The Democrat Thread

[Soxbadger]

If youre going to use my name, can we please try and refrain from making things up?

 

I sincerely doubt you can find any post of mine that states "XYZ is a racist" let alone stating that you personally are one.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Soxbadger

[lostfan]

If youre going to use my name, can we please try and refrain from being libelous?

 

I sincerely doubt you can find any post of mine that states "XYZ is a racist" let alone stating that you personally are one.

Which post are you referring to?

[Soxbadger]

So, Soxbadger says I'm a racist,

 

Northsidesox72.

 

And I should have corrected myself, its not libelous, its just a misstatement of fact.

[NorthSideSox72]

Which post are you referring to?

He was talking about the 14a thread, for some reason he posted that here. He said multiple times that, basically, the only motivation for changing 14a was racism. Its the old "if you think X, you are Y" argument, its just a roundabout way of saying "you are Y".

 

[Jenksismyhero]

He was talking about the 14a thread, for some reason he posted that here. He said multiple times that, basically, the only motivation for changing 14a was racism. Its the old "if you think X, you are Y" argument, its just a roundabout way of saying "you are Y".

 

don't forget you're a Nazi for thinking that way too.

[Balta1701]

An opinion piece I think I agree with.

You know the knee-jerk claim from conservatives when Fox News comes under attack: Partisan, Dem-cheering MSNBC is just like Fox News, except from the left, so leave Rupert's team alooooone.

 

Except that, of course, it's not.

 

Meaning, MSNBC for most of the broadcast day actually produces a straight news product, which Fox News does not. And MSNBC for the most of the day welcomes conservatives on the air to discuss the day's issues (paging Pat Buchanan!), which is a courtesy Fox News simply does not extend to liberals.

 

But more importantly, MSNBC tees off on Democrats, even during the channel's supposedly liberal, opinionated shows, in the way Fox News absolutely refused to do when Republicans under Bush ran Washington, D.C. (And still refuses to do today.)

 

For instance, I've recently made a handful of appearances on The Ed Show, and it seems like every time I'm getting mic'd up for the show, the segment before mine is taking shots at Democrats. On Monday, it was an interview with environmentalist Philippe Cousteau who faulted the White House for painting too rosy of a pictures with regards to the BP oil spill cleanup. (A critique that host Ed Schultz obviously agreed with.)

 

On other occasions when I've visited the set guests have belittled Democratic leadership in Congress for not doing enough to help the unemployed. And I know Schultz blamed the for administration for prematurely firing Shirely Sherrod instead of staring down that right-wing smear campaign.

 

And Schultz is hardly alone. Rachel Maddow spent the winter needling the administration over DADT, and Keith Olbermann recently gave Obama's primetime BP clean-up speech very low marks.

 

And of course that tension has been highlighted this week in the wake of WH spokesman's Robert Gibbs' disparaging comments about the "professional left" and how its criticism of Obama is so naive and out of touch. A WH aide later clarified that Gibbs was referring to "cable TV commentators." Hmm, cable TV commentators on the "professional left?" Yeah, that would be MSNBC. And sure enough, its shows this week have been populated with guests lighting into the White House.

[Balta1701]

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Weapon of Mass Construction
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

[southsider2k5]

An opinion piece I think I agree with.

 

So the author is saying he found three things that Dems criticized Obama for, but he couldn't find anything similar for Repubs on Fox? No offense that is a load of crap. I know Glenn Beck did plenty of unloading on the Bush admin all by himself.

[Soxbadger]

He was talking about the 14a thread, for some reason he posted that here. He said multiple times that, basically, the only motivation for changing 14a was racism. Its the old "if you think X, you are Y" argument, its just a roundabout way of saying "you are Y".

 

Really? Please provide the specific quote of where I say "if you think X, you are Y", please find anything even remotely similar to that.

 

My statement was:

 

Right and what is the purpose of this?

 

To prevent more "undesirable" people from entering the US, from becoming citizens, from turning America into something "they" dont want.

 

The problem I have is that this is nothing more than a pretext for racism. And if you let them have the first step, where does it end?

 

Youll notice an important part of the post states "If you let THEM".

