ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [226] -- Convention Talking Points

[ Posted Friday, September 14th, 2012 – 15:22 PDT ]

OK, I've got a few short things to say up front here, and then we'll get right to a special edition of the talking points.

The first thing worth mentioning is that I'm still running a week behind schedule, due to getting ill at the Democratic National Convention last week. This column, by all rights, really should have run a week ago. Instead, there was no Friday Talking Points column at all, for which we apologize.

The second item of note is that today marks the fifth "birthday" of this column series. September 14, 2007 saw the very first Friday Talking Points column ever (although the name and the column format wouldn't solidify for a few months). Since then, almost every Friday, we've been attempting to provide Democratic talking points for politicians to use to get their point across in a snappy and memorable fashion. How much success we've had doing so is open to interpretation, but we're still here doing it, which tends to indicate that Democrats still have a ways to go to match the Republican ability to keep "on script" during interviews. To put this another way, it's the old Democratic "herding cats" problem.

Finally, before we get to our review of the best talking points from the Democratic National Convention which you may have missed, we do have to apologize for ignoring the main news story of the week, coming out of the Middle East. We could say that we're setting an example for politicians (...cough, cough, Mitt Romney, cough...) to wait a decent amount of time before going off half-cocked on a developing situation, but instead we are just way behind on keeping up with the news, so we're going to resist the urge to "spin" our own backlog into some sort of noble stand. The only thing to say at this point is: defending free speech is easy when everyone agrees with the speech -- it's defending odious and reprehensible speech that is always the harder path. More on this subject next week.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Since we had a hiatus last week, the MIDOTW award really covers the past two weeks this time around.

With that criteria, there is only one possible choice. While Barack Obama gave a good speech during his nominating convention, one man surpassed him in both style and substance. Which is why former president Bill Clinton wins the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week, hands down.

Clinton's speech was masterful, and he does indeed deserve recognition (as Obama later joked) as the "Secretary of Explaining Stuff." No Democrat does a better job of taking complicated issues and stripping them down to their core -- in language just about everyone can relate to. Bill Clinton spoke for almost an hour, and in that time period he devastatingly eviscerated pretty much every Republican talking point from the past four years or so. Item by item, Clinton went through the GOP's agenda and explained to the American people why it was not only wrong but downright ridiculous.

His best line of the night was an explanation I've been long waiting for Democrats to make -- how "arithmetic" is the main reason why the Republican Party is so wrongheaded about their budgetary choices. The GOP's plans just don't add up, and it took Bill Clinton to make this "Emperor is actually stark naked" point so simply that everyone "got it" immediately. Look for the word "arithmetic" to figure prominently in Democratic talking points for the next decade or so -- that's my guess, anyway.

Any Democratic candidate for office who is having trouble with Republican attack ads now has the perfect blueprint to counter them. All they have to do is examine Clinton's speech with a microscope, and it will point the direction to logically undermining the Republican nonsense. Bill Clinton, once again, showed everyone else how this sort of thing is done, in a virtuoso performance. The "Big Dog" owned the stage that night, and he was undoubtedly the best speaker of the entire convention.

I know that Bill Clinton's signature campaign song was "Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)" but by the end of his speech, the 1970s song running through my mind was "Nobody Does It Better," I have to say.

For his performance, Bill Clinton is easily the right choice for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate President Bill Clinton on his namesake foundation's contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

We have two very minor Democrats who earned Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week awards this week, neither of them from the convention. While some speeches did fall a little flat, there were no real disappointments from the convention to report, we are happy to say.

Outside the hall, however, two Democrats more than earned MDDOTW awards. The first was Wendy Rosen, who up until this week had been running for a House seat in Maryland. The problem being, Rosen had voted -- in 2006 and in 2008 -- both in Maryland and in Florida in the same election.

Now, it goes without saying that during the current atmosphere surrounding "voter fraud" over on the right, Democrats should not be adding fuel to the fire. Especially Democrats who are running for Congress, one might add. Rosen has dropped out of the race, but it is too late to take her name off the ballot. While she did the right thing by withdrawing, she most definitely did the wrong thing by double-voting. Which is why she still earns her Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

Next up is a story that is downright reprehensible and disgusting. Baltimore County delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. decided to take it upon himself to dictate to the Baltimore Ravens football team what their players could and couldn't say in public -- on the subject of gay marriage. You would think, at first glance, that this is a story about the Democrat complaining of some odious and homophobic thing some football player said, but you would be wrong. In fact, the football player was speaking out for gay marriage (which will be on the ballot in Maryland this year), and the Democrat was trying to threaten the team into silencing him. Yes, you read that right.

From the text of the letter Burns wrote: "I am requesting you take the necessary action, as a National Football Franchise Owner, to inhibit such expressions from your employee and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions." Unbelievable.

Not only did the team step up and do the right thing, issuing a statement that they supported the player's right "to freedom of speech under the First Amendment," but others from the football world chimed in as well. The most colorful of these responses was from Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, who wrote a letter in response which is an absolute masterpiece of creative (and very foul-mouthed) rhetoric. And I mean that sincerely -- it's worth reading for anyone who appreciates how to use the English language to form "not safe for work" type of talking points.

For starting the whole tempest, Emmett C. Burns Jr. has more than earned his own Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Contact Wendy Rosen on her official campaign contact page (while it's still up), and Delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. on his official contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 226 (9/14/12)

I realize this is a week late, but what follows is my final wrapup of the Democratic National Convention. I've listed the most memorable talking points from the speeches given during the three day convention in Charlotte that you may have missed.

An important note -- there are four important omissions to this list. The four biggest speakers at the convention each gave a stellar speech in their own right, but for two reasons I have not included them below. The first is that the speeches by Michelle Obama, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama were all the most heavily covered in the media, so you've likely already either watched them, or at least heard excerpts. If you haven't, I heartily encourage you to seek them out and read the transcripts or watch video of each of these speeches, as it will be well worth your time to do so.

The second reason I didn't include them is because just listing the best parts of all the other speeches took up so much space. I could fill a number of columns just excerpting the four main speakers, but I thought it was worth focusing on some of the other voices at the convention instead. When I had assembled these quotes, I saw that there simply wouldn't be room for the major speeches -- which, as mentioned, you probably have already seen anyway.

Attending the convention in person was one of the most unique experiences I've ever had in my life. From getting lobbied by a cab driver on the situation in Ethiopia to chatting amicably with a Chicago police officer on the "20" convention bus (yes, the 20 route did indeed exist, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary) about the relative effectiveness of street protesters, the entire experience was pretty mindblowing. I should mention I'm not really old enough to remember the 1968 convention in Chicago, but the irony was not lost on me all the same. The cop was a pretty decent guy, I have to say, even while describing running fights with anarchists. Chalk that one up to conversations I never imagined having, I guess.

In any case, I'd like to publicly thank the Democratic National Convention for making it possible for me to attend and for giving me press credentials to access the entire convention -- something else that would have been unimaginable for a blogger just a short time in the past.

With that out of the way, here are some of the best talking points -- the best turns of phrase -- from the Democratic National Convention. All of these are from the "remarks as prepared for delivery" press releases, so they may be slightly different than what was actually said, I should mention. The speakers' titles and descriptions are as listed in the press releases as well. These snippets are presented in no particular order, although I did save two of my favorites for the end. Enjoy.

 

Andrew Tobias, Treasurer of the Democratic National Committee

The economy does significantly better under Democrats and so do investors. The stock market is up 58 percent since Barack Obama took office. And listen to this: If you had started in 1925 with $10,000 and invested it in the market only in the 44 years that Republicans held the White House, it would have grown -- not counting dividends -- to less than $30,000. But to more than $300,000 in the 44 years Democrats held the White House! I favor the party that invests in the future and boosts the middle class and those aspiring to join it. I favor the party under whose leadership $10,000 grows to $300,000 instead of $30,000.

 

Doug Stern, Cincinnati, Ohio Firefighter

Hello, my name is Doug Stern. I am an Ohio firefighter and an unlikely choice to be addressing you tonight, because for the vast majority of my voting life I have been a Republican. So why am I here?

Well, something happened recently. The Republican Party left people like me. As a member of the middle class, they left me; and they certainly left me as a public employee. Somewhere along the way, being a public employee -- someone who works for my community -- made me a scapegoat for the GOP. Thank goodness we have leaders like President Obama and Vice President Biden who still believe that public service is an honorable calling. When I go to work, when there is an emergency, I want someone on my crew who has my back, someone who helps me get the job done, someone who is willing to go through hell with me. I expect the same out of my elected leaders.

And that's what we get with Joe Biden and Barack Obama. From maintaining grant programs so fire departments nationwide have safe staffing and equipment, to supporting our right to have our voices heard on the job through collective bargaining, President Obama has had our backs. President Obama has kept thousands of firefighters, police officers, and first responders on the job. And he's sent plans to Congress to keep even more of us working. The Republicans must stop obstructing progress and do the right thing for the middle class. They must pass the president's plan.

 

Charles E. Schumer, Member of the U.S. Senate, New York

When Mitt Romney says he wants to reform the tax code, hold on to your wallets. We know Mitt Romney never met a tax haven he didn't like. But his new favorite tax haven is actually not the Cayman Islands -- its Paul Ryan's budget. Under this plan, Mitt Romney's own taxes would drop to almost zero. But for the middle class, it's a rip-off. Families with children whose household income is less than $200,000 would see their taxes go up $2,000, on average. That's not trickle down. That's a dirty trick.

 

Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Romney and Ryan are campaigning for women's votes by saying, "Women need our help." This is coming from two men who are committed to ending insurance coverage for birth control. Who would turn women's health care decisions over to our bosses. And who won't even stand up for equal pay for women. As my grandmother back in Texas would have said about any more help from Mitt Romney, "I'm going to have to take in ironing."

The good news is, we already have a president who's on our side. President Obama understands women. He trusts women. And on every issue that matters to us, he stands with women. President Obama ensured women's preventive care -- including birth control, too -- will be covered by all health care plans, with no co-pay, no matter where we work. Because of President Obama, soon women won't be denied insurance because we've had breast cancer, or survived sexual assault. And we will no longer pay more than men for the same health insurance. Thanks to President Obama, being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition! Back in Texas, we say that you dance with them what brung you. President Obama brought women to this dance and we're staying with him all the way through November!

 

Sister Simone Campbell, Executive Director, Roman Catholic Social Justice Organization, NETWORK (one of the "Nuns on the Bus")

Paul Ryan claims his budget reflects the principles of our shared Catholic faith. But the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated that the Ryan budget failed a basic moral test, because it would harm families living in poverty.

We agree with our bishops, and that's why we went on the road: to stand with struggling families and to lift up our Catholic sisters who serve them. Their work to alleviate suffering would be seriously harmed by the Romney-Ryan budget, and that is wrong.

During our journey, I rediscovered a few truths. First, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are correct when they say that each individual should be responsible. But their budget goes astray in not acknowledging that we are responsible not only for ourselves and our immediate families. Rather, our faith strongly affirms that we are all responsible for one another.

 

Sandra Fluke, Attorney and Women's Rights Activist

Some of you may remember that earlier this year, Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception. In fact, on that panel, they didn't hear from a single woman, even though they were debating an issue that affects nearly every woman. Because it happened in Congress, people noticed. But it happens all the time. Many women are shut out and silenced. So while I'm honored to be standing at this podium, it easily could have been any one of you. I'm here because I spoke out, and this November, each of us must do the same.

During this campaign, we've heard about the two profoundly different futures that could await women -- and how one of those futures looks like an offensive, obsolete relic of our past. Warnings of that future are not distractions. They're not imagined. That future could be real.

In that America, your new president could be a man who stands by when a public figure tries to silence a private citizen with hateful slurs. Who won't stand up to the slurs, or to any of the extreme, bigoted voices in his own party. It would be an America in which you have a new vice president who co-sponsored a bill that would allow pregnant women to die preventable deaths in our emergency rooms. An America in which states humiliate women by forcing us to endure invasive ultrasounds we don't want and our doctors say we don't need. An America in which access to birth control is controlled by people who will never use it; in which politicians redefine rape so survivors are victimized all over again; in which someone decides which domestic violence victims deserve help, and which don't. We know what this America would look like. In a few short months, it's the America we could be. But it's not the America we should be. It's not who we are.

