1 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 11:46:51am |
But but Megyn Kelly said no major broadcaster at Fox ever spouts NAzi stuff that she can recall! She watches Fox all the time! She said it with a straight face! She would never lie! This must be a librul frame up!
2 | CarleeCork Fri, Jan 28, 2011 11:49:09am |
It only means she can lie with a straight face.
3 | Vicious Michigan Union Thug Fri, Jan 28, 2011 11:49:29am |
Nobody can be compared to the nazis except for other nazis.
Godwin'ing everybody you don't agree with does nothing except diminish the horrors of the real Holocaust.
4 | Kronocide Fri, Jan 28, 2011 11:49:44am |
Stewart has already been knocking em out of the park recently: now they're throwing him even more hangin curveballs to hit out.
5 | Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Jan 28, 2011 11:49:47am |
6 | Kragar Fri, Jan 28, 2011 11:51:03am |
re: #3 Alouette
Nobody can be compared to the nazis except for other nazis.
Godwin'ing everybody you don't agree with does nothing except diminish the horrors of the real Holocaust.
Well, Stalin and Pol Pot maybe.
7 | elizajane Fri, Jan 28, 2011 11:53:38am |
OK, that was hilarious, and the speeding "but I was late!" analogy worked perfectly.
However, the fact it that the right has no recourse but to fume with indignation when the left does a smidgen of what they do all the time. Otherwise they would have nothing to be indignant about.
Running up the deficit to incredible levels? "You spendthrift, wealth-redistributing Commies, we are fiscally responsible God-fearin' folks." They have to say it. Otherwise they'd have to say, "Yep, we f*cked up, instead of banking a massive budget surplus to put Social Security into the black for generations to come, we channeled all that money to our uber-wealthy donors and started a couple of unfunded wars. Wow, that was a mistake! We're really sorry. And we won't call anybody Nazis this week either."
Not going to happen, right?
8 | Vicious Michigan Union Thug Fri, Jan 28, 2011 11:56:41am |
re: #6 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Well, Stalin and Pol Pot maybe.
There should be a corollary to Godwin's Rule about comparing people to Stalin and Pol Pot.
9 | Lateralis Fri, Jan 28, 2011 11:57:20am |
re: #7 elizajane
Started a couple of unfunded wars. I would maybe give you one but I think a little group called Al-Qaeda started the other one.
10 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 11:59:58am |
Just point something out. For some time, I have been railing abuot the ablity of the wingnuts to scream A for weeks or years and then pretend they were always shouting not A with equal fervor. They are willing to lie about the most obvious things that are utterly easily fact checked.
Think about it, if they are willing to lie, unblinking about making false claims they have made dozens of times a day, day in day out for years, that they themselves broadcast over and over, and they expect you not to notice, then what other lies do they tell?
It's like a man in a gorilla suit standing in front of you claiming he is not in a gorilla suit - and then asking you to trust him on things you can't verify instantly.
11 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:02:18pm |
re: #8 Alouette
There should be a corollary to Godwin's Rule about comparing people to Stalin and Pol Pot.
Except that one should not let the indignation of a false or careless comparison stop one from making an obvious comparison when people go goose stepping down the same path. The ways that the RW rhetoric echos that of the actual no-Godwin Nazis are numerous, terrifying and contagious. They will spread if we do not call it for what it is.
Never Again, implies the need for vigilance against the same evils in the future. Those evils are happening now, in America.
12 | Amory Blaine Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:03:02pm |
re: #9 Lateralis
Started a couple of unfunded wars. I would maybe give you one but I think a little group called Al-Qaeda started the other one.
Maybe we should have invaded Saudi Arabia considering most of the scum who attacked us came from there. Afghanistan was a reaction not well thought out. If Bush was a real leader, he wouldn't have instinctively satisfied the call for blood. But then he was the shittiest President I've ever seen.
13 | Kragar Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:03:34pm |
Cairo fire threatens Egypt's national museum
A fire broke out on Friday near Tahrir Square in central Cairo, where thousands of Egyptians have been protesting since Tuesday, and is currently threatening the world-famous Egyptian Museum.
The fire, which started in the offices of Egypt's ruling party, has spread to a building next to the museum, which contains the world's most famous collection of ancient Egyptian antiquities.
A powerful explosion was also heard in the area.
Some reports that protestors are breaking off from the protests to protect the museum.
14 | davesax Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:03:56pm |
Saw Stewart and Springsteen at John's on Bleeker two weeks ago. They were with some young guys talking music. Probably a band interviewed on Stewart's show.
15 | Tigger2 Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:04:17pm |
re: #10 LudwigVanQuixote
"Think about it, if they are willing to lie, unblinking about making false claims they have made dozens of times a day, day in day out for years, that they themselves broadcast over and over, and they expect you not to notice, then what other lies do they tell?"
That's how propaganda and brainwashing works.
16 | Stanghazi Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:05:03pm |
re: #13 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Cairo fire threatens Egypt's national museum
Some reports that protestors are breaking off from the protests to protect the museum.
Al Jazeera "1000s of Egyptians form human-chain around Egypt Museum to protect it from looting" #Jan25 RT @SultanAlQassemi @gloriahere
17 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:05:49pm |
re: #15 Tigger2
"Think about it, if they are willing to lie, unblinking about making false claims they have made dozens of times a day, day in day out for years, that they themselves broadcast over and over, and they expect you not to notice, then what other lies do they tell?"
That's how propaganda and brainwashing works.
And that is one of the major points of comparison to the actual no-Godwin Nazis. My complaint about Stewart here and others is that they are not linking the remaining dots.
18 | Kragar Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:06:48pm |
19 | darthstar Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:06:59pm |
China shoots down Maverick, or Goose, or someone.
At least they didn't use clips from Tora! Tora! Tora!
20 | engineer cat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:07:21pm |
well, jonah goldberg has helpfully re-defined the word "nazi" so that every government that has ever existed in the history of the world would qualify. the republican party had already done the same thing with the word 'socialist'. so, i'm resigned to the idea that the entire world is a bunch of nazi socialists now, since all it takes, it seems, is to collect taxes and promulgate legislation
21 | Killgore Trout Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:07:42pm |
re: #13 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Cairo fire threatens Egypt's national museum
Some reports that protestors are breaking off from the protests to protect the museum.
That's good news.
The Al Jazeera coverage is focusing a lot on anti-American sentiment among the protesters. Let's hope that's not a sign of things to come.
22 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:07:50pm |
I would like to suggest a new TAG. In addition to the /SARC tag... a /NEWTONE tag.
I am not responding to the hate rhetoric that is addressed simply to the Right, but I really think it is uncalled for, and is only gasoline for a destructive fire, and not light to show anything.
23 | Kragar Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:08:55pm |
re: #21 Killgore Trout
That's good news.
The Al Jazeera coverage is focusing a lot on anti-American sentiment among the protesters. Let's hope that's not a sign of things to come.
They got their gimick, they'll run with it.
25 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:09:03pm |
re: #22 Buck
What on earth are you talking about?
Is this just more 'The amount of vile rhetoric is equal on both sides' bullshit?
26 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:09:34pm |
re: #22 Buck
I would like to suggest a new TAG. In addition to the /SARC tag... a /NEWTONE tag.
I am not responding to the hate rhetoric that is addressed simply to the Right, but I really think it is uncalled for, and is only gasoline for a destructive fire, and not light to show anything.
And the kneejerk defense of the indefensible comes from Buck right on time and without fail. You are fortunate I missed you defending Palin's Blood Libel crap. You sick bastards are ruining my nation. It is assholes like you who enable it and are too blind, arrogant and stupid to see it.