 

Notice how I did not specifically state anyone in the thread nor anyone in the debate, as I was not making specific reference to anyone in the thread.

 

But keep playing the victim like Jenksismyb****.

 

I made a very apt comparison to how the in 1935 Germany they restricted citizenship.

 

I have no clue how that suggests I am calling anyone a Nazi. I dont believe I even said anything like "These people are Nazis".

 

I just merely pointed out a historical correlation.

 

If you feel that any of these statements offended or were directed at you, that was your own conclusion. There is nothing in any of my statements that remotely suggests I am calling anyone a racist or a Nazi.

 

But if you guys want to play the victim card, feel free, not like it is going to persuade me to take it easy on your argument.

[Jenksismyhero]

Really? Please provide the specific quote of where I say "if you think X, you are Y", please find anything even remotely similar to that.

 

My statement was:

 

 

 

Youll notice an important part of the post states "If you let THEM".

 

Notice how I did not specifically state anyone in the thread nor anyone in the debate, as I was not making specific reference to anyone in the thread.

 

But keep playing the victim like Jenksismyb****.

 

I made a very apt comparison to how the in 1935 Germany they restricted citizenship.

 

I have no clue how that suggests I am calling anyone a Nazi. I dont believe I even said anything like "These people are Nazis".

 

I just merely pointed out a historical correlation.

 

If you feel that any of these statements offended or were directed at you, that was your own conclusion. There is nothing in any of my statements that remotely suggests I am calling anyone a racist or a Nazi.

 

But if you guys want to play the victim card, feel free, not like it is going to persuade me to take it easy on your argument.

 

Come on, you're a lawyer. Extend the logic. What's the point in making the correlation unless you want that comparison to be made. You're saying "here's a bunch of people who think shutting down the borders is a good idea. Well you know who else used to think that? Nazi's." (and I pretended you said this line with Brad Pitt's accent in Inglorious Bastards)

 

And play the victim card? I could care less if you agree or disagree with my opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyones got em. Doesn't mean I can't point you out for making a ridiculous "historical correlation."

Edited August 13, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

What's the point in making the correlation unless you want that comparison to be made.

 

The point of the correlation, which I thought I made clear, was to show that the road to hell can be paved with good intentions. That the people of Germany thought that it may be a good idea, but looking back historically, it was not such a good idea.

 

In fact if you look at my post, I never even use the term Nazi, I instead use the term "German".

 

After balta talked about goodwins law I made it crystal clear the point:

 

By making the Nazi reference, in this specific case, you are showing how a very small law, can set the stage for something far worse.

 

And most Germans didnt want gas chambers for Jews. The problem is once they gave the govt the power to make these rules, the German people lost all control.

 

Most Germans never would have believed taking away Jewish citizenship, restricting their right to marry, would lead to the death of millions. If they were told that do you really believe they would have voted for it?

 

They were told that this was a way to protect them, to make sure that the Jews didnt take all of their money, etc.

 

How do you rectify your argument in this thread with the fact that I never once say anything that closely resembles, you are a Nazi?

 

You cant, because it just isnt there. The point of the statement was to show that people with good intentions can often give the govt to much power. And that we should be distrustful of the govt being given so much power, because govt in the pasts have used that power for evil.

 

/shrugs

 

If you think thats suggesting anyone is a Nazi, then Im just dumbfounded.

 

And play the victim card? I could care less if you agree or disagree with my opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyones got em. Doesn't mean I can't point you out for making a ridiculous "historical correlation."

 

IE

 

When I make a good argument you attack the person (me) not the argument (the fact that in 1935 prior to the holocaust the people of Germany allowed the Germany govt to dictate who was a citizen.)

 

Thats a fact, you cant argue that it didnt happen, because it did. If you want to some how argue that taking away citizenship rights in 1930's Germany is some how different than 2010 US, that would be one thing.

 

But to act as if it didnt happen, is mind blowing.

 

So yeah, I deal with this all the time. You dont have the bullets to beat my argument, so you try and disrupt the argument by making ridiculous claims that Im calling some one a Nazi. Therefore making me defend myself instead of focusing on the true facts.

 

Its a common tactic, not my first rodeo.

