KRISTEN'S BOARD

1408 => Politics => Topic started by: Gina Marie on August 21, 2012, 03:15:43 AM



Title: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on August 21, 2012, 03:15:43 AM
Remember back in 2003 when the Dixie Chicks sparked a media firestorm by announcing they were "ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas."?

The were lambasted, shunned and called "Un-American".

Now we have Ted Nugent, Dave Mustaine and Hank Williams Jr.


Ted Nugent:  "I will be dead or in jail by this time next year if President Barack Obama is re-elected."

Nugent further made comments during an interview at the National Rifle Association convention in St. Louis, comparing the President and his administration to "coyotes" that needed to be shot and encouraging voters to "chop Democrats' heads off in November."


Dave Mustaine: “Back in my country, my President is trying to pass a gun ban so he’s staging all these murders like the Fast and Furious thing down at the border and Aurora, Colorado, and all the people who were killed there and now the beautiful people at the Sikh temple.”

Hank Williams Jr.: "Obama Is 'A Muslim President Who Hates Farming, Hates The Military, Hates The U.S. And We Hate Him!"

Today these statements make them hero's.... what is going on? When did we revert to hate and murder suggestions being a good idea again?

Cmon Joan... Spin away!



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on August 21, 2012, 06:05:39 AM
About the same time that the conservatives and Republicans said that the Dixie Chicks didn't have the right of free speech.

Don't you just love conservatives who don't understand the Constitution?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: TPPM on August 22, 2012, 02:00:35 AM
Remember back in 2003 when the Dixie Chicks sparked a media firestorm by announcing they were "ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas."?

The were lambasted, shunned and called "Un-American".

Now we have Ted Nugent, Dave Mustaine and Hank Williams Jr.


Ted Nugent:  "I will be dead or in jail by this time next year if President Barack Obama is re-elected."

Nugent further made comments during an interview at the National Rifle Association convention in St. Louis, comparing the President and his administration to "coyotes" that needed to be shot and encouraging voters to "chop Democrats' heads off in November."


Dave Mustaine: “Back in my country, my President is trying to pass a gun ban so he’s staging all these murders like the Fast and Furious thing down at the border and Aurora, Colorado, and all the people who were killed there and now the beautiful people at the Sikh temple.”

Hank Williams Jr.: "Obama Is 'A Muslim President Who Hates Farming, Hates The Military, Hates The U.S. And We Hate Him!"

Today these statements make them hero's.... what is going on? When did we revert to hate and murder suggestions being a good idea again?

Cmon Joan... Spin away!


.

That's a silly question, it was when a Democrat was elected president, and it will go back to being treason the next time a Republican is elected (whether it's Romney in November or whoever they run in 2016 or 2020 or 2024).


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 08, 2012, 04:01:26 AM
Last night, a 16 year-old Caucasian girl tweeted, “Someone needs to assassinate Obama… like ASAP #DieYouPieceOfShit ”
(http://ww1.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Screen-Shot-2012-09-07-at-12.51.14-PM-300x215.png)

For this, she gained a lot of new followers and 300 retweets before her account was closed today. She also got her fair share of hate directed back at her.

Alyssa’s tweet is but a microcosm of what’s wrong with the modern day conservative movement.

It is indicative of what President Clinton stated in his DNC speech, “I may often disagree with Republicans, but I never hated them, unlike the hatred displayed by extreme right wing activists towards President Obama.”

The relentless hate directed at this President has been out of control from the beginning, led by Sarah Palin during the 2008 election and now being carried out by birther adjacent Mitt Romney, whose constant lies about Obama are meant to drive exactly the kind of racial animus displayed in Alyssa’s tweet.

After all, what reason could a 16 year-old have for wanting a man she doesn’t know and whose policies she surely doesn’t know anything about to die?

Yes, I can say with some confidence that she knows nothing of his policies, because I have yet to talk to any conservative – Teen or Adult – who can accurately portray Obama’s policy stances.

Even the most allegedly intellectually astute pundits on the Right are tainted with Foxian/Breitbartish distortions and conspiracy theories of his intentions – intentions not reflected in his actual policies. You know.... the shit Joan spams here almost daily!

In other words, these people are running on fear, and fear is being driven to stir hate, and hate is being used to get out the vote for Republicans who can’t discuss their policies with even a modicum of honesty in 2012.


UH-MER-UH-KKKA FUCK YEAH!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Bonenanza on September 08, 2012, 03:03:01 PM
And the Democratic Party chair in California compares Ryan to Nazi, Joseph Goebbels. We are talking about the chair of the Democratic Party in Cal. not some crazy celebrity. I am sure it would not take long to google up things just as outrageous said by some of the liberal Hollywood group.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on September 08, 2012, 05:12:15 PM
Quote
....It is indicative of what President Clinton stated in his DNC speech, “I may often disagree with Republicans, but I never hated them, unlike the hatred displayed by extreme right wing activists towards President Obama.”

There is a difference between 'conservatives' and extreme activists of left or right wing. Radicals are radicals, and readily recognize one another.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on September 08, 2012, 08:25:22 PM
Quote
....It is indicative of what President Clinton stated in his DNC speech, “I may often disagree with Republicans, but I never hated them, unlike the hatred displayed by extreme right wing activists towards President Obama.”

There is a difference between 'conservatives' and extreme activists of left or right wing. Radicals are radicals, and readily recognize one another.

Well you are certainly not a conservative Joan.  Your posts prove that.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on September 08, 2012, 11:44:46 PM
Name a half dozen or so "conservatives" that we all might know, using your thinking of who is a "conservative". Might help me relate to some of your posts. Thanks.

Quote
....It is indicative of what President Clinton stated in his DNC speech, “I may often disagree with Republicans, but I never hated them, unlike the hatred displayed by extreme right wing activists towards President Obama.”

There is a difference between 'conservatives' and extreme activists of left or right wing. Radicals are radicals, and readily recognize one another.

Well you are certainly not a conservative Joan.  Your posts prove that.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 09, 2012, 12:39:56 AM
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/402299_376836855723230_1042881863_n.jpg)

I think at some point in the very near future, thesaurus.com may need to remove "not extreme" from its 'conservative' synonym list! Just sayin'

:emot_laughing:


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on September 09, 2012, 02:00:24 AM
Conservatives are far more moderate in their positions than Joan's are.  Conservatives want slow change, or for things to remain the same.  Joan, by contrast, wants to turn back the clock in a big way.  She is actually a reactionary.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on September 09, 2012, 05:56:21 AM
I see. So you cannot name a half dozen "conservatives" as you define a conservative. Well, cannot, will not, and have not. Just looking for a good reference, less subjective than the usual rant. Thanks.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on September 09, 2012, 10:06:10 AM
The real conservatives are those you would call RINO, who have been pushed out of the party. 

A majority of Americans identify themselves as "conservative", but only about 20% are registered Republican.  This same majority of self-identified conservatives elected Barrack Obama president of the USA. 

So who are the real conservatives?  Think about it.  I have.  I have concluded that the Republican party has become so extreme that conservatives won't vote for them.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 09, 2012, 10:48:22 AM
Can someone... anyone tell me why I should vote Republican?

(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/564518_3965069038850_1781794223_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 09, 2012, 11:20:10 AM
I am sure it would not take long to google up things just as outrageous said by some of the liberal Hollywood group.

OH... BY ALL MEANS... INDULGE US! PLEASE!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on September 09, 2012, 12:43:10 PM
Conservatives are far more moderate in their positions than Joan's are.  Conservatives want slow change, or for things to remain the same.  Joan, by contrast, wants to turn back the clock in a big way.  She is actually a reactionary.

What are you talking about? In so far as you can define a liberal or conservative (it is a pretty abstract attribute and isn't always obvious even to the individual themselves) it's a black and white definition. You're either conservative or you're liberal, regardless of how extreme your views are.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Bonenanza on September 09, 2012, 05:57:51 PM
I am sure it would not take long to google up things just as outrageous said by some of the liberal Hollywood group.

OH... BY ALL MEANS... INDULGE US! PLEASE!

OK

http://www.examiner.com/article/liberals-on-twitter-respond-to-romney-s-rnc-speech-with-hate-death-threats

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-silent-as-liberals-on-twitter-call-for-ann-romney-s-death



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on September 09, 2012, 07:30:36 PM
Conservatives are far more moderate in their positions than Joan's are.  Conservatives want slow change, or for things to remain the same.  Joan, by contrast, wants to turn back the clock in a big way.  She is actually a reactionary.

What are you talking about? In so far as you can define a liberal or conservative (it is a pretty abstract attribute and isn't always obvious even to the individual themselves) it's a black and white definition. You're either conservative or you're liberal, regardless of how extreme your views are.

There is left, centrist/moderate, and right, that label parts of the political spectrum.  I think this is what you mean GB.

Conservative and Liberal fall within the spectrum near the center.  It would be wrong to say that Liberals are Marxist-Lenninists, just because both generally fall on the left side.  Liberals have their own ideology guided by the principles of the enlightenment.

Likewise it would be wrong to say that conservatives are NAZI's just because both generally fall on the right side of the political spectrum.  One ideology is moderate and the other extreme.

Conservatives are generally defined as "not wanting change", or wanting to proceed slowly.  Reactionaries want to return to the past, often one that never really existed.

I label Joan as not a real conservative because her ideology is too extreme.

So who are real conservatives?  I would label the majority of Britain's Tories as such, and they are way to the left of today's Republican party.

And again, the majority of Americans self-identify as conservative, yet Barrack Obama was elected.  Clearly, today's Republican Party was too extreme for them.  But instead of waking up, the GOP has swung even further to the right.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 09, 2012, 11:40:34 PM
I am sure it would not take long to google up things just as outrageous said by some of the liberal Hollywood group.

OH... BY ALL MEANS... INDULGE US! PLEASE!

OK

http://www.examiner.com/article/liberals-on-twitter-respond-to-romney-s-rnc-speech-with-hate-death-threats

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-silent-as-liberals-on-twitter-call-for-ann-romney-s-death

WELL DONE! Mad props and a WOO to you Sir. I think this insanity it is indicative of the desperation that has been created on both sides of the coin... It is so deeply "us VS them" that people are stupid enough to make death threats on public media.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on September 09, 2012, 11:55:48 PM
Still unable to list even one "conservative" as you describe conservative. Would prefer to list living active political and news reporters of import, Americans please... Something tells me you can name a hundred Liberals, all of whom are deemed right near the middle, as to reasonable politics... Do you see any fault with your thinking?

So there are Liberals, like yourself, Lois, who are nearly right in the middle, and whackos who are to the right of Liberals. Hmmm. Methinks you place yourself way too close to the "middle", whatever that is. Reminds me of someone seeking a list of the top 100 moderates, and along with the names, the stunning accomplishments of those folks... tough to pair...


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on September 10, 2012, 12:05:26 AM
I am sure it would not take long to google up things just as outrageous said by some of the liberal Hollywood group.

OH... BY ALL MEANS... INDULGE US! PLEASE!

OK

http://www.examiner.com/article/liberals-on-twitter-respond-to-romney-s-rnc-speech-with-hate-death-threats

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-silent-as-liberals-on-twitter-call-for-ann-romney-s-death

WELL DONE! Mad props and a WOO to you Sir. I think this insanity it is indicative of the desperation that has been created on both sides of the coin... It is so deeply "us VS them" that people are stupid enough to make death threats on public media.

Except he said "liberal Hollywood group", and I did not recognize any of those twitter tweets as belonging to a group or anyone in Hollywood.  Also, as liberals oppose the death penalty, I doubt they were liberals either.  They were just wing-nuts.

But I still agree with Gia.  It is indicative of how polarized and insane US politics has become.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on September 10, 2012, 01:04:57 AM
Conservatives are far more moderate in their positions than Joan's are.  Conservatives want slow change, or for things to remain the same.  Joan, by contrast, wants to turn back the clock in a big way.  She is actually a reactionary.

What are you talking about? In so far as you can define a liberal or conservative (it is a pretty abstract attribute and isn't always obvious even to the individual themselves) it's a black and white definition. You're either conservative or you're liberal, regardless of how extreme your views are.

There is left, centrist/moderate, and right, that label parts of the political spectrum.  I think this is what you mean GB.

Conservative and Liberal fall within the spectrum near the center.  It would be wrong to say that Liberals are Marxist-Lenninists, just because both generally fall on the left side.  Liberals have their own ideology guided by the principles of the enlightenment.

Likewise it would be wrong to say that conservatives are NAZI's just because both generally fall on the right side of the political spectrum.  One ideology is moderate and the other extreme.

Conservatives are generally defined as "not wanting change", or wanting to proceed slowly.  Reactionaries want to return to the past, often one that never really existed.

I label Joan as not a real conservative because her ideology is too extreme.

So who are real conservatives?  I would label the majority of Britain's Tories as such, and they are way to the left of today's Republican party.

And again, the majority of Americans self-identify as conservative, yet Barrack Obama was elected.  Clearly, today's Republican Party was too extreme for them.  But instead of waking up, the GOP has swung even further to the right.

No I try to mean what I say and say what I mean. The political spectrum is far from one-dimensional while whether or not someone is liberal or conservative absolutely is one-dimensional. In that sense, it is true to say that all conservatives are not fascists but since fascism was largely a conservative movement it is also true that the vast majority of fascists are conservative. The same is true of socialism and liberalism. It's a minor point but it makes any definition of a 'true' liberal or conservative meaningless.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on September 10, 2012, 06:31:08 AM
I think I understand what you are saying GB.  But I am pointing to what conservative used to be with regards to American traditions.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Bonenanza on September 10, 2012, 12:37:03 PM
I am sure it would not take long to google up things just as outrageous said by some of the liberal Hollywood group.

OH... BY ALL MEANS... INDULGE US! PLEASE!

OK

http://www.examiner.com/article/liberals-on-twitter-respond-to-romney-s-rnc-speech-with-hate-death-threats

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-silent-as-liberals-on-twitter-call-for-ann-romney-s-death

WELL DONE! Mad props and a WOO to you Sir. I think this insanity it is indicative of the desperation that has been created on both sides of the coin... It is so deeply "us VS them" that people are stupid enough to make death threats on public media.

Except he said "liberal Hollywood group", and I did not recognize any of those twitter tweets as belonging to a group or anyone in Hollywood.  Also, as liberals oppose the death penalty, I doubt they were liberals either.  They were just wing-nuts.

But I still agree with Gia.  It is indicative of how polarized and insane US politics has become.


So you think it is impossible that someone that considers themselves a Democrat and a liberal would say something like that? Just wing-nuts? Yes, but there are wing-nuts that will vote for Obama as well as Romney and there is more than enough hate to go around from both sides.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 10, 2012, 01:08:21 PM
Are you directing that to Lois or me?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Bonenanza on September 10, 2012, 01:15:35 PM
Hate from the DNC.
Wonder why we never saw this on MSM?

Politics
Death Threat From DNC Delegate: ‘Mitt Romney… I Would Like To Kill Him!’

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/freak-out-moment-of-the-democratic-convention-woman-screams-mitt-romney-i-would-like-to-kill-him/


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Bonenanza on September 10, 2012, 01:17:28 PM
Are you directing that to Lois or me?

It was Lois that seems to think any hate from the left are just wing-nuts while hate from the right is mainstream but I would welcome your reply. Love the new gif.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 10, 2012, 02:17:09 PM
Lois tends to speak more in generalities than I do (no disrespect Lois, you know I love you!)

I will say, that it seems that this Puerto Rican woman in the video is not exactly a stable person. Her opinion is certainly not shared by ANYONE I speak to on a frequent or infrequent basis.

Yet she said it - on camera. Oh well!

Bottom line - I have posted on this subject in another pointless debate with Joan a couple months ago. My position is that although it does indeed happen on the left, the frequency and commonality of violent and ugly statements is far more tipped to the right side of the political spectrum... I have posted photo after photo (in this thread and others) of horrible signs, bumper stickers and a lengthy list of hate driven websites threatening the POTUS and horrible racial garbage being spewed.

While I do not deny the existence of left wing nutters and more than our fair share of whack-jobs (those with or without tinfoil helmets) I think most level headed Americans (AND THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD) see the abundance of whackos in the extreme right... Birthers, Teabillys, 2nd Amendment fear mongers, etc...



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on September 10, 2012, 02:23:45 PM
Well it stands to reason that there would be greater fear and loathing of what is different on the right than on the left given the nature of both sides. Equally, the left is far more condescending of the right than the reverse. Those that spout either the hateful or belittling comments are the worst representatives of both sides and judging an entire group of people based on their worst members is dangerous territory.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 10, 2012, 02:33:44 PM
Equally, the left is far more condescending of the right than the reverse.

(http://www.faniq.com/images/blog/benny(1).gif)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 10, 2012, 02:59:33 PM
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/644176_493762960634108_662277744_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on September 10, 2012, 07:26:28 PM
I am sure there are people registered as both Democrat and Republican that are wing-nuts.

My point is that there are certain "liberal" values that are incompatible with death threats.

So obviously not all Democrats are liberal, any more than all Republicans are conservative.

Case in point:  I know certain people on the left that would take great offense at being called "liberal".  And many of these do not vote for the Democratic party either.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on September 10, 2012, 11:19:04 PM
Equally, the left is far more condescending of the right than the reverse.

(http://www.faniq.com/images/blog/benny(1).gif)

Oh so you've never heard someone on the left speak in generalities about how those on the right are racist inbred rednecks? Or said similar things yourself?

There are many on the left who believe the right is simply backward and stupid. They are not the majority but they are vocal and they are just as ignorant as the bigots on the right.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 11, 2012, 03:26:19 AM
Oh so you've never heard someone on the left speak in generalities about how "those on the right are racist inbred rednecks"? Or said similar things yourself?

There is a HUGE difference between people who speak in generalities, and your previous statement which I was responding to...

Equally, the left is far more condescending of the right than the reverse.

Let's first look at the contradiction of the first half:

Equally, the left is far more condescending

Those words cancel each other out.

-----------------------------------------------------

Now - I understand that you are: a) 22 years old, so you have not really been involved with political discourse for as many years as most of the people in this section of the board, and b) not a citizen of the US - so you don't see the daily televised left/right dogma, nor do you have a vested interest in this election.

Those two key points aside, I will engage the idea you suggest.

Here is a point I rarely discuss here at KB: My parents opinion in this election. My father will be 60 at the end of this month and he has seen a few elections. He is voting for Obama. As long as I can remember, he has voted Dem and is a very knowledgeable man when it comes to politics. I will admit that he has shaped several of my opinions regarding politics. That said, he often told me, "Gina, look at what they (both parties) do, more than what they say".

I always strive to keep that in mind, but back in 2009, when I saw a constant stream of intolerance and unbridled hate in printed and spoken word beginning to spew from the right, and I wondered how much more we could take without defending ourselves.

It has come to the point in this election year, where it is now a fight fire with fire situation. My father also made me aware of the phrase "The 'Moral Majority' is neither"

Somewhere around 1976, Rev. Jerry Falwell, started using the term “Moral Majority”. He loved the term so much he named an organization after it. It became a movement which we on the left now recognize as the prototype for the Tea Party (aka the Teabagger movement). I see this as the turning point for Republican politics as they allowed themselves to be led astray with the hypocrisy of the Right-wing extremist religious zealots that have dominated it ever since.

I'm talking about bat-shit-crazy assholes like Pat "Haiti made a pact with the devil" Robertson and Michelle "Carbon dioxide is not harmful" Bachmann.

ACTUAL QUOTE: "Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas." ~Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009

The "Moral Majority" title gave way to a even more catchy feel-goody, 'warm and fuzzy' popular two-word slogan: "Family Values".

The new 'Carl Rovian' Republican spin machine has really made an art out of simple two-word slogans that are meant to distract their followers into an illusion of being moral while having missions which are so deeply immoral, unpatriotic, and Biblically opposite to the words of Jesus, who's cross they wave in EVERYONE'S face.

'Family Values' now means things like denying citizens their equal rights because of their extreme religious views that we 'gays are going to hell' and therefore do not deserve the same privilege all other humans.

'Family Values' now means denying the poor, the sick, the homeless any kind of the kind of help that their Jesus was said to have been all about because that would be like socialism... whatever the fuck that means.

'Family Values' now means its GOOD to continue wars where innocent children and their parents are being killed each and every day as long as we have a yet unfilled fantasy of cheap oil or actually doing 'something' about terrorism.

More recently we learned that 'Family Values' are totally identical and equal to 'Corporate Values' (remember, Mitt says "Corporations are people, my friend") as determined by the Bush Administrations legacy of the Scalia Brand Label Supreme Court.

This new 'Corporations are People' meaning they are entitled to the Bill of Rights and most important the right to purchase any and all members of Congress they want to add to their inventory.

In some larger sense, these two simple slogans have increasingly dominated and defined the two parties for the past 3 decades, and are far more relevant now with the ridiculous hypocrisy of Teabaggers hate speech, and the Liberals (like Lois and myself) responding with a finger-pointing of 'Misogyny'!

But that's a whole other thread or two... or five or ten.

I have been more active and vocal (both here on the board and volunteering for Obama) this year than any other Presidential election in my adult life, my first being Bill Clinton VS Bob Dole in 1996.

I can also say I have never seen more hate coming from the right in all that time. Even 2008 was not this ugly!

ALL that said; my mother is voting for Romney this year. She is basing her vote on two issues: Opposition to gay marriage & Abortion. NOW THAT IS FUCKED UP. My own mother is deeply opposed to my right to marry whomever I love. She vocally dislikes Mormons, yet she is supporting the man (and some people still wonder why I am fucked up)!

Clearly, my family is split on the religious dogma issues and it makes for heated arguments whenever I go to their home. I try to leave that fight alone, and focus on the bigger picture. I honestly know, the race for the WH is not a tough one here in Calif. We will be blue.

I know the real issues in the US in 2012 are financial - but the new voice seems to be the extreme wing of the right (The Tea Party) and have brought Religion and morality issues into the forefront of this vote. I read and hear cries for "freedom" from these people, when the fact is, they wish to remove & deny my rights in the name of their religious beliefs.

I say fuck that and fuck them.

Was that clear enough?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on September 11, 2012, 03:33:36 AM

So obviously not all Democrats are liberal, any more than all Republicans are conservative.



I agree, lois.  I would think most people of all parties can be classified as moderates. It is just that the extremists of the parties are the ones who seem to be heard the most.  


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 12, 2012, 11:40:47 AM
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/527157_467093733313332_1191144159_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on September 14, 2012, 10:46:59 AM
Oh so you've never heard someone on the left speak in generalities about how "those on the right are racist inbred rednecks"? Or said similar things yourself?

There is a HUGE difference between people who speak in generalities, and your previous statement which I was responding to...

Equally, the left is far more condescending of the right than the reverse.

Let's first look at the contradiction of the first half:

Equally, the left is far more condescending

Those words cancel each other out.

-----------------------------------------------------

Now - I understand that you are: a) 22 years old, so you have not really been involved with political discourse for as many years as most of the people in this section of the board, and b) not a citizen of the US - so you don't see the daily televised left/right dogma, nor do you have a vested interest in this election.

Those two key points aside, I will engage the idea you suggest.

Here is a point I rarely discuss here at KB: My parents opinion in this election. My father will be 60 at the end of this month and he has seen a few elections. He is voting for Obama. As long as I can remember, he has voted Dem and is a very knowledgeable man when it comes to politics. I will admit that he has shaped several of my opinions regarding politics. That said, he often told me, "Gina, look at what they (both parties) do, more than what they say".

I always strive to keep that in mind, but back in 2009, when I saw a constant stream of intolerance and unbridled hate in printed and spoken word beginning to spew from the right, and I wondered how much more we could take without defending ourselves.

It has come to the point in this election year, where it is now a fight fire with fire situation. My father also made me aware of the phrase "The 'Moral Majority' is neither"

Somewhere around 1976, Rev. Jerry Falwell, started using the term “Moral Majority”. He loved the term so much he named an organization after it. It became a movement which we on the left now recognize as the prototype for the Tea Party (aka the Teabagger movement). I see this as the turning point for Republican politics as they allowed themselves to be led astray with the hypocrisy of the Right-wing extremist religious zealots that have dominated it ever since.

I'm talking about bat-shit-crazy assholes like Pat "Haiti made a pact with the devil" Robertson and Michelle "Carbon dioxide is not harmful" Bachmann.

ACTUAL QUOTE: "Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas." ~Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009

The "Moral Majority" title gave way to a even more catchy feel-goody, 'warm and fuzzy' popular two-word slogan: "Family Values".

The new 'Carl Rovian' Republican spin machine has really made an art out of simple two-word slogans that are meant to distract their followers into an illusion of being moral while having missions which are so deeply immoral, unpatriotic, and Biblically opposite to the words of Jesus, who's cross they wave in EVERYONE'S face.

'Family Values' now means things like denying citizens their equal rights because of their extreme religious views that we 'gays are going to hell' and therefore do not deserve the same privilege all other humans.

'Family Values' now means denying the poor, the sick, the homeless any kind of the kind of help that their Jesus was said to have been all about because that would be like socialism... whatever the fuck that means.

'Family Values' now means its GOOD to continue wars where innocent children and their parents are being killed each and every day as long as we have a yet unfilled fantasy of cheap oil or actually doing 'something' about terrorism.

More recently we learned that 'Family Values' are totally identical and equal to 'Corporate Values' (remember, Mitt says "Corporations are people, my friend") as determined by the Bush Administrations legacy of the Scalia Brand Label Supreme Court.

This new 'Corporations are People' meaning they are entitled to the Bill of Rights and most important the right to purchase any and all members of Congress they want to add to their inventory.

In some larger sense, these two simple slogans have increasingly dominated and defined the two parties for the past 3 decades, and are far more relevant now with the ridiculous hypocrisy of Teabaggers hate speech, and the Liberals (like Lois and myself) responding with a finger-pointing of 'Misogyny'!

But that's a whole other thread or two... or five or ten.

I have been more active and vocal (both here on the board and volunteering for Obama) this year than any other Presidential election in my adult life, my first being Bill Clinton VS Bob Dole in 1996.

I can also say I have never seen more hate coming from the right in all that time. Even 2008 was not this ugly!

ALL that said; my mother is voting for Romney this year. She is basing her vote on two issues: Opposition to gay marriage & Abortion. NOW THAT IS FUCKED UP. My own mother is deeply opposed to my right to marry whomever I love. She vocally dislikes Mormons, yet she is supporting the man (and some people still wonder why I am fucked up)!

Clearly, my family is split on the religious dogma issues and it makes for heated arguments whenever I go to their home. I try to leave that fight alone, and focus on the bigger picture. I honestly know, the race for the WH is not a tough one here in Calif. We will be blue.

I know the real issues in the US in 2012 are financial - but the new voice seems to be the extreme wing of the right (The Tea Party) and have brought Religion and morality issues into the forefront of this vote. I read and hear cries for "freedom" from these people, when the fact is, they wish to remove & deny my rights in the name of their religious beliefs.

I say fuck that and fuck them.

Was that clear enough?


Firstly, the word "Equally" was used to mean the left is as condescending as the right is bigoted. Obviously I didn't mean it to be taken literally since this isn't a legal document and not everything needs to be airtight in meaning in conversational English, but thanks for aiding my point by assuming I don't understand my first language and being super patronizing about it.

Now, setting aside all the partisan bullshit, I was talking about people. I wasn't talking about parties, nor politicians nor Americans, just people in general. You've got conservative people and you've got liberal people and our society exists because we have that mix. There are those with extreme views on both sides. The idiots on the right tend to be bigoted assholes while idiots on the left often have a shit-eating holier than thou attitude. It's just an extension of the mentalities that being liberal or conservative require when joined with the personality of a douchebag.

Character limit. Continuing...


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on September 14, 2012, 11:14:21 AM
What is important is that we realise that the loud dickheads are always the minority, despite the noise they might make. Judging an entire side of the scale by their actions is unfair and dangerous and it seems that that is exactly the kind of judgement partisan American media wants you to make (how often have you read an article suggesting an entire party should be held accountable for some quote or action of a minor member?).

I understand your problem with the Republicans. What seems to me to have happened is through the media and the work of other extremists they've convinced a large group of dumb and/or ignorant people to share their extreme views, largely by manipulating their fears. It is easy, in all that, to forget that the majority of Americans identify themselves as conservative. There are a huge number of conservatives out there who are probably not at all comfortable with some of what is going on in the Republican party (and I do realise there are also a growing number of conservatives who are allied with the Libertarian party) but it is unreasonable to expect them to abandon a party that represents most of their views for another that represents almost none of them. In that sense it only serves to alienate those individuals further from the left when they see self professed liberals suggesting that they're an inbred redneck purely because they have conservative values. It's 'tarring them all with the same brush' and only serves to cause further divide.

I realise that this is an election year and therefore it's impossible for some of you to have a political discussion without dragging your petty partisan arguments into everything but unless I explicitly mention a party I'm not talking about them.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Bonenanza on September 14, 2012, 12:46:09 PM
Big WOOO for you Galaxy. Wise words from someone that has seen how hate and extremists on both sides can end up tearing a country apart. I think you have to try to understand the other side before you can condemn them. Problem is that is not what those on the far left or far right want to do and the moderates just sit there and try to figure out which way will harm their country the least. It is very difficult for some not to take it personally and I really feel for them, understand and sympathize as best I can. It is difficult for me, being a conservative with liberal social values, to decide what may be best for my country when at the same time I can see it may hurt other groups that include friends of mine.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on September 14, 2012, 11:12:36 PM
Let's look at an extremist, partisan squabble that did what you guys are talking about.

30 years war.

Right now I only see one side here acting like that.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 25, 2012, 04:36:16 AM
Uber-Republican pundit Ann Coulter has discussed a controversial comment made in her new book: "civil rights are for ‘blacks, not gays’."

(http://www.voiceoffreedom.com/goingpostal/images/colter.jpg)

In an interview with This Week host George Stephanopoulos, she said: ‘Various groups [including] gay rights groups, those defending immigrants, and feminists have commandeered the black civil rights experience.’

Coulter said she thinks ‘civil rights are for blacks’ because the United States has a ‘legacy of slavery and Jim Crow laws.’

She added: ‘We don’t owe the homeless. We don’t owe the feminists. We don’t owe women who are desirous of having abortions, or gays who want to get married to one another.

‘That’s what “civil rights” has become for much of the left.’

The author said ‘much of the left…dropped the blacks after five minutes’ to argue for civil rights for other groups of people.

Stephanopoulos asked Coulter ‘Immigrant rights are not civil rights?’, to which Coulter confirmed she only thinks ‘civil rights are for blacks’.

She said: ‘What have we done to the immigrants? We owe black people something. We have a legacy of slavery.

‘Immigrants haven’t even been in this country.’

Famed for her anti-liberal remarks, Coulter’s eight books have sold over three million copies.

Coulter, who describes herself as ‘the Judy Garland of the right wing’, has a large gay Republican following.

Appearing on LGBT-themed reality show The A List, she said: ‘The gays have got to be pro-life. As soon as they find the gay gene, guess who the liberal yuppies are gonna start aborting?’

Previously, the columnist has written that anti-gay politician’s comparison of homosexuality to bestiality is an ‘indisputably true point’, and told an interviewer that sexually active gay men should ‘feel guilty about it’.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on September 25, 2012, 06:09:49 PM
Uber-Republican pundit Ann Coulter has discussed a controversial comment made in her new book: "civil rights are for ‘blacks, not gays’."

(http://www.voiceoffreedom.com/goingpostal/images/colter.jpg)


I think the key line in this article is, "Famed for her anti-liberal remarks, Coulter’s eight books have sold over three million copies."

Make outrageous remarks, get press attention, sell more books, make more money. And everything else is utterly beside the point...





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on September 25, 2012, 06:56:51 PM
She's definately not a Heavy-weight political theorist. Publicity hound, shock jock, and out for herself, yes.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on September 25, 2012, 07:46:32 PM
She's definately not a Heavy-weight political theorist. Publicity hound, shock jock, and out for herself, yes.


Yes, that's what I meant...





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on September 30, 2012, 02:02:21 AM
This is a shocking article. 

Meet a Romney Extremist in Virginia
By Christopher D. Cook, September 26, 2012

On a broiling late afternoon this September, as I stroll down Main Street in Bedford, a venerable redbrick county seat town in southern Virginia, my eyes veer toward the blaring red-white-and-blue bunting that beckons GOP residents here to swing the state to Mitt Romney’s column. I’m exploring this Blue Ridge country after attending a Knight conference on poverty journalism, and feel compelled to duck inside for a quick dose of Romneyland.

Perhaps what I encounter next shouldn’t shock me, but it does. The views that spill forth inside this swing-state Romney office plunge far deeper into the right-wing abyss than the so-called moderate stances trotted out by the Romney campaign. Like the much-traveled Mother Jones video where Romney derides the “47 percent” of America that “is dependent upon government,” and “doesn’t work,” our chat unmasks the decidedly uglier side of the GOP.

I’m greeted wholesomely by Clifford Russell, a smooth-faced, silver-haired stocky gentleman in khakis and pinstripe shirt, who offers a firm handshake. “Well hello there, good afternoon to you – come on in,” he says, with Southern hospitality in full force. It’s quiet in the Romney office. There is just a senior couple at a table folding papers, who turn out to be transplants from Walnut Creek, California.

 I don’t expect much time to go by before I’m invited to leave (I’ve already disclosed my Californian status, a blaring red—or blue—flag), so I snare some glossy Romney literature and a handmade Xeroxed flyer titled “After three years of Obama…Here’s your change!” blaming Obama for a host of distressing economic indicators ranging from soybean prices to poverty and black unemployment—despite the GOP’s dogged insistence on decimating any supports to alleviate these situations.

“Things are looking good, as long as we get our people out,” he tells me. “People are done with Obama, and ready for Romney. We can win if our people come out, it’s all about turnout.”

Nestled on the edge of the Blue Ridge Mountains, amid gentle sloping greenery and hay and corn farms, this is Romney country. The county is 91 percent white, 6 percent African American, and 1.8 percent Latino—compared with statewide ratios of 71 percent whites, 20 percent African Americans, and 8 percent Latinos. Most of southern Virginia is Romneyland, save for Democratic enclaves in Roanoke and Richmond. In 2008, 68 percent of the county went for McCain, 31 percent for Obama, who ended up winning Virginia by a 6.3 percent margin.

I stand there quietly absorbing as much Romney talk as I can, until my patience and soul begin to wilt. I fully expect what I get at first: the standard mantras about Obama's economic and social policy failings. The deficit, "out-of-control spending," and the great GOP boogeyman, “Obamacare,” which Clifford calls “the final vestige of socialism.” Here he gets more full-throated: “That healthcare socialism was the final straw, more big government telling us how to live our lives, just controlling everything.”

I ask him to elaborate and he complies, vigorously.

"What's killing us is all these entitlements, we've got to get rid of all of them. All this welfare, food stamps, Medicare, and then big government health care on top of it, it's all just too much! When do we say enough is enough?”

What do you mean, exactly, I ask him. You say people are suffering under Obama, don't they need some help?

“No. No more help, enough is enough. People have to pick themselves up, take some responsibility. Why should we be paying for people’s mistakes and bad choices? All these illegitimate families just adding to the population, making all these bad decisions, then asking us to pay for it? It's time to cut them off."

I ask for some clarification: what do you mean, just starve them out? What if people can't find work? Let them starve?

"Look, there's always something you can do. You telling me people can't make a choice for a better life? We have to help all of them? No. I'll tell you what really need to do with these illegitimate families on welfare—give all the kids up for adoption and execute the parents."

I stare at him and blink in a glaze of shock.

Just to be sure I heard him right, I ask him to repeat it, twice.

"Yes, I mean it. Get rid of all of them, give the kids up for adoption, execute the parents, and you get rid of the problem.” (When I call him back to revisit the issue, he elaborates: “put the children up for adoption and execute the parents, and word would get out soon” that poor people shouldn’t have kids.)

This is a local Romney headquarters in swing-state Virginia, not some far-right Tea Party fringe group (or maybe that’s what the GOP has become). This is, at least in growing part, today's mainstream GOP.

I inform Clifford that people who are poor actually work extremely hard to just barely survive. He tells me if they were smarter, like Romney, they would earn more money. "Obama got all his money through his charisma, Romney got his because of his brains," he says. “Some people are just smarter than others, and not everyone is equal—but everyone has to pull their own weight and stop making excuses for being poor. Get up and do something. Some people just don’t want to work.”

My heartbeat and temperature are rising. I can’t be a good silent journalist or anthropologist here, I just can’t.

What about the whole history of slavery, the fact that African Americans only got the right to vote in 1964…the history of entrenched systemic impoverishment and disinvestment from black neighborhoods? Doesn’t any of that matter?”

“You keep trying to make this a racial thing, I never mentioned race.” But he did keep talking about “inner-city people on welfare and food stamps” with oversized bellies and “illegitimate families.” Then, as if to drive the nail deeper, he says, “the NAACP is the most racist organization in America, just as racist as the Klan.”

I ask him, should black people vote?

“Sure, if they are citizens and they are responsible.”

But it took protest and government to enforce universal suffrage, and to desegregate schools that were separate and unequal, I tell him. “You’re talking about force. You can’t force people to live together or go to school together.”

I tell him, “the real budgetary issue is our bloated military, all these invasions of other countries—not poor people barely surviving on welfare.”

“We don’t invade anybody,” he insists.

What about Iraq? Afghanistan?

“It’s not an invasion if we are protecting our interests.”

So it’s okay to destroy other countries and kill their people for oil? Bomb them and kill their people because “we” want more oil, and to kill some alleged terrorists among them?

“Everyone in Iraq under Hussein was a terrorist,” he says. “If there were there under Hussein, they agreed with him, and they needed to be taken out. They’re all terrorists.” (When I call back and challenge him on this, Clifford adds: “Hussein did his actions in the name of the entire country, men, women, and children…Was he Arab? Was he Muslim? Then he was a terrorist.”)

What about the future of the planet, I ask him. Global warming and climate change. Doesn’t he care about future generations?

“Oh, here we go,” he says. “Global warming? There’s no such thing. Seriously, the whole thing is complete nonsense. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the environment that man can have any effect over. The environment is fine. The environmentalists made all this up so they can profit off carbon trading. That idiot Al Gore created this whole thing so they can get rich off carbon trading, it's a complete scam, a total fiction. You know how you can tell? They started off calling it global warming, then changed the name to climate change."

The afternoon heat is waning, and I’m itching to get back to the Blue Ridge Mountains, whose hazy rolling slopes have no vote yet bear the brunt of the argument.

So it’s okay if we all drive SUV’s, keep using coal-fired plants, and engage in mountaintop removal, just rip the earth apart for energy?

“Mountaintop removal—you mean where you take the top off and get the coal? Sure, why not? I don’t see a problem with it, it’s fine. You’ve got to get the energy somehow.”

(When I call back, I ask Clifford—a retired nuclear engineer—if we should just abolish the EPA. “Absolutely,” he says instantaneously. “Obviously you can’t have companies polluting lakes, but that should be written by Congress, not having this big government agency threatening lawsuits. We need a different approach rather than rules and regulations, just common sense.”)

Clifford challenges me, “You guys just want a bunch of wind and solar, but that’s not going to do it."

At this point, his friend in the office, a tall lanky “import” from California, comes up to me and makes a mock wind sound. “Oh you guys and your wind,” he says.

His wife was already heading for the door. The moment I’d mentioned “climate change” and the “IPPC,” she’d rolled her eyes at me angrily and said, "I've got to go, I can't stand around and listen to this."

http://www.progressive.org/meet-romney-extremist-in-virginia


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos131 on October 01, 2012, 11:09:59 PM
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maxw0lCgUC1rajhbuo1_500.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: TPPM on October 03, 2012, 03:41:02 AM

I think the key line in this article is, "Famed for her anti-liberal remarks, Coulter’s eight books have sold over three million copies."

Only three million sales with eight books?  With such small sales why does anyone pay any attention to her?  If the sales are divided evenly between the books that 375,000 sales for each book.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on October 03, 2012, 04:06:24 AM
Lois, what is so shocking about the Q and A session in Bedford, VA? The comment about killing off welfare parents and getting the kids adopted is over the top, but born of frustration, and while there are people who are less than "metro sexual" in their comments, being baited by a liberal can bring out the worst sometimes.

Other than that, his views are fairly common. Self action, personal responsibility, reduce regulations, reduce government involvement with our lives, common sense... all stuff that is not reserved for GOP members, but fits in the thinking of the majority of people, I think.

Hopefully, you will get a chance to find out soon.

Your acceptance of the party line, the White House spin from Mr. Obama, leads me to think you are not thinking for yourself a lot, and that does not make you a bad person.
It does make you more likely to fall prey, to wish things are as they say they are, and to just drone along without challenge as you are led to trouble, in my opinion. Sadly, there are more of you than there are of me, lol.

I suppose you can consider yourself right, without others being wrong. Compromise comes through strength and leadership, and is long overdue. We hope along the way to right the direction of the Nation, at least a little bit, and get rid of the leviathan bills and rules which the past 4 years, and a few before them, have left us to manage.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on October 03, 2012, 04:46:46 AM
Then you should go live in Oklahoma or Texas, joan. They are exactly what you seem to want to live around. There are a lot of racist, homophobic, nazis in both states. They may not wear brown shirts, but the certainly toe the political line.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on October 03, 2012, 05:47:44 AM
I cannot help how some rural folks act or what they say. Racism, sexism, homophobia, other 'isms are not my agenda. Nor are the Occupy Demonstrators, or the Abortion/Anti-Abortion causes, or many of the social issues so many put at the forefront.

I live in a radical Democrat environment, 24/7, and just ignore the bulk of the chatter in local politics in DC, having no ability to change it, other than to attempt to undermine the "statehood" crowd who wish the first act to be to change the city's name, and elect Marion Barry as Governor, lol.  We do what we can, and I have no interest in living in a racist environment, but accept there are such places and people, if not institutional or as open as when the Democrats had the mantle of Segregation, Slavery and the Ku Klux Klan.

That said, common sense makes sense to me, and working toward Constitutional behavior and reasonable governance is a worthy goal, the names and brickbats faced be damned. Enjoy!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on October 03, 2012, 01:34:12 PM
What you say would be acceptable if you weren't supporting a party that has subsumed those ideals into its policies. In a multi ethnic society economic class will devolve into ethnic class when the discourse evolves into examples of the minorities that are often predominantly noted in that economic class.

With the history of racism in this country it is very simple to trace that evolution and the establishment of the Republican party as its champion.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on October 03, 2012, 01:45:43 PM
Lois, what is so shocking about the Q and A session in Bedford, VA? The comment about killing off welfare parents and getting the kids adopted is over the top, but born of frustration, and while there are people who are less than "metro sexual" in their comments, being baited by a liberal can bring out the worst sometimes.

Other than that, his views are fairly common. Self action, personal responsibility, reduce regulations, reduce government involvement with our lives, common sense... all stuff that is not reserved for GOP members, but fits in the thinking of the majority of people, I think.

Hopefully, you will get a chance to find out soon.

Your acceptance of the party line, the White House spin from Mr. Obama, leads me to think you are not thinking for yourself a lot, and that does not make you a bad person.
It does make you more likely to fall prey, to wish things are as they say they are, and to just drone along without challenge as you are led to trouble, in my opinion. Sadly, there are more of you than there are of me, lol.

I suppose you can consider yourself right, without others being wrong. Compromise comes through strength and leadership, and is long overdue. We hope along the way to right the direction of the Nation, at least a little bit, and get rid of the leviathan bills and rules which the past 4 years, and a few before them, have left us to manage.


What is shocking about the guy's opinions is how detached from reality and empathy they are. Some poor in society are lazy, some have made mistakes (and I personally don't think punishment for making a poor career choice should be denial of government support, that's fucking crazy) but most are caught in the poverty trap, a consequence of past mistakes of entire generations. If the man in Lois comment was actually displaying common sense he would have acknowledged this. As for global warming, I've already discussed elsewhere how stupid and ignorant it is to ignore the scientific community because you're too fucking greedy to take some responsibility for the only planet we know of that can support human life. Again, ignoring the facts is hardly common sense.

His criticism of Obama is much more reasonable. I still Romney would be a very poor choice for Americans, and probably Iranians or some other Muslim country, but the President has to take responsibility for the state of the economy. Blaming Bush may be closer to the truth (I believe so but I'm far from an expert on economics) but these days the buck stops at Obama.

Regardless, the guy's opinions are a minor detail. Just the opinions of an individual. It would be a different story if a candidate said such things or if polls revealed they were common belief.

As for Lois following the party line, you're easily the worst offender of that on the boards. In fact your personal opinions are very rarely defined since you prefer to post other people's words rather than your own.

You are surely outnumbered though and that's why I you have my sympathy at times. You're the only one regularly posting in support of the Republican Party and there are several posting in support of the Democrats daily. However, you tend to lose my sympathy when you post hateful, deceitful articles or show your lack of basic human empathy towards those less fortunate than you.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 03, 2012, 05:47:56 PM
I believe in personal responsibility too, but I also understand that there are people caught in circumstances beyond their control that need a helping hand.

Even Mitt Romney's own father received public assistance when he was in difficult circumstances.

I think it is important to keep the safety net intact.  One never knows when it might be needed.

Are there people who need more help than others?  Sure.  Some folks can't read or write, and may never be employable.  Or their self-esteem is so low they can't even make an effort anymore.

We need to help these people too.  They need direct intervention and assistance getting back on their feet. 

Instead of saying they should just be "cut off" or "killed" it would be helpful if the right-wingers could help come up with some real solutions instead of hate filled language.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on October 04, 2012, 12:29:55 AM
Remember MadTV? Nicole Sullivan created a character, that was a regular in the 2006/07 season... “Darlene McBride” not only warned us about the formation of the whacked out Tea Party of 2012, but she predicted exactly what Hank Williams Jr. was going to name his current tour! 

This is an extraordinarily funny satirical take on the ultra-conservative Christian Right that at the time, was such a fringe element they didn’t present much of a threat. 

Now, however, it’s a whole new ballgame and these nutty, yet well-organized extremists have infiltrated Washington in shocking numbers.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqZaQKskP-A

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6bz7zUPPL4


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on October 04, 2012, 01:33:37 AM
You make a good point, and folks with anti social quirks and habits, or just lack of life skills, speaking standard English on the job for instance, wearing appropriate attire, showing up on time, having a checking account and savings account into which certain automatic deposits are made every paycheck, having a proper I.D., having a Phone for communicating with their employer, all makes a great deal of sense, no matter the age of the participants.

States who wish to, could create a program, or several different programs, to do just that, teach folks how to live in the world around them, how to keep a job, learning the importance of "playing the game" with hopes that the learned behavior positively affects their lives. Transition them to gainful employment, and off the Dole in the process.

I like a plan that takes the individual in, with their application, and transitions the person to an employable condition, gradually paying each person according to their progress. I would include a medical physical, including a drug screening, so as to be able to attest to a future employer as to suitability as a sober individual. The status of the individual would indicate suitability to work at a consistent level for a certain number of hours per week, according to their condition.

If one is healthy, able to work, sober, then a series of introductory courses taught by currently out of work qualified teachers or instructors would be the goal. Those skilled teacher/instructor professionals would themselves transition into the program, and be "hired" for a set length of time, say 6 months for instance, with an option to renew if their work warraned such a rehire. The same with medical personell, and office persons, and whatever professional and skilled job slots are essential to affect a core operation.
Again, with a fixed term of employment, so as to prevent extreme turnover, and with a wage structure similar to the lower end of employment at their specialties, per hour.

The healthy applicants for employment and life skills training would be paid, maybe a scale up to $10.00 per hour, by the State, a percent above minimum wage that is near the usual new hire rate for novice workers. I would have the State pay this wage to the person, with their hours worked reported to the State by the employer, and allow the employer to set the wage rate they will contribute toward that $10.00 per hour rate, paying such a wage directly to the state.  For instance, if the employer says they wish to sign up for 3 employees, to work 40 hours weekly, with specified hours, at $2.00 per hour, it is a start. The person gets employed, and the State is subsidized accordingly by what the employer pays, and the employer gets a break to create job slots for a small investment, while the employee is paid a consistent livable wage, no wage negotiation with the employer. The employer agrees to give feedback to a job counselor for every person, and when they find a person they wish to keep on a long term basis, can continue the arrangement at full subsidy, or take over the wages themselves at above the initial $10.00 rate.

Of course the able bodied applicant, with a I.D. issued by the state to each that indicates their citizenship status, is transitioned off any other Government program such as UI, or SNAP, or other subsidy, as they are successful with their private sector job.

Lots of work to do, and some kinks to work out, but seems like a start... need to keep the unions out of it, not have these people doing make work government jobs... and build up a network for them to touch base into when they progress in life.


I believe in personal responsibility too, but I also understand that there are people caught in circumstances beyond their control that need a helping hand.

Even Mitt Romney's own father received public assistance when he was in difficult circumstances.

I think it is important to keep the safety net intact.  One never knows when it might be needed.

Are there people who need more help than others?  Sure.  Some folks can't read or write, and may never be employable.  Or their self-esteem is so low they can't even make an effort anymore.

We need to help these people too.  They need direct intervention and assistance getting back on their feet.  

Instead of saying they should just be "cut off" or "killed" it would be helpful if the right-wingers could help come up with some real solutions instead of hate filled language.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 05, 2012, 08:43:58 PM
I am glad to see that you don't think just abandoning our fellow citizens is the answer Joan.

I found another article that I'd like to share with everyone:

 What Race Has to Do With It

by Gary Younge

Say what you like about Wally Hudson—and people do—he knows his audience. For months, the chairman of Virginia’s Mecklenburg County Republican Committee displayed pictures of Barack Obama as a drug dealer, witch doctor and caveman on his party’s Facebook page, resisting calls from higher-ups to remove them. “We know our regular readers, who are good conservatives,” Hudson told The Washington Post. “They’re gonna get a kick out of it.”

The presence of a black president has posed a real challenge in self-control for many Republicans, who were raised on a diet of welfare queens and Willie Horton. And when their opponent is a black man with a surname that rhymes with “Osama,” the temptation is just too great. During Mitt Romney’s ill-fated trip to the United Kingdom in July, his adviser claimed that Romney appreciates the “special relationship” more than Obama because he is “part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage.” Newt Gingrich insists that Obama’s “not a real president.” Donald Trump wants to see another birth certificate.

These statements violate the most important tenet of Richard Nixon’s Southern strategy: plausible deniability. In his diary, Nixon’s chief of staff, Bob Haldeman, described the operational blueprint for a new electoral landscape built on bigotry. “You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks,” Nixon told him. “The key is to devise a system that recognizes that while not appearing to.”

For some time now, there has been precious little to be gained by attacking a candidate’s race in elections on a national level, and plenty to lose. And that’s truer today than ever. Polls indicate people are far less likely to vote a Mormon into the White House than an African-American. Indeed, Americans feel more comfortable with a black man as commander in chief than a black man having a relationship with a white woman. National campaigns that go negative on race are assumed to be negative on many other things, from gender to modernity. Moreover, Obama is no easy target: on every metric concerning how easy it is for voters to relate to candidates, he has always scored better than his white opponents.

This has led some to argue that race is not a factor in this election. The Bradley effect is dead; long live the first black president. “Racists, real racists, are so insignificant now as to not matter,” claimed New York Daily News columnist Derek Hunter. “The days of them mattering died sometime after Democrats lost the South.” Too bad Trayvon Martin’s parents didn’t get that memo.

There are two problems with this. First, just because the election doesn’t center on Obama’s race doesn’t mean race is not a factor. Whether it’s Bill Clinton attacking Sister Souljah or George W. Bush speaking at Bob Jones University, race has always been a central part of American politics, whether black people were running for office or not.

And for good reason: race is about power, and it is through power that resources are distributed. Race will disappear as an issue when racism disappears as a material force. In the meantime, it will also be a tool to leverage resentment. For example, GOP ads pitting Medicare (which Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan wants to cut anyway) against healthcare reform claim that the hard-earned benefits of working people will be frittered away on “a massive new government program that is not for you.” Such is the nature of demographics and poverty in this country that more than three-quarters of Medicare recipients are white, while more than half of those without health insurance are not. Thus the specter of racialized redistribution is invoked without being explicitly articulated.

This mind-set was illustrated brilliantly at a Tea Party rally in Arkansas in June, where a speaker told the following joke as an icebreaker: “A black kid asks his mom, ‘Mama, what’s a democracy?’

“‘Well, son, that be when white folks work every day so us po’ folks can get all our benefits.’

“‘But mama, don’t the white folk get mad about that?’

“‘They sho’ do, son. They sho’ do. And that’s called racism.’”

The crowd loved it. The speaker was forced to resign only after a recording was released.

Second, it is precisely because of racism’s material consequences that different racial groups have particular electoral allegiances on the basis of their real or perceived economic and social interests. The trouble for the GOP is that Nixon’s Southern strategy is based on courting an electorate far whiter than today’s. Since 1980, the proportion of white voters has declined in every consecutive election bar one. The racial base on which the GOP has relied for two generations is sinking.

Meanwhile, the combination of a black Democratic presidential candidate and the racist and nativist Republican rhetoric has reduced the GOP’s appeal to blacks and Latinos to critical levels just as those two groups have grown in influence. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in August put African-American support for the GOP at rock bottom: 0 percent. The party’s support among Latinos hovers around 27 percent—far lower than what it needs or has enjoyed in the past. At the time of this writing, eighty-two Electoral College votes appear to be up for grabs. Of those, seventy-two are in states where white people comprise less than 70 percent of the population. To win, Romney needs 61 percent of the white vote nationally from a white turnout of 74 percent. In 2008, John McCain got 55 percent from the same turnout. The GOP’s only response to this so far has been to try to stop nonwhite people from voting altogether with punitive voter ID laws.

Far from playing less of a role in this election, race is as great a factor as it’s ever been.

http://www.thenation.com/article/170337/what-race-has-do-it


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 07, 2012, 10:08:15 AM
Oh geeze!

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/15611617-505/arkansas-rep-calls-slavery-blessing-in-disguise.html

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2012/10/05/republican-extremists-in-their-own-words



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on October 07, 2012, 06:25:14 PM
And you wonder, Joan, why I call you on so many of your statements? Here is why. You are part and parcel of this by supporting the Republicans and conservatism.

Guilt by association? Guilt by not denouncing them and continuing to allow such things exist in your party. This is why I will not vote for a republican, they are tainted by this evil because they will not separate themselves from it. They allow it to continue.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on October 10, 2012, 06:27:55 AM
"Hope and Change" has become "Fear and Loathing"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxDzPyd4XX0&feature=youtu.be


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on October 10, 2012, 04:04:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6JuwbDtzlI



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 10, 2012, 08:25:22 PM
Folks destroying property is a sad sign of the times.  I am sorry that people in Virginia are doing this.  It is important to note, however, that such hate is not just targeted at Romney.  Obama and "liberal speech" is being targeted too.  Right-wing hate radio has been promoting violence against liberals for some time.  There are consequences to such hate speech, and that includes people becoming angry and scared on both sides.

As for the second video, I'm not sure how it shows "hate", unless you are saying that rappers are evil hateful people because they are black?  Or maybe because you are against black people being motivated to get an education because of Sesame Street?



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on October 10, 2012, 10:18:58 PM
What you describe as hate radio must be something other than what I seek out and listen to daily, including Rush, Sean Hannity and Chris Plante or Mark Levin. I do hear conservative views, and highlights of the day's news as relates to that perspective. Now if you have some KKK radio station, of Nazi Party stuff you hear on the am/fm band, then I will agree that incitement along racial lines is despicable, whether the President is doing it, or his surrogates, or any other source of it.

As to the second video, I just thought the Sesame Street theme and the performance were lame, for a Obama rally, and wanted to share it so others could see the nonsense out there. Read today the CEO at the Sesame Street company, i forget the name, makes in excess of $640,000 annually. Not something we need to subsidize at the federal level at all, along with a huge host of other spending we need to let go in the immediate future.


Folks destroying property is a sad sign of the times.  I am sorry that people in Virginia are doing this.  It is important to note, however, that such hate is not just targeted at Romney.  Obama and "liberal speech" is being targeted too.  Right-wing hate radio has been promoting violence against liberals for some time.  There are consequences to such hate speech, and that includes people becoming angry and scared on both sides.

As for the second video, I'm not sure how it shows "hate", unless you are saying that rappers are evil hateful people because they are black?  Or maybe because you are against black people being motivated to get an education because of Sesame Street?




Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos131 on October 11, 2012, 07:46:39 PM

As to the second video, I just thought the Sesame Street theme and the performance were lame, for a Obama rally, and wanted to share it so others could see the nonsense out there. Read today the CEO at the Sesame Street company, i forget the name, makes in excess of $640,000 annually. Not something we need to subsidize at the federal level at all, along with a huge host of other spending we need to let go in the immediate future.



That would show just how ignorant you are about Will I Am.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on October 11, 2012, 08:42:16 PM
F*ck you very much. Right back atcha, Pathos!


As to the second video, I just thought the Sesame Street theme and the performance were lame, for a Obama rally, and wanted to share it so others could see the nonsense out there. Read today the CEO at the Sesame Street company, i forget the name, makes in excess of $640,000 annually. Not something we need to subsidize at the federal level at all, along with a huge host of other spending we need to let go in the immediate future.



That would show just how ignorant you are about Will I Am.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 11, 2012, 11:47:50 PM
I was ignorant about Will I Am, but no more.  I just watched several music videos on You Tube and must say that I am impressed!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on October 11, 2012, 11:53:46 PM
I was ignorant about Will I Am, but no more.  I just watched several music videos on You Tube and must say that I am impressed!

I blame him and the reast of the Black Eyed Peas for a large part of the dumbing down of the music industry. It has nothing to do with politics either way.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 11, 2012, 11:58:14 PM
How do you think they dumbed down the music industry?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on October 12, 2012, 12:07:21 AM
How do you think they dumbed down the music industry?

Have you heard I Gotta Feelin? It's the most vacuous song (just try to make sense of the title) and it sold by he truckload thanks to the marketing. Most of their other music is the same. I know they work hard but it devalues the work of real artists when they can throw together some pointless lyrics, a few chords, add some gimmicks in production and make millions from it.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos131 on October 12, 2012, 12:29:35 AM
F*ck you very much. Right back atcha, Pathos!


As to the second video, I just thought the Sesame Street theme and the performance were lame, for a Obama rally, and wanted to share it so others could see the nonsense out there. Read today the CEO at the Sesame Street company, i forget the name, makes in excess of $640,000 annually. Not something we need to subsidize at the federal level at all, along with a huge host of other spending we need to let go in the immediate future.



That would show just how ignorant you are about Will I Am.

(http://static.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/MjAxMi00NzJhYjdkOWU0OWVjMmU5.png)

Feel free to do some research.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 12, 2012, 01:15:14 AM
How do you think they dumbed down the music industry?

Have you heard I Gotta Feelin? It's the most vacuous song (just try to make sense of the title) and it sold by he truckload thanks to the marketing. Most of their other music is the same. I know they work hard but it devalues the work of real artists when they can throw together some pointless lyrics, a few chords, add some gimmicks in production and make millions from it.

Yes I've heard it.  Very boring and vapid.  I thought they had a song I liked though, but can't remember it now.

I thought you were going to tell me their music was computer generated and no one in the group was a real musician, because there is a lot of that going around these days.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on October 13, 2012, 01:47:59 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E87gciwebw
The stupid... it burns (buddy)!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 13, 2012, 02:47:38 AM
LMFAO!  She has no idea what a communist is!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: RopeFiend on October 14, 2012, 08:59:49 AM
(http://i46.tinypic.com/25u01gj.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos131 on October 15, 2012, 04:55:11 AM
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fi0KgPP_ygU/TadMvVWUjeI/AAAAAAAAAjw/x09t2YrFtGs/s1600/charlie-sigh.jpg)

Jason Thompson On Obama: 'We Have The Opportunity' To Send The President Back To Kenya (VIDEO)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/14/jason-thompson-obama_n_1965692.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahav7acT30E

Wisconsin GOP Senate candidate Tommy Thompson's son delivered some head-turning thoughts on the presidential election Sunday morning.

In a clip posted on YouTube from a Republican Party Of Kenosha County brunch event, Jason Thompson commented that "we have the opportunity" to send President Barack Obama "back to Chicago -- or Kenya," drawing applause from the crowd.

Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus was among the other speakers, adding that "we have an opportunity to save America" by electing Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

Shorewood (Wis.) Patch reports that Tommy Thompson, who was not at the event, told reporters that he had not seen the video. A spokesperson for his campaign told BuzzFeed that "Jason Thompson said something he should not have, and he apologizes."

Last Tuesday, a protest against Obama in Santa Clara, Calif. featured similar racial undertones, including a noose, watermelons, and a sign that read "Go back to Kenya you idiot."

Obama's Kenya ties include a distant father who was born there. In a 2006 appearance at the University of Nairobi, the president noted that he did not visit the country until 1987.

(http://)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on October 15, 2012, 08:32:51 AM
He has a brother there too, living in a shack, or maybe a cardboard box... maybe some flies on his face like Sally Struther's kids... most of the closer relatives are living in the U.S. having entered illegally or overstayed a visa, and a few pop up in public housing, or drunk driving here and there... hey, all Presidents have some goofy relatives it seems, or at least Democrat Presidents... Billy Carter comes to mind, and I bet there were some interesting Clintons out there too... The good thing is once you hear about a Obama U.S. relative they drop away from all news coverage pretty quickly, most of the time anyway. They don't leave, no matter what, no, they just fade away from the Style Page coverage.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 15, 2012, 05:08:24 PM
Yep, Joan is right.  We wouldn't have to worry about embarrassing relatives if we voted in white royalty like Romney!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on October 15, 2012, 10:31:32 PM
It has often been said: You will NEVER lose an election by UNDERESTIMATING the intelligence of the American electorate.

The Republican party knows this. It is their electoral bread and butter.

Unlike the Democratic party that CONSTANTLY OVERESTIMATES the intelligence (or the lack thereof) of our drooling, inbred, knuckle-dragging electorate and ALWAYS ends up losing elections because of it... not on ISSUES... not on POLICY:

Democrats lose because they believe the average American voter is smart and can figure things out for himself.

Republicans know the real recipe: pander to large groups of the stupid with ignorance-driven base fears regarding issues of race and being an outsider: and... VOILA!

You get a "cute & trendy" name for your base: the Tea Party!


(http://www.kcparent.com/KC-Parent-Blogs/Margaret-Sarver/February-2012/Ta-Da-Rather-than-To-Do/tada.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on October 16, 2012, 12:32:06 PM
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/190263_479347372098188_1398861532_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 16, 2012, 07:40:41 PM
Hate is not a family value.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on October 16, 2012, 07:55:55 PM
Hate is not a family value.
it is for many tea party Adherents and conservatives, and by extension the Republican Party.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on October 20, 2012, 07:07:21 AM
Hate is not a family value.
it is for many tea party Adherents and conservatives, and by extension the Republican Party.

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/534718_508136789198997_1316658451_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on October 22, 2012, 02:52:30 AM
OK - this is actually funny - HOWEVER, what is truly amazing (and qualifies this for this thread) are the YouTube comments from REAL birthers that don't realize THIS IS PARODY that borderline on functionally retarded!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGrBx0Ytm6g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn8jdmQxnGA

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/10/is-adolph-hitler-obamas-father-find-out-in-birther-obamas-secret/


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on October 22, 2012, 02:53:24 AM
(http://lifenews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/rushlimbaugh.jpg)

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/07/12-racist-quotes-by-rush-limbaugh/


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos131 on October 22, 2012, 04:14:27 AM
(http://lifenews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/rushlimbaugh.jpg)

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/07/12-racist-quotes-by-rush-limbaugh/

This old news, but it piggybacks on this post.

Potential NFL owner Limbaugh declares basketball "the favorite sport of gangs"

http://mediamatters.org/video/2009/10/07/potential-nfl-owner-limbaugh-declares-basketbal/155465

LIMBAUGH: It's not reasonable that you should understand the insanity that local and state and federal bureaucracies are doing. It's perfectly normal and understandable that none of what they do would make sense to you. My question -- OK, a 1 cent sales tax to fight gang violence. What do you spend the money on to fight gang violence? Afterschool program -- don't we already have afterschool programs? Don't we already have -- what do you call it, extracurricular events? Midnight basketball -- I mean, we've done it all. We've taken the favorite sport of gangs, and we put it at midnight to get them on the basketball court. We had 100,000 new cops with Clinton -- we've done it all. And the problem still is out of control. Liberalism doesn't work.

I'm gonna tell you what. If they're gonna raise the sales tax in this little -- Salinas, California, wherever you're talking about -- if they're gonna raise 1 cent sales tax to handle gang violence, then the money oughta go to the purchase of bulletproof vests for the law-abiding citizens when they leave their home.

Limbaugh on the NBA: "Call it the TBA, the Thug Basketball Association ... They're going in to watch the Crips and the Bloods"

http://mediamatters.org/research/2004/12/10/limbaugh-on-the-nba-call-it-the-tba-the-thug-ba/132430



On the same day that five professional basketball players and seven fans were charged in connection with a brawl that took place during a November 19 Indiana Pacers v. Detroit Pistons game in Auburn Hills, Mich., nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh said that the National Basketball Association (NBA) should be renamed the "Thug Basketball Association"; the teams should be referred to as "gangs"; and the players should be permitted to "strap up out there, and let 'em market their CDs." Limbaugh added: "f a fight breaks out, hey, it's what happens! It's what happens with gangs, and if a cop gets bloodied, you know, that's a bonus for the gang member that pulls that off, and let the fans, you know, go in knowingly. They're going in to watch the Crips and the Bloods [two Los Angeles-centered rival gangs]."

From the December 8 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

    LIMBAUGH: You just gotta be who you are, and I think it's time to get rid of this whole National Basketball Association. Call it the TBA, the Thug Basketball Association, and stop calling them teams. Call 'em gangs. You have the Laker Gang, you have the Heat Gang, you have a Timberwolf Gang [distortions of official team names], and let 'em strap up out there, and let 'em market their CDs. Instead of selling concessions, sell CDs out there at the concession stand.

    All the players get involved in this, and if a fight breaks out, hey, it's what happens! It's what happens with gangs, and if a cop gets bloodied, you know, that's a bonus for the gang member that pulls that off, and let the fans, you know, go in knowingly. They're going in to watch the Crips and the Bloods out there wherever the neighborhood is where the arena happens to be, and be who you are.

As Media Matters for America has noted, Limbaugh first referred to the NBA fight as "gang behavior" and "hip-hop culture on parade" on November 22. At that time, Limbaugh conceded that his remarks were likely to be "tagged as racist."


Limbaugh on NBA fight: "This is the hip-hop culture on parade"

http://mediamatters.org/research/2004/11/23/limbaugh-on-nba-fight-this-is-the-hip-hop-cultu/132339



Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh said that a November 19 brawl that broke out during a National Basketball Association (NBA) game was "hip-hop culture on parade." Limbaugh asserted that the fight -- which involved Indiana Pacers team members and Detroit Pistons team members and fans -- was "gang behavior on parade minus the guns," and that NBA uniforms are "now in gang colors. They are in gang styles." In making the comments, Limbaugh conceded that his remarks were likely to be "tagged as racist." Limbaugh also appeared to compare the brawl to the unrest in Fallujah, Iraq, suggesting that Detroit be renamed "New Fallujah, Michigan."

Limbaugh delivered his remarks on the same day that he touted his receipt of the Winston Churchill Statesmanship Award from the conservative Claremont Institute. Previous award recipients include former President Ronald Reagan, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. San Diego Chargers owner Alex G. Spanos, who presented Limbaugh with the award, noted that it is given to "those who look up to the sky for the noble principles of justice, right and liberty."

From the November 22 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

    LIMBAUGH: There is something about this hip-hop culture business. I'm not going to mention the name because there's thousands of them, but I've been watching interviews with ex-NBA players and current NBA players. You know what the common theme that I'm hearing is? "Well, I'm not going to be dissed. I'm simply not going to be disrespected. Somebody disrespects me, they're going to pay for it." Meaning, "A fan disrespects me, that fan's going to pay for it," not just another player.

    And that comes right out of the hip-hop culture, and it's not just that. You look at NBA players and the uniforms, you don't have to go back very far. The uniforms have changed totally. They're now in gang colors. They are in gang styles.

    [...]

    But there's a reason this is happening. I'm not saying it's nothing to be concerned about. There's a reason. But I don't think anybody ought to be surprised, folks. I really don't think anybody ought to be surprised. This is the hip-hop culture on parade. This is gang behavior on parade minus the guns. That's the culture that the NBA has become. So if anybody will be honest with you about it in the NBA, and a very few will have the courage to, because saying what I just said is going to be tagged as racist, but I, my friends, am fearless when it comes to this because the truth will out, and that's what's happening here, and part and parcel of this gang culture, this hip-hop culture, is: "I'm not going to tolerate being dissed. I'm not going to be disrespected," and "disrespected" is now so broad that it includes somebody looking at you the wrong way.

    [...]

    CALLER: This is not a new thing with the Piston fans.

    LIMBAUGH: I know. That's why I say call it "New Fallujah, Michigan."



(http://mattandemily.name/pics/misc/asshat.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on October 23, 2012, 07:54:49 AM
Do you feel the love?

(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/22504_293176584117103_2119756259_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on October 23, 2012, 08:00:11 AM
And they say racism is no more in America.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on October 23, 2012, 08:12:01 AM
And they say racism is no more in America.

No Katie hunni... Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter say racism only exists in the liberal party...



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos131 on October 24, 2012, 12:44:42 AM
Do you feel the love?

(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/22504_293176584117103_2119756259_n.jpg)

She's 14.  Most fourteen year-olds are idiots.  Be more afraid of the adults putting these ideas in her head.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on October 26, 2012, 10:27:39 PM
The subject of today's rant is John Sununu and his utter bullshit!

This man is a babbling embarrassment, a gaff factory, and clearly wanders onto various television networks in a state of total disconnect from reality!

When he said "he (Romney) looked confident and ready to handle the presidency" as if how Mitt looked to us mattered more than what he actually said. And actually, Romney froze with that uncomfortable "I'm pooping right now" look on his face for the ENTIRE third debate!

(http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_debate_romney_2012_10_03.jpg)

It appears 'Conservative America' is virtually IGNORING the fact that regarding foreign policy, what Romney STATED in the final debate, was a direct contradiction to what he has been saying for the last year in most categories, starting with, but not limited to, the Afghanistan withdrawal timeline.

Several Republican pundits admitted he flip flopped and was not as knowledgeable as the president. Colin Powell, not exactly a hard lefty, was disgusted enough to endorse Obama, and Sununu had the ignorance to publicly state that is was a 'racial preference'.

(http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/4ffc67256bb3f7a65400000b-400-300/john-sununu.jpg)

Pretty much EVERYONE thought, "Oh shit... he did just say that, didn't he?"

What I see in Mr. Sununu is that he is a distraction and a mouthpiece for an overall, divisive, illogical hatred of the president from the right.

I believe most Americans don't really want Roe v. Wade overturned either, but they'll vote for Romney because he 'won't really do that,' despite his consistent pronouncements that he "would be delighted" to overturn RvW, his allies, his Super-PAC funding, and vice presidential candidate, speak 100% to the contrary!

Americans hear Romney agree with Obama's foreign policy and ignore the fact that he said the exact opposite just a few days earlier and they generically blast Obama for 'not keeping us safe' anyway.

Despite the fact that Romney will release no specifics about his tax plan and recognize that several non-partisan economists agree that the math makes no sense!