27 | Ericus58 Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:10:17pm |
re: #21 Killgore Trout
That's good news.
The Al Jazeera coverage is focusing a lot on anti-American sentiment among the protesters. Let's hope that's not a sign of things to come.
It's Al Jazeera. It's what I would expect them to do.
28 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:10:27pm |
re: #26 LudwigVanQuixote
And the kneejerk defense of the indefensible comes from Buck right on time and without fail. You are fortunate I missed you defending Palin's Blood Libel crap. You sick bastards are ruining my nation. It is assholes like you who enable it and are too blind, arrogant and stupid to see it.
Yep, there is a great example. Thanks.
29 | SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:11:08pm |
re: #10 LudwigVanQuixote
Just point something out. For some time, I have been railing abuot the ablity of the wingnuts to scream A for weeks or years and then pretend they were always shouting not A with equal fervor. They are willing to lie about the most obvious things that are utterly easily fact checked.
Think about it, if they are willing to lie, unblinking about making false claims they have made dozens of times a day, day in day out for years, that they themselves broadcast over and over, and they expect you not to notice, then what other lies do they tell?
It's like a man in a gorilla suit standing in front of you claiming he is not in a gorilla suit - and then asking you to trust him on things you can't verify instantly.
I was watching John Oliver's stand-up show last night, on Netflix. He comments that you could grab any Fox employee, and scream 'Be worse at your job!" at them, and they would be entitled to look right back at you and ask 'How?'
32 | lawhawk Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:12:25pm |
OT (Egypt):
#
2009: Reports suggest Egypt's army chief, Lt General Sami Hafez Enan, has cut short a visit to Washington - where he has been discussing defence issues with Pentagon officials - to return to Cairo.
33 | Talking Point Detective Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:13:08pm |
For O'Reilly's sake - I hope he drops it at this point.
34 | darthstar Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:13:17pm |
Heh...Biden was fucking with Boehner at the SOTU.
"The essence of what I was saying was: 'John we've got a lot of work to do'; 'Did you hear that? That's a good idea the president had right there.' Joking back and forth a little bit about how we had to make things work."It turns out that their conversation says a lot about their relationship. Biden described Boehner (R-Ohio) as a "good guy" and a "friend," although he joked with Boehner about that, too. "I was kidding John by saying: 'I hope this doesn't hurt you with your Republican friends knowing you and I are friends."
[Link: news.yahoo.com...]
35 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:13:21pm |
re: #28 Buck
Yep, there is a great example. Thanks.
Buck, you come here on this thread and try to defend these monsters, like you always do.
You are a sick, reprehensible bastard. After reading your blood libel crap, I will never give you a pass again when you try this shit.
36 | Alexzander Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:13:25pm |
I think there is new footage on AJ right now too..
37 | Killgore Trout Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:13:48pm |
Fatima the Kissing Bandit strikes again....
Image: 610x.jpg
38 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:14:29pm |
re: #29 SanFranciscoZionist
I was watching John Oliver's stand-up show last night, on Netflix. He comments that you could grab any Fox employee, and scream 'Be worse at your job!" at them, and they would be entitled to look right back at you and ask 'How?'
That is brilliant.
39 | simoom Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:14:42pm |
CNN Video iReport: Cairo Kasr Al Nile Bridge 3:30 pm
wileyh23 and her father are American tourists in Cairo. Her father shot this video from their hotel room along the main bridge into El Tahrir Square.'Initially we were just in awe of all of the people coming across the bridge towards the square, then it started to become more violent. There was a constant sound of police firing tear gas canisters, sirens, and sounds of people pulling signs and benches from the street to drag over to the police lines. It was frightening to see the police regroup and retreat and to see the protesters throw things at those vehicles. ...'
40 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:14:46pm |
re: #35 LudwigVanQuixote
Buck, you come here on this thread and try to defend these monsters, like you always do.
You are a sick, reprehensible bastard. After reading your blood libel crap, I will never give you a pass again when you try this shit.
And you are going straight to your happy place, making stuff up, and spewing insults and profanity.
41 | Lateralis Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:15:09pm |
re: #35 LudwigVanQuixote
Buck, you come here on this thread and try to defend these monsters, like you always do.
You are a sick, reprehensible bastard. After reading your blood libel crap, I will never give you a pass again when you try this shit.
Who exactly is a monster? Bill O'Rielly? Your kidding right?
42 | Decatur Deb Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:16:50pm |
re: #41 Lateralis
Who exactly is a monster? Bill O'Rielly? Your kidding right?
(They're talking about something else.)
43 | engineer cat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:17:00pm |
re: #22 Buck
I would like to suggest a new TAG. In addition to the /SARC tag... a /NEWTONE tag.
I am not responding to the hate rhetoric that is addressed simply to the Right, but I really think it is uncalled for, and is only gasoline for a destructive fire, and not light to show anything.
could you help out by admitting - just so that we "liberals" could breath a sigh of relief if nothing else - that progressivism and liberalism bear no resemblance to nazism, and that obama is not a socialist?
also, if you would like to tender some examples of inflammatory rhetoric from the left, i would be happy to consider it for repudiation
44 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:18:21pm |
re: #22 Buck
I would like to suggest a new TAG. In addition to the /SARC tag... a /NEWTONE tag.
I am not responding to the hate rhetoric that is addressed simply to the Right, but I really think it is uncalled for, and is only gasoline for a destructive fire, and not light to show anything.
And one other thing that fits with my earlier point about righties shouting A and then not A and expecting folks not to notice. You are always one of the first to dredge up some minor leftwing infraction whenever a wingnut gets caught being odious. Now that you have no such easy target you weep over rhetoric that correctly castigates you and demand folks play nice.
Well we are not going to fall for it.
45 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:19:05pm |
re: #43 engineer dog
could you help out by admitting - just so that we "liberals" could breath a sigh of relief if nothing else - that progressivism and liberalism bear no resemblance to nazism, and that obama is not a socialist?
Why should I do anything of the sort? How is that on topic?
also, if you would like to tender some examples of inflammatory rhetoric from the left, i would be happy to consider it for repudiation
Almost everything LVQ has posted in this thread.
46 | Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:19:34pm |
re: #19 darthstar
China shoots down Maverick, or Goose, or someone.
At least they didn't use clips from Tora! Tora! Tora!
I'm waiting for the Onion to have the article on China unleashing the world's first virtual jet fighter.
47 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:21:14pm |
re: #41 Lateralis
Who exactly is a monster? Bill O'Rielly? Your kidding right?
Of course O'Riley is a monster - or even worse, an amoral hack who knowingly shills for them.
48 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:22:48pm |
re: #22 Buck
I would like to suggest a new TAG. In addition to the /SARC tag... a /NEWTONE tag.
I am not responding to the hate rhetoric that is addressed simply to the Right, but I really think it is uncalled for, and is only gasoline for a destructive fire, and not light to show anything.
If you feel it is wrong/incorrect you owe it to us to stand up for what you believe and say why you feel it is wrong and incorrect.
Or do you feel it is factually fine but just not praised in the nicest most "political correct" way possible?
49 | engineer cat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:23:35pm |
re: #45 Buck
Why should I do anything of the sort? How is that on topic?
Almost everything LVQ has posted in this thread.
please be serious
jonah goldberg has published a very popular book where he equates liberalism with nazism
do you or don't you agree?
