The Republican Thread

[GoSox05]

A bit of hyperbole. He's saying that Hitler and Stalin weren't as bad as we are told and that they're unfairly portrayed in the Jewish led media. He admits Hitler's a Frankenstein, but wants us to understand (sympathize?) that he apparently was created by the evil Allies. It's a ridiculous statement to make and it's getting next to no coverage out there. Again, let's use the common sense test - imagine the reaction if a major conservative said it. You have Howard Dean calling Fox News racist (based on nothing), and you guys cry fowl over some tea party guy dodging the media, but no reactions to this?

 

And while there are other modern genocides (Africa), I dunno that anything can really compare to the Holocaust. It deals with the western world, so that accounts for the difference in coverage, and it was done in a disgustingly systematic way (i.e. rail lines straight to gas chambers instead of invading villages with machine guns).

 

He did not say that Hitler was good or that we should sympathize with him. He didn't deny the Holocaust. He said that Hitler killed other large amounts of people too. He said that Hitler was partially funded by American and British corporations. Which is true.

 

He gave this interview and was talking about this certain subject because he has a TV series coming out about it.

[Jenksismyhero]

He did not say that Hitler was good or that we should sympathize with him. He didn't deny the Holocaust. He said that Hitler killed other large amounts of people too. He said that Hitler was partially funded by American and British corporations. Which is true.

 

He gave this interview and was talking about this certain subject because he has a TV series coming out about it.

 

Then why call him Frankenstein and say that there was also a Dr. Frankenstein? That's exactly what he meant - Yeah, the guy was terrible, but he wasn't THAT terrible, considering the evil Americans and British helped him rise to power and those dirty Jews keep lying about it.

[StrangeSox]

That's not the only way to parse that sentence.

[lostfan]

So conservative ideology includes racism? Really?

 

And Mel Gibson isn't getting a pass. He's been all over the news and everyone has an opinion on what he said/did.

Where did I say that? What are you talking about?

 

Actually you implied (intentionally or not, and using some awkward sarcasm) that some random Hollywood figure said something anti-Semitic and you're not hearing enough criticism of it so there must be kind of liberal conspiracy and I have no idea where you drew that assumption/conclusion from. I brought up Mel Gibson being in the news doing basically the same thing and taking a s***-ton of heat for it to show that doesn't make any sense. What I said has nothing to do with labeling conservative ideology as racist. The opposite actually.

[mr_genius]

Mel Gibson is hilarious

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Where did I say that? What are you talking about?

 

Actually you implied (intentionally or not, and using some awkward sarcasm) that some random Hollywood figure said something anti-Semitic and you're not hearing enough criticism of it so there must be kind of liberal conspiracy and I have no idea where you drew that assumption/conclusion from. I brought up Mel Gibson being in the news doing basically the same thing and taking a s***-ton of heat for it to show that doesn't make any sense. What I said has nothing to do with labeling conservative ideology as racist. The opposite actually.

 

That wasn't directed to you specifically. I just keep hearing all this bulls*** about how a tea partier says something about a minority and they're deemed racist, which of course means conservatives are all racist, which means fox news is racist (Dean). It starts with one person saying something stupid and people run with it. I was just making the comparison that there should be the same reaction here, but there's not.

[Balta1701]

That wasn't directed to you specifically. I just keep hearing all this bulls*** about how a tea partier says something about a minority and they're deemed racist, which of course means conservatives are all racist, which means fox news is racist (Dean). It starts with one person saying something stupid and people run with it. I was just making the comparison that there should be the same reaction here, but there's not.

So, would you like it if I said Mel Gibson was an anti-semite borderline neo-Nazi, and people who associate with him and support him should be lumped into the same category?

[Jenksismyhero]

So, would you like it if I said Mel Gibson was an anti-semite borderline neo-Nazi, and people who associate with him and support him should be lumped into the same category?