I find it paramount that these voters ignore dozens of indicators of positive economic trends as well as all economic history between 2001-2008 resulting from the very supply side theories that Romney espouses, the epic disaster that echo the very Bush policies that brought us to the brink of collapse, and yet, they suggest Romney is 'better for the economy cuz he's a businessman' despite the fact that Government exists not for profit, but to serve its people.

It's positively Orwellian!

Why not simply admit on the extreme right that you have a passionate, unbridled and unprecedented hatred for this black president (go read Sununu's opinion of Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama)? Simply admit that you are far more concerned with getting him out, than with our country's welfare, instead of continuing this game of 'fiction are facts' with us?

It is so thinly veiled and amateur. Romney was thoroughly trounced in the last two debates, and in the first, he won on aggression (or more like a lack of opposition), but clearly NOT on veracity, logic or facts. Why not just admit that and then declare your rabid hatred for the President instead of this garbage about being 'ready to handle the presidency'?

Colin Powell, & Bill Clinton (The two most popular political figures of our current time) disagree with the Romney candidacy. Why on God's green earth would you go with John Sununu's opinion instead? 

I believe so many moderate Americans are just fucking tired of how the once respectable party of Lincoln and Eisenhower has sold itself to radical extremists, corporations and billionaires and we will all find out plenty on election day in terms of who is speaking out loud and clear.

After election day, my hope is America will see that it does not pay off to do so and maybe the moderates can return to control your once great party. Sadly though, at this point, the Neo-Con Republican Party has brought nothing but economic turmoil, shame, hatred and bigotry, and disgrace to our great country.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on November 08, 2012, 10:33:30 AM
Serious What-The-Fuckery! I can tell being in the Secret Service is gonna be an extra long overtime kinda job for the next four years!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/17-people-talking-about-assassinating-the-presiden


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on November 08, 2012, 03:17:25 PM
First of all, Gia, it takes someone of monumental stupidity to talk about a committing or participating in a federal crime in such an open forum. I wonder just how bein visited by the secret service/FBI/ U.S. Federal Marshal would make them feel. Especially since all the Bush 43 electronic surveillance programs are still in effect.

Can you spell PATRIOT Act?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: buddyChrist on November 08, 2012, 08:11:15 PM
Plus, knowing how dubya reacted, and the resulting powers he magically gave the office, some of these people may disappear. Find themselves in Gitmo type places.
In all reality, how awesome would it be if Obama were to gather a sampling of these people, sit down for a beer with them, and talk to them? If there was a president in recent history that would do something like that, it would be him.
Seems like a good guy. Best of the two most likely options for president, but I am not a fan of many democrat stances. Would have a beer with Obama.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos131 on November 09, 2012, 05:03:37 AM
Racist States of America: Shocking map reveals hateful tweets following Obama's re-election


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2230222/Presidential-Election-2012-Map-charts-racist-tweets-nation.html

Map shows how concentration of racist tweets about Obama were from heavily Republican states of Mississippi and Louisiana

However, there were also racist tweets recorded in states like West Virginia, Ohio, and Missouri

Map comes two days after massive riot at Ole Miss

Administration condemned racial epithets and called for students to recommit themselves to tolerance


A great deal of Americans were justifiably upset when Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney lost the election.

But rather than using social media to express their frustration and disappointment in an elegant way, many Twitter users instead used the platform to post shockingly racist tweets, calling President Obama a ‘n*****’ and a ‘monkey.’

A map collected by Floating Sheep shows the shocking demographic of racist 'hate tweets,' many of them collected from states that were won by Romney.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/09/article-0-15ED2CFB000005DC-972_634x352.jpg)

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/09/article-0-15ED30D2000005DC-811_634x312.jpg)

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/09/article-0-15ED412E000005DC-572_634x286.jpg)

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/09/article-0-15EB2280000005DC-305_634x465.jpg)

The majority of the tweets, as Jezebel noted, were often from young white residents in southern states. MailOnline has chosen not to name these social media users.

One male user wrote on Election Day following Romney’s loss: ‘Ok we pick a worthless n***** over a full blooded American what the h*** has our world come its (sic) called the white house for a reason.’

Another wrote: ‘F*** you, Obama. Your (sic) a stupid n***** and you don’t do anything good for our country.’

Using geodata called DOLLY (Data On Local Life and You), Floating Sheep mapped out tweets beginning November 1. They then calculated the percentage of each state’s so-called hate tweets in relation to the gross number of tweets coming out of that state.

Their results showed that states like Arkansas and Mississippi were relatively inundated with racist tweets. However, they measured only the quantity of tweets, noting that a lone Twitter user could be sending out dozens of vitriolic tweets all on their own, thus adding to the location-inspired measure, or LQ.

The map also reveals other southern states like Tennessee, Georgia, and the Carolinas had their fair share of people tweeting bigoted things. Floating Sheep noted that both the East and West coast had a lower number of such tweets.

The site noted, too, that the phenomenon wasn’t only in the south – a series of racist tweets trickled up the Eastern Seaboard, and could also be found in Utah and Missouri.

While it was not openly addressed by the candidates on the campaign trail, political pundits have insisted that demographics and race played a huge role in helping Obama keep the White House.

On Election Day,  a riot broke out at The University of Mississippi - known as Ole Miss - as more than 400 students yelled out racial slurs and burned Obama-Biden campaign posters after the Democratic incumbent was crowned the victor.

Emotions ran high among the angered college conservatives in Oxford, Mississippi, with university police being called in shortly after midnight to diffuse the crowd.


(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/07/article-0-15E5A5EE000005DC-567_634x468.jpg)

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/07/article-0-15E5A5F7000005DC-709_634x629.jpg)

The incident began as a small gathering of frustrated voters, meeting to share their misery at Obama getting another four years in office, shortly after midnight.

But word soon spread over social media and the crowd began to swell to hundreds of students, yelling out racial slurs, chanting anti-Obama rhetoric and some reportedly throwing rocks at cars.

Police were called and told the crowd to go home but their presence only attracted more attention and the mass began to multiply.

Two students were arrested in the fracas, one for public intoxication and one for failure to comply with police orders, the university confirmed.

'Disperse or go to jail,' University Police Department officers told the crowd, according to the student newspaper, The Daily Mississippian.

But Ole Miss student Nicholas Carr tweeted that the whole thing was being overblown, saying that more people were taking pictures of the so-called riot than actually joining in on the chanting.

'I was there the whole time. No rocks were thrown. There was 1 sign lit on fire. For about 45 seconds,' Carr wrote.

'Mostly, it was 100s of college kids who heard the word riot and ran to take pictures and see what it was about. Again, no rocks or missiles thrown.'

But the school's administration confronted students on Wednesday and blasted Tuesday's behavior as 'a very immature and uncivil approach to expressing their views about the election,' University of Mississippi Chancellor Dan Jones said in statement

'The gathering seems to have been fueled by social media, and the conversation should have stayed there.'










Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on November 09, 2012, 03:35:56 PM
This is very sad.  I hope as the years go by they will look back with the experience of maturity and realize it was not the "End of America".


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on November 11, 2012, 01:46:37 AM
HE IS A "MUSLISM"!!

(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/63841_407083959358113_1350296966_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on November 11, 2012, 01:57:38 AM
HE IS A "MUSLISM"!!

(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/63841_407083959358113_1350296966_n.jpg)
I like this one.

The poster is so confused that they don't understand that the 2012 date is based upon a Mayan calendar, which certainly isn't in his Bible.

That the poster also doesn't understand economics, the law of supply and demand, and much more, is also indicative of a less than stellar mind.

As Forest Gump says, "My Momma says, stupid is as stupid does."



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on November 12, 2012, 12:31:48 AM
This is very sad.  I hope as the years go by they will look back with the experience of maturity and realize it was not the "End of America".

Then what is it? I believe it is a symbol of the end for "white ruled" America... the one where "We the people" represents the ones with the least amount of melatonin.

I seem to recall a word used as a slogan to describe a campaign in 2012:

FORWARD!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: RopeFiend on November 14, 2012, 09:17:47 AM
(http://i48.tinypic.com/2b76vq.jpg)

Vote Panda in 2016!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on December 28, 2012, 12:13:38 AM
Ya'll remember earlier this year when washed up, redneck rocker, Ted Nugent made a thinly veiled threat against the POTUS? He never made good on that promise... we are still waiting, asshole!

http://countingdownto.com/countdown/176293


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on December 28, 2012, 03:03:48 AM
(http://img.acianetmedia.com/i/CjHrL.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on January 22, 2013, 09:23:53 AM
(http://www.classwarfareexists.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/tweet-obama-assassination.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/883dc295cb3fea2f338a72af8df90540/tumblr_inline_mgzpj70Rn31qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/90e05442a2952f5f25fc064fa2dfc53d/tumblr_inline_mgzpjjK8Ms1qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/c2d3a3faf74f2c9ff08f80e82cec86c5/tumblr_inline_mgzpjw0sKr1qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/794445075b6e27dff9b574bb81bf3489/tumblr_inline_mgzpnvDrbX1qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/735c7fc78504af330e9e79a64e2221cd/tumblr_inline_mgzpo9iN8z1qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/00c1d8366e0183b229fd37296b5a278f/tumblr_inline_mgzpp82CYv1qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/ddb96af42f28af9ca8d0e377e0596f51/tumblr_inline_mgzpq90B0N1qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/bbf97efcf95d4aa6626dec95340203d7/tumblr_inline_mgzpqy1JXq1qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/172f3416bc1ac4b1224891137760275f/tumblr_inline_mgzprmehwU1qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/f463390b929529b888050aa2ea2a1bf0/tumblr_inline_mgzps0NUgu1qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/581922c9dc9a1d8594b3e5f7c659dd7f/tumblr_inline_mgzpsdDWre1qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/4d64af6641b1230ace53f55f7f55e240/tumblr_inline_mgzpspSuTM1qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/1cd7ee2e85303a4a10775fa19f765def/tumblr_inline_mgzptaXXTR1qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/5f130d0fde9a59d79f278915daf1a18c/tumblr_inline_mgzpub4wuT1qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/c8226f2bd50015f40e9eb17ba37e30ce/tumblr_inline_mgzpup6llg1qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/469a6e483516be918a5fec777f95aeb6/tumblr_inline_mgzpv41SNH1qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/06733a759a18f7f77ae309a35ecc6bc7/tumblr_inline_mgzpvePDjr1qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/c279bbf7c6fe651e10f7b3d3118d091d/tumblr_inline_mgzpvqMQTT1qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/fb5a366f68349982a58195096bfc65f1/tumblr_inline_mgzpw5OUoR1qawfnh.png)
(http://media.tumblr.com/aca73cedb1c57f513e8e43c200a5c808/tumblr_inline_mgzpwrHHEv1qawfnh.png)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: staci on January 22, 2013, 03:13:01 PM
Disgusting, nauseous and in a way traitorous.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on January 22, 2013, 03:26:18 PM
Way too sad.  Don't these people even have filters?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on January 22, 2013, 04:47:26 PM
This is why I consider most neo-conservatives/tea party/right wing nuts fascists. It is also why I believe that they have no concept of what the Constitution means, what freedom or democracy means, nor do I believe that they live America.

These are the people who really need an object lesson in what they are advocating. Perhaps being made to live on the local economy in some nice place like Iraq, Afganistan, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia or UAE, Nigeria, Ethiopia or other hell-hole that puts their stated beliefs in no rule of law into operation.

These people are the traitors, the danger to the Republic.

It sickens me that they are so naive, so clueless, so opposite all of what America stands for.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on January 22, 2013, 06:14:55 PM
I too despise such rhetoric and racist "tweets". Uncalled for, and un-American.

Where does anyone ascribe these people's Party preferences? Are these Romney  voters? I think not. I think these folks are ignorant, racist, and likely not involved in actual voting for their Representatives, Senators, and President. These are not the folks standing in the long lines, coming out in the rain, snow and wind to exercise their rights.

No Tea Party, Conservative, Moderate or Liberal Republican believes the statements these assholes tweeted, in my opinion. Are there racists in America? Yes, plenty of them, of all stripes. These are the assholes, making racist statements to one another for effect.

Such foolish statements and boorish actions are not the acts of serious people. Who even publishes such drivel? What is the agenda of people who would infer such activity to those who take the Oath Of Office to serve their State or District, Protect and Defend the Constitution from Enemies, Foreign and Domestic?

Not anyone I respect, or support.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on January 22, 2013, 06:27:31 PM
Again, I disagree with your statement in particular that these statements cannot be attributed to party or philosophical allegiance. There is racism that crosses party lines and political philosophy. However, It has been regularly documented that these types of comments are predominately associated with adherents or followers of the Republican Party, neo-cons, and the tea party. The right-wing extremists who have driven the Republican Party for the last 4 years are not adverse to showing their disdain and prejudices towards anyone not white, of their religious background, or their own misapplied fairy tale economics.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on January 23, 2013, 12:09:36 AM
I was a member of a forum when Bush II was President.  One of our Australian members was always going on about how he should just be shot.  Every liberal on the forum strongly stated that we don't do things like that in the USA.

While I am glad that Joan has finally broken her silence with regards to this specific antic of the lunatic right, I still think she has blinders on.  I see far more hate pouring in from right-wing sources than left-wing ones.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on February 14, 2013, 04:26:18 AM
Now that statement is worthy of a vist from the Secret Service.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Poppet on February 18, 2013, 02:24:00 AM
^^^ aaargghhhhh Gia's post is MISSING!!!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on February 18, 2013, 02:47:36 AM
^^^ aaargghhhhh Gia's post is MISSING!!!

Someone deleted the OP (it was hotlinked)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on February 18, 2013, 03:19:49 AM
Hate manifests itself whenever people feel their way of life, as they know it, is threatened. It is a fear of the unknown.  A fear that their way of life is changing.  So they strike back the only way they know - by verbally accosting the people they blame. The wealthy use lawyers and lobbyists to keep the status quo.  The little people use hate tactics. I have said this before.  A party that thinks it can continue by just catering to a certain race or gender will not last long here in the United States as we become a more diverse people.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on February 18, 2013, 04:26:51 PM
Hate manifests itself whenever people feel their way of life, as they know it, is threatened. It is a fear of the unknown.  A fear that their way of life is changing.  So they strike back the only way they know - by verbally accosting the people they blame. The wealthy use lawyers and lobbyists to keep the status quo.  The little people use hate tactics. I have said this before.  A party that thinks it can continue by just catering to a certain race or gender will not last long here in the United States as we become a more diverse people.

Scapegoating and fear-mongering are indeed the tools of those who lack integrity, and there are politicians that fit into this group.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on February 18, 2013, 05:16:22 PM
*Sigh* I've been holding off on replying to this for awhile, but here goes.

Everyone I know except my grandfather is a Democrat. Both of my parents were (are) hippies, and for years I walked the same line. Since then, I have studied the conservative ideaology like crazy to better understand what I dispute. I found I support a fiscally conservative agenda and absolutely categorically reject a socially conservative one.

There are a lot of problems with the republican party right now, including the FACT that they are becoming closely aligned with some crazies, who are cajoling them into becoming the party of hate. Just like in the Democratic party, the sane voices don't stand out so much, and the "team sports" aspect of congress means the saner ones don't always vote sane.

I'll not give a pass to those who didn't rebuke Rush Limbaugh and Todd Aiken for their sexist shit, but the worse problem is how the Republican leadership built the comittee on women's health issues: all men. The reason the Republicans are becoming the party of hate is that there is no leadership strong enough to get the train back on the tracks. Tons of Republicans are burying their faces in their hands when they see the deplorable behavior of the nuttier people in their party, but are ineffective at reprimanding the nuts because of primaries, lobbyists, and PACs.

A similar problem exists for the Dems, but it is spending-based, and not full of hateful rhetoric.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on May 06, 2013, 11:55:48 PM
No hate here...

(http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/577579_409975995767738_436566524_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on May 07, 2013, 12:49:56 AM
The problem is politicians in office who are ideologues instead of policy experts. The former will vote against pragmatic solutions, the cut off your nose to spite your face syndrome), the latter vote for polcies that get the job of governing done with the most good for everyone.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lostforkate on May 07, 2013, 03:31:49 AM
NRA did not support or endorse Obama bleeding targets.

The vendor call that model Rocky, and meant for it to resemble a Zombie. 

NRA asked for the sale of that model to stop after complaints that it looked like Obama. At first glance, I thought it was Gollum like.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/nra-convention-obama-target_n_3223158.html?utm_hp_ref=politics (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/nra-convention-obama-target_n_3223158.html?utm_hp_ref=politics)

No hate here...

(http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/577579_409975995767738_436566524_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on May 07, 2013, 07:31:27 AM
NRA did not support or endorse Obama bleeding targets.

Your source for this thought?

The vendor call that model Rocky, and meant for it to resemble a Zombie.
 

"Rocky" or "Barry" - both informal names of a black, zombie Barack.

They can deny all they like - the likeness is glaringly obvious. When a reporter asked the vendor if the likeness was intentional, he smiled and answered, "Let's just say I gave one to my father-in-law and he's a Republican".


NRA asked for the sale of that model to stop after complaints that it looked like Obama.

They took it off the table display, but continued to sell them from behind the table.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on May 07, 2013, 08:52:08 AM
Pretty sleazy, but any decent shooter prefers a bullseye to a silhouette anyway.

The clowns who bough those are evil, stupid knucle-draggers... the vendors have no soul, and it was no accident, a drunken child with bad eyes could see the resemblance to our President.

If I had to grudgingly respect the office with W in the White House, these shitheads should leave my country. I don't like Obama, but any creep who feels it is okay to shoot at a target designed to look like someone they disagree with should get the fuck out.

This is the type of shit that gets Dems in office. If the alternative is siding with the type of people who bought these targets, it looks like I'm going to have to vote Dem again. Stupid GOP, you lose me with crazies.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lostforkate on May 07, 2013, 10:55:43 AM
I included a source in my post, and there are others explaining the NRA asked to have the display removed. Yes, Rocky models are still for sale.

I agree bleeding targets is whacked. I don't think it looks like Obama, but I can see that it would to most people.

I don't agree with painting any party, or any faith, or non faith, or even the NRA with a hate label.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on May 07, 2013, 01:16:04 PM

I agree bleeding targets is whacked. I don't think it looks like Obama, but I can see that it would to most people.


So... You see the resemblance but you don't want to believe it was intentional? You literally just contradicted yourself there. It either looks like him or it doesn't.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on May 07, 2013, 03:22:50 PM
I saw that as well, but I took it to indicate that he didn't see the resemblance until he was told to look for it. I can understand that, the green skin could throw someone.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on May 07, 2013, 04:52:44 PM
Quote
"....Stupid GOP, you lose me with crazies...."

Who were the last two GOP Presidential Nominee you voted for?

Landon
Wilkie
Dewey
Dewey
Eisenhower
Eisenhower
Nixon
Goldwater
Nixon
Nixon
Ford
Reagan
Reagan
Bush '41
Bush '41
Dole
Bush '43
Bush '43
McCain
Romney

None of the above?

Those "crazies" are just so persistent, spoils your plan every time?



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: snowm on May 07, 2013, 05:20:42 PM

I agree bleeding targets is whacked. I don't think it looks like Obama, but I can see that it would to most people.


So... You see the resemblance but you don't want to believe it was intentional? You literally just contradicted yourself there. It either looks like him or it doesn't.

I think she is saying she does not believe it was intentional on the part of the NRA. From the vendor's perspective it was completely intentional.

A sponsoring entity of a convention does not have the time to review every vendors' wares. I have been the tech monkey at many a large sized conventions, been there, seen the scope of production...


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on May 07, 2013, 05:26:16 PM

I agree bleeding targets is whacked. I don't think it looks like Obama, but I can see that it would to most people.


So... You see the resemblance but you don't want to believe it was intentional? You literally just contradicted yourself there. It either looks like him or it doesn't.

I think she is saying she does not believe it was intentional on the part of the NRA. From the vendor's perspective it was completely intentional.

A sponsoring entity of a convention does not have the time to review every vendors' wares. I have been the tech monkey at many a large sized conventions, been there, seen the scope of production...

*He

I wouldn't be so quick to presume the NRA were in favour of it either actually. Having said that I don't need another reason to think less of them anyway.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on May 07, 2013, 08:33:32 PM
Quote
"....Stupid GOP, you lose me with crazies...."

Who were the last two GOP Presidential Nominee you voted for?

Landon
Wilkie
Dewey
Dewey
Eisenhower
Eisenhower
Nixon
Goldwater
Nixon
Nixon
Ford
Reagan
Reagan
Bush '41
Bush '41
Dole
Bush '43
Bush '43
McCain
Romney

None of the above?

Those "crazies" are just so persistent, spoils your plan every time?



I would have voted for Eisenhower, and possibly Dole. Bush '41 wasn't terrible, Reagan had his upsides and downsides, but I think I would have voted for him over Carter, anyway. Besides them, not too many.

The Dems have had mediocre to shitty presidents as well, but long-term, they have been FAR better on social issues, and about the same on deficit spending and fiscal responsibility. Plus, they aren't such crybabies that they have to chickenshit-veto absolutely everything their base doesn't love.

Rand Paul is a bit of a douche, but his veto was at least the real kind, where he had to run his mouth and risk his career for what he believed in. I don't like him much, but I respect him.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: DrWoody on May 07, 2013, 10:34:26 PM

I voted for Reagan twice, and Bush '41 once.  I did not get fed up with the GOP until I had worked for it, and in it, for a decade.  Just dirty, dirty shit going on all the time.

Dems are much better, but at least they *pretend* to care about the common man.  Today's GOP is just a bunch of howler monkeys who are not even house trained.  Don't even pretend to care about doing the right thing.  Scary to watch.  Even more scary to live under their rule.

I too, voted for Regan and Bush 41. I was convinced that I was doing good. Then Bush 43 came along. It took him to make me shake my head in complete embarrassment for the GOP. Every other candidate the party has produced since Bush 43 is as equally, or more, moronic and detached from reality. Not only is it embarrassing for the party and the nation, but it is equally scary. Where are all the GOP candidates that should have some semblance of a footing in common sense? Are there none out there?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on May 07, 2013, 10:48:13 PM
John Huntsman, but he couldn't get through the batshit primary. I wouldn't call him great by any measure, but the best they had to offer.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on May 08, 2013, 12:34:25 AM
"None" as to Repub's you ever voted for President.

Not one Republican since you have been voting was ever worthy of your vote. And the following Democrats met/meet your standards for high office:

Michael Dukakis/Lloyd Benson
Bill Clinton/Al Gore
Bill Clinton/Al Gore
Al Gore/Joe Lieberman
John Kerry/John Edwards
Barack Obama/Joe Biden
Barack Obama/Joe Biden
Joe Biden/Nancy Pelosi... or some other... tba

Seems "the crazies" in 2013 have little to do with your vote, nothing for R's to fix, short of abandon all their own beliefs and principles wholesale. Crazies or not, you are not going to vote Republican. You think, maybe, wishful, if there ever were a RINO, you might.

President Obama's Ambassador to China, John Huntsman, is not at all a 'conservative' whatsoever, and so was never going to get a R nomination... he is a left wing media favorite, spent zip on his race, and was against anything Republican in nature, against the entire platform, and the beliefs of any constituency at all in the R Primaries. Nice hair.

The last Republican Candidate who was a left wing media favorite and RINO, John McCain, until he actually ran for President, then he was dropped like the lightweight he always has been. Nice guy, not conservative at all, but good at retaining his seat. Only Sara Palin's endorsement saved his seat in his last Senate election, so we still have him on the Sunday shows, undercutting any party position, or any electable Republican, to the delight of the left wing media, who invite him on those shows for that reason.

Mitt Romney tried to skate by on Obama's faults, without telling anyone why he should be elected, other than to counter some Obama comment. He had Barry on the ropes, and just dropped the ball, electing to allow himself to be bullied in the second debate, when he knew he was right... was robbed, but he dropped the ball, backed off, hoping the press would suddenly like him better. Not going to happen, but with no conservative backbone, never stood a chance. Sad. And so for the moment, we have what we have.

I am not saying I agreed and supported fully many of the Republican Nominees either, but the reason was not because MSNBC quoted some 'yahoo' who whipped up a target, or made some insensitive comments. Sadly, the people in front of the R Party need to go, and be primaried out, to get some leadership that is electable, running for President but more occupying Committee Chairs, and Ranking Members positions, to drag this Congress forward, while being able to speak English plainly, and explain the party votes and positions and principles to our low information voters, and high interest voters alike.

[/quote]
[/size][/color]



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on May 08, 2013, 12:38:33 AM
Ideologues need not apply.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on May 08, 2013, 12:50:03 AM
Ideologues need not apply.

Hahahahaha...


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on May 08, 2013, 01:16:47 AM
"None" as to Repub's you ever voted for President.

They have nominated shitty candidates. I voted Libertarian, as Republicans on the national level have been chumps. I also voted Obama in 2008, but he has since disappointed me.

Not one Republican since you have been voting was ever worthy of your vote.

Wrong. I've voted Republican in statewide office. Don't assume you know me, it is rather insulting.

And the following Democrats met/meet your standards for high office:

Michael Dukakis/Lloyd Benson

Where did you get that idea? Wasn't in my post...

Bill Clinton/Al Gore

Once, at least. The Bosnian conflict gave me pause, though.

Al Gore/Joe Lieberman

As opposed to Bush/Cheney? I would have gladly, but I voted for Ralph Nader, confident California would go Dem anyway.

John Kerry/John Edwards

Kerry: war hero. Bush: trained chimp with a rich family and lots of connections to evil assholes.

Barack Obama/Joe Biden

Once. He seemed like he might keep his word on Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, plus he promised to end pork in legislation. He sucks, but the Republicans need to stop nominating shitheads.

Barack Obama/Joe Biden

Try Gary Johnson. He was not the man I wanted, but neither was Obama, and I was sure Obama would win over Mr. flip-flop 47% Romneycare.

Joe Biden/Nancy Pelosi... or some other... tba

Hahaha, do I sense some trepidation over a certain unmentioned name, a name that polls better than the entire Republican party, or any individual Republican...

Seems "the crazies" in 2013 have little to do with your vote, nothing for R's to fix, short of abandon all their own beliefs and principles wholesale. Crazies or not, you are not going to vote Republican. You think, maybe, wishful, if there ever were a RINO, you might.

You obviously didn't know the Republican party used to be pro-choice... RINO should stand for Republicans: Intelligent about a National Objective. No republican will ever win the nation with that losy platform. They could nominate a solid gold Jesus, and he would havve lost to Obama because their platform recently has sucked. Social conservatives and Know-Nothing dipshits... that's consevatism? Fuck it, I'll be liberal then.

President Obama's Ambassador to China, John Huntsman, is not at all a 'conservative' whatsoever, and so was never going to get a R nomination... he is a left wing media favorite, spent zip on his race, and was against anything Republican in nature, against the entire platform, and the beliefs of any constituency at all in the R Primaries. Nice hair.

Again, what is conservative about telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies? You complain about 'big government,' but W fucked the country's finances like a cheap Tijuana whore. Nominate someone who knows fiscal responsibility, REAL fiscal responsibility, then ask me why I didn't vote for them.

The last Republican Candidate who was a left wing media favorite and RINO, John McCain, until he actually ran for President, then he was dropped like the lightweight he always has been. Nice guy, not conservative at all, but good at retaining his seat. Only Sara Palin's endorsement saved his seat in his last Senate election, so we still have him on the Sunday shows, undercutting any party position, or any electable Republican, to the delight of the left wing media, who invite him on those shows for that reason.

Hahaha, it looks like I'm wasting my time here...

Mitt Romney tried to skate by on Obama's faults, without telling anyone why he should be elected, other than to counter some Obama comment. He had Barry on the ropes, and just dropped the ball, electing to allow himself to be bullied in the second debate, when he knew he was right... was robbed, but he dropped the ball, backed off, hoping the press would suddenly like him better. Not going to happen, but with no conservative backbone, never stood a chance. Sad. And so for the moment, we have what we have.

You mean you like the inventor of Obamacare? I thought you were supposed to be conservative... Romney was a flip-flopping coward. Hell, even his money hid. Slimy little worm couldn't buy the office, but he's still got your love...

I am not saying I agreed and supported fully many of the Republican Nominees either, but the reason was not because MSNBC quoted some 'yahoo' who whipped up a target, or made some insensitive comments. Sadly, the people in front of the R Party need to go, and be primaried out, to get some leadership that is electable, running for President but more occupying Committee Chairs, and Ranking Members positions, to drag this Congress forward, while being able to speak English plainly, and explain the party votes and positions and principles to our low information voters, and high interest voters alike.

[/b][/size][/color][/quote]

Good luck with that. Nationally, your party's policies poll for shit. I'd like to see true fiscal conservatism, social liberalism, and for once, just for once, responsible spending. No recent Republican has been even close to a conservative, including the Almighty Reagan. Reagan was a fiscal liberal, but he fooled a nation into thinking he had worked some magic. His mystique still lives on, as do the lies our nation tells about him.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on May 08, 2013, 01:41:16 AM
RINO = Republican In Name Only. The ones who vote Republican when it does not matter, but when it does matter, sell their votes to the Sunday shows, waffle around, muddy the water, then waffle. Better to not have them at all. Must count as a Dem vote, always, unless is some nonissue, or time for their election, to avoid a primary.

Trying to imagine a Democrat you have not, or will not vote for... Your comment about "crazies" making you vote some other way than GOP for President is what my comments addressed. As to State legislators or Governors, I would expect you to vote your interests. No slight intended. If I wish to insult you, it will be very clear.

Hanging onto irrelevant meanings for words, in hopes of what... comforting yourself that this is not your father's Oldsmobile or whatever is nonsense, as is voting for 'sure to lose' candidates, if you care at all about the subsequent years a politician may remain in office, and the damage the winner, and winning party can do in the short term.

Voting against a politician makes a great deal of sense, more than voting a sure loser, or party, and holding your nose when whatever happens happens. Just my opinion, Nothing more, nothing less, but please don't manufacture reasons to cover your own voting choices, as if the alternative does not matter.

There is lots wrong with out current politicians, both major parties, and some of the others as well, and we seem to be getting nowhere very quickly.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on May 08, 2013, 02:53:49 AM

...Trying to imagine a Democrat you have not, or will not vote for...[/quote]

A short list to represent the large group:
Barack Hussein Obama (not again, even if I could)
Joe Lieberman (You'd call him a Dem, I'll bet. If not, disregard)
Zell Miller (again, same as above)
Joe Biden (depends on who he is up against, but unlikely)
Heath Schuler
Bart Stupak


Hanging onto irrelevant meanings for words, in hopes of what... comforting yourself that this is not your father's Oldsmobile or whatever is nonsense,

Translation, please?

as is voting for 'sure to lose' candidates, if you care at all about the subsequent years a politician may remain in office, and the damage the winner, and winning party can do in the short term.

I'm not sure what you were tying to say, but California was going to president Obama, who was a few shades less shitty than Romney. I voted Johnson despite many differences of opinion I have with him because he was slightly less full of shit than Obama or Romney.

Voting against a politician makes a great deal of sense, more than voting a sure loser, or party, and holding your nose when whatever happens happens.

Not sure I understood this, either. The 'sure loser' was Romney. Only idiots believed otherwise. McCain didn't lose because he wasn't conservative enough, he lost because W fucked the country, and he picked an idiot for a running mate. Palin is an idiot, I'm sorry if you were suckered into believing otherwise, but she is clearly a few rounds short of a full magazine.

Vote for the least shitty candidate, at least if you don't live in a swing state. If you live in a swing state, vote for the least shitty of the two major parties.

Just my opinion, Nothing more, nothing less, but please don't manufacture reasons to cover your own voting choices, as if the alternative does not matter.

Again, not sure what you are talking about here. I vote for who I vote for, and the reason is as stated above, with no manufactiring besides common sense necessary.

There is lots wrong with out current politicians, both major parties, and some of the others as well, and we seem to be getting nowhere very quickly.

Agreed. If you are totally satisfied with any politician, you should seek help. If you are completely in agreement with every sentiment in a party platform, seek help. If you think any of the following are blanket solutions to problems, or completely meritless systems of government, seek help:
-Capitalism
-Socialism
-Despotism
-Authoritarianism
-Dictatorship

If you don't know it, the USA is a cross between Capitalism and Socialism, and before you reject Socialism, think about calling the police, the ambulance, the fire department, the library, the national parks system, etc. Ask them how they operate. Socialism is neither good nor evil, it is well-managed, or it isn't.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lostforkate on May 08, 2013, 03:29:51 AM
if you were on of the hot women on the site that prefer woman, I would leave the "she" uncorrected if helps my chances to have more great sex. :emot_laughing:

I think she is saying she does not believe it was intentional on the part of the NRA. From the vendor's perspective it was completely intentional.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: DrWoody on May 09, 2013, 01:29:41 PM

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/198902_592861050724265_57889412_n.jpg)

Is there any reason to believe that right wing BUMPER-SNITCHERS are not telling the truth?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on May 20, 2013, 08:44:29 AM
Gee, what kind of nut case could have said this?

I want to shoot her [Hillary Clinton]right in the vagina and I don't want her to die right away; I want her to feel the pain and I want to look her in the eyes and I want to say, on behalf of all Americans that you've killed, on behalf of the Navy SEALS, the families of Navy SEAL Team Six who were involved in the fake hunt down of this Obama, Obama bin Laden thing, that whole fake scenario, because these Navy SEALS know the truth, they killed them all. On behalf of all of those people, I'm supporting our troops by saying we need to try, convict, and shoot Hillary Clinton in the vagina.

Why it was right-wing radio host Pete Santilli .....


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on May 20, 2013, 09:55:06 AM
Why it was right-wing radio host Pete Santilli...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/18/pete-santilli-hillary-clinton_n_3299247.html


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on May 22, 2013, 01:03:33 AM
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/935518_525749504127400_1317561396_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on May 22, 2013, 02:41:33 AM
Wilkerson was responsible for a review of information from the Central Intelligence Agency that was used to prepare Powell for his February 2003 presentation to the United Nations Security Council.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on May 22, 2013, 03:01:05 AM
Wilkerson was responsible for a review of information from the Central Intelligence Agency that was used to prepare Powell for his February 2003 presentation to the United Nations Security Council.

And, your point is what?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDnMopHZWzI
Wilkerson interview starts at the three minute mark...

Here is a tiny excerpt from MSNBC's HUBRIS: Selling The Iraq War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX6qXwcpHkA


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on May 22, 2013, 03:25:05 AM
There are legitimate reasons to dislike Obama, but Wilkerson is correct, more than a few people in his party are indeed racist.

That is a shame, because without intelligent discourse, the GOP can't have a better candidate, so they will likely lose another presidency.

The Democrats have racists as well, but as a collective party, their policies are less ridiculous and cruel when it comes to minority groups of all kinds.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on May 22, 2013, 04:01:02 AM
Unless you happen to be an Imperialist. Not the run of the mill kind, but the kind who wants to be Empress.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on May 24, 2013, 12:50:03 AM
SC Gov. Nikki Haley Appoints White Supremacist To Campaign Committee!

http://radio.foxnews.com/2013/05/23/sc-gov-nikki-haley-appoints-white-supremacist-to-campaign-committee/


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on May 24, 2013, 06:05:33 AM
She's bringing hate to the party...

It is kinda like a hate-rave: not everyone there is whacked out of their minds on hate (ecstasy), but if you like to get out of your mind on hate, there is no better place to find it.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on May 28, 2013, 11:35:44 PM
(http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/249280_374793962631496_986193272_n.png)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on May 29, 2013, 12:53:38 AM
(http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/249280_374793962631496_986193272_n.png)

Dear god why would anyone devote so much energy to pointless hate like that? I just can't fathom the mentality.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on May 29, 2013, 01:36:08 AM
Go read what they post on The Free Republic if you want to see a reality distortion field generator in full effect.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on May 30, 2013, 03:19:31 AM
Todays Teabagger roundtable topic: George "Fred" Zimmerman! LOLZ!

This is taken from an FB page of a Conservative named "Robert Bob" (I am crappin you negative) and I follow his topics pretty regularly... you can tell his posts by the CONSTANT capslock, grossly misspelled words, an utter lack of syntax comprehension and rabid punctuation abuse. (I am not resizing this image, so it will be easier to read for our less "techy" members)


(http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/965549_522374397822437_1638445249_o.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on June 01, 2013, 01:04:49 PM
Robbert Bob and his pals in the special weekend edition of Teabagger Roundtable.

On the docket this morning: President Obama, Affirmative Action, Agenda 21, and the Cloward-Piven Strategy.



(http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/981787_523670277692849_119547990_o.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on June 01, 2013, 03:07:34 PM
EPIC racist foolishness, Gia. that definitely qualifies for this thread...

And now, even the parrot-like humanoids on Fox News occasionally have a rational moment or two:
http://now.msn.com/fox-news-van-susteren-blasts-male-colleagues-over-comments-on-women?ocid=ansnow11

I laughed and wanted to cry at the same time when I saw that video. HO-LY SHIT, they found a time machine in 1954... and a negro with a white education...


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on June 02, 2013, 10:48:21 AM
It just gets prettier all the time... I love these people!

(http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/7802_455471197879005_854355812_n.png)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: m4mpetcock on June 03, 2013, 11:51:46 AM
It just gets prettier all the time... I love these people!

(http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/7802_455471197879005_854355812_n.png)

Yeah cuz we know the left was always considerate of Bush. 


(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSsPFPm0AWuODS9i0MEnl1CsUfuU3oZj1YUdbe6O_MVtRnKyHYNtg)


(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT7QbOR6fx3CQ0qYTXLKGeBJV8He1lYQsiZ8AZYgGBC0knAvPtm)

(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWKRoVIMxY4nabpOIIO9aJOnWNY3p16rUcbBoboi1R-CXccteJ)

(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQpL_9sj8Vtkl7T8P6vpYifpR64MWheC4M09kJ4hrWjZqzkE0IzWQ)



How loudly did you complain about those? 


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on June 03, 2013, 01:31:33 PM
If I had seen them, loudly. However, this current crop has another element to it, one that is very disturbing.

Oh, and the evaluation of the likelyhood of a person acting on those sentiments from the left were significantly different than the current evaluation by the FBI AND Secret Service.

What is it about the right that makes them more likely to execute those sentiments? And the left leaning blog and others didn't circulate them as currency in the debate like the right is.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on June 03, 2013, 03:06:13 PM
I'm not only against threats of violence against anyone (if you are going to do it, just do it), I'm against calling Bush the worst President ever. He wasn't- despite his best efforts, he couldn't even manage to do that correctly.

Obama stinks, but he isn't the worst President ever, not even close. He certainly doesn't deserve to be killed, so these shitheads can just go back to the trailer they call home and meditate on what it is besides his skin they hate so much.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: m4mpetcock on June 03, 2013, 08:02:40 PM
He certainly doesn't deserve to be killed, so these shitheads can just go back to the trailer they call home and meditate on what it is besides his skin they hate so much.


It's not the color of Obama's skin that I have a problem with, considering I voted for him in 2008 (was a registered Democrat till 2010 - now "Unaffiliated"), but more with the thinness of it. Anyone remember attackwatch.org, the site set up to report people who criticize the President?

Then again, maybe it's the fact that the color of his skin seems to be an obsession with his supporters.  Comment on the fact that Obama played more golf in his first term than Bush played in both and you're a racist.  Mention Chicago-style politics and you're a racist.  I was called a racist in an online debate because I criticized Obamacare.  Considering I've dated more black men than many black women I know, it just goes to show you how quick people are to play that oh-so-convenient race card.

Then there's the fact that Obama and his supporters forget that he was only elected with slightly more than 51% of the vote, yet they still consider that a mandate.   Obama's executive style is to declare his demands on a particular issue and the minute someone balks, instead of trying to find middle ground, he jumps on Air Force One and makes a half-dozen campaign-style stops around the country to whip people into a frenzy.  He is every bit as divisive as he makes the other side out to be. 

As far as "The party of hate", there are haters on both sides.  It's just that everyone believes "your haters are worse than our haters."



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on June 03, 2013, 08:20:13 PM
Don't be fooled by the popular vote. A president can be elected with less than 48% of the popular vote.

As for the race element, it is very evident in the most virulent Republican/neo-conservative/tea party rhetoric.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on June 03, 2013, 08:41:04 PM

It's not the color of Obama's skin that I have a problem with, considering I voted for him in 2008 (was a registered Democrat till 2010 - now "Unaffiliated"), but more with the thinness of it. Anyone remember attackwatch.org, the site set up to report people who criticize the President?

Then again, maybe it's the fact that the color of his skin seems to be an obsession with his supporters.  Comment on the fact that Obama played more golf in his first term than Bush played in both and you're a racist.  Mention Chicago-style politics and you're a racist.  I was called a racist in an online debate because I criticized Obamacare.  Considering I've dated more black men than many black women I know, it just goes to show you how quick people are to play that oh-so-convenient race card.

Then there's the fact that Obama and his supporters forget that he was only elected with slightly more than 51% of the vote, yet they still consider that a mandate. Obama's executive style is to declare his demands on a particular issue and the minute someone balks, instead of trying to find middle ground, he jumps on Air Force One and makes a half-dozen campaign-style stops around the country to whip people into a frenzy.  He is every bit as divisive as he makes the other side out to be. 

As far as "The party of hate", there are haters on both sides.  It's just that everyone believes "your haters are worse than our haters."



Kudos for a thoughtful, intelligent, and well-reasoned post.

Mandates are completely overrated. They're a tool for polemicists, but not politicians. Keep in mind there have been several U.S. presidents who were elected with less than 50% of the popular vote, including Clinton (barely 43% in 1992), Nixon (also 43% in 1968), and Wilson (45% in 1912). And, of course, there's Lincoln, widely considered our greatest president, who received 39% of the popular in 1860.

You're right, Republicans who criticize Obama are very frequently deemed "racist" by those on the Left (including several here on this board). It's a very tired canard, but a very persistent one. It usually follows this logical fallacy: some Republicans are racist, therefore all Republicans are racist.

Which, as have found and will continue to find, isn't very productive for those seeking an intelligent and open discussion...





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on June 03, 2013, 08:41:40 PM

As for the race element, it is very evident in the most virulent Republican/neo-conservative/tea party rhetoric.



As I was saying, lol...





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: m4mpetcock on June 03, 2013, 09:24:23 PM
Conservative Phyllis Schlafly: GOP Should Ignore Hispanics, Keep Women In Line


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/06/bill-richardson-ted-cruz-should-not-be-defined-as-a-hispanic/

The Washington Post

Bill Richardson: Ted Cruz should not ‘be defined as a Hispanic’
By Aaron Blake, Updated: May 6, 2013

Former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), a leading Hispanic voice in the Democratic Party, said Sunday that Republican Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) shouldn’t be considered a Hispanic.

Asked in a web interview with ABC’s “This Week” whether Cruz represents most Hispanics, Richardson said the senator does not. Then he went a step further and suggests Cruz himself shouldn’t be labeled as Hispanic.

“He’s anti-immigration. Almost every Hispanic in the country wants to see immigration reform,” Richardson said. “I don’t think he should be defined as a Hispanic.”

Cruz’s father is Cuban, and his mother is white.

The governor added that Cruz’s conduct has been beneath his office.

“I’ve seen him demean the office, be rude to other senators, not be part of, I think, the civility that is really needed in Washington,” Richardson said.

Richardson added: ”I’m not a fan. I know he’s sort of the Republican latest flavor. He’s articulate. He seems to be charismatic. But I don’t like his politics.”

While Richardson had tough words for Cruz, on the regular “This Week” program Democratic strategist James Carville praised Cruz’s political skills, calling him “the most talented and fearless Republican politician I’ve seen in the last 30 years.”


(End story)

See?  Because you can't be Hispanic and a Republican (or conservative).  In their eyes, one cancels out the other.  If you're black and a Republican, you're an "Uncle Tom".  If you're gay and a Republican or conservative, you're one of them "self-loathing" homosexuals.  So, if you happen to possess a trait of a demographic of which Democrats like to claim ownership, but aren't a Democrat, then you're defective in some way or another. 


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on June 03, 2013, 10:53:18 PM
For the record, if it walks like a duck quacks like a duck swims and flys like a duck, it's a duck, regardless of what people want to call it.

A rose by any other name...

The race and ethnic card was played by the Republucan party, by its fellow travelers, and by others who are loosely construed to be aligned with their policies.

I do not condone the use of these types of polemics by either party. You are who you are, not what soemeine wants you to be. The coral art to this is that I'd you lay down with dogs you'll get up with fleas, so choose your companions carefully.

Minorities of any stripe, and those who do not have large wealth are not well served by Republican policies in general and often in specifics. So to say gays and Hispanics can't be Republicans is over-reach, saying that they are supporting policies contrary to their core interests as members of those minorities is not.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on June 03, 2013, 11:58:06 PM
Don't think that I'm blinded by thoughts of philosophical purity in any party, or that I assume human perfection in actions. I know that these discussions are beleaguered with generalizations and mismatches between general statements and specific actions by individuals.

I don't think Republicans or conservatives are evil. I do think that many of their actions are drive by fear, self-interest, and other factors. I do think that the Democrats as less driven by fear.

There are nuances in all things.

I do prefer the democrats because I see less harm and greater good in their policies.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on June 04, 2013, 12:22:17 AM
As far as "The party of hate", there are haters on both sides.  It's just that everyone believes "your haters are worse than our haters."

I understand your POV, and I have no hope of trying to sway that opinion.

I simply suggest you read back through this thread - what I have observed since 2008 was a surge of hate and intolerance that overshadowed anything even remotely or legitimately wrong with Mr. Obama or his platform.

The majority of examples I have posted here are based in ignorance and intolerance...

Everything from "fuck that Socialist Muslim nigger" to "he's gay" - now, as thrilled as I would be to have a member of the LGBTQ community as POTUS - Obama is not one of us. And as for him being a Muslim - even IF he was... SO FUCKING WHAT? Last time I checked, America was supposed to be about Religious freedom. But if you read the Tea Party Blogs, this is a "CHRISTIAN NATION" - Yeahno... not-so-fucking-much. And to the point of Obama being Socialist... well anyone who actually understands the definition and can read and comprehend financial numbers, could see that the POTUS is a fucking TERRIBLE Socialist!

And the hate it is NOT exclusive to POTUS - The disrespect and insults hurled at the first African American Attorney General, Eric Holder or Susan Rice... (and I will, point out, the lack, of causation in those examples), and I am not focused on the general public - I am referring to the members of Congress and the Senate with a big (R) in front of their name.

I never saw this type of garbage hurled at Bush's cabinet... from some outraged citizens... yes. But not from the (D) Senate and Congress.

And honestly, even at this point, it is pretty hard to defend G.W. Bush as smart or a good POTUS.

To go back a little further, I never claimed the left side of our "one party system" here in the US has "no hate"... just a considerably lesser amount of it.




Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: m4mpetcock on June 04, 2013, 01:59:54 AM
As far as "The party of hate", there are haters on both sides.  It's just that everyone believes "your haters are worse than our haters."

I understand your POV, and I have no hope of trying to sway that opinion.

I simply suggest you read back through this thread - what I have observed since 2008 was a surge of hate and intolerance that overshadowed anything even remotely or legitimately wrong with Mr. Obama or his platform.

The majority of examples I have posted here are based in ignorance and intolerance...

Everything from "fuck that Socialist Muslim nigger" to "he's gay" - now, as thrilled as I would be to have a member of the LGBTQ community as POTUS - Obama is not one of us. And as for him being a Muslim - even IF he was... SO FUCKING WHAT? Last time I checked, America was supposed to be about Religious freedom. But if you read the Tea Party Blogs, this is a "CHRISTIAN NATION" - Yeahno... not-so-fucking-much. And to the point of Obama being Socialist... well anyone who actually understands the definition and can read and comprehend financial numbers, could see that the POTUS is a fucking TERRIBLE Socialist!

And the hate it is NOT exclusive to POTUS - The disrespect and insults hurled at the first African American Attorney General, Eric Holder or Susan Rice... (and I will, point out, the lack, of causation in those examples), and I am not focused on the general public - I am referring to the members of Congress and the Senate with a big (R) in front of their name.

I never saw this type of garbage hurled at Bush's cabinet... from some outraged citizens... yes. But not from the (D) Senate and Congress.

And honestly, even at this point, it is pretty hard to defend G.W. Bush as smart or a good POTUS.

To go back a little further, I never claimed the left side of our "one party system" here in the US has "no hate"... just a considerably lesser amount of it.




"And the hate it is NOT exclusive to POTUS - The disrespect and insults hurled at the first African American Attorney General, Eric Holder or Susan Rice... (and I will, point out, the lack, of causation in those examples), and I am not focused on the general public - I am referring to the members of Congress and the Senate with a big (R) in front of their name."

You seem to be mixing subjects here.  Criticism and racism are two different things entirely.  If you're saying Republican legislators have made racist comments, I'd love to see examples.  If you're talking about basic partisan criticism, that's another issue entirely. 

If you're implying that Democrats never showed disrespect or hurled insults at John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, or Condoleeza Rice, you must have slept thru the Bush years.

But this statement here, "The disrespect and insults hurled at the first African American Attorney General, Eric Holder or Susan Rice" basically falls closely with my earlier post.  Because they're African American, they should be held immune from criticism?  Like an Ambassador to the United Nations who went on talk shows stating something emphatically as if she knew it were fact, which was later proven to be false, shouldn't be criticized for not having bothered to ask any questions before going on those shows?  (Actually, I think she knew what she was doing.  Being a good soldier for Obama in hopes of landing a cabinet post...just like any presidential appointee would have done, regardless of their party affiliation.)

Or "the first African-American attorney general shouldn't be criticized for saying "not something I would ever be involved in", when he signed the warrant himself?  Bull-oney!

And should the hypocirsy of a president who, in 2012, was advocating Congress vote to give him basically unfettered approval at raising the debt ceiling at will, when just a few years before that, he was quoted as saying,

"America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."

-- Sen. Barack Obama, March 16, 2006



"And honestly, even at this point, it is pretty hard to defend G.W. Bush as smart or a good POTUS."

Never did.  Never will.  As I stated earlier, I was a Democrat until 2010, so you'll never find a record of me defending him.   


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on June 04, 2013, 02:21:33 AM
You miss the point of my post entirely.

I illustrated the Eric Holder & Susan Rice attacks not to defend them (especially on their race) or their actions (or lack of)... but to point out that it is one thing to question their actions, it is another for members of congress to say they "lack intellect" in the national news.

And you go even further away from the point of this thread by mentioning conflicting quotes and actions of the POTUS, when this thread was started to point out those who call him a Muslim nigger and pray for his death.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on June 04, 2013, 02:40:56 AM
...Minorities of any stripe, and those who do not have large wealth are not well served by Republican policies in general and often in specifics. So to say gays and Hispanics can't be Republicans is over-reach, saying that they are supporting policies contrary to their core interests as members of those minorities is not.

One of the best posts on this subject. I would add the note that both parties have many policies which are contrary to the interests of the people in general, and the future of our nation.

I don't think Republicans or conservatives are evil. I do think that many of their actions are driven by fear, self-interest, and other factors. I do think that the Democrats as less driven by fear.

Slightly, but this is one of the major factors for why I can't get myself to vote Republican on a national level anymore. I'm independant, but the GOP has almost completely ruined any chance of getting my vote. Let's hope they change the direction of some social issues... at the very least.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on June 06, 2013, 05:19:52 PM
Yes I heard anger directed at Bush, Rice, Cheney, etc., but none of what I heard was at the same level of the racist hatred I've heard directed at our current President.

Yes there were calls for Bush's death, but all I heard were from foreign sources.  I was a member of one board where an Australian member was saying we Americans should just shoot Bush in the head.  The Democrats on the board did not join in this call, but rather said: "We don't do thinks like that in America.  We will vote him out in four years."  Now compare that to what folks like Ted Nugent said about Obama.

If you really think the Democrats are just as bad, then please post your evidence.  Post pictures of Democrats calling Rice a monkey, N-word, etc. 


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on June 07, 2013, 03:28:44 PM
I know some Republicans who called Condi Rice a monkey N-word. They were upset Colin Powell was being allowed to speak in public... not exactly mainstream Republicans, but they were pretty much for party-line politics where the Republican involved was white. Yuck.

Both parties harbor racists, but if you like the idea of the government harboring racism, then the GOP is for you.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on June 07, 2013, 09:37:06 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/580272_584030404960760_2015925267_n.jpg)

Gotta love the Night Watchman...


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on June 07, 2013, 09:55:46 PM
The guy must be a moron if Rage Against the Machine is his favourite band. They're one of the few big rock bands that have a clear political message to their music and their politics are at the opposite end of the spectrum to the GOP. I know I couldn't listen to someone sing about how wrong it is to tax the rich no matter how cool the guitar riffs are. I mean, seriously. Who is he fooling?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4smim2MNvF8


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: coacheric on June 07, 2013, 10:04:14 PM
The guy must be a moron if Rage Against the Machine is his favourite band. They're one of the few big rock bands that have a clear political message to their music and their politics are at the opposite end of the spectrum to the GOP. I know I couldn't listen to someone sing about how wrong it is to tax the rich no matter how cool the guitar riffs are. I mean, seriously. Who is he fooling?

But I bet it looked real cool on paper as he wrote. it.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on June 09, 2013, 01:03:42 PM
(http://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/580672_530629393639758_735946540_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Bexy on June 09, 2013, 06:27:03 PM
Well, let's hope he reincarnates as a black gay moderate Muslim. Maybe then he'll understand there are people who have a lot harder life than straight Caucasian men... And yes, I excplitely added moderate, as most people seem to immediately associate Musllms with terrorism and extremism, whilst there are plentiful moderate Muslims who believe in 'live and let live' just like moderate Christians do.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on June 09, 2013, 09:52:16 PM
Political polarization when combined with fear leads to some particularly poor decisions.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on June 10, 2013, 07:06:00 PM
See the look on the cashier's face? Shit, I have to help this crazy old bastard?

She probably hates her life right now. She wishes he were a gay Muslim black man right now.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: TinyDancer on June 10, 2013, 07:11:12 PM
Listen to y'all....maybe, just maybe, he is on a fixed income and has to get donated clothing and this was only thing left for him.  I mean, that certainly would be the last thing I would choose to wear.   But still, if that is the case, he should wear it inside out so I reckon I'm just blowing smoke out my ass, lol.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on June 10, 2013, 07:19:23 PM
Or he has diminished mental capacity.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: TinyDancer on June 10, 2013, 07:27:42 PM
That could very well be the case Katiebee.....surely somebody in their right mind wouldn't wear that, be like a big target on their back.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on June 11, 2013, 07:10:37 PM
Fucking crybabies.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on June 13, 2013, 01:11:33 PM
(http://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1002079_536281119740905_1334401787_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on June 15, 2013, 02:44:07 PM
Good post, Toe. Love the talking about Jesus vs. following Jesus sections, that made me laugh.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on June 16, 2013, 01:49:22 AM
http://freakoutnation.com/2013/06/13/gop-rep-joe-heck-apologizes-for-son-obama-spear-chucking-says-faggot-and-ngga-on-twitter/

(http://nomorecocktails.com/images/JoeyHeckTweet3.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on June 22, 2013, 04:40:55 AM
There are hateful people in this world who only say stupid shit on the internet - and then... there are guys like this that are one psychotic episode away from climbing a bell tower.

(http://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1044163_499112270155281_534052590_n.png)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on June 22, 2013, 05:27:22 AM
*Walks across the street to laugh*


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on June 22, 2013, 10:43:14 PM
There are hateful people in this world who only say stupid shit on the internet - and then... there are guys like this that are one psychotic episode away from climbing a bell tower.

(http://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1044163_499112270155281_534052590_n.png)


"No wonder I walk alone and no one gets me."

Yes, no wonder...





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on June 22, 2013, 11:50:20 PM
I think my father would point out that he has never been relieved of his oath of office, and that the above illustrated induvidual may be one the people he took an oath against. A probable domestic enemy of the Constitution.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on June 26, 2013, 01:57:58 AM
(http://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1013675_534227826637094_1822586709_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on June 28, 2013, 03:24:15 AM
(http://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/941409_526348677428878_261891946_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on June 30, 2013, 11:00:57 PM
Totally "not racist" man takes down Confederate flag, replaces it with Nazi Flag until Obama is impeached, resigns

http://freakoutnation.com/2013/06/29/totally-not-racist-man-takes-down-confederate-flag-replaces-it-with-nazi-flag-until-obama-is-impeached-resigns/

...and this site just made me laugh out loud!

http://americanoverlook.com/


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on July 02, 2013, 12:09:25 AM
That could certainly make news of the weird.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on July 02, 2013, 05:16:07 PM
aND STILL MORE HATE ....


MONDAY, JUL 1, 2013 01:41 PM -0700
House GOPer introduces constitutional ban on same-sex marriage
Rep. Tim Huelskamp's amendment will fail, but it did pick up 28 co-sponsors
BY JILLIAN RAYFIELD

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision on the Defense of Marriage Act, conservative Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., has introduced a measure that would amend the Constitution so that it defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

The bill, called the Federal Marriage Amendment, is quite short:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Last week, the Supreme Court held that Section 3 of DOMA, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of receiving federal benefits, is unconstitutional.

Though there’s no chance that Huelskamp’s legislation will become law, 28 Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors to it, mostly unsurprising conservatives like Paul Broun, Ga., Trent Franks, Ariz., Louie Gohmert, Texas, Ralph Hall, Texas, Jim Jordan, Ohio, and Steve Stockman, Texas.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) previously cosponsored a similar Federal Marriage Amendment that failed to advance in July 2006. That vote was the last time Congress has voted on such a proposal. Requests for comment from Boehner’s and Cantor’s offices were not returned.

Some other notable Republicans who voted for the 2006 constitutional amendment aren’t currently cosponsoring Huelskamp’s bill. Among them are House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.).


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on July 09, 2013, 05:17:56 PM
The rainbow flag represents diversity, not just LBGT.  It is a flag for all of us.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: snowm on July 09, 2013, 07:09:58 PM
The rainbow flag represents diversity, not just LBGT.  It is a flag for all of us.
The confederate flag represents southern culture, not just hate, racism, and bigotry. It is a flag for all of us.

disclaimer: I hate the flying of the confederate flag in any circumstances, just making a point.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: snowm on July 09, 2013, 07:16:59 PM
The rainbow flag represents diversity, not just LBGT.  It is a flag for all of us.
The confederate flag represents southern culture, not just hate, racism, and bigotry. It is a flag for all of us.

disclaimer: I hate the flying of the confederate flag in any circumstances, just making a point.

I am a Southern male.  My ancestors owned plantations and slaves.  I disagree.  It may have once stood for something else, but the only thing it has stood for in my lifetime is "hate, racism, and bigotry."  End of story.

(http://www.jessejoyce.com/v2/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/kkk.jpg)


The point was to demonstrate that flags mean things to different people. Almost 100% of the US population identifies the rainbow flag as LGBT, not simply diversity. A lot of people in the south identify the confederate flag as representing something else besides bigotry, hate, and racism.

I am not trying to defend the confederate flag or convince anyone it means something besides what you or I said. Look at the disclaimer cocheese.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: snowm on July 09, 2013, 08:08:18 PM
Tough sometimes to differentiate between mindless trolling and pure and simple knuckle dragging ignorance.

Your opinion is not my concern, it is the more mindless readers seeing your drivel and thinking it is legitimate thought or reasoning.

oh hey btw, I'm just trolling you.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on July 09, 2013, 08:28:24 PM
The rainbow flag represents diversity, not just LBGT.  It is a flag for all of us.

Much and all as the introduction of a ban would be detestable, I think it's silly to suggest that it's a flag that represents diversity in a general sense. I'm sure that was the intention (and would be a good representation of diversity, in my opinion) but it has come to be associated with the LGBT.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on July 10, 2013, 05:06:21 PM
It has come to symbolize the LBGT community, but I also remember it from Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition where it represented all the colors of the rainbow meaning everyone.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on July 10, 2013, 07:43:33 PM

The point is, if burning the US flag is protected political speech, then certainly FLYING THE LGBT FLAG IS ALSO PROTECTED POLITICAL SPEECH.

So, passing a LAW (you know, the gubment, the folks the Constitution is designed to protect you from) that prohibits flying a LGBT rainbow flag in a public place is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Now, if the Teahaddist, the old people, and the "Vets who didn't go to Korea so gays could be seen in public", folks would just GET THEIR SHIT TOGETHER AND READ THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE THEY START PASSING NEW LAWS, we'd all be better off.

End of rant.



And protesting, condemning, even proposing laws banning the "LGBT flag" and what it represents is also "PROTECTED POLITICAL SPEECH." The "Teahaddists, the old people, and the 'Vets who didn't go to Korea so gays could be seen in public' folks" are also guaranteed the right by "THE CONSTITUTION" to protest, condemn, and propose laws banning it.

Nice how that works out, isn't it?




Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on July 10, 2013, 07:53:26 PM
The point is, if burning the US flag is protected political speech, then certainly FLYING THE LGBT FLAG IS ALSO PROTECTED POLITICAL SPEECH.

So, passing a LAW (you know, the gubment, the folks the Constitution is designed to protect you from) that prohibits flying a LGBT rainbow flag in a public place is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Now, if the Teahaddist, the old people, and the "Vets who didn't go to Korea so gays could be seen in public", folks would just GET THEIR SHIT TOGETHER AND READ THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE THEY START PASSING NEW LAWS, we'd all be better off.

End of rant.



Well clearly they know it's unconstitutional and the law is not being introduced in any hope of being passed but to make a political point, disgusting as that point may be. Or maybe I'm just cynical.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on July 10, 2013, 08:04:20 PM
The point is, if burning the US flag is protected political speech, then certainly FLYING THE LGBT FLAG IS ALSO PROTECTED POLITICAL SPEECH.

So, passing a LAW (you know, the gubment, the folks the Constitution is designed to protect you from) that prohibits flying a LGBT rainbow flag in a public place is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Now, if the Teahaddist, the old people, and the "Vets who didn't go to Korea so gays could be seen in public", folks would just GET THEIR SHIT TOGETHER AND READ THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE THEY START PASSING NEW LAWS, we'd all be better off.

End of rant.


Well clearly they know it's unconstitutional and the law is not being introduced in any hope of being passed but to make a political point, disgusting as that point may be. Or maybe I'm just cynical.



Cynical or not, I think that's precisely the point of this bill. Besides, even if it were to pass, it would quickly be declared unconstitutional by the relevant court.





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on July 10, 2013, 08:34:54 PM

The point is, if burning the US flag is protected political speech, then certainly FLYING THE LGBT FLAG IS ALSO PROTECTED POLITICAL SPEECH.

So, passing a LAW (you know, the gubment, the folks the Constitution is designed to protect you from) that prohibits flying a LGBT rainbow flag in a public place is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Now, if the Teahaddist, the old people, and the "Vets who didn't go to Korea so gays could be seen in public", folks would just GET THEIR SHIT TOGETHER AND READ THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE THEY START PASSING NEW LAWS, we'd all be better off.

End of rant.



And protesting, condemning, even proposing laws banning the "LGBT flag" and what it represents is also "PROTECTED POLITICAL SPEECH." The "Teahaddists, the old people, and the 'Vets who didn't go to Korea so gays could be seen in public' folks" are also guaranteed the right by "THE CONSTITUTION" to protest, condemn, and propose laws banning it.

Nice how that works out, isn't it?




1.  Protesting, condemning, even proposing laws banning the "LGBT flag" is PROTECTED POLITICAL SPEECH under the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment.  Agreed.

2.  The government passing a law banning the "LGBT flag" is UNCONSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT, a waste of taxpayers money, and prohibited.

You see, #1 is speech by private citizens.  The other is an act of legislation by the government, it is not speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


Thanks for the Civics lesson, but please read what I wrote. I try to chose my words carefully, and note that I wrote "proposing laws." A Louisiana state legislator -- or anyone else, for that matter -- has a Constitutionally guaranteed right, as outlined in the passage you highlighted, to propose whatever the hell they want. It's Constitutionally guaranteed Free Speech, just as you indicate.

If such a law were actually passed, only then would it violate the First Amendment. And, as I noted above, it would also be quickly declared unconstitutional.




Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: snowm on July 11, 2013, 12:06:17 AM
"Vets who didn't go to Korea so gays could be seen in public",

I love that toe, classic. :)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on July 13, 2013, 02:55:34 AM
The danger is anyone (gay, straight, atheist, religious, conservative, or liberal) taking themselves too seriously.

The most hateful people in the GOP take themselves too seriously, and it makes for salient news. The news isn't liberally biased, it's just too easy and profitable to ridicule the ridiculously extreme morons of the GOP.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on July 19, 2013, 01:40:16 AM
(http://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/999682_536842729696567_849272151_n.jpg)

Nugent: "The Black Problem" Could Be Solved If Blacks Put "Heart And Soul Into Being Honest" And "Law-Abiding"
mediamatters.org/blog/2013/07/17/nugent-the-black-problem-could-be-solved-if-bla/194927

That Awkward Moment When The Tea Party Rally Gets Overtly Racist
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/gop-anti-immigration_n_3618392.html


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on July 20, 2013, 10:45:25 PM
If only Ted Nugent's vocal cords exploded at the moment he sang the last note of Cat Scratch Fever... what a fucking asshole.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: KinkyKacey on July 20, 2013, 11:44:13 PM
Several of my friends (Detroit area) that you'd think he'd be getting all kinds of props from due to their zealousness (political, military, gun-toting NRAish, hunter sports 'enthusiast') all tend to feel the same way. An asshole and an embarrassment. I pretty much am in agreement. He always does a lot to keep himself in news, on radio,etc. Makes him look like a not-grown-up attention-whore...oddly enough the name that just came to mind similarly is Ann Coulter...
I just :roll: and ignore as much as possible when I hear about either.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: DanteDC on July 22, 2013, 05:06:04 AM
I thought he was supposed to be dead or in jail.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on July 24, 2013, 07:17:08 AM
Wow!  Calling a 14 year old girl a whore.  What a classy bunch of people.

Quote
My dad came to my defense online, but for the first time I am outing myself publicly. I'm 14. Please stop calling me a whore.
I'm a 14-year-old girl who has lived in Austin, Texas, my whole life. I like art, music and talking on the phone with my friends. When I grow up, I'd like to become a science teacher.

I also believe in the right to choose and the separation of church and state. Or to put it another way -- to put it the way I wrote it when I was protesting at the Capitol last week:

"Jesus isn't a dick so keep him out of my vagina."

Yes, that's my sign.

I came up with it last week when my friend and I were trying to think of ideas for what would get people's attention to protest the scary restrictions that are happening in my state trying to take away a woman's right to safe and accessible abortions.

It worked.

When my friend and I took turns holding the sign, one of the pictures of her went viral.

Then my dad went online to defend the sign on Twitter and other online forums.

That's when people started calling me a "whore."

I'm going to be honest about what it feels like to be called that as a 14-year-old girl who has never had sex and who doesn't plan to have sex anytime soon.

I feel disappointed. [snip]

my dad woke me up so that I could watch the Wendy Davis filibuster the night that she tried to prevent this legislation from passing the first time. I remember thinking that I was proud to be from Texas watching her stand up for what is right. [emphasis added]

That was when I told my parents that I wanted to join in the protests. I have seen anti-abortion protesters at a clinic near our house, and it makes me upset to see women who are facing this hard decision being told that Jesus condemns them.

I guess I don't think it seems very Christian to me. [snip]

Normally, I prefer to look up to adults as role models. But what is happening in Texas right now it's hard to find adults who I want to look up to.

I don't look up to an adult who is taking away a woman's right to choose.

I don't look up to an adult who is calling a 14-year-old girl a whore.

I don't look up to an adult who is screaming in my face and saying I am ugly.
And I certainly don't look up to anyone who says they are Christian but treats women the way I've been treated these past few days as a teenage girl.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on July 24, 2013, 07:25:56 AM
Their ecstasy of religious furor has surpassed their sense of decency and ethics. We won't bother to drag morality into it.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on July 25, 2013, 07:46:26 AM
It is thoughtful, rational people like her that make me hopeful about the future. Please, please, please let her get what she wants!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on July 31, 2013, 06:26:40 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/39272_555920674443616_2079633171_n.jpg)

More or less the same mentality as Romney displayed in that 47% comment. What's scary is not so much that these politicians say thigs like that, it's that the people with the money who the politicians are addressing think like that.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on July 31, 2013, 10:18:38 PM
Not enough money for national defense!?!? Is he fucking retarded? What the holy fuck does he expect the whole goddamn world to attack us at once, all with conventional weapons!?!?

The largest air force in the world is the United States Air Force. The second largest? The United States Marine Corps, of course. The military force of the United States is comparable to the next twelve nations in the world COMBINED. We build planes and tanks the pentagon says outright we will never, ever need or use... yet we demonize the poor? This man is the very definition of the word asshole.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Bexy on July 31, 2013, 10:52:06 PM
Not enough money for national defense!?!? Is he fucking retarded? What the holy fuck does he expect the whole goddamn world to attack us at once, all with conventional weapons!?!?

The largest air force in the world is the United States Air Force. The second largest? The United States Marine Corps, of course. The military force of the United States is comparable to the next twelve nations in the world COMBINED. We build planes and tanks the pentagon says outright we will never, ever need or use... yet we demonize the poor? This man is the very definition of the word asshole.



Hey! I'd be weary of those Belgians if I were you. You know, if we decide to launch a military attack on the USA, I'm sure the blow delivered by our 15 paratroopers, two jeeps and eh...one helicopter we own...ughh nevermind...


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: phtlc on July 31, 2013, 10:57:19 PM
Hey! I'd be weary of those Belgians if I were you. You know, if we decide to launch a military attack on the USA, I'm sure the blow delivered by our 15 paratroopers, two jeeps and eh...one helicopter we own...ughh nevermind...[/color]


Oh my god...you're military is even mightier than Canada's


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Fish on August 01, 2013, 03:31:37 PM
Your fifteen paratroopers need to get a lift from a neighbouring country's 1960's plane, else jump from a building.

Yeah, the military is likely the defining trait of the United States, unfortunately. I apologize to the rest of the world profusely whenever I can- we are just fat morons with guns at this point.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on August 09, 2013, 11:40:36 AM
Bye Bye Black sheep? No - this was not racially motivated!

Racist taunts at Obama should worry us all
By Matthew C. Whitaker, Special to CNN
www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/opinion/whitaker-obama-arizona-race/index.html


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: gomez38555 on August 09, 2013, 02:58:41 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/07/07/2261821/louisiana-republican-introduces-bill-to-ban-lgbt-rainbow-flag-from-public-buildings/?mobile=wp (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/07/07/2261821/louisiana-republican-introduces-bill-to-ban-lgbt-rainbow-flag-from-public-buildings/?mobile=wp)

Louisiana Republican Introduces Bill To Ban LGBT Rainbow Flag From Public Buildings
Think Progress
By Adam Peck
Jul 7, 2013 at 11:19 am

A city councilman in Louisiana is drafting a new set of ordinances that would ban the flying of rainbow flags on any public property after a constituent took umbrage with one such flag that was raised by a local LGBT organization.

In celebration of National Pride Month and the demise of the Defense of Marriage Act last month, members of the LGBT community in Lafayette, Louisiana gathered in Girard Park for the annual Pride in the Park celebration. Local paper The Daily Advertiser was there to cover the event, and ran a photo in the next day’s paper of participants hoisting the rainbow flag that has come to represent the LGBT community.

Ray Green, a veteran of the Korean War, saw the photograph and brought it to the attention of Andy Noquin, a City-Parish councilman, who is now drafting legislation that would outlaw the flying of the rainbow flag — and any other non-government flag — in any public venue.

Green, who served in the Korean War, told the Daily Advertiser that he found the flag offensive:

“I did not go overseas and fight for our country so that we could come back and be subject to something like that,” Green said Friday. “Several of us (veterans) feel that the flying of this flag is a poke in the eye of a way of life.”

