The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

Huh?

 

Exactly how I reacted to the complete strawman you've been running with.

[Balta1701]

Exactly how I reacted to the complete strawman you've been running with.

Which part am I wrong about?

 

That BP will do everything in its power to fight claims in the oil spill case if there is no special fund set up, or

 

BP will do everything in its power to get things taken care of rapidly if they have several billion dollars held in escrow?

[southsider2k5]

Which part am I wrong about?

 

That BP will do everything in its power to fight claims in the oil spill case if there is no special fund set up, or

 

BP will do everything in its power to get things taken care of rapidly if they have several billion dollars held in escrow?

 

Which part am I wrong about?

[Balta1701]

Which part am I wrong about?

That BP needs to be protected/defended?

[southsider2k5]

That BP needs to be protected/defended?

 

Yeah, keep making stuff up.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, keep making stuff up.

The best part is that the federal government can do whatever they want, so they are pretty much impossible to sue... BONUS!

And you're not telling me there how BP is being stepped on by the impossible to sue government? And therefore needs defended (clearly at all costs as well).

[southsider2k5]

And you're not telling me there how BP is being stepped on by the impossible to sue government? And therefore needs defended (clearly at all costs as well).

 

And pull a few quotes out of context to make your point. You at least used to have some sense to your arguments. This has sent you completely off of the deep end. You have turned into what you used to hate and fight against.

[Balta1701]

And pull a few quotes out of context to make your point. You at least used to have some sense to your arguments. This has sent you completely off of the deep end. You have turned into what you used to hate and fight against.

A Republican?

[Balta1701]

Surprised y'all didn't post this.

ENQUIRER WORLD EXCLUSIVE: AL GORE has been accused of sexually attacking a masseuse in Portland, Oregon - and is named in the official police report about the alleged assault, The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively!

 

The bombshell story will appear in the new issue of The ENQUIRER and will include the secret police documents, a photo of the woman making the stunning charges and will reveal the shocking details about the pants she saved as evidence!

 

Our investigative team uncovered the amazing story just weeks after the former Vice President announced that he and wife TIPPER were ending their 40-year marriage - amidst reports she suspected her husband was involved with "a gorgeous massage therapist."

 

We have verified the 62-year-old former VP was in Portland at the time of the alleged incident - Oct. 24, 2006 - and we saw the $540 massage bill.

 

No criminal charges were brought against Gore, but the Portland police prepared a document marked "Confidential Special Report" - which records the explosive allegations of "unwanted sexual contact" by Al Gore "at a local upscale hotel."

 

The ENQUIRER is withholding the name of the 54-year-old woman making the stunning accusations because she is potentially a sex-crime victim.

 

Pick up the new issue of The ENQUIRER for all details of this world exclusive story!

[Jenksismyhero]

Those f'n tea baggers. Why can't they be like liberal protesters?

[lostfan]

Those f'n tea baggers. Why can't they be like liberal protesters?

You don't remember that long argument we had in here about death threats over Congressmen over the health care voting? (And then there was Eric Cantor blatantly making s*** up)

[Jenksismyhero]

You don't remember that long argument we had in here about death threats over Congressmen over the health care voting? (And then there was Eric Cantor blatantly making s*** up)

 

So? That's proving my point. There are f***ed up people on both sides. It's not just "tea baggers."

[GoSox05]

So? That's proving my point. There are f***ed up people on both sides. It's not just "tea baggers."

 

I don't think all tea party members are bomb throwing racists, but I think it's funny that right wing protesters are now outraged at how they are being demonized. After years of the right attacking left wing protesters in every way imaginable. Start to get mad when your leaders are targeted for assassination or the FBI starts a counter intelligence program to disrupt your groups.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't think all tea party members are bomb throwing racists, but I think it's funny that right wing protesters are now outraged at how they are being demonized. After years of the right attacking left wing protesters in every way imaginable. Start to get mad when your leaders are targeted for assassination or the FBI starts a counter intelligence program to disrupt your groups.

 

I think its fair to call out the absurdity of both sides acting as if what their people do is fine, but what other people do isn't fine. For the last year we've heard nothing but how the "crazy" "racist" teabaggers are ruining the country, seemingly ignoring the fact that the left has been doing the same s*** for years.

 

I mentioned it a couple of weeks ago - it cracks me up that "tea baggers" are essentially the new hippies, fighting against government interference. The left argues that's because the tea baggers are crazy and out of control. I think the conservatives in the 60's and 70's would have said the same thing. Just imagine if tea baggers took over an entire college (or more likely, a government office), requiring riot police and the like. You think the left would be ok with that since they're just expressing their dislike for the government?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

tea baggers come in two flavors--paulites and palinites. The paulites are your classic libertarians, but your palinites are not fighting against government intervention. They just want their own brand of it.

