Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 03:38pm PT
|
"For the record, Fox News is slanted to the right just about as much as CNN and NBC are slanted to the left. One is as bad as the other and they offset one another. If either was objective, we would not need the other. "
Utter bullsh#t. Prove CNN is as far to the left as Fox is to the right.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 03:40pm PT
|
Absolutely disgusting.
For years I naively thought it was the left that stood against government intrusion into your life. Boy was I wrong. The left LOVES! big government -- they relish it -- they demand it!
Why? A few reasons:
1. Liberals believe that freedom is overrated, and that we can achieve a more utopian society if we let the learned elite run our lives, instead of "those stupid masses."
2. Liberals reject God. Why does that matter? Because our founders held that our individual rights -- which protect us from government -- were given to us by God -- NOT MEN. This matters because if you believe your rights are given to you by men (i.e., the elites), then those rights can be given, and taken away, by men (i.e., the elites) at any time. If, however, you derive your dignity from God, then men (i.e., the elites) cannot take away those rights. This is why the progressive movement was a very anti-God movement at its inception, since it needed first to get rid of God in order to then be able to deconstruct the Constitution.
To the modern progressive, government IS THE ANSWER for all problems, and it is only the LACK OF WILL that stands in the way of achieving the progressive's dreams (redistribution of income, etc.).
The TEA party movement recognizes the inherent danger in progressive thought, and it will fight it until it is curtailed or defeated.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 03:41pm PT
|
Kyle Smith devotes a hilarious New York Post column to the New York Times's dereliction in the case of Van Jones. The Times somehow missed the controversies that preceded and led to Jones's departure from the Obama administration in part because, well, they were a little short-staffed in the Washington office. Smith writes:
Granted, the Times must devote a lot of personpower to its vast corrections column. But if it is so flush that it can afford to hire, like the boy with the shovel who follows the elephant in the parade, a personal fact checker for TV critic Alessandra Stanley, surely it can scrounge up an intern to report that there's a communist truther working as the president's green jobs czar, or that a congressman was demanding his resignation.
Jill Abramson, the managing editor, admitted only to being "a beat behind" the story but added that the paper had caught up -- after the saga was over. The EMS equivalent of this statement would be, "Sorry I didn't take your 911 call for four days. At least I was in time for the funeral."
Although Abramson's excuse was not an excuse, she proceeded to offer another one: "Mr. Jones was not a high-ranking official."
Oh. And here I was, thinking that he was "one of Mr. Obama's top advisers," as I was told by, well, The Times, on its Caucus blog on Sept. 5. Confusing, confusing.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 03:42pm PT
|
You are a big bore.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 03:43pm PT
|
Another report of another TEA party:
QUINCY WRAPUP: I’ve been involved with a lot of events over my life, from civil rights protests to rock concerts to science fiction conventions, and I’ve never been involved with an event that ran with such well-oiled efficiency. I was going to say “ruthless efficiency,” but of course it was cheerful, considerate Midwestern efficiency and not ruthless in the least. The Quincy folks were charming hosts, and threw a dinner party for us last night where all the food was homemade, and delicious.
One interesting note: I’ve said this before, but those in the GOP who think that the Tea Party movement is for their benefit need to think again. Roger Stone spoke, and while nobody had anything against him in particular, several people told me that they thought the GOP was trying to co-opt the Tea Party Movement, and they weren’t happy about that. My advice to the GOP — and, for that matter, to those Democrats who care — is to try to find a way to address the Tea Party crowd’s interests, bearing in mind that if you don’t they’re just as happy to throw Republicans out of office as Democrats.
But it probably doesn’t matter. Based on the level of organization, commitment, and sheer likability I saw this weekend, the folks from Quincy are going to wind up ruling the world anyway . . . .
|
|
philo
Trad climber
boulder, co.
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 03:43pm PT
|
SUP what you are witnessing with the tea baggers is the last desperate dry hump of the GOP. Even a mega dose of Viagra won't bring those lousy wastrels back to power.
Truth is it is the GOP that are "Tax and Spend" specialists. It is the GOP that is the progenitors of big government. It is the GOP that is the architect of disastrous economic policies. It is the GOP that dragged this once proud nation into the cesspool of international disdain and condemnation.
Tea baggers just getting started? Yeah right!
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 03:45pm PT
|
HERES ANOTHER STORY YOU WON'T FIND IN THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA
http://azdailysun.com/articles/2009/09/13/news/20090913_front_203593.txt
Health reform can't come soon enough to Flagstaff, say doctors and patients
So I flip over to foxnews.com and what do I find? Nothing. Zip. Zilch. To read their home page you've think the entire country was opposed to health care reform. No WONDER people can't stand Fox News.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 03:45pm PT
|
“Many protesters said they paid their own way to the event – an ethic they believe should be applied to the government.” Why is the British press more honest in its reporting on this stuff than the American press?