 

Elizabeth Warren, Candidate for U.S. Senate, Massachusetts

After the financial crisis, President Obama knew that we had to clean up Wall Street. For years, families had been tricked by credit cards, fooled by student loans and cheated on mortgages. I had an idea for a consumer financial protection agency to stop the rip-offs. The big banks sure didn't like it, and they marshaled one of the biggest lobbying forces on earth to destroy the agency before it ever saw the light of day. American families didn't have an army of lobbyists on our side, but what we had was a president -- President Obama leading the way. And when the lobbyists were closing in for the kill, Barack Obama squared his shoulders, planted his feet, and stood firm. And that's how we won.

By the way, just a few weeks ago, that little agency caught one of the biggest credit card companies cheating its customers and made it give people back every penny it took, plus millions of dollars in fines. That's what happens when you have a president on the side of the middle class.

President Obama believes in a level playing field. He believes in a country where nobody gets a free ride or a golden parachute. A country where anyone who has a great idea and rolls up their sleeves has a chance to build a business, and anyone who works hard can build some security and raise a family. President Obama believes in a country where billionaires pay their taxes just like their secretaries do, and -- I can't believe I have to say this in 2012 -- a country where women get equal pay for equal work.

He believes in a country where everyone is held accountable. Where no one can steal your purse on Main Street or your pension on Wall Street. President Obama believes in a country where we invest in education, in roads and bridges, in science, and in the future, so we can create new opportunities, so the next kid can make it big, and the kid after that, and the kid after that. That's what president Obama believes. And that's how we build the economy of the future. An economy with more jobs and less debt. We root it in fairness. We grow it with opportunity. And we build it together.

I grew up in the Methodist Church and taught Sunday school. One of my favorite passages of scripture is: "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40. The passage teaches about God in each of us, that we are bound to each other and called to act. Not to sit, not to wait, but to act -- all of us together.

 

Cristina Saralegui, Journalist, Actress, and Talk Show Host

This election is about many things, but if you want to understand the values of the two candidates, all you have do is think about Benita, the lady who introduced me. Governor Romney calls young people like her "illegal aliens." President Obama calls them "dreamers." That is the difference in this election.

 

Beau Biden, Attorney General of Delaware and Son of Vice President Joe Biden

For me, the most memorable moment of the past four years was not something most Americans saw. It wasn't even on American soil. It took place in Iraq, at Camp Victory, where I was stationed. It was the Fourth of July, in 2009. My father was there on an unannounced visit to salute our troops. I watched as he led a naturalization ceremony in one of Saddam Hussein's palaces for a couple hundred men and women from all branches of our military.

As he led those new Americans through the oath of citizenship, this celebration of democracy in the land of a deposed dictator, I was struck by the strength and diversity of our country. I was reminded why we as a nation are stronger when everybody has a chance to do their part. And I was reminded of everything President Obama and my father have done to guarantee that chance.

 

Zach Wahls

I'm a sixth-generation Iowan, an Eagle Scout, and I was raised by my two moms, Jackie and Terry.

People want to know what it's like having lesbian parents. I'll let you in on a secret: I'm awesome at putting the seat down. Otherwise, we're like any other family. We eat dinner, we go to church, we have chores. But some people don't see it that way. When I was 12, watching the 2004 Republican convention, I remember politicians talking about protecting marriage from families like mine.

Now, supporting a view of marriage as between a man and woman isn't radical. For many people, it's a matter of faith. We respect that. Watching that convention on TV, though I felt confused, frustrated. Why didn't they think my family was a real family?

Governor Romney says he's against same-sex marriage because every child deserves a mother and a father. I think every child deserves a family as loving and committed as mine. Because the sense of family comes from the commitment we make to each other to work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones. It comes from the love that binds us; that's what makes a family. Mr. Romney, my family is just as real as yours.

 

Caroline Kennedy

The president has been a champion for women's rights. The first bill he signed was to make sure women can fight for equal pay for equal work. His commitment to women is about even more than economic rights -- it's about health care, reproductive rights, and our ability to make our own decisions about ourselves, our families, and our future. When it comes to what's best for women, there is only one candidate in this race who is on our side: Barack Obama.

As a Catholic woman, I take reproductive health seriously, and today, it is under attack. This year alone, more than a dozen states have passed more than 40 restrictions on women's access to reproductive health care. That's not the kind of future I want for my daughters or your daughters. Now isn't the time to roll back the rights we were winning when my father was president. Now is the time to move this country forward.

 

Eva Longoria

We're lucky our president understands the value of American opportunity, because he's lived it! And he's fighting to help others achieve it. He's fighting to make college more affordable! He's cut taxes for every working American. He's helping small businesses get loans and has cut their taxes eighteen times. Eighteen times!

That's important -- small businesses create two out of every three new jobs in America. It's the suburban dad who realizes his neighborhood needs a dry cleaner. It's the Latina nurse whose block needs a health clinic -- and she knows she's the one to open it! It's the high school sophomore who is building Facebook's competitor. They are the entrepreneurs driving the American economy, not Mitt Romney's outsourcing pioneers. He would raise taxes on middle-class families to cut his own -- and mine. That's not who we are as a nation, and here's why: The Eva Longoria who worked at Wendy's flipping burgers -- she needed a tax break. But the Eva Longoria who works on movie sets does not.

 

Julian Castro, Mayor of San Antonio

Mitt Romney, quite simply, doesn't get it. A few months ago he visited a university in Ohio and gave the students there a little entrepreneurial advice. "Start a business," he said. But how? "Borrow money if you have to from your parents," he told them. Gee, why didn't I think of that? Some people are lucky enough to borrow money from their parents, but that shouldn't determine whether you can pursue your dreams. I don't think Governor Romney meant any harm. I think he's a good guy. He just has no idea how good he's had it.

We know that in our free market economy some will prosper more than others. What we don't accept is the idea that some folks won't even get a chance. And the thing is, Mitt Romney and the Republican Party are perfectly comfortable with that America. In fact, that's exactly what they're promising us.

 

John Kerry, Member of the U.S. Senate, Massachusetts

President Obama kept his promises. He promised to end the war in Iraq -- and he has -- and our heroes have come home. He promised to end the war in Afghanistan responsibly -- and he is -- and our heroes there are coming home. He promised to focus like a laser on al-Qaeda -- and he has -- our forces have eliminated more of its leadership in the last three years than in all the eight years that came before. And after more than ten years without justice for thousands of Americans murdered on 9/11, after Mitt Romney said it would be "naive" to go into Pakistan to pursue the terrorists, it took President Obama, against the advice of many, to give that order to finally rid this earth of Osama bin Laden. Ask Osama bin Laden if he is better off now than he was four years ago.

. . .

It isn't fair to say Mitt Romney doesn't have a position on Afghanistan. He has every position. He was against setting a date for withdrawal -- then he said it was right -- and then he left the impression that maybe it was wrong to leave this soon. He said it was "tragic" to leave Iraq, and then he said it was fine. He said we should've intervened in Libya sooner. Then he ran down a hallway to duck reporters' questions. Then he said the intervention was too aggressive. Then he said the world was a "better place" because the intervention succeeded. Talk about being for it before you were against it!

Mr. Romney -- here's a little advice: Before you debate Barack Obama on foreign policy, you better finish the debate with yourself!

"President Mitt Romney" -- three hypothetical words that mystified and alienated our allies this summer. For Mitt Romney, an overseas trip is what you call it when you trip all over yourself overseas. It wasn't a goodwill mission -- it was a blooper reel.

But a Romney-Ryan foreign policy would be anything but funny. Every president of both parties for 60 years has worked for nuclear arms control -- but not Mitt Romney. Republican secretaries of state from Kissinger to Baker, Powell to Rice, President Bush, and 71 United States senators all supported President Obama's New Start treaty. But not Mitt Romney. He's even blurted out the preposterous notion that Russia is our "number one geopolitical foe." Folks: Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska; Mitt Romney talks like he's only seen Russia by watching Rocky IV.

 

Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts

But we Democrats owe America more than a strong argument for what we are against. We need to be just as strong about what we are for.

The question is: What do we believe? We believe in an economy that grows opportunity out to the middle class and the marginalized, not just up to the well connected. We believe that freedom means keeping government out of our most private affairs, including out of a woman's decision whether to keep an unwanted pregnancy and everybody's decision about whom to marry. We believe that we owe the next generation a better country than we found and that every American has a stake in that. We believe that in times like these we should turn to each other, not on each other. We believe that government has a role to play, not in solving every problem in everybody's life but in helping people help themselves to the American dream. That's what Democrats believe.

If we want to win elections in November and keep our country moving forward, if we want to earn the privilege to lead, it's time for Democrats to stiffen our backbone and stand up for what we believe. Quit waiting for pundits or polls or super PACs to tell us who the next president or senator or congressman is going to be. We're Americans.

We shape our own future. Let's start by standing up for President Barack Obama.

This is the president who delivered the security of affordable health care to every single American after 90 years of trying. This is the president who brought Osama bin Laden to justice, who ended the war in Iraq and is ending the war in Afghanistan. This is the president who ended "don't ask, don't tell" so that love of country, not love of another, determines fitness for military service. Who made equal pay for equal work the law of the land. This is the president who saved the American auto industry from extinction, the American financial industry from self-destruction, and the American economy from depression. Who added over 4.5 million private sector jobs in the last two-plus years, more jobs than George W. Bush added in eight.

The list of accomplishments is long, impressive and barely told -- even more so when you consider that congressional Republicans have made obstruction itself the centerpiece of their governing strategy. With a record and a vision like that, I will not stand by and let him be bullied out of office -- and neither should you, and neither should you and neither should you.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

137 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [226] -- Convention Talking Points”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    We could say that we're setting an example for politicians (...cough, cough, Mitt Romney, cough...) to wait a decent amount of time before going off half-cocked on a developing situation, but instead we are just way behind on keeping up with the news, so we're going to resist the urge to "spin" our own backlog into some sort of noble stand.

    Yea, and if Romney had waited a "decent amount of time" the Hysterical Left would have screamed that he is asleep.. :D

    For his performance, Bill Clinton is easily the right choice for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

    I won't rain on CW's parade, I won't rain on CW's parade, I won't rain on CW's parade... :D

    But I will say that there were so SO many snafus at the DNC convention, I would have thought that SOME of them would have made for at LEAST a dishonorable mention...

    Ahh well, perchance to dream.... :D

    Embassy attacks throughout the Middle East and Europe...

    October Surprise???

    Michale.....

    Michale.....

  2. [2] 
    michty6 wrote:

    5 years ago
    Michale "Another example of the blatant hypocrisy of the hysterical and radical Left..."

    Today
    Michale "Yea, and if Romney had waited a "decent amount of time" the Hysterical Left would have screamed that he is asleep"

    Some rhetoric hasn't changed much in 5 years...

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Some rhetoric hasn't changed much in 5 years...

    Agreed.. The Left's rhetoric is pretty constant...

    But the Right's is too, so.... :D

    Oh, wait.. You meant me.. :D

    Yea, I pride myself on being consistent. You should try it sometime.. :D

    Michale.....

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    5 years ago
    Michale "Another example of the blatant hypocrisy of the hysterical and radical Left..."

    You actually researched my words from FIVE YEARS ago!???

    "I'm fatter....er... Flattered"
    -Eddie Murphy, THE NUTTY PROFESSOR

    :D

    Michale....

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    US Credit Rating Cut by Egan-Jones ... Again
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/49037337

    Don't tell me, let me guess..

    It's Bush's fault.....

    Michale.....

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all realize what is happening in the Middle East, right??

    The Obama Administration is showing radical muslims that all they have to do is kill Americans and the US Administration will attack IT'S OWN CITIZENS to appease the radical muslims...

    I mean, look at it. The Left went apeshit against the Bush Administration because of air travel restrictions... Now the Obama Administration is persecuting an American citizen who exercised his freedom of speech...

    And yes. Here in America, freedom of speech means the freedom to ridicule religion, politics or any other person, place or thing...

    What shocks (and saddens) me is that there is absolutely NO RESISTANCE from Weigantians to such blatant violations of our liberty and rights...

    Imagine if Michael Moore had been hounded and persecuted by the Bush Administration. The Left would have lost their frak'in minds!!!

    Again, I am simply gabberflasted that the point is even contested around here...

    It's a sad sad day in Weigantia....

    Michale.....