Opponents of the proposed ordinance say no disrespect was intended, and were quick to point out that there are thousands of gay veterans who have fought for their country as well.

Green told the paper that while he is not “against the gays,” he is opposed to “the act itself.”

There already exists a firm set of federal laws that govern the flying of the American flag on public property, including a provision that says no flag may fly higher than the American flag on the same property. Organizers of the Pride in the Park event say that no American flags were removed while hoisting their own flag.

Actually, the bill, if passed, would not ban the rainbow flag, merely not allow it's being flown from public buildings. With this I agree.

Neither that flag, nor any other, with the exception of state flags and the U.S. flag should be flown in front of public buildings.  We are seeing this same thing concerning the confederate flag, and the left has no problem with that, but a flag they support is okay.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on August 09, 2013, 03:05:24 PM
The legislation should be written to prohibit ALL flags except the state, and national flags being flown from public buildings.

What is really being shown by specifically banning ONE particular flag, is rank stupidity.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on August 09, 2013, 03:18:05 PM
In the case if the quoted article, bearing flags of other nature, even on public property is a function of the first amendment.

As veterans they SHOULD understand that, and that is exactly why they served.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: gomez38555 on August 09, 2013, 03:27:10 PM
This reminds me of a story I read some years ago, and was able to find, about fighting for our beliefs and the use of them.

http://windsofchange.net/archives/003275.html (http://windsofchange.net/archives/003275.html)

I got off my train in Rosslyn because I had to use the bathroom and the train was moving quite slowly. When I was getting back on the train, there were protestors on the train platform handing out pamphlets on the evils of America. I politely declined to take one.

An elderly woman was behind me getting off the escalator and a young (20ish) female protestor offered her a pamphlet, she politely declined.�The young protestor put her hand on the old woman's shoulder as a guesture of friendship and in a very soft voice said, "Ma'am, don't you care about the children of Iraq?"

The old woman looked up at her and said: "Honey, my first husband died in France during World War II so you could have the right to stand here and bad mouth your country. And if you touch me again, I'll stick this umbrella up your ass and open it."

I'm glad to report that loud applause broke out among the onlookers and the young protestor was at a total loss for words."


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on August 09, 2013, 04:13:50 PM
I object to the characterization as bad mouthing your country. She has a legitimate issue with not wanting the literature, and a personal issue losing a husband.

But the entire story seems to be on the level of one of those feel indignant stories common on the Internet, that are pure creative fiction.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on August 10, 2013, 12:21:43 AM
Bye Bye Black sheep? No - this was not racially motivated!

Racist taunts at Obama should worry us all
By Matthew C. Whitaker, Special to CNN
www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/opinion/whitaker-obama-arizona-race/index.html

This is really, really, sad.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on August 15, 2013, 10:14:19 PM
Today, Robert Bob and his pals "discuss" the Clinton/Obama connection (before a new (N) takes his job!):

(http://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/859436_557024437690766_601094714_o.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: snowm on August 16, 2013, 05:55:57 PM
You know what annoys me about this thread, if I was to quote some nimrod democrat on facebook spewing ignorant hate filled drivel, it would be met here with hate and disgust.

Whereas on KB we get to title a thread party of hate and quote a no name fb post as a rationale for hating an entire political belief system. Everyone sits back and accepts it or qq's in another section about other participants disagreeing with them.

Weaksauce.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on August 16, 2013, 09:19:03 PM
You know what annoys me about this thread, if I was to quote some nimrod democrat on facebook spewing ignorant hate filled drivel, it would be met here with hate and disgust.

Whereas on KB we get to title a thread party of hate and quote a no name fb post as a rationale for hating an entire political belief system. Everyone sits back and accepts it or qq's in another section about other participants disagreeing with them.

Weaksauce.

Why not respond with hate and disgust then?

"You assholes never respond to things the way I want you to."


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on August 16, 2013, 11:00:44 PM
You know what annoys me about this thread, if I was to quote some nimrod democrat on facebook spewing ignorant hate filled drivel, it would be met here with hate and disgust.

Whereas on KB we get to title a thread party of hate and quote a no name fb post as a rationale for hating an entire political belief system. Everyone sits back and accepts it or qq's in another section about other participants disagreeing with them.

Weaksauce.

(http://static2.fjcdn.com/comments/You+_791e4fbe986de29c81706274f15dfddd.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: coacheric on August 16, 2013, 11:03:50 PM
Why not respond with hate and disgust then?

"You assholes never respond to things the way I want you to."

ASSHOLE, that's not how I would have answered him!

(http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/before-you-diagnose-yourself-with-depression-or-low-self-esteem-first-make-sure-in-fact-you-are-not-surrounded-by-assholes.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on August 17, 2013, 12:14:34 AM

You know what annoys me about this thread, if I was to quote some nimrod democrat on facebook spewing ignorant hate filled drivel, it would be met here with hate and disgust.

Whereas on KB we get to title a thread party of hate and quote a no name fb post as a rationale for hating an entire political belief system. Everyone sits back and accepts it or qq's in another section about other participants disagreeing with them.

Weaksauce.



Snowm, this will come as something as a shock to you, but you DO have the ability to post details about "some nimrod democrat spewing ignorant hate filled drivel," in this thread or in another thread you create, any time you want.




Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: snowm on August 17, 2013, 12:56:08 AM

You know what annoys me about this thread, if I was to quote some nimrod democrat on facebook spewing ignorant hate filled drivel, it would be met here with hate and disgust.

Whereas on KB we get to title a thread party of hate and quote a no name fb post as a rationale for hating an entire political belief system. Everyone sits back and accepts it or qq's in another section about other participants disagreeing with them.

Weaksauce.



Snowm, this will come as something as a shock to you, but you DO have the ability to post details about "some nimrod democrat spewing ignorant hate filled drivel," in this thread or in another thread you create, any time you want.




You're right I do, but I am not as small minded as to dismiss half the country's political beliefs based on a few soundbites, memes, or jackasses on fb.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: snowm on August 17, 2013, 01:01:40 AM

You're right I do, but I am not as small minded as to dismiss half the country's political beliefs based on a few soundbites, memes, or jackasses on fb.


I think you completely underestimate yourself.



I think you over estimate the relevance of your opinion to me.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on August 17, 2013, 01:19:32 AM
More Robert Bob for snowm:

(http://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1116240_557977000928843_1177811686_o.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: snowm on August 17, 2013, 10:08:11 PM
Instead of getting any political commentary out of that thread, I can certainly lol at the balls people think they grow when typing in blogs and fb posts safely behind a screen.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on August 24, 2013, 10:43:10 AM
Ya'll remember earlier this year when washed up, redneck rocker, Ted Nugent made a thinly veiled threat against the POTUS? He never made good on that promise... we are still waiting, asshole!

http://countingdownto.com/countdown/176293

Wango Tango?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNiCmJpeTP8


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on August 29, 2013, 12:15:54 AM
Maine town official gets a visit from Secret Service for racist post on Facebook, calling for Obama to be shot
August 28, 2013
By Anomaly


A town official in Maine was paid a visit by the Secret Service Tuesday after posting, “Shoot that nigger.” in regards to President Obama. The 68 year-old official explains, “What I really meant to say is, ‘When are we going to get rid of this nigger?’” He added, “I should have said, ‘I hope the bastard dies.’”

(http://freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Marsters-250x180.jpg)

http://freakoutnation.com/2013/08/28/maine-town-official-gets-a-visit-from-secret-service-for-racist-post-on-facebook-calling-for-obama-to-be-shot/


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 03, 2013, 01:05:51 AM
Today, Robert Bob and his teabagger pals "discuss" Obama and his "MUZZIE"/"GAY" connections, "what FOX said", bacon, Benghazi, Syria and the UN:

(http://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/774416_565140016879208_1940440616_o.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 04, 2013, 08:54:14 AM
Scary.  Not to violate Godwin's Law, but Hitler would have loved FB.

(http://i4.bebo.com/006/large/2006/04/06/11/523614937a544410210b73704705l.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 05, 2013, 01:17:12 AM
Robert Bob and Pals are fired up about "UN"

(http://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1271151_566082296784980_2054994753_o.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 11, 2013, 02:41:55 AM
Robert Bob and Pals discuss... wait for it.... BEN GHAZI!
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1231267_569254756467734_1765295000_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on September 11, 2013, 05:55:01 PM
Robert Bob and Pals discuss... wait for it.... BEN GHAZI!
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1231267_569254756467734_1765295000_n.jpg)


I'm having a hard time understanding the gastrointestinal points he raises. Smoke in and garbage out? How's that even possible?

But this might be the perfect cure for chronic constipation. If, simply by blowing smoke in it will cause the garbage to come out, well, he's on the cusp of a medical miracle.

I also suspect this man is a closeted homosexual, given his obsession with his anal region, and what goes in and out of it.

(Sorry, I'm in a very silly mood today...)






Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on September 11, 2013, 06:00:09 PM
The whole Benghazi conspiracy leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

They ignore physics, actual resources, political requirements before deploying those resources (we were in another sovereign country), and the probable outcomes of deployment.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Janus on September 11, 2013, 06:14:24 PM
The whole Benghazi conspiracy leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

They ignore physics, actual resources, political requirements before deploying those resources (we were in another sovereign country), and the probable outcomes of deployment.



I firmly believe that there HAS indeed been a cover up RE: Benghazi..... I also feel that the ball was dropped big time and that nobody wants to just tell the people that they fucked up, Which would gain a little more respect from me if not  many other Americans. 


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 13, 2013, 02:40:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6jU_Yfv_Ow

http://aattp.org/watch-painfully-stupid-overpasses-for-impeachment-attendees-caught-on-tape/


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on September 14, 2013, 01:14:30 AM
I firmly believe that there HAS indeed been a cover up RE: Benghazi..... I also feel that the ball was dropped big time and that nobody wants to just tell the people that they fucked up, Which would gain a little more respect from me if not  many other Americans.  

Seriously?

(http://i.imgur.com/h0fGrFkh.jpg)


*Edit for size adjustment


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 17, 2013, 03:04:15 PM
This morning, Robert Bob and Pals discuss.... The DC shooter!

(http://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1278094_572197099506833_182038297_o.jpg)

I can't understand why people think these fine, upstanding Tea Party supporters are a bunch of racist, uneducated, cousin-fucking morons! I mean, just read through the eloquent prose.

These people are true patriots!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 25, 2013, 05:19:09 AM
Whats up everyone? Welcome to Robert Bobs Teabagger Roundtable.
Todays topic: The government Sh... umm... what?


(http://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/578514_575384802521396_968901410_n.jpg)

Bonus!

(http://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1238118_575746952485181_1475582658_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 25, 2013, 01:47:14 PM
Good morning everyone, and welcome to Teabagger Roundtable.
This morning's topic: The Keystone Pipeline


(http://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1264515_575774712482405_1870762198_o.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 27, 2013, 11:24:58 PM
Good morning everyone, and welcome to Teabagger Roundtable.
This morning's topic: Robert Bob and pals identify the ACA as a Ponzi scheme!


(http://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1379981_576567182403158_868767476_n.jpg)

What I wonder is this: Have any of them googled "Ponzi scheme" to find out what it is... I don't think they are clear on the subject they're talking about...

No.... probably not.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on September 28, 2013, 12:25:48 AM
They also don't seem to understand that the government isn't insuring them. Independent commercial companies are offering policies. The ACA is NOT A single payer system run by the federal government. It is a market driven commercial collective of independent insurance companies.

Why do they hate capitalism?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 28, 2013, 02:28:26 AM
Why do they hate capitalism?

They just hate that the "muzlum" done it...

Poll Reveals Divide On Obamacare, Affordable Care Act... Even Though They're The Same Thing!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/27/obamacare-affordable-care-act_n_4002225.html

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/27/poll-more-oppose-obamacare-than-affordable-care-act/

http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-obamacare-affordable-care-act-aca-implementation-exchanges-2013-9


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 29, 2013, 01:12:59 AM
Good afternoon everyone, and welcome to Robert Bobs Teabagger Roundtable.
This afternoon's topic: The USA is a Republic, not a Democracy. Oh, and Obama is the new Hitler.


(http://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1237195_576999649026578_85486298_o.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on October 01, 2013, 09:21:32 PM
If the Republican candidates have any sense of decency, they will denounce this game, and refuse to take money from this group.

Yah.... that's gonna happen... pfft!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on October 01, 2013, 10:22:31 PM
Last night, the RB Teabagger Roundtable held a special session to watch the government shutdown in real time, to great jubilation!

(http://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1381211_578405902219286_1865448428_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on October 02, 2013, 11:32:35 PM
Good afternoon everyone, and welcome to Teabagger Roundtable.
Todays topic: Do you need photo ID for Obamacare?


(http://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1294494_578963362163540_2040028422_o.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 10, 2013, 05:04:58 PM
(http://media.tumblr.com/f1dc950e45c64496947c55478c35619a/tumblr_inline_mu24g7n9pH1qawfnh.png)

Yep, and who says you aren't racist?  I sure can't believe you.  You should soon be visited by the secret service, along with the rest of these douche bags:

http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/62927287232/people-who-will-soon-be-visited-by-the-secret-service


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on October 10, 2013, 07:44:35 PM
Just because the GOP is a party of mostly old white men doesn't mean they are a party of hate.  Just means their mentality is from the 1950s when most minorities were considered inferior and women were meant to stay at home and have babies.  Sad to say their thinking hasn't evolved much since then but I don't think you can label them a party of hate. Confused? Yes.  But some members of the GOP seem to see what the future holds for them if they stay their course and are trying to bring the GOP up into the 21st century.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on October 10, 2013, 08:15:07 PM

Just because the GOP is a party of mostly old white men doesn't mean they are a party of hate.  Just means their mentality is from the 1950s when most minorities were considered inferior and women were meant to stay at home and have babies.  Sad to say their thinking hasn't evolved much since then but I don't think you can label them a party of hate. Confused? Yes.  But some members of the GOP seem to see what the future holds for them if they stay their course and are trying to bring the GOP up into the 21st century.


That's a good point, Watcher. I'd add "and gays and lesbians didn't exist" to your description of their view of the 1950s. And, of course, the GOP isn't only a party of old white men, but also old white women, and young white men and women as well. But I still think you're spot on.

I think it all boils down to reactionaryism. The 1950s mentality you describe leads to them to yearn for that mythological Golden Age, and, thus, act toward returning the country to that Golden Age. Meanwhile, progress is stampeding by them, as the results of the last two presidential elections demonstrate.

Perhaps you're right, perhaps "hate" isn't the right word. But I think "fear" is. And fear very often leads to hatred...




Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on October 10, 2013, 09:58:25 PM



Perhaps you're right, perhaps "hate" isn't the right word. But I think "fear" is. And fear very often leads to hatred...




Yes,  Exactly.  I think the reason integration isn't widespread or took so long to happen was not so much hate but of fear.....fear of the unknown.  Unfortunately, it has happened whenever a minority group tries to assimilate into our society.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on October 10, 2013, 10:03:31 PM

Perhaps you're right, perhaps "hate" isn't the right word. But I think "fear" is. And fear very often leads to hatred...



Yes,  Exactly.  I think the reason integration isn't widespread or took so long to happen was not so much hate but of fear.....fear of the unknown.  Unfortunately, it has happened whenever a minority group tries to assimilate into our society.



Exactly. And when a minority group assimilates into our society, it changes our society. And there's nothing a reactionary fears (and hates) more than change...





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Janus on October 10, 2013, 10:08:17 PM

Exactly. And when a minority group assimilates into our society, it changes our society. And there's nothing a reactionary fears (and hates) more than change...



I think most folks realize that change is inevitable. Its control is the key. Is best to use your breaks when rolling down hill. Lest it become an out of control situation. YES?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on October 10, 2013, 10:12:47 PM

I think most folks realize that change is inevitable. Its control is the key. Is best to use your breaks when rolling down hill. Lest it become an out of control situation. YES?


:hitler: Use your breaks? Just kidding, janus.  Couldn't resist.  


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 10, 2013, 11:08:22 PM
Just because the GOP is a party of mostly old white men doesn't mean they are a party of hate.  Just means their mentality is from the 1950s when most minorities were considered inferior and women were meant to stay at home and have babies.  Sad to say their thinking hasn't evolved much since then but I don't think you can label them a party of hate. Confused? Yes.  But some members of the GOP seem to see what the future holds for them if they stay their course and are trying to bring the GOP up into the 21st century.

I believe it's a party of hate because no one within the GOP is saying "I don't agree with this racist stuff".  They are too terrified they will scare the hate mongers out because they need their votes too much.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: snowm on October 10, 2013, 11:28:15 PM
What racist stuff? not liking Obama?

Posting the brain throw up of some dumb shit racist putting crap on facebook isn't really representative of the entire party...


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: m4mpetcock on October 10, 2013, 11:51:43 PM
What racist stuff? not liking Obama?

Posting the brain throw up of some dumb shit racist putting crap on facebook isn't really representative of the entire party...

It is around here.  Said the same thing yesterday. 

1.  Find extreme lunatic fringe
2.  Verify they're conservative, Republican, or Tea Party (cuz if you try it with a liberal, they YOU are cherry picking)
3.  Find broadest brush possible
4.  Paint entire community with said brush, associating lunatic with anyone who has ever used the word(s) Republican, conservative, or Tea Party.
5.  Lather
6.  Rinse
7.  Repeat.  Repeat.  Repeat. 



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on October 11, 2013, 01:22:23 AM
I believe it's a party of hate because no one within the GOP is saying "I don't agree with this racist stuff".  They are too terrified they will scare the hate mongers out because they need their votes too much.

I agree a small minority in the GOP is calling most of the shots but to say the entire GOP is a party of hate may be too much. Cowards may be a better word for those you say are too terrified to call their fellow GOP-ers out.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: snowm on October 24, 2013, 11:53:22 PM
North Carolina GOP Official Who Called Blacks 'Lazy' In Daily Show Voter ID Interview Resigns

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/lazy-blacks-daily-show_n_4159210.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/lazy-blacks-daily-show_n_4159210.html)

good, he should have been fired


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on November 02, 2013, 12:18:16 AM
PA Men Dress Up As KKK Lynching President Obama at “Hillbilly Haven”

http://www.classwarfareexists.com/pa-men-dress-up-as-kkk-lynching-president-obama-at-hillbilly-haven/

(http://www.classwarfareexists.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Coughenour-4.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on December 02, 2013, 04:15:42 PM
Just a touch of irony in the final paragraph...


GOP’s massive 2013 mistake: How the party ignored its terminal illness

Celebrating Obamacare's troubles, Republicans finish the year ignoring lessons it was supposed to learn from 2012

(http://media.salon.com/2013/12/bachmann_cruz_king-620x412.jpg)



http://www.salon.com/2013/12/01/the_gop_ignores_its_terminal_illness/


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on December 02, 2013, 06:29:36 PM
Lois, there is no monopoly on stupidity when it comes to politics.  


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on December 02, 2013, 07:41:36 PM

Lois, there is no monopoly on stupidity when it comes to politics.  



I suspect this is the same thing that you're saying, Watcher, but I truly hope that Democrats don't give an ounce of credence to the thoughts expressed in this rather silly article. If they do, then they are in grave danger of suffering significant losses in the 2014 mid-term elections.

Though this author laughingly dismisses the “Can Obama recover?” question, it might be the most germane question of all. As the president continues to shoot himself -- and, thus, his party -- in the foot through a seemingly unending series of blunders, missteps, and misstatements, this can't but redound to the benefit of the GOP. And this author's calm reassurance that Obama's recovered before and he'll recover this time, too, might prove breathtakingly naive.

Add to that, as those on the Left continue to lambast the GOP for it's extortionate obstructionism with the ACA and several other national issues, this same obstructionism resonates very strongly with many potential GOP voters. This point was made abundantly clear right here on KB.

Finally, the "Hispanic vote," like virtually every other perceived voting bloc, is massively overrated. An uptick in Hispanic votes played virtually no role in re-electing Obama in 2012, and even had the GOP won 30-40% of the "Hispanic vote," Romney still would have lost the election. Down the road, Hispanics will play a larger and larger role in electoral politics, simply be sheer force of numbers. But, for now, I'm tempted to think that that this isn't a "massive mistake" at all, and the GOP is perfectly aware of these facts, and has chosen to focus its efforts elsewhere.





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Janus on December 02, 2013, 09:23:10 PM

Down the road, Hispanics will play a larger and larger role in electoral politics, simply be sheer force of numbers.

[/b]

And because there is a HUGE amount of Hispanic Illegal aliens and the Democrats are doing everything they can to ensure those trespassers are allowed citizenship, it stands to reason that the amount of those illegals will be voting democratic. Not too dissimilar to the welfare recipients who vote for democrats, because they keep attempting to stay on government assistance and they continue to receive it. Seems they have voted democratically too. Really it is all in the numbers. You know, sheer volume.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on December 02, 2013, 09:33:03 PM

I suspect this is the same thing that you're saying, Watcher,



It's just that I keep thinking of the Peter Principle and how many politicians we have elected who have easily attained their level of incompetence, all to the detriment of us simple folk.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on December 02, 2013, 10:44:36 PM
I think the numbers are not what you think, Janus, nor do you know the population of those on welfare or their voting habits. Most of the demographic on welfare that you are referencing do not vote.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on December 02, 2013, 11:56:07 PM

Down the road, Hispanics will play a larger and larger role in electoral politics, simply be sheer force of numbers.


And because there is a HUGE amount of Hispanic Illegal aliens and the Democrats are doing everything they can to ensure those trespassers are allowed citizenship, it stands to reason that the amount of those illegals will be voting democratic. Not too dissimilar to the welfare recipients who vote for democrats, because they keep attempting to stay on government assistance and they continue to receive it. Seems they have voted democratically too. Really it is all in the numbers. You know, sheer volume.



Nonsense. Illegal Hispanics don't vote. I realize that those who share your Xenophobic and borderline racist philosophy insist that illegal Hispanic voters skew every election, but there are no facts to support that claim.

Even if it's true that "Democrats are doing everything they can to ensure those trespassers [sic] are allowed citizenship," they cannot grant them citizenship, and thus voting rights. That will take Law passed by Congress. You know, following the U.S. Constitution.

And speaking of "borderline racist," your assertions about "welfare recipients" are based on ignorance and, it seems, little more.




Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Janus on December 03, 2013, 12:38:45 AM

Down the road, Hispanics will play a larger and larger role in electoral politics, simply be sheer force of numbers.


And because there is a HUGE amount of Hispanic Illegal aliens and the Democrats are doing everything they can to ensure those trespassers are allowed citizenship, it stands to reason that the amount of those illegals will be voting democratic. Not too dissimilar to the welfare recipients who vote for democrats, because they keep attempting to stay on government assistance and they continue to receive it. Seems they have voted democratically too. Really it is all in the numbers. You know, sheer volume.



Nonsense. Illegal Hispanics don't vote. I realize that those who share your Xenophobic and borderline racist philosophy insist that illegal Hispanic voters skew every election, but there are no facts to support that claim.

Even if it's true that "Democrats are doing everything they can to ensure those trespassers [sic] are allowed citizenship," they cannot grant them citizenship, and thus voting rights. That will take Law passed by Congress. You know, following the U.S. Constitution.

And speaking of "borderline racist," your assertions about "welfare recipients" are based on ignorance and, it seems, little more.




Think what you like. You commie fuckers can call me a racist all you want. But I know what I am and that ain't it.

How many minorities have you had sex with? Yeah, thought so racist....That is the equivalent of what you are doing here. Because I want folks to come into this country legally I'm a racist. So it must mean because you haven't been sexual with someone other than your race you are a racist. Oh and a sexist because you don't like dudes...Yeah whatever.....That was sarcasm.

I'm sure you are neither and I am sure that you will find someone that can Love you more than you can love yourself. I hope that for everyone actually.

Now About my ignorance? you really think so? Hmmmmm

Well there was a reason Acorn did what they did and are not around any more. Busted is why.

When Illegal Hispanics become legal with this reform that the Democrats are pushing they will be able to vote and you know it. This is like money in the bank for the Dems.
Tell me I am wrong. Calling me a racist because I want to support the LAW and not change it to accommodate current criminals doesn't make me a racist. I would Just as soon anyone trespassing get the boot and damn quick. Now if I would have said Especially those middle easterners then that would be racist.

The fact that what I mentioned about Hispanic illegals was only commenting on a topic that was already brought up, so you can keep your Racist comments to yourself until I actually say something that is racist.

You Dig?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on December 03, 2013, 02:14:30 AM
You still don't understand that voting demographics are not what you assume. If the poor and those in welfare (the workin poor also qualify for welfare). If all the poor and welfare recipients voted, there would be, by your accounting, a helluva lot fewer Republican governors.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on December 03, 2013, 03:02:55 AM

Down the road, Hispanics will play a larger and larger role in electoral politics, simply be sheer force of numbers.


And because there is a HUGE amount of Hispanic Illegal aliens and the Democrats are doing everything they can to ensure those trespassers are allowed citizenship, it stands to reason that the amount of those illegals will be voting democratic. Not too dissimilar to the welfare recipients who vote for democrats, because they keep attempting to stay on government assistance and they continue to receive it. Seems they have voted democratically too. Really it is all in the numbers. You know, sheer volume.



Nonsense. Illegal Hispanics don't vote. I realize that those who share your Xenophobic and borderline racist philosophy insist that illegal Hispanic voters skew every election, but there are no facts to support that claim.

Even if it's true that "Democrats are doing everything they can to ensure those trespassers [sic] are allowed citizenship," they cannot grant them citizenship, and thus voting rights. That will take Law passed by Congress. You know, following the U.S. Constitution.

And speaking of "borderline racist," your assertions about "welfare recipients" are based on ignorance and, it seems, little more.




Think what you like. You commie fuckers can call me a racist all you want. But I know what I am and that ain't it.

How many minorities have you had sex with? Yeah, thought so racist....That is the equivalent of what you are doing here. Because I want folks to come into this country legally I'm a racist. So it must mean because you haven't been sexual with someone other than your race you are a racist. Oh and a sexist because you don't like dudes...Yeah whatever.....That was sarcasm.

I'm sure you are neither and I am sure that you will find someone that can Love you more than you can love yourself. I hope that for everyone actually.

Now About my ignorance? you really think so? Hmmmmm

Well there was a reason Acorn did what they did and are not around any more. Busted is why.

When Illegal Hispanics become legal with this reform that the Democrats are pushing they will be able to vote and you know it. This is like money in the bank for the Dems.
Tell me I am wrong. Calling me a racist because I want to support the LAW and not change it to accommodate current criminals doesn't make me a racist. I would Just as soon anyone trespassing get the boot and damn quick. Now if I would have said Especially those middle easterners then that would be racist.

The fact that what I mentioned about Hispanic illegals was only commenting on a topic that was already brought up, so you can keep your Racist comments to yourself until I actually say something that is racist.

You Dig?



I just re-read the article, Janus, and it says nothing of illegal Hispanics. It speaks of Hispanics, and you made the jump from Hispanics to illegal Hispanics. And that's the point, you dig?

You're right: when someone becomes a U.S. citizen they attain the right to vote. No one said anything about giving illegal Hispanics the right to vote. Again, you made the jump from Hispanic voters to illegal Hispanics. And that's the point, you dig?

We're miles away from any type of immigration reform, and even if some type of immigration reform is eventually passed, there's exactly zero percent chance that it will instantly grant voting rights to illegal Hispanics. Zero. So quake in fear of the Brown Menace as much as you want.

Finally, I've no idea what my sexual orientation or the race of my sex partners has to do with anything, Janus. Nor do I have any idea why you chose to bring that up in this context. If it was intended as an insult, you completely missed the mark. But if you intended to demonstrate your racism and homophobia -- and your ignorance-- then you hit the bulls-eye!





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Janus on December 03, 2013, 03:20:48 AM


Down the road, Hispanics will play a larger and larger role in electoral politics, simply be sheer force of numbers.



Racism and homophobia? Who you kidding? I suck dick and eat pussy so I really don't see where homophobia comes into play. As far as racism goes I have a very diverse group of friends from black, Hispanic and Asian cultures. And I fuck them all too. So racism is a non issue.

I was responding to the post you made about Hispanics playing a larger role in elections and the fact that there are a greater number of Hispanics that are illegal aliens that the Dems are pushing toward citizenship, that once attained, they will be eligible to vote. So put down your wine glass/ crack pipe or water bong and try to grasp my words.

Your assertion that I'm homophobic or racist is way off the mark. Nice try though. You commies all seem to go there when you have no value to your argument. Seems we've discussed this in the past.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on December 03, 2013, 03:32:45 AM

Racism and homophobia? Who you kidding? I suck dick and eat pussy so I really don't see where homophobia comes into play.


That in no way proves you are not homophobic. I'm judging solely by what you posted on this board, Janus, and that was blatantly homophobic.



As far as racism goes I have a very diverse group of friends from black, Hispanic and Asian cultures. And I fuck them all too. So racism is a non issue.


That in no way proves you are not racist. I'm judging solely by what you posted on this board, Janus, and that was blatantly racist.



Down the road, Hispanics will play a larger and larger role in electoral politics, simply be sheer force of numbers.

I was responding to the post you made about Hispanics playing a larger role in elections and the fact that there are a greater number of Hispanics that are illegal aliens that the Dems are pushing toward citizenship, that once attained, they will be eligible to vote. So put down your wine glass/ crack pipe or water bong and try to grasp my words.


Janus, I was speaking about Hispanics attaining greater force of numbers the old fashioned way: by having children. Hispanics are having children at almost twice the rate of American born whites. It's simple arithmetic, Janus. The fact that you assumed it to mean nefarious Democrats suborning the Constitution to ram through legislation instantly legalizing illegal Hispanics speaks volumes about your outlook.



Your assertion that I'm homophobic or racist is way off the mark. Nice try though. You commies all seem to go there when you have no value to your argument. Seems we've discussed this in the past.


My assertions were based solely on what you posted here on the board, Janus. If you dislike being called a racist, then refrain from making racist comments on the board. You dig?





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Janus on December 03, 2013, 03:35:04 AM
I made no racist comments. Nor did I make homophobic comments.....

You have a screw loose lady.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: snowm on December 03, 2013, 05:30:35 AM
Quote
How many minorities have you had sex with? Yeah, thought so racist....That is the equivalent of what you are doing here. Because I want folks to come into this country legally I'm a racist. So it must mean because you haven't been sexual with someone other than your race you are a racist. Oh and a sexist because you don't like dudes...Yeah whatever.....That was sarcasm.

So Janus posts this hyperbole example to illustrate weak logic in jumping from commenting on a race to being racist. He is also accused of being homophobic, why? The sarcastic part where he calls Barbara "sexist because [she] doesn't like dudes?" How on the planet of reality is a sarcastic remark rooted in hyperbole homophobic?

Calling Janus homophobic is like calling Katiebee as Catholic as the Pope. I think we all know Janus will stick his wang into anything that is walking, or sleeping...male or female...That has been made pretty clear by his male slut posts, you dig?

Sometimes it would be nice if some of you would step off your "hate anything conservative script" and chill on the negative buzz words. You throw them around too easily like a kid with a ball.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on December 03, 2013, 05:32:55 AM
Meanwhile the actual rebuttal goes unremarked.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Janus on December 03, 2013, 12:55:47 PM
Meanwhile the actual rebuttal goes unremarked.

Which is?  

Oh and MissB?

A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. In the event the phobia cannot be avoided entirely, the sufferer will endure the situation or object with marked distress and significant interference in social or occupational activities.[1]

Now you know that ain't me......


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on December 03, 2013, 02:42:04 PM
http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=14770.msg271152#msg271152 (http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=14770.msg271152#msg271152)http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=14770.msg271194#msg271194 (http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=14770.msg271194#msg271194)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on December 03, 2013, 03:13:41 PM

Quote
How many minorities have you had sex with? Yeah, thought so racist....That is the equivalent of what you are doing here. Because I want folks to come into this country legally I'm a racist. So it must mean because you haven't been sexual with someone other than your race you are a racist. Oh and a sexist because you don't like dudes...Yeah whatever.....That was sarcasm.

So Janus posts this hyperbole example to illustrate weak logic in jumping from commenting on a race to being racist. He is also accused of being homophobic, why? The sarcastic part where he calls Barbara "sexist because [she] doesn't like dudes?" How on the planet of reality is a sarcastic remark rooted in hyperbole homophobic?


So, by your logic, a racist joke isn't racist because it's a joke. Got it.



Calling Janus homophobic is like calling Katiebee as Catholic as the Pope. I think we all know Janus will stick his wang into anything that is walking, or sleeping...male or female...That has been made pretty clear by his male slut posts, you dig?


The fact that "Janus will stick his wang into anything that is walking, or sleeping...male or female" has absolutely no bearing on his views. He can fuck anyone and anything he wants, but to bring up another person's sexuality and use it as a weapon against them is textbook homophobia.



Sometimes it would be nice if some of you would step off your "hate anything conservative script" and chill on the negative buzz words. You throw them around too easily like a kid with a ball.


If you think racism and homophobia are "conservative," then yes, I hate conservative things.





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Janus on December 03, 2013, 03:26:45 PM
Though bringing up your sexual behavior my have been shitty, it was in no way homophobic. Honestly I have no fear of your inability to get a shot of ass. I think you are homophobic. Afraid of your own sexuality.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on December 03, 2013, 03:38:55 PM
http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=14770.msg271152#msg271152 (http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=14770.msg271152#msg271152)http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=14770.msg271194#msg271194 (http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=14770.msg271194#msg271194)


Katie, I am very disappointed with you.

Haven't you learned by now that facts, data, and intelligent arguments are absolutely irrelevant in the face of baseless and unfounded opinions?





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on December 03, 2013, 03:40:36 PM

Though bringing up your sexual behavior my have been shitty, it was in no way homophobic. Honestly I have no fear of your inability to get a shot of ass. I think you are homophobic. Afraid of your own sexuality.



Janus, do you have even the vaguest notion of what a trite, pathetic little man you are making yourself appear with each succeeding comment you make here?





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: snowm on December 03, 2013, 04:36:03 PM
http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=14770.msg271152#msg271152 (http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=14770.msg271152#msg271152)http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=14770.msg271194#msg271194 (http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=14770.msg271194#msg271194)


Katie, I am very disappointed with you.

Haven't you learned by now that facts, data, and intelligent arguments are absolutely irrelevant in the face of baseless and unfounded opinions?




baseless and unfounded opinions like accusing someone of being racist and homophobic?

ho·mo·pho·bi·a  (hm-fb-)
n.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

I think the thing here is Janus is expressing contempt for you and your flawed logic, not your sexuality. As you often times simply toe the party line, anything said against a homosexual that is negative is homophobic just like anything said against a black president is racist. At least you're consistent...


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on December 03, 2013, 06:24:06 PM
Lord fuck a duck. This thread is so far out of topic that I want to ask how many currently participating are fowl fuckers?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: snowm on December 03, 2013, 06:33:48 PM
Lord fuck a duck. This thread is so far out of topic that I want to ask how many currently participating are fowl fuckers?
I disagree with you Katiebee. Topic was party of hate. I think commenting that those speaking against conservatives always jump to accusing racism and homophobia is quite applicable. Unless in your book, name calling is kosher...

Honestly look at the vitriol in this thread. Janus speaks his mind, gets reamed, and not in the way he is apt to bend over and spread 'em for, the hateful kind.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on December 03, 2013, 07:45:27 PM
Lord fuck a duck. This thread is so far out of topic that I want to ask how many currently participating are fowl fuckers?

I disagree with you Katiebee. Topic was party of hate. I think commenting that those speaking against conservatives always jump to accusing racism and homophobia is quite applicable. Unless in your book, name calling is kosher...

Honestly look at the vitriol in this thread. Janus speaks his mind, gets reamed, and not in the way he is apt to bend over and spread 'em for, the hateful kind.



Snowm, you clearly didn't even read my OP on this sub-topic. If you had, you'd have found that I complemented Republicans twice, while the bulk of my criticism was directed at Democrats.

Reading is a wonderful way to learn new things. You should try it some time.





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: snowm on December 03, 2013, 08:37:36 PM
Lord fuck a duck. This thread is so far out of topic that I want to ask how many currently participating are fowl fuckers?

I disagree with you Katiebee. Topic was party of hate. I think commenting that those speaking against conservatives always jump to accusing racism and homophobia is quite applicable. Unless in your book, name calling is kosher...

Honestly look at the vitriol in this thread. Janus speaks his mind, gets reamed, and not in the way he is apt to bend over and spread 'em for, the hateful kind.



Snowm, you clearly didn't even read my OP on this sub-topic. If you had, you'd have found that I complemented Republicans twice, while the bulk of my criticism was directed at Democrats.

Reading is a wonderful way to learn new things. You should try it some time.




I read your response to Janus, you know, the one that is part of the thread?

Now tilt your head down before you get a nosebleed from holding your nose up so high above all of us.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on December 03, 2013, 10:27:59 PM
Though bringing up your sexual behavior my have been shitty, it was in no way homophobic. Honestly I have no fear of your inability to get a shot of ass. I think you are homophobic. Afraid of your own sexuality.

What a dirty shot, even by your low standards. And, of course, not based on any kind of facts or knowledge, just good old-fashioned bullying tactics.

And you're racist because you associate the word "Hispanic" with the word "illegal". I don't believe there has been any reference to Latin America that hasn't provoked a rant about illegals from you, at least not in my memory. Illegal immigrants don't vote and furthermore, those on welfare that are too lazy to get their ass out of their house to look for a job are generally not proactive enough to get their ass out of their house to vote either (and, in fact, do not exist in even nearly the numbers many would like you to think). Most people on welfare who vote do not intend to rely on the state to survive in the long term.

I wouldn't quite call you homophobic, just emotionally stilted since you seem to think you can measure the quality of an individual by the amount of sex they "get". However, just because you have had sex with other men does not mean you are not homophobic. In fact, the suggestion that homosexuality is defined entirely by sexual activity is itself edging dangerously close to homophobic rhetoric.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Janus on December 03, 2013, 10:40:07 PM
So you say. Because you are all knowing. I never questioned anyones quality as an individual because of sex partner count. I questioned what made them any kind of authority to judge me.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on December 03, 2013, 10:59:49 PM
I never questioned anyones quality as an individual because of sex partner count. I questioned what made them any kind of authority to judge me.

Fair point. It's still nonsense reasoning. I don't recall learning to recognise racism incrementally better each time I've had sex. And, of course, your comments were still baseless bullying either way.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on December 03, 2013, 11:01:47 PM
The assumption that all Hispanics are illegal bothers me.  And yes, many of Janus's posts seem to imply this.  On a recent trip to Nogales, Mexico, I was surprised to see fleets of vans on both sides of the border that bring people to and from work everyday.  A large number of the people that use these vans are Mexican nationals with permission to work in the U.S.  There are also people that have US citizenship, but live in Nogales because it is cheaper.

In Tucson, Arizona there are also large numbers of Hispanics.  Many of my friends are Hispanic, and yet just one couple that I have met was actually here illegally, and they moved back to Mexico.

Illegal immigration is currently at net zero.  Accordingly, it's not really an issue at this point.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Janus on December 04, 2013, 01:56:56 AM
The assumption that all Hispanics are illegal bothers me.  And yes, many of Janus's posts seem to imply this. 

It was not implied it was inferred.

In Tucson, Arizona there are also large numbers of Hispanics.  Many of my friends are Hispanic, and yet just one couple that I have met was actually here illegally, and they moved back to Mexico.

Illegal immigration is currently at net zero.  Accordingly, it's not really an issue at this point.

You should see the long lines of Mexicans at a bar in Brownsville Texas. They come across the boarder to get welfare and unemployment checks. This guy from the State welfare agency sets up in a corner of the bar and then doles out checks once a month. My Brother and Sister in-law will attest to this.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Janus on December 04, 2013, 01:59:11 AM
And, of course, your comments were still baseless bullying either way.


Welcome to Politics/1408. That's why it is here. Says so right in the pinned "why 1408/politics" thread


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: snowm on December 04, 2013, 03:35:12 AM
Getting run off the road on the way to work in San Antonio by a van running from an INS car, then screeching to a halt in the middle of the highway while Hispanic people poured out like clowns from a clown car happened at least every other month. That is just one road, in one town, in one state.

When I worked in Dallas I had a couple of Hispanic co-workers that acted as coordinators for people doing their taxes to help them bounce around and share ssn's of dependents.

Of course not all Hispanic people are here illegally or game the system. Hell most I know are harder workers in their line of work than most white and black people I know.

Hate is always going to be there if you jump at the chance to pin it to someone the first chance you get. Take a step back, breathe, maybe consider someones' vernacular isn't the same as yours.

For as many highly intelligent people that there are on this board there is a horrible deficiency in communicating with people outside of your knowledge domain.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on December 04, 2013, 06:28:28 PM

baseless and unfounded opinions like accusing someone of being racist and homophobic?

ho·mo·pho·bi·a  (hm-fb-)
n.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

I think the thing here is Janus is expressing contempt for you and your flawed logic, not your sexuality. As you often times simply toe the party line, anything said against a homosexual that is negative is homophobic just like anything said against a black president is racist. At least you're consistent...


I'll admit that "homophobic" might not be the best word to describe what Janus said.

But words like "reprehensible," "contemptible," and "despicable" certainly are.

Snowm (and Janus), do you really see not the slightest thing wrong with, in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with sex or sexual orientation, taking a person's sexual orientation and perverting into a battering ram to counter her arguments? Really?

If you believe I employ "flawed logic," then by all means, question my logic, counter it, argue against it, or even even condemn it. But please explain to me how, exactly, my sexual orientation -- or the quantity or race of my sex partners (and you haven't the even slightest idea of any of those things) -- relates to Hispanic voters in the U.S. in 2013?

The most reprehensible aspect of Janus's -- and your -- decision to "go there" is this: What if another board member who is unsure of or shy about or even uncomfortable with their sexuality or sexual orientation, then reads Janus's and your posts? I could easily see that type of person fearing to post in the 1408 threads, realizing that other members will resort to any reprehensible trick -- including using their sexual orientation against them -- to score argumentative points against them. Is that really what you want?

Above I described Janus as "a trite, pathetic little man." I stand by that. And there are many others here who believe that as well.

And now, based on what you've posted here, it's clear that that description fits you perfectly, too.





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Janus on December 04, 2013, 08:11:37 PM
"reprehensible," "contemptible," and "despicable"
Um Barbara? That was kind of what I was shooting for. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted what I did.


"What if another board member who is unsure of or shy."

Ain't that the pot calling the kettle black? Barbara you have legitimately pushed two other members off of the board or at least silenced one of them with your criticisms. So now you are throwing up maybe's and what ifs....Wow

Snowm be very careful my good man. Barbara is throwing out the boo's today....God what would happen if she continued? Shit by this time next year I could have 365 additional boo's.   What ever am I going to do? Hell Barb Grm has given me 40 in a night. So boo hoo hoo....Hahahahaha




Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on December 04, 2013, 08:57:19 PM
"reprehensible," "contemptible," and "despicable"
Um Barbara? That was kind of what I was shooting for. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted what I did.


"What if another board member who is unsure of or shy."

Ain't that the pot calling the kettle black? Barbara you have legitimately pushed two other members off of the board or at least silenced one of them with your criticisms. So now you are throwing up maybe's and what ifs....Wow

Snowm be very careful my good man. Barbara is throwing out the boo's today....God what would happen if she continued? Shit by this time next year I could have 365 additional boo's.   What ever am I going to do? Hell Barb Grm has given me 40 in a night. So boo hoo hoo....Hahahahaha




You are correct in saying that this is 1408 and that gives you a license to be as relentlessly unpleasant as you want, but remember that you are never posting into a vacuum. No amount of puppy-eyed apologies will make people forget about posts like the above and you will simply increasingly cultivate a reputation for yourself. To put that in terms you might relate to, the more of an asshole you are the less likely it is that you'll find new cyber fuck buddies.

Liz and Kelly were corrected, not criticised. A criticism is a subjective opinion. A correction is objective. They were wrong. The corrections were not strictly necessary, but they were not misplaced either. They had many options aside from taking their ball and going home. Liz was nice, but if she was not mature enough to take responsibility for herself then perhaps an adult discussion board was not the best fit for her. It's time you stopped boo-hoo-hooing about it.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Janus on December 04, 2013, 09:22:36 PM
And who's place is it for one to correct another? It was and is nobody's place to openly try to correct someone on the board. You know what my reaction would be. I'd either thank you or tell you to get fucked. Either way it is an effective way to let the person know if what they corrected was appreciated or not.

My being an asshole is relative to who or why I am being a one. I think in general most folks see that.
I have not made any apologies in quite some time. Seems no-one else on this board can seem to say they are sorry so why should I?

Hmmm cyber fuck buddies? I don't have any that I can think of. I fuck REAL people in REAL LIFE......Ones that aren't married unless the spouse is down with that.

Now having a lover that is long distance can make things a little complicated and being able to masturbate with each other while on the phone or during a voice chat is one way to help keep the relationship strong until I can  see them. Typing one handed? That ain't happened in a very long time...I have gotten a few blowjobs while cyber chatting with others. Now that was fun. So it is all about how you want to interpret things. Maybe we coule go over to another thread to discuss cybersex.

Thanks for your concern about how I appear to others on the board. I appreciate that.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: coacheric on December 04, 2013, 09:35:00 PM
How about we take this one farther. Janus has continued to state that Barb ran members off of the board. He went so far as to post emails or text or something from one of the members as "proof" that it happened. These members never stated it themselves. They left with no reason, like many others before them and many others to follow.

I'm not real sure why this continues to come up but it does. These are the facts. WHATEVER is said outside of KB between peole has no bearing on KB as far as I'm concerned!


*(This was typed prior to Janus posting at 3:22:26 and was a reply to GB's post)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Janus on December 04, 2013, 09:37:49 PM
How about we take this one farther. Janus has continued to state that Barb ran members off of the board. He went so far as to post emails or text or something from one of the members as "proof" that it happened. These members never stated it themselves. They left with no reason, like many others before them and many others to follow.

I'm not real sure why this continues to come up but it does. These are the facts. WHATEVER is said outside of KB between peole has no bearing on KB as far as I'm concerned!


*(This was typed prior to Janus posting at 3:22:26 and was a reply to GB's post)


Well at least you didn't call me a liar.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on December 04, 2013, 09:39:04 PM
And who's place is it for one to correct another? It was and is nobody's place to openly try to correct someone on the board. You know what my reaction would be. I'd either thank you or tell you to get fucked. Either way it is an effective way to let the person know if what they corrected was appreciated or not.

Rubbish. It's a discussion board. People are constantly correcting and disagreeing with each other. And a thank you would be a perfectly reasonable adult response. A get fucked, not so much, but letting people know that the correction has upset you is a perfectly reasonable substitute.

I have not made any apologies in quite some time. Seems no-one else on this board can seem to say they are sorry so why should I?

It wasn't so long ago. Besides, I wasn't at all suggesting you should, it's just what you usually do.

Hmmm cyber fuck buddies? I don't have any that I can think of. I fuck REAL people in REAL LIFE......Ones that aren't married unless the spouse is down with that.

Sure.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: coacheric on December 04, 2013, 09:48:05 PM
How about we take this one farther. Janus has continued to state that Barb ran members off of the board. He went so far as to post emails or text or something from one of the members as "proof" that it happened. These members never stated it themselves. They left with no reason, like many others before them and many others to follow.

I'm not real sure why this continues to come up but it does. These are the facts. WHATEVER is said outside of KB between peole has no bearing on KB as far as I'm concerned!


*(This was typed prior to Janus posting at 3:22:26 and was a reply to GB's post)


Well at least you didn't call me a liar.

Truth or lie, it was never stated by the members in question on this board and as such, has NO bearing on KB as far as I am concerned.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Janus on December 04, 2013, 09:54:24 PM
Thank you for your input. You are a mod and you should be the one to decipher how or what shit is done......Are you saying that it is not valid then?





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: coacheric on December 04, 2013, 10:01:09 PM
Thank you for your input. You are a mod and you should be the one to decipher how or what shit is done......Are you saying that it is not valid then?

I'm saying that it does not matter what you say about older non active members being run off the site. THEY DID NOT STATE THIS!! You did. It has "0" bearing on anything here and now.

You care that Liz is gone and continue to bring up why she left. Just an FYI, I've been hammered by Barb, GIA, Katie and others for spelling. Not only am I still here, I became a mod. LET IT GO!! They can come back and defend themselves or not. Their choice.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on December 04, 2013, 10:24:43 PM
oh fer fucks sake.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on December 04, 2013, 10:43:44 PM
oh fer fucks sake.
How about fuck for my sake?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on December 05, 2013, 12:35:46 AM
oh fer fucks sake.
How about fuck for my sake?

Sure. Always me, me me.  How about for our sake?  Apologies, Gia.  Just dreaming again. 8)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on December 27, 2013, 10:46:38 PM
I wish to clarify - this is NOT a meme. It is a screenshot of this brilliant guys FB headline. I am willing to bet he is getting a surprise visit from the Secret Service any day now!

(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1528605_620650761328133_1625755467_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on December 27, 2013, 11:36:36 PM
Stupidity is rampant in both parties, all religions and all races. Hate is a cancer or the absence of reason.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on December 27, 2013, 11:58:34 PM
"Kill them all. God will know his own."

Richard Coeur de Leon.

Before the walls of Acre.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on December 28, 2013, 04:40:45 PM
"Kill them all. God will know his own."

Richard Coeur de Leon.

Before the walls of Acre.

Or, Kill them all and let God sort it out - U.S. Marines


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: gomez38555 on December 28, 2013, 07:42:09 PM
No memes or cartoons, cut n paste in politics.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on December 29, 2013, 07:11:41 AM
No memes or cartoons, cut n paste in politics.

Use this thread, which is specifically for it.

http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=18591.0 (http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=18591.0)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on December 29, 2013, 07:36:52 AM
The Fun area doesn't invite comment, but it does allow us to post the cartoons and memes.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on December 29, 2013, 07:38:47 AM
"Kill them all. God will know his own."

Richard Coeur de Leon.

Before the walls of Acre.

Or, Kill them all and let God sort it out - U.S. Marines
Richard said it first. The Marines just plagiarized it.

:emot_laughing:


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on March 19, 2014, 12:08:07 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-9/10013503_659334384126437_1804615551_n.jpg)
:hitler: WITE POWUR! :hitler:


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on March 19, 2014, 01:16:35 AM
Can I get a law passed requiring spell check before making a tee shirt?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: snowm on March 19, 2014, 02:57:28 AM
Hopefully the tshirt maker did it on purpose so he would look even more of an ass than he is.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Janus on March 19, 2014, 02:59:31 AM
Can I get a law passed requiring spell check before making a tee shirt?

Makes me wonder if his wife wears a t-shirt with an arrow pointing one way that states, "I'm with Stupid"?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on April 11, 2014, 04:59:27 PM
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/11/6_most_absurd_things_the_christian_right_has_blamed_on_gays_partner/


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Elizabeth on April 11, 2014, 06:00:09 PM
"Kill them all. God will know his own."

Richard Coeur de Leon.

Before the walls of Acre.

The Crusades were a disaster for everyone.
Further they accomplished little if anything.
Love,
Liz


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: veteran1 on April 11, 2014, 09:36:15 PM

"Kill them all. God will know his own."

Richard Coeur de Leon.

Before the walls of Acre.


The Crusades were a disaster for everyone.
Further they accomplished little if anything.
Love,
Liz


What would Indiana Jones have done if there were no Crusades?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on April 12, 2014, 12:04:57 AM
Fight more NAZI's, obviously.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on August 04, 2014, 07:50:32 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10403511_693662410726548_920690555982988758_n.png?oh=2948441266d7d24226e71a50696d00b2&oe=54457684&__gda__=1412886457_b3fffa7a009d5afa1c1d223a29717987)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: TinyDancer on August 04, 2014, 03:33:57 PM
All the parties are so busy slinging shit at each other....blaming every single thing on one another.  They don't care about the state of affairs in USA, only the party.  *sigh*


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on August 04, 2014, 05:35:02 PM
Lots of hate to go around.


5 worst right-wing moments of the week — Donald Trump freaks out about Ebola

Trump throws a temper tantrum on Twitter, while Michele Bachmann comes out with her latest insane conspiracy theory

Image

1. Peggy Noonan says the problem with the world is Obama ‘dropping his g’s.”

Peggy Noonan is quite possibly going off the deep end. Her worries about our country’s divisions have driven her there, apparently. The conservative columnist and former Reagan speech writer talked about those worries in her column in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, in which for some bizarre reason, she made reference to the president’s grammar and posture.

“He shouldn’t be at campaign-type rallies where he speaks only to the base, he should be speaking to the country,” she wrote. “He shouldn’t be out there dropping his g’s, slouching around a podium, complaining about his ill treatment, describing his opponents with disdain: ‘Stop just hatin’ all the time.’”

Hmm, “dropping his g’s, slouching,” could that be code for something?

Also, the president’s diction is what is divisive and alarming these days? Not the fact that Republicans refuse to work with him, are suing him and want to impeach him for doing his job??

Noonan’s complaint refers to Obama’s speech Wednesday in Kansas City, during which he made repeated requests for GOP lawmakers to “get some work done.” Never mind—or at least never in Noonan’s mind—the fact that Obama made the speech just hours before House Republicans passed an absurd, transparently partisan bill to sue the president over changes to the Affordable Care Act. No divisiveness there, and more importantly, no g-dropping.

But Noonan thinks it’s more important to criticize how the president talks.

Questions: Why does Peggy Noonan still exist, and why does she still have a forum, and does anyone care what she says?

Apparently, her editors don’t.

2. Michele Bachmann says Obama wants to use minors for medical experiments.

Not exactly a news flash, but Michele Bachmann is still bonkers. Her latest insane theory is that Obama wants to conduct medical experiments on the unaccompanied minors who are flooding the borders. That’s pretty far out there in crazy land, even for her.

Like any paranoid conspiracy theorist, Bachmann has a whole rationale for her nutjob idea. We’ll try to keep it brief: Bachmann’s paranoid fantasy stems from the case of Justina Pelletier, the teenage girl who was put in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families after a dispute between Boston Children’s Hospital and her parents, who had the backing of other doctors from Tufts Medical Center, over the girl’s medical diagnosis.

Bachmann and the religious right have inserted themselves into that case and misunderstood it thoroughly. Bachmann has even introduced a law called Justina’s Law prohibiting “federal funding for medical experimentation on a ward of the State,” which is totally unnecessary since minors are already protected, and there is no reason to think Justina is being experimented on.

Out promoting her ridiculous law on “WallBuilders Live” the other day, Bachmann made her cuckoo connection to the unaccompanied minors from Central America. She said Obama and the medical community want to conduct medical experiments on them. Oh, so that’s why all those kids are here. What an evil,dastardly plan.

Here’s Bachmann in her own inimitable words:

“Now President Obama is trying to bring all of those foreign nationals, those illegal aliens to the country and he has said that he will put them in the foster care system. That’s more kids that you can see how — we can’t imagine doing this, but if you have a hospital and they are going to get millions of dollars in government grants if they can conduct medical research on somebody, and a ward of the state can’t say no, a little kid can’t say no if they’re a ward of the state; so here you could have this institution getting millions of dollars from our government to do medical experimentation and a kid can’t even say no. It’s sick.”

Bingo Michele. We think you really nailed it this time.

h/t: rightwingwatch

3. Yep, Rush Limbaugh is still despicable. Latest instance: He applauds domestic violence because it upsets “Jurassic Park feminazis.”

Rush Limbaugh’s logic is that if something bothers his enemies, that thing must be good—even when that thing is morally indefensible, like domestic violence. Limbaugh decided to weigh in this week on the case of Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice, who definitely appears to be engaging in some domestic violence on the side. There’s a tape of him dragging his unconscious then-fiancee through an Atlantic City hotel, for instance. The NFL suspended him for two games. As some have pointed out, they come down a lot harder on players caught using marijuana and other drugs.

Limbaugh is overjoyed about every aspect of this slap on the wrist. In his view, the best part is not the wrist slap itself, but the fact that it upsets liberals and his other main nemeses, those “feminazis.” (Such a cute little coinage. Rush sure does have a way with words.) He also thinks physically abusing your girlfriend is pretty funny. Is there any depth to which the shock jock won’t sink? Does not appear so.

So to review, anything that upsets feminists is good, even if it involves punching and abusing women. Hell, maybe even killing them. Limbaugh particularly enjoyed referring to “elderly feminazis on CNN” as “Jurassic Park feminazis.” This is because he wants everyone to believe that young women are rejecting feminism; internecine warfare between women is very important to him. And who could be more of an expert on what millennial women are thinking than 63-year-old “Jurassic” Rush Limbaugh?

4. Absurd orange man Donald Trump panics about ebola.

Among birther and general right-wing-nut Donald Trump’s most endearing qualities is his irrational germophobia. We’re talking germophobia of Howard Hughes proportions. Donald Trump does not even like to shake people’s hands. So, of course, he went into a full-on panic at the news that the U.S. is bringing two Americans who have contracted the disease in Liberia to America for treatment. And when Trump panics, he tweets.

“Ebola patient will be brought to the U.S. in a few days—now I know for sure that our leaders are incompetent. KEEP THEM OUT OF HERE!”

That was one of them.

Friday morning he added:

“Stop the EBOLA patients from entering the U.S. Treat them, at the highest level, over there. THE UNITED STATES HAS ENOUGH PROBLEMS!”

The two ebola patients are being treated at Emory University in Atlanta which offers state-of-the-art facilities for treating highly infectious diseases, but Trump is still very worried he is going to get ebola if we do the humanitarian thing and treat these people here, where we are much more equipped to deal with the disease than in Liberia.

Then again, no one ever accused Trump of being a humanitarian. Hysterical hatemonger, yes. Ebola is not an airborne disease and can only be contracted via physical contact or body fluids, just in case he is ever interested in learning the actual facts.

h/t: rawstory

5. Ann Coulter wonders why we can’t deal with our border the way Netanyahu deals with Hamas.

The headline kind of says it all. Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu is Ann Coulter’s kind of president. He bombs civilians and seems pretty unconcerned about killing hundreds of Palestinian kids. Or, even if he is concerned, at least he still does it. She segued to a discussion of Netanyahu’s iron fist in a discussion on Fox News’ Hannity about tunnels found at the U.S./Mexican border. Tunnels, hey, that reminds Ann of the tunnels in Gaza used by Hamas.

“More than a hundred tunnels have been found on our border,” Coulter told Hannity. “To smuggle in weapons, guns, they’re invading, they’re murdering, they’re raping. The head of the DEA said about a year ago that he thinks the surge of homicides in Chicago is a Mexican drug cartel.”

Then she added: “I just wish we would talk about our border the way we talk about Israel’s border.”

Now she was on a roll.

“We need a Netanyahu here. Can you imagine all these — yes, sometimes Palestinian kids get killed, ” she said as she began to laugh. Then she laughed and laughed, and then her head started spinning around and she vomited green fluid.

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/04/5_worst_right_wing_moments_of_the_week_%E2%80%94%C2%A0donald_trump_freaks_out_about_ebola/


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on August 04, 2014, 08:58:51 PM
All the parties are so busy slinging shit at each other....blaming every single thing on one another.  They don't care about the state of affairs in USA, only the party.  *sigh*

Exactly how I feel, TD.  Both parties are equally guilty. They both rake in millions of dollars, they both have uber-millionaires financing them and they both use negative ads.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on August 04, 2014, 09:51:10 PM
I disagree with lumping them together. I see a definite qualitative difference between them starting during the first Obama Administration.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on August 05, 2014, 12:58:01 AM
I disagree with lumping them together. I see a definite qualitative difference between them starting during the first Obama Administration.

Both parties have been taken over by the extreme elements.  Hardly any moderates are left and it is the moderates that don't mind talking across the aisle and trying to get things done.  So yes, as it stands right now, both parties are the same, in my eyes.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on August 05, 2014, 01:15:58 AM
Happy Birthday, President Obama!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on August 05, 2014, 01:29:20 AM
Happy Birthday, President Obama!

(https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/s526x395/10394785_821623191204952_2827690922239183639_n.jpg?oh=f302317b62929033b8150e158e6e4d71&oe=5450FFA3)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on August 05, 2014, 02:11:23 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg5HIMnPx7k


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on August 05, 2014, 06:07:17 AM
Fight more NAZI's, obviously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sp3dIyNA2A


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on August 05, 2014, 06:09:05 AM
Alabama Congressman Is Really Bummed About Obama's "War on Whites" (http://gawker.com/alabama-congressman-is-really-bummed-about-obamas-war-1615820952)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on August 08, 2014, 12:18:26 PM
This goes off the thread topic, but I wanted to address this...

Both parties have been taken over by the extreme elements.  Hardly any moderates are left and it is the moderates that don't mind talking across the aisle and trying to get things done. So yes, as it stands right now, both parties are the same, in my eyes.

"Anyone who claims both parties are the same isn't really paying attention."

(https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t1.0-9/1904145_681438975282493_8649451579447064136_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: anvil on August 08, 2014, 04:12:43 PM
Actually, Gia, this supports Watcher to a tee.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on August 08, 2014, 04:20:20 PM
That the Democrats are more oriented toward individuals and individual's rights, while the Republican party to more oriented toward wealthy individuals and wealthy individual's power extension?

Yes when you cease to describe them in the same general terms you see a clearer picture. While I have no doubt that excesses and foul dealings are to be found in the Democratic party, they are not exclusively tied to only a wealthy elite.

The current Republican party is NOT the party of Lincoln. That went away a long time ago.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on August 08, 2014, 05:56:23 PM
And so, the bipartisan vote was all Rs and 3% of Ds to not approve the Federal Minimum Wage change bill.

This goes off the thread topic, but I wanted to address this...

Both parties have been taken over by the extreme elements.  Hardly any moderates are left and it is the moderates that don't mind talking across the aisle and trying to get things done. So yes, as it stands right now, both parties are the same, in my eyes.

"Anyone who claims both parties are the same isn't really paying attention."

(https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t1.0-9/1904145_681438975282493_8649451579447064136_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on August 08, 2014, 07:29:00 PM
Actually, Gia, this supports Watcher to a tee.


Thank you. Moderation is the only way this country will get back on track.  But that is okay.  I kind of like when Gia singles me out.  8)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on August 08, 2014, 08:00:47 PM
Considering that minimum wage is now below the same level 10 years ago, while executive compensation has increased by some 100% over the same period, I think that it's fairly obvious that the compensation is skewed to give more money to those who already have more money, and screw the people who actually fuel the economy.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on August 08, 2014, 08:02:09 PM

While I have no doubt that excesses and foul dealings are to be found in the Democratic party, they are not exclusively tied to only a wealthy elite.


That is doubly untrue. "Excesses and foul dealings" are found equally in both parties, as is relying on the contributions of wealthy backers. Nor is the GOP "exclusively tied to only a wealthy elite." Even without the modifiers ("exclusively," "only"), it's still untrue.



The current Republican party is NOT the party of Lincoln. That went away a long time ago.


Nor is the current Democratic party the party of Lincoln, not by a long shot.





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on August 08, 2014, 08:02:26 PM
Considering that minimum wage is now below the same level 10 years ago, while executive compensation has increased by some 100% over the same period, I think that it's fairly obvious that the compensation is skewed to give more money to those who already have more money, and screw the people who actually fuel the economy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on August 08, 2014, 08:07:16 PM

While I have no doubt that excesses and foul dealings are to be found in the Democratic party, they are not exclusively tied to only a wealthy elite.


That is doubly untrue. "Excesses and foul dealings" are found equally in both parties, as is relying on the contributions of wealthy backers. Nor is the GOP "exclusively tied to only a wealthy elite." Even without the modifiers ("exclusively," "only"), it's still untrue.



The current Republican party is NOT the party of Lincoln. That went away a long time ago.


Nor is the current Democratic party the party of Lincoln, not by a long shot.




No they aren't. However, given the party platforms, I know which one supports me and my interests, and the interests of a great number of people. I do not tie my voting to racial or religious bias, as, unfortunately, so many in this country do.

I attempt to make an informed and considered choice when I vote to support a particular candidate from a particular party. As it currently stands, I don't think I could vote for any candidate under the Republican banner, simply because they are supported by the Tea Party, which in my view are only a few short steps from authoritarians, or parden my Godfrey, fascists.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on August 08, 2014, 08:28:31 PM

While I have no doubt that excesses and foul dealings are to be found in the Democratic party, they are not exclusively tied to only a wealthy elite.


That is doubly untrue. "Excesses and foul dealings" are found equally in both parties, as is relying on the contributions of wealthy backers. Nor is the GOP "exclusively tied to only a wealthy elite." Even without the modifiers ("exclusively," "only"), it's still untrue.



The current Republican party is NOT the party of Lincoln. That went away a long time ago.


Nor is the current Democratic party the party of Lincoln, not by a long shot.


No they aren't. However, given the party platforms, I know which one supports me and my interests, and the interests of a great number of people. I do not tie my voting to racial or religious bias, as, unfortunately, so many in this country do.


Just playing the devil's advocate for a moment, isn't voting for the candidate that "supports me and my interests," rather than the well-being of the country as a whole, a very selfish way of voting? This is not a personal criticism, since I often do the same thing myself -- and demanding completely altruistic voting misses a very important point.



I attempt to make an informed and considered choice when I vote to support a particular candidate from a particular party. As it currently stands, I don't think I could vote for any candidate under the Republican banner, simply because they are supported by the Tea Party, which in my view are only a few short steps from authoritarians, or pardon my Godfrey, fascists.


I do the same thing. I vote in every election, including the primaries, and I do my homework beforehand, usually stepping into the voting booth with a piece of paper in my pocket.

I would never not vote for a candidate exclusively because her or she is a Republican, but, like you, I feel comfortable not voting for a candidate that is backed by the Tea Party. I disagree with the TP both in theory and in practice.




Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on August 08, 2014, 09:23:18 PM
I try to separate my purely self-interest desires from my well-being desires. The former would be closer to the view of voting for bread and circuses, the latter being closer to the view of voting for what benefits us all in general. So when I look to see who supports me and my interests, I TRY to hold true to the well-being test. So yes, my pocketbook is both as I see it. I am in the realm of those whose purchases fuel the economy. The larger pocketbooks, while containing more money/wealth, etc, do not contribute as much to the economy since they are fewer in number and as such don't purchase as much or as often as the rest of us.

The old saw about selling at a loss but making a profit on volume is what is important. While that is factious it does illustrate that profit is driven by selling volume, otherwise cost rises.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on August 08, 2014, 09:50:21 PM

I do the same thing. I vote in every election, including the primaries, and I do my homework beforehand, usually stepping into the voting booth with a piece of paper in my pocket.

I would never not vote for a candidate exclusively because her or she is a Republican, but, like you, I feel comfortable not voting for a candidate that is backed by the Tea Party. I disagree with the TP both in theory and in practice.




I wish more voters did what you do. Sadly, many vote for a candidate because of their looks or all the negative campaigns.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on August 08, 2014, 10:10:36 PM

I wish more voters did what you do. Sadly, many vote for a candidate because of their looks or all the negative campaigns.


I'm not trying to contradict you, but do you really think, in this day and age, that people vote for candidates based on their "looks"? If you mean physical appearance (handsome, pretty, etc.) I'd doubt that happens in significant numbers.

After all, Ashley Judd, who makes my heart melt, didn't even make it to the primary. But that's probably a bad example.  ;)

I agree with you about negative campaigning, or the introduction of the "fear factor." But, historically speaking, negative campaigning is nowhere near what it was 100-150 years ago, when partisan newspapers would print outright lies about opposing candidates.




Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on August 09, 2014, 12:12:19 AM
But, historically speaking, negative campaigning is nowhere near what it was 100-150 years ago, when partisan newspapers would print outright lies about opposing candidates.

Are you being facetious? Have you seen Fox or MSNBC in the last year?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on August 09, 2014, 12:43:31 AM
But, historically speaking, negative campaigning is nowhere near what it was 100-150 years ago, when partisan newspapers would print outright lies about opposing candidates.

Are you being facetious? Have you seen Fox or MSNBC in the last year?

You need to take a trip to the Lincoln Museum in Springfield, IL.  They have a room dedicated to campaign posters that slandered Abraham Lincoln every which way, none that could be published in today's climate.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on August 09, 2014, 09:52:42 PM

But, historically speaking, negative campaigning is nowhere near what it was 100-150 years ago, when partisan newspapers would print outright lies about opposing candidates.


Are you being facetious? Have you seen Fox or MSNBC in the last year?



I'm perfectly serious. Keep in mind that 100 years ago newspaper readership was 4-5 times that of a show on Fox or MSNBC (or Huffpost), and editors and reporters would have found the concept of being unbiased or balanced laughable in the extreme.

Candidates -- including presidential candidates -- were accused of every crime imaginable. Suggesting that Obama might be foreign-born is a far cry from accusing a candidate, with trumped-up or made-up evidence, of Rape (Cleveland), murder (Jackson), bigamy (Jackson again), felonious assault (Polk), being half human and half baboon (Lincoln), financial crimes (Hayes), adultery (Harding), and on and on.

So, speaking seriously, negative campaigning and mudslinging today pales in comparison with that of 100-150 years ago.




Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on August 09, 2014, 10:30:22 PM
That is why the de-evolution by some is considered particularly sad.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 25, 2014, 06:43:54 AM
Yet another wing-nut, hate filled moment.

Louie Gohmert worries that gay soldiers “getting massages all day” leave us “vulnerable to terrorism”

A discussion of the U.S. military's campaign against Ebola takes a very strange turn VIDEO

(http://media.salon.com/2013/10/louie_gohmert2-620x412.jpg)

Texas congressman Louie Gohmert has offered us plenty of hot takes during his decade in Congress, weighing in on everything from “terror babies” to how “criminal aliens” and Ebola  are part of a Democratic war on women. This week, Gohmert had further insight to offer, warning that America’s Achilles heel in the fight against terrorism could be gay soldiers “getting massages all day.”

On Tuesday, Gohmert appeared on the Point of View radio show to discuss the deployment of U.S. military forces to west Africa to combat the Ebola outbreak in the region. And since he was on the topic of the military, Gohmert decided it was as good a time as any to blast open military service by gay soldiers.

“I’ve had people say, ‘Hey, you know, there’s nothing wrong with gays in the military. Look at the Greeks,’” the Tea Party favorite said. “Well, you know, they did have people come along who they loved that was the same sex and would give them massages before they went into battle.”

But, Gohmert added, the U.S. confronts an entirely different situation today — and allowing gay soldiers to serve openly means that “[y]ou are ultimately vulnerable to terrorism.”

“But you know what, it’s a different kind of fighting, it’s a different kind of war and if you’re sitting around getting massages all day ready to go into a big, planned battle, then you’re not going to last very long,” Gohmert said. “It’s guerrilla fighting. You are going to be ultimately vulnerable to terrorism and if that’s what you start doing in the military like the Greeks did … as people have said, ‘Louie, you have got to understand, you don’t even know your history.’ Oh yes I do. I know exactly. It’s not a good idea.”

For the record, a study by the respected Palm Center found that the repeal of the military’s anti-gay Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy hasn’t harmed military cohesion, readiness, or morale. But who are you going to believe — pointy-headed experts or that fearless prophet of truth from Tyler, Texas?

Watch Gohmert delve into Greek history below, via Right Wing Watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWlmtcGxvyI

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/24/louie_gohmert_worries_that_gay_soldiers_getting_massages_all_day_leave_us_vulnerable_to_terrorism/


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on March 12, 2015, 02:21:09 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/Wje17m7.jpg?1)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on March 12, 2015, 02:31:13 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/Wje17m7.jpg?1)

I know he said it two and a half years ago, but it still rings true today...

