What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I readily admit I'm pretty cynical about these things, so maybe I'm going overboard here, but your original post referred to his "principles".

In my mind, his "principle" concern was really about gaining himself some more national attention.


Preemptive: "What about Palin?"
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

WeWantMore said:
Come on. What made Bloomberg's position on the mosque that much better than anyone else's? Apart from the fact that you agree with him.
Click to expand...

And 70% of New Yorkers disagree with him. In Bloomberg's world the first amendment rights of the backers of Jihadworld trump the first amendment rights of everyone else to criticize the placing of this Islamist Victory Arch as close to GZ as possible. And anyone who disagrees is an Islamophobe. Horse collar.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

amherstblackbear said:
Yes, I know. Freedom is elitist. And irrational.
Click to expand...

The rich dwarf mayor of NYC is why we're free? This takes Cliff's Notes oversimplification to previously unknown territory. If it weren't for Bloomberg we'd be, what, Uzbekistan? In Bloomberg's world the only ones with first amendment rights are those he approves of. The rest of us are Islamophobes or (consults his little laminated wallet card) irrational.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

amherstblackbear said:
Cloud, I don't follow the guy enough to make a blanket statement one way or the other. I'm just pointing out that he's one of the few who's been perfectly consistent on both episodes.



Again, he's been consistent. Freedom means putting up with s--- you don't like. If you start making your own personal approval a condition of freedom, you've effed up the entire concept.
Click to expand...
I don't follow the man's career closely, but I don't think his stance is genuine. This is the man who wants to legally limit your sodium intake. I agree with what he's saying on this issue - the group has the right to build, they have the permits. But I think he's taking the stance as a method to positioning himself for something else.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

pirate said:
So if pot was legal the DEA would shrink by 70-80% or crime would go down 70-80%? Not sure if I understand what you are trying to convey.:)
Click to expand...

It means arrests and incarceration will go down by that % (which means less work for lawyers and judges). I doubt DEA would shrink by that % since we'll still go after bootleg drugs (tax dodgers).

I've to admit the marijuana legalization groups are terrible vs the opposition. city just had a fight over medical marijuana recently and If I based my decision on the tv ads. pot will never be legal or decriminalized. omg the crime rate will go thru the roof etc...
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I just saw the NYC mosque guy say not building the Mosque at ground zero will make the fundamentalists angry. Is their anything that doesn't make them angry?
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Old Pio said:
And 70% of New Yorkers disagree with him. In Bloomberg's world the first amendment rights of the backers of Jihadworld trump the first amendment rights of everyone else to criticize the placing of this Islamist Victory Arch as close to GZ as possible. And anyone who disagrees is an Islamophobe. Horse collar.
Click to expand...
*Sigh* That's also the real world, Pio. Keep in mind, the "right to criticize" is just that- a right for people to speak their mind. Having the right to criticize in no way garauntees that anyone will act on that criticism.

It does work the other way, though, since if/when the Mosque/Community Center gets built it will in no way garauntee that anyone will stop protesting it.

walrus said:
I just saw the NYC mosque guy say not building the Mosque at ground zero will make the fundamentalists angry. Is their anything that doesn't make them angry?
Click to expand...
No. No there is not. It's one of their defining characteristics.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Old Pio said:
The rich dwarf mayor of NYC is why we're free? This takes Cliff's Notes oversimplification to previously unknown territory. If it weren't for Bloomberg we'd be, what, Uzbekistan? In Bloomberg's world the only ones with first amendment rights are those he approves of. The rest of us are Islamophobes or (consults his little laminated wallet card) irrational.
Click to expand...

I knew you were conservative. I didn't know you were to the right of Attila the Hun. :eek: It has nothing to do with Bloomberg's personal authority. Not a thing at all. Sheesh, usually it's the conservatives reminding *others* of restraints on government based on general principles.

Old Pio said:
And 70% of New Yorkers disagree with him. In Bloomberg's world the first amendment rights of the backers of Jihadworld trump the first amendment rights of everyone else to criticize the placing of this Islamist Victory Arch as close to GZ as possible. And anyone who disagrees is an Islamophobe. Horse collar.
Click to expand...