  7. [7] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "US Credit Rating Cut by Egan-Jones ... Again
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/49037337

    Don't tell me, let me guess..

    It's Bush's fault....."

    No, that would be the current Republican congress' fault. They're the ones who decided to play chicken with the debt ceiling, apparently believing no one would have the nerve to lower our credit rating.

    And since it seems to have escaped you, and all the rest of the wingnuts, only Congress can spend money, and only Congress is responsible for the deficit and the debt. The President can only ask Congress to spend the money when he wants to spend on something; the decision to spend, or not, is always only up to Congress alone.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Youtube’s executives shut down videos that they deem “hate speech.” A YouTube spokesperson said Sept. 12 that the video “is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube,” and repeated that message late Sept. 14, so rejecting Obama’s unprecedented request.
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/14/obama-submits-to-brotherhood-asks-for-suppression-of-anti-islam-video/#ixzz26YnfcL2r

    I guess the video is NOT hate speech, after all...

    So much for THAT theory, eh?? :D

    Michale.....

  9. [9] 
    LewDan wrote:

    I debated waiting until CW opens the floor on the mid-east riots next week even though I knew Michale would jump all over it with his usual neocon predictability, but I decided, why bother? We all knew where this was going to go. -- So...

    Michale,

    When you, and nearly everyone else was cheering the Bush invasion of Iraq, to "preemptively" strike at people who hadn't actually attacked, or even threatened, us, in any way, because The People were angry and afraid, that was justified?

    People protesting in the streets may be criminals, even murderers, but they're not "terrorists." They are protesting not trying to instill "terror." They are angry and afraid, just as we were in 2001; and with far more reason than we had. We actually have been attacking them, in many ways, for over a decade. So, while the attacks are reprehensible, they are also understandable.

    Your championing of some idiot's "free speech" rights as justifying promoting hatred and bigotry against them is just one more example of them being attacked by us.

    The 1st amendment doesn't guaranty a right to speak without consequence; to intentionally provoke enough anger, fear, and outrage that people respond irrationally and violently.

    Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s famous "Shouting fire in a crowded theatre" analogy comes rather forcefully to mind. The reaction received was not just highly predictable, it was nearly inevitable, and quite probably the reaction intended; only the scale of the reaction might have been a surprise.

    So, even though, this hateful speech has resulted in the deaths of American citizens, harm to the interests and security of the United States, and is likely not constitutionally protected speech, you, like your beloved candidate Romney, care only that you might be able to use it to take cheap shots at President Obama.

    You don' care in the least that its talk like yours which is responsible for the fear and anger in the Muslim world that is behind these attacks. You aren't interested in resolving the situation and don't care if you perpetuate, or even escalate, it. All you care about is your own personal agenda, not the people who've died. You can't calm and restore order among angry and frightened people by threatening them even more.

    President Obama is doing his job trying to defuse the threat, in the interests of American security, instead of breast-beating and ego-stoking us into another senseless war, costing thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars, we don't have, ala G.W. Bush, Mitt Romney and the Republicans, just to score political "points."

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    When you, and nearly everyone else was cheering the Bush invasion of Iraq, to "preemptively" strike at people who hadn't actually attacked, or even threatened, us, in any way, because The People were angry and afraid, that was justified?

    I am somewhat confused at the relevance.. According to the conventional Leftist wisdom, the violence in the Middle East against our embassies was caused by a single Youtube Video. A video, I might add, that has been in circulation for many weeks...

    So, I am not sure how you can compare the here and now to the run-up to the Iraq war.. A war, I might ALSO add, Democratic Leadership supported en masse...

    They are angry and afraid, just as we were in 2001; and with far more reason than we had.

    There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest they are afraid...

    As to being angry, big frakin' deal.. I get angry. Does that mean I have a license to rape, kill, pillage and destroy..

    Basically, the Left's position in this is exactly like blaming the woman for the rape, because she wore a revealing dress....

    Your championing of some idiot's "free speech" rights as justifying promoting hatred and bigotry against them is just one more example of them being attacked by us.

    So, you are saying we should stifle, arrest and prosecute ANYONE who mocks or ridicules religion??

    Is THAT what you are saying???

    Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s famous "Shouting fire in a crowded theatre" analogy comes rather forcefully to mind. The reaction received was not just highly predictable, it was nearly inevitable, and quite probably the reaction intended; only the scale of the reaction might have been a surprise.

    The SCOTUS has held (unanimously, I believe) that the possible reaction of an angry mob is not sufficient to curtail freedom of speech..

    So, even though, this hateful speech has resulted in the deaths of American citizens, harm to the interests and security of the United States, and is likely not constitutionally protected speech, you, like your beloved candidate Romney, care only that you might be able to use it to take cheap shots at President Obama.

    No, I care to use it as an example of the over excess of an oppressive..

    And I am dead on ballz accurate..

    Do you know how I KNOW I am dead on ballz accurate??

    Because if we had a GOP president, EVERYONE here would be making the EXACT same argument that I am making...

    You know... I know it.. So don't bother denying it..

    You don' care in the least that its talk like yours which is responsible for the fear and anger in the Muslim world that is behind these attacks.

    You are absolutely correct. As long as these scumbag assholes are raping and killing, I DON'T care about them..

    Why would ANY civilized person care???

    President Obama is doing his job trying to defuse the threat, in the interests of American security, instead of breast-beating and ego-stoking us into another senseless war, costing thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars, we don't have, ala G.W. Bush, Mitt Romney and the Republicans, just to score political "points."

    Bullshit.. Obama is covering his ass and trying to do his "JOB" of getting re-elected..

    Why do you think he jet-set'ed off to Vegas when all this kicked off???

    Because campaigning is more important to him than protecting Americans..

    You, AND Obama, have no ethical, legal or moral leg to stand on in this issue..

    It's THAT simple...

    Once again, I reiterate the complete and utter astonishment I feel that I actually have to LECTURE Weigantians on the importance and the relevance of Freedom Of Speech...

    Let me just leave you with a repeat of the question I asked above..

    Do you believe that religion should not be ridiculed, mocked or denigrated in word and in film??? And that such an action should be labeled a "Hate Crime"???

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, I care to use it as an example of the over excess of an oppressive....

    ... government...

    I mean, look at it..

    The Left went apeshit because the Bush Administration said Americans couldn't carry hair gel on a plane...

    Now Obama wants to actively stifle freedom of speech (apparently, only against those that would ridicule islam) and the Left is completely and unequivocally on board with that..

    Now, you tell me??

    How is that NOT hypocritical???

    Michale.....

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's face the facts, people..

    Morally, ethically, legally and Constitutionaly, I am so far in the right as is possible to be..

    Ya'all are standing up and supporting a position that is completely and utterly contrary to what America stands for....

    Ya'all are DEFENDING sacrificing Freedom Of Speech on the altar of appeasement and political correctness...

    To be perfectly honest, I am shocked and appalled (and more than a little ecstatic :D) that lil' ole me is the SOLE source of reason on this issue...

    Michale.....

  13. [13] 
    LewDan wrote:

    As usual you've thrown out so much crap I hardly know where to begin. So I'll start with the easy one, your misrepresentation of the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to free political speech in order to ensure and promote domestic democratic institutions.

    The courts have interpreted that, broadly, to mean all speech, as anything may be "political." However, there has never been a right to defame others with impunity. Slander and libel are illegal not constitutionally protected rights. Religious tolerance, on the other hand, is an American Value, and the right to religious freedom is a constitutional right.

    The idea that speech intended to defame others and ridicule their religion, particularly speech directed at other nations rather than internally, is an exercise in constitutionally protected "free speech" is ridiculous. It's an abuse of free speech, at best, but more probably, it is simple libel. -- A crime, I might add.

    As to your baseless accusations of the speaker being harassed and arrested by Obama, they warrant not response.

  14. [14] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Let me also add that you are also, not surprisingly, misrepresenting SCOTUS' decisions. No one is attempting to curtail or prevent anyone's speech. The issue is the content of someone's speech and the consequences of that speech.

    The Constitution only applies to the actions of U.S. citizens within U.S. territory and U.S. agents. The Constitution does not give anyone any rights outside of the U.S., so it couldn't give anyone a "right" to free speech abroad.

    And, as I said above, even constitutionally protected free speech isn't a blank check to say anything you please anytime you please without fear of consequences.

    As for your "not caring about them," you've made that painfully obvious, so your hypocritical "outrage" over them "not caring" about us is unpersuasive. Unlike you, however, I do care about them. Because, unlike you, I'm not so foolish as to think anyone will care about us while we regard them with total contempt.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    The idea that speech intended to defame others and ridicule their religion, particularly speech directed at other nations rather than internally, is an exercise in constitutionally protected "free speech" is ridiculous.

    Really???

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/

    You sure you don't want to rethink that???

    The Constitution only applies to the actions of U.S. citizens within U.S. territory and U.S. agents. The Constitution does not give anyone any rights outside of the U.S., so it couldn't give anyone a "right" to free speech abroad.

    Uh... The film maker is an American citizen living in Cerritos, California..

    What EXACTLY are you talking about???

    Unlike you, however, I do care about them.

    You DO care about the assholes that rape and pillage and murder???

    Oookkkkaaayyy... We'll just have to agree to disagree...

    As to your baseless accusations of the speaker being harassed and arrested by Obama, they warrant not response.

    You really aren't up on current events, are you?? Federal authorities have publicly identified the film maker and FBI authorities took the film maker into custody to investigate his "crime"...

    Sorry, LD.. I usually respect your position, but in this particular case, you are as wrong as wrong can be...

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, LD.. I usually respect your position, but in this particular case, you are as wrong as wrong can be...

    It doesn't happen very often, but on this particular issue I am morally, ethically, legally and constitutionally completely and utterly in the right here...

    Forgive me while I wallow in my glory... :D

    Michale....

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    When you really get down to it, Obama, Democrats and the Left in general are of the SAME position of the people who raped and killed our Ambassador and are burning and killing and burning our embassies..

    Ya think the Left would get tired of being on the same side as America's enemies..

    "Yet, here we are."
    -Homer Simpson

    Michale.....

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Constitution only applies to the actions of U.S. citizens within U.S. territory and U.S. agents. The Constitution does not give anyone any rights outside of the U.S., so it couldn't give anyone a "right" to free speech abroad.

    And yet, Obama, Democrats and (presumably) you wanted to give Constitutional rights to terrorists who brutally murdered over 3000 American citizens...

    And that SAME group wants to DENY Constitutional Rights to an AMERICAN citizen, SOLELY based on the fact that he offended muslims..

    Take a step back for a second... Look VERY closely....

    Do you see how utterly FRAK'ed your position is???

    Michale.....

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, as I said above, even constitutionally protected free speech isn't a blank check to say anything you please anytime you please without fear of consequences.

    "Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right."
    -The Mayor, GHOSTBUSTERS II

    :D

    Michale.....

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm pulling an all-nighter at my shop tonight, so anyone who wants to discuss this issue, let's go at it... :D

    Michale.....

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Our leaders apparently believe that the way to protect Americans from extremists and terrorists abroad is to tell other Americans to shut up.

    That pretty much says it all, vis a vis Obama's "thought out" response to the radical attacks on our Embassies...

    If ever a man deserved to be voted off the island, it's Obama....

    Michale...

  22. [22] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Again, the constitution does not give anyone a "right" to publish defamatory speech internationally the courts have given us the ability because its deemed safer for the legitimate free speech rights of all to simply assume all speech is "protected." A position which I have, on more than one occasion, said needs to be revisited. The "right" of people to slander and libel is increasing becoming far more dangerous to our democracy than the potential for stifling dissent is. Particularly when Americans believe they've a "right" to lie and genuinely believe their abuse of 1st amendment rights is merely exercising them.

  23. [23] 
    LewDan wrote:

    As for my "not being up on current events" the last I heard the author was simply, and voluntarily, brought in for questioning -- regarding possible parole violations. I am certainly unaware of any arrest. And I am baffled as to how anything done now could be seen as trying to stop him from speaking, in violation of his constitutional rights. -- That ship has sailed. -- Not, mind you, that I'd be opposed to anything which would shut the idiot up!

  24. [24] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "Our leaders apparently believe that the way to protect Americans from extremists and terrorists abroad is to tell other Americans to shut up."

