how many people I know who do ANY work at all and can't because of that? there's no jobs available because guess who gets them?
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/09/10 10:27 PM
we'll probably make even less progress debating this topic.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/10/10 12:15 PM
We are not going make any progress, but the economic numbers are out there if you look. The numbers of empty apartments, the businesses that serve the Latino community are way down, sure some of them serve illegals but the vast % is legal.
The economic impacts are also way over stated depending on your Political Stand, figures lie and liars figure. Plus, the jobs they do. I cold write a book on that. In fact I work on a documentary that honored a healthcare worker who went into migrant worker camps to administer basic care. See, the other side of the story is more of the workers stay in the shadow because they are scared of deportation so they don't get basic care. By the time they hit the ER, often it's because they let minor things fester.
As for the work, trust me getting Americans to do it has been a problem for generations. Not all the jobs it's not a cut and dry thing, but the vast majority hard low income hard labor jobs. Keeping them filled with hard working Americans, especially in decent economy is very very difficult.
Go online and look for interviews. You'll find dozens that talk about programs where the bosses will say most Americans don't make it to lunch before they walk off. Work is too hard.
So, report came out which is huge egg on SB1070's face. The big contention was that Government wasn't enforcing the law. Well, turns out they were. Numbers are way down, enforcement is way up (all before 1070). What is needed, is reform. Guest worker program, enforcement against the real criminals and drug runners etc. Fair and reasonable paths to citizenship.
Not a fence and bunch of yahoo's with guns...but whatever make you feel good I guess. Funny how whenever the economy get's rough the immigrants get kicked around, then when things get better, we eat our cheap lettuce and forget all about it for a while?
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/10/10 10:38 PM
I was just listening to Mark Levin on the radio. Apparently 41 white house aids owe over 800,000 dollars in back taxes. I don't know if this is a grand total or if each of them is this far in the red. What is it with democrats and taxes? They always complain that the rich don't pay their fair share. Is this the psychological malady called projection, where you put onto other people your failings? I mean Tim Geitner, Tom Dashle, Charles Rangle, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry... the list goes on and on. They love raising those taxes and then they hide their own money.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/11/10 02:32 AM
Mark Levin? OH brother...
Posted by: MattJ
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/11/10 09:33 AM
Bill, don't even
try to act like the republicans haven't done the same thing. They are just as bad and you know it.
Randy Duke Cunningham; pled guilty to tax evasion
James A. Ortenzio; GOP leader of Manhattan; admitted tax cheating (media called it "evasion") 11/15/2007
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/manhattan-... /
Robert Beale; founder of Minnesota Christian Coalition, delegate to national Republican convention; reported in Minneapolis Star-Tribune in August 2006; World Nut Daily defends:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32878(did not file federal or state tax returns for four years, even though he received at least $5,696,574 in income between Jan. 1, 2000, and about September 2004.)
Samuel J. Wurzelbacher owes the state of Ohio $ 1,200.00 in back taxes for his income.
http://politicolnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/joe-plumber-t...Robert Stears;
http://www1.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-03012008-14...http://www.republicanoffenders.com/Bribery2.htmlSo get off your high horse, hypocrite.
Posted by: MastaFighta
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/11/10 06:53 PM
I was just listening to Mark Levin on the radio. Apparently 41 white house aids owe over 800,000 dollars in back taxes. I don't know if this is a grand total or if each of them is this far in the red. What is it with democrats and taxes? They always complain that the rich don't pay their fair share. Is this the psychological malady called projection, where you put onto other people your failings? I mean Tim Geitner, Tom Dashle, Charles Rangle, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry... the list goes on and on. They love raising those taxes and then they hide their own money.
Here's a couple of excerpts from the original Washington Post article:
An agency-by-agency breakdown of IRS debt is not published but is available in a redacted form from the agency upon request. Along with the Capitol Hill totals, it shows that three employees at the Office of Government Ethics owed a combined $75,000. And 41 employees at the Executive Office of the President owed $831,000 altogether - about the same amount as during the last year of George W. Bush's administration.