50 | Lateralis Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:25:11pm |
re: #47 LudwigVanQuixote
That is so over the top. Part of your problem is identifying who are real threats to this country. O'Rielly is much of a monster as Olbermann.
51 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:26:49pm |
re: #49 engineer dog
please be serious
jonah goldberg has published a very popular book where he equates liberalism with nazism
do you or don't you agree?
I am on record about how I feel about that.
It is my belief that the political spectrum does not sit on a line, but is actually on a circle. The political center is at the bottom of the circle, and different ideoligies can be placed left or right of that spot. With the extreme left and extreme right meeting at the top in crazyville. That is where they share many views and traits.
I don't think that it is ok to put Hitler squarely on the Left or Right. He had a lot in common with people like Mao, and Stalin certainly. But I would not easily lable him that way.
52 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:28:22pm |
re: #50 Lateralis
That is so over the top. Part of your problem is identifying who are real threats to this country. O'Rielly is much of a monster as Olbermann.
And what is over the top about it? The man is a propagandist shill for an immoral and evil movement, hell bent on destroying all the values that make this nation great. He is a shill against women's rights, a shill against the rights of the poor or those not white, a shill against science and an unredeemable liar. He does this to serve his corporate masters to the detriment of us all.
53 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:28:39pm |
re: #48 jamesfirecat
If you feel it is wrong/incorrect you owe it to us to stand up for what you believe and say why you feel it is wrong and incorrect.
Or do you feel it is factually fine but just not praised in the nicest most "political correct" way possible?
I think I did exactly that. "stand up for what you believe and say why you feel it is wrong and incorrect."
54 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:30:11pm |
re: #53 Buck
I think I did exactly that. "stand up for what you believe and say why you feel it is wrong and incorrect."
So just so we're clear your issue is with tone, or are their any facts you'd like to dispute?
55 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:30:22pm |
re: #53 Buck
I think I did exactly that. "stand up for what you believe and say why you feel it is wrong and incorrect."
Yes you are always quick to lie, obfuscate or whine like a baby when your rightwing heroes are shown to be the no-Godwin Nazi like thugs they are.
56 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:31:20pm |
unnre: #50 Lateralis
That is so over the top. Part of your problem is identifying who are real threats to this country. O'Rielly is much of a monster as Olbermann.
Your Tu Quoque needs work. At the moment only one of those two has a cable TV show from which to voice their opinions at the moment and it isn't Keith....
57 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:32:20pm |
re: #56 jamesfirecat
unn
Your Tu Quoque needs work. At the moment only one of those two has a cable TV show from which to voice their opinions at the moment and it isn't Keith...
And Keith doesn't lie nearly as much.
58 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:32:56pm |
re: #54 jamesfirecat
So just so we're clear your issue is with tone, or are their any facts you'd like to dispute?
Seriously James.... reread the posts I am talking about. They are one degree separated from a lot of Reginald Perrine posts. This person is not disputing facts, he is just unloading bile.
59 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:36:25pm |
re: #58 Buck
Seriously James... reread the posts I am talking about. They are one degree separated from a lot of Reginald Perrine posts. This person is not disputing facts, he is just unloading bile.
I feel that LVQ is not doing a very good job because he's falling into broad brush strokes rather than arguing particular events and facts.
Do you have any facts you'd like to argue at the moment because if not I'll just go focus my attention elsewhere...
60 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:39:31pm |
re: #59 jamesfirecat
I feel that LVQ is not doing a very good job because he's falling into broad brush strokes rather than arguing particular events and facts.
Do you have any facts you'd like to argue at the moment because if not I'll just go focus my attention elsewhere...
OK, if you wish.
Be is resolved that LVQ is posting hate rhetoric that is both uncalled for, and not constructive.
I will take the affimative.... Go.
61 | engineer cat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:39:37pm |
re: #51 Buck
I am on record about how I feel about that.
It is my belief that the political spectrum does not sit on a line, but is actually on a circle. The political center is at the bottom of the circle, and different ideoligies can be placed left or right of that spot. With the extreme left and extreme right meeting at the top in crazyville. That is where they share many views and traits.
I don't think that it is ok to put Hitler squarely on the Left or Right. He had a lot in common with people like Mao, and Stalin certainly. But I would not easily lable him that way.
i'll take that as a "no, i don't think that liberalism is nazism", and a "no, i don't think that obama is a socialist". ok?
i define nazism as an aggravated form of fascism, which i would define as an extreme form of authoritarian government which ruthlessly represses and denies its citizens freedom of speech, assembly, conscience, and due process under law
as for socialism, the strict definition is a form of economic organization where the government owns and operates all major industries. however, all governments in the world now have some form of government run pension schemes and health insurance arrangements, which can therefore be called 'socialized' to some extent
are we in agreement so far?
62 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:40:17pm |
re: #51 Buck
Any simplistic 2-dimensional rendering of the political 'spectrum', like that one, is incorrect. It is normally done in order to place sufficiently dangerous people outside of normal politics.
The problem is that such people really do arise inside normal politics. We're seeing it right now, with the right-wing assault on abortion rights, and on science.
Theocracy is neither on the 'right' or the 'left', it is not described by your simplistic spectrum. It is being propagated by the right, and the hateful, exclusionary rhetoric that is being used by the right is light-years, eons, tons more vitriolic and prevalent on the right-wing in the US than on the left.
63 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:42:01pm |
re: #61 engineer dog
i'll take that as a "no, i don't think that liberalism is nazism", and a "no, i don't think that obama is a socialist". ok?
i define nazism as an aggravated form of fascism, which i would define as an extreme form of authoritarian government which ruthlessly represses and denies its citizens freedom of speech, assembly, conscience, and due process under law
as for socialism, the strict definition is a form of economic organization where the government owns and operates all major industries. however, all governments in the world now have some form of government run pension schemes and health insurance arrangements, which can therefore be called 'socialized' to some extent
are we in agreement so far?
Sure why not. Except that I think you are going way off topic....
64 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:43:24pm |
re: #60 Buck
OK, if you wish.
Be is resolved that LVQ is posting hate rhetoric that is both uncalled for, and not constructive.
I will take the affimative... Go.
I will agree with your second premise that hate rhetoric is uncalled for and not constructive.
Your first that what LVQ is posting is hate rhetoric as opposed to possibly just being an ugly truth is an issue that needs to be addressed on a sentence by sentence basis of everything he has said.
65 | engineer cat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:43:32pm |
re: #60 Buck
OK, if you wish.
Be is resolved that LVQ is posting hate rhetoric that is both uncalled for, and not constructive.
I will take the affimative... Go.
be it resolved that fox news commentators, as well as rush limbaugh, ann coulter, and jonah golberg, frequently and egregiously make untrue which they know to be untrue, and aggravate these untruths by delivering them using inflammatory rhetoric that defames and denigrates
i'll take the affirmative, thank you
66 | engineer cat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:44:30pm |
re: #63 Buck
Sure why not. Except that I think you are going way off topic...
from the point of view of those of us in this country who consider themselves progressives, it would be exactly the topic
67 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:45:13pm |
re: #65 engineer dog
be it resolved that fox news commentators, as well as rush limbaugh, ann coulter, and jonah golberg, frequently and egregiously make untrue which they know to be untrue, and aggravate these untruths by delivering them using inflammatory rhetoric that defames and denigrates
i'll take the affirmative, thank you
Again, off topic. I am talking about here. I certainly don't support anyone doing what LVQ is doing. Not left, or right or tv personality or not.
68 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:45:26pm |
re: #58 Buck
Seriously James... reread the posts I am talking about. They are one degree separated from a lot of Reginald Perrine posts. This person is not disputing facts, he is just unloading bile.