    I wish they did. Then I'd agree with them. People are attacking American Embassies and properties because they think this clown represents America. And people like you want to make it clear to them that these idiots do represent America. Apparently you believe the 1st amendment means everyone has a right, not just to politic, but to take American foreign policy into their own hands. -- We are living the result.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, the constitution does not give anyone a "right" to publish defamatory speech internationally the courts have given us the ability because its deemed safer for the legitimate free speech rights of all to simply assume all speech is "protected."

    So, of course, you'll be advocating for Bill Maher's arrest and you will encourage Obama to return Maher's donation..

    Right???? :D

    As for my "not being up on current events" the last I heard the author was simply,

    No.... Apparently the "last you heard" the author wasn't even an American...

    Not, mind you, that I'd be opposed to anything which would shut the idiot up!

    So, let's shoot the fucker, right!?

    Let's also line up Michael Moore and Bill Maher and shoot THEM too, right!??

    You are so predictable....

    Michale...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, the Left's position, including most everyone here, is as follows:

    Hate Speech directed at muslims should be a crime...

    Hate Speech directed at other religions is perfectly OK...

    Hate Speech directed at Democrats or the Left in general should be a crime.

    Hate Speech directed at anyone BUT Democrats and the Left is perfectly OK...

    From all the available evidence, that pretty much sums things up....

    Michale.....

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wish they did. Then I'd agree with them. People are attacking American Embassies and properties because they think this clown represents America.

    And those same type of people brutally murdered 3000 people because of gods know what else beliefs..

    Should we REALLY give a flying FUCK what they believe???

    Put another way...

    If you had some asshole who raped and killed a dozen children, would you really want to know WHY he did it before you condemned his crimes???

    Basically, your position is that let's find out first if the dozen children did anything to provoke the attack..

    I saw that attitude a lot when I was LEO... And it's as sad and pathetic now as it was then... People caring more for the criminals than for the victims...

    Apparently, your sympathies are with the people who raped and murdered Ambassador Stevens and your condemnation is reserved for the guy who made a little YouTube video a month or two ago..

    SERIOUSLY!!????

    Michale.....

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, your sympathies are with the people who raped and murdered Ambassador Stevens and your condemnation is reserved for the guy who made a little YouTube video a month or two ago..

    I mean, look at all your posts.

    Not ONCE did you condemn the scumbags who brutally murdered innocent fellow Americans.

    Not ONCE...

    All you have done is condemn an American who's ONLY crime was making a small obscure video that ridicules islam..

    Did you pipe up when a Lefty released an entire MOVIE that ridicules religion in general, INCLUDING islam???

    No. No one said dick about THAT.

    How is this NOT blatant and unabashed hypocrisy???

    Apparently you believe the 1st amendment means everyone has a right, not just to politic, but to take American foreign policy into their own hands. -- We are living the result.

    Oh my frak'in gods, REALLY!!!????

    This guy makes an obscure YouTube video and, all of the sudden, he is "taking American foreign policy in his own hands"!!???

    If some obscure schmuck Joe Blow off the streets can take Obama's foreign policy in his own hands, that doesn't say a whole helluva lot for Obama's foreign policy, now does it???

    I have a really great idea. Why don't you actually blame the perps for their actions instead of Joe Blow who just made a short video a couple months back???

    For the record, it's not the woman's fault she gets raped just because she wore a short dress...

    You're fighting a losing battle here.. You know that I am completely correct in my position.

    Michale.....

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef017d3c0e6f14970c-640wi

    Look at that..

    This is what America has become, thanx to Obama and the Democrats..

    Now, I dunno about ya'all, but if I were a Democrat, I would be ashamed....

    But I guess that's just me...

    I guess this discussion is going nowhere. You will NEVER admit you are wrong, even though you clearly are...

    Do you know how I KNOW you are wrong??

    Imagine the outcry if the Bush Administration and the Right in general had hounded harrassed and persecuted Bill Maher because of his anti-religion film...

    Ya'all would have lost yer frak'in minds...

    That pretty much proves beyond any doubt who has the correct positon on this issue..

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    If some obscure schmuck Joe Blow off the streets can take Obama's foreign policy in his own hands, that doesn't say a whole helluva lot for Obama's foreign policy, now does it???

    LOL. Good point.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    LOL. Good point.

    I tell ya, CB.. It's bizarre!!

    I am arguing FOR Freedom Of Speech with a liberal who is AGAINST Freedom Of Speech...

    Did I wake up in the Mirror Universe!?? Ya know, the one where CW has an evil looking beard??? :D

    http://mimg.ugo.com/201004/42608/mirrormirrorhd.jpg

    :D

    Michale.....

  32. [32] 
    akadjian wrote:

    CW-

    Nice summary of the convention highlights and so glad you got to go. It sounds like a blast! A couple quick points ...

    1. Nice mention of Doug Stern, Cincinnati firefighter. It doesn't get a lot of national coverage, but many firefighters and policemen in Ohio have jumped ship from the Republican party because of John Kasich and his attacks on the unions with SB5.

    The Ohio FOP refused to endorse Mitt Romney because of his support for the bill and they've also endorsed Sherrod Brown for Senator. This could make the difference in Ohio.

    http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/07/ohio_fraternal_order_of_police.html

    2. No mention of Rahm Emanuel for most disappointing Dem of the week? Ok, I have to admit I haven't been able to follow the strike situation in Chicago as much as I would have liked, but Emanuel seems to be doing just what many Republicans are doing - attacking the unions after receiving large corporate donations. Anyone, please correct me if I'm off base here, but ... what a scumbag.

    I know the temptation is great to take the money (because money usually wins elections), but wouldn't it be better to build the Democratic brand as the party which is not "corporate bought"?

    Sherrod Brown is an example of someone doing this right. He's getting outspent almost 5 to 1 but he's standing his ground and may win.

    -David

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know the temptation is great to take the money (because money usually wins elections), but wouldn't it be better to build the Democratic brand as the party which is not "corporate bought"?

    It definitely would..

    So, this begs the question.. Why don't Democrats do it??

    I think we all know the answer to that... Surprisingly it's (as you are so fond of saying) NOT a Left v Right issue... :D

    Michale....

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Didn't you find the convention a little unorgainized??

    I mean, between the change of venue due to a "weather" emergency and the debacle with the Dem platform, it seemed to me like it was amateur hour...

    Michale.....

  35. [35] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Why don't Democrats do it?

    Many have. And some have paid heavily for it. Conservatives were able to oust people like Alan Grayson in Florida because they were able to outspend him with corporate money.

    This is also how conservatives have managed to take over state legislatures - with corporate cash. Here's how they did it in North Carolina, a state which went blue for Obama in 2008.

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/10/111010fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

    Until money isn't the deciding factor in elections, Michale, both parties are going to pursue it.

    I'll ask you the flip side of the question, why are conservatives pursuing a strategy geared solely towards campaign contributions? Why are they offering tax breaks for the wealthy in exchange for contributions?

    I know several folks who are conservatives (mostly my Tea Party friends) who would like to see this end.

    -David

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Until money isn't the deciding factor in elections, Michale, both parties are going to pursue it.

    Agreed...

    But it seems to me that the Left only castigates conservatives for this practice and gives their own Democrats a pass...

    I am sure you would agree that it's completely unfair..

    Michale.....

  37. [37] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But it seems to me that the Left only castigates conservatives for this practice and gives their own Democrats a pass.

    I really don't care about the Left/Right game.

    The problem is the influence of money in politics and I'm willing to work to end it with anyone who shares this same goal.

    -David

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    I really don't care about the Left/Right game.

    Conservatives were able to oust people like Alan Grayson in Florida because they were able to outspend him with corporate money.

    This is also how conservatives have managed to take over state legislatures - with corporate cash.

    Unless, of course, you can ding the conservatives for it.. :D

    The problem is the influence of money in politics and I'm willing to work to end it with anyone who shares this same goal.

    Fair enough. Get the Democrats to go along, then the Conservatives would look like idiots for not going along and they wouldn't be able to be elected dog catcher...

    "We're intent on disarming the world!!"
    "But the western democracies come first, right!"

    -THE FINAL OPTION

    I am not being facetious... Well, not much anyways...

    Castigating Conservatives for being bought by corporate cash, while giving the Democrats a pass kinda dilutes the message...

    Wouldn't you agree???

    I completely agree with you that this problem is a problem for BOTH the Right and Left...

    But I hold BOTH responsible...

    Shouldn't you??

    Michale.....

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, David. I don't mean to pick on ya... :D

    But, as we agree, it IS a problem on BOTH sides of the aisle...

    Michale.....

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    The White House's request to YouTube provoked almost no objections from Democrats, who -- when there is a Republican president -- tightly bind themselves to the ACLU and parade around as free speech crusaders. To the extent they acknowledged any of this at all, their responses ranged from indulging patently absurd pretenses (this was just a polite request from the White House: what's wrong with that?) to affirmative justification (the film is intended to cause violence and thus should be removed).

    Just imagine if the Bush White House had called YouTube and "requested" that it remove anti-war videos on the ground that such videos were endangering US troops. That is hardly some fantastical hypothetical. The claim that administration critics were "emboldening the enemy" was a very common trope during the Bush era (an ugly trope that some progressives now repeat toward conservative critics of Obama). John Ashcroft infamously announced when testifying before the Senate in December 2001 that civil libertarian objections to administration policies "only aid terrorists" and "give ammunition to America's enemies."

    Does anyone doubt that if the Bush White House had "requested" in the wake of 9/11 that all anti-war or anti-administration videos be "reviewed" to see if they should remain on the internet -- on the not-implausible ground that they might encourage attacks on American troops or personnel -- that Democrats would have little trouble seeing why it is dangerous to have the executive branch taking action to influence private internet companies to suppress political speech? The actions of the Obama White House are no less inappropriate.
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Conservatives-Democrats-a-by-Glenn-Greenwald-120916-66.html

    Who woulda thunked I would actually AGREE with Glenn Greenwald...

    I have always respected Greenwald..

    Not because he is usually right. Just the opposite. He is wrong, more often than not.. His current commentary is the exception..

    No, I respect Greenwald because he is not enslaved by the "-D"/"-R" phenomena...

    He has his principles and he sticks by them, REGARDLESS OF WHICH PARTY VIOLATES THEM...

    He is wrong most of the time, but at least he isn't a hypocrite...

    I respect that...

    Michale.....

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    Before, I had mentioned that the SCOTUS had ruled that free speech cannot be curtailed because it MIGHT incite an angry mob..

    I found the cite for it..

    In the 1972 case NAACP v Claiborne, the SCOTUS unanimously rejected the that theory, holding that there would be no meaningful free speech if speech could be censored on the grounds that it "inspires" others to commit violence: "While the State legitimately may impose damages for the consequences of violent conduct, it may not award compensation for the consequences of nonviolent, protected activity"

    Further, the SCOTUS ruled that advocacy of the use of force or violence does not remove speech from the protection of the first amendment.

    In other words, the SCOTUS has ruled that just because someone says something or posts a video that MIGHT offend someone to the point of violence, it is not sufficient cause to limit said author's freedom of speech... That it's the person that commits the violence who is solely and completely responsible for the violence and NOT the person who's speech allegedly incited the violence..

    Ya'all are LIBERALs, fer christ's sake!!!

    I am amazed I have to explain this to ya'all...

    Too bad CW is no longer taking submissions. I could do a doozy!!! :D

    Michale.....

  42. [42] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I completely agree with you that this problem is a problem for BOTH the Right and Left.

    What are you doing about it then?

    I mean other than trying to start fights with liberals online about who is better.

    Here's the petition to repeal Citizen's United ...

    http://www.sherrodbrown.com/petition/w1112cu/?subsource=splash

    It would take you less than 30 seconds.

    Or write your Congressman ...

    Or pitch in some money ...

    Or take some action of your own ...

    But, as we agree, it IS a problem on BOTH sides of the aisle.

    Then act on it. Join those doing something about it.

    -David

  43. [43] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Shouldn't you?

    Yes. And this means that I will call it out where I see it. Just as I did with Rahm Emanuel.

    And just as I pointed out happened in North Carolina.

    Where do you see this as a problem?

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    What are you doing about it then?

    I mean other than trying to start fights with liberals online about who is better.

    I am trying to strengthen the message so it's not diluted and discarded as nothing more than partisan snipe hunting...

    Then act on it. Join those doing something about it.