 

Balta, seriously. I used to enjoy your posts. Very intelligent, very informative, an overall good read. But this Socratic, "so, you....." response is really getting tiresome and adds nothing to the discussions people are having.

 

I don't care for labeling any group due to one members' views. I'm just pointing out the double standard that liberals don't get as upset (as in not at all) when it's a crazy liberal who says the stupid thing.

[Balta1701]

I don't care for labeling any group due to one members' views. I'm just pointing out the double standard that liberals don't get as upset (as in not at all) when it's a crazy liberal who says the stupid thing.

Is Mel Gibson a crazy liberal?

[Jenksismyhero]

Is Mel Gibson a crazy liberal?

 

Sigh...

 

[southsider2k5]

Is Mel Gibson a crazy liberal?

 

According to Baltas standards, yes, which means all liberals are crazy and racist.

[Balta1701]

No seriously, I'm quite confused here. From what I read of this conversation, it's been arguing that we're not getting mad enough at Mel Gibson's crazy remarks, and this is the liberal media's fault because they only get mad when a Conservative makes a crazy statement.

 

I can't figure out how in the world you can possibly call Mel Gibson a liberal, and I can't figure out how Mel Gibson not getting enough press coverage for being a crazy holocaust denier is the fault of the liberals.

 

I frankly don't care one bit about Mel Gibson, I'm just totally lost as to how this is my fault. I always thought of him as a Conservative, but in this case, I'm not trying to say that fans of his movies are all anti-semites. Should I be?

 

I'm serious, I'm totally lost here, the argument I'm getting is: Mel Gibson isn't getting enough coverage, this is the fault of the liberals trying to cover for one of their own. What have I misread?

[Jenksismyhero]

No seriously, I'm quite confused here. From what I read of this conversation, it's been arguing that we're not getting mad enough at Mel Gibson's crazy remarks, and this is the liberal media's fault because they only get mad when a Conservative makes a crazy statement.

 

I can't figure out how in the world you can possibly call Mel Gibson a liberal, and I can't figure out how Mel Gibson not getting enough press coverage for being a crazy holocaust denier is the fault of the liberals.

 

I frankly don't care one bit about Mel Gibson, I'm just totally lost as to how this is my fault. I always thought of him as a Conservative, but in this case, I'm not trying to say that fans of his movies are all anti-semites. Should I be?

 

I'm serious, I'm totally lost here, the argument I'm getting is: Mel Gibson isn't getting enough coverage, this is the fault of the liberals trying to cover for one of their own. What have I misread?

 

My original complaint was the lack of coverage and outrage over Oliver Stone's comments. Someone else brought up Mel Gibson.

[StrangeSox]

Balta, seriously. I used to enjoy your posts. Very intelligent, very informative, an overall good read. But this Socratic, "so, you....." response is really getting tiresome and adds nothing to the discussions people are having.

 

You know what they did to Socrates....

 

 

Yeah, the Mel Gibson thing was someone else. If anything, I'd assume Gibson was conservative given his father's ultra-conservative catholicism and that Gibson seems to have embraced it. But I don't know and I don't care.

[StrangeSox]

My original complaint was the lack of coverage and outrage over Oliver Stone's comments. Someone else brought up Mel Gibson.

 

The difference between what you see wrt to Tea Party/ Fox and the Stone comments are that Stone wasn't speaking as a representative of some movement or organization. He was promoting his movie. When someone is representing the tea party movement in an interview and they say racist/ stupid stuff, it makes more sense to link the ideologies.

[Balta1701]

My original complaint was the lack of coverage and outrage over Oliver Stone's comments. Someone else brought up Mel Gibson.

Thank you. I missed that. At least some of this makes more sense now.

[lostfan]

No seriously, I'm quite confused here. From what I read of this conversation, it's been arguing that we're not getting mad enough at Mel Gibson's crazy remarks, and this is the liberal media's fault because they only get mad when a Conservative makes a crazy statement.

