C'mon Jim, even YOU have to admit she's batsh*t.

McCarthyism at its finest
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

C'mon Jim, even YOU have to admit she's batsh*t.

If she made this claim with zero evidence, she should be ashamed and villified. It's just as bad as liberals playing the race card...

I agree with Bachman on the major issues, but I've always thought she was a little kooky. This validates that.

Likwid, there are plenty of Democrats I admire, and plenty of Republicans I don't like. I'm not brainwashed. I can give you reasonable, common sense-based reasons for everything I believe.

If she made this claim with zero evidence, she should be ashamed and villified.

Well lets look at just Huma Abedin (who just happens to be married to a jew).
Her father taught at a school in Saudi Arabia 25 years ago.
He knew a dude back then, who was part of a muslim alliance group (not the brotherhood).
They MAY have agreed/aligned itself with the Muslim Brotherhood on UNKNOWN issues.

Thats the connection.
SEEMS SOLID TO ME!

So like this guy, he told me about this stuff that this other guy did, and it caused this other guy to be all like "OMG" and like totally caused 9/11.
Like fer shuuuur.

Not only batsh*t.
But an attention whore.

If she made this claim with zero evidence, she should be ashamed and villified.

Republicans line up to rip Michele Bachmann - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78741.html)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FdMh8WA6RqU/Trla8yxkKaI/AAAAAAAAB1g/6z8GoPH0RBs/s1600/michele-bachmann-insane-asylum-demotivator.jpg

^ LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

i wanna see her nekid still

you should read this....

Questions about Huma Abedin - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/310198/questions-about-huma-abedin-andrew-c-mccarthy)

"Now, I’m perfectly willing to believe that McCain may not know what the words “unspecified” and “unsubstantiated” mean. That, however, would not excuse his use of them in this context. The ties of Ms. Abedine’s father, mother, and brother to the Muslim Brotherhood are both specific and substantiated."

you should read this....

Questions about Huma Abedin - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/310198/questions-about-huma-abedin-andrew-c-mccarthy)

"Now, I’m perfectly willing to believe that McCain may not know what the words “unspecified” and “unsubstantiated” mean. That, however, would not excuse his use of them in this context. The ties of Ms. Abedine’s father, mother, and brother to the Muslim Brotherhood are both specific and substantiated."

Why would anyone want to read a slob site op-ed that has about as much relevance in reality as Bachmann's hysterical accusations?

I browsed through and tried to read the psycho ties he tries to create via, yet again, unsubstantiated claims.
Such as claiming the institute her father was part of was backed by a group that had brotherhood members in it. Yet again, 20 years ago.

His whole theory DEEPLY relies on the common reader being basically ignorant to the history of the Muslim Brotherhood.

But yet again, no name op ed on a no name website.
Crack dealers on Staten Island have more relevance.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FdMh8WA6RqU/Trla8yxkKaI/AAAAAAAAB1g/6z8GoPH0RBs/s1600/michele-bachmann-insane-asylum-demotivator.jpg

You can see in her eyes that something is off.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why would anyone want to read a slob site op-ed that has about as much relevance in reality as Bachmann's hysterical accusations?

But yet again, no name op ed on a no name website.
Crack dealers on Staten Island have more relevance.

he's actually quite versed on the subject, has written extensively on these matters and has first hand experience...just sayin'...I wouldn't expect that you'd have a clue or a coherent comment

Andrew C. McCarthy III is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.[1] He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003. He is currently a columnist for National Review.

McCarthy was educated at Columbia University and New York Law School, and has served as a professor at the latter and at Fordham University Law School.

He is currently a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, serving as the director of the FDD's Center for Law and Counterterrorism. He has served as an attorney for Rudy Giuliani, and is also a conservative opinion columnist who writes for National Review and Commentary.

I think there are some members of Congress that are wondering about the realtionship of this administration and the Muslim Brotherhood, not an unreasonable concern...

Napolitano was on the Hill recently being questioned and this is how it went.....
you can watch the video

The man in question is Mohamed Elibiary, appointed by President Obama and allegedly affiliated with the Islamic Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt.

Napolitano called the allegations against him “misleading” and “objectionable” and implied multiple times that Gohmert and others were accusing Elibiary of wrongdoing simply because he is Muslim.

Gohmert told Napolitano that her staff was apparently lying to her because an investigation found that Elibiary had accessed classified information and had downloaded it. The only thing that wasn’t “confirmed” was that he leaked the information to the press.

“It did not bother you that he accessed information?” Gohmert asked.

The secretary then altered her answer slightly but quickly changed the subject. “He accessed some information. What bothers me quite frankly, are the allegations that are made against anyone that happens to be Muslim,” Napolitano replied.

“Well, the allegations are not because he is Muslim. ”This administration seems to have a hard time recognizing members of terrorist groups who are allowed into the White House. You are aware of that happening aren’t you?”

Napolitano immediately shot back, “Absolutely not.”

Last month, Hani Nour Eldin, a member of Egypt’s parliament, was granted a visa and invited to attend several meetings with high-ranking White House and State Department officials, some in the executive mansion. Eldin is also a member of Gamaa Islamiya, a radical Islamic group currently listed as a designated terrorist organization.

For the next several minutes, Gohmert pressed Napolitano on whether she knew what the Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt was. After initially dodging the question, she answered “Yes.”

“Are you aware that Mr. Elibiary’s foundation that has now been, had their charter pulled because they have failed to provide the information that the government requires to keep their 501(c)(3) status — are you aware that that was, before the 501 (c)(3) status was pulled, called the Freedom and Justice Foundation?” asked Gohmert.

“Representative, I am not going to get into a debate about some of this — ” Napolitano started.