Meanwhile, a reader emails: “I’ll tell you what I find impressive. I’m watching the Fox news video about 15 minutes after the end of the event. The crowd has thinned out enough that you can see the ground and there is not a speck of trash on the grass. Absolutely clean. To contrast, google ‘pictures of litter on the mall after the inauguration.’”
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 03:49pm PT
|
September 13, 2009
How Could Obama Have Hired Van Jones?
By Jack Kelly
Around midnight on the Saturday of the Labor Day weekend, the White House announced Van Jones had resigned as President Obama's "green jobs czar."
"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Mr. Jones said in his resignation letter. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."
The "lies and distortions" consisted of reporting Mr. Jones' arrest during a riot, and quoting, accurately, from statements Mr. Jones had made and from petitions he had signed.
Mr. Jones was arrested during the rioting in Los Angeles in 1992 that followed the acquittal of the police officers who beat Rodney King. Mr. Jones spoke of that experience in a 2005 interview with a newspaper in the San Francisco Bay area:
"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28, and then the verdicts came down on April 29," he told the East Bay Express. "By August, I was a communist."
Mr. Jones attributed his conversion to the people he met during his incarceration:
"I met all these radical young people of color, I mean really radical, communists and anarchists," he told the East Bay Express. "It was like 'this is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next 10 years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary."
Mr. Jones was arrested again in 1999 during the anti-free trade riots in Seattle.
In 1994, Mr. Jones was one of the founders of STORM, a Marxist-Leninist group whose hero was Chinese Communist dictator Mao Tse Tung.
But what did Mr. Jones in was the revelation that in 2004 he had signed a petition calling on then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer to investigate whether the Bush administration had been behind the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Mr. Jones acknowledged he'd signed the petition but claimed he hadn't read it carefully and that it did not represent his views. The veracity of this claim was called into question when it was reported that Mr. Jones had been one of the organizers of a "truther" rally in San Francisco in January 2002.
Reporters also uncovered a number of racist statements Mr. Jones has made, including this one from January of last year: "the white polluters and white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities."
With the exception of the indefatigable Jake Tapper of ABC News, none of those who reported these things were part of the "mainstream" media. The first time that readers of The New York Times or The Washington Post, or viewers of CBS News or NBC News, were made aware there was a controversy about Mr. Jones was when they reported his resignation.
It was chiefly blogger Jim Hoft (Gateway Pundit) and Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck who dug up the details of Mr. Jones' colorful past. To do so, they utilized that newfangled instrument called "Google," with which reporters for the Times and Post seem to be unfamiliar.
The Obama administration would like to have the controversy over Mr. Jones end with his dead-of-night resignation. But it should be just beginning.
Jeffrey Lord, who was a speechwriter in the Reagan administration, noted that in administrations past, the Secret Service would not have permitted someone with Mr. Jones' background to enter the White House with a visitor's pass. Yet Mr. Jones was made a high-level appointee with considerable influence.
For Mr. Jones to get a White House job, even more senior aides to President Obama either had to be unaware of his background, or indifferent to it. The former suggests an appalling degree of incompetence. The latter is more likely:
"Ooh. Van Jones. We were so delighted to recruit him to the White House," White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett told a conference of left-wing bloggers last month. "We were watching him ... for as long as he's been active out in Oakland."
Did the Secret Service object to Van Jones? If so, who overrode them? What did the president know and when did he know it?
These are questions which ought to be asked. But I doubt anyone from CBS or NBC, The New York Times or The Washington Post will ask them.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 03:53pm PT
|
WARNING: You are interacting with a person/avatar who has proven themself in this thread to be generally incapable of any kind of dialogue, with an overall destructive influence to this thread:
shut up and pull
Interacting with this individual will likely result in their continued postings that contribute virtually nothing productive &/or overwhelming the thread with hyperbolic posts while not responding to your efforts to respond to them. Perhaps most importantly, acknowledging or responding to this person in any way is likely to encourage their continued presence, creating a far less desirable place for all other, more rational ST community members.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 03:56pm PT
|
"What terrifies them is that they've lost the tyrannical power they wielded when dubya ruled, and now a black man (who makes dubya look like a retard), dares to seize the moment and try to make the radical changes that have been put off by narrow minded republicans for too long."