    I won't until those who are joined encompass the WHOLE problem and not just the part of the problem that is partisan politics..

    A good start would be to call out ANY negative influence, whether it comes from the Right or the Left...

    For example, if someone writes an OpEd decrying and castigating AMERICAN CROSSROADS, but doesn't touch PRIORITIES USA ACTION, what is a normal rational American to think??

    "Ahhh Democrats are bitching and whining again..."

    You see the point.. Until those who want to take a stand against CITIZENS UNITED do so in toto rather than just the Conservative side of CU, there will never be anything accomplished..

    The war is lost before it even begins...

    Imagine what would happen if Daily......

    Gotta run. Wife is picking me up..

    I'll pick this up when I get home...

    Michale....

  45. [45] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I am trying to strengthen the message so it's not diluted and discarded as nothing more than partisan snipe hunting.

    Funny ... this is the only issue you've advocated this new approach ... :)

    Inactivity until everyone agrees?

    Sounds more like you're really not interested in taking any action.

    Well, how about this simple question then. Who on the right would you target for providing favors for money? Since you're so non-partisan, there's got to be somebody, no?

    -David

  46. [46] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I won't until those who are joined encompass the WHOLE problem and not just the part of the problem that is partisan politics.

    How is wanting to overturn the Citizens' United decision partisan?

    For example, if someone writes an OpEd decrying and castigating AMERICAN CROSSROADS, but doesn't touch PRIORITIES USA ACTION, what is a normal rational American to think?

    Citizens' United is the legislation responsible for all of these groups.

    It doesn't discriminate. It is completely non-partisan. Overturning this decision would eliminate ALL of these groups.

    -David

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny ... this is the only issue you've advocated this new approach ... :)

    Probably because it's the only issue that is technically a bi-partisan problem, but where only one side of it is denigrated... :D

    Inactivity until everyone agrees?

    No... Inactivity until everyone addresses the problem in a non-partisan manner..

    Sounds more like you're really not interested in taking any action.

    Well, if I had to be honest, I am not. Not because I don't think action is warranted.. But because I know it can never be approached in a non-partisan manner...

    In other words, I doubt we'll have an IRON EAGLE II moment with regards to combating Citizens United.

    Who on the right would you target for providing favors for money? Since you're so non-partisan, there's got to be somebody, no?

    It would be a MUCH simpler answer to say who is NOT taking money for favors???

    Answer: NO ONE... There is not a politician in the country who is not taking money from special interests....

    That's why it always cracks me up to see Weigantians go after Conservatives with such aplomb... :D Especially since Obama hisself has embraced Citizens United and SuperPACS...

    I mean, doesn't it make sense to clean one's own house first, before embarking on cleaning up the neighborhood???

    It doesn't discriminate. It is completely non-partisan. Overturning this decision would eliminate ALL of these groups.

    Yes it would...

    But when the "evil" of Citizens United is detailed, guess what??

    All we hear is AMERICAN CROSSROADS and nothing about PRIORITIES USA ACTION...

    Taking down Citizens United is a worthy endeavor.. But NOT if it's done in a partisan manner with the ulterior agenda of weakening political opponents.

    Michale.....

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's the petition to repeal Citizen's United ...

    sherrodbrown.com/petition/w1112cu/?subsource=splash

    You don't think Sherrod Brown is taking money from Interest Groups???

    http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=n00003535

    For someone who wants to get the money out of politics, Brown sure rakes in a heapin' helpin' of it....

    This is the EXACT problem I alluded to before.

    Ya'll support as your "champions" leaders who are part of the problem...

    Michale.....

    Michale.....

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya have to ask yourself one question, David..

    If Democrats had the kind of edge with SuperPACs that Republicans enjoy, do you HONESTLY believe they would be circulating petitions to take down Citizens United???

    I am sure you would agree with me that they wouldn't..

    Therefore, I view with skepticism any move by Democrats to take down a Republican money-machine, regardless of the "pure" motives claimed by Democrats..

    If Democrats were willing to take down THEIR money-machines first, that would convince me that their motives are sincere....

    But nothing else would...

    Michale.....

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have been remiss in my duties...

    The second item of note is that today marks the fifth "birthday" of this column series. September 14, 2007 saw the very first Friday Talking Points column ever (although the name and the column format wouldn't solidify for a few months).

    Happy FTP B-Day, CW!!! :D

    Michale.....

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    "What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States."
    -US Ambassador To UN Susan Rice

    Once again, the Obama Administration is going with the "Are You Going To Believe Us Or Your Own Eyes" strategy...

    Possibly because it's worked SO WELL for them.. :^/

    Michale.....

  52. [52] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Looks like Romney is now into Plan D: Steal Obama's 2008 Campaign Slogan 'Change' and 'Hope' That It Works.

    I'm sure we will see some great slogans:
    - 'Change you can remember (since it's the same as before)'
    - 'Change you will give to millionaires as they need all the change out your pockets'
    - 'Change you can believe in (if you're a millionaire)'
    - 'Change you can buy - for a merely $1m campaign donation'
    - 'Change you will never see as you die because we're taking your healthcare away...'

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81283.html#ixzz26jdJLxUQ

  53. [53] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "Before, I had mentioned that the SCOTUS had ruled that free speech cannot be curtailed because it MIGHT incite an angry mob..

    I found the cite for it.."

    I've said that political speech directed internally is protected, but not all speech. We censor all the time. We have a National Security Act which anyone with access to classified information must acknowledge and agree to, in writing. A pervasive practice of the government both censoring and intimidating people into not speaking. -- And one which is perfectly constitutional, because only political speech is protected.

    SCOTUS has a habit, which I've also taken exception to, of unconstitutionally amending the constitution, to our detriment.

    Slander and libel are crimes. Crimes which are nearly impossible to prosecute because SCOTUS has gutted the law so courts don't get involved in determining what's protected speech. Heaven forbid, the courts should be called upon to make actual judgments instead of simply picking from an ever growing, and contradictory, menu of precedents.

    Libel and Slander are not constitutionally protected. They, in no way, empower or promote our democracy; in point of fact they undermine it. It isn't the money in politics that's the problem. Its the ability to lie with impunity. If all speakers were required to be truthful, to at least speak in good faith, it wouldn't matter how much was spent on campaigns.

    Instead we've a major media outlet dedicated to misinforming and misleading the voting public. We've one of the two major political parties whose very existence is only sustained by its pervasive lying and misleading of the electorate. And we have a growing population of domestic terrorists who attempt to incite violence at home and abroad through libel and slander.

    We keep ineffectually dancing around the symptoms of our problems because we operate under misconceptions about the 1st amendment, and, just as mistakenly, and unconstitutionally, refuse to confront SCOTUS over the unconstitutional amendments it constantly imposes to promote its various social experiments and theories, even when the supposed "rationale" behind them has proven demonstrably false.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    You, specifically, and the Left in general *MIGHT* have a case if ya'all were to reign in YA'ALLs abusive elements..

    But when you have Lefties making feature films that mock & denigrate religion and you have Lefties putting out twits like "Jesus is frakin' Tim Tebow" and garbage like that, and ya'all don't say dick....

    Well, why should anyone take ya'all seriously???

    Regardless of your personal beliefs, what this obscure film maker/promoter did is completely and unequivocally within his First Amendment rights to do. PERIOD.

    You don't like it? That's your prerogative..

    You want to speak out against it?? Knock yerself out..

    But what you CAN'T do is make that case that it's criminal...

    Because, ALL the facts say that you are wrong...

    What this Joe Blow did was perfectly within the bounds of the law and the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution...

    I am truly sorry you have a problem with it, but it IS your problem...

    Michale.....

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Libel and Slander are not constitutionally protected.

    Did you speak out when Team Obama accused Romney of being a felon?? Did you take exception when Team Obama implied that Romney had murdered a woman??

    No??

    Then you have absolutely NO moral/ethical authority/foundation to make the argument you are making.

    NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA.....

    Michale.....

  56. [56] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Branding all protesters as "rapists and murderers" is bigotry, not fact. It would be bigotry even if it were fact. I'd suggest you take a little look at our own history to get an idea of what the formation of new democracies might entail.

    We legalized slavery (and rape), waged a genocidal war against our indigenous peoples, considered women property not citizens, only allowed the wealthy, that is landowners, to vote, and engaged in a civil war. We were, in fact, rather infamously well known "rapists and murderers". We outgrew most of it but our democracy is still "a work in progress."

    The mythical instantaneous non-violent unanimous formation of law-abiding functional democracies is a figment of right-wing fantasies, its never happened, and no excuse, at all, for righteous indignation or self-congratulatory superiority.

    Yes, I care about them. I view them as people, not "rapists and murderers." I expect them to behave like people, make the mistakes people make, have the problems people have and have the potential people possess. I do not expect fairy-godparents, prince charmings, saints, angels, or boogeymen. And I certainly don't expect them to avoid everything we had to go through just because we now know better (sort of).

    And people, when attacked, tend to lash out, at whomever they can reach.--And tend to keep lashing out as long as they're being attacked. If we really want to stop the violence we have to stop the attacks, our attacks. Its just that simple.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did you speak out when Team Obama accused Romney of being a felon?? Did you take exception when Team Obama implied that Romney had murdered a woman??

    If yer gonna make the argument that Libel and Slander are perfectly acceptable in a political context, then I shall taunt you a second time!

    :D

    Michale.....

  58. [58] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Since Team Obama never accused Romney of being a felon--No I didn't speak out against things that never happened.

    And see the above comment for my "moral, ethical" foundation.

  59. [59] 
    LewDan wrote:

    ...And "I say NI! to your taunt as second time!"

  60. [60] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    BTW. I never said libel and slander were "acceptable," I said they were (unfortunately,) "permissible," not desirable, but unavoidable. And only to be, reluctantly, tolerated with regard to domestic political speech. But that tolerance only prohibits governmental interference. I'm all for people being able to bring private civil suits for libel and slander.--Its SCOTUS who says otherwise.

  61. [61] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Wait ... Romney's a felon? :)

    I must have missed this one.
    -David

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    ...And "I say NI! to your taunt as second time!"

    :D If we can still laugh with/at each other, then I guess things are kewl...

    I'm all for people being able to bring private civil suits for libel and slander.--Its SCOTUS who says otherwise.

    And if the scumbags who respond to offense by raping ambassadors and brutally murdering our fellow Americans would resort to civil suits, then I wouldn't have a problem...

    There simply can be NO CASE made for the idea that it's the VIDEO that's the problem and the reaction to the video is secondary...

    It's been my experience thru over 2 decades of military, security and LEO work that people who are inclined to rape and murder and burn and pillage will find ANY excuse to do so. And if they can't FIND an excuse, then they will simply make one up..

    Like I said (and no one has refuted), blaming the video for the violence is identical to blaming the woman for the rape...

    Michale.....

  63. [63] 
    michty6 wrote:

    David

    Wait ... Romney's a felon? :)

    In Michale world yes. This is how Michale-world logic works:
    1. Guy walking down the street calls Romney a felon
    2. Guy is going to vote for the Democrats.
    3. Obama is a Democrat.
    4. Therefore, Obama called Romney a felon.

  64. [64] 
    michty6 wrote:

    PS. Great points LD. Michale and I had a similar conversation in another thread where I was pointing out that 'hate speech' is actually illegal in almost every democratic country except the US...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

    Apparently, of course, this makes me a terrorist lover and a hater of free speech... ;)

  65. [65] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Holding the Author of the video responsible for the results of his actions has nothing to do with whether someone else was predisposed, except that the author should have known that violence was a likely result and therefore should be held accountable for his actions.

    And its been my experience, through the civil rights movement, and a study of American history, that people can change. And that you don't promote that change by first demanding that it spontaneously take place before you'll endorse it.--And also, that good people do bad things.--And can change.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wait ... Romney's a felon? :)

    Com'on, David.. Ignorance doesn't become you..

    On the other hand, it's par for the course for michty... But at least I spell his name right now. :D

    michty,

    1. Guy walking down the street calls Romney a felon

    See, once again your problem rears it's ugly head. Changing the facts to make your argument sound plausible..

    How about Obama's campaign manager called Romney a felon.. Several times...

    PS. Great points LD. Michale and I had a similar conversation in another thread where I was pointing out that 'hate speech' is actually illegal in almost every democratic country except the US...

    So, when are you going to push for the prosecution of Bill Maher?? No??? What a shock!!