And now you are the whiny victim of an unfair attack when the complaint against you has been clearly stated. Yes it is stated with bile Buck. YOu are standing up for the indefensible and you crossed the line way too many times before.
It is like clockwork with you people.
Do you want a martyr cookie?
69 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:46:15pm |
re: #67 Buck
The topic of the thread is not LVQ being mean to you.
The topic is the Nazi allegories of Bill O'Reilly.
You are the one trying to make it about LVQ and your victimhood.
70 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:46:46pm |
re: #64 jamesfirecat
I will agree with your second premise that hate rhetoric is uncalled for and not constructive.
Your first that what LVQ is posting is hate rhetoric as opposed to possibly just being an ugly truth is an issue that needs to be addressed on a sentence by sentence basis of everything he has said.
Nope, there is only one premise. Re read the resolution.
71 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:47:29pm |
re: #67 Buck
Again, off topic. I am talking about here. I certainly don't support anyone doing what LVQ is doing. Not left, or right or tv personality or not.
Of course you don't support me refusing to not call your scummy heroes evil. How the fuck could you defend Sarah's Blood Libel garbage?
72 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:48:07pm |
73 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:48:22pm |
By the way, I'd like to note that Buck has a filter set up to literally ignore my comments, because he doesn't like dealing with them.
So if anyone wonders why he's not responding to my points which are clearly showing the massive flaws in his rhetoric, it's because he prefers to ignore such things.
74 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:49:18pm |
re: #71 LudwigVanQuixote
Of course you don't support me refusing to not call your scummy heroes evil. How the fuck could you defend Sarah's Blood Libel garbage?
/newtone
75 | Interesting Times Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:50:11pm |
re: #73 Obdicut
By the way, I'd like to note that Buck has a filter set up to literally ignore my comments, because he doesn't like dealing with them.
So if anyone wonders why he's not responding to my points which are clearly showing the massive flaws in his rhetoric, it's because he prefers to ignore such things.
QFT (yet he still posts on your Pages...weird)
76 | CarleeCork Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:50:23pm |
re: #73 Obdicut
I did wonder, you have excellent observational skills.
77 | engineer cat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:50:23pm |
re: #67 Buck
Again, off topic. I am talking about here. I certainly don't support anyone doing what LVQ is doing. Not left, or right or tv personality or not.
you see, buck, here's the thing
we all progressives are flinging a lot of rhetoric against right wing commentators because we feel we have been buried in a bullshit storm of lies and absurdly unfair and inflammatory insults by them for many years now
if you want any sympathy for a few angry remarks, you're also going to have to address our concerns that put us in this pissed off state of mind in the first place
so, what i am talking about is exactly on topic
78 | Lateralis Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:50:29pm |
re: #65 engineer dog
be it resolved that fox news commentators, as well as rush limbaugh, ann coulter, and jonah golberg, frequently and egregiously make untrue which they know to be untrue, and aggravate these untruths by delivering them using inflammatory rhetoric that defames and denigrates
i'll take the affirmative, thank you
Individuals in media or politics on both sides speak untruths on a daily basis. This garbage of the right is doing a majority of it is a weak argument. You could take President Obama's speeches and identify intellectual dishonesty throughout. For example, when he talks about healthcare reform saving money he leaves out the fact that they left out the money they are going to have to pay to Medicare docs to make them whole. Is he a liar for spinning it that way. I would say yes but I am adult enough to know that politicians to this all the time because they know no one is going to hold them accountable.
79 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:50:45pm |
re: #70 Buck
Nope, there is only one premise. Re read the resolution.
Then my response would be that LVQ has made too many posts on this thread for me to make any reasonable statement concerning all of them being hate speech or note.
Find me a particular post of his you find especially egregious and I'll tell you what I view it as.
80 | engineer cat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:51:16pm |
re: #70 Buck
Nope, there is only one premise. Re read the resolution.
i'm sorry, you're not empowered to dictate the terms of debate
81 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:51:21pm |
Actually, I figured out a way to explain things to Buck even inside his simplistic spectrum idea:
Right now, in the USA, the GOP and those allied with them on the right have moved so far along in the political spectrum the are outside normal political discourse and are in the crazy portion of it.
The left has not. The left is still in the rational zone.
82 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:52:24pm |
re: #78 Lateralis
You could take President Obama's speeches and identify intellectual dishonesty throughout. For example, when he talks about healthcare reform saving money he leaves out the fact that they left out the money they are going to have to pay to Medicare docs to make them whole.
You mean the 'doc fix' that has to be passed regardless of health care reform?
Man, hypocrisy is a strong suit with you. you're literally using a lie about Obama to show that he's a liar. Weird.
83 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:53:11pm |
re: #76 CarleeCork
I did wonder, you have excellent observational skills.
Well Buck knows that he has bubkas when it comes to facts, and people here won't let him make up new ones. Obdi is very nice when he speaks, so Buck can't possibly address him and win. On the other hand, Buck can hope that when I point out the same things, but also call Buck out for being the wingnut sycophant he is, that he will get a sympathy vote.
Help help I'm being oppressed and all that.
84 | Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:53:31pm |
re: #81 Obdicut
Actually, I figured out a way to explain things to Buck even inside his simplistic spectrum idea:
Right now, in the USA, the GOP and those allied with them on the right have moved so far along in the political spectrum the are outside normal political discourse and are in the crazy portion of it.
The left has not. The left is still in the rational zone.
But by the rolling goalpost model of discussion the rationality spectrum is centered on the goalpost and moves along with it. Therefore, the GOP is still highly rational and the left has moved even further into irrationality.
85 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:54:02pm |
re: #82 Obdicut
You mean the 'doc fix' that has to be passed regardless of health care reform?
Man, hypocrisy is a strong suit with you. you're literally using a lie about Obama to show that he's a liar. Weird.
Disgusting but not weird. This is SOP with wingnuts. There is no truth but the parties truth and all that.
86 | engineer cat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:54:47pm |
re: #78 Lateralis
For example, when he talks about healthcare reform saving money he leaves out the fact that they left out the money they are going to have to pay to Medicare docs to make them whole. Is he a liar for spinning it that way.
this proposition, which you haven't proven, amounts to pretty weak tea when tallied up against the shitstorm of lies from fox, rush, etc, etc, etc
87 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:56:26pm |
re: #59 jamesfirecat
I feel that LVQ is not doing a very good job because he's falling into broad brush strokes rather than arguing particular events and facts.
If you read any of my essays ont eh rise of American Nazism and the parallels you will see that I have been up and down the topic with dozens of links and points of comparison. I am just tired of rewriting it all over and over.
88 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:56:51pm |
re: #83 LudwigVanQuixote
I'm actually not nice to Buck. He is one of a very, very few people who I can't muster more than contempt for in most of his positions. His defense of the use of blood libel by Palin, and his saying that he knew there would be 'assholes like you' who would attack her for it, cemented that for me.
89 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:58:00pm |
re: #88 Obdicut
I'm actually not nice to Buck. He is one of a very, very few people who I can't muster more than contempt for in most of his positions. His defense of the use of blood libel by Palin, and his saying that he knew there would be 'assholes like you' who would attack her for it, cemented that for me.
Ohh I missed that bit.
Well really good thing I was doing more important work than arguing with poor deluded Buck. He's delusional scum.
90 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:58:18pm |
re: #80 engineer dog
i'm sorry, you're not empowered to dictate the terms of debate
Actually that is exactly what James asked me to do.