No, not everyone. You, apparently, but not everyone. The rest of this is just all kinds of wrong. Liberty is not contingent upon public opinion, nor is it contingent upon consent. C'mon, this is American Government 101, here. And, fwiw, I'm not sure the guy ever denied that mosque opponents had a right to express their opinions, either.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

walrus said:
I just saw the NYC mosque guy say not building the Mosque at ground zero will make the fundamentalists angry. Is their anything that doesn't make them angry?
Click to expand...

No, which is why its asinine to let them limit domestic freedom.

The great majority of muslims will (and have) reacted to this with equanimity. The extremists will make propaganda with or without our help.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

amherstblackbear said:
Liberty is not contingent upon public opinion, nor is it contingent upon consent. C'mon, this is American Government 101, here. And, fwiw, I'm not sure the guy ever denied that mosque opponents had a right to express their opinions, either.
Click to expand...
Hey, if Sarah Palin has no idea how the first amendment works, why should anyone else on the extreme right?
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

amherstblackbear said:
The great majority of conservatives will (and have) reacted to this with equanimity. The extremists will make propaganda with or without our help.
Click to expand...

FYP :p

This is a tempest in a tea cup for everybody except the fundamentalist crazies of both camps. We should stick them all on the B ark and shoot them directly into the sun.

I heard on the Beeb this morning that the guy who is holding the property is tired of waiting and has the place up for sale. So, anybody who has $18M can solve the whole problem and build the world's fanciest Charlotte Russe on the site.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

amherstblackbear said:
I knew you were conservative. I didn't know you were to the right of Attila the Hun. :eek: It has nothing to do with Bloomberg's personal authority. Not a thing at all. Sheesh, usually it's the conservatives reminding *others* of restraints on government based on general principles.



No, not everyone. You, apparently, but not everyone. The rest of this is just all kinds of wrong. Liberty is not contingent upon public opinion, nor is it contingent upon consent. C'mon, this is American Government 101, here. And, fwiw, I'm not sure the guy ever denied that mosque opponents had a right to express their opinions, either.
Click to expand...

Keep your little wallet card handy, you never know when you'll need it. Way easier than thinking, isn't it? Earllier on, you opined that only Bloomberg has "principles," the rest of us are, what was the word, "blowhards." So much for reasoned discussion. So if 70% of the people in NYC oppose this affront to decency, then they're either blowhards or manipulated by blowhards. Nice.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
*Sigh* That's also the real world, Pio. Keep in mind, the "right to criticize" is just that- a right for people to speak their mind. Having the right to criticize in no way garauntees that anyone will act on that criticism.

It does work the other way, though, since if/when the Mosque/Community Center gets built it will in no way garauntee that anyone will stop protesting it.

No. No there is not. It's one of their defining characteristics.
Click to expand...

A well reasoned resonse to an argument I didn't make. The point here (why do I have to keep repeating this) is that the elitists who are backing this project (and that includes the mayor and BO) somehow fail to mention that opponants of "Six Flags Over Mecca" have a right to protest. In fact they and a significant number of posters here call people who think this mosque is a bad idea and that its backers are liars by the clock "Islamophobic." Only a psychological condition could account for anyone disagereeing with us on this one. Bunk.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
Hey, if Sarah Palin has no idea how the first amendment works, why should anyone else on the extreme right?
Click to expand...

Oh my, name calling. How original. How convincing. Question: when was the last time you used the phrase "extreme left?" How are those 12-step Sarah Palin meetings coming?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Craig P. said:
So how come we're not still paying the Capone gang and friends for our booze? Did they turn into choir boys? Were they not defensive of their turf and their profits?

There's a substantial cost to engaging in illegal activity, and if there's a legal outlet, the legal outlet will rapidly out-compete the illegal one IMO.
Click to expand...

Differences: 1) Booze was illegal for only about a dozen years. That's not a long amount of time for people to resume their old way of doing things. Drugs have been illegal for a lot, lot longer than that. I believe LSD was banned in the early 60's, but is there anybody even left alive from when some of these other drugs were legal? 2) Capone and his boys were US based, thus making it easier for prosecution. Its a lot harder to root out a cartel based in a lawless country. 3) Breweries stayed open during Prohibition (ever wonder why Bud says its been brewing since the 1800's?) because they were allowed to sell their product with a lower alcohol content. So, the legal supplier was still there. Drugs supplier is murderous cartels, and again I fail to see how that changes under legalization.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top