What's new
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.

The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Was Amendment 16 worth it? How about 18? Amending the Constitution is the only way that you will, without question, get anywhere with specific laws. The key phrase is "without question".

No, it's become the only way the Republicans can pass the laws they want without getting them shot down by that pesky Supreme Court. The irony is that they pretend to be the "strict" Constitutionalists. It makes me laugh.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Perhaps you could watch the CD of "The Collected Speeches of Sheila Jackson Lee." Or review Cynthia McKinney's various excretions.

No, but that does give me an idea for a more painful yet more ethical alternative to waterboarding for the terrorists.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

I think that conservatives do themselves a disservice by not shouting down the radicals at the far spectrum of their ideology. What do you expect people to think when the only message we hear is that of the far right?

Blame the media all you want, but here's what we've seen lately:


You could see how trapped Boehner looked when the tea-baggers and Cantor had him by the bags over the past two years. He was scared though, and chickened out and let the extreme be the voice, even though he obviously wanted to cut some sort of a deal.

Dick Luger among many others gets primary-ed because he isn't far enough to the right.

State legislatures pass numerous laws restricting birth control and mandating invasive, non-neccesary medical procedures for women seeking abortions along with other social issues. Somebody (majorities) voted those people into power.

Akin will still get a significant number of votes, even though he's a whack-job.

The continuing traction that birthers get.

Trying to pass constitutional amendments to outlaw gay marriage. Really? This is worth an amendment to our Constitution?

Voter ID - don't try to justify this. It's only for suppression. You'd have to be an idiot to not see what the motivation for this was regardless of whether you agree with the policy.

Having candidates for the Presidency of the United States of America declare that they don't believe in evolution. Do they really believe that or are they scared of their base? Either answer to that is bad.

Having candidates for the Presidency of the United States of America declare that they don't believe in global warming. (Of course many have adjusted this to "man made" global waring in the face of the evidence. :rolleyes:)



These are just a few examples of what many would see as extreme behavior or beliefs. If this is only a small, vocal portion of your party doing these things, then why doesn't the majority take the reigns back? Isn't it possible to be a conservative without believing that the world is only 6000 years old? Of course it is, but no one will stand up to that segment publicly for fear of getting themselves primary-ed.

I think the list of fascist factors that was shared fits the far right quite well and unfortunately, it appears that the far right is formulating your party's message and policy.

People will say that Republicans need to stick together right now despite their differences in order to defeat Obama, but I've seen no evidence that the less extreme (there don't appear to be moderates any more) elements of the GOP will ever actually stand up to the far right, even should they gain power.

That's why I can't ever see voting for a Republican again, or at least right now, even though I very nearly despise the typical weak-kneed Democratic politician - who get very little done. But I'd rather have little get done than far too much of the wrong things done.

Now some will undoubtedly say that conservatism does not equal being a Republican and that I'm over-generalizing, but based upon voting in congress and general public voting in elections, they are effectively interchangeable.

Look, I don't doubt that there are reasonable Republicans, and lots of them, but they aren't currently calling the shots. Not standing up to the extremists is essentially the same as agreeing with them. That's why you get painted with broad strokes.

Can we expect His Racistness to address the black on black slaughter in Chicago? In his convention speech or ever? In your world, "standing up to extremists" doesn't include sucking Al Sharpton's dik. But vote mining among the least educated and intelligent voters in the biggest constituency of his party is a much higher priority.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

No, but that does give me an idea for a more painful yet more ethical alternative to waterboarding for the terrorists.

Sorry. Movie reference. In "One, Two, Three" (Cagney's last starring role) the East German Stazi torture Horst Buckholz by playing a warped copy of "Itsy Bitsie Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka Dot Bikini" until he finally cracks.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

No, but that does give me an idea for a more painful yet more ethical alternative to waterboarding for the terrorists.
The 700 Club on continuous loop.

On second thought, that's less humane than other forms of torture.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Can we expect His Racistness to address the black on black slaughter in Chicago? In his convention speech or ever? In your world, "standing up to extremists" doesn't include sucking Al Sharpton's dik. But vote mining among the least educated and intelligent voters in the biggest constituency of his party is a much higher priority.

