The W
Views: 99411976
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
2.10.14 0532
The W - Current Events & Politics - You might be a right wing extremist if..... (Page 2)
This thread has 12 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.95
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
(243 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (57 total)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 51 days
Last activity: 51 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.21
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    And, if you are mad about the wire tapping and the habeas corpus, then I guess you aren't a fan of the current administration, who've continued both programs, and are taking even more desperate measures to ensure they continue.


Not to mention, Obama voted to retroactively legalize President Bush's program.
Reverend J Shaft
Liverwurst








Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 16 hours
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.34
    Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0
    I love the concept of the "tea parties."

    The people that looked down their noses and sneered at anti-war protesters a few years back are now protesting what? Increased domestic spending? They didn't mind pouring two billion dollars a week into Iraq where the people running the war openly admitted to losing 1/3 of the money. But now they are protesting Obama cutting taxes and building roads and bridges?

    I bet if Obama had announced on the day after he took office he was asking congress for $500 Billion dollars to invade Iran no one currently "tea partying" would bat an eyelash. On second thought maybe they would.

    And just for shits and giggles, the same tea partiers are howling and wailing about being monitored for possible extremism, when two years ago none of them gave two shits about the Bush administration tapping phone calls without warrants. Or suspending habeas corpus.

    Its like they all went into a coma in 2001 and woke up three weeks ago.


I love the concept of the anti-war protests.

The people that look down their noses and sneer at "tea-partiers" were protesting what? Increased military spending? They don't mind quadrupling the deficit from where it was 8 years ago in a span of 60 days. But now they were protesting spending money to end tyrannical rule in a country where citizens are beaten, raped and killed simply for kicks or opposing the government?

I bet if Bush had announced on the day after he took office he was asking congress for $900 Billion dollars to build bridges and roads and tell America that the rich were going to pay for all of it no one who demonized Bush for the Iraq war would have batted an eyelash. On second thought maybe they would.

And just for shits and giggles, the same protesters who were howling and wailing about the Bush administration tapping phone calls without warrants or suspending habeas corpus couldn't give two shits about the government profiling people with different ideologies (similar to profiling Muslims at airports or blacks in white neighborhoods).


Its like they all spent 8 years throwing hissyfits and then went into a coma 3 months ago.


This is fun. Kinda like Mad Libs.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.84
Well, all hissyfits aside, mine was mostly libertarians. One republican congresscreature spoke, but several who identified themselves as Libertarians were the main speakers.

So, I suspect they attended both protests. But mostly, we had no chants, we had just a few signs, and no shouting. But some guys actually dumped tea into the Ohio River.



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.


That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

Alex
Bratwurst








Since: 24.2.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 4 hours
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.22
Oh, hey, except nobody's dying because of the stimulus, and it wasn't started under false pretenses, so the comparison falls apart there.

And I *am* upset about Obama continuing the wiretapping programs, but you don't really hear much of anyone calling Obama out on that besides from the left.

I mean, it's fine to disagree with Obama, but don't do it just because Glenn Beck tells you to.
Reverend J Shaft
Liverwurst








Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 16 hours
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.34
    Originally posted by Alex
    I mean, it's fine to disagree with Obama, but don't do it just because Glenn Beck tells you to.


I mean, it's fine to disagree with Bush, but don't do it just because Keith Olbermann / Jon Stewart / some-Bush-basher-that-gets-as-high-ratings-as-Glenn-Beck-...-does-anyone-(?) tells you to.

Wow, it DOES work both ways with everything. Amazing.

EDIT: Happy?

(edited by Reverend J Shaft on 16.4.09 1218)
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 28 days
Last activity: 19 hours
AIM:  
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
      Originally posted by Alex
      I mean, it's fine to disagree with Obama, but don't do it just because Glenn Beck tells you to.


    I mean, it's fine to disagree with Bush, but don't do it just because Keith Olbermann tells you to.

    Wow, it DOES work both ways with everything. Amazing.


Um, no one listens to Olberman. Have you SEEN his ratings?