“I am asking you if you know simple facts!” Gohmert replied. “I don’t want a debate, this is a question and answer.”

The Freedom and Justice Party is an Islamist political party in Egypt with ties to the radical Muslim Brotherhood. The party won 47.2 percent of all seats in Egypt’s lower house of parliament and praised the election of Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Mursi.

Napolitano absolutely refused to answer the question and was interrupted repeatedly by Gohmert because of her inability to give a straight answer.

“These kinds of insinuations demean the committee,” a frustrated Napolitano said. “The insinuation that I or my staff would allow someone who is a terrorist to infiltrate –”




so the moral of the story is that this administration does not have to provide answers to simple questions and even if the answer is "yes", you are wrong for asking the question because you are by default a hater and simply asking the questions relegates you to the status of 'demeaning insuator":) this is great:)

A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others.

The most open and shut case in the history of NY law makes him an expert? Are you kidding me?
A 12yo could have tried that trial and won.

Did you know that al-Qaeda hates the hell out of the Muslim Brotherhood for supporting democratic elections?

No, most likely not.
That would require you to go beyond posting op-eds that have zero relevance. And this kooks splooge on a scam site (if he's so important, why isn't he on fox et al?) made you all doe eyed huh?

there seems to be a clear pattern of nastiness among the open-minded, tolerant compassionates lately :)

lending support for Jim's theory:biglaugh:

[QUOTE=likwid;949744].
Did you know that al-Qaeda hates the hell out of the Muslim Brotherhood for supporting democratic elections?
No, most likely not.
QUOTE]




i guess the feelings are not all mutual:)

June 24, 2012

CAIRO — Egypt’s military rulers on Sunday officially recognized Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood as the winner of Egypt’s first competitive presidential election, handing the Islamists both a symbolic triumph and a potent weapon in their struggle for power against the country’s top generals.

............................

MIDDLE EAST NEWS

June 29, 2012

Morsi Promises to Free 'Blind Sheik' from U.S. Prison
Promises to Free 'Blind Sheik' from U.S. Prison

BY MATT BRADLEY

Egypt's President-elect Mohammed Morsi made a nod to his base in a speech on Friday when he pledged to seek the release of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman from U.S. custody.

Sheik Abdel-Rahman, who is better known as the "blind sheik" is serving a life sentence at a federal penitentiary in North Carolina for his role in planning the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City.

So far Scottw has calmly provided information from credible sources, and
likwid has spewed vulgarities (batsh*t, attention whore, slob site, splooge on a scam site) as retorts. And likwid claims Scott's information has no relevance to reality or is less relevant than crack dealers on Staten Island. I don't know what relevance (to anything) likwid's comments have. They seem to be spouts of anger which Paul S might take notice of and comment on. On the face of it, an objective observer would have to conclude that Scottw has the better of the argument, but, something else is going on here other than rational argument on likwid's part. So then an objective evaluation might not be relevant, at least not as relevant as a crack dealer on some island.

yeah, I'm not sure if that gets him put on the Zimmy, Pauls, Spence "ignore list" .......or if it gets him a lifetime membership in the Zimmy,PaulS, Spence private intellectual society....pretty funny either way:)

yeah, I'm not sure if that gets him put on the Zimmy, Pauls, Spence "ignore list" .......or if it gets him a lifetime membership in the Zimmy,PaulS, Spence private intellectual society....pretty funny either way:)

I would not put Spence in that group. I doubt if he has an ignore list. He genuinely seems to be interested in ideas, though I think he should widen his sources of information to get more of the balance he professes to desire. The really good thing about Spence is his willingness to debate ideas in a rational way. Sure, he has his moments of sarcasm (maybe more than I like, but that's just me), but for the most part he's not merely a flame thrower. I often am disappointed that he will suddenly drop out of a conversation when it seems, to me, that it is reaching a point of enlightenment. But, though he can be annoying (as I'm sure I am to him) in his persistently obstinate progressive views, I miss, lately, his absence in the recent threads. Sounds like he's too busy right now to mess with this stuff. That's a good thing, but not necessarily for the forum. Back and forth discussions with him can shed light and clarify issues and philosophies for those listening in.

Hey if she was still with Turner and Overdrive I vote for her.

I would not put Spence in that group. I doubt if he has an ignore list. He genuinely seems to be interested in ideas, though I think he should widen his sources of information to get more of the balance he professes to desire. The really good thing about Spence is his willingness to debate ideas in a rational way.

I agree and thought the same thing when including him but I think Zimmy very much wanted him involved in his "think tank"...I anticipated a "hey, don't lump me in with them" protest post from him....hopefully he's very busy trying to keep the dow near 13,000 so that his hero has something to run on:)

The Repubs. have a long history of this. I bet she has West on her speed dial. Another good one is to claim someone hates the Constituion. As someone mentioned, McCarthyism as its best. Other than John M., I haven't heard any Rs denouncing her. It prob. helped out the re-elect. bank acct.

Other than John M., I haven't heard any Rs denouncing her. .

if you read the whole thread you wouldn't make such ridiculous statements:)

Republicans line up to rip Michele Bachmann - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78741.html)


"Senators in her own party, congressional candidates, a lawmaker in her state’s delegation and leaders of the House Republican Conference are all lambasting the Minnesota Republican for saying the wife of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood."

Glad to hear that Scott. Everyone should call out insane comments (from both sides).

PS - Glad you think I'm so intellectual :). I actually don't have anyone on my ignore list. Never said I did. It is just the interweb, who cares?

Glad to hear that Scott. Everyone should call out insane comments (from both sides).