That's what you come up with as a response?

It was posited that all conservatives are painted with the same broad stroke and I gave reasons of why this might be.

Your response pretty much affirms, in a weird way, what I said.


His Racistness? What are you, an overly clever 12 year old?

Is Obama suddenly the mayor of Chicago? Has he come out in favor of the violence in Chicago? Does he want to pass laws or amendments that legalize the violence?

Is he worried about carrying the young, black male, gang member vote? Those fellas might not vote for him or worse, raise money and run someone against him in the future?

That would be the only way that your rant would be comparable in any way. What are you on? I gotta get me some of that!
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Sorry. Movie reference. In "One, Two, Three" (Cagney's last starring role) the East German Stazi torture Horst Buckholz by playing a warped copy of "Itsy Bitsie Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka Dot Bikini" until he finally cracks.

faster yet would be using Sheila Jackson, giving her speeches in high definition, while "Occupying" the Itsy Bitsie Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka Dot Bikini. They'd be pulling out their own eyeballs.
OK, I'm sorry about planting that image...
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

it sounds like we can all agree that those pesky "extremists" on THE OTHER SIDE really need to be modulated, eh? :)

This leads inevitably to what many of us have identified as the underlying "core" problem: too much government influence in our daily lives.

At one time people used social suasion to keep "extremists" in line; then someone got the bright idea that we should merely use the force of law to keep them in line instead. Then it became one of those so-called "race to the bottom" situations.

More and more people are spending more and more time and money to be in a position where they can tell other people what to do, while having the sanction of the state behind them. You don't like how someone is behaving? why bother to shame them when you can send big men with guns to enforce your will upon them instead.

Both "sides" are doing it. and both "sides" use as their rationale / justification that "we have to do it to protect ourselves from [shudder] them."

I imagine that an enterprising graduate student could put together a pretty compelling PhD thesis that there is a high level of correlation between how much time legislatures spend in session to how much societal polarization we have.

There's no reason for any legislature to spend more than a month or two in session every other year, absent an emergency. How much do we need to change our laws, or how frequently? and once we have a good decent set of laws in place, why do we need to keep passing new ones without ever going back and revising the ones we already have to make sure they are mutually consistent?
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

faster yet would be using Sheila Jackson, giving her speeches in high definition, while "Occupying" the Itsy Bitsie Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka Dot Bikini. They'd be pulling out their own eyeballs.
OK, I'm sorry about planting that image...

I actually voted for her when she ran for City Council in Houston. Who knew? For a real non-partisan giggle, review her House speech in which she talks about how well North and South Vietnam are getting along (it's on You Tube). A true gem. Highest staff turnover rate of any House member.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Cagney gets tortured in 13 Rue Madeleine, too. (Probably the best movie ever made about actual spy craft).
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

it sounds like we can all agree that those pesky "extremists" on THE OTHER SIDE really need to be modulated, eh? :)

This leads inevitably to what many of us have identified as the underlying "core" problem: too much government influence in our daily lives.

At one time people used social suasion to keep "extremists" in line; then someone got the bright idea that we should merely use the force of law to keep them in line instead. Then it became one of those so-called "race to the bottom" situations.

More and more people are spending more and more time and money to be in a position where they can tell other people what to do, while having the sanction of the state behind them. You don't like how someone is behaving? why bother to shame them when you can send big men with guns to enforce your will upon them instead.

Both "sides" are doing it. and both "sides" use as their rationale / justification that "we have to do it to protect ourselves from [shudder] them."

I imagine that an enterprising graduate student could put together a pretty compelling PhD thesis that there is a high level of correlation between how much time legislatures spend in session to how much societal polarization we have.

There's no reason for any legislature to spend more than a month or two in session every other year, absent an emergency. How much do we need to change our laws, or how frequently? and once we have a good decent set of laws in place, why do we need to keep passing new ones without ever going back and revising the ones we already have to make sure they are mutually consistent?

That sounds too good to ever happen.

Unfortunately, it would take acts of Congress to undo the damage done by Congress. Either that, or another revolution.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

it sounds like we can all agree that those pesky "extremists" on THE OTHER SIDE really need to be modulated, eh? :)

This leads inevitably to what many of us have identified as the underlying "core" problem: too much government influence in our daily lives.