And here is the bottom line question: If a man hates Blacks, hates Hispanics, and hates Muslims, which party do you think he would identify with and vote for?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on March 12, 2015, 02:40:07 PM
Colin Powell, and his ilk, have made it quiet clear since 2008 that they are no longer supporters of the Republican Party, and this is only more carping from Democrats and Democrat Supporters.

(http://i.imgur.com/Wje17m7.jpg?1)

I know he said it two and a half years ago, but it still rings true today...

And here is the bottom line question: If a man hates Blacks, hates Hispanics, and hates Muslims, which party do you think he would identify with and vote for?



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on March 12, 2015, 04:14:12 PM
Colin Powell, and his ilk, have made it quiet clear since 2008 that they are no longer supporters of the Republican Party, and this is only more carping from Democrats and Democrat Supporters.

His ilk? Carping? There is plenty of petty faultfinding from both parties, but in this case... No.

This is another case of Republicans speaking out against reprehensible behaviour within their own political party, and then being branded by their peers as RINO's for not being "extreme enough". It has been the scourge of the GOP in the last couple decades.




Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on March 12, 2015, 11:14:28 PM
Kind of like a gentler and kinder version of The Night of The Long Knives.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on March 12, 2015, 11:23:11 PM

Kind of like a gentler and kinder version of The Night of The Long Knives.



Nice Godwinism...





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Elizabeth on March 12, 2015, 11:32:56 PM
Funny, The Israeli Army has had both women and Gay's in their service far longer than the US ever "thought" about it, and they seemed to be doing quite well (not to mention kicking ass where necessary).
Which brings me to this simple point, It's difficult to defend a practice that has been in effect in other countries for quite a while (and proven successful) and then say it's evil or something stupid to that effect for the US. (Religion has a way of getting in the way of common sense an awful lot).

Love,
Liz


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on March 13, 2015, 12:14:10 AM

Kind of like a gentler and kinder version of The Night of The Long Knives.



Nice Godwinism...




I often cannot resist an opportunity placed upon a golden platter.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on March 13, 2015, 12:18:24 AM

Kind of like a gentler and kinder version of The Night of The Long Knives.


Nice Godwinism...



I often cannot resist an opportunity placed upon a golden platter.


Nor should you ever.





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on March 19, 2015, 02:02:39 PM
Even Santorum looks uncomfortable...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdAYYGUP-pA


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on March 21, 2015, 03:45:43 AM
There is crazy and then there is BAT-SHIT CRAZY.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on June 26, 2015, 06:50:25 PM
An excerpt from an email alert I just received from a right wing Catholic organization:

Gay Marriage Ruling Is Ominous

Once again, five Supreme Court justices have invented a right that is nowhere mentioned or implied in the U.S. Constitution. Instead of allowing the states the right to make decisions about marriage, these judges have elected to impose their will on the nation.
 


These two, short sentences are filled with historical and logical errors (e.g. I wonder if the decision had gone the other way, would he have condemned SCOTUS for "imposing their will upon the nation"?)

Well that, and the fact that virtually all specific rights are "nowhere mentioned or implied in the U.S. Constitution."

With all charity, and with all due respect, today my simple response to these people is: Suck It!






Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 27, 2015, 10:09:54 PM
A Glorious Treasury of the Conservative Gay Marriage Freakout (http://jezebel.com/a-glorious-treasury-of-the-conservative-gay-marriage-fr-1714142516)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on June 28, 2015, 01:45:23 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/1fhicNk.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on June 28, 2015, 02:02:22 AM
love wins!


(http://i.imgur.com/EiNqdQO.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on August 01, 2015, 04:14:19 PM

Ok as a republican (and other issues I don't want to get into here yet) I do see the radical right as being more hateful than the radical left.

Having said that, the mainstream of the Republican party is less hateful than the mainstream of the Democratic party.

The last two Republican presidential nominees were John McCain and Mitt Romney.   John McCain is a certified Moderate, and specifically rebutted the idea that Islam is a terrorist religion. 

Romney is  a true moderate.  While he may be a bit insular and geeky, he never said anything hateful about anyone that I am aware of.

The leader of the Colorado State Senate declared that gun owners have a 'Sickness in their souls.'  This would constitute hate speech if it came from a Republican towards, say, African Americans.  Why is this rhetoric not considered hateful when it comes from the mainstream of the Democratic party.  ( The Majority leader of the State Senate is mainstream).

Also, I mentioned that at Least 2 Republicans that could be considered moderate even by Democrats. 2 Republicans respected by both sides of the isle.

I can't think of one Democrat this Republican can say that about.

This would make the Democrats the party of Hatred.


Good, interesting post.

I'd also add Jeb Bush to your list of moderate GOP candidates.

But I disagree with your assertion that one Colorado state senator represents "the mainstream of the Democratic party." Someone who would make a stupid statement like that is an extremist and an outlier, in no way representative of "the mainstream of the Democratic party."

Also, I don't see at all how a statement like that, as silly as it is, could remotely be considered hate speech -- your hypothetical/straw man argument notwithstanding. Yes, if he said something like, "all Blacks are potential criminals," that would be hate speech. But he said nothing of the sort.

At the same time, I agree with your central premise: leaving extremists in both parties aside, the mainstream of the GOP is no more, or less, hateful than the mainstream of the Democratic Party.






Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on August 02, 2015, 04:57:55 PM

However, the Colorado state senator in Question was the Democratic Majority Leader of the State Senate.  This means he represented the main stream of the Democratic State Senators in Colorado. 


Not even that. Unless the balance of the Democratic Colorado state senators seconded his assertion, which they did not. It's still just one guy, and an extremist outlier at that.



but if he said 'all blacks had a sickness in their hearts'  that would be hate speech.  True?


Hypothetically, yes, if he HAD said that, it MIGHT be deemed hate speech.

But that's a hypothetical, and a straw man argument. He did not say anything of the sort.





Title: Circus-Jerkus
Post by: Athos_131 on August 07, 2015, 04:37:15 AM
Boy, this is something.  SNL couldn't write this.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on August 27, 2015, 07:49:58 AM
Trump Preaching to Shrinking White Electorate Creates Problems for GOP
His anti-immigrant rhetoric and visceral stance on citizenship rights are forcing Republicans into opposing corners.
BY RONALD BROWNSTEIN

August 26, 2015

Exactly 19 years ago this week Bob Dole, as the recently chosen 1996 Republican presidential nominee, faced the same question that Donald Trump has presented his rivals today: whether to support ending the Constitution's guarantee of automatic citizenship for all children born in the U.S.

At the national convention that nominated Dole and Jack Kemp that summer, the party's platform called for revoking the provision in the 14th Amendment that ensured citizenship for all U.S.-born children, regardless of their parents' immigration status. Dole had remained vague on that plank during the convention, but in an appearance with Kemp before the National Association of Black Journalists on Aug. 23, 1996, the new nominee briskly rejected the idea.

''For generations, white children of white immigrants, regardless of their status, enjoyed citizenship,'' one reporter said to him, according to The New York Times. ''Now that the new immigrants are black and brown, would you support a constitutional amendment denying them citizenship?'' Dole's reply was unequivocal: "No."

For Dole, the choice of defending the 14th Amendment's promise of birthright citizenship "was a no-brainer," recalled Scott Reed, his campaign manager. "There were a handful of issues Dole just didn't agree with [in the platform] and he wasn't going to roll along without saying something."

Trump is proposing more sweeping change than the 1996 platform Dole repudiated.

The businessman argues that the 14th Amendment does not, in fact, guarantee citizenship to the estimated 4.5 million U.S. children born of undocumented immigrants; if the courts agreed, that presumably would make those children subject to the deportation he pledges to pursue against all those here illegally.

But in responding to Trump, the 2016 Republicans have wavered far more than Dole did. About half of the GOP field (including Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, and Ben Carson) has also endorsed ending birthright citizenship, at least prospectively. Scott Walker quickly embraced the idea before backpedaling to reject it. Even the two candidates who most forthrightly rejected Trump's call could not completely escape his gravitational pull.

Marco Rubio said he would not seek to change the Constitution, but would take unspecified steps to combat those "taking advantage of the 14th Amendment." Jeb Bush, while also rejecting constitutional change and praising America's "diversity," courted Trump's constituency by adopting his incendiary "anchor babies" language.

This rightward lurch—behind an almost certainly hopeless cause of constitutional change—captures the core GOP dilemma now unfolding in the party's nomination contest.

The Republican electoral coalition now relies on preponderant majorities from the groups most unsettled by demographic and cultural change: older, noncollege, and rural whites. There are no longer enough of those voters to guarantee Republicans a national majority; that's why Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections. Yet, as Trump's rise shows, many of those voters militantly oppose the policies (like immigration reform) that might help the party expand its coalition.

By demonstrating that dynamic so viscerally, Trump's ascent has further weakened the Republicans who contend the party must bend to, rather than resist, demographic change.

After Mitt Romney lost decisively in 2012 despite winning a greater share of white voters than Ronald Reagan did in 1980, the Republican National Committee's official postelection review concluded that the party "will lose future elections" without attracting a larger share of the growing minority vote. That impulse peaked in June 2013, when 14 Senate Republicans (led by Rubio and 2008 nominee John McCain) helped pass sweeping immigration reform that included a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

But with conservatives in revolt, the GOP current has since reversed. The House refused to consider the Senate bill, and instead repeatedly passed legislation to block President Obama's executive orders providing legal status for some of the undocumented. Most Republican-led states sued to stop Obama's executive action as well. Rubio repudiated his own bill. Now the 2016 Republican contenders are collectively offering an even harsher approach on immigration than Romney did when he embraced the "self-deportation" policy that discredited him with many Latinos and Asian Americans.

In summer 2013, conservative electoral analyst Sean Trende provided the rickety political theory that underpinned this reversal when he wrote that Romney lost not because he ran poorly with people of color but because he failed to motivate enough right-leaning whites to vote. Though Trende didn't endorse a specific policy agenda, conservatives embraced his theory as the justification for reviving a hard-line immigration approach meant to excite the GOP's nearly all-white base. Trump himself recently declared that Romney lost because "he didn't do well with the Republicans—they didn't go out and vote."

Trump's rise behind his belligerent immigration agenda has horrified many conservative thinkers. Perceptive conservative essayist Ben Domenech recently warned that Trump is leading the GOP "toward a coalition that is reduced to the narrow interests of identity politics for white people."

Yet on immigration and other issues, the GOP has already conceded much to the angry and often economically squeezed voters demanding exactly such a politics. Pacifying them won't be easy now that Trump is promising even greater exertions (mass deportation, ending birthright citizenship) against the ethnic diversity recasting America.

In practice, no policy agenda can stop that demographic transformation. But Republican leaders may prove equally ineffectual at containing the white racial anxieties swelling Trump's support.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/newsdesk/trump-preaching-to-white-electorate-creates-gop-problems-20150826

Links are embedded in the text at the link that support the articles conclusions.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on September 09, 2015, 08:36:12 PM
Huckabee Aide Said to Have Physically Blocked Ted Cruz from Speaking at Kim Davis Rally (http://theslot.jezebel.com/huckabee-aide-said-to-have-physically-blocked-ted-cruz-1729532247)

(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NTgyWDQwNA==/z/ni4AAOxy4dNStfvb/$_35.JPG)



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on September 12, 2015, 06:22:28 PM
Huckabee: Blacks Still Aren't Legally Human, But We No Longer Uphold That Law (http://theslot.jezebel.com/huckabee-blacks-still-arent-legally-human-but-we-no-l-1730074795)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Elizabeth on September 12, 2015, 11:39:34 PM
"Blacks Aren't Human"....??
I have no idea where to start with this....Why would Huckabee even think about saying something like this, let alone say it.?

Love,
Liz


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: DrKeith on September 13, 2015, 01:22:34 AM
both parties have people full of hate and stupidity


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: thetaxmancometh on September 13, 2015, 01:43:37 AM
Correct, but this is a mainly far left board and it is easier to cast stones at those you disagree with then those you agree with


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Elizabeth on September 13, 2015, 02:30:04 AM
Correct, but this is a mainly far left board and it is easier to cast stones at those you disagree with then those you agree with

So??....you agree with Huckabee, is that what you are saying.??
Are by chance wearing a white sheet..??
 :D
Love,
Liz


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: thetaxmancometh on September 13, 2015, 02:35:51 AM
My family actually had a cross burned in their yard... you know, you were there I believe!  :emot_kiss:


So Lizz??....you agree with Huckabee, is that what you are saying.??
Are by chance wearing a white sheet..??


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Elizabeth on September 13, 2015, 03:08:25 PM
My family actually had a cross burned in their yard... you know, you were there I believe!  :emot_kiss:


So Lizz??....you agree with Huckabee, is that what you are saying.??
Are by chance wearing a white sheet..??

Do I agree with Huckabee,,,,,Tax take a look around, our President happens to be black.  you know one of those non humans that Huckabee referred to.
Huckabee is an Idiot. Donald trump is an attention whore, but Huckabee's comments about Blacks in America just about top anything Trump has said that was just as foolish. (why would he even bring up a subject like that.)?
Love,
Liz


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: thetaxmancometh on September 13, 2015, 05:25:21 PM
Agreed, what he said was historically incorrect and he should have known better.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: TinyDancer on September 13, 2015, 06:11:49 PM
Correct, but this is a mainly far left board and it is easier to cast stones at those you disagree with then those you agree with

So??....you agree with Huckabee, is that what you are saying.??
Are by chance wearing a white sheet..??
 :D
Love,
Liz


Liz, if you had read what Tax replied to, you would have seen was to post above his, and not agreeing with Huckabee.  And by adding your snarky remark about wearing a white sheet, you are just adding to the Party of Hate that KB seems to have evolved into.





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on September 13, 2015, 06:42:28 PM
TD, the way Taxman phrased his post it is open to interpretation that he tacitly agreed with Huckabee, and basically attacking anyone who disagreed with Huckabee.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on September 13, 2015, 08:24:49 PM
(http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr06/2013/6/12/20/anigif_enhanced-buzz-16228-1371082175-4.gif)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: thetaxmancometh on September 13, 2015, 08:35:23 PM
Er, no Katie. My post would have to be wildly reinterpreted to try to twist it to mean that. Anyone who is looking at the post rationally can easily see what I was talking about.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on September 14, 2015, 01:51:22 AM
Your writing skills are not as precise and advanced as you believe. Your sentence construction allows different interpretations because when you paint with a broad brush as you did in the post under discussion, you become ambiguous. Probably because you are trying to insult people while appearing not to. Even if that is not intended, it is exactly what you did.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: thetaxmancometh on September 14, 2015, 02:23:37 AM
My writing skills are quite fine, thanks dear. You have to intentionally try to misunderstand my post in order to get confused... in other words, lie.

Someone posts something. I post right under it talking about the same thing. Troll takes my post as me talking about something I never mentioned or even hinted at.

I can see where you got confused but that has nothing to do with my post.

Edit: Also, the proper response if you have a legitimate question about what someone said or believes is to ask them about it, not try to shove what you believe into their mouths.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on September 14, 2015, 02:30:42 AM
My writing skills are quite fine, thanks dear. You have to intentionally try to misunderstand my post in order to get confused... in other words, lie.

Someone posts something. I post right under it talking about the same thing. Troll takes my post as me talking about something I never mentioned or even hinted at.

I can see where you got confused but that has nothing to do with my post.
.

You can't seriously believe this post you just submitted.

It's wrong on so many levels.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: thetaxmancometh on September 14, 2015, 02:38:58 AM
Shouldn't you stick to your fine debate style of posting a chair and letting it speak for you? It is far more eloquent then you are when you try to speak :)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on September 14, 2015, 03:15:26 AM
Considering that post is one of the most wrong I've seen on this board, I decided to mock it.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on September 14, 2015, 03:18:41 AM
Taxman, your ill-disguised snark and trolling is ludicrous. You are so passive-aggressive that it approaches an art form.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: thetaxmancometh on September 14, 2015, 05:20:15 AM
Katie, one hopes that you are intentionally being facetious otherwise your posts mock themselves. As always, your trolling and blatant snark are quite apparent.

Chairboy, as always your analysis is witty and poignant! I am not saying that to mock you at all, I promise!  :emot_kiss:

Edit: Notice neither of these two has actually said what they disagree with? They just talk and talk and don't actually say anything. Sad. TD, a neutral party, certainly had no trouble understanding.... I doubt either of you two did either.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on September 14, 2015, 05:37:48 AM
The facetiousness on this board is promulgated by you taxman. From your first encounters it has been obvious that you have a thinskin, and that your posts are self-serving, snide, condescending, intentionally insulting, and this is to people who have offered no raised hand to you. All it takes is a disagreement to your views or posts.

You have several times indicated that you enjoy stiring the ant pile just to see the activity. You have repeatedly engaged in sophistry. You continually ask others what their position is, and rarely offer yours until you know where you can attack.

Unfortunately, that indicates either intellectual dishonesty, or a troll.

Your behavior is what marks you. I am only remarking upon what I have observed in your posts.

And to intentionally taunt a moderator is perhaps the silliest action I have seen you engage in.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: thetaxmancometh on September 14, 2015, 06:26:35 AM
First, if you don't know what a word means, please do not use it. Facetious means intentionally joking, often self-deprecating humor, about important things..

Second, I respond to people the way they respond to me.. if they are assholes to me, I am an asshole to them. You guys (collectively) can't deal with differing opinions.

Third, I always give my opinion and support it.. you would do well to take lessons on that. Furthermore, if someone wants to discuss my position I am glad to do so and as long as they attack my argument, not me, I do not attack them. I do indeed enjoy giving a differing opinion and I enjoy hearing why others have their opinions. I am under no illusion that I will convince any of you dyed in the wool liberals that your positions are wrong but if you actually think about what I say then you might learn something... if nothing else, you will learn more about your own position.

Fourth, moderator or not, if someone is an ass to me then I can and will respond. That is what 1408 is for. Are you trying to threaten me with a ban? :P

Fifth, you have yet, again, to take responsibility for your actions. Part of being an adult is taking responsibility so if you notice that you have done something wrong, apologize for it, correct it, and move on. I have apologized when I was wrong 4 times in a few months. You apologized 1 time in 2011, gave a half apology in 2013, and that was it... in 7.5 years :p Yes, I am sure that you think you never have anything you need to apologize for but if you think that you are wrong. You have been shown to have said things, several times, that were blatantly untrue and when confronted by them you deny or obfuscate and that isn't even mentioning the intentional trolling you have engaged in with me. I tried to offer you an out, a non-aggression pact where we don't engage each other at all and you stop getting your snark returned in full measure, but you were unable to agree to that. Your choice, your consequence.

Hell look at this post. Elizabeth tried trolling me. I called her on it. TinyDancer (neutral party) agreed that what I had said was clear and you and chairboy tried to chime in in agreement with Liz?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on September 14, 2015, 07:00:57 AM
If you are not aware of all meanings of a word, perhaps you should keep quiet, lest people think you a fool, rather than opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

"lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person."


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: thetaxmancometh on September 14, 2015, 07:07:06 AM
If you are not aware of all meanings of a word, perhaps you should keep quiet, lest people think you a fool, rather than opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

"lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person."

I described the word as "intentionally joking, often self-deprecating humor, about important things"
-------------
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally:
a facetious remark.

2. amusing; humorous.

3. lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous:
a facetious person.
-----------------

or http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/facetious

Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant

-------------------------
Exactly my point Katie, and you said:

Quote
The facetiousness on this board is promulgated by you taxman

Can you explain what you meant to say? Even on this you will be unable to say "oops, I didn't mean that word, my mistake"


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: thetaxmancometh on September 14, 2015, 07:13:31 AM
Also, the quote is "At first I thought you were a fool and then you opened your mouth and removed all doubt". Saying "perhaps you should keep quiet, lest people think you a fool, rather than opening your mouth and removing all doubt" makes no sense.

You could say "you should keep quiet lest people think you a fool" but the "rather then opening your mouth" portion makes no sense in the quote you tried to use.

Now you have me joining you in talking about noncritical things though :P


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on September 14, 2015, 07:15:05 AM
Well, you don't know?
Your ignorance of words and writing is apparent.

You are a frivolous and pathetic little man you likes to bully people online. You enjoy trolling.

You are non-essential.

No, you are a rude, insensitive, and deliberately hostile person who has repeatedly shown that you cannot take a real heated debate. From the first interactions here, when people opposed your views you immediately reacted as a jerk.

You are a jerk, have always been a jerk, and try to disguise that fact by your passive-aggressive posts.

I'm certain that you try hard in your face -to-face interactions to disguise that you are insecure, angry, and resentful of those who oppose your your views., mainly because you are afraid. Afraid of what I don't know, but it has to be something very personal to you because you are extremely nasty online.

Now show us your massive intellect. And since I gave you the definition of the word, why did you need further clarification. Not know how to use a dictionary?

Your behavior in here is contemptible, but maybe you are off your meds?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on September 14, 2015, 07:15:32 AM
You also don't have a grasp of the paraphrase.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: thetaxmancometh on September 14, 2015, 07:20:20 AM
LOL, if that is your paraphrasing then don't do it until you understand the original phrase and know how to use it
.
Secondly, you used a word wrong and when corrected proved to not be mature enough to admit your mistake and learn from it. I hate to tell you sweetie, but you arnt perfect and you have a lot of learning left to do. This is pretty basic... your diction and lexicon failed you and instead of admitting your mistake you blunder on blindly and double down on your mistake... that is almost criminal stupidity! Even the basest animal knows that when you are sinking in a hole you should stop digging!

Third, it is you and the other far left libs here who can not take other opinions, sad but true. I honestly don't think you are capable of the intellectual requirements to debate, but others here are and they still can't make a cogent argument without resorting to vitriol and snark.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on September 14, 2015, 07:26:54 AM
You have a limited vocabulary, yet insist that you can write. You are a fool as well as a jerk. You practice precisely what you accuse others here of doing.

Like I said, you are a pathetic, little man. And just so you won't have to look up the words, the meaning of that is you are worthy of pity for you inadequacies, and your ethical standing is so small as to be non-existent.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on September 14, 2015, 07:31:55 AM
Oh, and as far as your professed libertarian standing, I doubt that you really are libertarian. More to the point you are a conservative who is hiding behind he libertarian lable.

And for your further education, pure libertarianism is not a practical political philosophy. It is a practical personal philosophy. In groups larger than 30 to 50, it breaks down as a governing political philosophy, because no one can get anything done, and the old, sick, and less competent members of society are left to die. It feeds upon itself.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: thetaxmancometh on September 14, 2015, 07:34:27 AM
Quote
You have a limited vocabulary, yet insist that you can write. You are a fool as well as a jerk. You practice precisely what you accuse others here of doing.

Katietroll, it is your lexicon that was lacking, not mine. I was thinking of adding your "The facetiousness on this board is promulgated by you taxman" quote to my signature just so that your stupidity is never forgotten, but I decided against it :p You make a mistake due to your ignorance and poor vocabulary and instead of admitting to it and correcting what you were trying to say, you double down on it and stick your foot in your mouth... again and again and again.

As I said before, when others (such as yourself) are assholes to me then I return the favor with interest. A wise person would learn that the best way to deal with that is to not be an ass to me in the beginning... you havnt learned this lesson yet. You might eventually, we will see :)

Poor dear, you really should let the others try to fight your battles for you, you are simply not prepared or capable.



And you can think what you like, I am indeed a conservative libertarian constitutionalist. I am no more a "pure libertarian" then you are a "pure communist", but that is the general camp I fall into. You probably don't know what that means, ask your teacher to explain it to you. If you want to argue the merits of libertarianism vs collectivism, we can do that.... that is, I can do that and you can not. Find someone else to take up that mantle for you, preferably someone who understands political theory and has a practical grasp of history, economics, social engineering, and philosophy.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on September 14, 2015, 06:15:19 PM
Try again. You still demonstrate your trolling behavior and lack of writing skills. The only reason I harp upon your writing is that you obfuscate your meaning by your composition. If it is because you are a poor writer, that is excusable. If you do it intentionally that makes you a troll. So which do want? Poor writing skills or troll?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: thetaxmancometh on September 14, 2015, 10:40:40 PM
I take option #3, you are an idiot and/or a troll. Can you explain why TD, a neutral party, had no difficulty at all in reading my post? Can you explain what, exactly, in my post caused your head to be confused? You have already demonstrated ad nauseum that you do not understand language or the proper use thereof in this thread. You also have demonstrated that rather then say "oops" and learn from your mistake that you would rather troll and double down on your mistake... so I honestly do not know if it is your lack of comprehension or your intentional trolling that is your main issue. Perhaps both.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on September 14, 2015, 10:46:40 PM
I take option #3, you are an idiot and/or a troll. Can you explain why TD, a neutral party, had no difficulty at all in reading my post? Can you explain what, exactly, in my post caused your head to be confused? You have already demonstrated ad nauseum that you do not understand language or the proper use thereof in this thread. You also have demonstrated that rather then say "oops" and learn from your mistake that you would rather troll and double down on your mistake... so I honestly do not know if it is your lack of comprehension or your intentional trolling that is your main issue. Perhaps both.



(http://i.imgur.com/Tsl90s4.gif)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: thetaxmancometh on September 14, 2015, 11:04:29 PM
Hey, one step up from a chair. Perhaps there is hope for you after all... but I wouldn't bet on it

  :emot_kiss:


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on September 15, 2015, 10:47:04 AM
Oh fer fucks sake!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs4Gj7JsET4


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: TinyDancer on September 15, 2015, 06:01:28 PM
Now that Taxman has been banned who y'all gonna fuss at?   :emot_laughing:


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on September 15, 2015, 07:50:24 PM
Now that Taxman has been banned who y'all gonna fuss at?   :emot_laughing:

Taxman banned? 


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on September 16, 2015, 03:42:07 AM
Heated discussion is fine here in 1408, but when you engage in stalking behavior and follow the people you are angry at around the board and make angry and insulting posts aimed at the person(s), and then delete what you wrote before a moddie can catch you, then you might get banned.

Similarly, if a Moddie asks you repeatedly to cease and desist in these behaviors and you attack and insult them you might get banned.




Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: death2uall on September 16, 2015, 04:35:21 AM

Now we have Ted Nugent, Dave Mustaine and Hank Williams Jr.

Ted Nugent:  "I will be dead or in jail by this time next year if President Barack Obama is re-elected."

Nugent further made comments during an interview at the National Rifle Association convention in St. Louis, comparing the President and his administration to "coyotes" that needed to be shot and encouraging voters to "chop Democrats' heads off in November."


Dave Mustaine: “Back in my country, my President is trying to pass a gun ban so he’s staging all these murders like the Fast and Furious thing down at the border and Aurora, Colorado, and all the people who were killed there and now the beautiful people at the Sikh temple.”

Hank Williams Jr.: "Obama Is 'A Muslim President Who Hates Farming, Hates The Military, Hates The U.S. And We Hate Him!"

Today these statements make them hero's....

No, it makes them liars and idiots. I will note for the record that Ted Nugent is neither dead nor in jail, because his lying ass was NEVER going to take a shot at the President.


Title: Circus-Jerkus, Round 2
Post by: Athos_131 on September 18, 2015, 01:54:54 AM
Dissolve The United States (http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/dissolve-the-united-states-1731354818)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on September 18, 2015, 04:45:53 AM
LOL!  I'm glad I did not watch it.  I might have puked!

Here are some of the ideas that received a hearing last night, from the 11 people vying for one of two available nominations to the highest and most powerful elected office in the history of the earth:

Abolishing the 14th Amendment

Deporting people born in the United States because their parents were not born in the United States

Making the personal beliefs of county officials the highest law of the land

Building an army of drones to patrol a militarized wall along the entire length of the U.S.-Mexico border

Deporting thousands of people per day until the United States is entirely emptied of non-citizens

Waging war in Syria

Waging war in Iran

Directing the moderators’ questions to Hillary Clinton, who was not present and who is not seeking the Republican presidential nomination


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on September 18, 2015, 08:09:16 PM
Marco Rubio's Boy Kinda Punched Rand Paul's Boy In The Face Last Night (http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/marco-rubios-boy-kinda-punched-rand-pauls-boy-in-the-fa-1731659078)


(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NzUxWDU0MQ==/z/lT4AAOSw2XFUiSUp/$_35.JPG)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: death2uall on September 20, 2015, 06:12:41 AM
Abolishing the 14th Amendment

Uhhhhh ... wouldn't this mean Ted Cruz is no longer eligible to run for president?

Deporting people born in the United States because their parents were not born in the United States

And wouldn't THIS one mean Marco Rubio not only no longer qualifies as a presidential candidate, but also has to be deported to Cuba? I can understand the Rethuglican party trying to narrow the field, but that seems a little extreme. . . .



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on September 20, 2015, 06:36:10 AM
They don't understand the law of unintended consequences.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on September 20, 2015, 04:07:18 PM
They don't understand the law of unintended consequences.

Most politicians fall into that category.  The rest fall into the "intended" category.

Rand Paul was the one person up on the stage who is against any boots on the ground for any problem in the Middle East and pointed out the consequences of our actions there so far.  He also is for less incarceration of our youth and more social services.  Guess that is why Trump said he didn't belong on the stage.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on September 20, 2015, 07:27:43 PM
Meanwhile Trump was the only one that seemed to get the economy.  But he was so wrong on everything else.

What really got me was how much total bullshit was offered.   The fact checkers nearly exploded.

And the sad truth is:

“The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of a magnitude bigger than to produce it.”

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/19/the_gops_bullsht_campaign_why_theyre_drowning_the_country_in_an_ocean_of_lies/


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on September 20, 2015, 10:29:37 PM
Just when you thought the script couldn't get anymore insane:

GOP candidate Carson: Muslim shouldn't be elected president (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d547ecfc2f994477a2108b859bc0abed/gop-candidate-carson-muslim-shouldnt-be-elected-president)

(http://cdn.meme.am/images/10026298.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Piper-Dreams on September 20, 2015, 11:38:58 PM
Just when you thought the script couldn't get anymore insane:

GOP candidate Carson: Muslim shouldn't be elected president (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d547ecfc2f994477a2108b859bc0abed/gop-candidate-carson-muslim-shouldnt-be-elected-president)

(http://cdn.meme.am/images/10026298.jpg)

Oh, the Republican primary season is going to be a laugh riot this upcoming year for sure. I'm just waiting for that "Akin moment."


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ChirpingGirl on September 21, 2015, 09:48:14 PM
Just when you thought the script couldn't get anymore insane:

GOP candidate Carson: Muslim shouldn't be elected president (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d547ecfc2f994477a2108b859bc0abed/gop-candidate-carson-muslim-shouldnt-be-elected-president)

(http://cdn.meme.am/images/10026298.jpg)

No one would have a problem with saying a white person shouldn't be president of China.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Piper-Dreams on September 21, 2015, 11:32:09 PM
Just when you thought the script couldn't get anymore insane:

GOP candidate Carson: Muslim shouldn't be elected president (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d547ecfc2f994477a2108b859bc0abed/gop-candidate-carson-muslim-shouldnt-be-elected-president)

(http://cdn.meme.am/images/10026298.jpg)

No one would have a problem with saying a white person shouldn't be president of China.

China wasn't built on the concept of immigration though.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on September 21, 2015, 11:51:48 PM
It's definitely a moot point. They also don't have very many Caucasians.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ChirpingGirl on September 21, 2015, 11:55:27 PM
It's definitely a moot point. They also don't have very many Caucasians.

Precisely my point.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on September 22, 2015, 04:28:15 AM
It is doubtful a Muslim would be elected President, but that's not the same as saying a Muslim should not be elected.

I think the best person for the job should be elected, regardless of religion, color of skin, sex, or sexual orientation.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Elizabeth on September 22, 2015, 04:30:22 AM
It is doubtful a Muslim would be elected President, but that's not the same as saying a Muslim should not be elected.

I think the best person for the job should be elected, regardless of religion, color of skin, sex, or sexual orientation.

 :emot_laughing:
Obviously we are not talking about Donald trump here......
 :D
Love,
Liz


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on September 22, 2015, 07:19:39 AM
I think that goes without saying.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on September 22, 2015, 01:27:16 PM
Donald Rrimp is the only candidate who has Godwined himself.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ChirpingGirl on September 22, 2015, 02:44:32 PM
It is doubtful a Muslim would be elected President, but that's not the same as saying a Muslim should not be elected.

I think the best person for the job should be elected, regardless of religion, color of skin, sex, or sexual orientation.

 :emot_laughing:
Obviously we are not talking about Donald trump here......
 :D
Love,
Liz


I'm not talking about any of them.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on October 02, 2015, 12:53:18 PM
GOP's Carson goes after Muslim advocacy group's tax status (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e742df9709e341a58e83cdc6e4a385c0/gops-carson-goes-after-muslim-advocacy-groups-tax-status)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on November 20, 2015, 01:54:09 PM
The Republican Party: America’s Largest Hate Group
November 19, 2015 By Allen Clifton


If there was ever any doubt that the Republican party has become America’s largest hate group, they’ve put that to rest following the response by many within the GOP concerning the U.S. accepting Syrian refugees. From several Republicans suggesting that we only take in Christians, to people like Chris Christie saying he wouldn’t have a problem saying “no” to a small Syrian child seeking a place to go, it takes a special level of hate to behave in the manner that’s commonly accepted by most conservatives.

The GOP is built on a foundation of hate. It’s the attitude of, “Our way of life is under attack by (fill in the group).”

Whether it’s equality for women, immigration, minorities in general, other religions (especially Islam) or liberals – Republicans are constantly pushing the idea that some group of people is actively trying to “destroy American values.”

It’s the attitude most commonly found among conservatives I encounter. Many of these folks literally believe that President Obama is some sort of un-American Muslim operative out to destroy the United States. Today alone I had three different conservatives message me with various conspiracies about the president helping ISIS. One of them even denied that any airstrikes against the terrorist group had been carried out, dismissing official reports on the Department of Defense’s website as “lies by the Obama administration.”

Now one might dismiss such nonsense as just that – nonsense – except I get messages like these constantly. In fact, it’s this attitude that drove the ridiculous Jade Helm conspiracies over the summer. The asinine belief that President Obama was staging a giant military operation within the southwest to seize guns. People were actually burying their guns to hide them from government officials. I wish that were a joke, but it’s not.

Take a look at the rise of Donald Trump. His campaign was jump started when he publicly declared that most Mexican immigrants were “rapists and criminals.” In fact, it seems that the more he bashes immigrants, or talks about the ridiculous notion of rounding up over 12 million people to deport, the more his poll numbers rise.

Right now Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz – children of immigrants – are currently in a fairly heated public back and forth over who hates immigrants the most.

The House Majority Whip Steve Scalise was found to had given a speech at a white supremacist event a few years back and not only did he keep his job as one of the most powerful people in Congress, but he got the full backing of party leadership.

Republicans Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal recently spoke at a conference hosted by a pastor who’s publicly stated he believes gay people should be put to death.

Even a bottom-feeder like Ann Coulter, a woman who should really wear a white hood when she speaks, is promoted and embraced by the conservative media.

The list goes on and on.

It’s not only acceptable to publicly push hate within the GOP – you essentially must embrace hatred to stand any chance at advancing within the ranks of the Republican party. Let’s not forget that conservatives are a group of people who booed an actively deployed gay member of our military during a 2012 presidential debate – and not a single Republican candidate on stage that night condemned the reaction, likely out of fear that defending the gay serviceman would have negatively impacted their campaign.

To deny that the GOP is driven by hate and fear is to deny reality. This is a party which prides itself on “Christian values” yet exemplifies almost nothing “Christ-like.” In my opinion, you lose any right to call yourself a Christian when you turn your back on desperate women and children fleeing for their lives from those who wish to slaughter them.

The truth is, the Republican party has become a machine fueled by hatred, driven by fear-mongering and propped up by those who exploit this ignorance within our society for political gain. They’ve built their coalition of voters by embracing some of the worst aspects of our society.

But I think it’s undeniable when you look at the policies, the rhetoric and the vitriolic nature displayed by conservatives toward so many different groups of people – the modern-day Republican party has become our nation’s largest hate group.


Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/republican-party-americas-largest-hate-group/


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on November 20, 2015, 03:57:59 PM
It's the politics of fear that the GOP excels at.

You have nothing to fear but fear itself.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on November 20, 2015, 04:47:01 PM
We can only expect that at some point a Brown Shirt organization will arise to support their political philosophies.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: TinyDancer on November 20, 2015, 05:44:01 PM
How about way back when all the civil right protest were going on?  Seemed that one of the parties was filled with hate and fear.

Pointing fingers is not the answer, tolerance is.

Just my two cents.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on November 20, 2015, 08:17:35 PM
I do not forgive any who would generate hate and intolerance. Their is a marked difference between a group expressing outrage over their treatment, and political leaders generating dear and promoting hatred toward another group.

Right now a major political party candidates for the higher post in the land are doing that. They are making statements and acting in ways that are very anologous to 1934 Weimar Republic Germany politics.

That is extremely concerning to me.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on November 20, 2015, 10:32:12 PM
Marco Rubio: We Need to Close Anywhere Muslims Go (http://gawker.com/marco-rubio-we-need-to-close-anywhere-muslims-go-1743759185)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on November 20, 2015, 10:35:14 PM
Former Children's Doctor Ben Carson Compassionately Compares Refugees to Rabid Dogs (http://theslot.jezebel.com/former-childrens-doctor-ben-carson-compassionately-comp-1743724402)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on November 20, 2015, 10:54:04 PM
Dumb Hicks Are America's Greatest Threat (http://gawker.com/dumb-hicks-are-americas-greatest-threat-1743373893)



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on November 28, 2015, 05:01:32 PM
Vile Fox News Audience Reacts To Shooting At Colorado Planned Parenthood

Once again, the people who watch Fox News are demonstrating their appalling lack of decency and, ironically in this case, respect for human life. News reports about an active shooter situation at a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs are still somewhat vague as to the shooter’s motives and the status of victims. There are confirmed reports of police officers wounded by gunfire, and citizens are virtually trapped in nearby shops as they await a conclusion.

[UPDATE: The gunman was captured alive and taken into custody. The investigation is ongoing. But none of that alters the atrocious nature of the comments by the Fox News audience.]

In the heat of this live crisis the Fox News website is hosting some of the most nauseating responses imaginable. They run the gamut of hateful rhetoric from anti-choice extremism “Too bad the abortion doctor and the nursing staff weren’t all killed.” to overt racism “I know this isn’t PC….but niggers are just plain bad news.”. Never mind that there is little information about the shooter or his motives (he has been identified in one report as a white male), the Fox News audience is focused entirely on their inbred hostilities toward minorities, women, and President Obama, whom some are accusing of setting this up.


http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=30244

Or this lovely gem, which fits this thread just fine!

The Collected Hate Speech Of The Fox News Community

This page is a collection of the vile and contemptible expressions of hatred found on the Fox News community website, Fox Nation. It is a window into the dark soul of unrepentant bigots who proudly put their shameful ignorance on display. It also speaks to the character of Fox News that permits these comments to remain on their website that they claim is moderated to insure civil discourse.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?page_id=13324


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Piper-Dreams on November 28, 2015, 05:32:09 PM
Vile Fox News Audience Reacts To Shooting At Colorado Planned Parenthood

Once again, the people who watch Fox News are demonstrating their appalling lack of decency and, ironically in this case, respect for human life. News reports about an active shooter situation at a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs are still somewhat vague as to the shooter’s motives and the status of victims. There are confirmed reports of police officers wounded by gunfire, and citizens are virtually trapped in nearby shops as they await a conclusion.

[UPDATE: The gunman was captured alive and taken into custody. The investigation is ongoing. But none of that alters the atrocious nature of the comments by the Fox News audience.]

In the heat of this live crisis the Fox News website is hosting some of the most nauseating responses imaginable. They run the gamut of hateful rhetoric from anti-choice extremism “Too bad the abortion doctor and the nursing staff weren’t all killed.” to overt racism “I know this isn’t PC….but niggers are just plain bad news.”. Never mind that there is little information about the shooter or his motives (he has been identified in one report as a white male), the Fox News audience is focused entirely on their inbred hostilities toward minorities, women, and President Obama, whom some are accusing of setting this up.


http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=30244

Or this lovely gem, which fits this thread just fine!

The Collected Hate Speech Of The Fox News Community

This page is a collection of the vile and contemptible expressions of hatred found on the Fox News community website, Fox Nation. It is a window into the dark soul of unrepentant bigots who proudly put their shameful ignorance on display. It also speaks to the character of Fox News that permits these comments to remain on their website that they claim is moderated to insure civil discourse.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?page_id=13324

Not to mention their lack of coverage on the subject. I imagine if the shooter was muslim we would here no end to the commentary.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on November 28, 2015, 07:35:50 PM
This is why I have so much disdain for the current "conservatives".

My father's response to those comments was a very sorrowful, "I stood to protect their right to say this. I hope they don't take it to the point where the rest of my oath is activated."

I asked what was that?

His reply: "…to protect and defend the Constitutuon from all enemies, foreign AND domestic…"


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on November 28, 2015, 10:48:04 PM
So a person who, and I am just guessing, is against abortion takes over a Planned Parenthood office and kills a police officer and others. Go figure.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on November 29, 2015, 06:57:09 AM
If you are going to follow the Christian religion, or any religion, you don't get to choose the precepts or whom they are applied to. Thou shalt not kill is pretty explicit. If you have problems with reading comprehension or fail to understand te words, then I would be happy to explain them. However apparently, a great many Christians who posted on the Fox News site on this story are too ficking stupid to think, comprehend, or understand the basics of their own religion. This is a first world nation, and they fail to meet the minimum standards expected of a citizen in such a nation.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on November 29, 2015, 07:23:31 AM
I still have hope in the Republic.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Elizabeth on November 29, 2015, 05:30:43 PM
I still have hope in the Republic.

So did the Romans.....and look what happened to them.
 :D
Love,
Liz


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on November 29, 2015, 08:05:50 PM
We are no longer democratic republic, but an oligarchy.

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.

This is not news, you say.

Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.


The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.

"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."

On the other hand:
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.

They conclude:
Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

Eric Zuess, writing in Counterpunch, isn't surprised by the survey's results.

"American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media)," he writes. "The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious 'electoral' 'democratic' countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now."

This is the "Duh Report", says Death and Taxes magazine's Robyn Pennacchia. Maybe, she writes, Americans should just accept their fate.

"Perhaps we ought to suck it up, admit we have a classist society and do like England where we have a House of Lords and a House of Commoners," she writes, "instead of pretending as though we all have some kind of equal opportunity here."

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPPS%2FPPS12_03%2FS1537592714001595a.pdf&code=cf959c9e846b0e27892e95a86818a91c


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on November 30, 2015, 03:54:55 PM
In a press release, Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said:

"It is offensive and outrageous that some politicians are now claiming this tragedy has nothing to do with the toxic environment they helped create. Even when the gunman was still inside of our health center, politicians who have long opposed safe and legal abortion were on television pushing their campaign to defund Planned Parenthood and invoking the discredited video smear campaign that reportedly fed this shooter's rage."

Lageuns called out candidates Carly Fiorina, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz specifically, although the organization's message seemed to apply to the wider GOP rallying cry of attempting to close Planned Parenthood as an organization.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on November 30, 2015, 07:23:57 PM
  7 people were gunned down, dead, in Chicago this weekend, all black citizens of Illinois, by criminals.

  The Saint Valentine Day murders involved 7 dead, murdered in Chicago, and was an nationwide, if not international sensation; now it's just "a long weekend" for Chicago. Who knows how many in Chicago, a all Democrat bureaucracy since there was electric power there, were wounded, mugged, stabbed, raped or whatever... not worth keeping track anymore.

  There is no advantage for Democrats to highlight such an atrocity of course, and so the Press follows suit and just brushes this chaos and slaughter off as 'whatever'.
------------------------
  Three people were killed by a madman in Colorado last week, whose statements are not being released by authorities there, whose weapon is not being detailed by the authorities there, who is rumored to have said something to someone, all anonymous source quotes, about "baby parts" during his insane spree.

  Here, Democrats (and the Press, but I am being redundant) find useful for their agenda to place blame, and take yet another run at gun owners (legal, legitimate, law abiding citizens), over and above the existing gun control in Colorado. And so, that is the story.

  A obviously insane man attacks people at a health clinic in Colorado, for reasons no one will say officially, with a weapon no one will detail, beyond one person who was shot at, received fire in his car, and said the shots were fired with about a two second interval (which is not the sign of a military weapon, necessarily).

  And do we hear about help for the insane? No. We hear about one of the perennial pet peeves of partisan Democrats, to gin up interest during an election campaign.
I believe we should wait for the details, and cage this clearly nuts person in the mean time, until he can be dealt with permanently. (meaning, we will spend millions in the process to have a less than fatal result, most likely, and take some years to do it.)

  Planned Parenthood should receive not one dime of taxpayer money. Nothing. And that has little or nothing to do with why some insane person did this horrible crime.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IdleBoast on November 30, 2015, 11:17:28 PM
Only a third of Planned Parenthood's funding comes from tax payers, and every single federal cent goes towards family planning, contraception, education etc.

The small part of PP's activities that include the termination of pregnancies are funded by donations from corporations and trusts such as the Gates Foundation, Ford Foundation etc.

-----------------

Speaking from the UK, it is generally considered disgusting that a nominally-civilised nation has to rely on donations to preserve the physical and emotional health of so many women, because the national government is so deeply influenced by religious fundamentalists so as to be scared of providing such basic health care.

WHO data from 2012 shows that abortion rates are not affected by the legal status of the procedure.  What does change is the level of mortality in the mothers, unable to get the treatment in medically-secure conditions when their home nation chooses to demonise them.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on November 30, 2015, 11:21:08 PM
  What is the patient's insurance for? Let the Obamacare patient pay for insurance and insurance pay for her health care, and leave the taxpayer out of it. The U.S. is not Europe, and hopefully never will be.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on December 01, 2015, 01:00:14 AM
Joan, your two posts are not in agreement with your previous stances.

First of all the first one after Lois is totally unconnected to what she said. It has absolutely NO bearing whatsoever on what happened. It is a sinister and sick attempt to mitigate what happened by shifting blame away from the false information and inflammatory rhetoric used by the conservative blogosphere and the GOP CANDIDATES OF ALL types and positions.

The second post you made us in direct opposition to you stand in Obamacare where you decried it when used for anything you have opposed under the banner of the social conservatives, e.g. Abortion and contraception.

I strenuously advocate that you retire from the discussion since your posts are so out of touch not only with realty, but with your past positions.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on December 01, 2015, 02:35:27 AM
If Joan would like to educate all of us on how "the party of hate" also caused the deaths in Chicago then I'd welcome her contributions.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IdleBoast on December 01, 2015, 08:08:10 PM
  What is the patient's insurance for? Let the Obamacare patient pay for insurance and insurance pay for her health care, and leave the taxpayer out of it. The U.S. is not Europe, and hopefully never will be.

Our health service is not paid for from taxes, we all make a separate payment known as our "national insurance contribution".  That pays for the NHS.

That means we don't end up in a situation like we were in a few years ago.  My son has an obstructive kidney condition, not normally any problem at all, so of course it caused problems on holiday in the US.  We called an ambulance, and had to sit in the ambulance with our son screaming in agony as his kidney slowly ruptured, just because the ambulance crew had to go through our insurance documents to work out which hospital to take him to.

In the end, we had to tell them fuck the cost, we know what's wrong with him, take him to the nearest hospital with decent paediatric care.

That is an obscene way for any country to administer a basic human right in the 21st century, let alone a nation that claims to be a world leader.

You may dismiss a national, free-at-point-of-use health service as "socialism", but most of the planet call it the right way to do things.

(http://prn.fm/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Socialism1.jpg)



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on December 02, 2015, 02:25:03 AM
@ IdleBoast

(http://redsarmy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/applause-gif-2.gif#applause%20gif%20320x240)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on December 23, 2015, 03:36:26 PM
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfl1/v/t1.0-9/12376258_10205672817326831_416381248308106056_n.jpg?oh=eef237f8eff2e9144a656e19de844698&oe=56DA80D7)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on February 25, 2016, 10:47:17 PM
I have to say that Trump's popularity with GOP voters kinda proves the whole party of hate thing.


White Supremacists Mobilize For Donald Trump
They're using robocalls and volunteers to drum up support.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-white-supremacist-sec-primary_us_56cf4437e4b0bf0dab31222f


Why Are Evangelicals Supporting The Unrepentant Donald Trump?
(They hate & fear the same people)
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/how-donald-trump-appeals-to-evangelicals


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on February 26, 2016, 12:16:11 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVt5iwpgWe0

Looks like Democrats, and huffington post, but I am being redundant, are getting nervous, as Hero Hillary gets closer to the Indictment she has earned. On that front, with the Court ordered testimony of other State Department aides, it becomes even more clear that Obama's DOJ will let her sink.

Expectation is that the Grand Jury will deliver the Indictment to the Federal Judge who is sitting at the time, who will begin the process, without input from Loretta Lynch. Long term prosecutors, rather than Obama appointees, will bring the case.
What should be fun to watch, is when Debbie Wasserman Schnitz decides to hand the Nomination not to Bernie... but to Biden...

Philadelphia will likely burn, as the usual suspects employ skills honed in Missouri.
It is Joe Biden's to lose, assuming he even could embarrass himself enough to make any difference at the Oscars... He was last choice, but the only one willing to do it.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on February 26, 2016, 01:18:59 AM
Joan said:
Quote
Expectation is that the Grand Jury will deliver the Indictment to the Federal Judge who is sitting at the time, who will begin the process, without input from Loretta Lynch. Long term prosecutors, rather than Obama appointees, will bring the case.
What should be fun to watch, is when Debbie Wasserman Schnitz decides to hand the Nomination not to Bernie... but to Biden...

I'd like to see your sources on those allegations.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on March 18, 2016, 08:03:58 AM
The right’s shocking admission: Stunned by Trump’s dominance, some GOP pundits concede that Dems have been right about Republicans all along
Longtime Republicans are questioning the party's broader strategy as Trump has exposed its inner rot
SEAN ILLING

“America’s in the middle of a real political storm — a real tsunami — and we should have seen this coming.” – Marco Rubio

It was always inevitable, I suppose. The Republican Party has debased itself for decades – courting racists, placating religious lunatics, and using the culture wars as a political wedge. Candidates like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin are natural outgrowths of this conservative ecosystem; they’re exactly what you’d expect it to produce.

This is the climate Republicans have cultivated, and what we’re seeing now is the logical conclusion of those efforts.

The GOP establishment continues to eat itself from within, as officials scramble to make sense of it all. You might call it an identity crisis of sorts. Longtime Republicans are now questioning the party’s broader strategy. Here’s Bret Stephens, a conservative columnist for the Wall Street Journal:

“Liberals may have been fond of claiming that Republicans were all closet bigots and that tax cuts were a form of racial prejudice, but the accusation rang hollow because the evidence for it was so tendentious. Not anymore. The candidacy of Donald Trump is the open sewer of American conservatism…It would be terrible to think that the left was right about the right all these years.”

Terrible indeed, but no less true. Here’s a similar Tweet by Max Boot, a neoconservative hawk and prominent Republican intellectual: “I’m a lifelong Republican but Trump surge proves that every bad Democrats have ever said about GOP is basically true.” Welcome to the club, Max. Happy to have you.

In addition to embracing the worst elements of its base, the GOP also blundered in its strategic decision to cede the business of governing to Democrats and focus instead on obstructing President Obama. “Our top political priority over the next two years,” Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell famously said in 2010, “should be to deny President Obama a second term.”

One of the less incoherent objections Trumpites raise against the Republican Party is that it hasn’t delivered on any of its promises. Legislatively, the GOP has been virtually useless. Election after election, session after session, Republicans have failed to pass any meaningful pieces of legislation, which is what happens when compromise becomes a heresy in your party.

The GOP’s stated strategy – at least since Obama was elected – has been to create gridlock, to make the country ungovernable. Recall how they used the nation’s credit rating to blackmail the opposing party, not to accomplish anything but to score points with their purist base. And just this week, we have the nihilsm of a Republican senate, led by McConnell, refusing to do its job and consider President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination. The bogus talking point is that the people’s voice ought to be heard before choosing a new Justice. But the people already spoke in the last election, when they gave Obama a second term. But that doesn’t matter because McConnell is hostage to the Tea Party reactionaries that dominate the Republican-led Congress. This is the kind of bureaucratic inertia Americans are rejecting.

In their bottomless cynicism, Republicans have tried to break the government so that they could then reproach the Democrats for ruining it. This worked temporarily, but it was bound to backfire at some point.

Now something like 87 percent of the country disapproves of the job Congress is doing. Republicans wagered that the country would blame Obama for the mess they manufactured. Instead, their base is – rightly – blaming the GOP establishment, and Donald Trump is delivering the message. Trump voters hate Obama, of course, but not nearly as much as they do their own party.

The GOP committed itself to grievance politics and a strategy of political arson years ago. Had they gone another way, had they been serious about the difficult work of governance, Donald Trump would not have devoured their party this cycle. Once again, he’s their Frankenstein, and no one in the party can stop him.

Our only hope is that the Democrats will.

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/17/the_rights_shocking_admission_stunned_by_trumps_dominance_some_gop_pundits_concede_that_dems_have_been_right_about_republicans_all_along/


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on March 18, 2016, 10:29:15 AM
  Loser RINOs and leftists are always welcome on the Sunday shows. There is no H8 in the Trump Campaign, no Racism, no Violence, and Republicans do not Riot...

  The closest history in the 20th Century to a R riot was when nasty Democrat lawyers and party brass stole the "chads", and locked Republican observers out of a room, so they could begin a secret count of select precincts in Florida, and not recount the entire State, as the Officials had ordered.

  Some called that the "Brooks Brothers Riot", as the winning lawyers gathered and expressed outrage outside the locked room. Few media covered it. That is about it,
since the 19th Century at least. All the innuendo thrown at Republicans belongs with the Democrats history, including the KKK, Chicago 1968, firehoses on demonstrators and more and Democrats, with the Press (sorry for being redundant) hide this very effectively. May the various Democrat Grand Wizard elected officials rest in peace.

  Democrats riot, and are good at it... witness Chicago in general and especially a week or so ago when largely minority thugs put their lack of English communication skills behind them, and lock stepped to prevent local Chicago merchants from benefitting with the planned downtown Trump Campaign venue there.

  Ferguson, St. Louis, and Baltimore are only a few recent examples, and we won't detail all the dead Police Officers since President Obama gave his support to Skip Gates, Treyvon (who lurked, waited to beat up who he thought was the gay guy), Occupy Movement, BlackLivesMatter and others of these Soros funded, over and over, the past 7 years.

  Question: when the Democrat Party steals the Nomination from Bernie this summer, will it be Republicans who riot, or Democrats, inside and outside the venue?

  Odds, anyone?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on March 18, 2016, 03:25:55 PM
The demand for orthodoxy by the extreme right wing conservative apologists is very reminiscent of another political group which demands it and punishes those who stray from the path.

No, I am NOT Godwining the thread.

The other political entity is the Communist party, which uses the same tactics and requires the same unthinking adherence to party line.

Both the Soviets under Stalin, and the Chicoms are the parallel to the Republican Party.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Gina Marie on March 18, 2016, 03:51:23 PM
 Loser RINOs and leftists are always welcome on the Sunday shows. There is no H8 in the Trump Campaign, no Racism, no Violence, and Republicans do not Riot...

Dude, you seriously need to quit huffing paint.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTz7DlhlZiE


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on March 18, 2016, 04:38:40 PM
When Joan is stabbing and shooting demonstrators for her glorious leader, she will still insist that Republicans do not riot.  :emot_laughing:


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Elizabeth on April 06, 2016, 06:35:57 AM
Mississippi GOP governor signs law allowing businesses to refuse service to gay people (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/05/mississippi-governor-signs-law-allowing-business-to-refuse-service-to-gay-people/)

Something tells me this is headed for the Supreme Court.

Love,
Liz


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on April 06, 2016, 02:49:09 PM

Mississippi GOP governor signs law allowing businesses to refuse service to gay people (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/05/mississippi-governor-signs-law-allowing-business-to-refuse-service-to-gay-people/)



Personally, I don't think there's a whole lot to worry about here. On the one hand, as Liz points out, the law will be appealed, up the the Supreme Court. On the other hand, severe economic pressure will be brought to bear, as it has in other states that passed, or debated, similar laws. For example, the governor of Georgia vetoed a similar bill, not because he objected to it (he hadn't the slightest objection, in theory), but because he realized the attending loss of revenue was a far worse fate. And the same is currently happening in North Carolina.

At the same time, I think the most interesting part of the article is this:

The law also says that government employees who authorize or issue marriage licenses or perform marriages can recuse themselves due to their beliefs, so long as these licenses and marriages are “not impeded or delayed as a result of any recusal.”


Well, yes, that's exactly the right step. And the same recusal should occur in private businesses as well.









Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on April 06, 2016, 06:32:51 PM
What happens if someone claims that their religious beliefs allow them to refuse service to a racial, ethnic, or religious group?
This is a slippery slope.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on April 06, 2016, 07:24:30 PM

What happens if someone claims that their religious beliefs allow them to refuse service to a racial, ethnic, or religious group?

This is a slippery slope.


Not sure if you're responding to me or not, but my point was that an individual may refuse to perform a given service based on personal religious beliefs, but a business may not. Thus, the baker who believes it violates his religious beliefs to bake the homo wedding cake gets another baker in the store to do it, etc.

Besides, these aren't really "religious" beliefs, but socio-political beliefs...






Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on April 06, 2016, 08:13:08 PM

Besides, these aren't really "religious" beliefs, but socio-political beliefs...


Aren't the two intertwined? Religious beliefs and socio-political beliefs? 


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on April 07, 2016, 12:31:45 AM

Besides, these aren't really "religious" beliefs, but socio-political beliefs...


Aren't the two intertwined? Religious beliefs and socio-political beliefs? 

Good point.

Yes, they are intertwined, and that, I think, is the problem. Religious beliefs are twisted to support socio-political beliefs. Thus, to take the issue at hand, Conservative religious believers are against marriage equality, and liberal religious believers support marriage equality. And both pose in in terms of religious, and not political beliefs.

I am, as I've noted many times here, a firm believer in religious liberty and freedom from government interference in religious belief and exercise. You know, the whole First Amendment thing. But laws like this, posed as supporting religious beliefs, actually violate them -- and, of course, they violate basic civil rights as well.






Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IdleBoast on April 07, 2016, 12:54:05 AM
They actually violate their own religion as well.

Anybody that actually knows their bible knows that the hateful intolerance spouted by the fundamentalist christians is old testament commandments, commandments which the new testament deliberately overturn.

For instance, Exodus 21:24 says "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth", bu that is completely overturned by Matthew 5:38-42;
Quote
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.  Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

If you consider yourself a believing christian, you must accept that the coming of Jesus fulfilled the OT, and the commandments of the NT supersede the commandments of the OT.

That means the attitude of a christian should be one of acceptance and love [agape] of all.  Discrimination and exclusion are not traits professed, modelled or commanded by Jesus or his disciples.

If you encounter a nominal christian who is anti-gay, ask them when they converted to Judaism...






Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on May 19, 2016, 06:13:57 AM
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

See what happens when you disdain 'book learning'?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on May 23, 2016, 05:37:05 AM
Expanding on what Toe posted about the Texas GOP platform:
Quote from: Texas GOP
We support the repeal of the 17th Amendment of the United States Constitution and the appointment of United States Senators by the state legislatures.

Pursuant to Article 1 Section 1 of the Texas Constitution, the federal government has impaired our right of local self-government. Therefore, Federally mandated legislation, which infringes upon the 10th Amendment rights of Texas, should be ignored, opposed, refused, and nullified. Regulation of Commerce in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution has exceeded the original intent. All attempts by the federal judiciary to rule in areas not expressly enumerated by the United States Constitution should be likewise nullified. Any federal enforcement activities that do occur in Texas should be conducted under the authority of the county sheriff.

We oppose the appointment of unelected bureaucrats and we support defunding and abolishing the departments or agencies of the Internal Revenue Service, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Labor, and Interior (specifically, the Bureau of Land Management), Transportation, Security Administration, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and National Labor Relations Board. In the interim, executive decisions by departments or agencies must be reviewed and approved by Congress before taking effect.

Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that has been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nation's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, in public policy, nor should family be redefined to include homosexual couples. We oppose the granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

We oppose environmentalism that obstructs legitimate business interests and private property use, including the regulatory taking of property by governmental agencies. We oppose the abuse of the Endangered Species Act to confiscate and limit the use of personal property and infringement on property owner's livelihood. "Climate Change" is a political agenda promoted to control every aspect of our lives. We support the defunding of "climate justice" initiatives and the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency and repeal of the Endangered Species Act.

We support the return to the precious metal standard for the United States dollar.

We support the repeal of the Community Reinvestment Act.

Call for a limited Article V convention of states for the specific purpose of restricting the power of the federal government, including the implementation of term limits, and balanced budget amendment. Any proposed amendments must be ratified by 3⁄4 of the states.

It is rare to see such stupidity done publically. The elimination of the IRS, by itself is so detrimental to the economy, maintenance of roads, harbors and waterways, not to mention border and military installations here.

The support for the elimination of the 17th amendment and appoint federal senators by the state legislatures, and in the the third paragraph opposing the appointment of unelected bureaucrats is diametrically opposite policies.

The stupid is strong in these people.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on May 23, 2016, 08:16:30 PM
Wasn't Texas planning on leaving the United States not too long ago?  From reading what their GOP platform has written, they might as well leave.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on May 23, 2016, 08:50:07 PM
Like I said, the stupid is strong in these people. They don't look for connections and consequences.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Elizabeth on July 15, 2016, 04:26:26 PM
Wasn't Texas planning on leaving the United States not too long ago?  From reading what their GOP platform has written, they might as well leave.

Yeah, They wanted to join Mexico........... :emot_laughing:

Love,
Liz


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on July 15, 2016, 04:39:59 PM
Newt Gingrich: Test every Muslim in U.S. to see if they believe in Sharia (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politics/newt-gingrich-hannity-interview/)

And if they do, he says, they should be deported.  But what about those that are already US citizens?  Will there be concentration camps?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Elizabeth on July 15, 2016, 04:42:54 PM

And if they do, he says, they should be deported.  But what about those that are already US citizens?  Will there be concentration camps?

Ask The Japanese in California (1941 - 1945).
 :o

Love,
Liz


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Piper-Dreams on July 15, 2016, 04:49:23 PM
Newt Gingrich: Test every Muslim in U.S. to see if they believe in Sharia (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politics/newt-gingrich-hannity-interview/)

And if they do, he says, they should be deported.  But what about those that are already US citizens?  Will there be concentration camps?

No, they will have to watch videos of Newt in the buff pleasuring the ladies though.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ChirpingGirl on July 15, 2016, 06:51:40 PM
Newt Gingrich: Test every Muslim in U.S. to see if they believe in Sharia (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politics/newt-gingrich-hannity-interview/)

And if they do, he says, they should be deported.  But what about those that are already US citizens?  Will there be concentration camps?

No, they will have to watch videos of Newt in the buff pleasuring the ladies though.

Eeeew.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on July 13, 2017, 02:07:01 AM
Jeff Sessions addresses 'anti-LGBT hate group,' but DOJ won't release his remarks (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jeff-sessions-addresses-anti-lgbt-hate-group-doj/story?id=48593488)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Northwest on August 29, 2017, 07:20:04 AM
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/348343-gop-lawmaker-proposes-amendment-that-would-stop-funding-for-special-counsel


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on August 29, 2017, 05:27:36 PM
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/348343-gop-lawmaker-proposes-amendment-that-would-stop-funding-for-special-counsel

Sounds like they are scared.   


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Northwest on August 29, 2017, 06:13:32 PM
I don't think they would have a problem coming up with private donations to keep the committee running, do you? I think the world is full of people who want to see it run its course, and want to see the work move forward.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on August 29, 2017, 06:26:21 PM
I should hope so.

But again, it sounds like the Republicans are scared.  They want to limit the scope of the investigation because if it becomes known what a crook Trump is with regards to his business dealings, it will taint the whole party. 

Sorry, too late!

 :emot_laughing:


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: twistedspike on February 01, 2018, 03:11:37 AM
I am sure it would not take long to google up things just as outrageous said by some of the liberal Hollywood group.

OH... BY ALL MEANS... INDULGE US! PLEASE!

OK

http://www.examiner.com/article/liberals-on-twitter-respond-to-romney-s-rnc-speech-with-hate-death-threats

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-silent-as-liberals-on-twitter-call-for-ann-romney-s-death

WELL DONE! Mad props and a WOO to you Sir. I think this insanity it is indicative of the desperation that has been created on both sides of the coin... It is so deeply "us VS them" that people are stupid enough to make death threats on public media.
  And this is whats wrong with politics and discussion of politics today. If everyone would open their minds to others opinions instead of being closed minded to the point of hostility, things might change. Folks never used to hate their neighbors by the ways they voted,(well most didn't anyways). Always had a sayin, " Just cause yer louder, it don't make ya righter."


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on February 03, 2018, 04:43:53 AM
RNC sides with Trump ban of transgender people in military (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-rnc-transgender-military-20180202-story.html)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 25, 2018, 08:30:05 PM
Citing Moral Objection, Walgreens Pharmacist Denies Woman Medication for Miscarriage (https://jezebel.com/citing-moral-objection-walgreens-pharmacist-denies-wom-1827101743)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on July 01, 2018, 07:22:23 PM
Police charge Bell Acres councilman with driving through crowd of protesters on North Side (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2018/06/29/Police-Sewickley-man-drove-through-crowd-of-protesters-on-North-Side/stories/201806290130)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on July 04, 2018, 09:08:09 AM
NPR Tweeted The Declaration Of Independence And Some Trump Supporters Were Offended (https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliareinstein/we-hold-these-alternative-truths-to-be-self-evident?bftw&utm_term=.iiAE08LqV#.yvmxODzdy)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on July 04, 2018, 07:10:32 PM
Kentucky Governor Holds Medicaid Patients Hostage After Court Rules Against Him (https://splinternews.com/kentucky-governor-holds-medicaid-patients-hostage-after-1827288943)

#Resist



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Elizabeth on July 05, 2018, 01:17:57 AM
Citing Moral Objection, Walgreens Pharmacist Denies Woman Medication for Miscarriage (https://jezebel.com/citing-moral-objection-walgreens-pharmacist-denies-wom-1827101743)

#Resist

I can see a lawsuit coming.....

Love,
Liz


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on July 05, 2018, 01:30:28 AM
Probably not.

Walgreens pharmacist in Peoria denies mother miscarriage medicine due to moral objection (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/peoria/2018/06/23/z-arizona-walgreens-pharmacist-denied-mother-miscarriage-medicine-because-personal-beliefs/727805002/)

Quote
Arizona laws specifically allow pharmacies and pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription for religious or moral reasons.

Arizona, as crazy as Florida and more racist.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on September 26, 2018, 08:20:11 AM
Well, I can honestly say that I don't remember the Dixie Chicks thing, but I think I have good reason not to remember it.

However, from what I read...W was, in fact, the worst president America has ever had.  And I think Trump gets that label because people like me are vocal but too young to remember things like torture, outing CIA agents because of their husband's articles, censoring the press, and opening offshore detention facilities. 

CLEARLY there is a lot of hate in the GOP...

But I don't think I would call it the party of hate.  At least not until everyone takes a nice long look into the mirror and acknowledges all the hate coming from your side as well.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on September 27, 2018, 03:21:31 AM
Lawmaker's offensive ethnic, sexual comments to three women spur resignation call (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/lawmaker-s-offensive-ethnic-sexual-comments-three-women-spur-resignation-n913461?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on September 28, 2018, 04:41:56 PM
CLEARLY there is a lot of hate in the GOP...

See, the thing is, they Tolerate hate.  Nazis, the Klan, David Duke endorsed the creepy uncle in chief, and their golden calf clearly hates women.

"Oh no, I love women.  Nobody has as much respect for hot women with big tits as me, ask anyone."  Sad.

They're not all rapists, racists, and homophobes.  That's just the thing, you don't have to slap Ivanka on the ass, and tell her to go to bed.  You just have to stand bye, and let it happen...


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on September 28, 2018, 11:04:06 PM
CLEARLY there is a lot of hate in the GOP...

See, the thing is, they Tolerate hate.  Nazis, the Klan, David Duke endorsed the creepy uncle in chief, and their golden calf clearly hates women.

"Oh no, I love women.  Nobody has as much respect for hot women with big tits as me, ask anyone."  Sad.

They're not all rapists, racists, and homophobes.  That's just the thing, you don't have to slap Ivanka on the ass, and tell her to go to bed.  You just have to stand bye, and let it happen...

So does the left now, they just tolerate hate towards different people, and unlike the right, they ENCOURAGE hate speech towards those groups rather than condemn it like the right does


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on September 28, 2018, 11:07:54 PM
So does the left now, they just tolerate hate towards different people, and unlike the right, they ENCOURAGE hate speech towards those groups rather than condemn it like the right does

They're not Endorsed by the Klan, and the Arayan Nation.  They don't tolerate that level of Institutional Hate.

You want to play "Both sides," one side includes Nazis, David Duke, Jesse Helms, and Lindsey Gram.  I'll take passive-aggressive "I don't want to sound racist, but," uncomfortable dislike over Heil Donald any fucking day.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on September 28, 2018, 11:11:21 PM
So does the left now, they just tolerate hate towards different people, and unlike the right, they ENCOURAGE hate speech towards those groups rather than condemn it like the right does

They're not Endorsed by the Klan, and the Arayan Nation.  They don't tolerate that level of Institutional Hate.

You want to play "Both sides," one side includes Nazis.  I'll take passive-aggressive "I don't want to sound racist, but," uncomfortable dislike over Heil Donald any fucking day.

I know its hard for you to understand, but the right CONDEMNS those groups.  Every time the KKK endorses them, they condemn them. 

Meanwhile on the left, if you want to scream racist things at men, or white people, or most recently, throw bleach on people for sitting with their legs spread...the left cheers it on.

When they call Black people "Uncle Toms" for marching AGAINST Antifa...the left cheers it on.

When they hit people in the heads with bike locks...the left cheers it on.

They utter all types of hate speech...and get cheered for it.

But you are OK with that, because they are doing it to the people that it is culturally acceptable to do it to.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on September 28, 2018, 11:13:41 PM
Meanwhile on the left, if you want to scream racist things at men, or white people.

Men are not a race, and white people are in POWER.  Those in power do not get to blame the powerless for fucking up the nation they're running into the ground.  You wanna #MakeAmericaGreatAgain?

#GoBackToEurope.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on September 28, 2018, 11:20:39 PM
Meanwhile on the left, if you want to scream racist things at men, or white people.

Men are not a race, and white people are in POWER.  Those in power do not get to blame the powerless for fucking up the nation they're running into the ground.  You wanna #MakeAmericaGreatAgain?

#GoBackToEurope.


So men aren't a race, but you can use hate speech against them just like you can women.

So because white people are in power you can say racist things about them?

That is EXACTLY my point about encouraging hate speech.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on September 28, 2018, 11:24:13 PM
So men aren't a race, but you can use hate speech against them just like you can women.

No, it's just not Racism, it's Sexism, and again, MEN ARE IN POWER.  They can defend themselves.  They neither want, nor need your help, they pretty much want your pussy, because you're young, and female.

Quote
So because white people are in power you can say racist things about them?

No, but they can attack any black man that gains power, up to the point of shutting down the government, twice, and keeping him from nominating a SCotUS.  If he happens to be Orange, get out the the tickets for the Acella.