91 | andres Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:01:46pm |
re: #86 engineer dog
this proposition, which you haven't proven, amounts to pretty weak tea when tallied up against the shitstorm of lies from fox, rush, etc, etc, etc
But, but... The power of the Magical Balance Fairy balance everything!!1
/ The "They do it too, Mom!" excuse didn't work on first grade. Why is it now a favorable tactic to use?
92 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:02:48pm |
re: #90 Buck
Actually that is exactly what James asked me to do.
Actually no, I set the terms that the debate had to be about facts, and I'm still waiting for a response to my #79....
93 | engineer cat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:03:11pm |
re: #90 Buck
Actually that is exactly what James asked me to do.
it seems to me that we are complaining about lies from national media sources, best selling authors, and prominent office holders, and you are complaining about lvq's tone
94 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:05:32pm |
re: #92 jamesfirecat
Actually no, I set the terms that the debate had to be about facts, and I'm still waiting for a response to my #79...
I really don't think you need me to point out the hateful, non-constructive, rhetoric in LVQ's posts. If you really need me to list them, then you are not really willing to have this discussion.
95 | engineer cat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:05:47pm |
re: #86 engineer dog
this proposition, which you haven't proven, amounts to pretty weak tea when tallied up against the shitstorm of lies from fox, rush, etc, etc, etc
i would like to take this opportunity to revise and extend my above remarks with this:
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...
96 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:06:18pm |
re: #93 engineer dog
it seems to me that we are complaining about lies from national media sources, best selling authors, and prominent office holders, and you are complaining about lvq's tone
Complaining, or pointing out...
97 | Lateralis Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:07:45pm |
re: #82 Obdicut
You mean the 'doc fix' that has to be passed regardless of health care reform?
Man, hypocrisy is a strong suit with you. you're literally using a lie about Obama to show that he's a liar. Weird.
That is one way to spin it. So if he was being intellectually honest should he not include that in his projections? Doc fix is part of health care so how do you not include those numbers when you are trying to sell a program to the public. Oh wait, that is because politicians (right or left) always use smoke and mirrors to put the best face on what they are trying to sell to the public.
98 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:08:32pm |
Oh and one other thing for the record.
To all wingnuts, here and elsewhere:
I absolutely admit and understand that the way I made my argument about the Fox "news" women used utterly inappropriate language. Mea culpa. No sarcasm.
However, my premise still stands. Those women certainly are part of a sleazy propaganda campaign and they are certainly using their bodies to sell it. I still find that disgusting, and no, I am not ashamed or embarrassed by having said so.
So any attempts to shame me for the view - even if I expressed it terribly - will not work. They are just the feminine side to the sickness that the boys like Rush and Beck and O'Riley represent.
99 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:09:33pm |
re: #97 Lateralis
Doc fix is part of health care so how do you not include those numbers when you are trying to sell a program to the public.
Because it's not part of the health care reform. It's just something we have to do regardless of whether or not health care reform was passed. So it's actually dishonest of you, and the GOP, to argue that it's costs are part of health care reform. It's like suddenly trying to charge the whole VA budget as part of health care reform.
100 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:09:39pm |
re: #94 Buck
I really don't think you need me to point out the hateful, non-constructive, rhetoric in LVQ's posts. If you really need me to list them, then you are not really willing to have this discussion.
Sorry LVQ has done too many posts for me to judge them all with a broad brush.
If he's done so much that is wrong it should be easy for you to find an example for me....
101 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:09:54pm |
re: #94 Buck
I really don't think you need me to point out the hateful, non-constructive, rhetoric in LVQ's posts. If you really need me to list them, then you are not really willing to have this discussion.
Actually Buck we are pointing out the hateful, non constructive and evil rhetoric of your heroes that you came to defend. So sorry this isn't about me.
102 | Interesting Times Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:10:20pm |
How ironic, when Jon Stewart himself pointed out in the above video how dumb it is to equate comments from a random blog poster to issues of national importance (like, say, the GOP's vicious policies against rape victims).
How telling a certain right-wing apologist here is metaphorically flapping his arms, saying, look, look, a mean blog commenter, pay no attention to actual GOP actions!
103 | engineer cat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:10:37pm |
re: #96 Buck
Complaining, or pointing out...
we get the point that your feelings were hurt by lvq's tone. ok?
now perhaps we could move on to acknowledging that the right wing movement has been attempting to bury the progressive and liberal wings of american society under an avalanche of lies and distortions?
104 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:11:54pm |
Gotta get ready for Shabbos. Be well all!
105 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:12:24pm |
re: #103 engineer dog
we get the point that your feelings were hurt by lvq's tone. ok?
now perhaps we could move on to acknowledging that the right wing movement has been attempting to bury the progressive and liberal wings of american society under an avalanche of lies and distortions?
Actually, you don't get my point. I don't remember talking about my feelings.
106 | webevintage Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:12:49pm |
re: #22 Buck
I would like to suggest a new TAG. In addition to the /SARC tag... a /NEWTONE tag.
I am not responding to the hate rhetoric that is addressed simply to the Right, but I really think it is uncalled for, and is only gasoline for a destructive fire, and not light to show anything.
So if I call Republicans fucking bastards for not focusing on jobs, but instead focusing on redefining what is rape you won't respond to tell me how they really are just trying to help women and the bill actually is all about jobs?
Just checking......
107 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:13:58pm |
re: #106 webevintage
So if I call Republicans fucking bastards for not focusing on jobs, but instead focusing on redefining what is rape you won't respond to tell me how they really are just trying to help women and the bill actually is all about jobs?
Just checking...
All republicans are redefining what rape is?
Just checking.
108 | Lateralis Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:14:04pm |
re: #95 engineer dog
i would like to take this opportunity to revise and extend my above remarks with this:
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...
So naive. re: #99 Obdicut
Medicare is a huge part of health care reform and not to include the doc fix as part of the budget is complete bs and typical politics.
109 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:14:50pm |
re: #107 Buck
All republicans are redefining what rape is?
Just checking.
NO just the ones in power. Seriously Buck, you are such a tool.
111 | engineer cat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:16:07pm |
re: #105 Buck
Actually, you don't get my point. I don't remember talking about my feelings.
you know, buck, i'm a little slow, so i'm only figuring this out now:
we thought you wanted to have a rational debate on the state of overheated rhetoric in american politics, but it seems that in reality you just want to complain about lvq and talk about nothing else
at least that's how i interpret it since that is the only issue you seem to want to discuss
112 | webevintage Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:16:18pm |
re: #107 Buck
All republicans are redefining what rape is?
Just checking.
Damn.
I thought you wouldn't respond.
113 | engineer cat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:16:44pm |
114 | webevintage Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:17:19pm |
re: #107 Buck
All republicans are redefining what rape is?
Just checking.
So if I call Republicans IN THE HOUSE fucking bastards for not focusing on jobs, but instead focusing on redefining what is rape you won't respond to tell me how they really are just trying to help women and the bill actually is all about jobs?
Just checking...
115 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:18:27pm |
re: #107 Buck
All republicans are redefining what rape is?
Just checking.
The majority of elected republicans in the House are.
116 | engineer cat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:19:51pm |
re: #108 Lateralis
So naive. re: #99 Obdicut
Medicare is a huge part of health care reform and not to include the doc fix as part of the budget is complete bs and typical politics.
i should only hope for there to be just the typical bs and typical politics!
the discussion was, i thought, about incredibly inflammatory rhetoric such as declaring entire major segments of american society to be nazis and suchlike
117 | Lateralis Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:20:24pm |
re: #114 webevintage
So if I call Republicans IN THE HOUSE fucking bastards for not focusing on jobs, but instead focusing on redefining what is rape you won't respond to tell me how they really are just trying to help women and the bill actually is all about jobs?