PS - Glad you think I'm so intellectual :). I actually don't have anyone on my ignore list. Never said I did. It is just the interweb, who cares?

not only intellectual, but I'm sure quite handsome and great fun to hang out with:gu:

there seems to be a clear pattern of nastiness among the open-minded, tolerant compassionates lately :)

lending support for Jim's theory:biglaugh:

It's not a "theory", no more than gravity is a "theory".

Scott, i sthat a true conversation you posted between Napolitano and a congressman? Nah, she's not in over her head...

Clip: Homeland Security Oversight - C-SPAN Video Library (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3525810)

Glad to hear that Scott. Everyone should call out insane comments (from both sides).

PS - Glad you think I'm so intellectual :). I actually don't have anyone on my ignore list. Never said I did. It is just the interweb, who cares?

Paul's post convinced me to clear my ignore list. Hopefully, I can limit my time responding to the checkmates and getting called a twelve year old.

So, whether it is Netwons', Einstein's, or Galileo's theory of gravity, gravity is theoretical.You can read more about current theories of gravity at Theory of Gravity (http://www.theoryofgravity.com/Theory_of_Gravity.php)

I also like this one from
Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" by Ellery Schempp (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm)
"Warning: Gravity is “Only a Theory”
by Ellery Schempp

All physics textbooks should include this warning label:

“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” ."

The Repubs. have a long history of this. I bet she has West on her speed dial. Another good one is to claim someone hates the Constituion. As someone mentioned, McCarthyism as its best. Other than John M., I haven't heard any Rs denouncing her. It prob. helped out the re-elect. bank acct.

....

something tells me Paul that if Jim had made a generalized statement like this you'd have suggested that he is full of hate and out of line for suggesting that a party or certain people had a long history of anything in addition to the other suggestions.....we can make a list if you'd like, of insulting, offensive claims or things that were construed as offensive by members of congress from both sides and compare the reaction of their fellow congress people and it might paint a far different picture than what you've suggested. as for McCarthyism, while it's an easy word for some to remember and toss about(an endless supply of ism's) whenever it is convenient, it's little more than one of the many pejoratives that some keep close at hand and throw out in self satisfied fashion not understanding that they actually have little relevance .....but I guess it sounds good ...if you know anything about FDRism or Woodrow Wilsonism, Mccarthyism might seem tame in comparison

it seems awfully easy for some to simply dismiss anything that disagrees with their own world view and also deride others for behaviour that they find deplorable but yet justify their own similar behaviour as long as it was apparently prompted by others....it's an odd standard but one that we've come to expect

did you know that Mccarthy(ism) was more popular that Obamacare?

In January 1954, a Gallup poll found that 50% of the American public supported McCarthy, while 29% had an unfavorable opinion of the senator.

and it was a bi partisam effort:)


The overwhelming support provided by the liberals:uhuh: has attracted much attention from historians such as Mary McAuliffe (The Journal of American History). McAuliffe argues that, despite the liberals’ traditional role as the protectors of fundamental rights and civil liberties, the perceived gravity of the threat of Communism during the Cold War led some liberals to ignore the fact that the CCA suspended the citizenship rights of the Communist Party members. Most liberals did not even offer a token opposition to the Act; on the contrary, they ardently supported it.

The Communist Control Act of 1954 was passed with overwhelming:uhuh: support in both houses of Congress after very little debate. Jointly:uhuh: drafted by Republican John Marshall Butler and Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the law was an extension of the Internal Security Act of 1950, and sought to outlaw the Communist Party by declaring that the party, as well as "Communist-Infiltrated Organizations" were "not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies.

The House Committee on Un-American Activities - commonly referred to as the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) - was the most prominent and active government committee involved in anti-Communist investigations. Formed in 1938 and known as the Dies Committee for Rep. Martin Dies(democrat):uhuh:

The SISS was headed by Democrat Pat McCarran and gained a reputation for careful and extensive investigations. This committee spent a year investigating Owen Lattimore and other members of the Institute of Pacific Relations. As had been done numerous times before, the collection of scholars and diplomats associated with Lattimore (the so-called China Hands) were accused of "losing China," and while some evidence of pro-communist attitudes was found, there was nothing to support McCarran's accusation that Lattimore was "a conscious and articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy".

On June 1, 1950, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, a Maine Republican, delivered a speech to the Senate she called a "Declaration of Conscience". In a clear attack upon McCarthyism, she called for an end to "character assassinations" and named "some of the basic principles of Americanism: The right to criticize; The right to hold unpopular beliefs; The right to protest; The right of independent thought". She said "freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America", and decried "cancerous tentacles of 'know nothing, suspect everything' attitudes".[80] Six other Republican Senators—Wayne Morse, Irving M. Ives, Charles W. Tobey, Edward John Thye, George Aiken, and Robert C. Hendrickson—joined Smith in condemning the tactics of McCarthyism.


there's an important lesson here with regard to the various legislation that was passed which empowered the government to have the expanded power to commit what some consider atrocities....

The Repubs. have a long history of this. I bet she has West on her speed dial. Another good one is to claim someone hates the Constituion. As someone mentioned, McCarthyism as its best. Other than John M., I haven't heard any Rs denouncing her. It prob. helped out the re-elect. bank acct.

"The Repubs. have a long history of this"

Wow. I mean, wow.

Paul, time and time again, you criticize me for taking the actions of one or two liberals, and blaming all liberals for that. Please tell me how that's any fifferent from what you've done here.

"Other than John M., I haven't heard any Rs denouncing her. "

Then you need to stop getting all of your information from radical liberal sources. Hordes of Republicans have denounced her. And I'm proud of those Republicans, good for them.

When Democratic congressman Alan Grayson of Florida said that Republicans wanted sick people to die, how many Democrats spoke out against him?