[NorthSideSox72]

Really? Please provide the specific quote of where I say "if you think X, you are Y", please find anything even remotely similar to that.

 

OK, here it is, from your very own post:

 

Right and what is the purpose of this?

 

To prevent more "undesirable" people from entering the US, from becoming citizens, from turning America into something "they" dont want.

 

The problem I have is that this is nothing more than a pretext for racism. And if you let them have the first step, where does it end?

 

 

Read that again. You are saying THE PURPOSE of it is to keep out "undesirables". You are also saying "THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A PRETEXT FOR RACISM". So, as I said, you pretty much said that anyone who feels this way is a racist who wants to keep out the undesirables.

 

As you love to say, you made my case for me.

 

Fortunately, I am familiar with your methods in here, so I won't make a big deal of it. But you did indeed accuse me of being a racist because of my views. Its so far from the truth that I really just have to laugh.

[Balta1701]

Other things I just need to post...Rush Limbaugh's quote of the day...

"It's the Democrats that try to keep black people out of political powerful positions; it ain't us."

[Jenksismyhero]

 

How do you rectify your argument in this thread with the fact that I never once say anything that closely resembles, you are a Nazi?

 

/shrugs

 

If you think thats suggesting anyone is a Nazi, then Im just dumbfounded.

 

By making the Nazi reference, in this specific case, you are showing how a very small law, can set the stage for something far worse.

 

You dont think its relevant that one of the first steps to the holocaust was removing Jewish citizenship? For similar reasons to the ones that people are making today?

 

Yep, nope. Not at all saying "the way you people think is just like them Nazi's used to think before they rounded up zee Jews in the gas chambers."

 

When I make a good argument you attack the person (me) not the argument (the fact that in 1935 prior to the holocaust the people of Germany allowed the Germany govt to dictate who was a citizen.)

 

Thats a fact, you cant argue that it didnt happen, because it did. If you want to some how argue that taking away citizenship rights in 1930's Germany is some how different than 2010 US, that would be one thing.

 

I'm attacking your illogical position, and busting balls because you make, IMO, a retarded and unfounded comparison.

 

And whether you intended to or not, what you're really saying is, you people that want to restrict citizenship even more are just like those 1935 Germans (Nazi's) that ultimately killed 6 million Jews. Why make the statement that the reasoning used by people like me for restricting American citizenship are the same ones used by Germans to restrict Jewish citizenship?

 

At the very least you're saying I think and reason like a Nazi, even if you didn't call me a Nazi straight out.

[Soxbadger]

Northside,

 

Sorry Im not seeing it. I never specifically mentioned you, nor did I even comment on your reasoning or rationale.

 

There is a reason I used "them" and "they", instead of "you".

 

I was speaking in general, not specific. Not to mention I was aiming my commentary against people in power, not against individuals on a message board.

 

So I really dont see how I called you a racist.

 

Jenks,

 

I'm attacking your illogical position, and busting balls because you make, IMO, a retarded and unfounded comparison.

 

Want me to play the victim card too?

 

Jenks thinks Im retarded. Not to mention, you specifically attack a person, where as I merely make a historical correlation.

 

you people that want to restrict citizenship even more are just like those 1935 Germans (Nazi's) that ultimately killed 6 million Jews. Why make the statement that the reasoning used by people like me for restricting American citizenship are the same ones used by Germans to restrict Jewish citizenship?

 

No Im not saying that all.

 

Im saying that WE (this includes myself) need to be careful when we give govt power this type of power.

 

In fact if you read my posts I never mention the term Nazi, because I was trying to show that these people ARENT NAZIS.

 

How you are interpreting it any other way is beyond imagination.

 

At the very least you're saying I think and reason like a Nazi, even if you didn't call me a Nazi straight out.

 

No I was saying that the rationale was used by GERMAN CITIZENS.

 

Not every German in 1935 was a Nazi. Not every German wanted to kill Jews. Most of them just wanted a better life for their family.

 

They didnt realize what Hitler was going to use his power for.

 

The point I keep stressing is that when you give govt this type of power, it can be used for evil. That we must not let govt have this type of power because govt have used it for evil before.

 

I dont use the term Nazi as a synonym for German Citizens.

