View Full Version : Impressive woman speaks at IRS hearings


Jim in CT
06-05-2013, 05:47 AM
"“We peacefully assemble. We petition our government. We exercise the right to free speech. And we don’t understand why the government tried to stop us."


Tea party witness chokes up during testimony [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/04/tea-party-witness-chokes-up-im-not-begging-my-lords-for-mercy-im-a-born-free-american-woman-video/)

The only thing she said that I didn't like was that she didn't understand why the government tried to stop her. That's the politics and the tactics of the far-left. When they identify the opposition, they isolate, demonize, marginalize, and silence.

Sea Dangles
06-05-2013, 06:37 AM
I would hit dat.

TheSpecialist
06-05-2013, 08:31 AM
I would hit dat.

:rotf2:

PaulS
06-05-2013, 10:36 AM
That's the politics and the tactics of the far-left. When they identify the opposition, they isolate, demonize, marginalize, and silence.

I couldn't see what you linked but what is your opinion of someone who insults someone else b/c they don't agree w/their politics? Classless?

Jim in CT
06-05-2013, 11:07 AM
I couldn't see what you linked but what is your opinion of someone who insults someone else b/c they don't agree w/their politics? Classless?

I don't generally insult people because of what they believe (though I might if their beliefs were, say, legitimately racist). I insult people because of the way the express their beliefs, or the way they treat others who disagree with them. Sorry to deprive you of your gotcha! moment.

PaulS
06-05-2013, 11:16 AM
So what did you mean in your other rant when you said "In a major coup for Islamic jihadists"?

Jim in CT
06-05-2013, 12:42 PM
So what did you mean in your other rant when you said "In a major coup for Islamic jihadists"?

Here's what I meant by that remark (and I doubt you need to have this spoon-fed to you)...Ms Rice has shown us with no ambiguity, that she's either too stupid or too dishonest for this position. Thus, the jihadists would rather have Ms Rice in that position, than, say, Rudy Guliani or John McCain or Norman Schwartzkof.

I certainly wsn't insulting anyone for their politics. I don't know what Ms Rice believes on any issue except the cause of the Benghazi attacks. And if she can't even get a simple one like that correct, then how is she qualified for an even more vital position?

Remember when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor? What would you think of a national security advisor who would say of that attack, "what happened at Pearl Harbor was not a military attack. Rather, the Japanese were upset at the way they are portrayed in the 'Godzilla" films"? If someone said something that stupid, are they fit to be the national security advisor during a time of war?

PaulS
06-05-2013, 01:28 PM
Ok, so you don't view saying that the jihadists would be pleased to having her in a position is an insult to her. I think most people would disagree.

How about M. Backman saying A. Weiner's wife had ties to Muslim extremists?

Or how about Breitbart News reporting that Hagel had not turned over documents on his sources of foreign funding b/c one of the group was called Friends of Hamas or Fox news and the Wash. times reporting essentially the same thing.

Or how about basically the whole Tea Party saying our Pres. was a Muslim and not born here?

Those weren't meant as insults?

Jim in CT
06-05-2013, 01:44 PM
Ok, so you don't view saying that the jihadists would be pleased to having her in a position is an insult to her. I think most people would disagree.

How about M. Backman saying A. Weiner's wife had ties to Muslim extremists?

Or how about Breitbart News reporting that Hagel had not turned over documents on his sources of foreign funding b/c one of the group was called Friends of Hamas or Fox news and the Wash. times reporting essentially the same thing.

Or how about basically the whole Tea Party saying our Pres. was a Muslim and not born here?

Those weren't meant as insults?

"Ok, so you don't view saying that the jihadists would be pleased to having her in a position is an insult to her."

Not so fast, sir. I freely admit to insulting her. What I did not do, was insult her because of her politics, which is precisely what you suggested. I have zero knowledge of her personal political beliefs. I insulted her because if she insists on denying what everyone knows took place, she's unfit for such a complex, vital position.

"How about M. Backman saying A. Weiner's wife had ties to Muslim extremists?"

Bachman is a crackpot. And I have never said she was fit to be President or national security advisor. What does Bachman have to do with this, anyway?

"Or how about basically the whole Tea Party saying our Pres. was a Muslim and not born here? "

Now who is making stuff up? It's not "basically the whole tea party" who believes that, it's the kooks. Those who say that Obama is a Muslim, or not born here, are an embarassment. They don't represent anything resembling a majority of the tea party.