"The Repubs. have a long history of this"

Wow. I mean, wow. Wow Wow???What are you a little kid?

Paul, time and time again, you criticize me for taking the actions of one or two liberals, and blaming all liberals for that. Please tell me how that's any fifferent from what you've done here. Look at amount of times it has happened. We can go on and on. The word Socialist has lost its meaning with the amount of times it has been used in the last 4 years. When you have a huge % of people actually stupid enough to believe the Pres. of the United States wasn't born here, that must tell you something about the cons. - doesn't it? As if when Obama was in the Senate and on the Senate foreign relations committee, the FBI didn't check into his background. Do we need to do a list of times again when Rep./Dems made stupid aqusations about the other party? Remember when you wanted to compare the amount of prominant Rep/Dems politicians who called into talk shows and I showed Bush called in many times while actually in office to Limbaugh. Your list had minor politicians (and Carter 15 years after he was out of office:biglaugh:

"Other than John M., I haven't heard any Rs denouncing her. "

Then you need to stop getting all of your information from radical liberal sources. I don't visit radical sites - really none at all - just this one where I see the radical 3% (that is you by the way) CNN and the NYT (those prob. qualify in your mind:rotf2:. Hordes of Republicans have denounced her. And I'm proud of those Republicans, good for them. I only saw McCain on ABC (I guess to you that is a radical site). When ScottW said others did, I thanked him and said it was good when pol. on both sides call out crazy statements.

When Democratic congressman Alan Grayson of Florida said that Republicans wanted sick people to die, how many Democrats spoke out against him?

Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy:rotf2:, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?

PaulS -

"Don't know ..."

Paul, the oceans could be filled with the many things you don't know...

"Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering?...where have all the compassionate cons. gone?"

Let's dissect this statement...

First you admit you don't have any facts...but that doesn't stop you from assuming there was one single incident where a crowd applauded that sick people should die. Then, you take that incident (which you probably invented) and you use it to assume that all conservatives feel the same way.

You have hit a breathtaking new low with this post. Breathtaking.

Give it a rest gentlemen....

PaulS -
First you admit you don't have any facts...but that doesn't stop you from assuming there was one single incident where a crowd applauded that sick people should die. Then, you take that incident (which you probably invented) and you use it to assume that all conservatives feel the same way.


He didn't invent it.
It was a conservative high point, like when the active service member who happens to be gay was booed for asking a question at a debate.

PaulS -

"Don't know ..."

Paul, the oceans could be filled with the many things you don't know...

"Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering?...where have all the compassionate cons. gone?"

Let's dissect this statement...

First you admit you don't have any facts...but that doesn't stop you from assuming there was one single incident where a crowd applauded that sick people should die. Then, you take that incident (which you probably invented) and you use it to assume that all conservatives feel the same way.

You have hit a breathtaking new low with this post. Breathtaking.

Was the gist of the quote correct or not - It was correct so your full statement has no merit. So what was breathtaking? - I admitted that I wasn't sure where it was (was it a political stop, a debate, etc). The facts of where it was doesn't matter, the fact that it took place is what matters. It was a Ron Paul rally - so why don't you apologize since I was right and you were wrong (and I won't act like a little child and make a snide comment as you usually do).

Another good one is to claim someone hates the Constituion.

Since the only one who has actually provided any account of what Bachmann did and an actual analysis of it was Scottw with the Andrew Mcarthy article, and since the thread otherwise teeters back and forth on the verge of, as JohnnyD said, pooh pooh, not a little driven there by your insertions, I'll wander into another unrelated thread diversion that you've led us. So, do you like the Constitution? Do you think it is being adhered to and followed faithfully? Do you believe that the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate everything through the Commerce Clause? Do you think the Constitution gives Congress unlimited power to tax? Do you think that various legislations that Congress has passed over the years and have been allowed to stand by SCOTUS as constitutional has given the Federal Government power, if not nearly total, well beyond that which the original Constitution intended and still clearly states? Do you understand that the SCOTUS decision that the HCB was a tax, and therefore constitutional, was such a decision and one that grants fedgov the power to tax beyond what was specifed in the Constitution, and, actually, says the government can tax anything and everybody at will with no limits? Do you believe that all members of the fedgov, including the present President and SCOTUS, have abided by there oath to support and defend the Constitution? Just curious, since you brought up the subject of hating the Constitution, what you think of all this?

I believe that you have already said repeatedly that lib. hate the constitution.

He didn't invent it.
It was a conservative high point, like when the active service member who happens to be gay was booed for asking a question at a debate.

Please show me where a group of ifluential conservatives gave anyone the impression that conservatives want sick people to die. Do you really think that's part of the conservative platform?


If that event took place, it wasn't a "conservative" high point, it wasn't a "conservative" anything. I expect that from Paul, he's incapable of rising above that. You're better than that.

It was a Ron Paul rally .

Unbelievable...

Ron Paul, for your information, does not speak for conservatives. He specifically claims that his ideology is an alternative to conservative values. He speaks for a portion of people (on the fringe) who call themselves libertarians. There are massive ideological differences between Ron Paul's followers and true conservatives.

Equating Ron Paul's agenda with conservatives makes far less sense than for me to say all liberals think like Al Sharpton. Al Sharpton calls himself a progressive Democrat. Ron Paul goes out of his way to differentiate himself from the conservative wing of the Republican party.

For the record Paul and RIROCKHOUND...true conservatives care a great deal about thje sick and the poor. That's precisely why, in the study done called "Who Realy Cares", ABC News reported that conservatives donate more time and money to charity than liberals.

Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1)

Can we try to be honest and rational here for 5 seconds?

Was the gist of the quote correct or not ).