[Balta1701]

tea baggers come in two flavors--paulites and palinites. The paulites are your classic libertarians, but your palinites are not fighting against government intervention. They just want their own brand of it.

And the Paulites don't?

[GoSox05]

I think its fair to call out the absurdity of both sides acting as if what their people do is fine, but what other people do isn't fine. For the last year we've heard nothing but how the "crazy" "racist" teabaggers are ruining the country, seemingly ignoring the fact that the left has been doing the same s*** for years.

 

I mentioned it a couple of weeks ago - it cracks me up that "tea baggers" are essentially the new hippies, fighting against government interference. The left argues that's because the tea baggers are crazy and out of control. I think the conservatives in the 60's and 70's would have said the same thing. Just imagine if tea baggers took over an entire college (or more likely, a government office), requiring riot police and the like. You think the left would be ok with that since they're just expressing their dislike for the government?

 

 

The left in the 60's and 70's weren't taking over colleges and government offices becuase their taxes were high or they were mad about government getting invloved in healthcare. They were mad because there was a war going on that was killing millions of people. They were mad because people in this country weren't allowed in restaurants and public bathrooms because of the color of their skin. To compare the two movements isn't fair.

Edited June 25, 2010 by GoSox05

[Jenksismyhero]

The left in the 60's and 70's weren't taking over colleges and government offices becuase their taxes were high or they were mad about government getting invloved in healthcare. They were mad because there was a war going on that was killing millions of people. They were mad because people in this country weren't allowed in restaurants and public bathrooms because of the color of their skin. To compare the two movements isn't fair.

 

Specifically I'm talking about the Berkeley rights which were started because of 'Nam. It was government telling people they had to go to war, kinda like the government telling people they have to pay for other people's healthcare. It's not a direct comparison, but in general it's the exact same. It's government telling people to do something they don't feel they need to do.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

Specifically I'm talking about the Berkeley rights which were started because of 'Nam. It was government telling people they had to go to war, kinda like the government telling people they have to pay for other people's healthcare. It's not a direct comparison, but in general it's the exact same. It's government telling people to do something they don't feel they need to do.

Really? You think the problem with Vietnam was the process that got us there, and not the end result?

 

Specifically, you think the problem was that the government was being too aggressive in pushing the war, and not the fact that 60,000 Americans and a couple million Vietnamese died?

[Jenksismyhero]

Really? You think the problem with Vietnam was the process that got us there, and not the end result?

 

Specifically, you think the problem was that the government was being too aggressive in pushing the war, and not the fact that 60,000 Americans and a couple million Vietnamese died?

 

My point is that the liberal riots and sit-ins were in opposition to the government getting us into a war (and forcing individuals to go to a war) they didn't believe in (and which resulted in tens of thousands dying). How's that any different than people complaining about how the government just passed more legislation which is forcing them to pay for other people's heathlcare? It's not on the same level, but it's the same type of government intrusion.

 

In the end we're talking about a group of people pissed off about what their government is doing. Back in the day those riots shut down schools and business and sometimes broke out into violence. Yet it was all in the name of a progressive movement, so it's looked upon as a GOOD thing. Today, people are doing the same thing, but they're "crazy." How does that work?

[Balta1701]

Well, I'll stop at this point and say you and I won't see eye to eye on this one, because you're focusing on the "they're protesting government" part of the phrase and I'm focusing on the "giving health care to poor people/killing a few million people" part of the discussion. The government does an awful lot of things that are much more intrusive than the health care bill and they don't provoke violent outbursts; it's all about what the result of the action is.

[StrangeSox]

And the Paulites don't?

 

No, not really imo. The Palinites are going to support the new Texas GOP platform, the paulites tend towards paleoconservative or libertarian actual small government views.

[StrangeSox]

Really? You think the problem with Vietnam was the process that got us there, and not the end result?

 

Specifically, you think the problem was that the government was being too aggressive in pushing the war, and not the fact that 60,000 Americans and a couple million Vietnamese died?

 

don't leave out the cambodians.

[StrangeSox]

How is forcing someone to go to war and kill people different than forcing people to pay for health care? You really need that explained?

 

"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."

 

Does that sound more genuine in opposition to restrictions of free speech* or in opposition to paying for poor people to get health care?

 

*edit: wrong cause

Edited June 25, 2010 by StrangeSox

[GoSox05]

don't leave out the cambodians.

 

Don't forget the Laotians that were killed also.