Those in power have all the protections from those without, they can defend themselves.  Abuse of Power is what we have to stop, or slow down as much as possible.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on September 29, 2018, 03:37:36 AM
The diatribes devolved from barely sensible to the drivel I see now. The only reason I am viewing this thread is to ensure the forum rules are not violated.

Neither of you are putting forth anything remotely viable.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Elizabeth on September 29, 2018, 03:58:33 PM
The diatribes devolved from barely sensible to the drivel I see now. The only reason I am viewing this thread is to ensure the forum rules are not violated.

Neither of you are putting forth anything remotely viable.


Yes, but they love posting.....!!!!
 ;D

Love,
Liz


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on September 29, 2018, 05:14:22 PM
So men aren't a race, but you can use hate speech against them just like you can women.

No, it's just not Racism, it's Sexism, and again, MEN ARE IN POWER.  They can defend themselves.  They neither want, nor need your help, they pretty much want your pussy, because you're young, and female.

Quote
So because white people are in power you can say racist things about them?

No, but they can attack any black man that gains power, up to the point of shutting down the government, twice, and keeping him from nominating a SCotUS.  If he happens to be Orange, get out the the tickets for the Acella.

Those in power have all the protections from those without, they can defend themselves.  Abuse of Power is what we have to stop, or slow down as much as possible.

OMG..."Hate Speech" who cares how the fuck you define it and why the fuck are you still insisting it is racism?  This is why I call you an idiot.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on September 29, 2018, 06:10:07 PM
Meanwhile on the left, if you want to scream racist things at men.

That's why.  It was in response to you saying that.  You see so much racism that you can't tell it apart from Sexism.  Calm down.  Get your facts straight, read it again, and then say something brilliant.  This is getting tiresome, when you don't even know what you're saying, defending the poor white men from "Racism."

Dingbat.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 01, 2018, 09:17:06 AM
Meanwhile on the left, if you want to scream racist things at men.

That's why.  It was in response to you saying that.  You see so much racism that you can't tell it apart from Sexism.  Calm down.  Get your facts straight, read it again, and then say something brilliant.  This is getting tiresome, when you don't even know what you're saying, defending the poor white men from "Racism."

Dingbat.

Hey, idiot, I called it "Hate Speech" you keep going back to "racism" they aren't one in the same.  Hate Speech is a broad topic...while racism is narrowly defined to race.

How can you not tell the difference?  Or does it not matter to the hate you spew towards the groups you are allowed to?

This is why people have a problem with you...you can't tell your ass from your elbow.  Now go back and pretend that you are fucking literate.

I'll do it for you:
Quote
They utter all types of hate speech...and get cheered for it.

Now, get your head out of your ass and make like you have reading comprehension beyond a toddler.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 01, 2018, 10:54:58 AM
Hey, idiot, I called it "Hate Speech"  Now go back and pretend that you are fucking literate.  Now, get your head out of your ass and make like you have reading comprehension beyond a toddler.

What is this?  It's obviously not hate speech, so why don't you tell me what that is.  Idiot, illiterate toddler.  Hate speach isn't what you said.  You said "saying racist things about men."  (Who still aren't a race.  And pointing that out isn't a racist thing to say, nor is it accusing you of racism.  That would be Sexism, if that's what I was doing, which it isn't.)    What racist thing are being said about men?  Saying racist things isn't racism?  It's "Hate speech" (Which you didn't say) not "Racism?"  Since I'm the illiterate toddler here, and I don't know the difference.  Why don't you tell me how saying racist things isn't racist?



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 01, 2018, 11:46:48 PM
Hey, idiot, I called it "Hate Speech"  Now go back and pretend that you are fucking literate.  Now, get your head out of your ass and make like you have reading comprehension beyond a toddler.

What is this?  It's obviously not hate speech, so why don't you tell me what that is.  Idiot, illiterate toddler.  Hate speach isn't what you said.  You said "saying racist things about men."  (Who still aren't a race.  And pointing that out isn't a racist thing to say, nor is it accusing you of racism.  That would be Sexism, if that's what I was doing, which it isn't.)    What racist thing are being said about men?  Saying racist things isn't racism?  It's "Hate speech" (Which you didn't say) not "Racism?"  Since I'm the illiterate toddler here, and I don't know the difference.  Why don't you tell me how saying racist things isn't racist?



Well, clearly you either can't read, or you want to twist the shit out of something so you can argue it again. 

And since you are twisting "hate speech" to "racism" so you can argue against misandry...then I am telling you that you're an idiot.

Now go be triggered over the mess you intentionally caused.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 02, 2018, 12:15:06 AM
Now go be triggered over the mess you intentionally caused.

LOL!  Triggered?  Right, you triggered me.  That's exactly what you did, because donchaknow, I'm so easily triggered.  

What misandry?  What misandry are you raging against?  Where is it?  You're the one who said "Hate Speech."  That's why I said quote: "Hate speech," because you're the one who confused misandry with racism.  So, it's your allegation, your accusation, what hate speech has triggered you?  Show me on this doll where the liberals hurt you.  If we're screaming racist things towards men, then how come you're the only one who hears it?

And why do you find assholes wherever you go??


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 02, 2018, 12:31:23 AM
The GOP has been showing their hate via various dog-wistles for some time.  Then along comes Trump ....

White men are not hated in the same way.  For the most part, we are just disapointed in many of them.

So what is the difference? Blacks, Hispanics, the disabled and LGBTQ folks are hated for things they cannot change.  We show disapointement in white men for things they can change.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 02, 2018, 12:46:14 AM
We show disapointement in white men for things they can change.

They have the power to change.  PoC LGBT, and women do not.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Jed_ on October 02, 2018, 01:30:52 AM
We show disapointement in white men for things they can change.

They have the power to change.  PoC LGBT, and women do not.

As an old white nan I have no more power to change anything than women and LGBT people.  We all have one vote and a civil obligation to use it as wisely as we can.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on October 02, 2018, 02:20:27 AM

We show disapointement in white men for things they can change.


They have the power to change.  PoC LGBT, and women do not.


As an old white nan I have no more power to change anything than women and LGBT people.  We all have one vote and a civil obligation to use it as wisely as we can.


Older white men currently control just about everything. As a result, they have the power to change just about everything.

* Politics: The president, the majority of members of Congress, and the majority of Supreme Court justices are older white men, and the same holds true on the state and local levels.

* The entertainment industry: Yes, most of the actors fall outside that demographic, but the clear majority of studio heads, agency bosses, directors, and producers are older white men.

* Sports: Again, the athletes aren’t older white men, but virtually all of the team owners, team presidents and general managers, and coaches and managers are.

* Corporate America: It’s wonderful to see the growing number of women and non-whites working their way up the corporate ladder and assuming positions of leadership in corporations and in the financial services industry. Yet the overwhelming majority of corporate leaders and financial services titans are older white men.

In other words, virtually every aspect of American life is dominated by older white males.

They shouldn't feel ashamed that they're older white men, nor do they deserve blame simply because they are older white men.

But they must feel a sense of obligation and stewardship to ensure that everyone who is not an older white man has the same opportunities that I have had, and is freed from every barrier to achieving success simply because they are not an older white man.






Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 02, 2018, 02:24:29 AM
As an old white nan I have no more power to change anything than women and LGBT people.  We all have one vote and a civil obligation to use it as wisely as we can.

Sorry, #NotAllWhitemen.  The majority of them in power.  Not you personally, but just look at Congress.  Regardless of Party lines, look at the other Demographics there.  There are more women, PoC, and LGB with more power than ever before, but we do not make up even half of the Majority of those in power.  Let's just say we're working on it, but that's how a Black man got to nominate two Justices to the Supreme Court (Both Women) and the Golden Calf got to elect 2 white men to the Supreme Court, So Far.  In 2 years, instead of 7, because the SJC denied one from nominating a 3rd in the 8th term.

See how that works?  I'm not blaming all white men, that would actually be racist, and misandrist.  If that was actually what i was saying, but these are just examples.  We don't have to hate minorities, we just have to stand by while the Minority in Power abuse it.  (And call us bigots whenever we point it out, or don't tolerate intolerance.)

There's also plenty of white women (Like Lindsey Graham) and Men of Color (like Ben Carson, and Ted Cruz) which side with the Old White Men Party.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Jed_ on October 02, 2018, 03:42:38 AM
Just for fun I’ll list my bosses in chronological order throughout my career:

Chinese woman
Jewish man
-job change
White woman
White man from England, politics unknown
-job change
Same white woman as above, just different company and hired me again
-job change
White man, but a vegetarian, Dutch and very liberal if that makes a difference LOL
Black woman
White woman, Slovakian
*White man, American, religious and conservative
-job change
Gay older white man (actually was my boss briefly after the Slovakian woman)
Chinese man
Black man from Africa (my current boss)

The only boss I disliked and still to this day have an intense hatred for is marked by a *.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on October 02, 2018, 06:59:37 AM
  The Legislature, State or National, is where elected candidates get the opportunity to influence, via their behavior, votes and proposed legislation, any real 'change' in matters large and small.

  Gaining the trust of the voters, their Constituents, by performing, doing what the individual legislator said they would do, voting the way they said they would vote, when seeking the support prior to office, while in office, is the way such folks should seek to remain in office long enough to actually make a difference.

  The Courts is not where laws are made, certainly not where they should be made, and both elected and appointed, or nominated and confirmed Justices have obligations laid out in the United States Constitution and similar State documents, to which the must adhere in rulings. Want something different? Then change the laws, or change the State Documents or Federal Constitution so the Courts can rule in cases reflecting such new or different laws.

  Whether one is one or another Religion, or no Religion at all, is no matter when it comes to how Courts are obligated to follow the Law, and Higher Courts follow the same Law as lower Courts, regarding the U.S. Constitution.

  Whether a Lifetime Appointment is justified, or wise, for most any position is a good item to debate. Removal of a Judge who does not follow the Law should not be such a seeming impossible task, at least removing that Judge's influence from our Day to Day lives, while her/his future compensation issues are worked out.

  Constitutional change via Amendment is the process for redress, when so many agree on such changes, and debate on such matters should be open and more fruitful, perhaps. Another item worthy of debate.

  Politicians who run for high office should state what they believe, make clear the goals they seek for all Constituents, and work toward such goals when in office. Their reelection should sink or swim via the votes of Constituents who are pleased, or not pleased, with the politician's performance and results.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 02, 2018, 08:31:54 AM
And this proves my point.

Gender, race, and sexuality don't matter...unless they are Jed and a straight white male, at which point they DO matter and it is perfectly acceptable to blame them for everything and use the type of speech that you would consider hate speech (or what psi would consider "racism" and then try to argue that it's not) for any other group.

And no one seems to see the hypocrisy here, because if you change the definition, add "plus power," carry the one, do some long division, and then use string, iodine, and a note from your mothers...it becomes perfectly acceptable to use the hate speech that you would stand up against for any other group.

And, of course, the cherry on top is that you are applying this to Jed, who generally is more apt to side with you on these things than me.  See how many votes that is going to win when you keep addressing large segments of the population as the enemy because of race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Because that is kind of drawing a line in the sand and, at least with me, when people do that I tend to stand on the other side of it because the all or nothing demands are too authoritarian for my liberal behind.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on October 02, 2018, 10:03:20 AM
What the fuck? Do you think "old white men" have a telepathic connection and operate as a hive mind? Everyone has the power to make positive or negative changes in their own lives. Hold individuals responsible for their own actions, regardless of their colour, gender or age. Laying responsibility at the feet of specific societal groups is counter productive.

Also claiming that minority groups have no power is massively patronising and misleading. This thread is straying very close to the privilege Olympics shit you see in other parts of the Internet, which has always been pants-on-head stupid.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on October 02, 2018, 01:43:50 PM
Trump administration halts visas for same-sex partners of diplomats, UN employees (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/10/02/trump-halts-visas-same-sex-partners-diplomats-un-employees/1495218002/)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 02, 2018, 01:46:09 PM
Do you think "old white men" have a telepathic connection and operate as a hive mind?

No, I believe, as I stated, explicitely, they have Political Connection, accumulated wealth, and the power to prevent a black man from nominating a 3rd Supreme Court Justice.  Also, as you just pointed out, they have the Internet.  Thank you for adding that point.  Would you like to see websites devoted to Hoteps, Creationist, and Incels blaming women for witholding sex to coordinate terror attacks?  Because I have a lot of them right here.

I am a science fiction writer.  If I wanted to tell such a fantastic tale of a secret conspiracy with a hive mind, and mind control waves, I would've already written it.  Look around you.  Look here:

Here. (http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on October 02, 2018, 02:41:00 PM

What the fuck? Do you think "old white men" have a telepathic connection and operate as a hive mind? Everyone has the power to make positive or negative changes in their own lives. Hold individuals responsible for their own actions, regardless of their colour, gender or age. Laying responsibility at the feet of specific societal groups is counter productive.

Also claiming that minority groups have no power is massively patronising and misleading. This thread is straying very close to the privilege Olympics shit you see in other parts of the Internet, which has always been pants-on-head stupid.


That was pretty much my point.

And I made it in the face of the eye-rollingly exhausting claims by older white men (along with younger white men) that they are under attack, being stripped of power, and actively persecuted.

(And, for the record, it was in no way intended as a knock on Jed.)

At the same time, I would strongly prefer NOT to "look at Congress. Regardless of Party lines, look at the other Demographics there. There are more women, PoC, and LGB with more power than ever before." What you say is perfectly true. But it's just as wrong to view members of Congress in terms of their race, skin color, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. as it is to assert the increasing powerlessness of older white men.

And until we cease insisting on viewing people by their demographics, the merry-go-round will keep spinning around and around.

P.S. "Pants-on-head stupid" is a wonderful phrase; I'll certainly steal it at the next available opportunity.





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 02, 2018, 03:55:08 PM
But it's just as wrong to view members of Congress in terms of their race, skin color, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. as it is to assert the increasing powerlessness of older white men.

2 words:  Lindsey Graham.  I was hilighting the unprescidented minor battles we have won over the old guard of white supremacist male dominant culture.  (So also Jesse Helms)  As progressives, now look down the party lines.  See all the women, and ethnicities on the Opposition/Minority side?  Now, look at the Right side.  The brownest face grinning creepily back at you would be Ted Cruz.  Otherwise, the better half of that list is a sea of old white men.  (Teddy may also be the youngest, I'd have to look that up.)  

I know it's painful, and triggering, but go ahead, and look at the people selected to vote on the next SCotUS.  How do you think that vote will go, in favor of the blond in tears, or the distinguished gentleman from Georgetown Prep?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 02, 2018, 09:23:16 PM
Do you think "old white men" have a telepathic connection and operate as a hive mind?

No, I believe, as I stated, explicitely, they have Political Connection, accumulated wealth, and the power to prevent a black man from nominating a 3rd Supreme Court Justice.  Also, as you just pointed out, they have the Internet.  Thank you for adding that point.  Would you like to see websites devoted to Hoteps, Creationist, and Incels blaming women for witholding sex to coordinate terror attacks?  Because I have a lot of them right here.

I am a science fiction writer.  If I wanted to tell such a fantastic tale of a secret conspiracy with a hive mind, and mind control waves, I would've already written it.  Look around you.  Look here:

Here. (http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members)

Well, if you don't agree with it then why were you so fast in throwing out that old white men were the problem and clumping them all into one ball based on race, gender, and sexuality?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 02, 2018, 10:10:11 PM
Well, if you don't agree with it then why were you so fast in throwing out that old white men were the problem and clumping them all into one ball based on race, gender, and sexuality?

What?  I just said not all.  Not ALL.  If I mean all, I say all.  If I don't then I just say White Men.  Not every White Man has All the power, just enough for a Majority.  What were you just saying about my Reading Comprension, and literacy just the other day?

When I say, and I quote: "All White Men" /quote.  Then I will mean "All white men."  Until then, I'm not wrapping Jed in with Lindsey Graham.  Thank you.

Now, since you decided to show up, and attack me.  Call me a bigot, again.  You tell me how this isn't Intolerant Students asking for Safe Places, instead of Safe Places magically creating Intolerance where there was none.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on October 02, 2018, 10:43:41 PM
Hopefully we will lose Cruz this next election.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 02, 2018, 10:54:57 PM
Hopefully we will lose Cruz this next election.

Beto's got Willie Nelson's endorsement!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on October 02, 2018, 10:58:41 PM
What?  I just said not all.  Not ALL.  If I mean all, I say all.  If I don't then I just say White Men.  Not every White Man has All the power, just enough for a Majority.  What were you just saying about my Reading Comprension, and literacy just the other day?

When I say, and I quote: "All White Men" /quote.  Then I will mean "All white men."  Until then, I'm not wrapping Jed in with Lindsey Graham.  Thank you.

Is English not your first language? English is implicitly inclusive. If I say "apples are green" then it's assumed that I mean all apples are green. If I say "some apples are green" then I cannot be misunderstood. Say what you mean, own what you say.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 02, 2018, 11:13:29 PM
Is English not your first language? English is implicitly inclusive. If I say "apples are green" then it's assumed that I mean all apples are green. If I say "some apples are green" then I cannot be misunderstood. Say what you mean, own what you say.

And if I point out the "Sea of white men" on the right of the aisle, the women and minorities on the Left, post a link to the SJC homepage, and explicitly state Old White Men in Congress, in multiple subsequent posts.

Then it's safe to assume I mean "All white men."  Got it.  I'll just remove the color White, and the word Men from my discussions of Hate in America, (Check the tread title) and start saying "I don't see race," then.  Wouldn't want to trigger anyone in their safe place.  Can I still say "Snowflake" if I don't refer to the color?

When did you lose the ability to read?  The whole thing, not just keywords, the whole article.  I guess from now on, when you say "I read it," I'm supposed to assume you read "All" of it, then added the word All every time a word is plural?

"People are strange..."  When I say that, do you think "When you're a stranger," or #Notallpeople?  Thanks for the English lesson, professor.  For a second there, I thought I knew what I ment, when I said it.  Call the thought police, we got a Racist here!

When I say "Congress is Conservative," does that mean All of congress is conservative?  When America voted for trump, does that mean All Americans voted for Trump?  Now, when I say white men are in power, then it's because it's True.  Even if not All of them are in power.

Are my posts not long, and specific enough for you?  Fine, I'll add the word All to all of my sentences from now on.  Welcome to the "Well Actually" America, where we're safe from people with safe places. 


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on October 02, 2018, 11:38:26 PM
Are my posts not long, and specific enough for you? 

Concise and coherent would be fine, thanks.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 03, 2018, 02:32:06 AM
Concise and coherent would be fine, thanks.

#NotAllMen.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Jed_ on October 03, 2018, 03:58:15 AM
Are my posts not long, and specific enough for you? 

Concise and coherent would be fine, thanks.


You’ll turn into Don Quixote expecting that.  Do what I do and relish those moments of extremely humorous brilliance and try and ignore the rest.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Jed_ on October 03, 2018, 06:38:16 PM
Jeez, I’m just noticing I was mentioned several times in this thread.

So let me again add my perspective as a straight older white male (and I’m balding too):

1. I don’t in any way feel persecuted as an above and find such delusions of persecution of that nature absurd.  I also don’t feel under siege by #metoo the way Trump and his ilk claim they do.
2. And I feel no need to apologize in any way for what I am, and find it equally absurd that anyone would think I should.  I happen to be responsible only for my own
actions and not for any actions of any other individual or group someone feels the need to lump me in with.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on October 03, 2018, 07:19:30 PM

Jeez, I’m just noticing I was mentioned several times in this thread.

So let me again add my perspective as a straight older white male (and I’m balding too):

1. I don’t in any way feel persecuted as an above and find such delusions of persecution of that nature absurd.  I also don’t feel under siege by #metoo the way Trump and his ilk claim they do.

2. And I feel no need to apologize in any way for what I am, and find it equally absurd that anyone would think I should.  I happen to be responsible only for my own
actions and not for any actions of any other individual or group someone feels the need to lump me in with.


Well, you didn't mention the fact that you are balding, and that changes everything!  ;)

As I said, you have no reason to apologize, you should not be blamed, nor should you feel ashamed (or be made to feel ashamed).

My only point was that many other "older white men" seem to see themselves as persecuted minority who are under attack from all sides. They're not, and they need to shed their delusions.










Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on October 03, 2018, 07:45:48 PM

My only point was that many other "older white men" seem to see themselves as persecuted minority who are under attack from all sides. They're not, and they need to shed their delusions.


And there are certain politicians and others who use this false sense of persecution to their advantage.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 03, 2018, 08:01:17 PM
And there are certain politicians and others who use this false sense of persecution to their advantage.

You're right, they (the GoP) use it to rally (More) young white (#NotAll)men to backlash, to deny women power positions, and lock down the only black (ish) president in favor of the Gold one.

How does this not suggest that there's a growing power dynamic there?  They use it to gain more power, for more white men.  What should we do, not point it out, because they use that to their advantage, too?  They use everything to their advantage, or at least try to, because they can.  (Did I say All enough, or should I keep editing?)

So, them using it against us is no reason to stop pointing it out.  If we call them on a lie, they're just going to lie to cover it up.  That's why we point out those lies, too.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Jed_ on October 03, 2018, 10:03:11 PM

Jeez, I’m just noticing I was mentioned several times in this thread.

So let me again add my perspective as a straight older white male (and I’m balding too):

1. I don’t in any way feel persecuted as an above and find such delusions of persecution of that nature absurd.  I also don’t feel under siege by #metoo the way Trump and his ilk claim they do.

2. And I feel no need to apologize in any way for what I am, and find it equally absurd that anyone would think I should.  I happen to be responsible only for my own
actions and not for any actions of any other individual or group someone feels the need to lump me in with.


Well, you didn't mention the fact that you are balding, and that changes everything!  ;)

As I said, you have no reason to apologize, you should not be blamed, nor should you feel ashamed (or be made to feel ashamed).

My only point was that many other "older white men" seem to see themselves as persecuted minority who are under attack from all sides. They're not, and they need to shed their delusions.




And once that persecution complex sets in, they most likely will take it to the grave.

A few years ago I thought they were going the way of the dinosaurs, but I’m far less sure of that now.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 03, 2018, 10:10:45 PM
The simple fact is that when you throw people into a group based on age, race, sexuality, culture, and gender, and then cast it as a negative you are being hateful.

You can't do it to one group...and then say it's wrong to do it to any other group.

If it is wrong to do it for one people, it's wrong to do it for all.

It's just getting that through to some people is like getting blood from a stone.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on October 04, 2018, 12:33:32 AM

Jeez, I’m just noticing I was mentioned several times in this thread.

So let me again add my perspective as a straight older white male (and I’m balding too):

1. I don’t in any way feel persecuted as an above and find such delusions of persecution of that nature absurd.  I also don’t feel under siege by #metoo the way Trump and his ilk claim they do.

2. And I feel no need to apologize in any way for what I am, and find it equally absurd that anyone would think I should.  I happen to be responsible only for my own
actions and not for any actions of any other individual or group someone feels the need to lump me in with.


Well, you didn't mention the fact that you are balding, and that changes everything!  ;)

As I said, you have no reason to apologize, you should not be blamed, nor should you feel ashamed (or be made to feel ashamed).

My only point was that many other "older white men" seem to see themselves as persecuted minority who are under attack from all sides. They're not, and they need to shed their delusions.


And once that persecution complex sets in, they most likely will take it to the grave.

A few years ago I thought they were going the way of the dinosaurs, but I’m far less sure of that now.


I agree.

And the sooner they take it to the grave, the better...





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 04, 2018, 12:56:41 AM
The simple fact is that when you throw people into a group based on age...

You already played that card.  You can't flip it over, and insist that other people are lumping anyone into a group, after you insisted emphatically that everyone over age 30 was "Over the hill."  You disqualified yourself.  Try another card, and burn that one.

The group I pointed out was The Republican Majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Wanna see the lineup again?  Because with a spec of brown in Ted Cruz, they are a lump of old white men, wadded together, and wrapped around a stick to beat on women, and minorities.  Screaming "Reverse Racism" doesn't change that until they add a little more diversity, or surrender some power to the Democrats, after this year's election.

Get out there and vote, let's hope you have a better choice than John McDrunkface, and Brent O'daterape.  Tell you what, for the people at home:  2 random names, who's up for the House seat in your district?  Is one of them white?  Is one of them male?  Are they both?

Which one is the incumbent?  Let's take a poll real quick.  How many people here, this year have a Woman, AND a PoC to chose from?  That's not me picking a group, that's the US government.  I could look up all of the House races, but I won't.  I'm willing to bet, sight unseen, the vast majority are old white men.

That's just 1 Race.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 04, 2018, 02:49:09 AM
The simple fact is that when you throw people into a group based on age...

You already played that card.  You can't flip it over, and insist that other people are lumping anyone into a group, after you insisted emphatically that everyone over age 30 was "Over the hill."  You disqualified yourself.  Try another card, and burn that one.

The group I pointed out was The Republican Majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Wanna see the lineup again?  Because with a spec of brown in Ted Cruz, they are a lump of old white men, wadded together, and wrapped around a stick to beat on women, and minorities.  Screaming "Reverse Racism" doesn't change that until they add a little more diversity, or surrender some power to the Democrats, after this year's election.

Get out there and vote, let's hope you have a better choice than John McDrunkface, and Brent O'daterape.  Tell you what, for the people at home:  2 random names, who's up for the House seat in your district?  Is one of them white?  Is one of them male?  Are they both?

Which one is the incumbent?  Let's take a poll real quick.  How many people here, this year have a Woman, AND a PoC to chose from?  That's not me picking a group, that's the US government.  I could look up all of the House races, but I won't.  I'm willing to bet, sight unseen, the vast majority are old white men.

That's just 1 Race.

Except you already DID lump people into a horrible group based on the conspiracy that they control the world and actively try to keep everyone else oppressed based on Race, Gender, culture, and sexuality.

And then tried to excuse yourself of the BLATANT hate speech with a simple "well not all"

That's like saying "well you're one of the good ones."


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Jed_ on October 04, 2018, 03:13:18 AM
The simple fact is that when you throw people into a group based on age...

You already played that card.  You can't flip it over, and insist that other people are lumping anyone into a group, after you insisted emphatically that everyone over age 30 was "Over the hill."  You disqualified yourself.  Try another card, and burn that one.

The group I pointed out was The Republican Majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Wanna see the lineup again?  Because with a spec of brown in Ted Cruz, they are a lump of old white men, wadded together, and wrapped around a stick to beat on women, and minorities.  Screaming "Reverse Racism" doesn't change that until they add a little more diversity, or surrender some power to the Democrats, after this year's election.

Get out there and vote, let's hope you have a better choice than John McDrunkface, and Brent O'daterape.  Tell you what, for the people at home:  2 random names, who's up for the House seat in your district?  Is one of them white?  Is one of them male?  Are they both?

Which one is the incumbent?  Let's take a poll real quick.  How many people here, this year have a Woman, AND a PoC to chose from?  That's not me picking a group, that's the US government.  I could look up all of the House races, but I won't.  I'm willing to bet, sight unseen, the vast majority are old white men.

That's just 1 Race.

Except you already DID lump people into a horrible group based on the conspiracy that they control the world and actively try to keep everyone else oppressed based on Race, Gender, culture, and sexuality.

And then tried to excuse yourself of the BLATANT hate speech with a simple "well not all"

That's like saying "well you're one of the good ones."


I hope I’m one of the good ones?

I mean I know I’m not just white, but pasty white, barely keeping any minimal tan for more than a week.  Being mostly bald, I now shave my white beard and trim what little hair that is also white extremely short because people say I look younger; how dare I hide with obvious shame that I’m old.  And why haven’t I lopped off that offensive penis of mine yet?  And we all know that LGBT tolerance I try and show is just an act of a straight homophobe.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 04, 2018, 04:13:00 AM
Can I lump all young females of Irish heritiage that also feel betrayed by the left into a group and call them idiots?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 04, 2018, 04:25:31 AM
Can I lump all young females of Irish heritiage that also feel betrayed by the left into a group and call them idiots?

No, that would be too specific.  I think way can lump assholes together, though.  I believe the official criterion is they're the ones that meet assholes all day...


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on October 04, 2018, 05:12:43 AM
Can I lump all young females of Irish heritiage that also feel betrayed by the left into a group and call them idiots?
Damnit! I fit half of that demographic. I guess i’ll Have to emphasize my Scots and German heritage.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 04, 2018, 07:27:28 AM
Well to be fair, Psi already called any mention of anyone if Irish heritage "White Supremacy"

And you, Lois, have already exercised your authority and were openly abusive to assure that no one disagrees with his politics...no matter how much they change.

So, honestly, I wouldn't doubt that either of you would have any hesitation to openly spew hate towards anyone you label as "other."


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 04, 2018, 10:16:08 AM
 :emot_laughing: :emot_laughing: :emot_laughing: :emot_laughing: :emot_laughing: :emot_laughing:


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 04, 2018, 02:28:48 PM
Well to be fair, Psi already called any mention of anyone if Irish heritage "White Supremacy"

Seriously?  Not only this shit again, but every time you tell this tale, it becomes even more specious.  Now, it's any mention "if" Irish heritage is it?  Is that what I called white supremacy over a year ago?  It's amazing how you change my politics to show how my politics changed.

Me quoting you has been taken as a sign, by you, that I am arguing with you.  You have outright stated that, if I quote you, you will Assume that I am attacking you.  Even if I try to agree with you.  

You truly believe that, I think you, personally, are "White Supremacy."  Because your name is Irishgirl?  No, I don't believe you're white supremacy.  They have some power, and influence.

Stop playing the victim, you're not very good at it.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on October 04, 2018, 03:06:20 PM

And you, Lois, have already exercised your authority and were openly abusive to assure that no one disagrees with his politics...no matter how much they change.


Wow, no one has ever made THAT assertion on KB before!

But don't worry, you're in good company: You're the 67th KB member to assert that board Mods have no right to express a personal opinion, and when they do, they're "exercising their authority" rather than, you know, expressing an opinion.

And you're the 183rd KB member to express the belief anyone who contradicts one of their assertions is suppressing their right to free speech.

Everyone has a right to disagree with his politics, and everyone has a right to contradict something he -- or anyone else -- posts on KB.

If you have something to say, then say it. But the shrinking violet, "oh poor persecuted me" routine is both stale and pointless.





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on October 04, 2018, 04:10:27 PM
Can I lump all young females of Irish heritiage that also feel betrayed by the left into a group and call them idiots?
Damnit! I fit half of that demographic. I guess i’ll Have to emphasize my Scots and German heritage.


There is a book called How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill. Some Irish still believe they did save civilization.  ;D ;D


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 04, 2018, 04:41:35 PM
Can I lump all young females of Irish heritiage that also feel betrayed by the left into a group and call them idiots?
Damnit! I fit half of that demographic. I guess i’ll Have to emphasize my Scots and German heritage.

There is a book called How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill. Some Irish still believe they did save civilization.  ;D ;D

Yes, and there was also a PBS series with the same name, based on the book. It was a good series and a good read.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on October 04, 2018, 06:19:39 PM

There is a book called How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill. Some Irish still believe they did save civilization.  ;D ;D


Yes, and there was also a PBS series with the same name, based on the book. It was a good series and a good read.


I agree. I enjoyed the book, and I enjoyed the PBS series even more.

They don't "prove" that the Irish saved civilization. But they do demonstrate the fascinating roles that the Irish played in preserving and forwarding Western civilization, which is, of course, the foundation of modern civilization.

I highly recommend both.





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 04, 2018, 10:18:47 PM
Can I lump all young females of Irish heritiage that also feel betrayed by the left into a group and call them idiots?
Damnit! I fit half of that demographic. I guess i’ll Have to emphasize my Scots and German heritage.


There is a book called How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill. Some Irish still believe they did save civilization.  ;D ;D

It over-exaggerated, most of what was saved came from monestaries all over Europe.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 04, 2018, 11:08:52 PM
It over-exaggerated, most of what was saved came from monestaries all over Europe.

Is it a good book?  I haven't read it, but it sounds interesting.  Being Irish, and having read it, I would highly value your honest opinion.  Worth reading?  (With the caveat that it exaggerates.  Maybe you just saved Irish civilization?)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 05, 2018, 12:47:53 AM
It over-exaggerated, most of what was saved came from monestaries all over Europe.

Is it a good book?  I haven't read it, but it sounds interesting.  Being Irish, and having read it, I would highly value your honest opinion.  Worth reading?  (With the caveat that it exaggerates.  Maybe you just saved Irish civilization?)

It is OK, most of it deals with the monastic system that preserved the pagan writings which gave us the Renaissance.  But the monasteries were all over Europe at the time, it was just that the Irish were worse Catholics following the fall of Rome and more apt to preserve those books.

AND, given the location, less likely to be raided and destroyed until the rise of the Vikings, and by then the tradition of copying Plato and Plutarch spread to the mainland.

So it was more geography than anything.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 05, 2018, 01:07:23 AM
...most of it deals with the monastic system that preserved the pagan writings which gave us the Renaissance.  But the monasteries were all over Europe at the time, it was just that the Irish were worse Catholics following the fall of Rome and more apt to preserve those books.

So the Normans?  As they were the ones that brought them over from the March, in Latin, along with other "Civilization."  (You know, with all those "Snakes" over there.)  So, they saved civilization in the same way the Arabs did, after the Persians sacked, and burned Ekzandron.  (Before they renamed it "Alexandria")  So, good on you, and your's.

Quote
AND, given the location, less likely to be raided and destroyed until the rise of the Vikings, and by then the tradition of copying Plato and Plutarch spread to the mainland.  So it was more geography than anything.

Oh no.  The Normans were after the Vikings.  Got it.  I'll pick that up, thanks!  Yeah, sounds like one of those stories most would find boring, and I fascinating, because I'm weird (Too.)  Likewise the Basques saved a genetic record of what we all today "Neanderthals" (Unfortunately named after a valley in Germany.)  History is somewhat the story left over after the armies leave.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 05, 2018, 01:19:45 AM
...most of it deals with the monastic system that preserved the pagan writings which gave us the Renaissance.  But the monasteries were all over Europe at the time, it was just that the Irish were worse Catholics following the fall of Rome and more apt to preserve those books.

So the Normans?  As they were the ones that brought them over from the March, in Latin, along with other "Civilization."  (You know, with all those "Snakes" over there.)  So, they saved civilization in the same way the Arabs did, after the Persians sacked, and burned Ekzandron.  (Before they renamed it "Alexandria")  So, good on you, and your's.

Quote
AND, given the location, less likely to be raided and destroyed until the rise of the Vikings, and by then the tradition of copying Plato and Plutarch spread to the mainland.  So it was more geography than anything.

Oh no.  The Normans were after the Vikings.  Got it.  I'll pick that up, thanks!  Yeah, sounds like one of those stories most would find boring, and I fascinating, because I'm weird (Too.)  Likewise the Basques saved a genetic record of what we all today "Neanderthals" (Unfortunately named after a valley in Germany.)  History is somewhat the story left over after the armies leave.

OMG no, learn to read.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: watcher1 on October 05, 2018, 01:44:02 AM
It over-exaggerated, most of what was saved came from monestaries all over Europe.

Is it a good book?  I haven't read it, but it sounds interesting.  Being Irish, and having read it, I would highly value your honest opinion.  Worth reading?  (With the caveat that it exaggerates.  Maybe you just saved Irish civilization?)

It is OK, most of it deals with the monastic system that preserved the pagan writings which gave us the Renaissance.  But the monasteries were all over Europe at the time, it was just that the Irish were worse Catholics following the fall of Rome and more apt to preserve those books.

AND, given the location, less likely to be raided and destroyed until the rise of the Vikings, and by then the tradition of copying Plato and Plutarch spread to the mainland.

So it was more geography than anything.

The Irish monasteries were easy targets for the Vikings in need of precious metals to fund further raids. That is until the pagan Vikings were converted to Christianity.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 05, 2018, 02:08:10 AM
OMG no, learn to read.

Oh, for fuck's sake.  Honestly, I ask for a good book to read, and your response, to getting commended, and thanked for doing me a solid, is to accuse me once again of illiteracy?

I'm one of those illiterate imbeciles that writes compulsively, and asks people on story forums for good books to read, donchaknow. 

Do you have any reason in that conflicted head of your's for this irrational hatred?  For taking everything as the exact, diametrical opposite to support your persecution complex?  I don't hate you, I never did.  Sorry to disappoint you.

Someone, out there actually doesn't hate you.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 05, 2018, 04:09:10 AM
OMG no, learn to read.

Oh, for fuck's sake.  Honestly, I ask for a good book to read, and your response, to getting commended, and thanked for doing me a solid, is to accuse me once again of illiteracy?

I'm one of those illiterate imbeciles that writes compulsively, and asks people on story forums for good books to read, donchaknow. 

Do you have any reason in that conflicted head of your's for this irrational hatred?  For taking everything as the exact, diametrical opposite to support your persecution complex?  I don't hate you, I never did.  Sorry to disappoint you.

Someone, out there actually doesn't hate you.

Just seemed pretty clear that you took what I said and garbled the hell out of it.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 05, 2018, 05:14:17 AM
Just seemed pretty clear that you took what I said and garbled the hell out of it.

What part of "Learn to read" did I garble the hell out of?  That's 3 words.  I can tell because I can FUCKING READ!  I can write, this sentence.  <Right here.  That means that when I ask, nicely, for a book recommendation, it's an invitation for a book recommendation, not another personal attack.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Jed_ on October 05, 2018, 10:54:57 AM
It over-exaggerated, most of what was saved came from monestaries all over Europe.

Is it a good book?  I haven't read it, but it sounds interesting.  Being Irish, and having read it, I would highly value your honest opinion.  Worth reading?  (With the caveat that it exaggerates.  Maybe you just saved Irish civilization?)

It is OK, most of it deals with the monastic system that preserved the pagan writings which gave us the Renaissance.  But the monasteries were all over Europe at the time, it was just that the Irish were worse Catholics following the fall of Rome and more apt to preserve those books.

AND, given the location, less likely to be raided and destroyed until the rise of the Vikings, and by then the tradition of copying Plato and Plutarch spread to the mainland.

So it was more geography than anything.


I can picture Celtic monks as also being closeted pagans that liked to read, and that the geographic isolation of Ireland in particular of the Celtic regions helped, rather than say Brittany.  My takeaway is that then Christianity only set back European civilization a thousand years when it easily could have been a few centuries more.

I wonder if that would have allowed some other culture to surpass Europe, such as China?  I also wonder what would have happened to New World civilizations such as the Aztec and Inca if they had gotton a few more centuries break to develop on their own.

I’d like to read more about that time and often wondered how did what was a center of enlightenment in Moorish Spain decay so quickly.  Perhaps the muslims being both kicked out and Islam going the way of Christianity, where it became a sin to read anything but the Koran, just like it was with Christianity and the Bible.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 05, 2018, 02:53:24 PM
I also wonder what would have happened to New World civilizations such as the Aztec and Inca if they had gotton a few more centuries break to develop on their own.

I'd add the Mississippians to that list.  It's hard to say, as they were all 3 Stone Age cultures.   I doubt a few more centuries would have gotten them much farther than Bronze considering the fact that in Africa, Asia, and Europe, similar cultures didn't advance that quickly, when they had the accelerating affect of competing cultures, and intercontinental trade.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Jed_ on October 05, 2018, 03:42:07 PM
I would characterize most New World cultures as Stone Age when Europeans arrived, but there was metal working going on in Central and South America.  It’s too bad gold doesn’t make good weapons, but does get the attention of cultures that do make good weapons.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 05, 2018, 04:09:24 PM
It’s too bad gold doesn’t make good weapons, but does get the attention of cultures that do make good weapons.

You just summed up a whole lot of human history right there.  I'd add a lot of other factors besides Wood, and Stone vs Renaissance/Colonization period weapons, too.  Gold is an extremely easy metal to work, though.  It's also shiny in a color that's reminiscent of the sun, so it looks especially nice out in the sunlight.  So do Brass, and Bronze, but even in those technological ages, they still went for Gold, despite how heavy it is.  I find it interesting that for a lot of human history, that That lustrous, but largely useless metal was the driving force behind so many bloody wars.  

Then again, you also had England basically addicted to Coffee, Tea, Sugar, then Coal, and Whale Oil.  These were useful commodities, or at least edible ones, but the crown spent inordinate amounts of money to get them.  For most of the 20th century (Pretty much since the World Wars) that was largely replaced by Petroleum.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MissBarbara on October 05, 2018, 05:27:11 PM

Is it a good book?  I haven't read it...



It is OK, most of it deals with the monastic system that preserved the pagan writings which gave us the Renaissance.  But the monasteries were all over Europe at the time, it was just that the Irish were worse Catholics following the fall of Rome and more apt to preserve those books.



I can picture Celtic monks as also being closeted pagans that liked to read...


On the one hand, anyone who has read the book or seen the mini-series knows that it does not argue that the Irish single-handedly saved Western Civilization, nor that they were alone in saving Western Civilization or were solely responsible for it. The title itself is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, riffing on the longstanding stereotype that the Irish were too wild, or too drunk, to accomplish much of anything.

On the other hand, the fact that these monks -- in Ireland, and throughout Western Europe -- copied "pagan" works is not evidence of subversiveness nor heresy. They copied and preserved everything. They started, of course, with the Scriptures and writings of the early Christians, but they also preserved the works of Plato and Aristotle, Euclid and Ptolemy, Herodotus and Tacitus, the pagan Greek and Roman playwrights and poets, and everything else they could lay their hands on.

On top of that, many of these monks were illiterate, or only semi-literate. And among the ones who were literate, many of them couldn't read the languages they were copying: Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and in many cases, Latin. They were human copying machines.

It's a myth that the Catholic Church during the "Dark Ages" and Middle Ages strove to eliminate all non-Catholic (or non-Christian) thought. It's a persistent, longstanding, and widespread myth, but it's a myth nonetheless.

A perfect example can be seen in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas is, of course, the normative Catholic theologian, and he wrote more than two centuries before the birth of the Renaissance. If you read his writings, and most notably his masterwork, you'll find that after the Bible and the writings of the early Church fathers, his primary sources are Aristotle, Averroes, Maimonides, and Avicenna. In other words, the primary Catholic theologian based his writings on the works of a pagan, two Jews, and a Muslim.






Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 05, 2018, 05:43:00 PM
The title itself is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, riffing on the longstanding stereotype that the Irish were too wild, or too drunk, to accomplish much of anything.

I hadn't actually heard this, since the modern age.  I've read about it before my time, and of course the Drunkeness is a pretty common stereotype, but if anything I would think the population was too small, overall, and they've never to my knowledge tried to take over the world.  

A lot of the old prejudices, for instance from the Emigration to America and other countries were flat out prejudices out of xenophobia, or War Propoganda.  For instance, the "Snakes" that Saint Patric was supposed to have chased out of Ireland were the "Savages" that fought invasion, and conversion, by force.  So, "Not much of anything" is measured by invaders who count Military accomplishments as significant, and destroy History as a regular part of the conversion process.  In other words, the Irish, as a people, never committed Genocide.  The Genocidal militaries that created those refugees never thought they were more than ignorant wild savages that need Jesus whether they like it or not in the first place.

Contrasted with the Continental Catholic Churches.  Not the Irish Catholics, still didn't really do the Genocide thing even after the snakes were converted, but history is written by the victor, and admittedly, the Italian, Byzantine, Spanish and Heiliges Römisches Reich wrote a lot of History, after conquering a whole lot of other people.  They also respected "Pagan" writers from Greece.  I hardly think that realizing Archimides was onto something makes up for the entire New World being "Civilized."  Much less the historical, and artistic records literally burned, and looted in the Crusades, and Inquisitions.

I'd characterize the Irish Catholics as the nicest Catholics in European history.  Even if they drank, they pretty much stayed at home, reading, and writing, without trying to make the world conform to their beliefs.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Jed_ on October 05, 2018, 05:56:25 PM
An Irish friend of mine joked about the drunken stereotype once that had me laughing.  He had a beer in each hand and held them out announcing, “Irish handcuffs.”
I understood immediately he had been rendered helpless to any attack such as a punch.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 05, 2018, 06:02:15 PM
An Irish friend of mine joked about the drunken stereotype once that had me laughing.  He had a beer in each hand and held them out announcing, “Irish handcuffs.”  I understood immediately he had been rendered helpless to any attack such as a punch.

At least until he finished one.  Now, I have this weird thought in my head of some hooligan busting out windows so the cops show up, give him a couple beers, and haul him off in a paddy wagon.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 05, 2018, 10:18:16 PM

Is it a good book?  I haven't read it...



It is OK, most of it deals with the monastic system that preserved the pagan writings which gave us the Renaissance.  But the monasteries were all over Europe at the time, it was just that the Irish were worse Catholics following the fall of Rome and more apt to preserve those books.



I can picture Celtic monks as also being closeted pagans that liked to read...


On the one hand, anyone who has read the book or seen the mini-series knows that it does not argue that the Irish single-handedly saved Western Civilization, nor that they were alone in saving Western Civilization or were solely responsible for it. The title itself is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, riffing on the longstanding stereotype that the Irish were too wild, or too drunk, to accomplish much of anything.

On the other hand, the fact that these monks -- in Ireland, and throughout Western Europe -- copied "pagan" works is not evidence of subversiveness nor heresy. They copied and preserved everything. They started, of course, with the Scriptures and writings of the early Christians, but they also preserved the works of Plato and Aristotle, Euclid and Ptolemy, Herodotus and Tacitus, the pagan Greek and Roman playwrights and poets, and everything else they could lay their hands on.

On top of that, many of these monks were illiterate, or only semi-literate. And among the ones who were literate, many of them couldn't read the languages they were copying: Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and in many cases, Latin. They were human copying machines.

It's a myth that the Catholic Church during the "Dark Ages" and Middle Ages strove to eliminate all non-Catholic (or non-Christian) thought. It's a persistent, longstanding, and widespread myth, but it's a myth nonetheless.

A perfect example can be seen in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas is, of course, the normative Catholic theologian, and he wrote more than two centuries before the birth of the Renaissance. If you read his writings, and most notably his masterwork, you'll find that after the Bible and the writings of the early Church fathers, his primary sources are Aristotle, Averroes, Maimonides, and Avicenna. In other words, the primary Catholic theologian based his writings on the works of a pagan, two Jews, and a Muslim.






No one ever stated that it was subversive or heresy.    Before the fall of Rome, Christianity was heavily influenced by those texts, or at least they were required reading for the clergy. 

It was only after the fall of Rome when they started to slowly disappear, and even then the attitude was that the monks should read and copy them, so long as they didn't put them before Biblical texts.

You even have people like Miguel Servetes (or however you spell his name--the dude that discovered the concept of pulmonary circulation) even made a point of teaching Jewish and Muslim texts while under the employ of the University of Paris...that is until the Calvinists burned him atop his books in Switzerland in their little historically forgotten Inquisition. 

And, the first Universities were theological in origin and made a point to teach those texts along with theology. 

The entire concept that they were heresy is total bull shit.

The fact is, when Rome fell and with the political unrest between the west and Byzantium, those books, and books as a whole fell out of use. 

And with the ongoing Muslim invasions of both Byzantium and west in a prolonged series of wars that started in around 700 and only ended in the 17th century, even more was lost.  They vanished in the turmoil.  They weren't banned.  They just almost didn't exist.

The Irish just copied them, and as I said, not single handedly, but the geography of Europe simply meant that the texts they copied and dispersed (until the Viking invasions) were simply safer than what was being copied in mainland Europe where there were constant invasions by both the Muslims from the south, and the barbarians from the north, and the in-fighting between the tiny European kingdoms.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 05, 2018, 10:31:32 PM
An Irish friend of mine joked about the drunken stereotype once that had me laughing.  He had a beer in each hand and held them out announcing, “Irish handcuffs.”  I understood immediately he had been rendered helpless to any attack such as a punch.

At least until he finished one.  Now, I have this weird thought in my head of some hooligan busting out windows so the cops show up, give him a couple beers, and haul him off in a paddy wagon.

You want to talk about hate, look at the word "Paddy Wagon,"  "Paddy" in America is the equivalent of the N-Word for the Irish...as is "Biddy."

Those are both racial slurs against the Irish that are commonly used...among others, Tague, Papist, whatever.  Even the term "Pig" used for cops originated as an ethnic slur against the Irish.

People complain about Apu being a racial stereotype...but he's really a sympathetic character.  Especially when compared to the Irish characters in the Simpsons...Chief Wiggum and mayor Quimby. 

And then we have Lucky Charms, the Boston Celtics, Notre Dame, all of which could be viewed as horribly racist and insensitive if people wanted to make an issue of it.

The thing is, we as a culture simply ignore it to the point where people don't realize they are ethnic slurs by virtue of not treating them as slurs.

But that is a question of choosing not to be offended. 


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 05, 2018, 10:35:05 PM
You want to talk about hate, look at the word "Paddy Wagon,"  "Paddy" in America is the equivalent of the N-Word for the Irish...as is "Biddy."

I did not know that.  I'm sorry.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on October 05, 2018, 11:51:02 PM
You want to talk about hate, look at the word "Paddy Wagon,"  "Paddy" in America is the equivalent of the N-Word for the Irish...as is "Biddy."

It might be the closest equivalent but it's very definitely not equivalent in severity. I don't know anyone who would have a stronger reaction than rolling their eyes if they were called a Paddy. Foreigners use it regularly and often with relatively innocent intentions. It's not a well-liked term, but it's not a big deal either. I am speaking, of course, from an Irish perspective here and not an Irish-American perspective.

People complain about Apu being a racial stereotype...but he's really a sympathetic character.  Especially when compared to the Irish characters in the Simpsons...Chief Wiggum and mayor Quimby.

Apu is an Indian character, from India. Mayor Quimby and Chief Wiggum are American characters. Neither Quimby nor Wiggum are Irish names, though Quimby is obviously based on the Kennedys, who are an American family of Irish descent.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 06, 2018, 02:35:14 AM
It might be the closest equivalent but it's very definitely not equivalent in severity. I don't know anyone who would have a stronger reaction than rolling their eyes if they were called a Paddy. Foreigners use it regularly and often with relatively innocent intentions. It's not a well-liked term, but it's not a big deal either. I am speaking, of course, from an Irish perspective here and not an Irish-American perspective.

However, for once she was rightly offended.  As the offending party, I chose to just apologize, even though I didn't know that it was offensive. 

It's nobody's place, not even another Irish person to say "It wasn't that offensive." 


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 06, 2018, 03:03:58 AM
Firstly, I wasn't offended.  I was pointing out that it is a racial and ethnic slur directed towards a people that it is assumed to be perfectly fine to be racist against.

So, if you are going to be politically correct, don't pick and choose.

Secondly

Quote
It might be the closest equivalent but it's very definitely not equivalent in severity. I don't know anyone who would have a stronger reaction than rolling their eyes if they were called a Paddy. Foreigners use it regularly and often with relatively innocent intentions. It's not a well-liked term, but it's not a big deal either. I am speaking, of course, from an Irish perspective here and not an Irish-American perspective.

That is exactly the point I made.  It isn't as severe a racist slur because we as a people don't react to it with the same severity that anyone else would.  And, frankly, the reaction is the reason why some slurs are considered severe and others are not.

Third


Quote
Apu is an Indian character, from India. Mayor Quimby and Chief Wiggum are American characters. Neither Quimby nor Wiggum are Irish names, though Quimby is obviously based on the Kennedys, who are an American family of Irish descent.

So are you arguing that because they are Irish-Americans it's OK to slander them?  Now you are just drawing hairs, seriously, you are picking and choosing which culture it is OK to be racist towards.

And like I already said twice...the reason why no one makes a big deal out if it is because we choose NOT to be offended by it.  It's a choice.  You can escalate it or you can deescalate it based on your reaction...just like Morgan Freemon said.

However, when people try to DEFEND antagonism based on race and ethnicity, then I have a problem with them.

And mainly because:
1) You are guilty of a clear double standard
and
2) I don't understand the reasoning behind trying to justify racial and ethnic slurs, unless you want to be racist.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 06, 2018, 04:51:53 AM
Firstly, I wasn't offended.  I was pointing out that it is a racial and ethnic slur directed towards a people that it is assumed to be perfectly fine to be racist against.

Sorry I apologized, then.  I don't believe that it's okay to discriminate against anyone, (Racially, or not.  Same goes for gender, sexuality, or nation of origin) which is why I was sorry when I accidentally used an ethnic slur.  I assumed you're easily offended, and I was wrong about that too.  

I apologize for that, then.  I seriously doubt that you're completely impossible to please, so I'll keep trying...

Interesting that you equate empathy, and morality with political correctness.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 06, 2018, 05:47:44 AM
Firstly, I wasn't offended.  I was pointing out that it is a racial and ethnic slur directed towards a people that it is assumed to be perfectly fine to be racist against.

Sorry I apologized, then.  I don't believe that it's okay to discriminate against anyone, (Racially, or not.  Same goes for gender, sexuality, or nation of origin) which is why I was sorry when I accidentally used an ethnic slur.  I assumed you're easily offended, and I was wrong about that too.  

I apologize for that, then.  I seriously doubt that you're completely impossible to please, so I'll keep trying...

Interesting that you equate empathy, and morality with political correctness.

Oh didn't have anything against your apology.  I did appreciate it.

Most of it was directed at Galaxy.

I was just pointing out that we just chose not to make a big deal out of it.

Quote
Interesting that you equate empathy, and morality with political correctness.

Actually I don't equate it with PC at all, at least not modern PC culture, as they tend to NOT be empathetic at all, are totally immoral, and tend to equate achieving equality by oppressing other groups.

If anything, at the moment I equate them as the people that advocate violence and suppression.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 06, 2018, 05:56:06 AM
equate achieving equality by oppressing other groups.

Would those groups be the ones in power?  Yes, stopping the oppressive power regime is how we work closer to Equality.  Also, through empathy (So we can consider other people's needs) and Morality.

That's not political correctness.  Political correctness is calling something terrible something that doesn't sound so bad.  Like genocide "Ethnic Cleansing," or occupation, and invasion "Manifest Destiny."  Calling Ghettos Ghettos is just neutral.  Calling actual violence, violence, that's just correct.  Regardless of Political position, the women are not oppressing the men.  You're not committing violence against them.  Quite the opposite.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 06, 2018, 05:59:34 AM
equate achieving equality by oppressing other groups.

Would those groups be the ones in power?  Yes, stopping the oppressive power regime is how we work closer to Equality.  Also, through empathy (So we can consider other people's needs) and Morality.

That's not political correctness.  Political correctness is calling something terrible something that doesn't sound so bad.  Like genocide "Ethnic Cleansing," or occupation, and invasion "Manifest Destiny."  Not alling actual violence, violence.  That's just correct, regardless of Political position, the women are not oppressing the men.  You're not committing violence against them.  Quite the opposite.

Stopping the people in power, stopping oppression, those are NOT the same as taking away rights from people and oppressing them just because they happen to be the same race, gender, ethnicity, and sexuality as the tiny 1% in power.

You DO NOT have to oppress them to achieve equality.  All you are doing is switching one oppressed group for another.  That's not ending oppression, that is advocating for oppression.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 06, 2018, 06:06:48 AM
Stopping the people in power, stopping oppression, those are NOT the same as taking away rights from people and oppressing them just because they happen to be the same race, gender, ethnicity, and sexuality as the tiny 1% in power.

Right, but what rights am I taking away from white men, by working towards more women, and PoC joining the ranks?  There will always be an upper level in power, however, the disparity is there, and basically can't be ignored unless you're insane.  They (The White Men In Power) favor other white men, and oppose anyone else gaining rights, which is oppression.  Rape Threats to silence feminists is Oppression.  Nothing is being done about it, so on youtube, you can threaten women with Rape (Which is incidentally violence) until they have to close comments on all of their videos, until they just can't stand to make them any more.
 Without reprecussion.  You can't show female nipples, that's censored, but you can tell her to "Shut your whore mouth," because that's free oppression.

You want more examples?  Okay, then show me one person I oppress to the level of rape threats, and I'll concede you your point.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 06, 2018, 06:14:58 AM
Stopping the people in power, stopping oppression, those are NOT the same as taking away rights from people and oppressing them just because they happen to be the same race, gender, ethnicity, and sexuality as the tiny 1% in power.

Right, but what rights am I taking away from white men, by working towards more women, and PoC joining the ranks?  There will always be an upper level in power, however, the disparity is there, and basically can't be ignored unless you're insane.  They (The White Men In Power) favor other white men, and oppose anyone else gaining rights, which is oppression.  Rape Threats to silence feminists is Oppression.  Nothing is being done about it, so on youtube, you can threaten women with Rape (Which is incidentally violence) until they have to close comments on all of their videos, until they just can't stand to make them any more.
 Without reprecussion.  You can't show female nipples, that's censored, but you can tell her to "Shut your whore mouth," because that's free oppression.

You want more examples?  Okay, then show me one person I oppress to the level of rape threats, and I'll concede you your point.

Due Process for instance, right now all I have to do is call up your job and say that you did something minor to me, and I can get you fired without you getting the benefit of the doubt or even having to prove that we have never me.

And then speech too.  Violence, like it of not, is NOT a "consequence" to speech.  Protest is, but not when the protest prevents the speech.  Argument is.  But right now, the attitude is that it is OK to physically attack people that you don't agree with.

And then look at Evergreen State, that is CLEARLY attempting to trade one oppression for another.

And honestly, the ONLY people that have ever tried to silence me when I disagree with them are the people on the left.

Look at RU, I butted heads with Kizzy all the time over his right wing politics and never once did he report me or try to silence me for disagreeing with him.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 06, 2018, 06:22:24 AM
Due Process for instance, right now all I have to do is call up your job and say that you did something minor to me, and I can get you fired without you getting the benefit of the doubt or even having to prove that we have never me.

My job is transgender prostitute.  Most, in fact the vast majority of my income is from white men.  I am not against white men, I oppose ABUSE OF POWER.  You're the one that conflates that with racism, when I am opposing Racism, along with any other Abuse of Power.

Now, let's just assume that I am a man.  With a job, and a boss, you can Play the Victim to.  Would you do that?  Have you done that?  You just basically made an empty threat to, but you're not that kind of person, and that's why I Don't Have A Problem With You.  Not because you're an IrishGirl, but because you know you have that power, and yet don't Abuse it.

Quote
Violence, like it of not, is NOT a "consequence" to speech.

I did not say "Consequence."  Once again, you will confuse yourself a lot less, just as soon as you learn how to read something I say, without adding the words you need to prove your point.  

Quote
And then look at Evergreen State, that is CLEARLY attempting to trade one oppression for another.

Give me a minute, and I will.  Now, you falsely accused me of supporting Oppression.  While I do as you asked, kindly go back, read what I say without your words added, and see that I don't equate having power with Abusing it.

[Update]This? (http://www.foxnews.com/us/evergreen-state-sees-catastrophic-drop-in-enrollment-after-social-justice-meltdown)  Okay, yeah.  That's clearly racist.[/update]


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on October 06, 2018, 06:29:01 AM
Got news for you. A private company does not follow judical proceedure. So your anology is poorly conceived


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 06, 2018, 06:30:30 AM
Got news for you. A private company does not follow judical proceedure. So your anology is poorly conceived

Context?  Who?  What company? 


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 06, 2018, 07:58:33 AM
Due Process for instance, right now all I have to do is call up your job and say that you did something minor to me, and I can get you fired without you getting the benefit of the doubt or even having to prove that we have never me.

My job is transgender prostitute.  Most, in fact the vast majority of my income is from white men.  I am not against white men, I oppose ABUSE OF POWER.  You're the one that conflates that with racism, when I am opposing Racism, along with any other Abuse of Power.

Now, let's just assume that I am a man.  With a job, and a boss, you can Play the Victim to.  Would you do that?  Have you done that?  You just basically made an empty threat to, but you're not that kind of person, and that's why I Don't Have A Problem With You.  Not because you're an IrishGirl, but because you know you have that power, and yet don't Abuse it.

Quote
Violence, like it of not, is NOT a "consequence" to speech.

I did not say "Consequence."  Once again, you will confuse yourself a lot less, just as soon as you learn how to read something I say, without adding the words you need to prove your point.  

Quote
And then look at Evergreen State, that is CLEARLY attempting to trade one oppression for another.

Give me a minute, and I will.  Now, you falsely accused me of supporting Oppression.  While I do as you asked, kindly go back, read what I say without your words added, and see that I don't equate having power with Abusing it.

[Update]This? (http://www.foxnews.com/us/evergreen-state-sees-catastrophic-drop-in-enrollment-after-social-justice-meltdown)  Okay, yeah.  That's clearly racist.[/update]

Damn, you make everything about yourself don't you?  You can never talk about society as a whole, it's all you, you, you


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 06, 2018, 08:07:50 AM
Got news for you. A private company does not follow judical proceedure. So your anology is poorly conceived

Context?  Who?  What company?  

I think she is replying to me, and is totally ignoring why HR exists as well as why unions exist in the process and POSSIBLY suggesting that even with unions they might be obligated NOT to protect the people that they are paid to protect for political reasons.

Am I right on that?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on October 06, 2018, 10:31:02 AM
(https://memeguy.com/photos/images/-naive-118615.jpg)

Human Resources departments do not exist to protect employees.

Good luck when you get into the real world.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 06, 2018, 05:00:06 PM
(https://memeguy.com/photos/images/-naive-118615.jpg)

Human Resources departments do not exist to protect employees.

Good luck when you get into the real world.

#Resist

but they are responsible for overseeing various aspects of employment, such as compliance with labour law and employment standards, administration of employee benefits, and some aspects of recruitment and dismissal.

But it is good that you applied what I said about unions to the HR department...

...good luck chewing gum and goose stepping


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 06, 2018, 05:21:13 PM
...good luck chewing gum and goose stepping

Godwin's Law.

For quoting George fucking Carlin.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on October 06, 2018, 05:53:35 PM
That is exactly the point I made.  It isn't as severe a racist slur because we as a people don't react to it with the same severity that anyone else would.  And, frankly, the reaction is the reason why some slurs are considered severe and others are not.

We are not making the same point. You think "nigger" would carry the same weight as "Paddy" if black people would just pull up their socks and not be offended. Paddy is less severe because it doesn't currently carry the same sociopolitical weight. It's easy to not be offended when the people using the offensive language are people who have no bearing on your life and well being whatsoever.

So are you arguing that because they are Irish-Americans it's OK to slander them?  Now you are just drawing hairs, seriously, you are picking and choosing which culture it is OK to be racist towards.

They're Americans. I haven't watched the Simpsons in over a decade, but when it was still a good show I don't recall the characters' Irish ancestry ever being mentioned. I'm not convinced Chief Wiggum even is supposed to have Irish ancestry. Mayor Quimby is clearly based on the Kennedys, which is far more specific than simply being an Irish stereotype, and until your post I had never heard that Chief Wiggum was Irish, much less a negative Irish stereotype. What are his characteristics that you think specifically cast Irish people in a negative light? I don't think it's ok to be racist towards any culture, but I'm very interested to hear what you think is so Irish about Chief Wiggum.

Apu, on the other hand, is Indian as in born in India, moved to the USA. He speaks with a cartoonish (go figure) Indian accent and works in a convenience store. There may be other traits that conform to the American stereotype of Indians, but I'm not familiar with them. He is not written or voiced by any Indians. I think the controversy around him recently was ridiculous in how late into the Simpsons run it was, but I can understand where the criticism is coming from. I could see similar grievances to be raised against Scottish Groundskeeper Willie, or the Mexican Bumblebee Man, or vague European Dr Nick or several other characters from the show, but there are no similar longstanding Irish characters that I'm aware of.

The phrase is splitting hairs, and you'd have to have a point that doesn't crumble at the lightest scrutiny for me to be doing that.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 06, 2018, 07:43:27 PM
That is exactly the point I made.  It isn't as severe a racist slur because we as a people don't react to it with the same severity that anyone else would.  And, frankly, the reaction is the reason why some slurs are considered severe and others are not.

We are not making the same point. You think "nigger" would carry the same weight as "Paddy" if black people would just pull up their socks and not be offended. Paddy is less severe because it doesn't currently carry the same sociopolitical weight. It's easy to not be offended when the people using the offensive language are people who have no bearing on your life and well being whatsoever.

So are you arguing that because they are Irish-Americans it's OK to slander them?  Now you are just drawing hairs, seriously, you are picking and choosing which culture it is OK to be racist towards.

They're Americans. I haven't watched the Simpsons in over a decade, but when it was still a good show I don't recall the characters' Irish ancestry ever being mentioned. I'm not convinced Chief Wiggum even is supposed to have Irish ancestry. Mayor Quimby is clearly based on the Kennedys, which is far more specific than simply being an Irish stereotype, and until your post I had never heard that Chief Wiggum was Irish, much less a negative Irish stereotype. What are his characteristics that you think specifically cast Irish people in a negative light? I don't think it's ok to be racist towards any culture, but I'm very interested to hear what you think is so Irish about Chief Wiggum.

Apu, on the other hand, is Indian as in born in India, moved to the USA. He speaks with a cartoonish (go figure) Indian accent and works in a convenience store. There may be other traits that conform to the American stereotype of Indians, but I'm not familiar with them. He is not written or voiced by any Indians. I think the controversy around him recently was ridiculous in how late into the Simpsons run it was, but I can understand where the criticism is coming from. I could see similar grievances to be raised against Scottish Groundskeeper Willie, or the Mexican Bumblebee Man, or vague European Dr Nick or several other characters from the show, but there are no similar longstanding Irish characters that I'm aware of.

The phrase is splitting hairs, and you'd have to have a point that doesn't crumble at the lightest scrutiny for me to be doing that.

So, you are going to continue "splitting hairs" to protect racial slurs against certain ethnicities?  Rather than saying "it's wrong when no matter who you do it to?"

Really, what is the point in defending discrimination?  Why can't you just say "discrimination is wrong, no matter who you are discriminating against?"

I realize that, of late, you all are defining yourselves by who you hate while screaming that hate is bad...but I am just looking for you to admit that discrimination against the Irish is equally bad to discrimination against anyone else.

Or maybe even just, "all discrimination is bad."  Why is that so wrong to you that you have to argue it's not discrimination when you do it against one group?

Just because you think it's not as bad of a racial slur doesn't mean that it's not sill a racial slur...so why do you feel the need to defend that racism?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 06, 2018, 07:45:17 PM
...good luck chewing gum and goose stepping

Godwin's Law.

For quoting George fucking Carlin.

Not for quoting Carlin, but for taking what I CLEARLY said about unions and twisting it to my reference towards the role of HR departments in dismissing people so that he can achieve a BS victory based on false analogies.

And because he is an authoritarian, even while being on the left.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 06, 2018, 07:50:52 PM
Not for quoting Carlin, but for taking what I CLEARLY said about unions and twisting it to my reference towards the role of HR departments in dismissing people so that he can achieve a BS victory based on false analogies.

And therefore, "Goose Stepping," like Nazis.  For whatever reason, you resorted to the inevitable comparison, whenever a debate goes on long enough for you to run out of a valid argument.  Compare them to the Nazis.

Granted, that's at least back on topic.  After all, they are the party of Hate.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 06, 2018, 07:54:23 PM
Not for quoting Carlin, but for taking what I CLEARLY said about unions and twisting it to my reference towards the role of HR departments in dismissing people so that he can achieve a BS victory based on false analogies.

And therefore, "Goose Stepping," like Nazis.  For whatever reason, you resorted to the inevitable comparison, whenever a debate goes on long enough for you to run out of a valid argument.  Compare them to the Nazis.

Granted, that's at least back on topic.  After all, they are the party of Hate.

If that is what you take if it fine.  But I think that people like him that are willing to throw out Due Process and free speech for political ends are very close to Nazis.

Just because he is not on the far right doesn't mean he's not acting just like they are.  The difference is really only in the who.  The tactics are the same and when they are the same I fail to see the difference between the two sides.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 06, 2018, 08:04:59 PM
And yet again, "They" aren't the ones being supported by these guys:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Charlottesville_%22Unite_the_Right%22_Rally_%2835780274914%29.jpg/1200px-Charlottesville_%22Unite_the_Right%22_Rally_%2835780274914%29.jpg)

That would be the "Unite the Right" rally.  So, unless you can supply photos of real live, goose-stepping, schwastica waving, heiling NAZIs marching for the Left, your comparison is invalid.  The Nazis chose their side.

Also note, the other flag is the symbol of separation from, and declaring War on America.  (Not counting the Gadsen flag in the background.  That was against England.)

So, since pattern recognition doesn't seem to be your fortissmo, that's what a Nazi looks like.  I'll just assume the patriot got lost, and wound up in with the enemies of America flags collection


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on October 06, 2018, 08:17:00 PM
So, you are going to continue "splitting hairs" to protect racial slurs against certain ethnicities?  Rather than saying "it's wrong when no matter who you do it to?"

Really, what is the point in defending discrimination?  Why can't you just say "discrimination is wrong, no matter who you are discriminating against?"

If you're going to accuse me of something like that you're going to need to back it up. Of course, you can't because that is not what I have done. Learn to read and respond to what was said you moronic, cowardly cunt.

I realize that, of late, you all are defining yourselves by who you hate while screaming that hate is bad...but I am just looking for you to admit that discrimination against the Irish is equally bad to discrimination against anyone else.

Or maybe even just, "all discrimination is bad."  Why is that so wrong to you that you have to argue it's not discrimination when you do it against one group?

"You all?" Who are you referring to?

Also,

I don't think it's ok to be racist towards any culture

See above.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 06, 2018, 10:48:53 PM
So, you are going to continue "splitting hairs" to protect racial slurs against certain ethnicities?  Rather than saying "it's wrong when no matter who you do it to?"

Really, what is the point in defending discrimination?  Why can't you just say "discrimination is wrong, no matter who you are discriminating against?"

I realize that, of late, you all are defining yourselves by who you hate while screaming that hate is bad...but I am just looking for you to admit that discrimination against the Irish is equally bad to discrimination against anyone else.

Or maybe even just, "all discrimination is bad."  Why is that so wrong to you that you have to argue it's not discrimination when you do it against one group?

Just because you think it's not as bad of a racial slur doesn't mean that it's not sill a racial slur...so why do you feel the need to defend that racism?

You seem to be equating stereotypes with racial slurs. They are not always the same, nor do they carry the same weight.

We recognize a stereotypes for what it is: a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person. It is not real.

With the Irish these sterotypes were rooted in circumstances that no longer apply, or at least I don't think they do. These sterotypes carry very little weight at this point, and are just used for good natured kidding.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 07, 2018, 12:50:55 AM
So, you are going to continue "splitting hairs" to protect racial slurs against certain ethnicities?  Rather than saying "it's wrong when no matter who you do it to?"

Really, what is the point in defending discrimination?  Why can't you just say "discrimination is wrong, no matter who you are discriminating against?"

If you're going to accuse me of something like that you're going to need to back it up. Of course, you can't because that is not what I have done. Learn to read and respond to what was said you moronic, cowardly cunt.

I realize that, of late, you all are defining yourselves by who you hate while screaming that hate is bad...but I am just looking for you to admit that discrimination against the Irish is equally bad to discrimination against anyone else.

Or maybe even just, "all discrimination is bad."  Why is that so wrong to you that you have to argue it's not discrimination when you do it against one group?

"You all?" Who are you referring to?

Also,

I don't think it's ok to be racist towards any culture

See above.

Listen, I'm not accusing you of anything save attempting to excuse hate speech directed at a specific group.  If you don't want me to call you out on it, instead of justifying it, you can just concede that it's also wrong to spew hate speech about the Irish...you know, rather than protecting the instances when it is done.

Hell even Psi apologized for it when she found out that it was an ethnic slur...and she has reported me more times than everyone else combined for disagreeing with her.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 07, 2018, 12:54:03 AM
So, you are going to continue "splitting hairs" to protect racial slurs against certain ethnicities?  Rather than saying "it's wrong when no matter who you do it to?"