No, the gist of your quote wasn't anywhere near correct. A small number of idiots do not speak for the majority of conservatives.

Paul, conservatives care deeply about the following...


life (the unborn are precious and irreplaceable)
fiscal responsibility (we are currently > $40 trillion in the hole, counting entitlement programs
limited federal govt
promoting individual liberty
strong national defense
charity for those in need
support of free market capitalism


Rather than debate the merits of any of these, you seem content to find one or two idiots in our midst (which is easy in any large group), paint all of us with the same brush, and dismiss us as racists, homophobes, sexists, anti-poor, or some other insulting hate-monger.

To get back to the original intent of this thread, Bachman appears to have really stepped in it. I'm glad to see huge numbers of influential Republicans call her out on it. Maybe the liberals can try to do the same the next time some Democratic idiot declares that conservatives are waging war on women, or war against the middle class, or calling us all a bunch of Islamophobes. Maybe that'll happen. But I'm not holding my breath...

Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy:rotf2:, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?

There is my quote

Please show me where a group of ifluential conservatives gave anyone the impression that conservatives want sick people to die. Do you really think that's part of the conservative platform? Look it up, it happened. I never said it was part of the cons. platform - did I? Go back and re-read my quote or look above as I've quoted it for you.


If that event took placeWhich it did., it wasn't a "conservative" high point, it wasn't a "conservative" anythingSee your anger is getting you so mad, you don't know who said what. . I expect that from Paul, he's incapable of rising above thatReally, again, look at almost all my posts - they're in direct response to your numerous comments where you criticize libs (which is fine) but always add some insult. . You're better than that.

No, the gist of your quote wasn't anywhere near correct. So show me where I was wrong. And since it was correct, why don't you apologize. I mentioned in another thread that you called a woman a vile name. You stated that you didn't. Rather than look for it, I apologized (Of course w/in a few days, I called you out for calling a woman a vile name - maybe it was Rachel Madow???). Since you are wrong, you should just apologize. A small number of idiots do not speak for the majority of conservatives I agree, just as a small group of iditots do not speak for the majority of libs..

Rather than debate the merits of any of these, you seem content to find one or two idiots in our midst (which is easy in any large group), paint all of us with the same brush, isn't that what you do? Criticize the Dems for walking out on the gun running vote (b/c they thought it was political) yet Spence showed you that the Repubs. did the same thing. Yet you ignore that.

Jim, You fail to see that I just do exactly what you do and then you get mad.

By the way, where do you get the list that you copied from?

By the way, where do you get the list that you copied from?

Any rational conservative will tell you that list represents what's important to them.

Paul, let me ask you, what do you think are the core principles of conservative ideology? In all seriousness and honesty, what is it that you think we wish to acomplish?

Please show me where a group of ifluential conservatives gave anyone the impression that conservatives want sick people to die. Do you really think that's part of the conservative platform?


If that event took place, it wasn't a "conservative" high point, it wasn't a "conservative" anything. I expect that from Paul, he's incapable of rising above that. You're better than that.

The point is they both did take place.
So they aren't influential conservatives, but you (and others on the right) are quick to judge the left based on Occupy and others... I don't see the distinction. Both probably represent the fringe of the idealogy...


"Let him die": A debate question exposes the incoherence—and cowardice—of the Republican candidates' opposition to Obamacare. - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2011/09/let_him_die.html)

Gay Soldier Booed By GOP Debate Audience | New York Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/09/gay-soldier-booed-by-gop-debate-audience)

I didn't read the articles other than to know they cite the time and place of these events. Slate and NYDayily news are not in my daily reading....

Any rational conservative will tell you that list represents what's important to them.

Paul, let me ask you, what do you think are the core principles of conservative ideology? In all seriousness and honesty, what is it that you think we wish to acomplish?

I would come up with a somewhat similiar list if you asked me to write a list of cons. beliefs.

I wasn't questioning whether the list was of yours or any cons. beliefs. I asked b/c when I quoted it, there was indicator at the top and bottom of the list as though you copied the list from somewhere. No big deal.

The point is they both did take place.
So they aren't influential conservatives, but you (and others on the right) are quick to judge the left based on Occupy and others... I don't see the distinction. Both probably represent the fringe of the idealogy...


"Let him die": A debate question exposes the incoherence—and cowardice—of the Republican candidates' opposition to Obamacare. - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2011/09/let_him_die.html)

Gay Soldier Booed By GOP Debate Audience | New York Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/09/gay-soldier-booed-by-gop-debate-audience)

I didn't read the articles other than to know they cite the time and place of these events. Slate and NYDayily news are not in my daily reading....

Here's the distinction..I have never heard large numbers of influential liberals decry the actions of Occupy Wall Street...all I hear is liberals complimenting them. Which makes me think that according to most liberals, their actions are within the scope of liberal ideology. Almost every time large numbers of liberals get together, PARTICULARLY when they are protesting something, there is anarchy. You didn't see that with the Tea Party rallies, you just didn't.

Most conservatives would be appalled at the notion of someone applauding that a sick person should die. Most liberals don't seem to have issues with Occupy Wall Street crowds.

That's the distinction. And it's a major distinction.

You disagree with my observation there?

If I may interject, I think that they're mostly a some what wacky fringe element made up of former hippies and flowerchildren with a few homeless people who showed up b/c they could camp somewhere w/o being bothered and get free food. I can't recall anyone here really complimenting them. Certainly, as with any group you loosely share an ideology, there may be aspects that I could agree with but their view ends up too extreme.

The demographic make up of TP and OWS is very different.