Nuclear Winter
Boudin rouge








Since: 9.11.03
From: Bedford, Michigan

Since last post: 185 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.51
    Originally posted by Alex
    Oh, hey, except nobody's dying because of the stimulus, and it wasn't started under false pretenses, so the comparison falls apart there.


But if you're of the conservative mindset, the stimulus was instituted under false pretenses. We've been told these measures had to be done, lest the economy crumble beneath itself, but this goes completely against the viewpoint of conservatism.



Life After Obama (lifeafterobama.blogspot.com)
Lise
Mrs. Guru








Since: 11.12.01

Since last post: 398 days
Last activity: 20 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.64
The tea party thing is great. It gets the point across, is media friendly, and should attract attention. It isn't likely to turn into a riot. It is everything that a protest SHOULD be.

I am personally snickering like a 12 year old boy every time anyone refers to it as tea-bagging. I also find it humorous that the notices in the paper for our local tea party specify that you should bring "unused" tea bags. I just know there's some sort of internet meme waiting to use pictures of people standing in a row dangling tea bags...I'm just too old to think of it.

The local one is going to be across the street from my work near the post office. I don't antipate a lot of media attention (no flood, fire, or scandal-- I doubt the media is driving over the mountain to cover it) but I expect a good turn out.

StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.92
Regardless of party affiliation, it would seem to me that knowing you are going to spend a few trillion dollars more than you have, at the same time as cutting taxes, is a bad, bad idea.

Who is expected to pay this, and when do they expect it to be paid?
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.54
You wanted the best, you got... Out of Context Quote of the Week.

"Mangini might not have had balls, but he DID have soft, supple breasts." (SEADAWG)


    Originally posted by Lise
    I am personally snickering like a 12 year old boy every time anyone refers to it as tea-bagging. I also find it humorous that the notices in the paper for our local tea party specify that you should bring "unused" tea bags.


Between that and Conservative Coming-Out Day (studlife.com), I'm sure more than a few eyebrows are being raised...



DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 14 hours
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.48
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Well, all hissyfits aside, mine was mostly libertarians. One republican congresscreature spoke, but several who identified themselves as Libertarians were the main speakers.

    So, I suspect they attended both protests. But mostly, we had no chants, we had just a few signs, and no shouting. But some guys actually dumped tea into the Ohio River.


AWA is exactly right. This sprang from the Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters. It was co-opted by the conservative Republicans as a way to gain some traction and rings pretty hollow from them.

I know these grass roots people are sincere but what do they seriously want to eliminate? They say the government should only do X, Y, and Z but except for true libertarians no one wants to give up their government perks.



Perception is reality
Lise
Mrs. Guru








Since: 11.12.01

Since last post: 398 days
Last activity: 20 days
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.64
    Originally posted by drjayphd
      Originally posted by Lise
      I am personally snickering like a 12 year old boy every time anyone refers to it as tea-bagging. I also find it humorous that the notices in the paper for our local tea party specify that you should bring "unused" tea bags.


    Between that and Conservative Coming-Out Day (studlife.com), I'm sure more than a few eyebrows are being raised...


That one is intentional though. I don't think anyone involved is going to be surprised to learn there is a different use of the term. There should be more visiblility of conservative viewpoints on college campuses. There are too many college students who don't learn how to deal appropriately with viewpoints that differ from their own, or how to form a logical argument for their own. Biased pundit shows sure as hell aren't teaching kids how to disagree agreeably. Things are made stronger by working through disagreements, not by rehashing the same damn argument every time.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 15 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.51
    Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
    EDIT: Happy?
No. Please stop doing that.



CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 15 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.51
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    AWA is exactly right. This sprang from the Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters. It was co-opted by the conservative Republicans as a way to gain some traction and rings pretty hollow from them.
The WORST thing to happen here was Glenn Beck glomming onto it, because it gave the mainstream media something to shift their focus onto and use to marginalize the story (or outright mock it, in the case of good ol' MSNBC). And they were happy for the opportunity. Sooner or later, though, more attention will have to be paid if people keep speaking up and don't go away. We'll see if anybody can actually DO anything with these people - I'd like to see them organized for a bit longer than a tax day protest. I think a lot of them/us COULD commit to a long haul, if only somebody found a way to show us the long haul to commit TO. I've been less than excited about the Campaign for Liberty...must be what they're mailing me.