Really, what is the point in defending discrimination?  Why can't you just say "discrimination is wrong, no matter who you are discriminating against?"

I realize that, of late, you all are defining yourselves by who you hate while screaming that hate is bad...but I am just looking for you to admit that discrimination against the Irish is equally bad to discrimination against anyone else.

Or maybe even just, "all discrimination is bad."  Why is that so wrong to you that you have to argue it's not discrimination when you do it against one group?

Just because you think it's not as bad of a racial slur doesn't mean that it's not sill a racial slur...so why do you feel the need to defend that racism?

You seem to be equating stereotypes with racial slurs. They are not always the same, nor do they carry the same weight.

We recognize a stereotypes for what it is: a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person. It is not real.

With the Irish these sterotypes were rooted in circumstances that no longer apply, or at least I don't think they do. These sterotypes carry very little weight at this point, and are just used for good natured kidding.



EVERY other group does the same thing.  So now are you suggesting that every race can be mad about negative stereotypes but the one that you approve of casting negative stereotypes on?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 07, 2018, 12:54:43 AM
Hell even Psi apologized for it when she found out that it was an ethnic slur...and she has reported me more times than everyone else combined for disagreeing with her.

That would be once, for misgendering me.  After the 3rd time I called her on it.  So "Disagreeing" with my identity.  Since we're keeping score.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 07, 2018, 01:25:03 AM
@ Irishgirl:

Huh?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on October 07, 2018, 01:46:53 AM
Listen, I'm not accusing you of anything save attempting to excuse hate speech directed at a specific group.

Yes, I know. Please provide the quote where I have done what you are accusing me of or admit you are a moron with poor reading comprehension skills. Thank you and good night.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 07, 2018, 07:18:33 AM
Listen, I'm not accusing you of anything save attempting to excuse hate speech directed at a specific group.

Yes, I know. Please provide the quote where I have done what you are accusing me of or admit you are a moron with poor reading comprehension skills. Thank you and good night.

You cant take the entire exchange.  We can start where you claimed that Biddy and Paddy aren't bad because they aren't as bad as the N-Word.  And then we can move on to where you justified mocking Irish-Americans because they were American.

But I am sure you would admit it was racist if they did the same with African-Americans wouldn't you?

All I am hearing from you are excuses that it is OK do be hateful to that group, ie "It's racist..but not as bad because they are Irish-AMERICANS

You're insisting on making excuses for hate and racist speech...and rather than just outright saying "it is also bad to use hate speech against them," you're trying to dodge the statement.

If you just admit that hate speech is wrong no matter what group you are using it against...I'll drop the subject entirely.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 07, 2018, 07:19:59 AM
@ Irishgirl:

Huh?

Well, if I said "all Black people are (insert negative stereotype)" You would find it racist.  Is that not true?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on October 07, 2018, 10:50:35 AM
You cant take the entire exchange.  We can start where you claimed that Biddy and Paddy aren't bad because they aren't as bad as the N-Word.  And then we can move on to where you justified mocking Irish-Americans because they were American.

But I am sure you would admit it was racist if they did the same with African-Americans wouldn't you?

All I am hearing from you are excuses that it is OK do be hateful to that group, ie "It's racist..but not as bad because they are Irish-AMERICANS

You're insisting on making excuses for hate and racist speech...and rather than just outright saying "it is also bad to use hate speech against them," you're trying to dodge the statement.

If you just admit that hate speech is wrong no matter what group you are using it against...I'll drop the subject entirely.

Work on your reading comprehension, moron.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 07, 2018, 06:13:36 PM
You cant take the entire exchange.  We can start where you claimed that Biddy and Paddy aren't bad because they aren't as bad as the N-Word.  And then we can move on to where you justified mocking Irish-Americans because they were American.

But I am sure you would admit it was racist if they did the same with African-Americans wouldn't you?

All I am hearing from you are excuses that it is OK do be hateful to that group, ie "It's racist..but not as bad because they are Irish-AMERICANS

You're insisting on making excuses for hate and racist speech...and rather than just outright saying "it is also bad to use hate speech against them," you're trying to dodge the statement.

If you just admit that hate speech is wrong no matter what group you are using it against...I'll drop the subject entirely.

Work on your reading comprehension, moron.

I might be a moron...but you are still dodging it, you are still trying to do anything but agree that hate speech is wrong all the time no matter who you are hating.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on October 07, 2018, 06:42:27 PM
I might be a moron...but you are still dodging it

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/017/215/Ironic._My_stupid_attempt_at_a_new_meme._I_tried_4bafa6_3552920.jpg)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on October 07, 2018, 07:29:42 PM
I might be a moron...but you are still dodging it, you are still trying to do anything but agree that hate speech is wrong all the time no matter who you are hating.

I don't think it's ok to be racist towards any culture

"Might"


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 08, 2018, 07:07:00 AM
I might be a moron...but you are still dodging it, you are still trying to do anything but agree that hate speech is wrong all the time no matter who you are hating.

I don't think it's ok to be racist towards any culture

"Might"

What do you have against admitting that hate speech is wrong no matter who it is directed at?  All you have done is dodge it and justify it.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 08, 2018, 07:28:16 AM
Hate speech comes from hate.  I have never met anyone that actually hates the Irish. They have assimilated because their skin color makes it possible. 

African-Americans?  Not so much.

The only anti-Irish stuff comes from folks that are essentially anti-Catholic, and not because they were molested.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 08, 2018, 07:38:17 AM
Hate speech comes from hate.  I have never met anyone that actually hates the Irish. They have assimilated because their skin color makes it possible. 

African-Americans?  Not so much.

The only anti-Irish stuff comes from folks that are essentially anti-Catholic, and not because they were molested.


Far from the truth.  The hate speech is still used by a ton of people, the negative stereotypes are still used by a ton of people.  Just because they don't overtly claim that they hate the Irish doesn't mean that the ethnic slurs are any less of a slur, it just means that people are OK using the ethnic slurs against one group that they are NOT OK with using against another.

But then, if you take a stand based only on partisanship...you would be apt to use them all the time for political reasons, so wouldn't be tuned to consider them slurs as it fits with the rhetoric.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 08, 2018, 09:48:21 AM
Yes, but hate is irrational, and wrong.  "Americans hate the Irish, therefore my hatred is justified" is Irrational.  If my mother was killed by a drunk driver, then I hated on Irish people, that wold be irrational, and wrong.

Being hated is no excuse for being hateful.  That's the Party of Hate, it's like a Pity Party with a lot less crying, and a lot more calling each other cry baby for ligitimate concerns.  That's joining in, because all the cool kids are doing it.  It looks like fun, seeing the hipsters debate the difference between a sociopath, and a psychopath (Unironically) and joining in.

Eventually, you just end up with people screaming, and hurling explosives back and forth across the Uncanny Valley.  Nothing gets done.  It's the fucking Dark Side, surely you can see that, right?  Your hate doesn't make you powerful.  Trying to scream the loudest doesn't make you right, and it doesn't make anyone see the truth that didn't before.  It just makes Everyone hate you, when before, it was just a few.

It makes everyone an asshole, and you the asshole, too.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 08, 2018, 10:01:17 AM
It also inevitably reduces the Nazis to a meme.  Think about that, if an argument goes on long enough, the odds of someone being compared to a Nazi approach Zero.  

It's a fucking punch line, when you can't tell the difference between a Nazi, and everyone else, you've given up all rational argument, and called Antifa goose stepping terrorists.  The united American front against Fascism, in America, look like Nazis through those shit tinted glasses.  A klansman, waving the seperatist flag, can tell African Americans what's "Unamerican" now.  A half black Pollack has to stand, and sing "The land of the free, and the home of the brave" to keep his job.  Play Ball!

It's how intolerance became so tolerable.  Everyone's shouting, and pounding the podium like Hitler, so now we can't pick Hitler out of a lineup?  It's not like he had a distinctive style.  It's not like Nazis go out of their way to hide their hate, they Literally wear it on their sleeve.

Stop screaming a second, and see what you've become.  


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on October 08, 2018, 10:10:07 AM
What do you have against admitting that hate speech is wrong no matter who it is directed at?  All you have done is dodge it and justify it.

Jesus Christ. Its been answered, but if you need it literally spelled out for you because you're apparently incapable of parsing any meaning other than your pre-determined bias from text, then ok:

Hate speech is wrong no matter who it is directed at.

Now, your turn to answer all of the questions you have ignored from me:

What are [Chief Wiggum's] characteristics that you think specifically cast Irish people in a negative light?

If you're going to accuse me of something like [defending discrimination] you're going to need to back it up.

I realize that, of late, you all are defining yourselves by who you hate while screaming that hate is bad...

"You all?" Who are you referring to?

Yes, I know. Please provide the quote where I have done what you are accusing me of or admit you are a moron with poor reading comprehension skills.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 08, 2018, 10:18:50 AM
The doctor said my nose wouldn't bleed so much if I kept my finger outta there.

Chief Wiggim isn't the town drunk.  Barney Gumble (A Saxon name) is.  He doesn't even wear green.  If he's an Irish Stereotype, I can't see it.

Everyone on The Simpsons is a characature, Flanders (A Norman name) is the well meaning, but annoying Jesus Chrispie.  Even Lisa "Springfield's answer to a question nobody asked!" is the straw liberal, and feminist.  Bart has a slingshot sticking out of his back pocket.  Have you ever seen him actually use that?  Take it out of his pocket?  It's like a lost belt buckle.  He doesn't even have a pocket, just the top of a slingshot sticking out of his buttock.

Homer has the Initials M, and G in his ear, and his hair.  If you're not offended by someone in Springfield, they're not trying hard enough.  I mean, you can point at Cheif Wiggim, as a cultural stereotype, standing right next to Groundskeeper Willy?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on October 08, 2018, 01:22:51 PM
All you have done is dodge it and justify it.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSrfGjE2PKgpr6gf1d9rCbn-R_pj7jt2mKtAX8TdU7FpLesVDbB)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on October 08, 2018, 05:34:02 PM
What do you have against admitting that hate speech is wrong no matter who it is directed at?  All you have done is dodge it and justify it.

Jesus Christ. Its been answered, but if you need it literally spelled out for you because you're apparently incapable of parsing any meaning other than your pre-determined bias from text, then ok:

Hate speech is wrong no matter who it is directed at.

Now, your turn to answer all of the questions you have ignored from me:

What are [Chief Wiggum's] characteristics that you think specifically cast Irish people in a negative light?

If you're going to accuse me of something like [defending discrimination] you're going to need to back it up.

I realize that, of late, you all are defining yourselves by who you hate while screaming that hate is bad...

"You all?" Who are you referring to?

Yes, I know. Please provide the quote where I have done what you are accusing me of or admit you are a moron with poor reading comprehension skills.

Well at least now you are saying it...though I still don't know why you insist on defending it given that you agree that its wrong no matter where


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on October 08, 2018, 06:09:47 PM
Well at least now you are saying it...though I still don't know why you insist on defending it given that you agree that its wrong no matter where

Defending what? Speak plainly and back up your claims.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 08, 2018, 06:12:34 PM
I believe she ment that Hate Speech is Wrong no matter who it is directed at, but quoting half a page of nested script does make it difficult to tell.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 08, 2018, 09:44:13 PM
Hate speech comes from hate, and it is wrong. But does speech that does not come from hate have to be wrong?  I think not.

Kiss me I'm _______  :emot_kiss:


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on October 09, 2018, 12:50:51 AM
A lot of what she is claiming isn’t hate speech. It may very well be racist, but that can spring from cluelessness and a simple cultural bias that has not corrected for tactful speech. In other words stupidity in addressing someone in a way that is hurtful to them. If it is not directed because they are trying to be hurtful, Then the boundary of whether it is hate speech is blurred. Which means if all you’ve ever heard is racist terminology then you are likely to repeat it. If you actually don’t hate the object of your speech then it is not hate speech per se.

Words have meaning and when you use words outside of their exact meaning, including phrases used to define concepts, you not only make things indistinguishable from others but you are part of the problem.

edited because I dictated it while driving. Not very smart behavior, but the edit was done much later.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on October 09, 2018, 03:47:03 AM
A lot of what she is claiming isn’t  speech. It may very well be racist, but that can spring from cluelessness and a simple cultural bias that has not corrected Fourtex full speech. In other words stupidity in addressing someone in a way that is hurtful to them. If it is not directed because they are trying to be hurtful, Then the boundary of whether it is hate speech is the word. Which means if all you’ve ever heard is racist terminology then you are likely to repeat it. If you actually don’t hate the optics of your speech then it is not hate speech per se.

Words have meaning and when you use words outside of their exact meaning, including phrases used to define concepts, you not only make things indistinguishable from others but you are part of the problem.

You can call me cunt anytime!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Jed_ on October 09, 2018, 04:14:25 AM
A lot of what she is claiming isn’t  speech. It may very well be racist, but that can spring from cluelessness and a simple cultural bias that has not corrected Fourtex full speech. In other words stupidity in addressing someone in a way that is hurtful to them. If it is not directed because they are trying to be hurtful, Then the boundary of whether it is hate speech is the word. Which means if all you’ve ever heard is racist terminology then you are likely to repeat it. If you actually don’t hate the optics of your speech then it is not hate speech per se.

Words have meaning and when you use words outside of their exact meaning, including phrases used to define concepts, you not only make things indistinguishable from others but you are part of the problem.

You can call me cunt anytime!


OMG, no, no, no, no, never, never, never, ever. . . . .

I would far prefer calling you a slut.  But then that’s always been a term of endearment to me Lois.

-Jed


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 09, 2018, 04:28:35 AM
I'll answer to whore, if you don't mean it in a bad way.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on October 14, 2018, 01:35:38 PM
Republican pair apparently pose as communists to make Democratic donation (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/12/arizona-republicans-communists-democrats-donation-attempt)

Quote
When told they would only get an emailed receipt, Rosales scratched out one email address and wrote down another. The process raised eyebrows among O’Halleran’s staff.

Lindsay Coleman, finance director for the campaign, drove to the local Republican field office in order to return the money. Almost immediately, the man who identified himself as Rosales appeared and was identified as “Oscar”. He accepted the money from Coleman.

Quote
Making federal campaign contributions under a false identity is a crime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qy9_sqvFek&feature=youtu.be

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on October 26, 2018, 02:16:30 AM
DOJ: Businesses Can Discriminate Against Transgender Workers (1) (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/justice-department-says-transgender-discrimination-is-lawful)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 26, 2018, 02:25:01 AM
We don't exist, but you can still discriminate against us.  Department of "Justice."


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on October 26, 2018, 07:55:31 PM
Pipe Bomb Suspect Arrested in Florida; Criminal History Includes Bombing Threat (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/nyregion/cnn-cory-booker-pipe-bombs-sent.html)


(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dqcy7PyWwAAwg4E.jpg:large)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 27, 2018, 09:43:25 PM
Welp, somebody went and shot up a Synagogue.  I'm sure that's a Democrat conspiracy to make the Golden Calf in Chief look bad too, Right?  Again, this kind of media attention is literally triggering for the kinds of psychos that want this kind of attention.  

Buckle up, it looks like we're in for another wave of terror attacks.

#ThanksDonald

Sad.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on October 28, 2018, 12:03:54 AM
11 killed, several wounded, in Pittsburgh synagogue shooting (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/27/pittsburgh-police-responding-active-shooting-squirrel-hill-area/?utm_term=.d0cd890cc6ad)

Quote
A gunman killed 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue during Saturday-morning services in what the Anti-Defamation League called "likely the deadliest attack on the Jewish community in the history of the United States.”

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on October 28, 2018, 12:50:11 AM
There's no "Both sides," when it comes to America vs the Nazis.  Even a fucking self absorbed Moron should be able to see the greater evil there.  If you don't condemn them, they don't need encouragement.  They don't need to be defended, they're fucking Nazis.  Condoning their right to march, armed down our streets encourages every anti-semite, and other racist in the country, and now it's come to this.  Zero Tolerance. 

You see this?
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*tJwF1yPXlD_irAZe8NHChw.jpeg)
It means Not Welcome.

#AntiFa.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on November 01, 2018, 11:24:20 PM
There's no "Both sides," when it comes to America vs the Nazis.  Even a fucking self absorbed Moron should be able to see the greater evil there.  If you don't condemn them, they don't need encouragement.  They don't need to be defended, they're fucking Nazis.  Condoning their right to march, armed down our streets encourages every anti-semite, and other racist in the country, and now it's come to this.  Zero Tolerance.  

You see this?
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*tJwF1yPXlD_irAZe8NHChw.jpeg)
It means Not Welcome.

#AntiFa.


Actually there is.  The man that shot up the Pittsburgh Synagogue WAS a white supremacist that was extremely anti-Trump and believed that he was being "controlled by the Jews" he even said that he couldn't bring himself to touch a MAGA hat.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/29/donald-trump-robert-bowers-racist-anti-semitic-synagogue-shooting-column/1800755002/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/29/donald-trump-robert-bowers-racist-anti-semitic-synagogue-shooting-column/1800755002/)

So, clearly, yes, it goes BOTH ways.

And let's not forget that the left is so full of hate that they are shooting up Republican headquarters...and that's not something that we see the other side doing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/29/four-shots-fired-into-republican-party-office-florida/?utm_term=.03a11dde2e96 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/29/four-shots-fired-into-republican-party-office-florida/?utm_term=.03a11dde2e96)

And let's not forget the Antifa man that so hated people that didn't think just like him that he took it on himself to hit them over the head with a bike lock

https://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/05/24/berkeley-police-arrest-eric-clanton-bike-lock-assaults (https://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/05/24/berkeley-police-arrest-eric-clanton-bike-lock-assaults)

And let's not forget that Antifa so hates people of different views that they have no problem physically attacking disabled people"

https://dailycaller.com/2017/08/30/anarchists-plead-with-antifa-please-stop-making-us-look-bad/ (https://dailycaller.com/2017/08/30/anarchists-plead-with-antifa-please-stop-making-us-look-bad/)

And let's not forget the hate that caused the torture and murder of an intellectually disabled teen in revenge for the Trump victory because he was white and all white people are, I guess, Trump voters:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-sentenced-for-hate-crime-in-live-streamed-beating-of-mentally-disabled-teen/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-sentenced-for-hate-crime-in-live-streamed-beating-of-mentally-disabled-teen/)

And, of course, the conveniently over-looked, Senate softball shooting that you blindly idiotic partisan extremists routinely ignore.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting)

And, of course, you people here that celebrate discriminating against people based on their views and even "LOL" at it:

http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=64282.0 (http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=64282.0)

And believe me, I can go on and on and on and on.  Antifa is so full of hate that they have cause MILLIONS of damages in UC Berkeley alone, and routinely physically attacks people.

Those are the actions of people that HATE.  You guys are full of hate, but just too damn self-righteous to understand how toxic you are.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on November 02, 2018, 12:21:50 AM
The man that shot up the Pittsburgh Synagogue WAS a white supremacist that was extremely anti-Trump and believed that he was being "controlled by the Jews" he even said that he couldn't bring himself to touch a MAGA hat.

So, clearly, yes, it goes BOTH ways.

Yes, either way, Donald was directly responsible for inciting racial Terrorism.  He's been doing it for decades. Now that he's president, he's doing it 24/7, because you can't turn on the TV, check social media, or hit Recent Unread Topics on a sex story forum without His Nibs Trumping everything.  

It doesn't matter what side you're on, he's inciting hate, and violence, for America.  Chaos, not stability, and order.  

Quote
And believe me, I can go on and on and on and on.

And this is the state at which Obama left the country, right?  You blame it on the Liberals, when the Liberals weren't in Power.  You point out the extremists, incited to violence, and provided many excellent examples of this, that weren't happening until his nibs turned up on top of the deck.  (I'm willing to bet you know how to play Cribbage.)  

And yet, you still blame this systematic decent into Anarchy exclusively on the liberals.  Well, I as an Anarchist, and staunch supporter of the Anarchis President destoying the country am still here to tell you:

You can see the affect, but you still ignore the cause.  The radical liberals didn't make the Nazis.  The Trump made the liberals violently radical.  Charlotte'sville was just the first time it popped up on your radar.  Under Obama, they were camping out on Wall Street.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on November 02, 2018, 12:38:53 AM
You have an unusually twisted narrative, IrishGirl, or perhaps not so unusual for someone who seems to self-identify with the alt-right, yet claim no affiliation. The intolerance you cite in the left side of the political spectrum is decried by the Liberian establishment as extreme and unsupportable.

I do take exception at your attitude of “but they do it too.”


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on November 02, 2018, 12:50:26 AM
You have an unusually twisted narrative, IrishGirl, or perhaps not so unusual for someone who seems to self-identify with the alt-right, yet claim no affiliation.

Okay, she accuses people of identifying her with the "Alt-right."  She's never actually claimed that of herself, but it's pretty hard to tell sometimes when she's speaking honestly, or for the Liberals, who can't speak for themselves.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on November 02, 2018, 01:25:25 AM
 Here are a couple of quotes for you. “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, it’s a duck. ““A rose by any other name…“


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on November 02, 2018, 09:10:10 AM
(https://scontent.fphx1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/45011815_2786559751369689_6404984634311966720_o.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_ht=scontent.fphx1-1.fna&oh=00acc6615d02163686b185ce41b22051&oe=5C3FE14E)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Elizabeth on November 02, 2018, 09:51:30 PM
(https://scontent.fphx1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/45011815_2786559751369689_6404984634311966720_o.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_ht=scontent.fphx1-1.fna&oh=00acc6615d02163686b185ce41b22051&oe=5C3FE14E)

Well, I can think of another party "BUT" the year was 1939......

Love,
Liz


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on November 02, 2018, 10:22:04 PM
The man that shot up the Pittsburgh Synagogue WAS a white supremacist that was extremely anti-Trump and believed that he was being "controlled by the Jews" he even said that he couldn't bring himself to touch a MAGA hat.

So, clearly, yes, it goes BOTH ways.

Yes, either way, Donald was directly responsible for inciting racial Terrorism.  He's been doing it for decades. Now that he's president, he's doing it 24/7, because you can't turn on the TV, check social media, or hit Recent Unread Topics on a sex story forum without His Nibs Trumping everything.  

It doesn't matter what side you're on, he's inciting hate, and violence, for America.  Chaos, not stability, and order.  

Quote
And believe me, I can go on and on and on and on.

And this is the state at which Obama left the country, right?  You blame it on the Liberals, when the Liberals weren't in Power.  You point out the extremists, incited to violence, and provided many excellent examples of this, that weren't happening until his nibs turned up on top of the deck.  (I'm willing to bet you know how to play Cribbage.)  

And yet, you still blame this systematic decent into Anarchy exclusively on the liberals.  Well, I as an Anarchist, and staunch supporter of the Anarchis President destoying the country am still here to tell you:

You can see the affect, but you still ignore the cause.  The radical liberals didn't make the Nazis.  The Trump made the liberals violently radical.  Charlotte'sville was just the first time it popped up on your radar.  Under Obama, they were camping out on Wall Street.

No, I don't "blame it on Liberals."  I'm a Liberal.  I blame it on you assholes that are offended by everything, hide is safe zones because you can't handle a different point of view, want to censor speech you find offensive, and encourage people to "punch a fascist" because they don't totally 100% agree with you.

Liberals don't do that.  That shit is Authoritarian.  Liberals are not authoritarian.

And, of course you blame Trump for what your side is doing, you can't take responsibility for your own actions.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on November 02, 2018, 10:31:26 PM
No, I don't "blame it on Liberals."  I'm a Liberal.  I blame it on you assholes that are offended by everything, hide is safe zones because you can't handle a different point of view, want to censor speech you find offensive, and encourage people to "punch a fascist" because they don't totally 100% agree with you.

No, you blame me for doing these things, which I have never done.  I don't have a safe zone.  I can't just skip school because the transgender people "took over."  I have never censored speech that offended me, nor called for it.  I have never encouraged anyone to "Punch a fascist" because as you have failed to notice, repeatedly, my point it that that makes the Fascists more powerful.  

Nobody totally 100% agrees with me, nor do I expect them to.  This is your fantasy version of me.  The same one you've been arguing with for years.  Not me.  If you don't understand what I'm saying, you turn it into the worst possible thing I could be saying, because being wrong doesn't fit in your narrow sheltered worldview.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on November 02, 2018, 11:19:24 PM
No, I don't "blame it on Liberals."  I'm a Liberal.  I blame it on you assholes that are offended by everything, hide is safe zones because you can't handle a different point of view, want to censor speech you find offensive, and encourage people to "punch a fascist" because they don't totally 100% agree with you.

No, you blame me for doing these things, which I have never done.  I don't have a safe zone.  I can't just skip school because the transgender people "took over."  I have never censored speech that offended me, nor called for it.  I have never encouraged anyone to "Punch a fascist" because as you have failed to notice, repeatedly, my point it that that makes the Fascists more powerful.  

Nobody totally 100% agrees with me, nor do I expect them to.  This is your fantasy version of me.  The same one you've been arguing with for years.  Not me.  If you don't understand what I'm saying, you turn it into the worst possible thing I could be saying, because being wrong doesn't fit in your narrow sheltered worldview.


  If you don't want to be lumped in with them, then don't take their side.  It's really that easy.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on November 02, 2018, 11:35:06 PM
 If you don't want to be lumped in with them, then don't take their side.  It's really that easy.

Which is it, am I siding with the fascists, or telling people to punch fascists when I don't agree with them?  


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on November 02, 2018, 11:40:11 PM
 If you don't want to be lumped in with them, then don't take their side.  It's really that easy.

Which is it, am I siding with the fascists, or telling people to punch fascists when I don't agree with them?  

Aren't they the same thing?  I really don't see the difference between a fascist and an antifascist.  Their actions are the same. 


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on November 02, 2018, 11:41:46 PM
I really don't see the difference between a fascist and an antifascist.

Or an Anarchist.  That's the side I'm on.  None.  You forgot that, too.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on November 02, 2018, 11:43:48 PM
I really don't see the difference between a fascist and an antifascist.

Or an Anarchist.  That's the side I'm on.  None.  You forgot that, too.

Oh, yeah, no rights for anyone that can't defend themselves.  How progressive of you.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on November 02, 2018, 11:45:23 PM
Oh, yeah, no rights for anyone that can't defend themselves.  How progressive of you.

The progressive part is building a new government, once this one (Where the liberals, and conservatives are assuring that only They get any rights) is gone.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: IrishGirl on November 03, 2018, 07:51:21 PM
Oh, yeah, no rights for anyone that can't defend themselves.  How progressive of you.

The progressive part is building a new government, once this one (Where the liberals, and conservatives are assuring that only They get any rights) is gone.

Building a "New Government" is very anti-Anarchist isn't it?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on November 03, 2018, 08:28:55 PM
Building a "New Government" is very anti-Anarchist isn't it?

Well, thanks for asking.  Yes, in fact I'm not a "Wooh, Satan yeah!" Anarchist.  I'm a Progressive Anarchist, though the wording is a bit backwards.  My political beliefs are that the current system (Basically 2 sets of extremists yelling over the actual issues, somewhere between, where they can see them) can not be fixed.  Therefore, the only way to Progress unfortunately requires a (Hopefully brief) period of Anarchy, so that we can build a better system from the ground up.

So, no.  I don't want there to be no rights for the weak, who are helpless against the strong.  That's Anarchy.  Right now, my current priority is to overturn the system where the weak are deprived rights by the Powerful, so that the majority (The poor) may overthrow the Elite, and start work on something that might (Hopefully) work better for US. 

Also, that there is no perfect government, that works for everyone, indefinitely.  So, when any one goes on long enough for Oligarchs to gain an insurmountable advantage, abolish the middle class, curtail rights as Privileges of the desirable, while eliminating the undesirable (With mass deportations, incarceration, genocide, and economic depression)

It's time to start over.  Unfortunately, that requires a brief period of Anarchy.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on November 04, 2018, 02:58:17 AM
Well, thanks for asking.  Yes, in fact I'm not a "Wooh, Satan yeah!" Anarchist.

For a self-proclaimed anarchist, you have a fairly flawed understanding of anarchy. For a start, this might be a reference to when teenagers attach themselves to the anti-establishment aspect of anarchy without really understanding the ideas behind it (ironically), but I'm not sure what that has to do with Satanism, never mind what Satanism might have to do with the ideology in general.

So, no.  I don't want there to be no rights for the weak, who are helpless against the strong.  That's Anarchy.

That is very definitely not anarchy. You might be thinking of libertarianism.

It's time to start over.  Unfortunately, that requires a brief period of Anarchy.

Here I think you're confusing anarchy with general chaos, which is arguably a temporary byproduct of most or all major changes in political systems, but not strictly a requirement. Anarchy is certainly not a requirement.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on November 04, 2018, 04:51:10 PM
For a self-proclaimed anarchist, you have a fairly flawed understanding of anarchy.

My understanding of Anarchy is that we need it NOW to overthrow the corrupt government, but it's not a stable system.  It's nit a goal, nor an end, it's the Means to an end.  Your understanding of my understanding is colored by your preconceive notions of Anrchism in general, and me in particular.  

Going into the argument with the assumption that I'm wrong, and looking for the flaw in my thought processes to prove yourself right.  Is a flaw in your thought process, how you over look what I'm actually saying, to look for perceived flaws.

Quote
For a start, this might be a reference to when teenagers attach themselves to the anti-establishment aspect of anarchy without really understanding the ideas behind it (ironically), but I'm not sure what that has to do with Satanism, never mind what Satanism might have to do with the ideology in general.

There is no ideology, in general.  Anarchism isn't an ideology, it's "Government bad."  End of story.  Progressive anarchism begs the question:  Then what?  Okay, you've overthrown the government, then what?  A socialist Anarchist then seizes the means of production, and mobilizes the work force with the Proletariat out of the way, because the lack of oligarchs to prevent this makes Socializing the state possible.

A "Wooh, Anarchy, yeah!" anarchist doen't think that far ahead.  They use that anarchy to loot, rape, and vandalize.  So, I compared them to Satanists, half expecting you to lecture me on The Left Hand Path, so I could point out the schism in the ChurcheS (3) of Satan, after Anton LaVey died, leaving a power gap to fight over.  Anarchists, like Satanists and Atheists define themselves not by what they believe, but what they don't.  Their entire argument is based on proving a negative.

Quote
You might be thinking of libertarianism.

Then again, I might not.  I've given this decades of thought, planned my entire life around it, and am prepared to rebuild the system, with electrical power, once the Power Grid went off line.  You've given it about enough thought as it too to come back with a snappy guess, and guessed wrong.

Quote
Here I think you're confusing anarchy with general chaos, which is arguably a temporary byproduct of most or all major changes in political systems, but not strictly a requirement. Anarchy is certainly not a requirement.

I'm not thinking about most changes in political systems.  I'm thinking about THIS political system, how close it is to collapsing, AND what to do when it collapses.  So, if you prefer I call it Progressive Survivalism?  The only Anarchy part is seeing it on the horizon.  I'm still a Progressive.  I've just accepted the nation is tearing itself apart, so I can prepare to help put it back together again.

Now, I'll wait for your snap judgement about how I'm wrong, again, and all the flaws in the logic I haven't even posted yet, because of your ideological prejudice of what the word Anarchy means.  It means nothing, honestly, it's a negative.  A political Anarchist is like Being a Nihilist.  What does Nihilism mean?  (The absense of true meaning in the universe, especially in opposition to the Existential meaning of Being.)  It's like trying to understand Zen.

And yet, here you are, telling me what you think I believe that means, as if I don't know.  I don't support Anarchy, I see it as the only means to a new beginning, because those in power (On both sides) are too busy fighting over who's to blame for it being so fucked up to fix it politically.  Also, I'm a Technician, so my part to play isn't forming a new Government.  It's getting the lights to work off the grid, so we can build it without the fatal flaw of centralized energy.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on November 04, 2018, 04:54:24 PM
I used to be a Revolutionary, then I became an Anarchist.  Why?  Because I realized the path of least resistance wasn't to overthrow the government, but just let Che Riche do it for me from the Oval Office.  That freed me up to get ready for what comes next...

So, since your argument is based on a negative, the Inigo precept:  "That word you keep using, I do not think it means, what you think it means."

Turn that negative around to the affirmative, and tell me the true philosophical meaning behind Anarchy.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on November 04, 2018, 06:49:49 PM
Sorry dude, you just don't really understand what the word means. You have your own beliefs and that's great, but it's not anarchy and saying things like "I don't want there to be no rights for the weak, who are helpless against the strong.  That's Anarchy." or "Anarchism isn't an ideology, it's "Government bad."," just mischaracterises the word and real anarchists. If liking to use words correctly makes me "ideologically prejudiced" then colour me guilty.

Turn that negative around to the affirmative, and tell me the true philosophical meaning behind Anarchy.

Google is your best pal.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on November 04, 2018, 06:51:25 PM
So yeah, you want to rigidly define it, and yet you don't want to define it?

As if I have never googled Anarchy.  Dipshit.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: galaxybounce on November 04, 2018, 06:53:21 PM
So yeah, you want to rigidly define it, and yet you don't want to define it?

As if I have never googled Anarchy.  Dipshit.

Don't need to. Smarter people than me have done so just fine many years ago. Seriously, Google it. You might even learn something.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on November 04, 2018, 06:54:10 PM
That's it, that's all you got.  Not even a point.  Say it again, next time I'm sure I will have magically never done my research.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on November 06, 2018, 01:37:51 AM
Midterms test whether Republicans not named Trump can win by stoking racial animosity (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/midterms-test-whether-republicans-not-named-trump-can-win-by-stoking-racial-animosity/2018/11/04/bb5f00ac-e059-11e8-ab2c-b31dcd53ca6b_story.html?utm_term=.cf972f1a5dd5)

Quote
The fierce battle for control of Congress and the nation’s governorships has turned toward blatant and overtly racial attacks rarely seen since the civil rights era of the 1960s.

A new robo-call going out to voters in Georgia features a voice impersonating Oprah Winfrey and calling Stacey Abrams, who is running to become the nation’s first black woman elected governor, “a poor man’s Aunt Jemima.” In Florida, the Trump administration’s secretary of agriculture, Sonny Perdue, urged voters not to elect Andrew Gillum, who would be the state’s first black governor, with a colloquialism widely seen as having racial connotations: “This election is so cotton-pickin’ important.”

Some Republicans suddenly scrambled, following the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, to distance themselves from Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). The moves came after King said a far-right Austrian party with historical Nazi ties would be Republican were it in the United States. Other King comments have drawn little criticism.

The 2016 election confirmed that a potential president could run — and win — after stoking racism. Now, in their closing days, the midterms are shaping up as a demonstration of whether the entire Republican Party can succeed by following his lead.

By running so overtly on racially tinged messages, the GOP is putting that explosive form of politics on the ballot. If Republicans maintain control of the House, the notion of running a campaign built on blunt, race-based attacks on immigrants and minorities will have been validated. A loss, on the other hand, might prompt a number of Republicans to call for a rethinking of the party’s direction — but that would collide with a sitting president who, if anything, relishes over-the-edge rhetoric.

The stakes for the party’s future are immense. Republicans now are an overwhelmingly white party, whereas Democrats represent a multiethnic coalition. The problem for Republicans is that the nation is moving swiftly in the direction of Democratic demographics.

“The long-term risks are obvious. The country is rapidly becoming more diverse, and appealing to a more diverse electorate requires a much more inclusive message,” said Whit Ayres, a longtime Republican pollster and strategist. “Those who are firmly committed to Donald Trump are not the least bit concerned. But people in the party who are concerned about how Republicans might actually win a majority of the popular vote or win swing states and districts . . . then they’re very concerned.”

King is perhaps most emblematic of how far out the lines of offensiveness are being drawn. The eight-term congressman has spent most of his career playing on the racial and xenophobic fringes, drawing praise from Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, blocking efforts to put abolitionist Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill and displaying a Confederate battle flag on his congressional office desk.

He said in 2013 that most children of undocumented immigrants “have got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.”

“We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies,” he tweeted in 2017.

King’s campaign did not return several messages seeking comment.

It was only recently, after The Washington Post reported that he met with the far-right Austrian party and when he endorsed a white nationalist mayoral candidate in Toronto, that Republicans denounced him. But the denunciations came after the synagogue shootings; beforehand, the remarks had raised little fuss.

Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio), who is head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, last week issued a broad condemnation of King, calling his comments “completely inappropriate” and saying “we must stand up against white supremacy and hate in all forms.” The conservative National Review ran a piece headlined, “Conservatives Need to Draw the Line at Steve King.”

“He used to be just simply problematic, prone to saying outrageous things particularly about Latinos and immigration,” said Karl Rove, the veteran Republican strategist. “But he’s gotten worse over time. Now he’s hanging around with neo-Nazis in Austria and aligning himself with anti-Semitic fringe figures in Canadian politics. His rhetoric has gotten similarly worse.”

As Rove’s comment implied, the party had not cracked down hard on King’s earlier objectionable statements. Top party leaders for the most part have attempted to portray him as an outlier, rather than as a symbol of a larger problem within the party.

The president, too, has escaped much criticism, even though he salted his 2016 campaign with racial insults to Mexicans, Muslims and others and has continued in that vein as president. Part of the danger for would-be critics: Alienating Trump by calling out his rhetoric risks losing the support of the voters who overwhelmingly chose him as their party nominee two years ago.

“It’s harder to deal with Trump,” said Craig Robinson, who runs a political blog called the Iowa Republican. “In some ways, with Trump being president, you would think a guy like Steve King would have more room to operate. You have a president who is out of bounds sometimes. You’d think it’d give King more latitude. But it’s actually the opposite.”

Trump has hardly been cowed by the criticism of King or occasional pleas to tone down his language. As the campaign has barreled toward its final hours, the president expanded his nativist appeals, proudly calling himself a “nationalist” and trying to drive his base with threats about a caravan of Central Americans creeping toward the U.S. border with Mexico.

“Barbed wire used properly can be a beautiful sight,” he said on Saturday afternoon while touting the work of the troops he had ordered to the border.

Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel made the case Sunday that the midterms should focus primarily on the economy, not immigration.

“The president has not said that he wants it just to be about the caravan,” she said, speaking on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos. “He’s saying, ‘Let’s look at the record, and are you better off than you were two years ago?’ He’s talking about the economy. It’s just not getting the same coverage. The economy should be first and foremost in a lot of people’s minds when they’re going to the polls.”

McDaniel declined to answer whether she was concerned about a backlash to Trump’s heated rhetoric about immigration, which on Thursday included a suggestion that U.S. troops stationed at the border could open fire on migrants if they threw rocks. He backed off that idea on Friday.

Candidates in the past have tapped obliquely into racial undercurrents during political campaigns. Ronald Reagan talked of “welfare queens,” and George H.W. Bush played on racial fears with an ad in his 1988 campaign about a black convict, Willie Horton.

But the attacks are now much more blatant and out in the open, at a level not seen since the 1950s and 1960s, according to Alan Abramowitz, a professor of political science at Emory University.

“It’s quite extraordinary. It goes beyond criticizing their views,” he said. “This is using very racially tinged language. It’s very remarkable to hear from a president, and now it’s seeping down to candidates running below the presidential level. And it’s spread beyond the small fringe now.”

The charges of racism at its most blatant have come in the South, where candidates Abrams and Gillum are attempting to become the first black governors of their states. The president has led the charge against them, calling Gillum “not equipped” and Abrams “not qualified” to be governor despite their long experience in government. Gillum is the mayor of Tallahassee, and Abrams is a longtime legislator.

“There is certainly a throwback element to the language we’re hearing coming out of the Republican Party that is unfortunately disparaging to communities,” Abrams told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday. “It may be unintentional, but it signals a deeper misinformation about what Andrew Gillum can accomplish, what I can accomplish.”

The robo-calls that have gone out in Georgia purport to be from Winfrey, who campaigned last week for Abrams.

“This is the magical Negro, Oprah Winfrey, asking you to make my fellow Negress, Stacey Abrams, the governor of Georgia,” the message says, according to a copy obtained by WSB-TV in Atlanta. “Years ago the Jews who own the American media saw something in me — the ability to trick dumb white women into thinking I was like them. And to do, read and think what I told them to.”

“I see that same potential in Stacey Abrams,” the message continues. “Where others see a poor man’s Aunt Jemima, I see someone white women can be tricked into voting for — especially the fat ones.”

Similar calls have gone out in Florida, with a voice mimicking Gillum as jungle sounds and chimpanzee noises can be heard in the background.

One Republican group — called Black Americans for the President’s Agenda — released a radio ad in Arkansas that warned: “White Democrats will be lynching black folk again.”

“Trump has made clear that [the nativism and bigotry] gene hasn’t gone away, and Trump’s candidacy and victory marked its liberation from many prior constraints,” said Bill Kristol, a veteran conservative commentator and editor-at-large of the Weekly Standard. “The Republican establishment has been floundering in its attempts to respond to this new moment.”

In King’s district in Iowa, his Democratic opponent, J.D. Scholten, said he feels as if he’s been given a gift. He’s raised more than $1 million over the past week, and a district that Trump won by 27 points suddenly seems competitive.

“He’s given us every opportunity to win,” Scholten said of King on Sunday. “I feel almost like he’s trolling me. Like at the end, we’re going to have a beer and he’s going to say, ‘J.D., I’ve been trying to lose this seat for 14 years, and finally you’ve done it.’ ”

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on November 06, 2018, 05:12:56 AM
Please post longer and longer articles/statements, Athos.

Good thing y'all have the Blue Wave to count on tomorrow, and whenever California may finish their election count, could be awhile, but the Blue Wave has been the solution for the past 9 months or more... expecting up to 60 seats to flip to Blue, right?

Trump is not on the ballot, so what he may say or do is meaningless.

Vote!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on November 06, 2018, 07:14:53 AM
Wrong Joan. What the president says and does is ALWAY IMPORTANT, and always has impact. He is in the job 24/7, 364 days a year. He speaks with the force of the government and policy. To think otherwise reveals either a naivety or stupidity.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on November 06, 2018, 02:39:05 PM
I watched the Ken Burns Civil War series again this weekend.  Just to remind myself of how utterly stupid and self destructive America can be.  Lincoln appealed to our “better angels.”  Trump appeals to the gutter, and an amazing percentage of the populace loves it.  Just a sad comment on the human race in general, but Americans in particular.  We have no excuse.  We have the best of everything, yet we still salivate like Pavlov’s dogs every time our Führer says anything about aliens, guns, or Clinton.  Disgusting.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on November 18, 2018, 08:48:20 PM
(https://wp-media.patheos.com/blogs/sites/410/2018/08/swansonCali.png)

Swanson is a radical anti-LGBTQ radio host and conservative darling beloved by such GOP politicians as Ted Cruz.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2018/08/conservative-pastor-god-is-burning-down-california-because-the-gays/





Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Elizabeth on November 18, 2018, 11:25:58 PM
(https://wp-media.patheos.com/blogs/sites/410/2018/08/swansonCali.png)

Swanson is a radical anti-LGBTQ radio host and conservative darling beloved by such GOP politicians as Ted Cruz.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2018/08/conservative-pastor-god-is-burning-down-california-because-the-gays/





No matter how hard you try.....you always manage to bump into an idiot.
You just can't get away from them.

Love,
Liz


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on November 19, 2018, 09:25:22 AM
Dickwads all.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on November 30, 2018, 06:19:22 PM
‘A maniac Trump supporter threw piss on us.’ It was the alleged Florida pipe bomber (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article222392230.html)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on January 02, 2019, 09:04:23 PM
GOP state lawmaker introduces bill that would block teachers from discussing 'controversial' issues (https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/423335-gop-state-lawmaker-introduces-bill-that-would-block-teachers)

#Resist



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on January 05, 2019, 12:18:31 AM
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Dancing Video Was Meant as a Smear, but It Backfired (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/us/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dance-video.html)

AOC Dances To Every Song (https://twitter.com/aoc_dances)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on January 05, 2019, 12:26:32 AM
Video of out bisexual senator Kyrsten Sinema getting sworn in by Mike Pence is a 2019 mood. (https://www.someecards.com/news/news/mike-pence-swearing-in-bisexual-kyrsten-sinema/)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on January 14, 2019, 07:14:37 PM
I had a FB lady come on a thread about life and love and living in the present moment.  She pointed out that the OP missed the most important point, which was getting right with her lord and savior, on her terms, to ensure eternal life, etc. etc.  I was curious, so I went over to her home page, to see what kind of bat shittery it might contain.  I was not disaapointed.  Or was I?

It seems Christian lady went down to McAllen to cheer on the President last week.  She and some Trumpettes went to a “very dangerous” elementary school “very near the border” (McAllen is 10 miles, 16 km from the border), when they noticed “two suspicious men.”  So they called ICE.  The men were Honduran, and were taken into custody.

So the very Christian white lady went to an American elementary school in what she described as a third world area, and had ICE arrest two men who look more like Jesus than she does.  And not a hint of irony or hypocrisy was noted or discerned.  All the comments were “omg, you brave thing.”


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on January 14, 2019, 07:44:30 PM
Damn it, if those Church ladies weren't so damned sexy!

Or is that just me?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on January 14, 2019, 08:05:15 PM
Damn it, if those Church ladies weren't so damned sexy!

Or is that just me?

You’re in Texas.  Nothing sexy about these bleached blonde skaggs.

(https://i.imgur.com/xlB7L2r.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Jed_ on January 14, 2019, 08:20:11 PM
Damn it, if those Church ladies weren't so damned sexy!

Or is that just me?

You’re in Texas.  Nothing sexy about these bleached blonde skaggs.

(https://i.imgur.com/xlB7L2r.jpg)

A decade or more without an orgasm will do that, turn some women into self-righteous bigoted church ladies.  Psi, you’re down there in Texas and seem to have an interest, Can’t you help the poor things out?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on January 14, 2019, 08:24:56 PM
You’re in Texas.  Nothing sexy about these bleached blonde skaggs.

I'm in Texas, and I don't see those scags here.  Then again, I go to a progressive baptist church, not Pentacostal Holiness.  Maybe I should have been more specific.

This: (http://lsbcwaco.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/KyndallR.jpg) is my Pastor.

Here's the Organist:  (http://lsbcwaco.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Sheena.jpg)

^That's what I'm talking about.  Here, in Texas.

Why all the hate?  I thought that was supposed to be the Republicans.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on January 14, 2019, 08:36:01 PM
I’m talking more about the prosperity Gospel evangelicals.  The ones who think you get a mansion and a Bentley for believing.  Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio all have a boatload.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on January 14, 2019, 08:40:35 PM
Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio all have a boatload.

I know, my sister, and her husband met in Hell House (That's a Pentacostal Halloween alternative) in San Antonio.  You done telling a Texan about Texas, or you want to insult my friends, and family some more?  I'm trying real hard not to argue here, but you're not making it any easier.

Again, you're not making a great case for the republicans being the Party of Hate.

#NotAllTexans


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on January 14, 2019, 09:24:06 PM
I thought you were from North Carolina.

I’m Texas born and raised.  Two time University of Texas grad.  I don’t need to tell you anything about Texas, as you live in Waco.

My comments were not about you, or directed at you.  I’m sorry your sister is a Pentacostal.  So is my mother.  You have your hands full.

There’s nothing to argue about.  But please feel free.



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on January 14, 2019, 09:35:02 PM
I thought you were from North Carolina.

I was born in Arlington VA, Moved to Corpus Christi in the 70s, Austin in the 80s, northern California in the late 80s, North Carolina through puberty (I Grew Up In Raleigh) went overseas in the Army, then volunteered with the UN in Sarajevo, and Eritrea (Helping with evacuees from Somalia through Djibouti) then traveled around for a few years when I got back.  Then did Home Healthcare in Santa Fe, then cooked in a 3 star kitchen in Taos.

This decade, I have lived in:  San Antonio (Where my little sister got married) San Angelo, Port Angeles, Portland, Maple Bay BC, Seatac (Airport recovering in a hotel from a back injury) Colorado Springs, before coming here to Waco because the fight against Republicans is Here.  Not in Colorado, or Washington.  

Some of my allies are at Lakeshore Baptist Church, where I was welcomed, as a transwoman, and reforming prostitute better than I have been here, as an opinionated smut writer who talks too much.

You hatefull asshole.  Now, are you done, or would you like to pry some more into my life?  

I’m sorry your sister is a Pentacostal.

My sister is an Atheist, and a Veteran.  You're not sorry, you're judgemental.  Stop talking about my family, you don't know anything about them, except for what you assume.  


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Jed_ on January 14, 2019, 09:46:26 PM
Psi, not sure who you are replying to despite the quotes.  Nobody pried or made assumptions.  All I saw was an attempt to reach out and commiserate.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on January 14, 2019, 09:49:37 PM
Don't worry about it, Jed.  I'm done with talking about Politics for a while, anyway.

I can really see the Party of Love here, though. 


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on January 15, 2019, 03:44:20 AM
Don't worry about it, Jed.  I'm done with talking about Politics for a while, anyway.

I can really see the Party of Love here, though. 
yiu take offense at the drop of a hat, Psi. You seem to go out of your way, looking for something to offend you.

You probably should avoid 1408 for awhile if you feel stressed.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on January 15, 2019, 01:29:24 PM
You probably should avoid 1408 for awhile if you feel stressed.

What a great idea!  Wish I'd thought of that.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on January 18, 2019, 02:06:52 AM
Karen Pence's New Job is Teaching at a School That Bans LGBT Students (https://splinternews.com/karen-pences-new-job-is-teaching-at-a-school-that-bans-1831789770)

Mother Pence Would Like You to Please Stop Attacking Her Just Because Her School Hates Gays (https://splinternews.com/mother-pence-would-like-you-to-please-stop-attacking-he-1831848032)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on January 19, 2019, 02:46:01 PM
Here Are Some Fun Things Girls Are Learning at Karen Pence's School (https://theslot.jezebel.com/here-are-some-fun-things-girls-are-learning-at-karen-pe-1831809636?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&fbclid=IwAR3tSQ3wAYCq8gdVJbIBN1P5Uwr4_vH9DIFcccM5mk3NAk6upWJ5d_5Rcmg)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on January 19, 2019, 03:17:01 PM
So, limited to straight kids, so they can teach them all this misinformation about LGBT.  It's funny how kids basically have no pre-conceived notions about it, because they're innocent.  They have to be taught, and yet our potential next First Lady could very well be prototyping new standards for the Education system, once the Creepy Old Uncle in Chief is impeached.

I bet Betsy deVos and her have a lot to talk about...


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Elizabeth on January 19, 2019, 04:29:58 PM
Here Are Some Fun Things Girls Are Learning at Karen Pence's School (https://theslot.jezebel.com/here-are-some-fun-things-girls-are-learning-at-karen-pe-1831809636?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&fbclid=IwAR3tSQ3wAYCq8gdVJbIBN1P5Uwr4_vH9DIFcccM5mk3NAk6upWJ5d_5Rcmg)

#Resist

So if Pence actually sticks with the schools rules and regulations about Sex and LBGT.
How can she perform her duties as the Vice President's Wife where she would be exposed to everything that the school is against. She's not fit for the office or job of second lady. What does she do..?? stay locked up in her kitchen.??

Love,
Liz


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on January 19, 2019, 04:47:13 PM
So if Pence actually sticks with the schools rules and regulations about Sex and LBGT.

Well, honestly the rules against underage sex might be a loophole for discrimination, in this case.  I hate to bring it up, with all the pedophiles around, but this is a fairly fascinating example of how something that's Right (Not Right Wing) being twisted around to something Wrong (By the Right wing.)  

Children should be insulated from adult things, however that's not really being done in America, where everything is sold with Sex.  Okay, there's no Nudity involved, but at the same time, the sublety just isn't there, and we can still sell these:

(http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0917/3096/products/bottoms-yes-daddy-thong-1_1024x1024.jpg?v=1541564485)

In XXXtrasmall sizes, to teenagers.  Not to mention the Pussygrabber in Chief openly talking about dating his daughter, if she wasn't his daughter, while he's married to another woman.  (Who's not her mother.)  Infidelity?  Well, let that pass.  

Excluding let's say Lesbian students?  Not if they're not out of the closet.  How exactly is this enforced?  There's no test for LGBT, that's why we have a Closet.  So, we can forgo being discriminated against just by passing as cis/straight.  

The ignorant, that can't separate sexual activity (Under age) and sexuality can't see it, any more than my heart shaped beard, unless I dye it pink.  So, the real affect of these kinds of rules, and regulations isn't keeping out LGBT kids, it's just forcing us to hide, so we have the same opportunities as cis/straight people.  So, the administration, and leaders can brag about taking a tough stance on "Perverts," while aiding, and abetting the pervert in Power.

It's not sick if she's your daughter, but if he'd said something like that about his sons, he'd be dropped like a fumbled football by his own party.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on January 19, 2019, 05:11:07 PM
My half brother attended one of these “Christian academies” and was kicked out of the school several years later, when they learned his father was an OB/GYN who prescribed birth control pills.  Not an abortionist.  Birth control pills.  My brother lived a very tortured life after that, and died at a young age.  So yes, I am not fond of Evangelicals.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on January 22, 2019, 03:58:38 PM
Supreme Court allows Trump restrictions on transgender troops in military to go into effect as legal battle continues (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-allows-trump-restrictions-on-transgender-troops-in-military-to-go-into-effect-as-legal-battle-continues/2019/01/22/e68a7284-1763-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html?utm_term=.f86099d7217b)

Quote
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Trump’s broad restrictions on transgender people serving in the military to go into effect while the legal battle continues in lower courts.

The justices lifted nationwide injunctions that had kept the administration’s policy from being implemented.

It reversed an Obama-administration rule that would have opened the military to transgender men and women, and instead barred those who identify with a gender different from the one assigned at birth and who are seeking to transition.

The court’s five conservatives--Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh--allowed the restrictions to go into effect while the court decides to whether to consider the merits of the case.

The liberal justices--Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan--would have kept the injunctions in place.

Trump surprised even his own military advisers in July 2017 when he announced a sweeping ban on transgender people’s military service via Twitter. He cited what he viewed as the “tremendous medical costs and disruption.” The administration’s order reversed President Barack Obama’s policy of allowing transgender men and women to serve openly and receive funding for sex-reassignment surgery.

Attorneys for active-duty service members went to court to block the policy shift, which could subject current transgender service members to discharge and deny them certain medical care.

The court rulings were met with another policy revision from then-Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, who issued a plan to bar those from the military who identify with a gender different from their birth gender and who are seeking to transition. Mattis’s plan makes exceptions, for instance, for about 900 transgender individuals who are already serving openly and for others who would serve in accordance with their birth gender.

While several lower courts have blocked the policy, the changes were persuasive to a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which became the first appeals court to review the policy.

“The government took substantial steps to cure the procedural deficiencies” previously identified by a lower court, the panel said in a short order. “Although the Mattis Plan continues to bar many transgender persons from joining or serving in the military, the record indicates that the plan allows some transgender persons” previously barred to join and serve.

The policy is not a “blanket ban,” the court concluded, because “not all transgender persons seek to transition to their preferred gender or have gender dysphoria.”

The controversy over allowing transgender service members to serve openly has a long past.

The Obama administration opened the military to transgender service members in June 2016, focusing first on allowing those already in the service to remain in legally and then with providing them medical care. In announcing the policy change, then-defense secretary Ashton B. Carter said that the administration did not want “barriers unrelated to a person’s qualification to serve” preventing the military from recruiting or retaining the best people available for the job.

The policy approved said that “not later than July 1, 2017,” the Pentagon would update its medical standards to include people who have a history of gender dysphoria, the medical term for wanting to transition gender. It added that the Pentagon would begin taking transgender recruits in July 2017 for the first time as long as a doctor certified that they were mentally and emotionally stable over the previous 18 months.

Mattis, Trump’s first defense secretary, delayed opening the military to transgender recruits on the eve of that deadline by another six months, citing a request from the Joint Chiefs of Staff for further study. In the meantime, the Pentagon would continue to treat transgender troops with dignity and respect, Mattis said in a memo. Advocates for transgender people decried the move, saying it already had been studied ad nauseam.

The situation was thrown into turmoil a few weeks later with Trump’s tweet.

Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, released a memo the following day effectively stopping the military from making any changes until a new policy was adopted, and Mattis backed the move. Meanwhile, the president’s ban was challenged in court.

Trump issued a presidential memorandum the following month that accused the Obama administration of allowing transgender military service without identifying a “sufficient basis” that doing so would not “hinter military effectiveness and lethality, disrupt unit cohesion, or tax military resources. He directed Mattis to have the Pentagon adopted a new ban similar to the military’s former policy by March 23, 2018.

With legal battles still underway, Mattis wrote in a memo to the president that he was in favor of letting most transgender troops already in the military to stay, so long as they have not undergone gender reassignment surgery and are able to deploy across the world. Service members who had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria since the Obama administration ended the ban in 2016 should be allowed to continue serving, Mattis added, effectively advocating the grandfathering of anyone affected by Trump’s ban.

But Mattis’s view on bringing in additional transgender people as recruits was more closely aligned with the president’s.

“By its very nature, military service requires sacrifice,” Mattis said in the memo. “The men and women who serve voluntarily accept limitations on their personal liberties — freedom of speech, political activity, freedom of movement — in order to provide the military lethality and readiness necessary to ensure American citizens enjoy their personal freedoms to the fullest extent.”

Federal judges required the military to begin allowing transgender recruits beginning in January 2018, and the Pentagon has not stood in the way of those rulings. Instead, it provided policy guidance to recruiters to explain how to enlist transgender men and women, and said those guidelines “shall remain in effect until expressly revoked.”

You didn't think Rapist Kavanaugh was going to just sit by and drink did you?

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on January 22, 2019, 04:23:00 PM
"Uh!"   :roll:

So, again.  No Rights for transpeople, just the Right to discriminate against us. 


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on January 22, 2019, 05:34:18 PM
Thank the moral Evangelical right and other “conservatives”.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on January 22, 2019, 06:02:36 PM
Thank the moral Evangelical right and other “conservatives."

I'd rather not.  (IK, facetious.)  The only thing they seem to be "Conserving" is their own way of life, at the expense of immigrants, the descendants of their ancestors' slaves, the rest of the world, and anyone else that doesn't fit into their myopic little box.

Not conserving the planet, energy, the economy, or anything important.  Just as long as they don't have to share the wealth, acknowledge their Privilege, or learn any new words, they're happy.  Just as long as they don't have to think about anyone else having happiness, rights, or even lives. 

That's what "Conservative" means, "Mine, fuck you."


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on January 22, 2019, 07:27:12 PM
Another report on the wonderful students at Covington Catholic.

Thread:

https://twitter.com/macduckworth/status/1086704748944936960

Why do a bunch of shitheads need their parents to hire a PR firm instead of apologizing anyway?

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on January 22, 2019, 07:35:21 PM
Why do a bunch of shitheads need their parents to hire a PR firm instead of apologizing anyway?

So they don't have to apologize, or admit when they're wrong.  It's a subtle indoctrination into their lives of privilege without accountability.  Just pay them off, before it goes to court, that's what PR is all about.  The appearance of being in the right, so there's no shame in being "The Right."


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on January 23, 2019, 03:16:27 AM
The Republican wants you to hate and fear brown people, LBGTQ people, and anyone else who threatens thier self-rightousness.

They've even stopped paying the FBI, TSA, Air Traffic Controllers, and many more to protect us from these horrible brown people.

What wonderful priorities they have.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on January 23, 2019, 03:58:52 PM
Who knew? Trump's top White House attorney is Covington Catholic High School graduate (https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/22/covington-catholic-trumps-white-house-lawyer-went-kentucky-school/2650238002/)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on January 23, 2019, 04:01:14 PM
Gay valedictorian banned from speaking at Covington graduation 'not surprised' by D.C. controversy (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/gay-valedictorian-banned-speaking-covington-graduation-not-surprised-d-c-n961446)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on January 24, 2019, 12:53:49 AM
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION GRANTS SOUTH CAROLINA FOSTER CARE AGENCIES AUTHORITY TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST JEWISH AND MUSLIM FAMILIES (https://theintercept.com/2019/01/23/trump-administration-grants-south-carolina-foster-care-agencies-authority-to-discriminate-against-jewish-muslim-families/)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on January 24, 2019, 05:52:34 AM
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION GRANTS SOUTH CAROLINA FOSTER CARE AGENCIES AUTHORITY TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST JEWISH AND MUSLIM FAMILIES (https://theintercept.com/2019/01/23/trump-administration-grants-south-carolina-foster-care-agencies-authority-to-discriminate-against-jewish-muslim-families/)

#Resist

(https://cdn.thinglink.me/api/image/573216415968919553/1240/10/scaletowidth)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on February 01, 2019, 12:44:23 AM
Bice: Supreme Court candidate once wrote that gay rights ruling could lead to legalized bestiality (https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/investigations/daniel-bice/2019/01/31/wisconsin-supreme-court-candidate-once-tied-gay-rights-bestiality/2699726002/)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MintJulie on February 01, 2019, 02:34:24 PM
Bice: Supreme Court candidate once wrote that gay rights ruling could lead to legalized bestiality (https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/investigations/daniel-bice/2019/01/31/wisconsin-supreme-court-candidate-once-tied-gay-rights-bestiality/2699726002/)

#Resist

What is it - AssHat or AssHelmet?  Regardless, this jerk is both.  I think a better word might be F*cktard.  God, what makes people have that much hate.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on February 01, 2019, 04:35:56 PM
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
That is a judge who doesn’t want separation of church and state. His stated belief is that church law should be reflected in secular law. Not really much difference between him and the caliphate that wants to institute sharia law.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on February 02, 2019, 01:12:52 AM
Trump supporter 'shows up to library with gun' because drag queen was reading stories to children (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-supporter-library-drag-queen-protest-james-greene-houston-texas-a8758101.html)

Quote
A Donald Trump supporter reportedly armed with a gun barged into a Texas library in an attempt to stop a drag queen reading books to children.

James Greene was arrested on suspicion of trespassing after refusing to leave Houston’s Freed-Montrose Library, but claimed he was detained for being a "white Christian" and accused staff of satanism.

He had entered the building to protest against Drag Queen Storytime, a programme of events in which performers read children’s stories to families.

The conservative radio host has previously been banned from the library for filming children during similar demonstrations.

Footage filmed by Mr Greene and posted on YouTube shows him remonstrating with police officers as they ask him to leave the building. Another clip shows him being handcuffed in the libary’s car park.

“We have a bunch of homosexuals that are molesting children,” he is heard telling officers. “They are doing it with your help.”

Quote
“A manager asked us for assistance because he was banned from the library, and would not leave when he was asked,” a Houston Police Department (HPD) spokeswoman told the magazine.

He added: “He was previously banned for filming children at the library, and has been known to cause disturbances. Several officers had to escort him out.”

Quote
Mr Greene later recounted the incident in a Facebook video, wearing a Make America Great Again hat in front of a cardboard cut-out of Mr Trump. He claimed he was “arrested for being a white Christian" and accused a librarian at Freed-Montrose of being a "satanist"

“This cannot stand, we must fight back," added Mr Green, who hosts a programme on Raging Elephants Radio, a conservative online station in Texas.

Quote
Earlier this month a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from a group of conservative Christian men who claimed Drag Queen Storytime violated their religious rights. In a court filing in defence, Houston Public Library said it was "committed to celebrating the diverse and culturally rich communities" in the city.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on February 02, 2019, 01:39:50 AM
Bice: Supreme Court candidate once wrote that gay rights ruling could lead to legalized bestiality (https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/investigations/daniel-bice/2019/01/31/wisconsin-supreme-court-candidate-once-tied-gay-rights-bestiality/2699726002/)

#Resist

What is it - AssHat or AssHelmet?  Regardless, this jerk is both.  I think a better word might be F*cktard.  God, what makes people have that much hate.

(https://i.imgur.com/xZFNJSi.gif)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on February 03, 2019, 02:11:39 PM
Man allegedly threatened to kill Baltimore restaurant owner over anti-Trump poster, police say (https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-cocina-luchadoras-20190201-story.html)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on February 03, 2019, 08:14:02 PM
7-year old boy dies after court-appointed guardians punish him for not knowing 13 Bible verses (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/7-year-old-boy-dies-court-appointed-guardians-punish-not-knowing-13-bible-verses/)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on February 04, 2019, 02:46:23 PM
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/904491613e989e22e06ebb3085ec694b/tumblr_pmem6mUdTc1rclr47o3_540.png)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on February 06, 2019, 08:29:09 AM
7-year old boy dies after court-appointed guardians punish him for not knowing 13 Bible verses (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/7-year-old-boy-dies-court-appointed-guardians-punish-not-knowing-13-bible-verses/)

#Resist

Damn!  Talk about Teahadism!  This is the kind of shit Islamic fundementalists do.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on February 07, 2019, 12:40:20 AM
State Rep. Anthony Sabatini dismisses Florida Democratic chair's call for his resignation over high school 'blackface' photo (https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/political-pulse/os-ne-sabatini-photo-controversy-20190205-story.html)

(https://media.giphy.com/media/a5viI92PAF89q/giphy.gif)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Elizabeth on February 07, 2019, 01:02:45 AM
7-year old boy dies after court-appointed guardians punish him for not knowing 13 Bible verses (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/7-year-old-boy-dies-court-appointed-guardians-punish-not-knowing-13-bible-verses/)

#Resist

Damn!  Talk about Teahadism!  This is the kind of shit Islamic fundementalists do.

A little to much religion and not nearly enough common sense.
All three need to spend a long time in jail, where they might learn a little bit about common sense.

Love,
Liz


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on February 08, 2019, 01:37:36 AM
GOP leader apologizes for tweeting: 'Time for another Kent State' (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/05/gop-leader-apologizes-kent-state/97533372/?fbclid=IwAR053-0NIADtQ0LP23_rm5QWx27RIaB5bWZt9EshKKJjfHZGQgpQu1ithv4)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on February 08, 2019, 06:03:19 AM
GOP leader apologizes for tweeting: 'Time for another Kent State' (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/05/gop-leader-apologizes-kent-state/97533372/?fbclid=IwAR053-0NIADtQ0LP23_rm5QWx27RIaB5bWZt9EshKKJjfHZGQgpQu1ithv4)

#Resist

OMFG.   :emot_weird:


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on February 13, 2019, 01:56:05 AM
'Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act' seeks to strip gay marriage rights (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/tennessee-natural-marriage-defense-act-seeks-strip-gay-marriage-rights-n970596)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on February 13, 2019, 03:01:08 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/nkf1HSw.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on February 13, 2019, 05:53:27 AM
  So, are you saying Spartacus is Gay? Was unaware about that, and seems not to have bothered his rise above the pit of Newark, NJ, where he was leader.

  Is America ready for a 'bachelor' President? Of course, what could go wrong? Think of all the money saved, not needing to fund a First Lady at all. No Staff, no office space, no travel expenses, with or without family pets... and presumably no Secret Service costs to travel with a First Lady, or a family.

  No garden, so no harvesting of kale and whatever. No First Lady programs, so kids lunches are safe from being micromanaged. So much faster to exit to the Helicopter, when no HEELS are involved to slow the walk. No separate planes when the President goes on Vacation.

  Where would President Spartacus go for Vacations?

  Newark?  Maybe a cruise, from Newark NJ, to Wilmington DE... Exciting...

  More money for TheWall!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on February 13, 2019, 06:05:46 AM
(http://reactiongifs.net/wp-content/uploads/Rw2TKOS.gif)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on February 13, 2019, 06:56:36 AM
My feelings exactly Toe.  What does sparticus have to do with it?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on February 13, 2019, 12:43:46 PM
No garden, so no harvesting of kale and whatever.

Booker's a vegan.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Jed_ on February 13, 2019, 01:44:44 PM
https://www.thisisinsider.com/cory-booker-confirmed-girlfriend-is-he-dating-rosario-dawson-video-2019-2


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on February 13, 2019, 01:57:24 PM
He's overachieving.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on February 13, 2019, 01:58:13 PM
More money for TheWall!

President Sparticus hasn't said anything about "The wall."  

(http://thumbs.gfycat.com/ZealousInfantileGreatdane.webp)

Do you really think, that after President Goldfinger had to go through all this, and try to force it through a government that doesn't want it, this petty pet project is going to be supported by anyone else?

Put down the coolaid, and back slowly away.

#OrangeIsTheNewPink


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on February 14, 2019, 06:25:42 AM
‘Bring back our childhood diseases!’ Wife of top Trump official goes on unhinged rant against vaccinations (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/bring-back-childhood-diseases-wife-top-trump-official-goes-unhinged-rant-vaccinations/)

(https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Darla-Shine-410x220.jpg)

Further proof that Trumpism is actually a form of mental illness.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Elizabeth on February 14, 2019, 04:10:38 PM
She doesn't photograph well at all.....does she...??
I hope that's not her "Intelligent Look" for the camera's.

Love,
Liz


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on February 14, 2019, 04:10:53 PM
Oh, so that's what they mean by "Great Again."  Bring back Polio and Smallpox.  

So, the wealthy can party with Prince Prospero while Nature takes care of the poor for them.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on February 15, 2019, 02:04:15 AM
Gay marriage is 'parody marriage,' says Kansas bill introduced on eve of Valentine's Day (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/13/kansas-bills-say-same-sex-marriage-parody-marriage/2866045002/)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on March 11, 2019, 06:50:01 AM
The Senate just confirmed a judge who interned at an anti-LGBTQ group. She’ll serve for life. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2019/03/06/senate-just-confirmed-judge-who-interned-an-anti-lgbtq-group-shell-serve-life/?utm_term=.1e11c0e31010)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on March 15, 2019, 01:15:43 AM
Jacob Wohl may have faked death threat against himself (https://nypost.com/2019/03/13/jacob-wohl-may-have-faked-death-threat-against-himself/)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on March 16, 2019, 12:50:52 AM
New Zealand reminds us that far-right attacks are on the rise far and wide — including in the U.S. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/15/new-zealand-reminds-us-that-far-right-attacks-are-rise-everywhere-including-us/?utm_term=.228048bc2fed)

Quote
The New Zealand mass shooting that left 49 dead is part of a disturbing trend: violent acts perpetrated by racists and far-right extremists.

Though the primary gunman has not been named, he allegedly took pains to link the violent assault on two mosques to his politics. Police said that shortly before the shooting, he released a manifesto describing his hatred for Muslims and immigrants.

“The 74-page document states that he was following the example of notorious right-wing extremists, including Dylann Roof, who murdered nine black churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., in 2015,” my colleagues reported. It was “littered with conspiracy theories about white birthrates and ‘white genocide” and “is the latest sign that a lethal vision of white nationalism has spread internationally. Its title, ‘The Great Replacement,’ echoes the rallying cry of, among others, the torch-bearing protesters who marched in Charlottesville in 2017.”

Elsewhere, there are references to President Trump and Candace Owens, a black conservative activist, mentions that seem designed to troll.

The New Zealand violence echoes other high-profile incidents, such as Anders Behring Breivik’s assault on a summer camp in Norway that left 77 people, including many teenagers, dead in 2011, and Alexandre Bissonnette’s murder of six Muslims in a Quebec City mosque in 2017.

And the attack in New Zealand seems to be part of a broader pattern: Far-right extremism is on the rise in the United States and abroad, and it is increasingly leading to violence. As my colleagues wrote last year, “Over the past decade, attackers motivated by right-wing political ideologies have committed dozens of shootings, bombings and other acts of violence, far more than any other category of domestic extremist, according to a Washington Post analysis of data on global terrorism.”

We’ve also seen an increase in the number of white-nationalist and other hate groups. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the number of hate groups in the United States has grown for four years, from 784 in 2014 to 1,020 in 2018. (A 30 percent increase in the number of hate groups coincided with Donald Trump’s campaign and presidency, after three consecutive years of decline at the end of the Obama administration.) There has also been a jump in reported hate crimes: They increased by 30 percent between 2014 and 2017, after a 12 percent drop between 2011 and 2014, the SPLC wrote.