If I may interject, I think that they're mostly a some what wacky fringe element made up of former hippies and flowerchildren with a few homeless people who showed up b/c they could camp somewhere w/o being bothered and get free food. I can't recall anyone here really complimenting them. Certainly, as with any group you loosely share an ideology, there may be aspects that I could agree with but their view ends up too extreme.

The demographic make up of TP and OWS is very different.

I respect the way you stated that...

I watched a great deal of media coverage concerning the Occupy Wall Street crowd, and I watched what a lot of Democrats in Washington said about them. I didn't hear a lot of prominent, influential liberals dismissing them as the fringe. Whet I heard was a lot of support for the message they were trying to get across. And I never saw anyone on TV, other than those on Foxnews, make a big deal about the anarchistic behavior which was commonplace at their sites..

I don't believe that the Occupy Wall Street crowd operates on the fringe of the liberal universe. Their message is that the syatem is rigged in favor of the wealthy, and that poor people are victimized by the wealthy, and by some evil entity known as "business". If you think thoe are "fringe" ideals, I guess you think Obama is also a fringe guy. Because he obviously agrees with them on their core message, does he not?

The point is they both did take place.

I didn't read the articles other than to know they cite the time and place of these events. ....

that always a great qualifier when you are providing them as evidence that others should read to prove your point :uhuh:

I'm very curious to know how many here that are so deeply offended by the Bachmann et al letter actually read the letter? it's available to read as it was distributed to a number of agencies and made available to the public...hope the same people that are always suggesting that the idiot masses don't read past the headlines and are duped by out of context quips on Fox News actually did a little reading on their own:)

I believe that you have already said repeatedly that lib. hate the constitution.

soooo...you should be able to provide an example....you don't even have to read it yourself...just post a link, to anything...like Bryan....lots'a stuff tossed about on this page without much to back it up:uhuh: and from the people that always demand...backup

btw...just clicking on the SLATE article that Bryan posted...the title is "LET HIM DIE " in quotes but if you read the article...it's Wolf Blitzer who was moderating the debate who actually said "let him die", not any republican

seems like a pretty balanced article too:rotf2:

Give it a rest gentlemen....

Yes, let's change the subject to Pelosie. :hihi:

soooo...you should be able to provide an example....you don't even have to read it yourself...just post a link, to anything...like Bryan....lots'a stuff tossed about on this page without much to back it up:uhuh: and from the people that always demand...backup

He would prob. agree that he has insinuated that a few times. Admittedly, he prob. would say that about some of the Cons. also.

I enjoy his posts, very well written as he puts a lot of thought into them. Very knowledgeable about the Const. I think the tone of this forum has worn him down recently.

He would prob. agree that he has insinuated that a few times. Admittedly, he prob. would say that about some of the Cons. also.

I enjoy his posts, very well written as he puts a lot of thought into them. Very knowledgeable about the Const. I think the tone of this forum has worn him down recently.

Glad you changed from I "have said repeatedly" that libs hate the Constititution to I have "insinuated that a few times." I know that I have said, not insinuated, that the original progressives of the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries despised the Constitution. And I provided their own words to demonstrate that assertion. And, yes, I did point out that Republicans were among the first progressives.

I don't equate Republican with today's "conservatives." Nor do I equate all those who are called liberal to "progressive." Most of today's conservatives are Republican or Libertarian, though many Republicans are somewhat progressive. I believe there is a divide between most of those who vote Democrat and the core of todays Democrat party. I believe that core is politically "progressive" and that most of its voters are not aware of that progressive nature or even what it is.

I don't think that most Democrat voters are aware of the progressive destruction of the Constitution. I believe they are mostly, as most Americans are, constitutionally illiterate and accept Democrat policies to be constitutional. That's why I asked you, very sincerely, what you thought on the matter. I am curious if you think that the Constitution has been, essentially destroyed, and if you do, if it matters.

btw...just clicking on the SLATE article that Bryan posted...the title is "LET HIM DIE " in quotes but if you read the article...it's Wolf Blitzer who was moderating the debate who actually said "let him die", not any republican

seems like a pretty balanced article too:rotf2:

On reading the article I could see an attempt at balance, but, to me, it was very heavily slanted toward the mandate as a solution to medical care for the uninsured who can afford it. The three options the article presented for someone who could afford it but was uninsured and critically or terminally ill are (1) the mandate, (2) current policy of care to be paid for by the rest of us, and (3) letting him die. For option 2, current policy, the article cites A study (only one study) that says the cost shift amounts to $1,100 per family. It omits another study that found that 80% was actually covered by charities and that the cost shifted to the rest of us was about $80 per family, so the article's assertion that charities could not substantially contribute to the cost is questionable. Option 3, let him die takes the responsibility of the uninsured out of the equation. In typical progressive thinking, society has to solve his problem, not the individual. But there is an option 4. Let the uninsured individual take responsibility for the cost of saving his life. Let him sell assets, take loans, do whatever it costs to pay for it, if saving his life is worth it to him, even if it would mean bakruptcy. This option would be an incentive for those who can afford it to buy insurance. The same would apply to any other expensive thing he thought worth buying. And yes, charities could help those who absolutely are not capable. And yes, various State programs could assist the truly needy. And yes, the Constitution would be spared the further destruction. And the principle of individual freedom from all-powerful government would be a little more preserved.

On reading the article I could see an attempt at balance, but, to me, it was very heavily slanted toward the mandate as a solution to medical care for the uninsured who can afford it.

I saw an article that took a quote from the moderator(obnoxious by the way) and the supposed reaction of a few in the audience having no idea who they may have been and attempted to use that quote and reaction to characterize the sentiment and stance of the candidates:)

and further.....