On another tack, the local TV coverage I saw of "our" crowd at the Capitol building in St. Paul, in stark contrast to the big media, was pretty good (although they did give "equal time" to the one "PAYING TAXES IS PATRIOTIC" kook driving a huge inflatable eagle around the Capitol at the same time - but I ain't mad at 'em for trying to play it fair-n-balanced). Certainly they could at least take a few moments to explain why people were actually THERE, rather than showing a few pictures and pointing and/or laughing.

Of course, on the warmest day of the year so far, I found myself terribly sick and somehow managing to miss ALL of these shenanigans by sleeping through them. :)



AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.97
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    They say the government should only do X, Y, and Z but except for true libertarians no one wants to give up their government perks.


I believe true conservative republicans believe in limited government like I do - I just don't think there are enough of us to elect our representatives at the moment. I think that the fed should only: "provide for the common defense" and "regulate interstate commerce" (I know, CRAZY, only what is in the constitution)

Therefore, parts of the fed like dept of education, dept of energy, dept of housing and urban development, and most of the other departments - except Defense, State, Commerce, Treasury, Justice. i MIGHT consider agriculture, but not too much. Definitely needs to go: Labor, Interior, HHS, HUD, VA and DHS, and probably transportation and energy. The last two, along with agriculture, should be part of commerce and DHS should be part in Defense and part in Justice. The VA should be part of defense.

But mostly, a lot of the stuff that is done in Washington is worthless. Welfare, and the other entitlements surrounding it (foodstamps and the like) are really state programs and should be handled there. Labor might have some part in Commerce when it applied to interstate commerce, but most of it means nothing federally. Education is a worthless department. The closer the educators are to the students the better it is for the students and different groups work different ways. That needs to go to the states.

I think many strong conservatives believe in these (or similar) steps.




We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.


That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

whatever
Lap cheong








Since: 12.2.02
From: Cleveland, Ohio

Since last post: 45 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.45
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      They say the government should only do X, Y, and Z but except for true libertarians no one wants to give up their government perks.


    I believe true conservative republicans believe in limited government like I do - I just don't think there are enough of us to elect our representatives at the moment. I think that the fed should only: "provide for the common defense" and "regulate interstate commerce" (I know, CRAZY, only what is in the constitution)

    Therefore, parts of the fed like dept of education, dept of energy, dept of housing and urban development, and most of the other departments - except Defense, State, Commerce, Treasury, Justice. i MIGHT consider agriculture, but not too much. Definitely needs to go: Labor, Interior, HHS, HUD, VA and DHS, and probably transportation and energy. The last two, along with agriculture, should be part of commerce and DHS should be part in Defense and part in Justice. The VA should be part of defense.

    But mostly, a lot of the stuff that is done in Washington is worthless. Welfare, and the other entitlements surrounding it (foodstamps and the like) are really state programs and should be handled there. Labor might have some part in Commerce when it applied to interstate commerce, but most of it means nothing federally. Education is a worthless department. The closer the educators are to the students the better it is for the students and different groups work different ways. That needs to go to the states.

    I think many strong conservatives believe in these (or similar) steps.


Oh how I wish the Republicans would support true conservatism. I could get behind that.
(edit - That was enough to make a rating plummet?!? Wow.)

(edited by whatever on 16.4.09 1651)



"As you may have read in Robert Parker's Wine Newsletter, 'Donaghy Estates tastes like the urine of Satan, after a hefty portion of asparagus.'" Jack Donaghy, 30 Rock

AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.97
    Originally posted by whatever

    Oh how I wish the Republicans would support true conservatism. I could get behind that.