Yup.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 03:57pm PT
|
I've always found the Democrat playing of the race card rather curious. Now originally there were no Republicans or Democrats, just federalists and anti-federalists. The Federalists wanted a strong central government, the anti-federalists a loose confederation of states with a weak central authority. Now the anti-federalists were considered the progenitors of the Democrats. They were generally southerners, aristocrats, and often vehemently pro slavery. The northern federalists were borne from the township direct democracy of New England
Now the first "Democrat" president was Andrew Jackson. (I'd class Jefferson as a small d democratic anti-federalist even though the Democratic party claims him as their founder it was really a successor). A genocidal maniac that defied a Supreme court ruling to clear Native Americans from the south. Seems like when they got their hands on that central authority, they kinda liked what they could do with it. Of course coming mostly from the southern landed aristocracy they took to authoritarian methods naturally.
Now the Federalists morphed into the Whigs which for the most part were an ineffective party in the end because although they espoused an anti-slavery stance they didn't have the balls to do anything about it (sort of a go along to get along stance that describes the McCain wing of the modern Republicans).
The Republican party was born in the churches of the north and north western frontier over a strong moral revulsion to slavery.
Reconstruction's major failure was that Lincoln had chosen Johnson (a Democrat) as VP. Johnson did everything he could to reverse the social results of the civil war. so much so that he was impeached and survived in office by one vote. During his tenure the official terrorist wing of the Democratic party started a reign of terror lynching blacks and political opponents till Grant sent in the US Army. The terrorist wing kept it up until another Republican, Eisenhower, sent in the troops again.
The Democrats changed methods, but are still the party of racial division and exploitation. They have run every major inner city for a hundred years holding every elected office from dog catcher to congress critter. They still exploit their constituencies and have never produced any progress for them. They still derive their power from keeping minority groups in a state of dependence and safely wards of the liberal state run plantation.
Now with healthcare they want to round up the rest of us.
Yesterday was the notification that, "it ain't gonna happen without a fight"
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 04:07pm PT
|
Racism is a conservative trait, not D or R (and not all conservatives). D's used to be the conservative party. Starting in the 60s, R's became the conservatives.
The Southern Startegy was about pulling those old dixiecrat haters into the R tent. They're part of your party now, TGT. In fact, the R party is now pretty much a southern party.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 04:10pm PT
|
Racism is a human trait. It's just that the Dems have done a better job cleaning up their act and embracing the idea of diversity while the Repubs tied their horse to the segregation cart back in the early 60's and are still figuring out how to unhitch it. Pretending that Democrats "aren't racist" and Republicans "are" is dumb.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 04:20pm PT
|
"I've always found the Democrat playing of the race card rather curious."
You know, every time the discussion turns to Repugs and racism, TGT tends to bring up the Dem's history around slavery and the KKK. Obviously, the Dems recognized their error and turned their ideology around a long, long time ago- this is now ancient history.
Repugs used to be known as Conservatives, the party of small government and fiscal responsibility. The last 30 years of Repug leadership has brought massive debt and gigantic government. McLame's platform simply promised more of the same.
Which party seems to have changed for the better? Hyperbole aside, which one is closer to it's core ideology right now, today?
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 04:27pm PT
|
I guess if you tell yourself a lie long enough you'll eventually believe it.
The 64 voting rights act passed in spite of Democrats.
Those that led the opposition never switched parties, including their leader who filibustered for 14 hrs, (KKK Bird) Al Gore Sr and William Fulbright along with almost every southern Democrat politician.
The ascendance of the Republicans in the 70's in the south was more of an economic function with the growth of the strength of the middle class in the sunbelt. Had nothing to do with race.
But then to racists, everything is centered on race.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 04:34pm PT
|
Yes, the Republicans did abandon the principles that brought them to power with the "Contract with America"
They deserved to get trounced in the last election cycle.
The Republicans have periodically gone thru periods of stagnation. The conservative movement that started with Goldwater and culminated in Regan replaced a moribund party and is being reborn (or a replacement is coalescing) in the tea party movement.
The Fatrads of the party will have to go.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 04:40pm PT
|
"The ascendance of the Republicans in the 70's in the south was more of an economic function with the growth of the strength of the middle class in the sunbelt. Had nothing to do with race. "
Dream on
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2009 - 04:51pm PT
|
"The Fatrads of the party will have to go."
That's a perfectly agreeable strategy to me, TGT. Just keep tossing out the moderates, and let the GOP continue to implode to an extreme wing of wack-nuts that will have absolutely no ability to win any election.
Sounds like a great plan for the GOP. Keep it up.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!