There are indications that similar trends are emerging around the world. R. Joseph Parrott, an assistant professor of history at Ohio State University, wrote in The Washington Post in 2017:

“Global white supremacy has been making a comeback, attracting adherents by stoking a new unease with changing demographics, using an expanded rhetoric of deluge and cultivating nostalgia for a time when various white governments ruled the world (and local cities). At the fringes, longing for lost white regimes forged a new global iconography of supremacy.”

Trump and other nationalist leaders are often quick to distance themselves from the far-right extremists who perpetrate this kind of violence. But the fact that the rise in extremism and domestic terrorism coincides with a rise in the number of nationalist leaders around the world seems impossible to ignore.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on March 19, 2019, 03:06:55 AM
Steve King posts meme warning that red states have ‘8 trillion bullets’ in event of civil war (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/18/steve-king-posts-meme-warning-that-red-states-have-trillion-bullets-event-civil-war/?utm_term=.85d2e0ffe9d2)

Quote
Rep. Steve King has civil war on his mind.

The Iowa Republican broached the subject in a Saturday evening Facebook post — a bizarre meme of two fighting Frankenstein figures, one red and one blue, each an amalgamation of states based on their political leanings.

“Folks keep talking about another civil war,” the meme read. “One side has about 8 trillion bullets, while the other side doesn’t know which bathroom to use.”

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/V0QeAVsSc5QrV5NWePhybr_eQYo=/1067x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/7PRKRZXTMNA2NO66KZSEHODZ3I.jpg)

King, who Congress recently stripped of committee assignments over his comments about white supremacy, annotated the image with a winking emoji and mused, “Wonder who would win....”

The implication was incendiary: King was openly pondering violent, armed conflict, apparently joking about Republican-leaning states fighting their Democratic-leaning neighbors in a second American Civil War.

But King, an Iowa native and sitting congressman, may have been confused about which side he was on. There, forming the blue warrior’s biceps, was his home state, delivering a cartographic uppercut to the jaw of its red opponent.

King deleted the post, which he shared on an official campaign page, on Monday. His office did not respond to questions about the picture and his reasons for posting and removing it.

[A brief guide to Steve King’s ‘long history of racist statements’]

Observers pilloried him for the post, which many saw as further provocation in a divisive political climate that has already seen signs of civil war rhetoric creeping into the discourse. Many called for King’s expulsion from Congress, a punishment that would end his nine-term run in office.

“This is treason,” said Richard Painter, who served as the chief ethics lawyer in President George W. Bush’s administration, on Twitter. “Steve King should be expelled from the House immediately.”

Responding to Painter, Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe modified his criticism: King “isn’t actually COMMITTING treason, but he is fomenting and inciting it. Ample reason to expel him.”

The Democratic Party in Clay County, Iowa, which is located in King’s district in the northwest part of the state, told its representative, “Iowa would be better off if you just resigned.”

Some criticized King’s timing, as he posted the meme the day after a white supremacist allegedly killed 50 people in two New Zealand mosques. Shannon Watts, founder of the group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, tweeted that King had ignored the “gun violence in America and across the world caused by division and fear of one another” when he posted the image.

[In a New York Times profile, Rep. Steve King once again defends white nationalism]

Others accused King of promoting transphobic language, and at least one scholar attempted a history lesson.

“I grew up in SC where the #CivilWar began, a war that eventually freed 4 million slaves, a war that left 620,000 soldiers dead—including 40,000 Black soldiers,” wrote Cornell William Brooks, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School and former president of the NAACP. “Don’t use #transphobia to legitimate #WhiteSupremacy, or bathrooms to spit on graves.”

A national political figure for nearly two decades, King has furnished a long history of racist remarks and comments widely viewed as anti-Semitic, white nationalist, or insulting to immigrants and women seeking abortions.

He has also made at least two other nods to civil war.

In 2018, King said the country was on the brink of civil war. In a tweet, he said, “America is heading in the direction of another Harpers Ferry. After that comes Ft. Sumter.”

Harpers Ferry was the site of abolitionist John Brown’s raid of a federal armory, an attempt to begin an antislavery rebellion, that helped spark the Civil War. The attack on Fort Sumter was considered the start of the war.

King has even kept a reminder of the war placed prominently on his desk — a mini Confederate flag, peeking out from a display that also sported a U.S. Gadsden flag. Once again, it seems King may have been confused about sides: Iowa was part of the Union.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Jed_ on March 19, 2019, 01:33:24 PM
When I look at that pic I see Iowa (his state), Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and Florida as blue.

Anyone want to add up the electoral votes for each side?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on March 22, 2019, 02:15:13 AM
9 year old US citizen separated from her family in the US, and then reunited with them.  By Mexico. (https://boingboing.net/2019/03/20/border-patrol-detains-9-year-o.html)

This is what he means by making it "Great."


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on March 22, 2019, 03:24:51 AM
That's the sort of thing that happens when people are hired to police the border that know nothing about it.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on March 22, 2019, 04:00:42 AM
That's the sort of thing that happens when people are hired to police the border that know nothing about it.

Or the description of the suspect is "Brown, dark hair, dark eyes." 


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on March 26, 2019, 07:01:49 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/tok90hg.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on March 26, 2019, 07:10:06 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/tok90hg.jpg)

http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=54480.msg540064#msg540064

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on March 27, 2019, 12:17:54 AM
Betsy DeVos defends Special Olympics budget cuts: 'We had to make some difficult decisions' (https://thehill.com/policy/finance/435918-betsy-devos-defends-special-olympics-budget-cuts-we-had-to-make-some-difficult)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on March 27, 2019, 02:12:04 AM
So now Republicans are reading Mein Kaphf to vindicate their Fuhrer.

Here. (https://twitter.com/i/status/1110553367250640897)

So, can we call them fucking Fascists now?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on March 27, 2019, 07:28:41 AM
Woman at rally says she would like to see Trump as dicatator, crowd and Steve Bannon applaud her.

Scary shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS8uFOJeOq0


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on March 27, 2019, 02:33:17 PM
Woman at rally says she would like to see Trump as dicatator, crowd and Steve Bannon applaud her.

Scary shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS8uFOJeOq0
the rise of the Brown Shirts


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on March 28, 2019, 03:54:58 AM
Trump administration scrambles to defend budget cut for Special Olympics (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/trump-administration-scrambles-to-defend-budget-cut-for-special-olympics/2019/03/27/420b87ae-50aa-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html?utm_term=.5907e427a5dd)

Quote
The Trump administration faced withering attacks and bipartisan pushback as it scrambled Wednesday to defend its proposal to kill federal funding for Special Olympics.

President Trump’s budget plan slashes programs of all stripes, but the idea of cutting federal support for a beloved organization generated outrage far and wide.

The issue came up at a House hearing on Tuesday and by Wednesday afternoon, prominent GOP senators were vowing to protect the $17.6 million for Special Olympics, which gives people with intellectual disabilities the chance to compete in a range of athletic contests.

Trump’s proposed 2020 budget marked the third year that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has proposed the cut. But as word spread following Tuesday’s hearing, attacks poured in from Capitol Hill, the presidential campaign trail and Twitter.

DeVos defended the proposal, saying Special Olympics benefits from private philanthropic support.

“The Special Olympics is not a federal program. It’s a private organization. I love its work, and I have personally supported its mission,” she said in a statement Wednesday. “There are dozens of worthy nonprofits that support students and adults with disabilities that don’t get a dime of federal grant money. But given our current budget realities, the federal government cannot fund every worthy program, particularly ones that enjoy robust support from private donations.”

That did little to calm the storm.

“Trump and DeVos want to slash education spending and defund the Special Olympics after giving tax breaks to the top 1%. Unbelievable,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, said on Twitter. “When we are in the White House we will get our national priorities straight.”

“It’s completely outrageous,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), another Democratic presidential candidate.

Congress has repeatedly rejected Trump’s request to kill the funding and instead has steadily increased the Special Olympics appropriation, from $12.6 million in 2017 to $15.1 million in 2018 to $17.6 million this year.

The proposal appeared dead again this year. Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the top Republican on the Senate panel that oversees appropriations for the Education Department, said in a statement that his chamber’s bill will not cut the funding.

He said he is proud that Missouri is home to the largest Special Olympics training facility in the world and that he had just returned from the World Games in the United Arab Emirates this month. He said he saw, “as I have many times before, what a huge impact the organization has on athletes, their families and their communities.”

This year’s World Games included more than 7,000 athletes from 170 countries. Special Olympics’ motto — “Let me win, but if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt” — has resonated with many people, as has the spirit of competition and mutual support that the games engender.

On Tuesday, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who oversaw the 2002 Winter Olympics, voiced support for federal funding, saying the games play “a great role in the lives of many, many Americans and many people around the world.”

Former Ohio governor John Kasich, another Republican, called the proposal to end federal funding “outrageous” and “ridiculous.”

And in the House, Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Appropriations subcommittee on education, agreed that the final bill would retain Special Olympics funding. “There is no doubt that will be the case,” he said.

The maelstrom was ignited Tuesday on Capitol Hill when House Democrats who sit on an Appropriations subcommittee pressed DeVos to defend her budget plan.

“Do you know how many kids are going to be affected by that cut?” Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) asked. The education secretary said she didn’t know. “I’ll answer for you,” he replied. “It’s 272,000 kids.”

A representative from Special Olympics did not return a request for comment Wednesday.

Special Olympics is one of many programs the Trump budget eliminates or slashes. Overall, the budget slices $8.5 billion from the Education Department, a 12 percent reduction.

At the hearing, DeVos made little headway in her defense, partly because she was cut off by Democratic lawmakers.

“We had to make some difficult decisions with this budget,” she said. She added: “I think Special Olympics is an awesome organization, one that is well-supported by the philanthropic sector as well.”

Pocan’s office posted a video of their exchange to Twitter on Tuesday evening, but even his aides said they were not sure why it took off so dramatically. By Wednesday afternoon, the video had been viewed more than 1.1 million times. One aide attributed it to a combination of DeVos’s unpopularity and the popularity of Special Olympics.

On Wednesday, DeVos’s statement called the criticism “unacceptable, shameful and counterproductive” and defended her budget plan, even as she expressed support for the group’s mission. In 2017, DeVos, a billionaire, donated her salary to four charities, including Special Olympics.

She and others in the agency appeared frustrated they were not getting credit for maintaining level funding of $13.2 billion for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which is the principal source of federal funding for special education in public schools.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on March 28, 2019, 03:56:47 AM
Betsy DeVos Must Really Think We're Stupid (https://splinternews.com/betsy-devos-must-really-think-were-stupid-1833613407)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on March 28, 2019, 04:10:56 PM
Trump, misconstruing the Mueller Report as “vindication,” attacks both ACA and Special Olympics.

Evil.  Stupid.  Arrogant.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on March 28, 2019, 04:13:58 PM
Betsy DeVos payed a lot of her family's money to make sure we're stupid, so I guess she thinks it's already worked?

Job security, she has that!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on March 28, 2019, 04:19:57 PM
NRA officer enlisted a Sandy Hook truther to sow doubt about Parkland shooting, emails show (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/03/28/nra-officer-enlisted-sandy-hook-truther-sow-doubt-about-parkland-shooting-emails-show/?utm_term=.0d56dbeefa31)

Quote
In the week after a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., killing 17 students and staff members and renewing calls for gun control, the National Rifle Association fell silent.

But the day after the Feb. 14, 2018, shooting, an NRA training coordinator and range safety officer based at the group’s headquarters in Fairfax, Va., sprang into action behind the scenes. He sought information countering the official version of the grisly, and familiar, events, which involved a lone gunman and a legally purchased firearm.

For support, he turned to Wolfgang Halbig, a conspiracy theorist intent on proving that the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which left 26 students and staff members dead in Newtown, Conn., was a hoax.

“You have included me with a lot of Information since the Sandy Hook Incident and I do appreciate it very much,” the NRA coordinator, Mark Richardson, wrote on Feb. 15, 2018, according to emails published by HuffPost on Wednesday. “Concerning what happened in Florida yesterday, I have been asking the question and no one else seems to be asking it.”

He pushed the deluded idea that the gunman, a former student at the school, had not acted alone, posing questions about how he had gained entry and where he had kept his equipment.

“To pull the fire alarm, he had to already be inside. Correct?” he wrote. “When my Children were in school the only way into the school was through the front door and past the main office.”

As with Sandy Hook, Richardson observed, “There is so much more to this story. He was not alone.”

Halbig, a former Florida state trooper and school administrator, replied the following day, inviting Richardson to call him to discuss the incident.

The subject line of his emailed response included, in all caps, the name Avielle Richman, one of the 20 students killed in Newtown. For years, Halbig has accused Richman’s parents of falsifying the first-grade girl’s death, writing on his website that their intention was “to steal money from hard-working Americans.”

Jeremy Richman, her father, a neuroscientist who had founded the Avielle Foundation in his daughter’s name, died in an apparent suicide on Monday, following the apparent suicides of two teenage survivors of the Parkland shooting.

The deaths returned the nation’s focus to the two communities, which have been besieged by online abuse and threats stoked by conspiracy theories that depict the victims as “crisis actors.”

But the correspondence shows how an officer of the NRA saw these theories as potentially useful to his cause. The inquiry, sent from Richardson’s work email, was evidence of the curious handshake in which the gun-rights organization has found itself with the most extreme purveyors of Internet falsehoods.

“The NRA literally drives conspiracies about school shootings to fear monger gun owners to buy more guns,” David Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland shooting who has become a prominent advocate for gun control, wrote on Twitter.

Richardson didn’t return an email seeking comment. He defended himself to HuffPost, saying he was posing a “legitimate question” about how the shooter had entered the school. A spokesman for the NRA said the matter was under review.

The revelation came as the NRA was already facing criticism on Wednesday for saying it would oppose the Violence Against Women Act because of a provision designed to keep guns away from men who batter women. The legislation, first approved in 1994, is up for reauthorization in Congress.

“It is a shame that some in the gun-control community treat the severity of domestic violence so trivially that they are willing to use it as a tool to advance a political agenda,” a spokeswoman for the NRA told National Journal, which reported that GOP lawmakers had sought the input of the gun lobby to give them political cover for opposing the act.

The move by the NRA was condemned by Democrats. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who has put the cause of gender equality at the center of her presidential bid, wrote, “Leaders who put NRA blood money over women’s lives shouldn’t be anywhere near our laws.”

And Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, another Democratic presidential contender, became emotional in a CNN town hall on Wednesday evening when he answered a question about gun violence.

“I am tired of going to funerals where parents are burying their children,” he said. “We are going to bring a fight like the NRA has never seen.”

Halbig, for his part, was eager to play informal adviser to the NRA after the Parkland massacre. He saw the exchange as a validation of his years-long campaign to get the organization’s attention.

“After 4 years of emailing the NRA I finally got a response in light of the Broward County School Shooting,” he wrote, according to HuffPost.

Halbig is an associate of Alex Jones, the far-right provocateur and founder of the conspiracy site Infowars. Although not as grandiose as Jones, who has been banned from numerous online platforms, Halbig is no less avid a spokesman for the alternate universe peddled on Infowars, where he has been a frequent guest, introduced as a “leading expert” on Sandy Hook.

Citing his credentials in law enforcement and school security, Halbig has asserted unique insight into what happened in Newtown. (An e-book about him, called “Wolfgang Halbig: The Hoax of a Lifetime,” has raised questions about his past, including his claim that he was involved in the investigation into the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School.)

He became famous among hoaxers for a set of 16 — sometimes expanded to 34 — questions that, he says, reveal official accounts to be faulty. He argues that the authorities are suppressing evidence that would support his case, and has pressed for information about “blood, bodily fluids, brain matter, skull fragments and around 45-60 gallons of blood” for which he claims the police have never accounted.

The family members of students and staff who perished at Sandy Hook blame the bogus claims propagated on Infowars and related platforms for the stalking, death threats and online vitriol that they have faced in the years since the 2012 shooting. Ten families are pursuing defamation lawsuits against Jones. The discovery process in one of the lawsuits yielded the email exchange made public by HuffPost.

A complaint filed last year in a Connecticut court, which also names Halbig as a defendant, details his campaign to sow doubt about the Sandy Hook shooting. It describes how he has testified at public meetings in Newtown, filed Freedom of Information Act requests seeking police documents and other records, videotaped children entering and exiting a church in the community and raised more than $100,000 on GoFundMe to bankroll his efforts.

In court filings, Halbig, who is representing himself, has called the accusations against him “spurious.” He is contending that they should be dismissed because the claims are not sufficiently specific and because Connecticut courts lack jurisdiction over him as a resident of Florida.

At the same time that relatives of Sandy Hook victims were training their ire on him, Halbig was earning praise for his work from other sources.

“Thank you for all the information,” the NRA officer wrote. “And for what you do.”

Richardson concluded in all caps, “STAY SAFE.”

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on March 29, 2019, 04:40:11 AM
The GOP's Healthcare Plan Is Death (https://splinternews.com/the-gops-healthcare-plan-is-death-1833636438)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on March 29, 2019, 04:42:30 AM
A job-scarce town struggles with Arkansas’s first-in-nation Medicaid work rules (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-job-scarce-town-struggles-with-arkansass-first-in-nation-medicaid-work-rules/2019/03/26/f551c352-5012-11e9-8d28-f5149e5a2fda_story.html?utm_term=.7492d50d85c1)

Quote
Marianna, ARK. — At the center of Court Square in this old Mississippi Delta town, the monument to the county’s Confederate dead is inscribed: “No braver bled for a brighter land. No brighter land had a cause so grand.”

It has been a long time since Marianna or surrounding Lee County could be described as bright. Along the square, a storefront funeral home sits empty, along with two former drugstores, a department store, a jeweler, a barber. Gone, too, is Ronny’s dollar store, which let customers buy clothes on layaway. The National Guard Armory closed down and became a senior center, until that also closed.

This community — scarce on jobs and among the poorest in a poor state — provides an early reality check on how hard it is to carry out President Trump’s vision of a social safety net that requires most able-bodied people to work, or try to work, in exchange for government health benefits. Nearly 10 months ago, Arkansas became the first place in the nation to impose work requirements on the part of Medicaid that expanded under the Affordable Care Act. Seven other states have won the Trump administration’s blessing to begin the same idea soon, and seven more are waiting in line.

The president and Republican governors contend that this abrupt turn in Medicaid, one of the most enduring legacies of the Great Society of the 1960s, will propel poor people to economic self-reliance. In Arkansas, however, 18,000 people so far have lost their insurance, including 85 here in Lee County, state figures show.

The view from this Delta town is that confusion about the program is rampant, and people scoff at the idea that jobs are waiting for those willing to work.

“I am a big fan of work and people working,” said Rep. Reginald Murdock (D), a veteran state legislator from Marianna. But with jobs so scarce here, even at a time of low unemployment statewide, “threatening people with their insurance wasn’t a proper way to do it.”

On Wednesday afternoon, a federal judge in Washington threw a significant roadblock into Arkansas’ program, issuing an opinion saying the rules “cannot stand,” and in a separate decision, rejecting the start of a similar program in Kentucky for the second time— decisions likely to have ripple effects on states with similar aspirations. The same jurist, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, had delayed Kentucky’s imposition of work requirements last summer, ruling that Trump’s health aides had inadequately considered the effects on people needing insurance.

The twin opinions cast doubt on the Trump administration’s re-envisioning of the public insurance program, telling federal health officials they must reconsider the two states’ applications with an eye towards the effect on poor people who depend on such coverage.

Both Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar had suggested the Arkansas program was helping people become more independent, contending most of the people who lost benefits have found steady work. But the state lacks data so far to back that up.

“What the state is doing is kicking tens of thousands of people off health care, under the guise of an experiment that they aren’t even collecting any data about, let alone analyzing it,” said Kevin De Liban, a Legal Aid lawyer in northeast Arkansas who is active in the federal lawsuit against the program.

Some of the people who lost their health-care coverage had failed for three months to perform the required 80 hours per month at a job or other “community engagement” activities, monthly state reports show. More failed to correctly report they were following the rules.

For now, the evidence is sketchy as to whether the work requirements are motivating people to find jobs with pay and benefits to wean them off public insurance.

From the program’s start last June through last week, more than 11,000 people on Arkansas Works, as the expanded Medicaid program is known, got new jobs, according to state figures. But the state does not know whether these jobs went to people cycling in and out of work — common in poor, job-scarce areas— or whether the requirements motivated them to find work. Nor is there data showing whether these new jobs come with better wages or health benefits.

Evidence is scanty, too, of whether the requirements are leading people to get help in training for a job or searching for one.

The number of recipients actually submitting required monthly reports about job searches, work hours and other activities is small. Last month, just 88 Arkansans in the program reported taking part in education and training, while 155 reported getting state help with a job search. According to state workforce figures, just four people in Lee County have sought such help.

Gillespie, the DHS director, acknowledged that as the nation’s first such program, Arkansas Works will need fine-tuning. The state is preparing to contract for two evaluations in the next few months.

But already it is clear that some are being harmed.

Elizabeth Cloinger, 47, who lives in a trailer next to her cousin’s house just outside town, thought she was complying with the new rules. She has been on Medicaid for years and already had a job, working seven days most weeks as a home health aide. Her wages — 9.25 an hour, with 50 cents more for hospice patients — and her hours met the new rules. Yet she received a June letter saying she needed to verify that her income made her eligible, or she would be cut off.

She called the listed phone number and faxed information to a state employee in Pine Bluff. She was told that, like many people, she was exempt from the work requirements — in her case, because she was caring for her 20-year-old daughter recovering from a car accident and her 3-year-old granddaughter.

But on Aug. 18, she received another letter, saying she had been terminated because she had not verified her income. In December, four letters arrived saying she needed to update her email address, then 11 more in January. Each letter told her to create an online account. She doesn’t have a computer and didn’t realize that the program requires everyone to get an email address.

This winter, she applied to get her insurance back and is still waiting for an answer. Statewide, about 1,900 of the 18,000 people cut off last year have regained coverage since January, when they could reapply. The state does not keep track of how many reapplied and were denied.

In all these months, Cloinger hasn’t seen a doctor for the swelling in her right foot, which makes it hard to stand for long. Nor has she addressed the throbbing around the scar from her hysterectomy two years ago.

“I won’t go” to the doctor, she said, having just finally paid off — in $10 monthly installments — a hospital bill for the X-rays she needed for a torn tendon before she got onto Medicaid.

“I am just putting it in God’s hands,” Cloinger said. “He is going to let me stay on this Earth to see my grandbaby be raised.”

The kind of life on the edge that she leads is common here in Marianna, which has essentially been on a long slide ever since it grew up along the L’Anguille River, a Mississippi tributary, as a regional shipping hub. This early spring, the river is swollen from winter rains. The town’s population, 4,115, is lower than a century ago.

Of Arkansas’ 75 counties, Lee ranks 73rd in life quality, according to the national County Health Rankings project. Computers are so scarce that even the public library has a sign out front saying it does “not offer the Internet” — a problem for the work requirement’s first several months, when people could not yet phone in their monthly reports.

For now, some people on Arkansas Works are confused — because of both a lack of understanding about what rules apply to them and contradictory information from the state.

Murdock, the legislator, and leaders of a historic health clinic in town anticipated those problems — and knew the lifeline to health care that insurance brings. The Lee County Community Clinic has been here since 1969, when VISTA volunteers overcame the resistance of white residents opposed in those days to black and white patients being treated by the same nurses and doctors.

Last summer, a month before the first people were cut off from Arkansas Works, Murdock and clinic leaders teamed up on a workshop about the new requirements. They handed out fliers at barber shops and public housing complexes, ran radio ads, and got a donation of finger sandwiches for the 150 people, at least, they expected to show up. They set the time for the hour between when those with a job got off work and when many went to church on Wednesday night.

Yet when the evening arrived, only one family showed up — and they came mistakenly thinking they might get help finding work. Melissa Buford, who works at the clinic helping people sign up for insurance and doing community health work, thinks people didn’t understand that the rules apply to them.

Murdock kept trying to spread the word at churches and barber shops. Buford got a kiosk put inside the clinic to help people do their monthly reporting in a county where just 45 percent of homes have Internet access. Of the patients she offered to help, one man has taken her up on it.

In such a poor Delta town, she now believes, “to make job search a requirement, that is just wrong, because the jobs are not here.”

Even her 31-year-old daughter, Conisha Gatewood, got caught up in the confusion. Living in Forrest City, just north of here, Gatewood was a clinic patient until she was referred to an obstetrician-gynecologist for nonstop menstrual bleeding caused by ovarian cysts. But when she arrived for a September checkup, she was told she no longer had insurance. “I was like: ‘Yes, I do. They sent me the papers in June.’ ”

She thought she had done everything right, creating a password and an online account. The state had used an automated system to fill in her child-care job and work hours. A letter from the state confirmed that, she thought, telling her she did not need to search for a job because she already worked. But then another letter came, telling her she needed to do a job search after all.

“I was so confused,” Gatewood said. “I already had a job. No one could tell me what I needed to do.”

By the time she was cut off, she had found a better-paying position, selling cellphones inside a Walmart. In January, she reapplied to Arkansas Works — and was rejected because her December phone sales, high for the holidays, put her just over the income limit.

She should go to her doctor this month, but she hasn’t made an appointment. She has also stopped filling prescriptions, including for the birth control pills that correct her bleeding.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on March 29, 2019, 07:22:54 AM
some people don't understand the point of medicare.  If people can work, they do. Medicare is for the unemployable, often because of mental illness, so they can get treatment and get better, or at the very least -- so they are not a danger to themselves and others.

And yes, there are those that live in areas where there simply is no work.  So why not pay them to relocate or some other common sense provisions?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on March 29, 2019, 02:37:50 PM
some people don't understand the point of medicare.  If people can work, they do. Medicare is for the unemployable, often because of mental illness, so they can get treatment and get better, or at the very least -- so they are not a danger to themselves and others.

And yes, there are those that live in areas where there simply is no work.  So why not pay them to relocate or some other common sense provisions?
Socialism!!!!!


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on March 31, 2019, 02:33:28 PM
Sword-wielder in ‘MAGA’ hat slashes man outside SF roller rink, police say (https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Sword-wielding-attacker-slashes-man-in-MAGA-hat-13729404.php)

Quote
A sword-wielding assailant wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat slashed a man in the hand during an altercation outside a popular roller-skating rink in San Francisco’s Western Addition on Friday, officials said.

Police are searching for the attacker, who fled the scene outside the Church of 8 Wheels on Fillmore and Fell streets, leaving his victim bleeding profusely on the sidewalk outside the crowded skating spot.

Investigators were searching for security video and speaking to witnesses Saturday as they tried to piece together the details of the bloody confrontation that unfolded during the rink’s Friday night adults-only roller disco.

Officers were called to the scene around 9:50 p.m. on the report of a stabbing, said Officer Robert Rueca, a San Francisco police spokesman. They learned that the victim, whose name was not released, had been approached by another man, who was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, and the two got into a verbal dispute, he said.

The victim tried to grab the hat, a symbol of President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, and the other man whipped out a sword and slashed him, Rueca said. Police originally reported that the victim was wearing the hat, but changed their statement late Saturday.

Scott Sweeney, 24, said he saw a man wearing the recognizable hat with a sword tucked into the back of his jacket about 30 minutes before the attack. The man, Sweeney said, was shouting homophobic slurs at him.

“In my mind I didn’t think it was a real sword until we came out later and police were on the scene and there was blood and the hat on ground,” he said.

David Miles, who goes by the nickname “Sk8father” and started the roller rink at the former Sacred Heart Catholic Church, was inside during the dispute. He said he didn’t see the attack but ran out to help the victim.

“I came outside. The guy was cut, he was bleeding like you wouldn’t believe,” Miles said Saturday. “He was just gushing blood, so we got the first aid kit from inside and tried to stop the bleeding.”

Paramedics quickly arrived and took the victim to a hospital, where he was treated for non-life-threatening injuries, police said. Miles said officers asked him if a man dressed as a pirate had come into the roller rink, but he hadn’t seen anyone like that.

Miles posted pictures of the bloody aftermath of the attack on Facebook, showing the red hat near a pool of blood. The victim had apparently chased his attacker before realizing how badly he was bleeding, he said.

“This is the last thing you think is going to happen,” he said. “I’m very, very, very concerned. I don’t really know what to think.”

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on March 31, 2019, 08:30:42 PM
 :roll:  He must have left his Fedora at home? 


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on March 31, 2019, 10:00:22 PM

"...The victim tried to grab the hat, a symbol of President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, and the other man whipped out a sword and slashed him..."


  The moral of the story, is leave other people, and their clothing, their belongings alone, untouched, do not assault a stranger to take property.

  The response by the assault victim, the person who's property was disturbed, is 'over the top' by use of a sword, assuming there was a sword, which the story does not say was recovered, but a sword was reported in any event.

  A fist, or some other firm response to a person attempting to take one's hat, one's property, entering the 'comfort zone' to commit some mischief, or worse, would be a more common response by any random pedestrian.

  This dispute ended badly for both, with the loss of property by the original victim, and the injury of the mischief intent injured person receiving medical attention. 'Assault' by the injured person; 'Battery' during self defense, perhaps, by the person defending the property and person.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on March 31, 2019, 10:17:00 PM

"...The victim tried to grab the hat, a symbol of President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, and the other man whipped out a sword and slashed him..."


  The moral of the story, is leave other people, and their clothing, their belongings alone, untouched, do not assault a stranger to take property.

  The response by the assault victim, the person who's property was disturbed, is 'over the top' by use of a sword, assuming there was a sword, which the story does not say was recovered, but a sword was reported in any event.

  A fist, or some other firm response to a person attempting to take one's hat, one's property, entering the 'comfort zone' to commit some mischief, or worse, would be a more common response by any random pedestrian.

  This dispute ended badly for both, with the loss of property by the original victim, and the injury of the mischief intent injured person receiving medical attention. 'Assault' by the injured person; 'Battery' during self defense, perhaps, by the person defending the property and person.

And don't approach people shouting homophobic slurs either.  That is how the MAGA wearing idots started the entire confrontation, or did you miss that part?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on March 31, 2019, 10:20:41 PM
do not assault a stranger to take property.

Okay, for once we agree, and seeing that he was armed.  Is it legal to open carry a sword in California like it is here in Texas?  While it's a bit of an escalation from simple assault to assault with a deadly weapon, it's also a pretty predictable response.  Regardless of your politics, attacking someone who's clearly armed, and insane is just plain stupid.  The MAGAt was obviously trying to provoke, and looking for an excuse to use that weapon.

Basically, it looks like both of them were wrong, and acting irrationally in this case.  


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on March 31, 2019, 10:25:26 PM
  I agree that inappropriate speech was indicated, apparently prior to the assault and attempt to take the speaker's property.

  Persons who lay hands on others, their being or their property, cross a line where some amount of self defense is the rational response. Speech can be an assault, use of specific 'fighting words' have been found equal to a physical assault by Courts at times, of course.

  Usually, the first one to physically act, such as taking of a persons property, is considered the aggressor, not withstanding being on the receiving end of physical harm in the altercation between the aggressor, and the speaker.

  Likely to be sorted out in Court, once the speaker, sword wielding person, is identified, and located.

  Civil discourse and behavior is best by all.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on March 31, 2019, 10:29:19 PM
 Persons who lay hands on others, their being or their property, cross a line where some amount of self defense is the rational response.

Okay, however it was still an escalation to Assault with a Deadly Weapon, and he came into the fight he picked, armed.  Which suggests premeditation.  You can't shoot someone for slapping your face, even if they escalated from verbal violence to assault on a hat.  He can't slash someone up, and play the victim.  There's no victims here, just antagonists.  He's not in the right for going and looking for trouble, using his free speech to provoke someone, and using that as an excuse for AWaDW.  There's no excuse for that, it was a straight up attack.

He was also illegally armed.  Knives are prohibited there, much less swords.

"Illegal is Illegal, a crime is a crime."


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on March 31, 2019, 10:54:12 PM
  No doubt, to be sorted in Court. Hope they locate the speaker with a sword.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on April 01, 2019, 12:53:25 AM
Civil discourse and behavior is best by all.

You once threatened to burn down another poster's home.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on April 01, 2019, 01:44:28 AM
Denise Is Fired (https://jezebel.com/denise-is-fired-1833701621)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on April 01, 2019, 07:28:16 AM

"...The victim tried to grab the hat, a symbol of President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, and the other man whipped out a sword and slashed him..."


  The moral of the story, is leave other people, and their clothing, their belongings alone, untouched, do not assault a stranger to take property.

  The response by the assault victim, the person who's property was disturbed, is 'over the top' by use of a sword, assuming there was a sword, which the story does not say was recovered, but a sword was reported in any event.

  A fist, or some other firm response to a person attempting to take one's hat, one's property, entering the 'comfort zone' to commit some mischief, or worse, would be a more common response by any random pedestrian.

  This dispute ended badly for both, with the loss of property by the original victim, and the injury of the mischief intent injured person receiving medical attention. 'Assault' by the injured person; 'Battery' during self defense, perhaps, by the person defending the property and person.
wrong. The use of deadly force in instances like this is NEVER justified. I do hope the police apprehend him, and he is prosecuted for felony assault.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on April 03, 2019, 12:30:25 AM
Rep. Gaetz says transgender rights bill would let Trump declare himself the ‘first female president’ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rep-gaetz-says-transgender-rights-bill-would-let-trump-declare-himself-the-first-female-president/2019/04/02/747d40e0-5589-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html?utm_term=.1e9b7817ec0b)

Quote
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on Tuesday voiced concern about a transgender rights bill under consideration by a House committee, arguing that the measure could allow President Trump to declare himself the “first female president.”

Gaetz, one of Trump’s most vocal defenders on Capitol Hill, is known for making incendiary statements. He was speaking at a hearing on H.R. 5, the “Equality Act,” which would prohibit discrimination against gay and transgender individuals in housing, use of public spaces, employment and other areas.

Gaetz said at the hearing that while he supports the rights of transgender people and “will not denigrate or deny their existence or their struggles,” he believes the bill as written “would only nominally protect certain individuals while causing tremendous harm to others.”

“What happens when sex is defined as gender identity, and gender identity is terribly vague?” Gaetz asked. “Will all sex-based distinctions be erased? . . . Would grants for female-led businesses or programs for women in STEM fields suddenly be open to all persons, whether they believe or not that they identify as a woman?”

He added that he does not believe that the majority of all transgender people are “exploiting” their gender identity but that there are some “bad actors” who could take advantage of the law for their own benefit.

“Consider this possibility: If President Trump were to say, ‘I am now the first female president,’ who would celebrate that?” Gaetz asked. “Would those who support the legislation think that’s a good thing or would they be dismayed? Bad actors have already weaponized some ostensible equality laws for their own benefit.”

A spokeswoman for the Florida Republican did not immediately respond to a request for clarification of his comments.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on April 03, 2019, 01:33:46 AM
 :roll:

Uh, can we just stop using the excuse of Trump's bad behavior for denying people's rights?  You don't get to support that clown, and use his insanity to push through the legislation you already decided months ago, Matt.  That's bullshit, why don't you just come right out and say we're not people deserving rights?  Would that be too honest?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Katiebee on April 03, 2019, 03:52:59 AM
Honestly, women, transgendered and those not white need to suck it up.
Really, don’t people understand the natural laws? God’s will?


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on April 07, 2019, 07:40:38 AM
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/56457762_10156105684256179_4782654669182730240_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=50740704878c97967378b832687ba8cd&oe=5D08CD1F)







mod edit: width tag added


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: MintJulie on April 07, 2019, 03:30:38 PM
Denise Is Fired (https://jezebel.com/denise-is-fired-1833701621)

#Resist

On a positive note, woman has more time to fetch her husband his beers.
I'd never heard of her, she sounds like a real gem.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on April 09, 2019, 03:10:26 AM
Pete Buttigieg is pushing back on Mike Pence and a Christianity that does not support LGBT rights (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/08/pete-buttigieg-is-pushing-back-mike-pence-christianity-that-does-not-support-lgbt-rights/?utm_term=.320dbcad7ad9)

Quote
In the Trump era, one of the loudest voices trying to challenge what it means to be a Christian in the current political sphere is a married, gay small-town mayor from the same state that gave Americans Vice President Pence.

While most Democrats eyeing a 2020 run spend most of their time critiquing President Trump, Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., has set his sights on Pence — and specifically his history on LGBT issues.

In 2016, when some white evangelicals struggled to get behind the Trump campaign, it was the addition of Pence, a social conservative with deep ties to conservative evangelicalism, that helped convince them that a Trump presidency would take socially conservative stances on LGBT issues, abortion and other issues they value. The group now consistently gives Trump some of his highest approval ratings.

Pence, the former governor of Indiana, has long won praise from conservative Christians for openly discussing his opposition to LGBT rights. But, not surprisingly, those positions have also earned him high levels of disapproval from the LGBT community.

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, one of the country’s largest gay rights groups, has previously said:

“Mike Pence has made a career out of attacking the rights and equal dignity of LGBTQ people, women and other marginalized communities. Now, as vice president, he poses one of the greatest threats to equality in the history of our movement. With the world distracted by Donald Trump’s scandal-ridden White House, Mike Pence’s nefarious agenda has been allowed to fly under the radar for too long."

Since heading to Washington, Pence has repeatedly attempted to convince Americans — specifically conservative Christians — that the Trump presidency has been one of the most supportive of the values of conservative Christians in history. But the 2020 campaign has birthed a slew of candidates who are pushing back on the idea that the Trump agenda is consistent with Christian values by explaining how their liberal values have shaped their political worldview. And in recent weeks, Buttigieg has been one of the individuals to do that most.

At a Sunday event for the Victory Fund, a nonprofit that helps LGBT people win office, Buttigieg shared how his marriage to his husband, Chasten — a union that Pence and most conservative Christians would argue is inconsistent with marriage as defined by the Christian faith — actually made him closer to God. He told the audience:

“Being married to Chasten has made me a better human being because it has made me more compassionate, more understanding, more self-aware and more decent. My marriage to Chasten has made me a better man. And yes, Mr. Vice President, it has moved me closer to God."

The words were met with huge applause, with dozens standing on their feet affirming Buttigieg’s statement that being gay and a faithful Christian aren’t mutually exclusive. But as the 37-year-old veteran continues to engage in the culture war on this issue, some conservative Christians have pushed back by attempting to dismiss the Episcopalian’s faith altogether.

Conservative writer Erick Erickson wrote on Twitter:

“If Buttigieg thinks evangelicals should be supporting him instead of Trump, he fundamentally does not understand the roots of Christianity. But then he is an Episcopalian, so he might not actually understand Christianity more than superficially.”

And in a takedown of Buttigieg’s values, Fox News host Laura Ingraham stated: “Now he says he’s a traditional Episcopalian, whatever that means these days.”

As interest in Buttigieg grows, so too will interest in his idea that while Trump may be the “evangelical dream president,” he has been a nightmare for Christians whose faith is more liberal when it comes to LGBT issues, women’s rights, racial reconciliation and other topics related to diversity. This approach is not likely to win the white evangelicals and white Catholics who find common ground with Trumpism, but these aren’t really the Americans Buttigieg appears to be targeting. He seems to be interested in winning the majority of Americans who believe that a great America includes a more inclusive Christianity.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on April 17, 2019, 01:23:52 AM
UT freshman loses military scholarship because he is transgender (http://dailytexanonline.com/2019/04/16/ut-freshman-loses-military-scholarship-because-he-is-transgender)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on April 17, 2019, 10:19:33 PM
Naval Academy to ban transgender students starting in fall 2020 (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/naval-academy-to-ban-transgender-students-starting-in-fall-2020/)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on April 18, 2019, 01:52:33 AM
Oh noes!  Now we can't die defending the country that denies our existence while making us specifically legal to be discriminated against?

The Naval Academy can go fuck themselves.  I already served in the Army.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on April 21, 2019, 09:40:43 PM
FBI arrests member of rightwing militia accused of detaining migrants (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/20/fbi-arrests-member-of-rightwing-militia-accused-of-detaining-migrants)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on April 23, 2019, 05:35:41 PM
Militia in New Mexico Planned to Kill Obama and Clinton, F.B.I. Was Told (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/us/militia-border-new-mexico.html)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on April 24, 2019, 06:49:29 AM
Trump poised to roll back transgender health protections (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/440108-trump-poised-to-roll-back-transgender-health-protections)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: RopeFiend on May 08, 2019, 11:39:30 PM

Sorry, I don't have a quote from someone else that I can repost in ORANGE.  
This shit is *real*.  

One of our ardent Trumpeters (that loud, blaring brASS section) today told all and sundry that "All of those medicines are weaponized.  I've researched this..."  to which I replied, "You mean the prescription pharmaceuticals they're advertising there on the TV??"  She went on to describe a mass conspiracy: Big Pharma plus every fucking M.D. in the country is killing you with prescription meds.  They're killing you on purpose.  I suggested she stop watching Fox News and possibly seek psychiatric help.  :emot_laughing:

Wow, some of those Trump supporters are truly bat-shit crazy.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on May 09, 2019, 12:16:52 AM
Meghan McCain Getting Called Out on Her Ilhan Omar Smears Is Beautiful Television (https://splinternews.com/meghan-mccain-getting-called-out-on-her-ilhan-omar-smea-1834606704)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on May 09, 2019, 12:17:40 AM
Florida Is Going to Have a Poll Tax (https://splinternews.com/florida-is-going-to-have-a-poll-tax-1834601076)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on May 09, 2019, 12:19:52 AM
Further investigation into Matt Gaetz is needed for tweet at Michael Cohen, Florida Bar determines. (http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/05/08/further-investigation-into-matt-gaetz-is-needed-for-tweet-at-michael-cohen-florida-bar-determines/)

Quote
An investigation into U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz will proceed, the Florida Bar said Wednesday, meaning the Panhandle Republican could face discipline for allegedly intimidating President Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen.

A grand jury-like panel called the Grievance Committee will next decide whether there is probable cause that Gaetz’s tweet broke the state Supreme Court’s rules for lawyers. Gaetz, one of Trump’s top allies in Congress, is licensed to practice law in Florida.

If the Florida Bar had determined in its initial review that discipline was not warranted, then the case would have stopped. But it has not, meaning the Bar has decided that further investigation is needed.

In moving the case against Gaetz to this step, the Florida Bar is also signaling that its initial review determined that the allegations against Gaetz would, if proven true, be a violation of the rules.

No further information is available, said Florida Bar spokeswoman Francine Walker.

Gaetz initially shrugged off the investigation in February, insisting the bar association must investigate all complaints. Now that the case has advanced beyond the initial inquiry, Gaetz "remains confident that the Florida Bar will not impair his vigorous and successful representation of his district,” spokeswoman Jillian Lane Wyant said in a statement.

The complaint against Gaetz stems from a menacing tweet he sent on Feb. 27, the eve of Cohen’s testimony before a House committee.

Gaetz wrote: “Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if she’ll remain faithful when you’re in prison. She’s about to learn a lot...”

He has since deleted the tweet, but not before it went viral. Legal experts compared it to intimidation of a witness. Walter Schaub, the former director of the Office of Government Ethics replied to Gaetz’s tweet with the federal statute number for tampering with a witness. Sen. Rick Scott, a fellow Florida Republican, called the tweet, “disgusting.”

Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, later said he “should have chosen words that better showed my intent. I’m sorry.” However, he maintained that he was not attempting to threaten Cohen, who was scheduled to testify before Congress the next day.

During Cohen’s testimony, Gaetz was spotted in the hearing room staring down the witness and whispering to Republicans even though he wasn’t a member of the committee meeting that day.

The grievance committee will assign the case to an investigator who will interview witnesses and review evidence. The investigator will then make a recommendation to the committee. It could take up to 6 months.

If the committee finds probable cause, a formal complaint will be filed with the Supreme Court of Florida for a trial.

Most cases are settled before reaching the trial phase.

Gaetz personally apologized to Cohen in a text message, according to Vanity Fair. Cohen responded that the tweet made a “bad situation worse” for his wife and kids, but added: “I hope that the tweet does not cause you any harm. If it does, and there is anything I can do to help you correct it, please feel free to reach out and I would be happy to assist.”

It’s unclear if Cohen has spoken with the Florida Bar. Trump’s former confidant and fixer reported for prison this week for a three-year sentence. Cohen pleaded guilty in August 2018 to tax evasion, making false statements to a bank and campaign finance violations tied to hush money payments he made or orchestrated on behalf of Trump.

Cohen warned Congressional Republicans not to pledge allegiance to Trump like he did.

“I did the same thing that you’re doing now for 10 years. I protected Mr. Trump for 10 years,” Cohen said. “The more people that follow Mr. Trump as I did blindly are going to suffer the same consequences that I’m suffering.”

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on May 09, 2019, 12:21:29 AM
(https://memegenerator.net/img/images/11554214/pointing-jesus.jpg)

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on May 09, 2019, 03:44:24 AM
Nearly half of white Republicans say it bothers them to hear people speaking foreign languages (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/08/nearly-half-white-republicans-say-it-bothers-them-hear-people-speaking-foreign-languages/?fbclid=IwAR0kuN2buDjCZGwvtKVkjQKX1AELUJa5NUi14FHpuQMayJzgOW6236s8aTI&utm_term=.d7758ad2b1e8)

Quote
A new survey finds white Republicans are far more likely to be put off by foreign language speakers than their Democratic counterparts.

According to Pew Research Center, 47 percent of such Republicans say it would bother them “some” or “a lot” to “hear people speak a language other than English in a public place.” Eighteen percent of white Democrats said they would be similarly bothered.

Aside from politics, age and education are the major predictors of linguistic discomfort. Eighteen percent of whites younger than 30 said they would be bothered by a foreign language being spoken, compared with 43 percent in the 50-to-64 age group, and 45 percent among those 65 and older.

Among all racial groups, whites (34 percent) are most likely to be bothered hearing foreign languages, followed by blacks (25 percent), Asians (24 percent) and Hispanics (13 percent). Among Americans overall, 70 percent put their level of unease at “not much” or “not at all.”

The study follows a number of high-profile confrontations between English and Spanish speakers. Last year, a U.S. Border Patrol agent detained two women — both U.S. citizens — when he overheard them speaking Spanish at a gas station in Montana. In New York, a man launched into a rant after hearing deli workers conversing and threatened to call immigration authorities.

The United States has no official national language, although a number of states have declared English to be theirs. More than 1 in 5 U.S. residents speak a language other than English at home, according to census data. In many regions of the country the percentage is much higher than that. The data show that the majority of those foreign language speakers are also fully proficient in English, meaning they are bilingual by choice.

The new report comes on the heels of a Pew study on the nation’s demographic shifts. When asked about the projected makeup of the United States in 2050, some 37 percent of Republicans said that “having a majority of the population made of up of blacks, Asians, Hispanics and other racial minorities” would be bad for the country — the highest share among any demographic group surveyed. Nearly 60 percent of Republicans said that a majority nonwhite population would “weaken American customs and values,” while an identical percentage predicted it would lead to greater conflict between racial and ethnic groups.

Republicans also stood out in that survey for their skepticism of interracial marriage: One-third said “the fact that more people of difference races are marrying each other” was good for the country, while 16 percent said it was bad.

Other questions in the latest Pew survey shine a light on what’s driving Republicans’ displeasure with foreign language speakers: For one thing, Republicans are more skeptical of racial diversity in general. Thirty-nine percent of Republican respondents said it was “very good” that “the U.S. population is made up of people of many different races and ethnicities.” Among Democrats, 71 percent hold that view, as do 57 percent of Americans overall.

More than 1 in 5 Republicans support the view that having a population comprising “people of many different races and ethnicities has a negative impact on the country’s culture.” That compares with 12 among the total population.

Meanwhile, solid majorities of every demographic group — blacks, whites, Democrats, Republicans — would prefer employers not take race into account when making hiring decisions, even if doing so resulted in less diversity within the company.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on May 09, 2019, 04:44:42 PM
Huh, "White Republicans."  Like that's not redundant. 


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: staci on May 09, 2019, 05:18:31 PM
Huh, "White Republicans."  Like that's not redundant. 

Yeah. One of those oxy morons


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Jed_ on May 09, 2019, 06:27:47 PM
Be careful with stereotyping all old white men.  Some of us are actually intelligent enough to reject bigotry.  As far as being uncomfortable hearing a foreign language being spoken, only at get-togethers with my Peruvian’s family when they all look at me and laugh at some inside joke.  My solution to that is to increase my understanding and become fluent.  It sure beats the hell out of just catching a word here and there and barely following along.  I do know what ‘gringo loco’ means.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: RopeFiend on May 10, 2019, 12:01:48 AM

Hey, *I'm* an old, white man, and I'm neither an ultra-con nor a racist.  Old white guys  come in all sorts of tasty flavors.  Lick one and see!

And yes, I know what pinche payaso means, too.  I've been called a fucking clown in several languages.  ;D


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on May 10, 2019, 12:25:12 AM
Alabama Senate Erupts Into Chaos as Republicans Try to Ram Through Vote on Abortion Ban (https://splinternews.com/alabama-senate-erupts-into-chaos-as-republicans-try-to-1834650039)

#Resist



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: RopeFiend on May 12, 2019, 02:39:40 AM

I'm amused.  Our (apparently untutored) Trumpeter at work thinks we're still on the Gold Standard.  I barked laughter and said that Nixon drove the final nail in that coffin, but Roosevelt cut the legs off of it during the Depression when he disassociated the dollar from gold and started printing funny money.  I didn't remember the dates, but did remember roughly when we went to Fiat Currency.  My Econ teacher in the '70s wasn't happy about it.  :D

Our Trumpeter spends WAAAYYYY too much time listening to crackpots and disinformation to recognize truth when it slaps her in the face.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on May 14, 2019, 12:30:51 AM
Abortion extremists make fools of Kavanaugh defenders (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/13/abortion-extremists-make-fools-republican-pro-choce-senators/?utm_term=.6ae0e220dc56)

Quote
During the confirmation fight for Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, abortion rights activists warned that with his ascension to the Supreme Court, abortions would be criminalized, putting at risk the health and lives of thousands of women who, like their grandmothers’ generation, would be forced to resort to back-alley abortions if they did not have the means to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to a state where abortion was legal.

Kavanaugh’s defenders called such claims hysterical and disingenuous. Although Kavanaugh was put on a list blessed by pro-life groups and had questioned the jurisprudence behind Roe v. Wade, his defenders argued that he wouldn’t approve state laws that went so far as to ban abortion. On the other side, women’s groups pointed to pro-lifers’ decades-long commitment to ending legal abortions based on equating any abortion with murder.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) risked her decades-long reputation as a pro-choice Republican and her prospects for reelection in 2020 by voting to confirm Kavanaugh and spouting the pro-lifers’ line that legal abortion wasn’t really at risk.

Collins, of course, was played. In a Louisiana case earlier this year, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was the fifth vote to block a bill that would have restricted abortions. Kavanaugh, despite all those promises about not really upsetting Roe, was one of the four in dissent.

We now are seeing the full impact of confirming a justice who could eviscerate Roe. The very type of legislation Kavanaugh defenders claimed were not in the cards was passed in Georgia and is poised to pass in Alabama. State lawmakers are now emboldened to pass laws effectively outlawing abortion with the hope that this Supreme Court will now uphold them.

The Post reports:

The Georgia law will ban abortions after a doctor is able to detect “a fetal heartbeat in the womb,” usually at about six weeks, before many women know they are pregnant. It was one of the nation’s most stringent proposals until the all-out ban introduced in Alabama.

Under the proposed Alabama bill, doctors would not be able to perform the procedure once a fetus is “in utero.” That version caught national attention because the bill that passed in the House allowed for a single exception, in cases involving a serious health risk “to the unborn child’s mother.” Cases of rape and incest were not exempt as they are in other states.


Just when Republicans were gaining advantage on the issue, falsely accusing Democrats of favoring infanticide, they’ve now handed Democrats the high ground. Republicans want to jail women. Republicans want to force rape victims to go through a full pregnancy. That will be a powerful issue in 2020 in some jurisdictions, exacerbating the already widening gender gap.

These laws (if the Alabama bill passes) will likely make their way up the appeals courts to the Supreme Court. Given the gravity of the issue and the conflict with precedent and governing law in other circuits, the court would almost certainly be compelled to take up the issue. And then?

We might see Roberts once again side with Roe precedent and avoid putting the court’s credibility at risk. If Roberts, along with Trump’s two appointees, sided with the states, however, the Supreme Court’s decision would set off a political firestorm. The potential to ban abortion in many states (or even more radically, for the entire country if Congress decides to act) would elevate abortion to a top-tier issue.

Republicans would be forced to wrestle with the results of their absolutist position and the backlash from women who have never lived in a country where safe and legal abortions were not available. The political damage to the GOP (outside deep-red states) could be severe, ruining chances for the party to hold onto more libertarian, western states, the Upper Midwest and the eastern seaboard.

In sum, the pro-life forces — shocker! — misrepresented their agenda. Should they “win” at the Supreme Court (or even in circuit courts with a Supreme Court decision pending), Collins and other moderate Republicans who voted for Trump appointees will be on the endangered list in 2020 and beyond. Additionally, as extreme state laws make their ways through the courts, women in places such as Georgia and Alabama may be denied abortions even in the first trimester and/or in some cases because of rape, incest or danger to health (if not life-threatening) of the mother, forcing them to become lawbreakers or flee the states. And finally, states that go down this road will face a torrent of public criticism and calls for economic boycotts just as North Carolina did after the transgender student bathroom bill and Arizona did after passing extreme immigration laws.

Make no mistake, laws like Georgia’s and Alabama’s have severe real world consequences for women — and for our politics.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on May 14, 2019, 12:32:56 AM
‘Two homosexuals and a Jew’ (http://carrollspaper.com/Content/Default/Homepage-Rotating-Articles/Article/-Two-homosexuals-and-a-Jew-/-3/449/27312)

Quote
Congressman Steve King, a Republican from Kiron, defended himself Saturday against claims of racism and bigotry with a story that ended with him sitting at a table with two gay men and a Jewish man.

His remarks came during a town-hall-style meeting at the Carroll Chamber of Commerce. About 40 people attended, and some were allowed to ask questions after they were screened by King’s aide.

“If we can’t get you back on a committee, this country is going to hell in a handbasket,” said Dr. Allen Anneberg, of Carroll, a long-time King supporter.

King was stripped of his committee assignments by his Republican colleagues in January after The New York Times published a quotation of his that questioned why phrases such as “white supremacy” are considered offensive.

King told Anneberg and his other constituents Saturday that his words were taken out of context and that he would soon move to regain his seats on the Agriculture and Judiciary committees of the U.S. House of Representatives.

His removal from those committees shut him out of substantial portions of the legislative process, which has led some to question how he can effectively represent the northwestern quadrant of Iowa.

“It was a political lynch mob, and you have to let their blood cool before you can reason with a lynch mob,” King said.

He said his staff has authored a six-page document that attempts to prove to his fellow lawmakers that he was misquoted by the Times. His staff has examined his quotations in news media dating back to 2000 and have not found other instances of King using the phrases “white nationalist” or “white supremacist.”

“I’m about out of patience,” King said of the loss of committee assignments. “I want to do it the nice way. I want to do it a democratic way, but some way or another this is going to come to a head, because it’s wrong.”

King declined to identify what other avenues he might use to regain his assignments when later asked by a reporter. He declined to answer any questions from reporters at the event.

To further illustrate his alleged unfair treatment by news media, King attacked a Washington Post article that detailed his August trip to Europe — which was paid for by a Holocaust memorial group — during which he visited Jewish and Holocaust historical sites in Poland. The Post article reported that King extended his trip to visit Austria — which he paid for with his own money — and meet with “members of a far-right Austrian party with historical Nazi ties.”

“I was introduced to five people I didn’t know,” King said Saturday of his time in Vienna. “We sat down at the table, and during that pause of who’s going to talk first, the gentleman on my right said, ‘Congressman, I think you should know that you’re seated at the table with two homosexuals and a Jew.’ The man across the table said right away, ‘Well, who’s the Jew?’ And that told the rest of us he knew who the other homosexual was, I guess.”

Some people in the audience Saturday chuckled.

“But I tell you this because nobody is doing any neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic plots with homosexuals and Jews at the table,” King concluded. “It’s the most improbable configuration of people possible.”

Anneberg, 89, vouched for King’s character and said he has backed King since his first election to the House in 2002.

“I’ve never known you as a bigot, a racist, or a radical white supremacist, whatever the hell that is,” said Anneberg, who rang a cowbell several times to show his support for King.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on May 15, 2019, 05:50:52 PM
The Deal With the Devil That Got Us Here (https://splinternews.com/the-deal-with-the-devil-that-got-us-here-1834779762)

Quote
How is it that, against the will of the public, a minority sect of religious zealots can be empowered to essentially ban abortion in an entire state? This is the product of a grand bargain that keeps our political system permanently broken. We often don’t notice until it kills us or throws us in jail.

What is the existential purpose of the Republican Party? The existential purpose of the Republican Party is to serve the interests of the rich. The reason why the Republican Party has the incredible resources and power that it does is that rich people, who by definition have many resources, are willing to fund the Republican Party as an investment that will make them money. And politics pays off handsomely. Tax cuts and business deregulation alone make the Republican Party a great investment.

In a fair direct democracy based purely on the will of the majority, a party serving the interests of the rich would lose every election. Not only are the rich a small minority of the population, but their interests are very often in direct opposition of the interests of the vast majority of people. This is why America was designed as a republic, rather than a direct democracy—to protect the political power of the rich. This is also why, to this very day, the Republican Party engages in the widespread, systematic pursuit of policies that will thwart the will of the majority. This is why voter suppression exists; this is why gerrymandering exists; this is why our campaign finance system allows the wealthy to buy elections; this is why the U.S. Senate exists, as a body that gives much more power to rural states than to urban ones; this is why the Electoral College exists, as a body that has a proven track record of overruling the popular vote. In a nation with only two major political parties, one of those parties exists to serve the interests of a tiny minority of people. And yet it must get more than half of the votes. Most of the blatant injustices of our broken political system can be traced back to this fact.

How does the party of the rich attract the votes of the non-rich? It does so primarily by waving the flag and the cross. Patriotism and religion are the tools the Republican Party uses to gain mass support. Forcing you to work two jobs in order to pay the rent so that hedge fund investors can buy third vacation homes is not popular, but God and Country are. And so the Republican Party makes its public face patriotic and Christian, even as its real business is to funnel as much of America’s wealth as possible into the pockets of its donor class. Guns? Abortion? Standing for the national anthem? These are the issues that the Republican Party loves to talk about most. They appeal to the basic sensibilities of millions of Americans, and inflame their passions, so that they do not notice they are being robbed.

Christian fundamentalists in America have made a deal with the devil. That deal is to throw their political support wholeheartedly behind the Republican Party. The party will seek to ban abortion, and persecute gay people, and prop up Christian schools; in exchange, the Christian right will ignore the rather un-Christian true face of the party of the rich, as it steals from the poor and starts wars. The spectacle of devout Christians feverishly supporting a self-worshiping billionaire who has committed every sin is just the most recent absurd manifestation of something that has been going on for a long time. This grand bargain has served the narrow interests of both sides well, even as it has been detrimental to humanity as a whole.

Women in Alabama and Georgia will suffer, and probably die, because they now live in kingdoms controlled by religious zealots. History is full of examples of religious zealots causing misery among the masses when they assume power—that much is not surprising. It is important to focus on the question of how these people came to be in charge of us all. The most basic answer to that question is: They came to be in charge because, in a roundabout way, it serves the interests of the rich. They came to be in charge thanks to the support of a vast, decades-long national program to suppress the will of the majority in favor of the desires of a small minority. They came to be in charge because the rich need the Republican Party, the Republican Party needs 51% of the votes, and that means they need all those good Christians to turn up at the polls for something. They probably won’t be motivated by the need for lower taxes on pass-through entities. So they must instead be motivated by the chance to assume control of the female body, on behalf of god. In order to maintain our treasured free enterprise system that allows billionaires to keep the majority of their wealth, some things must be sacrificed. Today, it’s women.

This happens, and will keep happening, because of that deal with the devil between the Republican Party and its non-rich voters. That may sound distasteful. So let’s call it, instead, a deal with Jesus. The outcome is exactly the same.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on May 15, 2019, 06:04:55 PM
The Deal With the Devil That Got Us Here (https://splinternews.com/the-deal-with-the-devil-that-got-us-here-1834779762)


Every man, woman, and child in America should read this.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on May 15, 2019, 09:07:36 PM
Here’s why women have fled the GOP (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/15/heres-why-women-have-fled-gop/?utm_term=.8a268d889a4d)

Quote
President Trump and his Republican allies have made it easy for future historians and political scientists to understand how the gender gap exploded under his presidency. The vast majority of African American women (and men) for decades have identified with the Democratic Party, the party of civil rights, women’s rights and social welfare support. However, until the Trump presidency, the GOP had managed to hold onto white women (even Trump won 52 percent of them; by contrast he got 4 percent of African American women.) With Trump in power the GOP is now tied to a president who has offended, appalled and scared white women, most especially college-educated white women. This week is a perfect example of why that has happened.

Trump personally is a large part of the problem. The misogynist bully, a know-nothing who rejects science and basic economics, encapsulates every quality these women despise. This week has been no different — insulting presidential candidates, heightening conflict with other powers (Iran, China) for the sake of riling up his base, lashing out at law enforcement in venom-filled tweets, playing the tough guy, refusing to recognize any legitimate oversight role for Congress and, of course, lying up the wazoo about tariffs, which are obviously a tax on American consumers.

Now there is an added element. There are the efforts underway in Georgia, Alabama and a slew of other states to essentially outlaw abortion. Georgia’s new law would prohibit abortions after six weeks, before many women know they are pregnant. Beyond that it’s murder under the new state law.

In Alabama, as Joyce Vance White pointed out in a column for The Post, the idea is to deny exceptions for rape or incest precisely so pro-lifers can set up a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. It may come as a shock to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), but around the country antiabortion forces figure they’ve got their majority to overturn Roe with Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and are racing to outdo one another in criminalizing abortion.

The draconian legislation in Alabama (and in states sure to follow its lead), for example, would require a minor who is raped to complete the pregnancy. The no-exceptions abortion ban would also put at risk a doctor who follows his professional obligation to spare a woman grievous physical (but not life-threatening) harm and thereby may face a murder charge. If this cruel invasion of women’s autonomy in the most aggressive fashion imaginable isn’t the personification of the war on women, I don’t know what is. (And, of course, these laws won’t stop women from having abortions; they will revive illegal and unsafe abortions, putting women’s health and lives at risk.)

Until Trump, abortion has actually not been a top issue for most voters (even women) because, frankly, voters saw (whether they liked it or not) the Supreme Court preserving Roe. That has all changed with two Trump appointees.

Even women who had been amenable to regulations of abortion clinics or to restricting late-term abortions can see how Trump’s GOP has gone off the deep end. (This is why you see support for Roe spike in polls.)

And there you have it — the perfect formula for turning women off the GOP, perhaps permanently. These developments come after multiple attempts to repeal Obamacare, cuts to education spending and the inhumane child separation policies — all intensely unpopular with women voters.

The question is not whether women will abandon the GOP in 2020 but whether they will ever come back. If white women (even just white college-educated women who went for Hillary Clinton narrowly — 51 to 44 percent — in 2016) start voting more like nonwhite women, the GOP is toast.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on May 17, 2019, 01:37:03 AM
Missouri passes "one of the strongest" abortion bills yet in U.S. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/missouri-abortion-law-senate-passes-wide-ranging-bill-to-ban-abortions-at-eight-weeks-of-pregnancy/)

Quote
Missouri's Republican-led Senate has passed a wide-ranging bill to ban abortions at eight weeks of pregnancy, acting only hours after Alabama's governor signed a near-total abortion ban into law. The Missouri bill needs another vote of approval in the GOP-led House before it can go to Republican Gov. Mike Parson, who voiced support for an earlier version Wednesday.

It includes exceptions for medical emergencies, but not for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Doctors would face five to 15 years in prison for violating the eight-week cutoff. Women who receive abortions wouldn't be prosecuted.

Republican Senate handler Sen. Andrew Koenig described it on Thursday as "one of the strongest" abortion bills yet passed in the U.S.

As CBS News' Kate Smith has reported, Missouri already has some of the most restrictive abortion access laws in the country. Missourians seeking an abortion are subject to a 72-hour waiting period and only one abortion clinic exist in the state.

Missouri joins a movement of GOP-dominated state legislatures emboldened by the possibility that a more conservative Supreme Court could overturn its landmark ruling legalizing the procedure. Its senators voted only hours after Alabama's governor signed the most stringent abortion ban in the nation on Wednesday, making performing an abortion a felony in nearly all cases.

Outnumbered Missouri Senate Democrats launched into an attack on the bill before Republican supporters had a chance to bring it up for debate on the Senate floor.

"So much of this bill is just shaming women into some kind of complacency that says we are vessels of pregnancy rather than understanding that women's lives all hold different stories," St. Louis-area Democratic Sen. Jill Schupp said.

Missouri is among a growing number of states where abortion opponents are working with renewed enthusiasm following President Donald Trump's appointment of more conservative high court justices. Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio and Georgia have approved bans on abortion once fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which can occur in about the sixth week of pregnancy. Similar restrictions in North Dakota and Iowa have been struck down in court.

Supporters say the Alabama bill is intentionally designed to conflict with the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationally in hopes of sparking a court case that might prompt the justices to revisit abortion rights.

Missouri's bill also includes an outright ban on abortions except in cases of medical emergencies. But unlike Alabama's, it would kick in only if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

If courts don't allow Missouri's proposed eight-week ban to take effect, it includes a ladder of less-restrictive time limits ranging from 14 to 20 weeks. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion up until viability, which is usually at 22 to 24 weeks.

"This is not a piece of legislation that is designed for a challenge," Missouri's Republican House Speaker Elijah Haahr said. "This is the type of legislation that is designed to withstand a challenge and to actually save lives in our state."

Republicans and Democrats worked for hours to reach a compromise on the bill, which included an expansion of tax credits for donations to pregnancy resource centers, and waters down other provisions.

The approved version of the wide-ranging bill bans abortions based solely on race, sex or a "prenatal diagnosis, test, or screening indicating Down Syndrome or the potential of Down Syndrome." It also requires that both parents be notified for a minor to get an abortion, but a change was made after hours of late-night negotiations to remove the requirement when a parent lacks legal or physical custody. Current law requires written consent from only one parent.

Still, some lawmakers on both sides of the debate walked away unhappy.

Democrat Schrupp said even after changes, it's "an extreme and egregious piece of legislation that puts women's health at risk."

"It is outrageous that it has no exemptions for victims of human trafficking, rape or incest," she said.

Republican Sen. Bob Onder said negotiators went too far to compromise, leaving the bill "a shadow of what it once was."

"This should be entitled not the 'Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act,'" Onder told colleagues on the Senate floor, "but the 'Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act, sort of kind of only after the minority party and the strongest Planned Parenthood lawyers in the country were done with the bill.'"

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on May 23, 2019, 12:07:14 AM
Proposed HUD rule would strip transgender protections at homeless shelters (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/22/proposed-hud-rule-would-strip-transgender-protections-homeless-shelters/?utm_term=.a3e6bf1ed645)

Quote
The Department of Housing and Urban Development on Wednesday proposed a new rule that would weaken Obama-era protections for homeless transgender people, allowing federally funded shelters to deny people admission on religious grounds or force transgender women to share bathrooms and sleeping quarters with men.

The proposed rule comes one day after HUD Secretary Ben Carson assured members of Congress the agency had no plans to eliminate the 2012 Equal Access Rule, which barred federal housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

When questioned by Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-VA) on HUD’s treatment of transgender people, Carson said his responsibility is to “make sure everybody is treated fairly. ”

He assured Wexton that HUD had no plans to alter the Equal Access protection, saying: "I’m not currently anticipating changing the rule. ”

The proposal is the latest move by the Trump administration to weaken protections for transgender Americans, including a Department of Defense ban on transgender troops and a Department of Health and Human Services proposal allowing medical providers to deny treatment to transgender people on religious grounds.

In 2017, the HUD website removed links to documents that guided emergency shelters on how best to serve transgender people facing homelessness and comply with agency regulations. It also withdrew policy proposals requiring HUD-funded emergency shelters to post notices informing people of LGTBQ rights and protections.

Carson told the House Financial Services Committee that those notices were unnecessary because the Equal Access Rule provisions already “adequately provide for fairness for all communities.” He said he wanted to allow for more “local jurisdictional control” over how to treat people.

As to whether LGBTQ people should be protected under fair housing and other civil rights laws, Carson said: “If you want to do something different about the definition of gender, that is a congressional duty. ”

Wexton on Wednesday chastised Carson for HUD’s move to roll back transgender protections.

“Yesterday, I asked Secretary Carson directly if he was anticipating any changes to HUD’s Equal Access Rule and he said no. The announcement today that HUD will now allow anti-trans discrimination in shelters demonstrates that he either lied to Congress or has no idea what policies his agency is pursuing. Either way, it’s unacceptable," Wexton said in a statement.

The agency published a one-paragraph summary of the proposal, allowing shelters whose facilities are segregated by sex -- such as bathrooms, showers, and sleeping quarters -- to establish a policy that considers an individual’s sex for the purposes of determining admission. The new rule says shelters could consider a range of factors, including “privacy, safety, practical concerns, religious beliefs,” when deciding whether or how to accommodate someone.

The agency, in its summary, also said the rule “continues HUD’s policy of ensuring that its programs are open to all eligible individuals and families regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Transgender advocates characterized it as a “heartless attack” and said it signifies an “escalation of the Trump administration’s broader plan to erase transgender people from federal regulations and legal interpretations. ”

“It completely guts the Equal Access Rule," said Mara Keisling, Executive Director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. “The Trump administration is, once again, targeting the most vulnerable trans people by empowering shelters to turn people away and deny them equal access to services."

The agency told the Post it has no intention of removing the Equal Access Rule and will continue enforcing its provisions. But in a statement HUD acknowledged that the agency will be proposing a change later this year “that will offer local homeless shelter providers greater flexibility when making decisions about individuals who may misrepresent their sex to access sex-specific shelters.”

One in three transgender people have experienced homelessness — including one in eight in the last year alone, putting them at risk of physical and sexual violence and being forced into sex work, according to the National Center for Transgender Equality.

Seventy percent of transgender people who tried going to a shelter in the last year were kicked out for being transgender, were physically or sexually assaulted, or faced another form of mistreatment because of their gender identity, the center said.

The new proposal caught career staffers by surprise, including some who have worked on writing housing policies related to LGTBQ people.

“We don’t even know where it’s coming from. What are they hoping to accomplish?" said one staffer who is not authorized to speak on the record. "Now it’s not clear what guidelines people are supposed to follow. It’s crazy.”

Similarly, HUD career staff were not involved in another Trump administration proposal to purge undocumented immigrants from subsidized housing. Career staff later wrote an analysis of the proposal targeting families of mixed immigration status and concluded that it could put up to 55,000 children who are legal U.S. residents or citizens at risk of eviction and homelessness.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on May 25, 2019, 02:42:56 AM
Lone Republican blocks disaster aid package on House floor (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/24/chip-roy-blocks-disaster-aid-funding-1343295)

Rep. Chip Roy became the man who delayed $19.1 billion in disaster aid to communities throughout the country on Friday.