Just checking...
I don't agree about the redefining of rape but is that all they are doing in the House?
118 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:21:05pm |
re: #117 Lateralis
I don't agree about the redefining of rape but is that all they are doing in the House?
Have they done anything in the house that doesn't count as political grandstanding, and if so, what?
119 | Lateralis Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:23:38pm |
re: #116 engineer dog
i should only hope for there to be just the typical bs and typical politics!
the discussion was, i thought, about incredibly inflammatory rhetoric such as declaring entire major segments of american society to be nazis and suchlike
I believe untruths was part of the discussion along with inflammatory rhetoric.
120 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:25:44pm |
re: #119 Lateralis
I believe untruths was part of the discussion along with inflammatory rhetoric.
Speaking of untruths, what do you have to say in response to Obdicut's #99 because clearly one of the two of you is lieing at the moment...
121 | andres Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:26:59pm |
re: #115 Obdicut
The majority of elected republicans in the House are.
I can only imagine Buck's next response: Is it a simple majority, or a super majority?
re: #117 Lateralis
I don't agree about the redefining of rape but is that all they are doing in the House?
What have been the great projects from the new House Congress?
1) Repeal the so called "Obamacare".
2) Representatives from non-state territories lost their ability to vote (which they gained with the 2006 House Congress).
3) Redefine rape.
None of this involve their campaign promises of creating more jobs, reducing taxes, and reducing the deficit.
122 | Lateralis Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:28:38pm |
re: #121 andres
I do think that one of their campaign promises was to repeal Obamacare.
123 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:28:56pm |
re: #121 andres
I can only imagine Buck's next response: Is it a simple majority, or a super majority?
re: #117 Lateralis
What have been the great projects from the new House Congress?
1) Repeal the so called "Obamacare".
2) Representatives from non-state territories lost their ability to vote (which they gained with the 2006 House Congress).
3) Redefine rape.None of this involve their campaign promises of creating more jobs, reducing taxes, and reducing the deficit.
///I'm pretty damn sure that they did include getting rid of Obamacare as a campaign promise......
124 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:29:29pm |
re: #122 Lateralis
I do think that one of their campaign promises was to repeal Obamacare.
Of course the way they went about doing it is empty political grand standing, don't you agree?
125 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:29:46pm |
re: #122 Lateralis
Yep. But doing so adds to the deficit, and kills jobs.
126 | CarleeCork Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:30:21pm |
127 | engineer cat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:30:58pm |
re: #119 Lateralis
I believe untruths was part of the discussion along with inflammatory rhetoric.
and i responded that a dispute you have over the scoring of savings and spending in regard to whether the doc fix should be included amounts to a pretty small issue when compared to publishing best selling books purporting to "prove" that liberalism is the same as nazism
that is the scale of lying that concerns me - do you have any complaints about lying from the democratic side of the aisle to compare with that?
128 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:31:00pm |
re: #114 webevintage
So if I call Republicans IN THE HOUSE fucking bastards for not focusing on jobs, but instead focusing on redefining what is rape you won't respond to tell me how they really are just trying to help women and the bill actually is all about jobs?
Just checking...
Just to be clear, I don't believe there are different stages of rape. Rape is forcible by definition.
–noun
1. an act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
2. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
I am not sure that adding that word is really changing the definition of rape, AND I consider the addition of that word forcible unnecessary. AND I certainly don't think this is about jobs.
BUT I do think that trying to link this to jobs legislation when it clearly is not is not constructive. Dehumanizing and demonizing people based on the addition of that word is not constructive. We don't know the final version of the bill. It just might have been added to emphasize the brutality of the act of rape. There is nothing in the bill that addresses non-forceable rape.
You might note that the swearing, and insults are not necessary, and a discussion can take place without it. That is what I prefer.
129 | Lateralis Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:31:43pm |
re: #120 jamesfirecat
You tell me. If you are selling health care reform I would think if you are being intellectual honest about a key component, Medicare, you would include the doc fix. But that is not how Washington works, it is a shell game with our money that they treat as their own monopoly money.
130 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:32:51pm |
re: #128 Buck
Just to be clear, I don't believe there are different stages of rape. Rape is forcible by definition.
I am not sure that adding that word is really changing the definition of rape, AND I consider the addition of that word forcible unnecessary. AND I certainly don't think this is about jobs.
BUT I do think that trying to link this to jobs legislation when it clearly is not is not constructive. Dehumanizing and demonizing people based on the addition of that word is not constructive. We don't know the final version of the bill. It just might have been added to emphasize the brutality of the act of rape. There is nothing in the bill that addresses non-forceable rape.
You might note that the swearing, and insults are not necessary, and a discussion can take place without it. That is what I prefer.
Here's what it breaks down to Buck.
Do you have a problem with the government putting money forward to paying for abortions of girls who suffered statutory rape or women who were date rapped?
131 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:33:55pm |
re: #129 Lateralis
You tell me. If you are selling health care reform I would think if you are being intellectual honest about a key component, Medicare, you would include the doc fix. But that is not how Washington works, it is a shell game with our money that they treat as their own monopoly money.
Well since I'm a little slow, how about you tell me exactly what this "doc fix" is since you're so interested in my opinion....
132 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:34:08pm |
re: #128 Buck
Holy shit that's lame.
The entire point of putting the 'forcible rape' part in there was specifically to exclude some forms of rape, and yet you're defending them. This is a bill specifically changing existing law. It is not a case of 'they just didn't put it in yet'.
Every time I think you can't be more appalling, you are.
133 | Lateralis Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:34:12pm |
re: #125 Obdicut
You mean the jobs that were just cut by one of the pharmaceutical companies because of the increase cost of Medicare contracts. I don't argue that their needs to be health care reform but even by calling it health care reform is a half truth. A huge component of health care reform is a simple and costly expansion of health care.
134 | andres Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:34:38pm |
re: #122 Lateralis
I do think that one of their campaign promises was to repeal Obamacare.
Of course. But it runs against another of their campaign promises, reducing the deficit. Not that symbolic logic is necessary for politicians.
135 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:35:41pm |
re: #133 Lateralis
How is it an expansion of health care, please?
136 | andres Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:36:01pm |
re: #132 Obdicut
Holy shit that's lame.
The entire point of putting the 'forcible rape' part in there was specifically to exclude some forms of rape, and yet you're defending them. This is a bill specifically changing existing law. It is not a case of 'they just didn't put it in yet'.
Every time I think you can't be more appalling, you are.
And they are changing the law, not the dictionary. How many everyday words have a very different, or limited meaning when speaking legally.
137 | webevintage Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:36:22pm |
re: #128 Buck
You might note that the swearing, and insults are not necessary, and a discussion can take place without it. That is what I prefer.
and I happen to find fuck to be one of the most useful words in the English language so it would seem we part ways here never to correspond via this message board again.
138 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:36:37pm |
re: #130 jamesfirecat
Here's what it breaks down to Buck.
Do you have a problem with the government putting money forward to paying for abortions of girls who suffered statutory rape or women who were date rapped?
I do not. And I don't think the bill in question does either. I feel that a court would define all rape as forcible, if it were to come to that.
‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--
‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
1
‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
139 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:37:24pm |
re: #138 Buck
Why do you think that all rape is forcible, including rapes where force isn't used?