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I have to say, I’ve never witnessed such a crackle of enthusiasm for executing people as I heard at the Reagan Library debate last week. I recalled it last night when I heard the clap of applause when Ron Paul said he’d let someone die if they failed to pony up for health insurance.


BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

PAUL: No

PAUL: I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that's the reason the cost is so high.

The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies and the drug companies, and then on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar, we have lack of competition.

There's no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want.


mission accomplished however

Originally Posted by PaulS
Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?



Lordy...Lordy:)

Originally Posted by PaulS
Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?



Lordy...Lordy:)

So Scott, was that exactly my quote or did you selectively edit it? You also seemed to have edited out the following which implies that there was no audience response (but left in the other times where the audience responded) (Quoted from ABC news):

After a pause, Blitzer followed up by asking “Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” to which a small number of audience members shouted “Yeah!”

Here is my quote - Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?

So when I posted the statement, I qualified it by saying "Don't know, but" - which means I was unsure of the exact statement. It turns that it did happen - with the mod. saying "let him die?" and some in the audience saying "Yeah" instead of the cheering that I said. So the bottom line is that you have some in the audience who were happy w/the statement "let him die".

Scott, you sometimes remind me of a gnat.

Here is my quote - Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?

I really shouldn't get involved in this . . . discussion? . . . which is off topic and has turned, as johnnyD said, into pooh, pooh, but some . . . . gnat like? . . . compulsion makes me. So, besides your admittedly erroneous reflections on the "rally," what is the point of "where have all the compassionate cons. gone?" does the few who said "yeah" mean all the compassionate cons. are gone?

So when I posted the statement, I qualified it by saying "Don't know, but" true - which means I was unsure of the exact statement. True. It turns that it did happen No, someone did not shout "let him die" and the whole crowd did not start to cheer - with the mod. saying "let him die?" true and some in the audience saying "Yeah" instead of the cheering that I said. True So the bottom line is that you have some in the audience who were happy w/the statement "let him die".
How do you know they were "happy" with the "let him die?" There could be many reasons and expanded explanations for that reaction, which would not fit into an interjection by an audience member. It could be, among others, a tough love stance saying, buddy take care of yourself, it is not society's responsibility to nurse you through every phase of your existence and to pay for your poor choices. And if you have chosen a path of non-involvement in your own existence, it is not society's duty to empower you to stay on that path.

Scott, you sometimes remind me of a gnat.

Careful, Paul, there are mirrors.

I apologize to everybody else for contributing to the pooh, pooh. Apparently, however, no-one other than Scottw seems to care about the actual topic of the thread.

How do you know they were "happy" with the "let him die?They certainly were agreeable with the idea of letting him die with the "yeah" statement There could be many reasons and expanded explanations for that reaction, which would not fit into an interjection by an audience member. It could be, among others, a tough love stance saying, buddy take care of yourself, it is not society's responsibility to nurse you through every phase of your existence and to pay for your poor choicesI agree that could have been the intent. So b/c of "tough love", they were willing to let him die. Bottom line, some in the audience were willing to let him die. And if you have chosen a path of non-involvement in your own existence, it is not society's duty to empower you to stay on that path

So, besides your admittedly erroneous reflections on the "rally," So b/c it wasn't a "rally" does that change what happened? Shouldn't the focus not be on where the event was or what exactly the event was but rather on the fact that some members of the audience (for what ever reason) believe someone should be allowed to die? It seems like folks here would rather focus on those minor details while ignoring the main point.

So, besides your admittedly erroneous reflections on the "rally," So b/c it wasn't a "rally" does that change what happened? Shouldn't the focus not be on where the event was or what exactly the event was but rather on the fact that some members of the audience (for what ever reason) believe someone should be allowed to die? It seems like folks here would rather focus on those minor details while ignoring the main point.

OMG, why am I letting myself be sucked into a PaulS pooh, pooh? OK. Paul, your the one focusing on a minor detail here and ignoring my main points. BTW--any response to my constitutional Q's?

OMG, why am I letting myself be sucked into a PaulS pooh, pooh? Then don't respond. OK. Paul, your the one focusing on a minor detail here and ignoring my main points. BTW--any response to my constitutional Q's?Maybe I don't want to get involved in a detbuch pooh, pooh:). I admit I don't know as much as you about the const. so I've never gotten into a debate w/you on it if there was something we might disagree on.

NM

It could be, among others, a tough love stance saying, buddy take care of yourself, it is not society's responsibility to nurse you through every phase of your existence and to pay for your poor choicesI agree that could have been the intent. So b/c of "tough love", they were willing to let him die. Bottom line, some in the audience were willing to let him die. And if you have chosen a path of non-involvement in your own existence, it is not society's duty to empower you to stay on that path

They might have been(don't know about were) willing to let him make the choice. Do you believe in choice? Do you believe in the choice to kill unborn or partially born babies? Do you believe in the choice of an a adult to terminate his life? Must society oppose some choices but enforce others? And if good samaritans are willing to save his life in spite of himself should he or anyone else be forced to pay for it. And is it the fedgov's responsibility to be a good samaritan, and does a good samaritan force anybody to do anything? I know you're a very moral person, but does your morality extend to force rather than personal compassion and personal responsibility to aid and comfort? And do you really believe that the great number of uninsureds would choose to die rather than do what it takes to live? There are a lot of questions and posibilities here, but among those destructive to society one is to change the basis of that society to suit the whims and irresponsibilities of those who do not practice the tenets of that society. Our foundation, the Constitution (here I go again), is meant to garantee INDIVIDUAL liberty and responsibility and is meant to preclude the central gvt. from assuming that responsibility because the assumption of that responsibility gives power to those who hold it. The Constitution is meant to give power to the people over power of the government. If your morality destroys that foundation it will not only be more destructive to a free society than letting an individual perish due to his own irresponsibility, but it will make it that much more difficult for the society to afford the care of those who need it.