House leaders tried to pass a multibillion-dollar disaster assistance measure, by unanimous consent, but the Texas Republican objected on the floor.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Lois on May 25, 2019, 11:53:44 PM
Feel the love.  :'(


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on May 29, 2019, 12:26:32 AM
Another Republican blocks disaster aid in House (https://www.fox8live.com/2019/05/28/another-republican-blocks-disaster-aid-house/)

Quote
(Associated Press) - Another conservative Republican has once again blocked efforts by House leaders to speed a $19 billion disaster aid bill to President Donald Trump’s desk.

Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie objected to a request by Georgia Democrat Sanford Bishop to pass the bill under special procedures requiring unanimous agreement among all lawmakers. Sanford's district's economy is largely based on agriculture and was slammed by Hurricane Michael last year.

Massie said that if Democratic leaders thought the measure was so urgent they should have kept the House in session last week so that members could go on record with a roll call tally.

The developments were expected but No. 2 House Democrat Steny Hoyer warned that further delays would put keep millions of flood and hurricane victims at risk.

Last week, Texas freshman GOP Rep. Chip Roy blocked the bill.

Passage of the bill, supported by Trump and top leaders in Congress, is a forgone conclusion. Trying again on Tuesday is a political freebee for Democrats, who went on the attack after Texas freshman GOP Rep. Chip Roy blocked the bill on Friday. Roy had complained about its cost and a move by Democrats to dump Trump’s request for $4.5 billion to address the crisis of Central American refugees at the southern border.

Many Republicans, including southerners facing re-election, are frustrated that the bill has taken so long. After being denied his border money in a fight with House Democrats such as Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, Trump still embraced the bill, which directs much of its aid to political strongholds of his such as the Florida Panhandle and rural Georgia and North Carolina.

Passing legislation without any objection from anyone is often trickier to do in the House than the Senate, however.

"I just think a unanimous consent, voice vote, on the way out the door — there's always, out of 535 (members of Congress) there's always a few who think maybe that's not appropriate," said Sen. Ken Cramer, R-N.D, a conservative who presided over a moments-long pro forma session of the Senate on Tuesday.

Cramer moved over to the Senate this year after spending three terms in the House GOP majority, also pointing out that the final disaster bill "actually took out some of the things that the House conservatives wanted" such as billions of dollars to care for the influx of migrants seeking asylum after crossing the southern border.

There are also newer additions to the measure to help Midwestern areas suffering from springtime floods, along with large chunks of money to rebuild military bases such as Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida that were damaged by a string of disasters dating to last fall's hurricane season. The measure ordinarily would have passed months ago but Trump injected himself into the debate, demanding that funding sought by Puerto Rico's elected officials, Republicans and Democrats both, be kept out.

Democrats held firm in demanding that Puerto Rico, a territory whose 3 million people are U.S. citizens, be helped by the measure. Their confidence was clear from the outset and GOP resolve on Puerto Rico, never particularly strong to begin with, steadily faded as the impasse dragged on. The bill now contains more money for Puerto Rico, about $1.4 billion, than Democrats originally asked for.

Roy said last week that lawmakers ought to go on record either way on the legislation, which is among the few significant bills to make it through the system despite the intense partisanship dominating Washington.

“This is a $19 billion bill that is not paid for when we are racking up $100 million of debt per hour,” Roy said. “And we now are expected to let the swamp continue to mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren.”

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on May 29, 2019, 06:58:38 PM
GOP Ghoul on Children Dying at the Border: 'Fine!' (https://splinternews.com/gop-ghoul-on-children-dying-at-the-border-fine-1835089318)

Quote
Republicans have made it known just how they feel about migrant children being treated ruthlessly and dying at the border (hint: they do not care!!) but it’s still shocking to hear their dressed down, straightforward assholery.

Just take this Tuesday night CNN interview with Texas Rep. Chip Roy, in which Roy, when confronted by host Chris Cuomo with the reality that children are dying at the border (six so far), replied, “FINE!”

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1133543069696090113

Roy is one of two Republicans who so far have blocked a bipartisan bill for more than $19 billion in disaster relief from being signed by President Donald Trump. According to the Washington Post, Roy said he blocked the bill because it didn’t include the $4.4 billion in supplemental border spending that Trump had requested earlier this month.

On CNN, Cuomo stressed to Roy the urgency of the children dying at the border, questioning how Republicans would be able to secure more border funding when they couldn’t even negotiate with Democrats. Roy responded by stressing the need to “debate” the funding, to which Cuomo said there is no time—children are dying now.

“You guys can’t even agree on getting done what will help stop these kids from being held in places where they’re going to be sick, held too long, maybe worse,” Cuomo said. “You guys can’t handle it all at once, you can’t even handle one part of it. You can’t even get these kids out of harm’s way.”

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on May 30, 2019, 06:39:14 AM
  The House of Representatives is controlled by Democrats.

  Seeking a vote without the Speaker of the House knowing the outcome, via vote counting among members of her own party to know the outcome, is not responsible management of the House Of Representatives.

  The result is that a 'unanimous' voice vote did not happen, multiple times.

  Democrat House Members did not bother to return from their 'vacations' to vote at all, and no arrangements were made to delay their vacations until the vote was taken... and so, success in passing a partisan bill awaits the return of the Democrat partisans.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on May 31, 2019, 03:17:44 AM
Disney, Netflix and WarnerMedia say new abortion law may push their movies out of Georgia (https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/30/business/disney-bob-iger-abortion-georgia/index.html)

Quote
Three of the world's biggest entertainment companies — Netflix, Disney and WarnerMedia — say they may stop producing movies and TV shows in Georgia if the state's new abortion law takes effect.

And a fourth, Comcast's NBCUniversal, says the spread of these anti-abortion bills, if upheld by the courts, "would strongly impact our decision-making on where we produce our content in the future."

The state is a hub for entertainment industry production, in part because of generous tax breaks Georgia offers filmmakers and producers.

But the companies are warning that they might have to give up those tax incentives and leave the state — flexing their financial muscles in a way that's guaranteed to get the attention of local political leaders.

Earlier this month Georgia's governor, Brian Kemp, signed a bill that would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, usually at about six weeks of pregnancy.
The restrictive new law, should it survive court challenges from the ACLU and women's rights groups, is set to take effect on January 1.

Prominent celebrities and some production companies have vowed to boycott Georgia as a result. But the deep pockets of Netflix (NFLX) and Disney (DIS) mean the companies have louder voices. They are citing the concerns of the predominantly liberal-leaning stars and producers who make their comedies, dramas and other productions.

Disney CEO Bob Iger was asked about the situation on Wednesday. He told Reuters that the studio will find it "very difficult" to film in Georgia if the new law takes effect.
"I think many people who work for us will not want to work there, and we will have to heed their wishes in that regard. Right now, we are watching it very carefully," Iger said.
He was interviewed at the opening of the new Stars Wars: Galaxy's Edge land at Disneyland in California. But the question has loomed over Hollywood studios for several weeks now.
When the bill was signed into law, the heads of several production companies said they would not film in the state. They included Christine Vachon, chief executive officer of Killer Films; David Simon, creator of "The Wire" and "The Deuce" who heads Blown Deadline Productions; and Mark Duplass of Duplass Brothers Productions.

Director Reed Morano canceled plans to scout locations in Georgia for a forthcoming Amazon series. And actor Kristen Wiig said that a comedy project had pulled out of the state.

Then came Netflix's statement on Tuesday.
"We have many women working on productions in Georgia, whose rights, along with millions of others, will be severely restricted by this law," Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos told Variety. "It's why we will work with the ACLU and others to fight it in court. Given the legislation has not yet been implemented, we'll continue to film there, while also supporting partners and artists who choose not to." But — here's the but — "should it ever come into effect, we'd rethink our entire investment in Georgia."

AT&T's WarnerMedia, which is the parent company of HBO, TNT, TBS, CNN, and other brands, also said the company may stop making "new productions" in the state if the bill takes effect.

"We operate and produce work in many states and within several countries at any given time and while that doesn't mean we agree with every position taken by a state or a country and their leaders, we do respect due process," WarnerMedia said. "We will watch the situation closely and if the new law holds we will reconsider Georgia as the home to any new productions. As is always the case, we will work closely with our production partners and talent to determine how and where to shoot any given project."
WarnerMedia has thousands of employees in Georgia, including at the headquarters of CNN in Atlanta.

One distinction between existing operations and one-off movie and TV productions is that employees are generally eligible to vote and engage in state politics, while actors and producers who fly in for a few months to shoot a movie are not.

Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams tweeted about the issue on Wednesday evening after Iger's comments were published.

"Georgia stands to lose Netflix & Disney. This means lost jobs for carpenters, hair dressers, food workers & 100s of small businesses grown right here. Billions in economic investment headed to states eager to welcome film + protect women." She added a hashtag: "Consequences."

Strict anti-abortion bills have been passed by Georgia, Mississippi, Ohio, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Louisiana this year. The bills are designed in part to provoke a court fight, potentially leading to a Supreme Court reexamination of abortion rights.

NBCUniversal cited this legal reality in its statement on Thursday.

"We fully expect that the heartbeat bills and similar laws in various states will face serious legal challenges and will not go into effect while the process proceeds in court," the company said. "If any of these laws are upheld, it would strongly impact our decision-making on where we produce our content in the future."

"Avengers: Endgame" has made over $2 billion.  I guess we are about to see just how much misogyny is worth in Georgia.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 01, 2019, 05:04:34 AM
State Rep. Carlos Smith calls for Rep. Mike Hill to apologize or resign over anti-gay comments (https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-mike-hill-lgbt-comments-smith-20190531-bi2mewr5gneuzp775et446wdzy-story.html)

Quote
State Rep. Carlos Gulliermo Smith called on fellow lawmaker Mike Hill to either apologize or resign after recordings were released of the Pensacola Republican joking about introducing legislation to put gays to death.

In the audio, reported by the Pensacola News Journal, Hill is asked at a recent meeting with a Pensacola-based group called Women for Responsible Legislation, “In 1 Corinthians, it says that a man who has an affair with another man will be put to death.”

“It says that in the Old Testament, too,” Hill says on the recording.

“Can you introduce legislation?” another man asks.

Laughter follows, and Hill can be heard chuckling and responding, “I wonder how that would go over?”

Hill followed by saying being gay is “a behavior, and it’s a choice,” according to further audio reported by The New Civil Rights Movement website, rejecting protections for LGBT people. “You can say, ‘But I was born that way.’ OK, well, fine, but nobody’s forcing you to engage in that relationship, even if you were born that way.”

The meeting was the same one in which Hill said “God spoke to me” to introduce a bill next year banning all abortion in Florida without any exceptions for rape, incest, or the woman’s health, “like what we saw passed in Alabama."

Smith, D-Orlando, the first openly gay Latino legislator in Florida, wrote in a tweet Friday, “I’m shocked & disgusted to discover a colleague who I’ve worked closely with would joke about punishing me by death for being gay.”

"As a survivor of anti-gay hate violence, I know the consequences of homophobia are real,” Smith wrote. “[Hill] should apologize to LGBTQ Floridians or RESIGN.”

Smith added, “To add insult to injury, I joined forces with [Hill] last year to protect greyhound racing dogs. Apparently, he thinks DOGS deserve protection, but not LGBTQ people. Those are his priorities. How insulting …”

Hill did not respond to a request for comment Friday.

Hill also drew criticism from Equality Florida, an LGBTQ advocacy group.

“The comments made by Representative Mike Hill this week are both deeply disturbing and dangerous,” said Brandon Wolf, a Pulse massacre survivor and Equality Florida media relations manager. “Representative Hill should be embarrassed and ashamed for laughing along with the suggestion that he file legislation requiring the execution of LGBTQ people.''

[Popular on OrlandoSentinel.com] Subpoena could be tied to ‘misuse’ of campaign cash, Andrew Gillum’s lawyer speculates »
And Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, a Democrat, took aim at Hill and Sen. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, criticized earlier this week for suggesting that abortion is causing Europeans to be replaced by immigrants and paving the way for the end of Western civilization.

"We must hold the conduct and opinions of our public servants to a higher standard,'' Fried said in a statement. "In furthering the suggestion that LGBT Floridians should be murdered under Florida law, and that reproductive rights and immigration mean “extermination” of white Americans, Representative Hill and Senator Baxley failed to meet that basic standard. They must apologize, be reprimanded by their legislative chambers, or resign from office.”

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 05, 2019, 06:46:51 PM
Trump’s recognition of LGBT Pride Month conflicts with his administration’s policies (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/03/trumps-recognition-lgbt-pride-month-conflicts-with-his-administrations-policies/?utm_term=.5ff14d395c1b)

Quote
President Trump has been criticized during the past two years for not recognizing June as LGBT Pride Month. As a candidate, Trump made pledges to the LGBT community that no other Republican nominee had made — giving some people hope that he’d be more progressive on gay rights issues than most conservative leaders.

In his Republican nomination acceptance speech, Trump said:

“As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology.”

But since entering the White House, Trump has rolled back multiple protections for the gay community that some say bring into question the sincerity of his tweet on Friday.

Trump tweeted:

“As we celebrate LGBT Pride Month and recognize the outstanding contributions LGBT people have made to our great Nation, let us also stand in solidarity with the many LGBT people who live in dozens of countries worldwide that punish, imprison, or even execute individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. My Administration has launched a global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality and invite all nations to join us in this effort!”

Even though Trump finally acknowledged Pride month, responses from the LGBT community were not as celebratory.

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, one of the country’s largest gay rights organizations, was clearly disgusted by the president’s comments, taking to social media to tweet:

“You can’t celebrate Pride and constantly undermine our rights — including attacking #TransHealth, discharging #TransTroops, refusing to protect LGBTQ youth, and cozying up to dictators who brutalize & marginalize LGBTQ people. This is gross hypocrisy, with an emphasis on gross.”

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, an organization that investigates and reports on human rights abuses around the world, pointed to what he deems inconsistencies in the president’s approach to LGBT people.

“Trump plans a global push to decriminalize homosexuality,” he said on Twitter. “Great, but that’s only step one. Step two is fighting discrimination against LGBT people, but Trump instead is promoting it.”

And Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.), co-chair of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus, responded by drawing attention to the fact that despite legislation banning discrimination against the LGBT community passing in the House, lawmakers in the Senate have not been given the chance to vote on it.

His response to Trump: “Nice Tweet. Now, how about telling Mitch McConnell to bring up the Equality Act?”

Trump supporters dismissed his critics as liberals unwilling to give Trump credit for anything — including issues that matter greatly to the left. But that attack fails to acknowledge the fact that not only has Trump not continued the Obama administration’s efforts to expand the rights of LGBT people, but has rolled back many rights that LGBT Americans have had.

Before entering the White House, Trump made comments appearing to affirm same-sex marriage. But his approach to LGBT issues since becoming president is largely thought to be influenced by the conservative white evangelicals who helped secure his election and that of Vice President Pence, an evangelical Christian who made national headlines as Indiana’s governor for his opposition to laws that would expand gay rights.

Shortly after Trump was sworn in as president, links to websites highlighting the rights that LGBT Americans have were removed from the White House website and other government websites. Trump later took to Twitter to announce a ban that would block transgender people from serving in the military. His administration also took steps to roll back regulations from the Obama administration to protect transgender medical patients and health insurance consumers. And the president has sought to remove questions about sexual identity from the 2020 Census, thus minimizing, if not erasing, LGBT people from official counts. Trump also ordered Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to rescind nondiscrimination protections for transgender students in U.S. schools.

For those advocating for LGBT rights, it is hard to believe a tweet from Trump that gay Americans should be celebrated, when so many of his actions appear aimed at limiting their freedoms. Some supporters of Trump may view his support for decriminalizing homosexuality globally as inclusive, but for those who have been in the fight for gay rights for a decade, urging countries to stop treating gay people as criminals is the bare minimum. Trump probably knows that it is nearly impossible to win the support of both conservative white Christians and the LGBT community — and he appears to have made his choice. But for gay Americans whose political concerns go beyond the 2020 election, the president’s handling of LGBT rights will have implications long after he leaves the White House, be it 2020 or later.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 08, 2019, 07:19:39 AM
Kaysville man charged with threatening members of Congress, made more than 2,000 calls (https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/06/06/kaysville-man-charged/)

Quote
A Kaysville man is facing a federal charge of making multiple phone threats to kill members of Congress and reportedly made more than 2,000 phone calls to the U.S. Capitol in the last 13 months.

In a complaint unsealed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Utah, Scott Brian Haven, 54, is charged with one count of interstate transmission of threats to injure. If convicted, Haven could face five years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

Haven was arrested Tuesday morning in Kaysville, according to a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Salt Lake City. He appeared Wednesday before U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner, who found Haven to be a danger to the community and ordered him detained “pending resolution of the case.” The spokeswoman did not know where Haven was being held.

Haven’s next court appearance is June 13.

The complaint accuses Haven of calling in to congressional offices in Washington, D.C., hundreds of times over a year. In those calls, he mentioned five representatives, five senators and former Secretary of State John Kerry. Seven calls are considered direct threats to members of Congress. The threatened lawmakers are not identified by name in the complaint.

The first threat was made to a senator’s office on May 17, 2018, the complaint states. The caller said “he would like to slice [Senator 1]’s head off and [Senator 2]’s head, too,” the complaint states, adding it was one of 32 times Haven called the Capitol Switchboard on that day.

Two more threats were recorded, on Sept. 18 and Oct. 18, 2018, before FBI agents in Utah went to Haven’s house to talk to him on Nov. 13, 2018, the complaint states.

At first, Haven denied to the agents he had made any threats, though he did say he called the D.C. office of the first senator “during periods of frustration with the way Democrats were treating President Trump,” according to the complaint. He later told the agents his calls were “just meaningless threats that were made out of frustrations,” and told the agents he would stop calling Congress. He also told the agents he owned a .22 caliber firearm.

A staffer at the first senator’s office said Haven called again Jan. 31, with a message that ended, “Do you like being a f---ing baby killer, you b----?” Another hostile call was made to that office on March 21, the complaint said. Those calls were not considered threats, because they did not mention specifically causing injury to anyone.

On April 25, the complaint said, a threat was made to a fourth senator. Another representative got a threatening call May 15, in which the caller said he would “use his 2nd Amendment Right to blow the head off” the congressperson. Yet another representative got a threatening call on May 23. And the first senator’s office received a threatening call — the seventh overall — on May 28, which referred to a fifth senator and Kerry.

According to the complaint, phone records showed 1,499 calls to the Capitol Switchboard from a phone identified as Haven’s between May 17 and Oct. 29, 2018. Also, AT&T records showed another 850 calls made from that number to the switchboard between May 1 and May 28 of this year.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on June 08, 2019, 06:12:01 PM
Sounds like a “deeply disturbed” white male.  If he was black he would have been shot during his arrest.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: psiberzerker on June 08, 2019, 06:20:57 PM
If he was black he would have been shot during his arrest.

Certainly wouldn't have made the first 1,000 calls before somebody followed up.  Your tax-dollars at work.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 09, 2019, 03:32:41 PM
Some U.S. embassies still hoisting rainbow flags, despite advisory from Washington (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-embassies-still-hoisting-rainbow-flags-despite-advisory-from-washington/2019/06/08/eeea0bd4-89f4-11e9-a870-b9c411dc4312_story.html?utm_term=.e4ad3e3534f7)

Quote
Since the State Department began rejecting all embassy requests to hoist rainbow flags outside the mission buildings during LGBTQ Pride Month this year, some U.S. diplomats have been finding ways to defy, or at least get around, the new policy.

The facades of the U.S. missions in Seoul and Chennai, India, are partially hidden behind large rainbow flags, while the embassy in New Delhi is aglow in rainbow colored lights. The website for the embassy in Santiago, Chile, shows a video of the chief diplomat raising a rainbow flag last month for the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia.

The Vienna embassy’s website features a photo of a rainbow flag flying below Old Glory on a mast jutting from the building, a statement by Diplomats for Equality and a story about a professor lecturing on the visibility and growth of LGBT rights.

U.S. diplomats in Jerusalem joined a March for Pride and Tolerance, and several ambassadors have tweeted photos of themselves in local Pride parades or standing outside the embassies surrounded by employees holding up letters spelling PRIDE.

“This is a category one insurrection,” said one diplomat, who like others interviewed about the sentiment over the rejections, which were not made in writing, spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of being fired.

A practice routinely approved for most of the decade at many embassies now requires top-level approval from the State Department. But this year, as first reported by NBC News, all requests were nixed.

The flap over the flags started when the State Department did not send out an official cable this year with guidelines for marking Pride Month, as it has in years past. In 2011, the Obama administration directed agencies involved with foreign policy to promote LGBT rights, a striking policy for an agency that, up to the early 1990s, considered homosexuality a security risk and cause for termination.

The Obama administration’s Pride Month guidelines included rules for flying rainbow flags from poles outside embassies — they had to be smaller than the American flag and fly beneath it. But permission was granted with no fuss. By 2016, approvals were left up to each ambassador or chief of mission.

That process changed last year, after Mike Pompeo became secretary of state. An evangelical Christian who believes marriage should be defined as between a man and woman, Pompeo has said gay employees will be respected and treated like everyone else. But he has downplayed some symbols of LGBT rights, while introducing several new panels and envoys specializing in religious freedom issues.

The advisory cable that came out last year said diplomats are required to obtain top-level approval from the State Department’s Office of Management to fly a rainbow flag.

The State Department declined to answer questions about the Pride Month advisory and rainbow flag ban. But two diplomats familiar with the events said all requests last year were approved.

This year, there was a shift. Embassies in Israel, Germany, Brazil and Latvia, plus a handful of other posts, asked to fly rainbow flags. All were denied, said a person at the State Department who was familiar with what happened.

Although most embassies seem to be toeing the line, the policy shift appears to have sparked something of a revolt among diplomats.

Foreign Service officers have complained on a private Facebook page that nobody should have asked for permission anyway.

Some embassies that have flown the flag in previous years opted this year to commemorate the month by posting on their websites President Trump’s statement affirming LGBT rights and inviting nations to join a global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality. The initiative was the idea of Richard Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Germany, who is gay.

Some embassies got playful with the display of Trump’s statement. In Brasilia, for example, the statement is topped by a photo of two hands holding five Play-Doh letters in rainbow colors: LGBTQ. But some did not mention Trump’s statement at all, an absence made more glaring by the juxtaposition with statements by ambassadors and secretaries of states left over from previous years.

Some gay employees in the foreign and civil service say the ban on flying the rainbow flag is just the tip of an iceberg of slights.

Pompeo has not issued a statement for Pride Month, as he did last year. He did not attend the State Department’s annual Pride Day event for two years running as his predecessors usually did, though he was traveling in Europe this year. Instead, he dispatched Deputy Secretary of State John J. Sullivan, a veteran diplomat who promised that the State Department will advocate for gay diplomats and their families.

“Day by day, a death by a thousand cuts, our rights as lgbt+ Americans are being eroded with the removal of a guidance here, the rewriting of a policy there, or just the quiet disappearance of a web site,” Robyn McCutcheon, a transgender woman who has served in several posts abroad, wrote in her blog “Transgender at State,” lamenting what she has observed throughout the government in the past two years. “It should come as no surprise that this erosion would happen also at the U.S. Department of State.”

Some acknowledge that their worst fears have not been borne out.

The administration has appointed several gay ambassadors. Trump became the first Republican president to make a statement celebrating Pride Month. No one has been fired for sexual orientation, but some said they have felt more vulnerable after Trump tried to ban transgender people from the military.

Better, they said, to not even discuss LGBT issues publicly and risk the consequences of drawing attention to themselves.

“We fly below the radar,” one employee said. “We survive because they don’t realize we’re here.”

When you side with Trumpers, look at all the wonderful policies you own as well.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 09, 2019, 03:34:17 PM
How a dead man’s hard drives are exposing the GOP attack on democracy (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/07/how-dead-mans-hard-drives-are-exposing-gop-attack-democracy/?utm_term=.371d2acd2720)

Quote
Dead men tell no tales, but their hard drives do. That’s what happened to the late Republican operative Thomas Hofeller, a key figure in Republicans’ project to rig elections in their favor, after his estranged daughter discovered his cache of electronic documents and turned them over to Common Cause.

First we learned that Hofeller had been working with the Trump administration in its effort to add a citizenship question to the census in order to give a political advantage to Republicans and white people — an effort about which they have told repeated falsehoods to the public and even under oath. And now we learn that wasn’t the only piece of Hofeller’s work Republicans were likely lying about:

In 2017, after the Supreme Court affirmed that North Carolina’s GOP-drawn districts were illegally built around race, the state’s Republican leaders told a federal court they couldn’t quickly craft new boundaries in time for a special election later that year. They hadn’t yet started “the laborious process” of creating maps, they said, and still needed to talk to voters.

The court bought the argument, giving the state GOP nearly another year with a supermajority — an advantage it used to appoint judges and push constitutional amendments.

But a trove of once-secret documents from a strategist behind Republican gerrymandering efforts proves that argument was false, a watchdog group claimed in a Thursday court filing. In fact, that strategist, Thomas Hofeller, had already drawn up numerous maps and completed 97 percent of a plan for proposed state Senate districts and 90 percent of a House plan.


The background is that the Republican Party in North Carolina has for the past few years been engaged in some of the most blatant and systematic attacks on democracy to be found anywhere in the country. The gerrymander in question was so obviously intended to take power from African American voters that even the Republican-dominated Supreme Court upheld a lower-court ruling that it had to be thrown out.

A voter ID law the GOP-controlled legislature passed was also ruled unconstitutional, with a panel of federal judges writing that its provisions “target African Americans with almost surgical precision.” After a Democrat was elected governor in 2016, Republicans rushed through a bill curbing his power in a lame-duck session.

If there’s a ground zero for the GOP war on democratic representation, North Carolina is it. And every time, Republicans came up with a bogus justification for their actions that they somehow managed to repeat with a straight face.

In this case, it isn’t just whether they could complete new maps that they seem to have lied about. Common Cause alleges that while the state’s Republicans told the court they were not using data on race in order to draw the new maps, in fact, Hofeller was drawing new maps for them with race data that would enable them to once again cut African Americans out of power.

People being dishonest about their real motivations happens a lot in politics, of course. But there are some lies that stand out, those that are so obvious that the one uttering them can only be enjoying themselves watching how flabbergasted everyone is that they’d be so epically mendacious.

What complicates things is that so many in the media feel it necessary to treat those lies as legitimate, if perhaps questionable, claims. So when Republicans say their efforts to disenfranchise African Americans, young people and anyone else too likely to vote for Democrats are actually a product of their deep concern over “voter fraud,” they know exactly how it will be presented in the media. Republicans say this giant turd is actually a fine diamond; Democrats counter that it is, in fact, a giant turd.

Once you’ve gotten away with that kind of lying to the public, it might begin to feel as though you can get away with anything. Such as, for instance, lying to a judge. Sure, it’s technically illegal, but who’s going to find out? It’s not as if this consultant we work with is going to die, and then his hard drives will be found by his estranged daughter, and then she’ll turn them over to one of the organizations fighting us, and they’ll make its contents public. What are the odds of that happening?

Pretty low, no doubt. But in this case, it did happen.

This case made me think of the time when Trump aide Hope Hicks allegedly argued that the president and the White House should keep lying about the infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a group of Russians, because the emails from and to Donald Trump Jr. organizing the meeting “will never get out.”

She was wrong about that, just as North Carolina Republicans were wrong if they thought the same of Hofeller’s files. We’ll have to see if they actually suffer some sort of consequence.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 12, 2019, 11:48:55 PM
Pence says move to bar rainbow flags outside U.S. embassies was ‘the right decision’ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pence-says-move-to-bar-rainbow-flags-outside-us-embassies-was-the-right-decision/2019/06/10/59eebe60-8bdb-11e9-8f69-a2795fca3343_story.html?utm_term=.515f9d94e647)

Quote
Vice President Pence on Monday defended the Trump administration’s barring of rainbow flags from being flown on flagpoles outside U.S. embassies during LGBTQ Pride Month, calling it “the right decision.”

Pence made the remarks in an interview with NBC News, which first reported on the move last week.

“I’m aware that the State Department indicated that on the flagpole of our American embassies that one flag should fly, and that’s the American flag, and I support that,” Pence said.

The Obama administration’s Pride Month guidelines included rules for flying rainbow flags from poles outside embassies — they had to be smaller than the American flag and fly beneath it. But permission was granted with no fuss. By 2016, approvals were left up to each ambassador or chief of mission.

That changed last year, after Mike Pompeo became secretary of state. An advisory cable that came out said diplomats are required to obtain top-level approval from the State Department’s Office of Management to fly a rainbow flag.

Embassies in countries including Israel, Germany, Brazil and Latvia this year asked to fly rainbow flags. All were denied, a person at the State Department who was familiar with the matter told The Washington Post.

Some U.S. diplomats have been finding ways to get around the new policy in recent weeks, including by displaying large rainbow flags on building facades or bathing embassies in rainbow-colored lights.

State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus told reporters Monday that “there’s no violation” of Trump administration policy, so long as the rainbow flag is not flown on the same flagpole as the American flag.

President Trump recently tweeted in commemoration of LGBT Pride Month, prompting some to argue that his administration is sending mixed messages to the LGBT community.

Asked about Trump’s tweet, Pence told NBC News on Monday that he and the president are “proud to be able to serve every American; we both feel that way very passionately.”

“But when it comes to the American flagpole, and American embassies and capitals around the world, one American flag flies,” he added. “I think it’s the right decision, and we put no restrictions on displaying any other flags or any other displays at our embassies beyond that.”

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 19, 2019, 12:30:00 AM
Alabama Republican Refuses to Apologize for Ranting About 'Freaking Queers' (https://splinternews.com/alabama-republican-refuses-to-apologize-for-ranting-abo-1835610390)

Quote
A local Republican official in Alabama has some thoughts he’d like to share this Pride month, which he recently posted on the Mobile County Republican Party’s Facebook page: “Freaking queers have gotten too much sympathy.”

Phil Benson, the Republican treasurer for Mobile County, was responding to a National Review article about homophobic Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, who has been sued for discrimination (again)—this time after he refused to create a gender affirmation cake for a client. In a comment on the page, Benson said “this poor guy needs to move to a place he is wanted” and added the client is “a real abomination.”

Although the comment has since been deleted from the party’s Facebook page—in a follow-up comment, an administrator wrote that “a comment has been removed” for not using “appropriate language”—Benson isn’t backing down.

“Gay people are offensive to me. Do you understand that?” he whined to local NBC affiliate WPMI on Monday, after reporter Andrea Ramey said he requested she read a Bible passage before agreeing to an interview.

“All this beautiful rainbow stuff. When one of our presidents lit the White House with wonderful rainbow colors that offended me,” he continued.

Benson also made clear it’s not just the LBGTQ community that offends him.

“Do they offend me? Do I think that they have gotten too much power over you and I? Yes. I think too many sub groups have gotten too much control over me through the government,” Benson told the station.

He did not expand on just which “sub groups” he was referring to, so I leave it to you to speculate.

In a statement to WPMI, Alabama Republican Chairman Terry Lathan marginally distanced himself from Benson’s comments, calling them “unnecessary” and “divisive” while insisting they “represent his own personal opinion.”

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 20, 2019, 12:38:04 AM
A Trump supporter was arrested after smacking a reporter’s phone. ‘MAGA,’ a GOP lawmaker responded. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/19/trump-supporter-arrested-after-smacking-reporters-phone-maga-gop-lawmaker-responded/?utm_term=.24dba5b9dca2)

Quote
A man is accused of attacking a reporter outside a campaign rally for President Trump in Florida — a moment one state Republican legislator used to bait “so-called journalists.”

The confrontation was caught on video. As thousands of people descended upon downtown Orlando on Tuesday to watch Trump announce his reelection bid, security denied entry to some rallygoers who carried backpacks and beer. One of the men noticed that Orlando Sentinel reporter Michael Williams was filming the interactions.

Video shows the man approaching Williams, threatening to kick him in the genitals and trying to smack the phone out of his hand.

The man, Daniel Patrick Kestner, was arrested and charged with battery, a misdemeanor. A police report for the incident says Kestner, a 51-year-old resident of St. Augustine, Fla., was found to be intoxicated and was brought to Orange County Jail.

Williams posted the video on Twitter, and the Sentinel shared his tweet.

Then state Rep. Anthony Sabatini (R) weighed in with a response: “MAGA.” The acronym is for Trump’s now-former slogan, “Make America Great Again.”

In a statement, the Sentinel said violence against any reporter was unacceptable.

“We are fortunate Michael was not hurt, grateful to the Orlando police for their quick action, and proud of all our reporters for their courage and dedication to our community,” the statement said.

Williams, a breaking news reporter, was standing outside the Amway Center around 8 p.m. to document people filtering into the rally, Julie Anderson, the Sentinel’s editor in chief, told The Post. A man noticed Williams recording and told him to stop, Anderson said, but Williams said he did not have to stop filming because he was in a public space.

The man kept walking toward Williams and slapped his hand, Anderson said, making the video shake. Security officers, police and Secret Service interrupted, she said.

Sabatini, who was elected in 2018 to represent the town of Howey-in-the-Hills, told The Washington Post on Wednesday that he comments “MAGA” on all of the Sentinel’s coverage and wanted to push back on what he considered the news outlet’s “ridiculous” coverage of the rally.

Sabatini said he also wanted to make “so-called journalists” abandon their neutrality and act like activists.

"And so, all I had to do was put something I think would irk them on a page without any cognitive content — nothing that would actually speak about my position on the matter that they were trying to depict in the news piece at all ... but they just ran with it as fast as they could,” Sabatini said.

Sabatini also stirred controversy in February when a photo of him wearing blackface in high school was mailed anonymously to Florida media outlets, prompting some state Democrats to call for his resignation. Sabatini told The Post at the time that he and one of his good friends, who is black, dressed as each other for homecoming week their sophomore year as a “silly high school prank.”

The legislator has provoked Sentinel writers before, Anderson said — usually columnists who have criticized him. She said his response to the video from the rally was in line with his stated dislike of the news outlet.

“I’m not surprised, given our history with the representative,” Anderson said, “but it’s still disappointing.”

The Sentinel prepares its reporters to be targeted while reporting, Anderson said. Editors advise them to be nonconfrontational, to stick together and to ask police officers for help when needed.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 20, 2019, 12:39:08 AM
Senate confirms Trump judicial nominee who called homosexuality ‘disordered’ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-confirms-trump-judicial-nominee-who-called-homosexuality-disordered/2019/06/19/a56526c4-92d2-11e9-b570-6416efdc0803_story.html?utm_term=.5c5a59447222)

Quote
The Senate confirmed a controversial judicial nominee Wednesday over objections from civil rights groups and Democrats who criticized President Trump’s pick as being hostile to the LGBTQ community.

Just one Republican, Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), joined every voting Democrat to oppose Michael Kacsmaryk’s lifetime appointment to the federal bench in the Northern District of Texas. He was confirmed 52-46.

“Mr. Kacsmaryk has demonstrated a hostility to the LGBTQ bordering on paranoia,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said before the vote. “It’s unbelievable that this man has been nominated, and he’s not alone. The parade of narrow-minded, often bigoted people who we’re putting on the bench. . . . One Republican senator rightfully voiced concerns about this man’s fitness. Where are the others?”

Collins, in a statement last week announcing her intention to vote “no,” said Kacsmaryk’s “extreme statements” on LGBTQ and reproductive rights issues “reflect poorly on Mr. Kacsmaryk’s temperament and suggest an inability to respect precedent and to apply the law fairly and impartially.”

While Collins, who had angered LGBTQ and women’s rights groups with her vote for Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, sided with them this time, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), another ally of those groups who voted against Kavanaugh, did not.

Murkowski’s office did not return a request for comment about her vote for Kacsmaryk.

“The courts have been at the forefront of securing LGBTQ equality on many fronts, including the necessary and lifesaving legal protections opposed by Kacsmaryk and many other Trump nominees,” said Gillian Branstetter, spokeswoman for the National Center for Transgender Equality. “We would hope any lawmaker who believes in the need for that equality would understand the importance of inoculating the legal system from the kinds of bias and prejudice held by Kacsmaryk.”

Opponents of Kacsmaryk’s nomination point to his writings, in which he has described being transgender as a “mental disorder,” called homosexuality “disordered” and said that “sexual revolutionaries” had made the unborn child and marriage secondary to “erotic desires of liberated adults.”

“This person being in a position of power anywhere in government would be deeply troubling, but his lifetime appointment to the federal bunch by Trump and Pence will now present a clear threat to the rights and livelihoods of LGBTQ people for decades to come,” said Charlotte Clymer, press secretary of Human Rights Campaign. “It is unconscionable that this person would be confirmed to arbitrate our constitutional rights despite his outspoken hatred towards LGBTQ people.”

Kacsmaryk most recently served as deputy general counsel at First Liberty Institute, a legal organization that defends religious freedom cases. His former boss there, Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO, said after the confirmation vote: “Matthew has spent his career fighting to defend our God-given, Constitutionally protected rights. Matthew’s confirmation is further evidence that presidential appointees who strictly adhere to the text of the Constitution and the Founders’ original intent for our most fundamental freedoms, including religious liberty, can and will be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.”

Several Democrats and advocates pointed out the particular sting of Kacsmaryk’s confirmation occurring during Pride Month.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on June 20, 2019, 03:39:03 AM
I’m a member of the Northern District of Texas.  We’ll have to see where they stick this bigoted a-hole.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on June 21, 2019, 01:18:53 AM
The Sentenal newpaper in Florida is a Anti-Trump driven company, that seeks confrontation and controversy.

This is the same newspaper who placed their endorsement, the day prior to Trump's Announcement Rally, for 'anyone but Trump'. They are not bystanders when it comes to controversy, and are worthy of Trump supporters ire.

That said, I am pleased the 'victim' only had his phone 'jiggled', and suffered no harm from the drunk man who took issue with being filmed by the 'reporter'.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 21, 2019, 01:25:58 AM
The Sentenal newpaper in Florida is a Anti-Trump driven company, that seeks confrontation and controversy.


There is no such newspaper.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on June 23, 2019, 04:52:01 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/0ItbsOO.jpg)


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 23, 2019, 06:59:31 PM
Inside a Texas Building Where the Government Is Holding Immigrant Children (https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/inside-a-texas-building-where-the-government-is-holding-immigrant-children)

Quote
Hundreds of immigrant children who have been separated from their parents or family members are being held in dirty, neglectful, and dangerous conditions at Border Patrol facilities in Texas. This week, a team of lawyers interviewed more than fifty children at one of those facilities, in Clint, Texas, in order to monitor government compliance with the Flores settlement, which mandates that children must be held in safe and sanitary conditions and moved out of Border Patrol custody without unnecessary delays. The conditions the lawyers found were shocking: flu and lice outbreaks were going untreated, and children were filthy, sleeping on cold floors, and taking care of each other because of the lack of attention from guards. Some of them had been in the facility for weeks.

To discuss what the attorneys saw and heard, I spoke by phone with one of them, Warren Binford, a law professor at Willamette University and the director of its clinical-law program. She told me that, although Flores is an active court case, some of the lawyers were so disturbed by what they saw that they decided to talk to the media. We discussed the daily lives of the children in custody, the role that the guards are playing at the facility, and what should be done to unite many of these kids with their parents. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

How many lawyers were in your party? And can you describe what happened when you arrived?

We had approximately ten lawyers, doctors, and interpreters in El Paso this past week. We did not plan to go to the Clint Facility, because it’s not a facility that historically receives children. It wasn’t even on our radar. It was at a facility that historically only had a maximum occupancy of a hundred and four, and it was an adult facility. So we were not expecting to go there, and then we saw the report, last week, that it appeared that children were being sent to Clint, so we decided to put four teams over there. The teams are one to two attorneys, or an attorney and an interpreter. The idea is that we would be interviewing one child at a time or one sibling group at a time.

How many interviews do you do in a day?

We do a screening interview first to see if the child’s most basic needs are being met. Is it warm enough? Do they have a place to sleep? How long have they been there? Are they being fed? And if it sounds like the basic needs are being met, then we don’t need to interview them longer. If, when we start to interview the child, they start to tell us things like they’re sleeping on the floor, they’re sick, nobody’s taking care of them, they’re hungry, then we do a more in-depth interview. And those interviews can take two hours or even longer. So it depends on what the children tell us. So I’d say, with a team of four attorneys, if you’re interviewing several groups, which we sometimes try to do, or if you interview older children who are trying to take care of younger children, then you are interviewing, let’s say, anywhere from ten to twenty children per day.

How many kids are at the facility right now, and do you have some sense of a breakdown of where they’re from?

When we arrived, on Monday, there were approximately three hundred and fifty children there. They were constantly receiving children, and they’re constantly picking up children and transferring them over to an O.R.R. [Office of Refugee Resettlement] site. So the number is fluid. We were so shocked by the number of children who were there, because it’s a facility that only has capacity for a hundred and four. And we were told that they had recently expanded the facility, but they did not give us a tour of it, and we legally don’t have the right to tour the facility.

We drove around afterward, and we discovered that there was a giant warehouse that they had put on the site. And it appears that that one warehouse has allegedly increased their capacity by an additional five hundred kids. When we talked to Border Patrol agents later that week, they confirmed that is the alleged expansion, and when we talked to children, one of the children described as many as three hundred children being in that room, in that warehouse, basically, at one point when he first arrived. There were no windows.

And so what we did then was we looked at the ages of the children, and we were shocked by just how many young children there were. There were over a hundred young children when we first arrived. And there were child-mothers who were also there, and so we started to pull the child-mothers and their babies, we started to make sure their needs were being met. We started to pull the youngest children to see who was taking care of them.

And then we started to pull the children who had been there the longest to find out just how long children are being kept there. Children described to us that they’ve been there for three weeks or longer. And so, immediately from that population that we were trying to triage, they were filthy dirty, there was mucus on their shirts, the shirts were dirty. We saw breast milk on the shirts. There was food on the shirts, and the pants as well. They told us that they were hungry. They told us that some of them had not showered or had not showered until the day or two days before we arrived. Many of them described that they only brushed their teeth once. This facility knew last week that we were coming. The government knew three weeks ago that we were coming.

So, in any event, the children told us that nobody’s taking care of them, so that basically the older children are trying to take care of the younger children. The guards are asking the younger children or the older children, “Who wants to take care of this little boy? Who wants to take of this little girl?” and they’ll bring in a two-year-old, a three-year-old, a four-year-old. And then the littlest kids are expected to be taken care of by the older kids, but then some of the oldest children lose interest in it, and little children get handed off to other children. And sometimes we hear about the littlest children being alone by themselves on the floor.

Many of the children reported sleeping on the concrete floor. They are being given army blankets, those wool-type blankets that are really harsh. Most of the children said they’re being given two blankets, one to put beneath them on the floor. Some of the children are describing just being given one blanket and having to decide whether to put it under them or over them because there is air-conditioning at this facility. And so they’re having to make a choice about, Do I try to protect myself from the cement, or do I try to keep warm?

We weren’t originally planning to be there on Thursday, but one of the reasons why we came back for a fourth day is that some of the children, on Wednesday, told us that there was a lice infestation as well as an influenza outbreak at that facility, and so a number of the children are being taken into isolation rooms, quarantine areas where there’s nobody with them except for other sick children.

There was one child-mother who took her baby in there, because the baby got the flu. And then the mother, because she was in there caring for the child, got the flu as well. And so then she was there for a week, and they took the baby out and gave the baby to an unrelated child to try to take care of the child-mother’s baby. Sorry, I was trying to remember where I was going with that.

It’s fine.

Oh, I know what I wanted to tell you. This is important. So, on Wednesday, we received reports from children of a lice outbreak in one of the cells where there were about twenty-five children, and what they told us is that six of the children were found to have lice. And so they were given a lice shampoo, and the other children were given two combs and told to share those two combs, two lice combs, and brush their hair with the same combs, which is something you never do with a lice outbreak. And then what happened was one of the combs was lost, and Border Patrol agents got so mad that they took away the children’s blankets and mats. They weren’t allowed to sleep on the beds, and they had to sleep on the floor on Wednesday night as punishment for losing the comb. So you had a whole cell full of kids who had beds and mats at one point, not for everybody but for most of them, who were forced to sleep on the cement.

Where are these kids from, and where are most of their parents in most cases?

Almost every child that we interviewed had a parent or relative in the United States. Many of them had parents in the United States and were coming here to be with their parents. Some of the children that we interviewed had been separated from their parents. Most of them were separated from other adult relatives. Almost all the children came across with an adult family member and were separated from them by the Border Patrol. Some of them were separated from their parents themselves, other times it was a grandmother or aunt or an older sibling. We don’t know where the parents are being kept.

They are primarily from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. There are a few from Ecuador, one from Peru.

What is the attitude of the guards to your team?

They are on our side. Multiple guards told us while we were there that they are on our side and they want us to be successful, because the children don’t belong there, and the children need to be picked up and put in appropriate places for children. They want us to be successful.

So things like the comb and the punishment, that’s a rare story? Most of the guards care about the welfare of the kids to some extent?

I’m not going to say that most of the guards care about the kids, because we didn’t talk to most of the guards, but I do believe in the inherent goodness of people. And when I’ve talked to guards, they seemed caring, and they had guards who, when the children were there for these very lengthy interviews, would bring the children lunches in the conference room. They’re terrible lunches. That’s how some of the guards are, but the fact is that some of the guards are bad people, and there’s no question about it.

There are some other stories that we’ve heard from the children, such as that one of the guards has an older child, who’s seventeen, serve as the unofficial guard inside the room. So he tells the kids what to do, and he tries to keep the room neat and straighten up the mattresses and everything. Now, the guards reward him with extra food, and when a seven-year-old saw that this older boy was getting extra food by being helpful, he asked if he could help clean up the room and keep it neat so that he, too, could get extra food. And the seventeen-year-old chastised him for this, and then when an older sibling tried to stand up for his little brother, the guard intervened and reprimanded both the little boy and his older brother.

And so you’ve got a guard who is manipulating these kids, very similar to what we heard about in the concentration camps. I’m not going and calling these concentration camps, although I know that some people do.

I am curious, at just a human level, about you being at these camps this week, while much of the country, or a bunch of politicians, seemed outraged most of all by the fact that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez used the phrase “concentration camp.”

Well, we’re not watching the news. I saw a tweet. The thing is that all of our capacity is taken up. We’re waking up at six o’clock in the morning, and we’re on the road shortly after seven to go to our different sites and meet with these kids. And we’re meeting with them until five o’clock, sometimes—it didn’t happen this week, but at other site visits we’re staying until eight o’clock because there are so many kids to interview. And then what happens is we go back and we debrief. We did not eat until eleven o’clock on Wednesday night, and then we’re going to bed, waking up a few hours later and doing it all over again. There’s no capacity for processing what’s going on in the real world. It is all about these kids and the horrific conditions they’re in.

Was there anything that you think was specifically illegal?

I just got back from this facility where laws were being broken right and left. There is a judgment in this case that says that children are supposed to be treated a certain way when they are in government custody. All of these children are in government custody, and those very basic standards are being violated.

For example, in Flores, which is the class-action suit that governs the standards for the care of these children that are in U.S. custody, it clearly says that children are supposed to be kept in safe and sanitary conditions. And there is nothing sanitary about the conditions they are in. And they are not safe, because they are getting sick, and they are not being adequately supervised by the Border Patrol officers. This is a violation of the case law. In addition to that, these children are not supposed to be in a Border Patrol facility any longer than they absolutely have to, and in no event are they supposed to be there for more than seventy-two hours. And many of them were there for three and a half weeks.

And in addition to that, they are not supposed to be breaking up families. In the Ms. L case that was brought last year, when children were being routinely separated by their parents, that judge ruled that these children need to be kept with their parents, that family integrity is a constitutional right and is being violated. There were children at this facility who came across with parents and were separated from parents. There were other children at the facility who came across with other adult family members. We met almost no children who came across unaccompanied. The United States is taking children away from their family unit and reclassifying them as unaccompanied children. But they were not unaccompanied children. And some of them were separated from their parents.

Do you have some hope or sense that courts will step in promptly?

That is the hope. I will be honest with you: I am not authorized to talk about the Flores case. I am not one of the attorneys litigating that case. I am there as an expert monitoring compliance. It is a very active case, and the lead attorneys in that case are very concerned about what we found on the site visit. Even the little things—when they are transporting the babies, transporting the toddlers and the preschoolers, they are not putting them in infant seats or booster seats, and they are driving along Texas highways, all of which require children to be properly placed in the vehicle. It is so frustrating to hear the current Administration talking about the rule of law when they flout the rule of law right and left.

I know you have been doing this for about three years. For people you know who have been doing it longer, to what degree is this the worst they’ve ever seen, and to what degree is this an aspect of our immigration policy that has been going on for a really long time, and there is just much more of a spotlight on it now?

That’s a very good question. Things have always been horrendous in Border Patrol facilities, especially for children. That’s why Flores requires that the children be moved out of there as expeditiously as possible. So we’ve always been concerned about the conditions in Border Patrol facilities. What we’re concerned about now is the number of children who are there, the young ages of the children there, and the length of time that they’re being left there.

Almost all of these children have family members, including parents, in the United States, who are able to and want to take care of their children. All we need to do is to get these children to their families, and we know that almost all of them will be well cared for, and it will cost the U.S. taxpayer no money to care for these children, because they will be cared for by their parents.

Now, when I say that—of course there are certain inherent costs in running a society that will be incurred, but as far as direct care, at the facilities that we have the numbers for, such as the large facilities like Homestead, it costs seven hundred and seventy-five dollars a day to care for these kids. There is no reason for the American taxpayer to have to pay seven hundred and seventy-five dollars a day to care for children who have families who love them, and are here in the United States, and want to take care of them. There are multiple kids that we could put on a plane this week to be with their parents in the United States. Many of them have never spoken with their parents since they got there.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 23, 2019, 07:39:15 PM
I’M A JOURNALIST BUT I DIDN’T FULLY REALIZE THE TERRIBLE POWER OF U.S. BORDER OFFICIALS UNTIL THEY VIOLATED MY RIGHTS AND PRIVACY (https://theintercept.com/2019/06/22/cbp-border-searches-journalists/)

Quote
I SHOULD HAVE kept my mouth shut about the guacamole; that made things worse for me. Otherwise, what I’m about to describe could happen to any American who travels internationally. It happened 33,295 times last year.

My work as a journalist has taken me to many foreign countries, including frequent trips to Mexico. On May 13, I was returning to the U.S. from Mexico City when, passing through immigration at the Austin airport, I was pulled out of line for “secondary screening,” a quasi-custodial law enforcement process that takes place in the Homeland Security zone of the airport.

Austin is where I was born and raised, and I usually get waved through immigration after one or two questions. I’m also a white man; more on that later. This time, when my turn came to show my passport, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer was more aggressive than usual in his questioning. I told him I’d been in Mexico for seven days for work, that I was a journalist, and that I travel to Mexico often, as he could see from my passport. That wasn’t enough for him, though. He wanted to know the substance of the story I was currently working on, which didn’t sit right with me. I tried to skirt the question, but he came back to it, pointedly.

I was going on three hours of sleep, and I hadn’t had anything to eat in the last 12 hours besides some popcorn and peanuts and a Monster energy drink. Had my blood sugar been higher, I might have cheerfully told him. Instead, I muttered something about not having a legal obligation, under the circumstances, to disclose the contents of my reporting.

The agent, whose name was Moncivias, said we would see about that. He asked me to follow him into the secondary screening area.

“Oh, come on, man,” I said, checking the time on my phone. It was just after noon. “This is going to be a huge waste of time.”

“I’m here all day,” Moncivias said. He might have been 30 years old, clean cut, with dark hair and light skin. He and I were close enough in age that there was definitely some male primate posturing going on between us. At one point, I told him that I had been in the Army. “Thank you for your service,” he retorted.

In retrospect, I was naive about the kind of agency CBP has become in the Trump era. Though I’ve reported several magazine stories in Mexico, none have been about immigration. Of course, I knew these were the guys putting kids in cages, separating refugee children from their parents, and that Trump’s whole shtick is vilifying immigrants, leading to many sad and ugly scenes at the border, including the farcical deployment of U.S. troops. But I complacently assumed that wouldn’t affect me directly, least of all in Austin. Later, I did remember reading a report in February about CBP targeting journalists, activists, and lawyers for scrutiny at ports of entry south of California, but I had never had a problem before, not in a lifetime of crossing the Texas-Mexico border scores of times on foot, by car, by plane, in a canoe, even swimming. This was the first time CBP had ever pulled me aside.

When asked to comment on specific details in this story, a CBP spokesperson responded with a canned statement replete with the sort of pseudo-military terminology that betrays the agency’s sense of itself not as a civil customs service but as some kind of counterterrorism strike force. “CBP has adapted and adjusted our actions to align with current threat information, which is based on intelligence,” the statement reads in part. “As the threat landscape changes, so does CBP.” The agency declined to put me in touch with Moncivias and the other officers named in this account or to make an official available for an interview, but a CBP source mentioned that the “port director” had reviewed “the tape” of the encounter. I found that very interesting, because I had specifically asked Moncivias and the other officers if I was being videotaped or recorded, and they had categorically denied it.

WE PASSED THROUGH a detention area harshly illuminated by fluorescent lights where armed CBP officers in dark uniforms outnumbered the few tired-looking travelers. The officers all had Homeland Security patches on their shoulders and pistols on their belts. Moncivias sat me down in a side room with a desk, two chairs, and a microscope on a filing cabinet. He left the door open.

A bespectacled supervisor named Lopez made an appearance. In a polite back-and-forth, I learned that I was not under arrest or suspected of any crime, and my citizenship was not in doubt, but if I didn’t answer the question asked by the “incident officer,” I wouldn’t be allowed into the United States. He handed me some brochures and left the room.

Moncivias was joined by an Anglo officer named Pomeroy, who had a shaved head and looked a little older. They stared at me expectantly.

“Fine,” I said. “For the last six months, I’ve been doing an investigative journalism project to determine which restaurant has the best guacamole in all of Mexico.”

Moncivias didn’t miss a beat. “And what restaurant is that?”

“El Parnita, on Avenida Yucatán in Mexico City,” I told him, truthfully.

The flippancy would cost me. From then on out, the officers made it clear that I was in for a long delay. When I saw how mad they were, I lost interest in the principle of the thing. In reality, I didn’t care if they knew what the story was about. The draft was done, and my editors had a copy. All I cared about was getting home to a cup of coffee, a sandwich, a shower, and my bed. In an effort to smooth things over, I said that if they really had to know, I was finishing up a story for Rolling Stone about some guys from Texas and Arizona who sold helicopter machine guns to a Mexican cartel and that I’d been in Mexico City to interview a government official who, for understandable reasons, didn’t want his name bandied about. I apologized for my grouchiness, blaming it on the stress of travel.

Cooperation didn’t earn me any leniency. Next up was a thorough search of my suitcase, down to unscrewing the tops of my toiletries. That much I expected. But then a third officer, whose name was Villarreal, carefully read every page of my 2019 journal, including copious notes to self on work, relationships, friends, family, and all sorts of private reflections I had happened to write down. I told him, “Sir, I know there’s nothing I can do to stop you, but I want to tell you, as one human being to another, that you’re invading my privacy right now, and I don’t appreciate it.” Villarreal acknowledged the statement and went back to reading.

That was just the beginning. The real abuse of power was a warrantless search of my phone and laptop. This is the part that affects everyone, not just reporters and people who keep journals.

IN GENERAL, LAW enforcement agents have to get a warrant to search your electronic devices. That’s the gist of the 2014 Supreme Court case Riley v. California. But the Riley ruling only applies when the police arrest you. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether the same protections apply to American citizens reentering the United States from abroad, and federal appeals courts have issued contradictory opinions. In the absence of a controlling legal authority, CBP goes by its own rules, namely CBP Directive No. 3340-049A, pursuant to which CBP can search any person’s device, at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. If you refuse to give up your password, CBP’s policy is to seize the device. The agency may use “external equipment” to crack the passcode, “not merely to gain access to the device, but to review, copy, and/or analyze its contents,” according to the directive. CBP can look for any kind of evidence, any kind of information, and can share what it finds with any other federal agency, so long as doing so is “consistent with applicable law and policy.”

I had my doubts as to whether they could actually crack my iPhone and MacBook, but I didn’t doubt that they would be happy to confiscate them. So I decided to take another tack: I told the officers I had nothing to hide, but I felt I had a professional obligation to call an attorney for further advice. Pomeroy said I could not because I wasn’t under arrest; I just wasn’t allowed to enter the United States. I wasn’t allowed to leave the Homeland Security zone, either. I know because I tried to sort of wander out a couple of times and got yelled at. When I actually tried to call a lawyer friend of mine in Austin, Pomeroy stopped me. They held onto my phone from then out.

Sophia Cope, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sued CBP over its warrantless device searches, told me that the agency “has for sure said no” as to whether there is a right to counsel during secondary screening. “They’ve been pretty consistent. You don’t get a lawyer. A lot of people have tried to push back, particularly after the Muslim ban. People were like, ‘I have a green card, and you’re putting me back on a plane to Iran. I need a lawyer to come down to the airport.’”

CBP has been doing warrantless device searches since the advent of the modern smartphone, Cope said, but the practice has increased by some 300 percent since Trump took office. In late 2017, EFF teamed up with the American Civil Liberties Union and filed a case alleging the unconstitutionality of the administration’s blitz of warrantless searches. Anecdotally, CBP appears to be targeting typical Trumpian scapegoats, including Muslims, Latinos, and journalists, but anyone reentering the United States can be subject to these searches. The 11 plaintiffs in the EFF and ACLU case are a computer programmer, a filmmaker, a graduate student, a nursing student, a limousine driver, a businessman, an engineer, a professor, an artist, and two journalists. All are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents who had experiences similar to mine.

“The secondary inspection environment is inherently coercive,” the complaint says. “Travelers are not free to exit those areas until officers permit them to leave.” Travelers are usually exhausted, sometimes ill, and may be under pressure to catch a connecting flight, anxious to get home to kids, or needed at work. Forcing travelers who are not suspected of any wrongdoing to cough up their passwords, on pain of having their devices seized, violates the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, the plaintiffs argue, and also infringes the First Amendment right to free expression and association by means of government intimidation and surveillance. “Regardless of whether you have embarrassing information on your device,” Cope said, “it’s about personal autonomy and living in a free society and not a police state.”

I DIDN’T KNOW all of this when I was being held by CBP. When the officers told me they only wanted to check my devices for child pornography, links to terrorism, and so forth, I believed them. I was completely unprepared for the digital ransacking that came next.

After I gave him the password to my iPhone, Moncivias spent three hours reviewing hundreds of photos and videos and emails and calls and texts, including encrypted messages on WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram. It was the digital equivalent of tossing someone’s house: opening cabinets, pulling out drawers, and overturning furniture in hopes of finding something — anything — illegal. He read my communications with friends, family, and loved ones. He went through my correspondence with colleagues, editors, and sources. He asked about the identities of people who have worked with me in war zones. He also went through my personal photos, which I resented. Consider everything on your phone right now. Nothing on mine was spared.

Pomeroy, meanwhile, searched my laptop. He browsed my emails and my internet history. He looked through financial spreadsheets and property records and business correspondence. He was able to see all the same photos and videos as Moncivias and then some, including photos I thought I had deleted.

At one point, Pomeroy was standing over my laptop on the desk. I couldn’t see the screen, and he had such a puzzled expression on his face that I stood up to see what he was looking at. “Get back,” he said, clapping a hand on his sidearm. “I don’t know if you’re going for my gun.” At another point, Pomeroy had taken my laptop to the desk in the waiting area, and I thought I heard him call for me to come over, so I did. “Stand back from my gun,” he said, when he saw me approaching; it turns out he had been talking to someone else. Three times during the course of the secondary screening, Pomeroy pronounced words to the effect that he was subjectively forming a reasonable belief that I might grab his service weapon.

It was an implicit death threat and a rhetorical move on part of the police that will be familiar to people of color: I’ve got a gun on you, ergo, you’re a threat to me. Speaking of which, I’m certain this whole experience would have been worse had I been black or brown instead of white. And that is to say nothing of migrants and refugees, whose treatment at the hands of CBP on the U.S.-Mexico border is another matter altogether. But it does go to show that you can’t contain a culture of aggression to one part of an armed agency.

I was being physically submissive, keeping my hands visible at all times, not making any sudden moves, but Pomeroy would not let me see the laptop screen. I told him I at least had the right to know what files he was reviewing. “All of them,” he said, giving me a hard stare. “I’m going to look at all of them.”

“Please don’t look at the one called ‘Secret ISIS Confession,’” I said.

There was a South Asian couple detained along with me, a husband and wife with their luggage. Neither of them would have been able to get away with a crack like that. In my case, Pomeroy just determined to proceed even more painfully slowly.

Both he and Moncivias spent the most time on my photos. Admittedly, I had some crazy ones, including footage of combat taken while reporting in Iraq and Syria. Likewise, my phone contained many chat logs with people in the Middle East, and even more with people in Mexico and Colombia. That could make a border agent justifiably curious, but they had made the decision to detain me and give me a hard time well before they saw the images or messages. That I turned out to be a war correspondent just gave them more ammunition to question me.

“They ask a lot of fishing questions,” said Alexandra Ellerbeck of the Committee to Protect Journalists, which has documented dozens of unwarranted interrogations of reporters by CBP in recent years. “There’s an opportunistic element to it. It seems to be targeted towards general intelligence-gathering. They take a broad view of their mandate to ask these questions, and there can be repercussions if you refuse to answer. They’ll hold you for longer, search your devices, or flag you in the future.” She added, “We don’t think this should be happening at all.”

MONCIVIAS, POMEROY, AND VILLARREAL questioned me for hours on all aspects of my work. They asked about conversations with editors and colleagues. They asked about my political opinions. Moncivias wanted to know how I felt about Trump trying to pull troops from Syria. He asked if I’d had contact with the Taliban there, and I had to explain that the Taliban don’t operate in Syria. It was clear that they weren’t after anything in particular; their questions were completely scattershot. This wasn’t a continuous interrogation, either. They were wandering in and out of the room, leaving me alone for long periods of time. Interestingly, they didn’t ask me anything about CBP itself. I had told them my current story was about gunrunning, but they didn’t think to ask if I’d done any reporting on their employer, which I had. In fact, my laptop contained hard-won documents on CBP, but I didn’t see the officers reading them.

I did see them copy my laptop’s serial number and write down three or four numbers and alphanumeric sequences found deep in my phone’s settings. The only specifier I halfway understood was the phone’s IMEI number, which can be used to track its physical location. Even if I get rid of the phone, I could be on some accursed watchlist, or somehow electronically tagged, for the rest of my life. Even if it’s benign, like those devices scientists stick whales with, I experience it as an indignity, and you probably would too. They didn’t handcuff me, but the officers otherwise acted as if I were under arrest in a police station, though I had done nothing wrong and they had no reason to suspect me of anything. They frequently took my devices out of the room for long periods of time. When I asked if they had backed up the devices or copied files, they denied it, which I found hard to believe. “You didn’t stick a thumb drive in there?” I asked Pomeroy, who was walking around carrying my laptop. He pretended not to hear.

Around the three-hour mark, I became completely passive. Confinement in a blank room is a soft form of torture, especially if you suffer from a crippling caffeine addiction, as I do. They were “fresh out” when I demeaned myself by meekly requesting coffee. For a long time, I sat slumped in the chair with a mounting headache while Moncivias finished typing up his report on me. He would pause, carefully consult something on my phone, and then go back to typing. This went on for another hour.

It was around 4 p.m. when Moncivias finally finished up and informed me, anticlimactically, that I was free to go. I couldn’t wait to get outside because the detention area was freezing. No wonder Spanish-speaking migrants call CBP detention la hielera — the icebox. I took my phone and laptop and silently packed up my luggage, which still lay disemboweled on the desk, underwear and all. Pomeroy was gone by this time. As I was walking out, I said to Moncivias and Villarreal, “It’s funny, of all the countries I’ve been to, the border guards have never treated me worse than here, in the one country I’m a citizen of, in the town where I was born.”

“Welcome back to the USA,” Moncivias said.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on June 23, 2019, 10:24:05 PM
  Good to hear CBP Officers take seriously smart-ass activity, and lies told them, by all being screened for entry, including keeping such people away from the Officers firearm. The result was apparently the proper and legal result.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on June 23, 2019, 11:48:35 PM
You are a fucking idiot John.  Just do us all a favor and go fuck yourself.

I have been detained in this same airport for nothing more than objecting to a vigorous repeated massage of my male parts.  The TSA is a joke, security theater, the worst of the worst.  More TSA agents have been arrested for theft, than have valid security threats (toe nail clippers excluded).

15 agents showed up to my hearing, in uniform.  The judge looked at the file for a few moments and dismissed all charges.  But I am a white male lawyer.  Pity the rest of the nation.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on June 24, 2019, 01:35:59 AM
Sorry TSA has bothered you, Toe. Am sure you were not a smart-ass...

My comment was about Customs Border Protection, the focus of the preceding story, where a American citizen made a point to be evasive, during a entry interview with CBP, whose job is to protect YOU and ME from false entry by anyone.

Glad CPB was able to sort out the smart ass journalist's statements, and find his Identification and possessions to be in order, eventually.

Everyone should know, since this 'journalist' seemed not to know, about the fact that at Entry, your electronic items are subject, along with everything about you and your possessions to be searched and reviewed, found legal, or not, as part of the process.

Lying to CPB about writing a story regarding Guacamole was not a good idea.

You are a fucking idiot John.  Just do us all a favor and go fuck yourself.

I have been detained in this same airport for nothing more than objecting to a vigorous repeated massage of my male parts.  The TSA is a joke, security theater, the worst of the worst.  More TSA agents have been arrested for theft, than have valid security threats (toe nail clippers excluded).

15 agents showed up to my hearing, in uniform.  The judge looked at the file for a few moments and dismissed all charges.  But I am a white male lawyer.  Pity the rest of the nation.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 24, 2019, 02:29:24 AM
Yes, we know you hate journalists as you have supported the assault of at least two of them.

Don't you have some little kittens to drown somewhere?

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on June 24, 2019, 02:43:07 AM
  "...Come closer..." said the Spider to the Fly...


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 24, 2019, 03:37:50 AM
This is the appropriate thread for your racist shitbag ass.

You exude hate.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Jed_ on June 24, 2019, 04:36:31 PM
The TSA incidents as described in the article and toe’s posts here and in the past had me musing during my insomnia last night about what they might find on my devices.  I think I did a reasonable job of making them wife safe.  There’s never really been much in the way of porn on them (except the pics sent to me by ‘friends’ from sites - all deleted).  Anything left that might create questions with her are G and PG rated, so nothing the TSA would care about.

I have an ap called Mutter I’ve used for the chat room.  It tends to save the last public and private conversations.  I know there are lots of chats there I would not want her seeing, in my defense though all of them would be dated before I even knew my Peruvian.  Still, would be difficult to explain some of the things there.  I’d like to think the TSA wouldn’t out me to her, but then the TSA might decide based on content she needed to know she married a pervert.

The only other area of concern would be what would the TSA make of my frequent browsing at KB.  Again I’d like to think the TSA would be thinking only legal vs. illegal, and wouldn’t find it necessary to have me explain to them and my wife that I’m not really a pedophile and don’t view that content.

Again I question the wisdom of being here.  In the meantime, I think I’ll leave my devices at home when I travel abroad.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: ToeinH2O on June 24, 2019, 06:06:34 PM
Just FedEx your devices home, or synch and do a factory reset erase.  Never had a problem, but I have attorney client files and communications on my devices, and feel an obligation to protect that information from the curious.  I do not take smartphones or flat screen devices through customs.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: joan1984 on June 24, 2019, 06:11:17 PM
  Good idea not to carry your regular personal electronics, when crossing into the US, if you have any reason for concern. A burner phone, from Wal-Mart, will do the job, and a clean laptop, for business, makes sense.

  TSA is not who checks those Entering the United States, and I expect Entry exams, when they choose to look through a phone or laptop, are less casual, if they find things to give reason to search further for CP, and more.

  CBP rules differ, will say 'may differ' as I am not entirely briefed, and that is who the story described, during the journalist's entry to the US from Mexico.


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 24, 2019, 06:16:14 PM
 Good idea not to carry your regular personal electronics, when crossing into the US, if you have any reason for concern. A burner phone, from Wal-Mart, will do the job, and a clean laptop, for business, makes sense.

  TSA is not who checks those Entering the United States, and I expect Entry exams, when they choose to look through a phone or laptop, are less casual, if they find things to give reason to search further for CP, and more.

  CBP rules differ, will say 'may differ' as I am not entirely briefed, and that is who the story described, during the journalist's entry to the US from Mexico.

Curious, do you travel abroad for work?  If so, what kind of work do you do that would force you to do this?  What do you have to hide, since you seem so self-righteous?

If not, you are probably not in a position to give advice on this.

Piss off, shitbag.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 24, 2019, 06:27:13 PM
Mike Pence Just Chuckles When Asked About Horrific Child Detention Conditions (https://splinternews.com/mike-pence-just-chuckles-when-asked-about-horrific-chil-1835801504)

Quote
Speaking with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday, Vice President Mike Pence was given a chance to commit to improving the appalling conditions in which migrant children detained by the government are being kept. Instead, Pence squirmed, dodged, and at one point chuckled his way through an intensely uncomfortable exchange, desperately trying to blame anyone and everyone but the Trump administration for locking children away like dogs in a kennel.

“Aren’t toothbrushes and blankets and medicine basic conditions for kids?” Tapper asked Pence, after playing a clip of Department of Justice attorney Sarah Fabian arguing that those things weren’t necessarily part of the government’s responsibility for caring for minors. “Aren’t they a part of how the United States of America—the Trump administration—treats children?”

“Well, of course they are Jake,” Pence answered, claiming he can’t “speak to what that lawyer was saying.”

https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1142923138067566597

Pence went on to blame Democrats for denying the Department of Homeland Security funds to expand detention facilities during the last round of budget negotiations. But when Tapper pointed out that these were conditions the administration could address right now, asking “why aren’t we?” Pence simply laughed.

“My point is it’s all a part of the appropriations process,” he weakly answered.

Pence then continued to name check Congress, traffickers, and the Mexican government for America’s immigration issues, without once admitting that the administration could, if it wanted to, provide basic amenities like blankets and toothbrushes to children it has kept locked away for weeks on end.

#Resist


Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 24, 2019, 06:43:19 PM
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/b3a83d5135448160878664e7f06d9f8e/tumblr_pteo2h81E91s7f10k_540.jpg)

(https://66.media.tumblr.com/26590efe313206db9d2b668553f47890/tumblr_pteo2ijiTA1s7f10k_540.jpg)

(https://66.media.tumblr.com/1ae18dcd7388ee244f497a72f2180a04/tumblr_pteo2i5CbV1s7f10k_540.jpg)

(https://66.media.tumblr.com/9789e5d238aded55f04feea6ced1ba04/tumblr_pteo2jIhFp1s7f10k_540.jpg)

(https://66.media.tumblr.com/5829227182829caafd52e0ff9daf2f38/tumblr_pteo2jYp1P1s7f10k_540.jpg)

#Resist



Title: Re: Party of hate?
Post by: Athos_131 on June 24, 2019, 06:49:17 PM
Doctor compares conditions for unaccompanied children at immigrant holding centers to 'torture facilities' (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/doctor-compares-conditions-immigrant-holding-centers-torture-facilities/story?id=63879031&cid=social_twitter_abcn)

Quote
From sleeping on concrete floors with the lights on 24 hours a day to no access to soap or basic hygiene, migrant children in at least two U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities face conditions one doctor described as comparable to "torture facilities."

The disturbing, first-hand account of the conditions were observed by lawyers and a board-certified physician in visits last week to border patrol holding facilities in Clint, Texas, and McAllen, a city in the southern part of the state.

The descr