    Why don't you just say what you mean. Mockery and ridicule of islam is "hate speech"... Anything else goes...

    Apparently, of course, this makes me a terrorist lover and a hater of free speech... ;)

    Well, we finally agree on something! :D

    Michale......

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Holding the Author of the video responsible for the results of his actions has nothing to do with whether someone else was predisposed, except that the author should have known that violence was a likely result and therefore should be held accountable for his actions.

    So, if I witness a crime and intervene and, during the intervention, innocent people are injured and/or killed, who is responsible??

    The scumbag committing the crime or me for intervening??

    Don't tell me.. I already know your answer..

    You would say it's me... :D

    Michale.....

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    except that the author should have known that violence was a likely result and therefore should be held accountable for his actions.

    Really??

    Some two-bit Joe Schmooo is part of a TEAM that puts together a rinky dink blurb about islam and this ONE person (who wasn't much involved at all) should EXPECT that this rinky dink video will cause an attack on our embassy in Egypt!!!????

    Is THAT your contention??

    So, let's say I make a 2 minute blurb that shows islam's prophet/god/whatever getting boned up the arse by a donky and I post it to youtube. I should EXPECT that, out of the millions and millions of videos posted to YouYube DAILY, that my 2 min video will cause a riot at our embassy in Bum Fuq, Egypt???

    Is THAT really what you are saying???

    OK... What if I go on an anti-religion bender like say, oohhh I dunno.. BILL MAHER and do ANOTHER 2 minute video that shows the christian god being boned up the arse by a donkey and post THAT to YouTube...

    Show I expect that our embassy in, oh let's say THE VATICAN!! will come under attack and our ambassador there would be brutally raped and murdered!!

    Look at what you are saying! That ANY Joe Schmooo with a less then basic understanding of computers and the Internet can do up a video and, ALL BY THEMSELVES, can grab the vaunted Obama Foreign Policy machine BY THE BALLS and bend it to his will!!

    Is THAT really the theory you want to become acceptable???

    As I said above, the biggest problem you have with your position is consistency...

    You don't advocate prosecuting anyone for anti-christian slander or libel.. You don't advocate prosecuting anyone for anti-jewish slander or libel..

    No.. You just want to go after the guys that commit slander or libel against islam...

    Now the only question is....

    Would you be so hell bent to protect islam if the Right wasn't so hell-bent on attacking islam???

    I think we ALL know the answer to that...

    Michale.....

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's go off on a somewhat relevant tangent here..

    One of the UK royals got her picture taken when she was topless. (For the record, I've seen better...) Anyways, the word from the photographer is that he was on a public road when the picture was taken. No crime was committed in any way, shape or form..

    UK royals are calling from criminal prosecution of the photographer.

    Your thoughts???

    Michale.....

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    PS. Great points LD. Michale and I had a similar conversation in another thread where I was pointing out that 'hate speech' is actually illegal in almost every democratic country except the US...

    Yea, but your problem (like LD's) is that you don't want to apply that standard fairly...

    Ya'alls reasoning is EXACTLY why the SCOTUS ruled the way it did in NAACP v Claiborne.

    The SCOTUS ruled that, since the restriction would never be applied fairly, that the restriction should not exist...

    In other words, ya'alls definition of "hate speech" is completely partisan..

    Damn smart those SCOTUS Justices, eh... :D

    Michale.....

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Obama has been caught in a lie..

    Despite multiple claims from Obama admin officials, intelligence reports indicate that there was NO demonstration in Libya that proceeded the Benghazi attacks..

    Get that, people??

    Obama et al claimed that the deaths of our Ambassador and other Americans resulted from a demonstration that got out of control.

    We're NOW learning that there was NO DEMONSTRATION at all!

    And, since I know how ya'all are totally committed to truth and truth-tellers, I am SURE that ya'all will condemn Obama for this lie as aggressively and as loudly as you condemned Bush....

    Riiigggghhhhhttttt????

    Stick a fork in Obama. He's done....

    Michale.....

  72. [72] 
    michty6 wrote:

    We're NOW learning that there was NO DEMONSTRATION at all!

    Lol no, Rush Limbaugh says there was no demonstration. There is a difference. We, means all of us (normally). 'We' in Michale world means 'me and Rush Limbaugh' ;)

    So, when are you going to push for the prosecution of Bill Maher?

    First to have a prosecution we need evidence. So if you could show me the hate speech from Bill Maher that incited violence then let's do it!

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol no, Rush Limbaugh says there was no demonstration.

    Once again, making up facts so that your argument works... One would think you would get tired of doing that...

    This was reported by a Libyan military officer on the scene.. He said that it was quiet, not even an ant was out...

    I realize you like to live in your own world where Obama can do no wrong..

    But jeeezus, do you think you might be able to have a PASSING association with reality???

    First to have a prosecution we need evidence. So if you could show me the hate speech from Bill Maher that incited violence then let's do it!

    Ahhh I see..

    So, your criteria for "Hate Speech" is that it causes violence... Following this inane line of thought, if people want to prevent others from denigrating them, they need to get violent at the slightest provocation.. THAT way, in MichtyLand, they can prosecute people for hate speech..

    So, in MichtyLand, not only do people get to be violent and rape and behead people, they can ALSO have their opponents arrested for hate speech...

    It's a MichtyLand Two-Fer!!!!

    Like I said, michty.. Try to have at least a PASSING association with reality, k??

    Thank the gods our SCOTUS is smarter than you! :D

    Michale.....

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since you love to quote Fox News, michty..


    No demonstration before attack on US Consulate, source says

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/17/obama-administration-libyan-president-clash-over-explanation-on-consulate/

    But, let me guess...

    Since FoxNews is saying something you don't like, NOW they are not a credible source, right???

    Gods, you are so predictable..

    What I wouldn't give for a better quality of debate opponent..

    At least LD doesn't have to change reality to make his arguments appear to be valid... I guess that's something...

    Michale.....

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess when Obama said, "Who are you going to believe!? Us or your own eyes!?", michty responded with, "You, oh mighty exalted one!!"

    Michale.....

  76. [76] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    This was reported by a Libyan military officer on the scene.. He said that it was quiet, not even an ant was out

    Actually Rush Limbaugh reported (read: most likely made it up) first then Fox News picked it up, like a lot of stuff I imagine.

    So yeh... I'll wait until I have more data before I jump into the realm of believing Rush/Fox. I know that you don't have this same standard as me so go ahead and shout from the rooftops lol. Yes, it's me who has the bias - YOU'RE the sane one, everyone else is biased!

    So, your criteria for "Hate Speech" is that it causes violence.

    Nope. It doesn't need to cause violence. It needs to incite violence.

    Incite: Encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behavior).

    So, for example, in a court of law one could argue that based on the fact that a Muhammed cartoon had previously caused violence over the world (and everybody in the planet knew this), that making a video completely mocking him is absolutely inciting further violence. There we have a prosecution.

    But, as I said in the other thread, there is no point in debating 'hate speech' and freedom of speech issues with you since, as demonstrated above, you are completely clueless to how it works. So yeh I'm a terrorist and I hate free speech. That's life in Michale-world, I've learned to live with it.

  77. [77] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    Michale,
    Despite multiple claims from Obama admin officials, intelligence reports indicate that there was NO demonstration in Libya that proceeded the Benghazi attacks.
    The only place I could find this tidbit was on foxnews.com from an unnamed security guard who says he was injured during the attack. And this is supposed to be taken as truth over the all of the other eyewitness accounts that have been reported, including an interview I saw on one of the major networks last week — I forget which network — with a guard from his hospital bed saying that it started with protesters and was then followed up with gun fire?
    You really need to give it up and let your bigotry of President Obama go. Your standard for truth and facts has become a single unnamed source says it is true, so it must be. Everyone else telling the story must be lying.
    I would not be surprised if this were an opportunistic attack by al Qaeda, taking advantage of the anniversary and the situation. It proves nothing about the competency of the Obama administration.
    But cherry picking a single, anonymous eye-witness account to find something that singes your short and curlies only emphasizes your desperation.

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually Rush Limbaugh reported (read: most likely made it up) first then Fox News picked it up, like a lot of stuff I imagine.

    And your proof of this??

    Oh that's right. Your fevered Obama-Centric imagination...

    So yeh... I'll wait until I have more data before I jump into the realm of believing Rush/Fox.

    Like I said.. Fox says something don't like and now, ALL of the sudden, Fox isn't credible..

    If Fox had reported they caught Romney with a stripper, you would be all over it.. :D

    Nope. It doesn't need to cause violence. It needs to incite violence.

    Same difference.. So, in your world, all someone has to do is be violent about something that offends them and viola' instant Hate Speech..

    I am sure glad I don't live in your world...

    Thank gods, I live in a FREE country.. Well, granted, it's LESS free under Obama, but that will change soon enough...

    Michale.....

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ninjaf,

    Actually, the only reports of demonstrations came from the Obama administration. Every other report from people on the scene and the Libyan government indicate that it was a planned attack...

    Speaking strictly objectively, all those people have no reason to lie..

    The Obama administration, getting caught with their pants down... AGAIN... has every reason to lie...

    But I know. You won't believe ANYTHING that goes against Obama... So, it's pointless to try to convince the fanatical that their emperor has no clothes...

    Michale.....

  80. [80] 
    michty6 wrote:

    And your proof of this??
    Oh that's right. Your fevered Obama-Centric imagination

    Rush is in my RSS feed. For about 3 days now he has been peddling the 'it has nothing to do with the movie' nonsense. He wants to make it look like the whole world hates America because of Obama and the movie is nothing to do with it. Unsurprisingly, Fox bit and followed his rhetoric. Then of course, so did you lol. Sheeps gonna sheep.

    Same difference.. So, in your world, all someone has to do is be violent about something that offends them and viola' instant Hate Speech

    Sigh. I give up. You really do not have a clue how it works. Try reading my last post again and see if you get it. In particular the part where I talk about a court of law...

  81. [81] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Actually, the only reports of demonstrations came from the Obama administration. Every other report from people on the scene and the Libyan government indicate that it was a planned attack

    Actually all the media on the ground report the same thing. The UN ambassador reports the same thing. The administration and American intelligence offices report the same thing.

    The only people reporting different are the Libyan President and Libyan officials because they WANT it to seem like it was a planned Al Queda attack that didn't involve their citizens at all. Surely even YOU can see that there is a motive for them to say this?

    And, to take this one step further, what is the motive for Obama to say it wasn't a terrorist attack? You know that President's poll ratings shoot up after terrorist attacks right? So if Obama was the guy you think he is in Michale-world, who takes only decisions based on his own best interests, surely they'd be screaming to the skies that this was a pre-planned terrorist attack?

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Libya says US consulate attack 'pre-planned'
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/201291512714470776.html

    But, of course, no one here will read or believe this report..

    Because it's contrary to the Obama narrative, this will all be dismissed...

    I have to admit.. Sometimes I admire such fanatical devotion that would lead someone to ignore reality so readily...

    No, not really.. I don't really admire such fanaticism...

    Michale.....

  83. [83] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I admire your devotion to Rush Michale. It's good to see he still has such strong followers...

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's the problem with ya'alls position..

    Your position is that free speech is just fine and dandy until it hurts muslim feelings...

    Then ya'all simply bow to mob rule and want to restrict, criminalize and punish Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties, solely to appease an angry mob...

    And, once again, I am simply gabberflasted that *I* (of ALL people) am the ONLY one who has a problem with this...

    Michale.....

  85. [85] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    Michale,
    Re-read my post. Perhaps you should slow down and absorb before you post? I said I, PERSONALLY, saw an interview with someone wounded in the attack — one of the guards from the embassy. My best guess is that I saw it on CBS Evening News because it is the evening news broadcast that I watch. I did not read any press release put out by the Obama Administration.
    Not only that, did you read the Al Jazeera article that you linked? Nowhere does it mention that there were no protests before the attack occurred. How does this support your assertion that there were no protests before the attack?
    You are having a debate with some imagined "Lefty" in your head. I don't see where anyone has said that it is not possible that there was something more sinister than a protest-turned-violent, except YOU — attributing thoughts, words, and views that no one here has expressed.

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    I admire your devotion to Rush Michale. It's good to see he still has such strong followers...

    Nice ta see your penchant for spouting lies and BS hasn't changed..

    So much for your claim that you only deal in facts...