Oh right, you need to at least pretend to believe this so you can defend the GOP.
140 | Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:37:47pm |
re: #138 Buck
I do not. And I don't think the bill in question does either. I feel that a court would define all rape as forcible, if it were to come to that.
Buck counts on a activist judge stepping in and preventing any injustice from occurring...
141 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:37:51pm |
re: #138 Buck
I do not. And I don't think the bill in question does either. I feel that a court would define all rape as forcible, if it were to come to that.
If they don't feel it makes a difference why do they feel a need to add in the word "foreceable" in the first place?
Guess the GOP is just wasting the tax payers money then....
142 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:39:06pm |
re: #141 jamesfirecat
If they don't feel it makes a difference why do they feel a need to add in the word "foreceable" in the first place?
Guess the GOP is just wasting the tax payers money then...
We will see if the word is in the final bill or not. I don't think it will be. I do not think that it was placed there to leag
143 | Lateralis Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:39:11pm |
re: #131 jamesfirecat
The formula for medicare reimbursement is way to low so they are going to have to adjust it to increase the payments to docs. If it stays as is physicians will drop coverage. The argument is that it needed to be done regardless so it should not be factored in as healthcare reform.
144 | andres Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:39:17pm |
re: #133 Lateralis
You mean the jobs that were just cut by one of the pharmaceutical companies because of the increase cost of Medicare contracts. I don't argue that their needs to be health care reform but even by calling it health care reform is a half truth. A huge component of health care reform is a simple and costly expansion of health care.
Take a look at this Daily Show video. It's rather fascinating where the "lost jobs due to Obamacare" meme comes from.
145 | Lateralis Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:40:10pm |
re: #144 andres
Its not a meme. Look at healthcare news from yesterday.
147 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:41:16pm |
re: #142 Buck
We will see if the word is in the final bill or not. I don't think it will be. I do not think that it was placed there to leag
"We will see if the word is in the final bill or not. I don't think it will be. I do not think that it was placed there to leag"
You got cut off there my friend.
But the point still stands... if they aren't trying to change the definition then why change the wording?
148 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:45:18pm |
re: #147 jamesfirecat
"We will see if the word is in the final bill or not. I don't think it will be. I do not think that it was placed there to leag"
You got cut off there my friend.
But the point still stands... if they aren't trying to change the definition then why change the wording?
I did get cut off, I don't know why.
They might have been trying to emphasize the brutality of rape.
I actually find the concept that there is any kind of rape that is not forced to be offensive. Rape by definition is forced.
149 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:47:09pm |
re: #148 Buck
I did get cut off, I don't know why.
They might have been trying to emphasize the brutality of rape.
I actually find the concept that there is any kind of rape that is not forced to be offensive. Rape by definition is forced.
They weren't trying to emphasize the brutality of rape. They were trying to chip away at abortion rights. It's what they do. You know this.
There are many members of the GOP on record as opposing the right for abortion for all rape victims, anyway.
The lengths you'll go to avoid condemning anything done by the GOP is fucking amazing.
150 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:48:42pm |
re: #143 Lateralis
The formula for medicare reimbursement is way to low so they are going to have to adjust it to increase the payments to docs. If it stays as is physicians will drop coverage. The argument is that it needed to be done regardless so it should not be factored in as healthcare reform.
Sounds reasonable to me. Obama care is a package and this falls outside that package.
151 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:49:37pm |
Can anyone find the legislation that is in place now? I don't actually know that the word was added.
152 | andres Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:51:19pm |
re: #145 Lateralis
Its not a meme. Look at healthcare news from yesterday.
It's a meme when the battle cry is a phrase taken out of context.
re: #146 Buck
I can't see the video, it wont play in canada. Does it address the issue of why companies are asking for waivers?
The "lost jobs because of Obamacare" meme comes from an study of the bill where it states that, thanks to the health care reform bill passed in Congress last year, more people can retire early instead of staying on their jobs for health care benefits waiting for Medicare. As you can see, the Republicans took the statement of the study, and morphed it into the "job-killing" meme.
153 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:54:51pm |
re: #152 andres
The "lost jobs because of Obamacare" meme comes from an study of the bill where it states that, thanks to the health care reform bill passed in Congress last year, more people can retire early instead of staying on their jobs for health care benefits waiting for Medicare. As you can see, the Republicans took the statement of the study, and morphed it into the "job-killing" meme.
I don't think you answered my question. A huge number of businesses and unions are asking for a waiver from complying with this legislation. I think it is due to the costs. If the costs are too high (per employee) then yes, it could be said that adding this cost would make companies think twice about hiring, and therefore it would "kill Jobs".
154 | MinisterO Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:59:10pm |
Tone troll dances with magical balance fairy. How delightfully unexpected.
155 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 1:59:36pm |
re: #130 jamesfirecat
Here's what it breaks down to Buck.
Do you have a problem with the government putting money forward to paying for abortions of girls who suffered statutory rape or women who were date rapped?
The Bill specifically covers minors (statutory rape), and how would anyone be able to describe date rape as not forced?
I seriously don't understand.
156 | Lateralis Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:00:10pm |
re: #150 jamesfirecat
Healthcare reform is supposed to decrease the cost of healthcare. Correct? That projection is made by excluding the doc fix. How is that reasonable? It's like me selling you are car on the basis that is 8,000 cheaper than the model you were going to buy, but the fine print tells you that in a year you are going to have to pay an additional 10,000. Not cheaper. It is exactly why our budget deficits continue to rise. Is that reasonable?
157 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:00:11pm |
re: #155 Buck
The Bill specifically covers minors (statutory rape), and how would anyone be able to describe date rape as not forced?
I seriously don't understand.
The bill specifically does NOT cover minors.
158 | Lateralis Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:02:23pm |
re: #152 andres
Whatever you want to call it, there will be lost jobs because of Obamacare and it is already starting.
159 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:03:48pm |
H.R.3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
[Link: www.opencongress.org...]
‘SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
1
‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--
3
‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
1
‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
The word minor emphasis by me. Also note that the section is titled "TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER." No use of the word forcable.
160 | MinisterO Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:04:26pm |
re: #156 Lateralis
Healthcare reform is supposed to decrease the cost of healthcare. Correct? That projection is made by excluding the doc fix. How is that reasonable? It's like me selling you are car on the basis that is 8,000 cheaper than the model you were going to buy, but the fine print tells you that in a year you are going to have to pay an additional 10,000. Not cheaper. It is exactly why our budget deficits continue to rise. Is that reasonable?
Fantastic display of innumeracy. If you're going to pay X whether or not you take action A, then X is not part of the cost of A.
161 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:07:51pm |
In fact it reads to me to cover ALL acts of rape (as there are no unforced rapes) all Incest, and all minors. Plus preserving the life of the mother.
162 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:12:27pm |
re: #161 Buck
You just can't read, because you don't want to.
if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest;
If the pregnancy occurred if the child was a minor and it was incest.
163 | andres Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:13:52pm |
re: #153 Buck
I don't think you answered my question. A huge number of businesses and unions are asking for a waiver from complying with this legislation. I think it is due to the costs. If the costs are too high (per employee) then yes, it could be said that adding this cost would make companies think twice about hiring, and therefore it would "kill Jobs".
I won't answer your question because your purpose is to derail my point.
However, just as we are supposed to find comparable examples of left wing rethoric, you are free to answer your own question. Hint: it's not about losing jobs.