 

So no, I wasnt making any of the statements that you and Northside keep trying to force upon me.

 

If you actually cared about the argument that should be enough. My clarification should have been enough.

 

But you dont care about the actual immigration argument, you just want to try and beat my argument down by attacking me. Thats fine, Im a big boy Ive handled far worse than this.

 

The only reason you make the point, is because you know that isnt what I meant. If it was what I meant, id have said:

 

"youre a racist"

 

or

 

"youre a Nazi"

 

I wouldnt waste my breathe defending the fact I didnt make those statements, if that was really what I meant to imply. Why the hell would I do that?

 

I stand by my statements, if I thought you were a Nazi, youd know. If I thought Northside was a racist, hed know.

 

I actually went out of my way to try and make sure the posts were written in the most non-offensive way as possible, because I didnt want anyone to turn this into some stupid argument about being offended.

 

Unfortunately that is the nature of internet debate.

 

Attack the person, not the message.

 

How is "You called me a Nazi" at all productive? Especially when Ive multiple times said that is not what I meant. If you really cared, youd get over it.

 

You wont see me bring up the retarded attack ever again.

 

Why?

 

Because I know Im not retarded. Retardation is a medical condition that has certain requirements. I do not fit these requirements.

 

So if you want to call me retarded, thats fine, but it erodes your argument. At least I dont make personal insults.

 

I call it like I see it.

 

[lostfan]

So the author is saying he found three things that Dems criticized Obama for, but he couldn't find anything similar for Repubs on Fox? No offense that is a load of crap. I know Glenn Beck did plenty of unloading on the Bush admin all by himself.

What years was George Bush president?

 

What year did Glenn Beck start on Fox News?

[kapkomet]

What years was George Bush president?

 

What year did Glenn Beck start on Fox News?

 

 

He was on CNN yelling way before Fox News.

[lostfan]

He was on CNN yelling way before Fox News.

Yeah but he became a completely different character on Fox News. I used to watch him on CNN.

[Balta1701]

Yeah but he became a completely different character on Fox News. I used to watch him on CNN.

You have my sympathies.

[Balta1701]

Considering how often it seems he's panicked and folded over a right wing crazy freakout, and that he really didn't need to spend political capital here...This deserves some serious applause. (Full remarks here).

Here at the White House, we have a tradition of hosting iftars that goes back several years, just as we host Christmas parties, seders, and Diwali celebrations. These events celebrate the role of faith in the lives of the American people. They remind us of the basic truth that we are all children of God, and we all draw strength and a sense of purpose from our beliefs.

 

These events are also an affirmation of who we are as Americans. Our Founders understood that the best way to honor the place of faith in the lives of our people was to protect their freedom to practice religion. In the Virginia Act for Establishing Religion Freedom, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion." The First Amendment of our Constitution established the freedom of religion as the law of the land. And that right has been upheld ever since.

 

Indeed, over the course of our history, religion has flourished within our borders precisely because Americans have had the right to worship as they choose – including the right to believe in no religion at all. And it is a testament to the wisdom of our Founders that America remains deeply religious – a nation where the ability of peoples of different faiths to coexist peacefully and with mutual respect for one another stands in contrast to the religious conflict that persists around the globe.

 

That is not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities – particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

 

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.

[kapkomet]

If this were a 'Christian' center, would he have stood up as strongly for this? We all know the answer to that.

 

Again, this is all just a big show.

[HuskyCaucasian]

If this were a 'Christian' center, would he have stood up as strongly for this? We all know the answer to that.

 

Again, this is all just a big show.

He'd never have to support a Christian center because they aren't bomb carrying terrorist.

[kapkomet]

He'd never have to support a Christian center because they aren't bomb carrying terrorist.

 

It cracks me up how no one can see the point through the forest here.

[KipWellsFan]

It cracks me up how no one can see the point through the forest here.

 

Why would a Christian church near the site of 9/11 cause a controversy?

[lostfan]

It cracks me up how no one can see the point through the forest here.

The point is kind of weak and actually it's entirely moot to be honest. Who the f*** would care if someone was building a Christian center there? There would be no controversy and nothing to talk about.