    Michale.....

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    I said I, PERSONALLY, saw an interview with someone wounded in the attack — one of the guards from the embassy.

    Then link it...

    I linked the eyewitness report that there was no demonstration. And, as michty has established, Fox News is a credible and legitimate source. At least it is, when it posts something ya'all AGREE with..

    Nowhere does it mention that there were no protests before the attack occurred. How does this support your assertion that there were no protests before the attack?

    It doesn't.. The eyewitness report previously linked handles that..

    The Al-Jazerra report DOES support the contention that it was a pre-planned attack and NOT a spontaneous demonstration, as the Obama-love-fanatics want to believe..

    Michale.....

  88. [88] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Your position is that free speech is just fine and dandy until it hurts muslim feelings.

    Nope. Lol. I don't know why I'm bothering. It's like trying to explain hate speech to someone who doesn't speak English.

    The Al-Jazerra report DOES support the contention that it was a pre-planned attack and NOT a spontaneous demonstration, as the Obama-love-fanatics want to believe.

    There is a HUGE difference between:
    - Protest turned into terrorist attack.
    - Protest, that terrorists used as an excuse for a pre-planned attack.
    - No protesting at all, just terrorist attack.

    First you were claiming the latter (based on Rush, who started the rumour) now you're saying the second one? I'm lost. Please find one wing-nut explanation and stick to it!

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, to take this one step further, what is the motive for Obama to say it wasn't a terrorist attack? You know that President's poll ratings shoot up after terrorist attacks right?

    ssssiiighhhhhhh

    I really have to adjust my assumption of your intelligence..

    Let's see.. What's better for Obama???

    An unplanned unanticipated spontaneous violent protest that the Obama administration was unprepared for that kills an American ambassador and 3 other American citizens??

    Or a planned terrorist attack that the Obama Administration was WARNED about days ahead of time that STILL was completely and utterly successful???

    Seriously, dood.. Put down the crack pipe and try to amass some undamaged braincells...

    Michale.....

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    It IS heartening to see that only the fringe elements of Weigantia are buying into the idea that the best course of action is to curtail and restrict freedom of speech in order to appease angry mobs...

    I still have faith... :D

    Michale.....

  91. [91] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol funny that 'put down the crack pipe' was pretty much my first response to your post in 89. I don't even know where to start. It's like you live in a dream world. Yes Obama know about the attack but did nothing. Probably because he's one of dem muslim terrorist perhaps? Lolol. I'm tired even discussing this nonsense with you. I'm about ready to give up. Everyday, the same old made up complete gibberish. I don't think I've ever met someone so bigoted against their own President.

    You can talk with him LD and David. I'm done.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    20,000 Quatloos says that the Administration will start changing it's story within 24 hours.. "New" evidence will be "discovered"... "New" witnesses will be "found" and the Administration narrative will start to look more like the reality...

    Any takers???

    Michale.....

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm about ready to give up.

    I understand..

    It's hard being a drugged up Obama-Bot, high on His Glory, when you have someone constantly bringing you down to earth with facts and reality..

    Don't take it too hard. Better than you have tried.. And failed.. :D

    {michale signs off, humming the tune to Queen's ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST.....}

    :D

    Michale....

  94. [94] 
    michty6 wrote:

    If anyone wonders where Michale gets his daily talking points from, here is Rush on why don't the 'liberal media' go after Bill Maher like they do the moronic movie maker? (see Michale posts 66, 68, 73)

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/09/17/why_don_t_hollywood_movies_made_by_liberals_inflame_the_muslim_world

  95. [95] 
    michty6 wrote:

    And here is Rush on how the media are obviously lying about the real cause of the Libyan attack (and all the demonstrations around the world) - see the last 10 Michale posts

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/09/17/susan_rice_plays_the_fool_for_the_cause

    And you wonder why I always compare you to Rush? I can literally predict what you'll be posting about on here based on what's on his daily feed...

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like it's YOU that listens to Rush, michty... :D

    And, yer saying he gets his talking points from!?? :D How kewl is that..

    Rush reads chrisweigant.com!!! :D

    Sir Salman Rushdie: free speech under threat from 'religious extremists'
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/9548036/Sir-Salman-Rushdie-free-speech-under-threat-from-religious-extremists.html

    Remember Salman Rusdie??

    If some of you had your way and, if Rushdie wrote Satanic Verses today, ya'all would want him prosecuted for a Hate Crime..

    Yet, Bill Maher and his Religiousity (or whatever) film is perfectly OK...

    Ahhh the blatant hypocrisy of the Left...

    Unabashed, unapologetic and completely moronic......

    Didn't you say something about being done???

    "Kahn.... I'm laughing at the superior intellect."
    -Admiral James T Kirk

    :D

    Michale.....

  97. [97] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yes it must be Rush who gets his talking points from you and not the other way round! Either way, congratulations!

    I added the Rush RSS feed (not really a blog but transcripts) a week or so ago - I suggest anyone who has half an interest in how Fox gets their news stories/Michale gets his talking points does the same. They are pretty entertaining/funny/crazy/nutty/offensive. But they make a very interesting insight to the understanding the minds of right-wing crazies. You wouldn't believe how much of the crap that comes out of his mouth is on Fox within 24 hours...

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty... The problem here is you are arguing for a position that is anathema to EVERYTHING America stands for..

    The First Amendment was SPECIFICALLY designed for controversial speech!

    Speech that doesn't offend, doesn't incite, doesn't invoke, doesn't affect has absolutely NO NEED of protection...

    Speech that ISN'T controversial has NO NEED of protection...

    It's the speech that DOES offend, it's the speech that DOES incite, it's the speech that DOES provoke... THAT is the very speech that NEEDS protecting..

    The very action ya'all are advocating is the VERY thing that the First Amendment was CREATED to protect speech from... From the holier-than-though who thought that, THEY ALONE, should be the guardians of speech. Who should determine what is and isn't permissible speech..

    Again, I am simply amazed that I have to actually LECTURE you people on this subject...

    Don't get me wrong. I love it that I am so morally and ethically on the side of angels here... :D

    Just a little confused by it...

    Michale...

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note...

    It wasn't bad enough that the DNC used Russian ships in it's tribute to the American military..

    Now it's discovered that the planes depicted in the DNC montage were TURKISH Air Force planes...

    I mean, call me silly... But, if Democrats wanted to salute the *US* Military, wouldn't it have behooved them to actually have *US* military hardware displayed???

    "Ah, now eventually you do plan to have dinosaurs on your, on your dinosaur tour, right? Hello?"
    -Dr Ian Malcolm, JURASSIC PARK

    :D

    Michale.....

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    I added the Rush RSS feed

    Then you are more intimate with Rush than I have ever been..

    As I said, I never listen to or watch Rush. Come to think of it, I never listen to or watch anyone or anything... At least, not news/opinion shows.. Hell, I even hate to watch news videos online...

    But I read voraciously.. CNN, FNC, AlJazeera, Haaretz, AP/Reuters feeds, StratFor, and a whole host of military and civilian feeds..

    That's why I have to laugh when you claim I just spout talking points. I read on issues from a MULTITUDE of sources and then make up my own mind, based on the facts and my own personal experiences...

    Further, if you have a problem with "Talking Points" then it seems to me you are in the wrong commentary.. You DID notice the title of this commentary, right??? :D

    Michale.....

  101. [101] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    Michale
    The interview (although brief) is at the 2 minute mark:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7421652n
    I would suggest you also watch the David Martin piece after the D'Agata story.
    I remembered incorrectly, and the part about it being a riot turn terrorist attack was from David Martin the day before (the day this was breaking, I would add):
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7421536n
    Why should you trust David Martin? Because I have watched him ever since the 9/11 attacks when he was eating everyone else's lunch with information days before everyone else. This man has some very reliable sources at the Pentagon and he knows his shtuff.

  102. [102] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    Michale
    Or a planned terrorist attack that the Obama Administration was WARNED about days ahead of time that STILL was completely and utterly successful???
    It didn't seem to hurt W's re-election campaign (not to be misconstrued as saying that I think the Obama Administration failed to act on an advanced warning).

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    It didn't seem to hurt W's re-election campaign

    Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20.... Especially when you deal in very general terms..

    "Anyone can find something on playback!"
    -Commander Clagget, SUM OF ALL FEARS

    The Obama Administration was informed of very specifics, time, place and date.. And dropped the ball..

    Here's a good analysis as to why...

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/17/political-concerns-could-factor-in-administration-version-libya-events-analysts/

    I guess FNC is reading cw.com again :D

    Michale.....

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's a good analysis as to why...

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/17/political-concerns-could-factor-in-administration-version-libya-events-analysts/

    That's actually a good analysis as to why Obama et al want to lay the blame on a "spontaneous" demonstration.

    It DOESN'T explain why Obama et al ignored the intelligence...

    Michale.....

  105. [105] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lolol Michale do you even read the articles you link to? There is absolutely nothing - zero, zilch, zada - in there about Obama ignoring intelligence. I'm pretty sure you just completely made that up because it suits your own bigoted story-line.

    The article even points out that this would just as likely be viewed as a positive for Obama's re-election:
    Given the rarity of such a strike, there's no obvious political ramification for the administration if the attack turns out to have been planned -- an ambassador hasn't been killed in such an attack in more than three decades. Voters could rally around the flag in the face of another Al Qaeda-tied assault. Or, to the contrary, they might question the administration's Middle East strategy and the measures it took to protect its own diplomatic team.

    It's funny - making this a terrorist attack would've been a massive boost for Obama's re-election. History shows this 'rally behind' effect. If Obama was the guy you think he is, and only cared about himself, he would've insta-jumped on calling it a terrorist attack. The fact he hasn't suggests one thing to me: it isn't. Lol.

  106. [106] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Oh I just looked across into parallel-Michale-world to see what was happening. In this parallel world, Obama called the attack a terrorist attack and Michale was busy gathering evidence to show that it wasn't a terrorist attack and Obama was making it up to boost his own election chances...

    In Michale-world Obama is doomed if he does and doomed if he doesn't. ;)

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/17/168782/us-libyan-officials-offer-vastly.html

    I realize facts don't have any place in your fantasy world, michty.. At least not ALL the facts.. Like you did above, you cherry pick the facts that fit your fantasy narrative..

    You have to understand. CW.COM is a REALITY based political blog..

    We like to deal in ALL the facts. Not just the ones that suit a particular narrative..

    For example, it's a FACT that you said you were done with me and this discussion..

    Is it too much to ask that you show some honor and abide by your word??

    I'm just sayin'....

    Michale.....

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/gadhafi-benghazi?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20120918&utm_term=gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=9a3830cd82a84f79bf2f6b82c001ca7c

    There is the reason why Obama's "Lead From Behind" strategy was a failure from the start...

    It's typical of the Obama Administration to want all the "flash" and glory, but when it comes to the nuts and bolts REAL work that follows, Obama just wants to jet set off to Vegas for a fundraiser...

    And ya'all believe that Obama is a foreign policy success!!????

    Shee ya right....

    Michale.....

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    We like to deal in ALL the facts. Not just the ones that suit a particular narrative..

    Well, *I* do anyways. I am beginning to wonder if I am the only one left who does..

    Michale.....

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4364

    Yea, there are NO Obama fanatics, right?? :^/

    Michale.....

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57514546/u.s-military-suspends-joint-patrols-with-afghans/

    Another example of Obama's Foreign Policy "triumph"...

    Michale.....

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    And on the "This Has Just GOT To Hurt The Left" category...

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/17/gi-joe-named-20th-century-top-toy/?intcmp=features

    :D

    Michale....

  113. [113] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I am beginning to wonder if I am the only one left who does.

    You're it, Michale. The only one. The rest of us just make stuff up because we're part of a liberal conspiracy against you.

    "You're so money." - Trent, Swingers

    http://youtu.be/vvKeDr3k7n0

    -David

  114. [114] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Taking down Citizens United is a worthy endeavor.. But NOT if it's done in a partisan manner with the ulterior agenda of weakening political opponents.

    BTW- Not sure why my response to this never posted. But wanted to add to this. One of the arguments for removing campaign finance restrictions was that they wouldn't aid one party more than another. You yourself admitted that this decision aided one party more than another - the Republicans.

    Its pretty clear that the original decision was highly partisan, designed to benefit Republicans.