At one time people used social suasion to keep "extremists" in line; then someone got the bright idea that we should merely use the force of law to keep them in line instead. Then it became one of those so-called "race to the bottom" situations.

More and more people are spending more and more time and money to be in a position where they can tell other people what to do, while having the sanction of the state behind them. You don't like how someone is behaving? why bother to shame them when you can send big men with guns to enforce your will upon them instead.

Both "sides" are doing it. and both "sides" use as their rationale / justification that "we have to do it to protect ourselves from [shudder] them."

I imagine that an enterprising graduate student could put together a pretty compelling PhD thesis that there is a high level of correlation between how much time legislatures spend in session to how much societal polarization we have.

There's no reason for any legislature to spend more than a month or two in session every other year, absent an emergency. How much do we need to change our laws, or how frequently? and once we have a good decent set of laws in place, why do we need to keep passing new ones without ever going back and revising the ones we already have to make sure they are mutually consistent?

I'm old enough to remember the John Birch Society, which had a bookstore in my home town. A Bircher tenured professor at the University of Illinois (named Revilo P. Oliver--Revilo is Oliver spelled backwards) wrote an article in the Birch magazine that JFK was assassinated because he'd fallen behind the Communist time table for the takeover of America. Very few people actually took them or their crack pot message very serously.

More recently, we had a black congressman refer to the LA riots approvingly. And compared the animals who beat the truck driver with chunks of concrete to "freedom fighters."

The examples are endless and come from both sides. One of the things that characterizes public discussion in this country is the way the extremes dominate. Most of us are somewhere in the middle on most of these issues. Or at least can see the other side's point of view, without necessarily agreeing. I think "new media" have exacerbated this partisan divide. This site, and many of my posts, illustrate the point.

I served as communications director for a gubernatorial campaign in Nebraska. And we sent someone over to the capitol every day to fetch copies of the legislative proposals. During the course of one session, in a state with a unicameral legislature, that daily snipe hunt yielded a stack of bills four or five feet high. In Nebraska?
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

That's what you come up with as a response?

It was posited that all conservatives are painted with the same broad stroke and I gave reasons of why this might be.

Your response pretty much affirms, in a weird way, what I said.


His Racistness? What are you, an overly clever 12 year old?

Is Obama suddenly the mayor of Chicago? Has he come out in favor of the violence in Chicago? Does he want to pass laws or amendments that legalize the violence?

Is he worried about carrying the young, black male, gang member vote? Those fellas might not vote for him or worse, raise money and run someone against him in the future?

That would be the only way that your rant would be comparable in any way. What are you on? I gotta get me some of that!

Exploring the outer reaches of obtuseness are we? His Panderness found time to comment unfavorably on the Cambridge police arresting one black guy. Cambridge is an obvious hotbed of racial intolerance, black mayor, black police chief and, for good measure, a black governor. This His Wonderfulness waded into with guns blazing. But when real guns are really blazing in Chicago (his home town), killing and wounding dozens of young people, he is silent. What, do you suppose, accounts for the difference? Like it or not, His Racistness seems far more sensitive to situations where the violence is white on black. But less sensitive about black on black violence. Or violence the other way. Such as New Black Panther Party fags, in their little uniforms, intimidating elderly white voters.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

More recently, we had a black congressman refer to the LA riots approvingly. And compared the animals who beat the truck driver with chunks of concrete to "freedom fighters."

A slight difference to this comparison is that there aren't state legislatures full of guys like this forming policy. The House of Reps isn't full of guys like this who are trying to ram through legislation that supports his wild ideas.

Seriously, you're really reaching.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

You just don't complain about them like you complain about the right.

The whack jobs on the right have the loudest bullhorn and are in the news the most. Sheila Jackson is certainly one of the lefties we can do without.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

The House of Reps isn't full of guys like this who are trying to ram through legislation that supports his wild ideas.

Not since 2010, but the House sure did some serious damage under Pelosi's control from 2008 - 2010! :eek:
 
Back
Top