On Capitol Hill, recent increases in delinquencies also may reflect the unusual nature of the workforce, which turns over dramatically when a new political party comes into power.
From 2004 through 2006, the last three years that Republicans were in power, the total amount of back taxes owed each year by congressional workers hovered just below $9 million. But in 2007, when Democrats took control of both houses, it dropped to $6.8 million. Since then, it has increased by 37 percent.
Jock Friedly, who publicizes congressional salaries on the Web site LegiStorm, said many new staffers come from the private sector, where they worked as lobbyists or in other higher-paying jobs. "They go to a somewhat lower-paying government job and then, over time, debt starts to build up," Friedly said.
During 2008 and 2009 - when the financial crisis took hold and the economy started sinking - the Senate debt increased 80 percent and the House debt increased 25 percent.
And a graph from the same article showing the total amount of federal taxes owed by congressional staff over a five year period, beginning with 2004:
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090903376.html
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/11/10 08:05 PM
I come here everyday, just to see if Matt has posted, so I can see my name in lights.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/11/10 08:15 PM
So, if you have time for Levin, spend it on a great political thinker!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-se...s=synd_facebook
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/12/10 01:32 AM
I don't pretend that the republicans don't do it, they are politicians after all. However, they don't go around denouncing anyone who wants to keep their money as "not paying their fair share" and they at least end up most of the time on the side that wants to lower everyones taxes. The democrats are constantly calling people greedy, Biden said that it is patriotic to pay taxes. The Obamas keep telling the young people of today to not go into jobs that pay a lot of money, instead they should give back to the community. This of course is not what they did when Michelle got the 350,000 dollar a year job denying poor people admittance to the hospital she worked at. A job they got rid of when Barack and Michelle went to washington. The hypocrites are the democrats. An excellent book on this topic is "Do as I say" which chronicles this type of democrat hypocrisy. They all call rich people greedy and then shelter all of their money from confiscatory taxation. I think it is Pelosi, or Boxer that owns wineries and bed and breakfast places. They fight to unionize their own states and then deny their employees, who work in other states, the right to unionize. So please, the democrats are the hypocrites here, the republicans are just being politicians. Tim Geitner and Charles wrangle are tax cheats, you have another democrat giving grants to her family members. If you are going to raise taxes on everything up to and including taxing the air we breath, please, pay "your fair share of the taxes you are raising."
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/12/10 01:53 AM
You know what, you point to the republicans who are tax cheats and I point to democrats who are bigger tax cheats. Which one of us has the right view point. I want everyone to pay less taxes if for no other reason the "blanking" politicians are the ones who recieve the most benefits from our tax money and they don't pay their taxes. Too many on your side want people to pay more taxes to use the money to help people even knowing that 90 percent of the money will not be spent to "help people" but will in fact be used to buy votes, reward their freinds and campaign contributers and line their own pockets. The money that does sometimes help people, about half will be lost to fraud and waste. I repeat my concept, if I give someone 20 dollars to buy a loaf of bread, and they come back with just a pound of candy, no change and they tell you that you owe the store another ten dollars, because they started a tab in your name, would you ever give them another penny of your money. You apparently would. Taxes need to be lowered, people need to keep the money they earn and put it to good uses according to their needs, wants and desires and not the needs of criminals in elected office who are too lazy to pick up a gun and steal money the old fashioned way. Stop feeding the disease.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/12/10 02:58 PM
The washington post, Sunday sept. 12 2010 has a great article on conservatism and the false claims of racism the left throws against it. The article is by Gerard Alexander.
Posted by: Stormdragon
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/12/10 07:12 PM
You guys probably won't see me post on thsi thread anymore, it's getting old. But have fun.
Posted by: bcihak
Re: conspiracy-nut - 09/12/10 07:31 PM
I seem a bit tapped out as well. It was fun.