Paul, every group has its lunatic fringe. I have never denied that. Therefore, you aren't refuting anything I have ever said. Here's the difference...no one is saying that fringe Tea partiers who say Obama is a Muslim, should be the national security advisor. Ms Rice has the right to say whatever she wants, but if she is (as you seem to believe) as idiotic as the conservative "birthers", then you are proving my point that she's unfit. If Romney won the election, he would not have picked Donald Trump as his NSA. You're suggesting that since there are dumb conservatives out there, therefore it's OK for Obama to name her as NSA. Not a very compelling argument.

I see you conveniently chose not to respond to my Pearl Harbor analogy, so I'll assume you couldn't think of anything relevent, and that's why you posted examples (some made-up) of conservatives behaving poorly (feeding perfectlyu into my statement that liberals do precisely that, especially when they are coherent enough to realize they are losing the argument).

You didn't even try to refute my contentuion that she's unqualified. All you could do is say "so, there are crazy conservatives too". Obama didn't pick an unfit conservative to be national security advisor, he picked an unfit liberal (I presume she is a liberal).

PaulS
06-05-2013, 02:27 PM
Wasn't your initial statement "That's the politics and the tactics of the far-left. When they identify the opposition, they isolate, demonize, marginalize, and silence"? When I give you examples you state that every party has a "lunatic fringe" and dismiss the statement yet you don't recognize that there is lunatic fringe on both sides. While you did say the "far" left, you usually don't include that. I'm guessing that it is because you have been called on it many, many times.

So it isn't really the tactics of the left but really only the tactics of the lunatic fringe on the left?

So what did I make up?

What % of the tea party believed (and still believe) Pres. Obama wasn't born here? I bet it was a significantly higher % than of the general pop.

If you think everyone who responds to your posts is going to respond to every point like you do, you still haven't figured this whole interweb thing out. I have no interest in responding to every line of your (or anyone else's) posts and prob. won't respond to any other follow ups.

Jim in CT
06-05-2013, 02:55 PM
Wasn't your initial statement "That's the politics and the tactics of the far-left. When they identify the opposition, they isolate, demonize, marginalize, and silence"? When I give you examples you state that every party has a "lunatic fringe" and dismiss the statement yet you don't recognize that there is lunatic fringe on both sides. While you did say the "far" left, you usually don't include that. I'm guessing that it is because you have been called on it many, many times.

So it isn't really the tactics of the left but really only the tactics of the lunatic fringe on the left?

So what did I make up?

What % of the tea party believed (and still believe) Pres. Obama wasn't born here? I bet it was a significantly higher % than of the general pop.

If you think everyone who responds to your posts is going to respond to every point like you do, you still haven't figured this whole interweb thing out. I have no interest in responding to every line of your (or anyone else's) posts and prob. won't respond to any other follow ups.

"So what did I make up?"
"What % of the tea party believed (and still believe) Pres. Obama wasn't born here?"

Do you see the folly in these quotes? You admit that you have no idea what % of tea partiers believe Obama wasn't born here. Incredibly, that didn't stop you from saying that "basically the entire Tea Party" believes that.

"I bet it was a significantly higher % than of the general pop."

I'm sure you're correct. But that's not what you said earlier. If 1% of the population believes Obama is a Muslim, but 5% of the Tea Party believes that, that doesn't constitute "basically the whole tea party".

Stop moving the goal posts every time you back yourself into a corner, and you'll be taken more seriously.

"I have no interest in responding to every line of your (or anyone else's) posts "

You'd be better off responding to even less of my posts, because you aren't presenting yourself very well.

PaulS
06-05-2013, 03:02 PM
So your whole arguement is that I said "basically the whole Tea Party" when in fact some polls say a majority felt that way and you claim that I made up my statement?

:biglaugh:

So, let's see. There is a lunatic fringe on both sides but you choose to post a thread mentioning the lunatic fringe on the left?

I certainly wasted time reading this thread.

mekcotuit
06-05-2013, 03:06 PM
Ah, maybe we could have a moderator step in and shut this crap down when vitriolic comments like this are directed at other members? Just too nasty for a light hearted online community.

"Stop moving the goal posts every time you back yourself into a corner, and you'll be taken more seriously.
You'd be better off responding to even less of my posts, because you aren't presenting yourself very well."

Jim in CT
06-05-2013, 05:54 PM
So your whole arguement is that I said "basically the whole Tea Party" when in fact some polls say a majority felt that way and you claim that I made up my statement?

:biglaugh:

So, let's see. There is a lunatic fringe on both sides but you choose to post a thread mentioning the lunatic fringe on the left?