 

I can't figure out how in the world you can possibly call Mel Gibson a liberal, and I can't figure out how Mel Gibson not getting enough press coverage for being a crazy holocaust denier is the fault of the liberals.

 

I frankly don't care one bit about Mel Gibson, I'm just totally lost as to how this is my fault. I always thought of him as a Conservative, but in this case, I'm not trying to say that fans of his movies are all anti-semites. Should I be?

 

I'm serious, I'm totally lost here, the argument I'm getting is: Mel Gibson isn't getting enough coverage, this is the fault of the liberals trying to cover for one of their own. What have I misread?

I brought up Mel Gibson, not him. I think Mel Gibson is a conservative actually but I think most people don't actually care about his political views and/or associate him with any type of ideology so I figured he was safe for comparison.

[StrangeSox]

Well, I think that's a good point. People aren't tarring conservatives because of Mel Gibson's insane rants.

[Balta1701]

If Y'all don't start the culture of corruption ads soon, you're crazy.

Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, will face charges of misusing her office and is expected to contest the claims in a House trial, the second powerful House Democrat to opt for such a public airing in recent days, Congressional officials said Friday.

 

A House ethics subcommittee has charged Ms. Waters, 71, a 10-term congresswoman, in a case involving communications that she had with the top executive of a bank that her husband owned stock in while it was applying for a federal bailout in 2008, two House officials said.

 

Charges are expected to be announced next week, several Congressional officials said, speaking only on the condition of anonymity because the proceedings remained confidential. Details of the specific accusations of wrongdoing were not available Friday evening.

 

The expected trial, coming just after the start of a similar proceeding on Thursday for Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, would be a modern-day precedent for the House, Congressional officials said. At no time in at least the last two decades have two sitting House members faced a public hearing detailing allegations against them.

 

It would also be an embarrassment for the Congressional Black Caucus. Ms. Waters and Mr. Rangel are two of its most revered and long-standing members, and both have spent decades as key leaders in banking and financial services issues in the House.

[Controlled Chaos]

[mr_genius]

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Government saves! It's so efficient!

 

*rolls eyes*

Edited August 3, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

Government saves! It's so efficient!

 

*rolls eyes*

Yay! Another list of projects that sound funny so we'll call them waste!

[Jenksismyhero]

Yay! Another list of projects that sound funny so we'll call them waste!

 

Come on man. Try and defend some of those. They might not ALL be waste, but a lot of them are. You don't think that money could have gone to better use elsewhere? How many jobs were created with those projects? Or are you going to make up numbers to sound good? "Oh we didn't CREATE any jobs, but we SAVED 25 million!" GMAFB.

 

Love that 4 years ago if Bush didn't blink the right amount of times in a minute you were on him for it, but man, Obama Christ must really be perfect huh?

Edited August 3, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

"Something called 'volcano monitoring'..."

 

reminds me of this:

 

6. Ants Talk. Taxpayers Listen (San Francisco, CA) - $1.9

million

The California Academy of Sciences is receiving nearly $2 million to

send researchers to the Southwest Indian Ocean Islands and east

Africa, to capture, photograph, and analyze thousands of exotic ants.52

The photographs of the ants – over 3,000 species’ worth, according to

the grant proposal – will be posted on AntWeb, a website devoted to

organizing and displaying pictures and information on the world’s

thousands of ant species.53

The project’s goals are, to the lay person, both laudable and arcane: In

addition to “foster[ing]…a large pool of ant taxonomists,” it also strives

to document “the vast majority of ant species known from [Africa].”54

“[Ants] give us back the most data on the environment than any other

group. Their life cycle is shorter, they change very quickly,” says the

project’s Principal Investigator in a promotional article on the

Academy’s website. “Everyone has run into ants . . . now we need to

listen to them.”55

 

"Hey, I have no idea what validity this may have, but it sure sounds stupid! Let's cut more science funding! YEAH!"