164 | Lateralis Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:14:23pm |
re: #159 Buck
re: #160 MinisterO
I understand the numbers. The problem is that the apologist for Obama are giving him a pass. If you are not reforming healthcare should not look at the overall cost of healthcare. What is the bottom line cost? The reality is that with his "reforms" the overall cost is going to be more.
165 | Coracle Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:14:51pm |
re: #161 Buck
In fact it reads to me to cover ALL acts of rape (as there are no unforced rapes) all Incest, and all minors. Plus preserving the life of the mother.
Hogwash. The inclusion of the adjective "forced" in the language of the bill invites differentiation. It invites people to claim "well that case wasn't 'forced' rape". To pretend that won't happen very quickly after such a law passed is disingenuous.
166 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:15:36pm |
Now it is time for me to leave to go home. So, I will only add this:
I am very Pro Choice. I, of course, would prefer that the woman choose life, but I would not to place any impediment on her right to choose. The only exception I have on that is very late term abortions, like the ones we read about in Philadelphia recently.
Frankly in the third term, there should be some rules. I don't think it should be NEVER in the third term, but I do feel there needs to be some laws in place that protects the womans health and welfare, and the babies life.
167 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:16:22pm |
re: #166 Buck
Then why are you spending so much time defending the GOP's latest assault on abortion rights?
What you say you believe in, and what you actually defend, are diametrically opposed to each other.
168 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:20:28pm |
re: #165 Coracle
Hogwash. The inclusion of the adjective "forced" in the language of the bill invites differentiation. It invites people to claim "well that case wasn't 'forced' rape". To pretend that won't happen very quickly after such a law passed is disingenuous.
Well that is your opinion. Mine is different and is based on actually reading the bill. I would like to read the bill that is existing to see if the word was added.
However, as it is not in the Section title, AND the definition of rape does not include non-forced, AND as no one has been able to give an example of rape that would not be classified as forced. Also the use of commas in the line is clear to show that it would include all incest, all minors and all rape. (plus the health of the mother).
Again, based on actually reading the bill as it is now.
169 | Naem Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:20:38pm |
re: #159 Buck
3
‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
1
emphasis, the English language. Certainly enough wiggle room at any rate for a suitably motivated lawyer to lock a court case up beyond the time when the legality moves from early to late-term abortions, which are illegal.
170 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:22:43pm |
re: #168 Buck
AND as no one has been able to give an example of rape that would not be classified as forced
You've just ingored all of them.
Coercion without force. Taking advantage of an intoxicated girl. A girl saying 'no' but not physically resisting.
Also the use of commas in the line is clear to show that it would include all incest, all minors and all rape. (plus the health of the mother).
Nope. It would include minors in cases of incest, but not otherwise. You just can't read, because you don't want to admit what the GOP has become.
It's sad.
171 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:24:32pm |
re: #169 Naem
3
‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
1emphasis, the English language. Certainly enough wiggle room at any rate for a suitably motivated lawyer to lock a court case up beyond the time when the legality moves from early to late-term abortions, which are illegal.
Well neither of us are lawyers, so I will just say we are clearly reading the same sentence very differently. If they meant minors ONLY in the case of incest, I think they would no either NOT placed a comma there, or added the word AND.
The word OR means to me something different that you I suppose.
172 | Naem Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:25:32pm |
re: #171 Buck
Well neither of us are lawyers, so I will just say we are clearly reading the same sentence very differently. If they meant minors ONLY in the case of incest, I think they would no either NOT placed a comma there, or added the word AND.
The word OR means to me something different that you I suppose.
try saying it out loud. without chocking, of course.
173 | Coracle Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:25:40pm |
re: #168 Buck
Well that is your opinion. Mine is different and is based on actually reading the bill. I would like to read the bill that is existing to see if the word was added.
However, as it is not in the Section title, AND the definition of rape does not include non-forced, AND as no one has been able to give an example of rape that would not be classified as forced. Also the use of commas in the line is clear to show that it would include all incest, all minors and all rape. (plus the health of the mother).
Again, based on actually reading the bill as it is now.
Tuppence for trying. I read it, too. And you should damn well know that what you or I read from it doesn't matter, but what an alleged rapist's defense lawyer reads into it will. And you had damn well better know that a shrewd defense lawyer will use every legal and linguistic arrow in his quiver to help his client. Why hand him one so frivolusly and foolishly?
174 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:27:24pm |
re: #171 Buck
Here is the actual diagram of the sentence-- which you won't see, since you ignore my posts.
‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of (an act of forcible rape)-- or, (if a minor, an act of incest); or
Those are two separate conditions. Subject of an act of forcible rape. Subject of an act of incest while a minor.
175 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:27:28pm |
re: #173 Coracle
Tuppence for trying. I read it, too. And you should damn well know that what you or I read from it doesn't matter, but what an alleged rapist's defense lawyer reads into it will. And you had damn well better know that a shrewd defense lawyer will use every legal and linguistic arrow in his quiver to help his client. Why hand him one so frivolusly and foolishly?
The rapist has nothing to do with this. It is only to decide if the abortion would be paid for by the health care act. There is no defense lawyer here. It is not about convicting a rapist.
176 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:29:27pm |
and anyway, legally ALL sex with a minor is rape, and yes forceable rape. As no one is saying that minors can consent, and ANY TIME YOU DON'T CONSENT TO SEX, it is rape. Period.
177 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 2:31:48pm |
re: #176 Buck
and anyway, legally ALL sex with a minor is rape, and yes forceable rape. .
Nope. There isn't a legal definition of 'forceable rape' in most states. That's the whole point. But of course, you won't bother to read the article, the only important thing to you is defending the GOP.
178 | Mark Winter Fri, Jan 28, 2011 3:06:21pm |
The term "forceable rape" is nonsense. Rape is about non-consent and nothing else.
It doesn't really matter whether a woman is raped by physically overpowering her, holding a gun to her head, blackmailing her, threatening her or drugging her. It's rape if she does not consent to sex.
179 | William of Orange Fri, Jan 28, 2011 3:57:00pm |
Tech question here.
Is anyone else having problems watching the Comedy Central videos? I live in the Netherlands and the clips as of this week seem to be as slow as molasses, buffering 2 seconds at the time. Terribly annoying since I'm a fan of the show. I hope my US connection doesn't run via an Egyptian server, but that would at least clarify the problem....
180 | Coracle Fri, Jan 28, 2011 4:37:19pm |
re: #175 Buck
The rapist has nothing to do with this. It is only to decide if the abortion would be paid for by the health care act. There is no defense lawyer here. It is not about convicting a rapist.
if you think that this law would not be used in a rape defense case, you're delusional. Denial of care based on absence of 'forcible' rape would absolutely be used in defense of an accused.
181 | Buck Fri, Jan 28, 2011 5:41:10pm |
re: #178 Mark Winter
The term "forceable rape" is nonsense. Rape is about non-consent and nothing else.
It doesn't really matter whether a woman is raped by physically overpowering her, holding a gun to her head, blackmailing her, threatening her or drugging her. It's rape if she does not consent to sex.
That is what I am saying. Only I get downdings, and you get updings.
182 | Obdicut Fri, Jan 28, 2011 5:42:05pm |
re: #181 Buck
That is what I am saying. Only I get downdings, and you get updings.
Because you're trying to claim that a sentence that clearly is pretending there's a distinction between forcible rape and other forms, doesn't really say that. So that you can keep defending the GOP.
183 | Decider Fri, Jan 28, 2011 6:20:58pm |
foxnation.com is no different than stormfront. If someone just dropped you in either website without knowing the URL you would not be able to tell the difference.