I certainly wasted time reading this thread.

That's not my whole argument. I was merely pointing out that by your own admission, you have no idea whatsoever what % of the tea party believes he is a Muslim. Amazingly, you feel justified in painting the whole tea party with that "birther" brush.

Here is my other point...it's not just the fringe on the left that wants to silence conservatives, which you would know if you followed the story this thread is about. The IRS doesn't represent the "fringe" left, they represent the federal government. And yet they sought to harass and silence conservatives, guilty of nothing more than orderly political discourse.

That's my point. And it's irrefutable. The IRS, under this administration, used their might to target folks based solely on their political beliefs. I'm not talking about the fringe. It was you who brought the fringe into this by discussing "birthers". If a few whacky conservatives say Obama wasn't born here, that's nowhere near the same thing as the IRS targeting conservatives.

No one is forced to listen to a few kooky conservatives. The IRS can seize your house, and put you in prison. Not exactly the same thing.

Don't you agree?

Jim in CT
06-05-2013, 08:22 PM
I'll end my posting on this thread by re-iterating that I admire the woman in the video for reminding the feds that it's not up to them to choose whether ot not to grant our liberties to those with whom they disagree. These career politicians need to be reminded that any authority they have comes from us...not the other way around. These liberties are not bestowed upon us by empty suits in Washington, they are bestowed upon us by a higher power. It's not for politicians to decide who has the right to petition the government and who doesn't.

If we want to say that all groups who engage in the political process are ineligible for this tax status, fine. But the feds can't bestow favorable status on groups with which they agree, and deny that status to groups with which they disagree.

Paul S, I'm sure you can agree with that. The fight these people in DC are fighting is your fight too. The freedoms they demand are your freedoms too.

Adding insult to injury, the woman in charge of the IRS divivion which targeted conservatives (the IRS is freely admitting this, by the way), was tapped by the Obama administration for a promotion to a new gig overseeing the administration of Obamacare. She should have been fired for the gross violations that happened under her watch, but because the victims were conservatives, and because the President is Obama, she gets promoted.

That lady who murdered 3 people in an armored car robbery and is now a professor at Columbia...maybe Obama can appoint her to head the FBI.

And not all tea partiers are birthers

detbuch
06-05-2013, 09:33 PM
I'll end my posting on this thread by re-iterating that I admire the woman in the video for reminding the feds that it's not up to them to choose whether ot not to grant our liberties to those with whom they disagree.

She is wrong. We are no longer governed by a constitutionally limited central power nor do we any longer possess unalienable rights. The federal administrative state has legally unlimited power to do as it wishes so long as it twists the meanings of clauses in the Constitution, which it doesn't follow anyway. And the basis of this progressive state is that all rights are granted by the government. And those who disagree with or threaten to undo the administrative state, especially those who wish to revert to a previous constitutional republic, are enemies of the state, and can be dealt with as such.

These career politicians need to be reminded that any authority they have comes from us...not the other way around. These liberties are not bestowed upon us by empty suits in Washington, they are bestowed upon us by a higher power.

No. Whatever authority, right, well being that we possess is granted by government authorities and expert bureaucrats. It is we who have the empty suits, and it is the government who will provide them. Notions of a "higher power" than government are retrograde and silly.

It's not for politicians to decide who has the right to petition the government and who doesn't.

Of course politicians have that power as they have collectively granted it to themselves. As the purveyors of government, it is they who grant rights.

If we want to say that all groups who engage in the political process are ineligible for this tax status, fine. But the feds can't bestow favorable status on groups with which they agree, and deny that status to groups with which they disagree.

This administrative hybrid of Federal Government absolutely can bestow favor on those who support it. That is only "natural." And it is only right that it deny status to those who would destroy it.

Paul S, I'm sure you can agree with that. The fight these people in DC are fighting is your fight too. The freedoms they demand are your freedoms too.

Do not be so sure. Far more people agree with the administrative state than you might think. Probably a majority, wittingly or unwittingly. It is the new "baseline" that Spence refers to but does not define. It has replaced the old, "outdated", constitutional baseline. The "functional" freedoms which are granted by government are far more convenient than the legal freedoms protected by the Constitution. The Constitutional individual freedoms are prescribed by an onerous individual responsibility. The collective freedoms granted and prescribed by government are attached only with the responsibility of acceding to that government. Life is less complex, "freer", when lived by government dictate and responsibility. The freedoms fought for by tea-partiers are not so favored by as many Americans as you would wish.

And not all tea partiers are birthers

But they are an enemy of the State.