Paul, you have been presented with evidence that "some" of the audience members applauded the "let him die" statement.

Without having any idea who they were, or why they were applauding, you made the leap that there are no more compassionate conservatives left in the country.

Would you care to retract your assertion that this applause means there are no more compassionate conservatives? Or do you still feel that's a reasonable thing to say?

Without having any idea who they were, or why they were applaudingIs this any different than your post about the "liberal elite" (or some similiar term) at Wesleyan Univ. booing Scalia? I think you also used the term "Mental disorder" in that post in reference to Libs. ,

NM

NM

Paul, what took place at Wesleyan could not be any more different than the incident you referred to.

In your case, no one knows who was applauding, and more importantly, no one knows why.

In the Wesleyan incident, every honest person in the world knows exactly what was taking place. And moreover, no one in the world was surprised at what took place. Because that's the kind of behavior the world expects from many (not all) liberals, when a conservative has the audacity to express his opinion.

There is absolutely zero ambiguity about what took place at Wesleyan.

Paul, liberals claim to stand for inclusiveness and diversity. Yet time and time again, you see anarchist behavior by liberals when conservatives are trying to make a point. Moreover, I don't see many liberals condemning the anarchist behavior. So if someone claims that they are open-minded and caring about free speech, yet they are not appalled at what took place at Wesleyan, but they still believe they are open-minded, then they are delusional.

Paul, liberals claim to stand for inclusiveness and diversity. Yet time and time again, you see anarchist behavior by liberals when conservatives are trying to make a point.

http://eldapo.lembobrothers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/oh-the-huge-manatee.jpg

So Scott, was that exactly my quote or did you selectively edit it?

Scott, you sometimes remind me of a gnat.

your exact quote.....#31

Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?

#55 my "selectively edited version" of your quote....I did such a fine job that you can hardly tell that I was engaged in mischief huh :uhuh:

Originally Posted by PaulS
Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?

:rtfm::screwy:

your exact quote.....#31

Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?

#55 my "selectively edited version" of your quote....I did such a fine job that you can hardly tell that I was engaged in mischief huh :uhuh:

Originally Posted by PaulS
Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheeringLordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?

:rtfm::screwy:

Your right and I'm sorry. I posted my quote and what you said. Obviously the same so I was prob. in a hurry and miss read it.

However, can you pls. post the link to what you quoted. As I said in that post, the article seems to have the statement missing where some in the audience yelled "yeah" - which was the whole point of the discussion. I'd like to read the whole thing. Thanks

Scott - was this where you got the quote?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/09/13/chris-matthews-falsely-accuses-ron-paul-saying-he-d-let-someone-witho

some in the audience yelled "yeah" - which was the whole point of the discussion.

it IS the point isn't it?.....you don't know who or why or any of the other "facts" involved:uhuh:

it IS the point isn't it?.....you don't know who or why or any of the other "facts" involved:uhuh:

I just listened to it and according to it, when Paul was asked the question, people in the audience said "yeah". Maybe they were liberals?:rotf2:

Interesting in that the transcript from that site (and what you posted) didn't have the "yeah" but did include when people applauded at other times. I wonder how they could have missed the "yeah" and why it wasn't included? It did cut out very quickly after the "yeah". I wonder what else happened after that?

I just listened to it and according to it, when Paul was asked the question, people in the audience said "yeah". Maybe they were liberals?:rotf2:maybe:)we don't know do we?

also from SLATE

"but this is sort of a godsend—a liberal trying to make Tea Partiers look bad. That's really not new, and it may be more silly than malicious. Liberal counter-protesters with ironic signs often crash events in D.C.;

....... like I said, stunt-minded political junkies do these kinds of things."

Tea Party Infiltration Done Wrong (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2010/08/09/tea_party_infiltration_done_wrong.html)

Interesting in that the transcript from that site (and what you posted) didn't have the "yeah" but did include when people applauded at other times. I wonder how they could have missed the "yeah" and why it wasn't included? It did cut out very quickly after the "yeah". I wonder what else happened after that?


if I had to guess I'd say they probably started sacrificing small children and smoking cigars, you know how much they like dirty air and dead people

I also have to remember when I go to a sporting event not to yell "yeah" as I never realized people don't view that as cheering until now.

I also have to remember when I go to a sporting event not to yell "yeah" as I never realized people don't view that as cheering until now.

you can yell whatever you want to, hopefully the game will be far more relevant than whatever comes out of your mouth and if by chance you yell something obnoxious, let's hope that the entire stadium is not harshly criticized and/or (mis)characterized as sharing the sentiments of whatever you blurted, whatever your intention and how it was percieved depending on which team you happen to be rooting for :uhuh:

you can yell whatever you want to, hopefully the game will be far more relevant than whatever comes out of your mouth and if by chance you yell something obnoxious, let's hope that the entire stadium is not harshly criticized and/or (mis)characterized as sharing the sentiments of whatever you blurted, whatever your intention and how it was percieved depending on which team you happen to be rooting for :uhuh:

Scott, are you now pissed off that I showed you posted something from a site that doctored the transcript and none of your numerous cut and pastes have any credibility:rotf2:?

Let's stick to the thought that maybe they were Libs.

Scott, are you now pissed off that I showed you posted something from a site that doctored the transcript and none of your numerous cut and pastes have any credibility:rotf2:?

Let's stick to the thought that maybe they were Libs.

whatever you say Paul:)

whatever you say Paul:)

And whatever you cut and paste, we'll have to check for accuracy:)

Another Thread gone to the Dogs......Shuttin'er Down