So do I. That doesn't mean I don't believe in certain social issues. But I believe they are state issues. And I think the great majority of conservatives would be totally happy on, say, the abortion issue, if it were in the states. I understand the ones who wanted to take the gay marriage issue to a constitutional amendment, because it that issue seriously affects interstate commerce (rights afforded in one state to married couples are normally conferred to couples married in other states, but when marriage laws are radically different in the several states, this can affect interstate commerce). This is not the case in medical procedures acts. Even today, some procedures and some acts are prohibited in some states and allowed in others. That's just fine. The social issues should be local, not national. Welfare, local. Education, local... most everything, local.

Unfortunately, our last two republican presidents have been quite liberal in governmental issues, although Bush II was socially conservative. But he wasn't a true conservative in the fiscal sense.



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.


That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 14 hours
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.48
    Originally posted by AWArulz

    Unfortunately, our last two republican presidents have been quite liberal in governmental issues, although Bush II was socially conservative. But he wasn't a true conservative in the fiscal sense.


And what does that mean? Every time someone is elected that promises to shrink government etc., they don't. The problems and their complexity speak to the need of national intervention. It could be argued that the areas you think we shouldn't be in actually speak to the national defense.

Ideally, AWA, I agree with you that local control and solutions are better. That's why I am active in our church and its missions, the Lions Club and help the school, etc. But I don't know if we can solve these problems just locally or with a combination of local, state and national input.

(edited by DrDirt on 16.4.09 1640)


Perception is reality
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 51 days
Last activity: 51 days
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.20
    Originally posted by Nuclear Winter
    But if you're of the conservative mindset, the stimulus was instituted under false pretenses.


"False pretenses" and "misguided philosophy" are NOT the same thing. The former is a lie. The latter is a disagreement. You, in one sentence, have reduced the Bush administration's Iraq Crusade to just another "liberal vs conservative" disagreement as opposed to the massive assault on human rights and America's image that it was.

    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by whatever
      Oh how I wish the Republicans would support true conservatism. I could get behind that.
    So do I. That doesn't mean I don't believe in certain social issues. But I believe they are state issues. And I think the great majority of conservatives would be totally happy on, say, the abortion issue, if it were in the states. I understand the ones who wanted to take the gay marriage issue to a constitutional amendment, because it that issue seriously affects interstate commerce (rights afforded in one state to married couples are normally conferred to couples married in other states, but when marriage laws are radically different in the several states, this can affect interstate commerce). This is not the case in medical procedures acts. Even today, some procedures and some acts are prohibited in some states and allowed in others. That's just fine. The social issues should be local, not national. Welfare, local. Education, local... most everything, local.

    Unfortunately, our last two republican presidents have been quite liberal in governmental issues, although Bush II was socially conservative. But he wasn't a true conservative in the fiscal sense.


Continuing to vote for Republicans who DON'T "support true conservatism" is just about the least effective way to encourage change in the party.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.97
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan

    Continuing to vote for Republicans who DON'T "support true conservatism" is just about the least effective way to encourage change in the party.


Agreed. But I vote in every election for every candidate and vote for the best of the candidates running. Personally, I loved McCain. Never took an earmark for Arizona, fiscal conservative by vote in the Senate for 20+ yrs, neutral on many social issues, which is what I think the Fed should mostly be. In terms of President, I vote Bush both times because Gore's a loser airhead and Kerry and I disagree on nearly every issue. Libertarians can't win, so I don't vote for them in general elections. They want to win, they will suck it up and break into the parties. But I believe they are chicken.

BUT, I voted against Bush both times in the Primary. I voted for Forbes in 2000, and I wrote in JC Watts in 2004.

and in other elections, I do much the same thing. Our Rep running here, a fellow named Sodrel, is a good conservative, built a business. Good limited government guy. He's run three or four times, won once (in 2004).

I can't choose what others will do.



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.


That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 4.95
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: What do the Republicans have to do?
Next thread: Arlen Specter (D-Pennsylvania)?
Previous thread: Pirates
(243 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I guess turnabout is fair play". A snippett...
The W - Current Events & Politics - You might be a right wing extremist if..... (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.244 seconds.