    Since you are so non-partisan ... how do you explain your support for a decision that aids one party more than the other?

    -David

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're it, Michale. The only one. The rest of us just make stuff up because we're part of a liberal conspiracy against you.

    Well, I wouldn't be so paranoid as to think that it's against me! :D

    More like against the country, but why pick at nits.. :D

    But seriously, this whole Libya thing is a perfect example of the deluded nature of the Obama Administration in particular and the Left in general..

    This is a fairly volatile situation. And it is in response, not to the United States policy, not to -- obviously the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States, at large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and -- to Muslims."
    -Jay Carney

    Do you HONESTLY believe that all the violence and the death and the murder and the rape and the destruction and the pillaging at more than 20 American embassies is ALL the result of a single obscure 2 min video that has been on display for months!??

    Com'on! You can't SERIOUSLY believe that America's policies have NOTHING to do with all the violence.....

    Can you???

    I am also constrained to point out that A>no one here has condemned the PERPETRATORS of the attacks in ANY way and B> when the Left condemns the attacks, it is done in dry sardonic emotionless diplo-speak.. But when the Left condemns this obscure YouTube video that was COMPLETELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY within the Constitution, it's always emotionally laden words like "reprehensible" and "disgusting" and the like...

    Strange that the Left would save the most expletive and emotional words for the video but just use ho-hum, nothing to see here words against the actual perpetrators of the attacks...

    And, of course, Obama didn't let these attacks stop him from jet-setting off to Vegas for a fund raiser....

    Once again, the dichotomy is very revealing.. If a GOP President had done stuff like this, ya'all would have lost your frakin' minds... One only has to recall the harsh attacks that Bush had to endure because he stayed a little bit longer with some children so as not to scare them... Children who, 10 years later, remarked how much that helped them....

    What I wouldn't give for a little consistency around here... :D

    "You're so money." - Trent, Swingers

    Ya know, considering the lifestyle, it's actually ironic that we never saw that movie.. :D

    Michale.....

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ohhh grrrrrr....

    I hate it when that happens...

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    BTW- Not sure why my response to this never posted. But wanted to add to this. One of the arguments for removing campaign finance restrictions was that they wouldn't aid one party more than another. You yourself admitted that this decision aided one party more than another - the Republicans.

    Sure, in HINDSIGHT, this is the case..

    But wouldn't you agree that this is more likely because Republicans don't have the problem with herding cats that Democrats have??

    Obama embracing Citizens United was a monstrous mistake. For one, it totally forfeited the moral high ground...

    For another, Democrats simply cannot muster/master the SuperPACs like Republicans can.

    Surely you can see that Obama's BETTER choice was to take and hold the moral high ground...

    Its pretty clear that the original decision was highly partisan, designed to benefit Republicans.

    Since you are so non-partisan ... how do you explain your support for a decision that aids one party more than the other?

    I view it akin to the idea of Americans and their pursuit of happiness..

    Americans have the right to pursue happiness.. But they don't have the right TO happiness...

    The ruling made it so the playing field was level. No advantage to either Party..

    It just happens to be that, in THIS game, Republicans play it better than Democrats..

    Ergo, the ruling WAS non-biased and completely non-partisan...

    It's simply a case of Republicans being better at it than Democrats..

    The fact that MANY in the country are experiencing "Buyer's Remorse" likely has a lot to do with the lack of success on the part of the Democrats..

    A logical analysis, wouldn't you agree??? :D

    Michale.....

  118. [118] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    This whole argument is just like the DNC weather thing. The facts were there, on both sides, but you jumped to the anti-Obama conclusion straight away because you are completely blindly, bigoted and biased against him (take that alliteration!). If Obama came out tomorrow and said 'vote Mitt Romney' you would vote for Obama because that's how much you hate him and stand against everything he says.

    There is no point discussing anything with you because you are completely blind to reality and living in this made up 'Michale-world' where Obama is an evil Kenyan Muslim usurper attacking American values and the liberal/Google media conspiracy is letting him get away with it. You and Rush would get along very well.

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    This whole argument is just like the DNC weather thing.

    Yer absolutely right.

    It IS just like the DNC weather thing. You ignoring all the facts, except those that support your fantasy is the identical strategy you used in the DNC weather thing..

    Are you done?? Again???

    Michale.....

  120. [120] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The ruling made it so the playing field was level.

    I'd actually accept this argument with one caveat. The ruling makes it level if both parties do what the top money spenders want.

    What the ruling actually does is put pressure on both parties to become more corporate and beholden to big money.

    It puts pressure on both parties to cater to the interests of the monied. If you go against them, then they simply put up $15 million to get you unelected. This is the case with Sherrod Brown.

    This is why I would like to see it overturned. It may be a level playing field in terms of Republicans or Democrats. But it's not a level playing field in terms of the monied interests vs. people.

    I'd prefer a level playing field that favors people.

    What we are likely to see as a result of this decision is both parties becoming more corporate. Obama in the last election was a good example.

    Now there's not a clear direct connection, but what did the money buy? Well, for Wall Street it seemed to have bought kid gloves.

    -David

  121. [121] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I'd prefer a level playing field that favors people.

    BTW, I just read my own statement and it doesn't make a lot of sense so I hope you get the gist.

    What I mean is a level playing field that takes money out of the equation and better balances the interests of everyone :)

    What I mean, not what I said dammit!

    -David

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    What the ruling actually does is put pressure on both parties to become more corporate and beholden to big money.

    I disagree..

    I am sure we would agree that Republicans don't need "pressure" to become more corporate..

    It's the Republicans going corporate that pressured Democrats to go corporate....

    Here again, a monumental mistake. Democrats can't match Republicans for corporate dollars and it's foolish of them to even try..

    Better to take and keep the moral high ground..

    "If we are to be damned, let us be damned for what we really are."
    -Captain Jean Luc Picard

    What I mean is a level playing field that takes money out of the equation and better balances the interests of everyone :)

    But you and I both know that will never happen until our system of government radically changes..

    So, what's the next best solution??

    The next best solution is to ensure that Partys have equal opportunity.

    And that's exactly what the ruling did. It leveled the playing field for BOTH Partys.

    But that's not what you want.. You want rulings that change the game, since this particular game favors Republicans...

    I just don't see that happening in our lifetime. Not without violent and bloody revolution, that is..

    Michale.....

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:
  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    And it's a Michale Is Right two-fer!!!! :D

    The latest clarification from the administration came in response to an intelligence source on the ground in Libya telling Fox News there was no significant or sizeable demonstration when the attacks unfolded sometime after 9:30 p.m. in Benghazi last Tuesday. That appeared to challenge the view, espoused by the Obama administration, that ongoing demonstrations over an anti-Islam film had simply spun out of control.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/18/administration-walks-tightrope-in-carefully-worded-accounts-libya-violence/

    SOMEONE owes me 20,000 quatloos!!! :D

    Michale.....

  125. [125] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I am sure we would agree that Republicans don't need "pressure" to become more corporate.

    This is what happened, however. The moderate Republicans continue to get replaced to the point of near extinction.

    Better to take and keep the moral high ground.

    Oddly I agree with you here. Though I suspect you want this because you think money will always win the game for the conservatives :)

    You want rulings that change the game, since this particular game favors Republicans.

    Now this doesn't make much sense.

    You claim the ruling leveled the playing field.

    And ... at the same time that it favors Republicans.

    Pick one, Michale. You can't have both :). What it sounds like is that you want a game that favors Republicans.

    What happened to non-partisan?

    -David

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apropos of absolutely NOTHING...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JJ6IZHBPU4&feature=player_embedded

    WOW!!!!

    I say again....

    WOW!!

    Michale.....

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oddly I agree with you here. Though I suspect you want this because you think money will always win the game for the conservatives :)

    Not at all... I just believe that Democrats can't win...

    Now this doesn't make much sense.

    You claim the ruling leveled the playing field.

    And ... at the same time that it favors Republicans.

    Pick one, Michale. You can't have both :). What it sounds like is that you want a game that favors Republicans.

    What happened to non-partisan?

    It doesn't make sense because you are trying to read too much into it..

    You are trying to "figure it out" when there is really nothing to figure out..

    The ruling made it easier for BOTH Partys to obtain corporate cash...

    The game is Corporate Cash. The ruling made the game on a level playing field...

    I am sure you would agree that Republicans PLAY the game better than Democrats.

    That's not being partisan that's a simple evaluation of the facts.

    So, we have a game... Corporate cash.

    We have a level playing field. No restrictions on either Party to play the game..

    But Republicans play it better than Democrats.. That has nothing to do with the playing field, it just has something to do with Ability...

    But it another way.

    The ruling says that BOTH teams (the Jags and the Bengals) must only have 12 men on the field..

    Now, YOU want a ruling where the Bengals can play 25 men on the field, but the Jags can only play 5 men on the field... You think this ruling is "FAIR" because the Jags play the game so much better than the Bengals... (of course, we KNOW that is utter crap, but just go with me... :D)

    You want a artificial "handicap" imposed against the other team because your team is so much worse than their team..

    In essence, you want the courts to give Democrats an advantage, a NON LEVEL playing field, because they are so much worse at the game...

    It has nothing to do with fair..

    "Fair" is exactly what the ruling did. It gave BOTH Partys equal opportunity in the "game"...

    It just so happens that, in THIS particular "game" Republicans are better than Democrats..

    Hope that makes more sense...

    Michale.....

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not at all... I just believe that Democrats can't win...

    "The only way to win is to deny it battle."
    -Shifu The Harsesis, STARGATE SG1

    Michale.....

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The only way to win is to deny it battle."
    -Shifu The Harsesis, STARGATE SG1

    You see, this is where the Democrats went wrong..

    By embracing Citizens United, Obama and the Democrats gave the Republicans the battle that the Republicans wanted and the Democrats simply could not win...

    Surely the BETTER course of action would have been to deny the Republicans the battle AND, in doing so, maintain the position on the moral high ground...

    It would have been a Two-Fer win for the Democrats.

    As an aside, check yer email. :D

    Michale......

  130. [130] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It just so happens that, in THIS particular "game" Republicans are better than Democrats.

    And the game is giving handouts to corporations?

    That sounds like the game of corruption.

    This, my friend, is the problem w/ our Democracy. And ... it's why the game needs to change.

    BTW- I think it's a compliment to NOT be good at this game :)

    -David

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    This, my friend, is the problem w/ our Democracy. And ... it's why the game needs to change.

    Well, that may or may not be true. I am sure there is some debate there on that..

    But my point is, is that it *IS* the game...

    And the Democrats are woefully unequipped to play the game.. So, they should take the Harsesis' advice and deign not to play the game..

    BTW- I think it's a compliment to NOT be good at this game :)

    I would likely agree with that....

    But what does that say for the Democrats to try and PLAY the game, knowing they are not good at it??

    Michale.....

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    But what does that say for the Democrats to try and PLAY the game, knowing they are not good at it??

    Because, by opting to PLAY the game, Democrats are VALIDATING the game...

    Michale

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/18/white-house-opens-door-explanations-libya/

    Let the back pedaling begin!!! :D

    Like I said, SOMEONE owes me 20K quatloos!!! :D

    Michale.....

  134. [134] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But what does that say for the Democrats to try and PLAY the game, knowing they are not good at it?

    You can both play the game and try to change it at the same time. These are not 2 mutually exclusive choices.

    In fact, I think that's probably the smartest approach given that the game is going to be played regardless of whether you play or not.

    And I'd guess, Michale, that if the situation were reversed, you would not be arguing that Republicans simply lay down and not play.

    It's a great argument though if you want Republicans to win!

    -David

    p.s. Which is looking less and less likely w/ Mr. Mitt :)

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can both play the game and try to change it at the same time. These are not 2 mutually exclusive choices.

    Not really...

    Because if one castigates the game as bad and evil, what does that so for the person that plays it??

    And I'd guess, Michale, that if the situation were reversed, you would not be arguing that Republicans simply lay down and not play.

    That assumes that I am a Republican. Which we BOTH know is simply not true...

    The simple fact is Democrats, present company included, only decry the game because they are bad at it..

    Michale.....

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    p.s. Which is looking less and less likely w/ Mr. Mitt :)

    Ya wanna lay a bet?? :D I would LOVE to see you in an I LOVE MITT t-shirt!!! :D

    Secret Retirement Plans: Does Obama Expect To Lose? – Insider Reveals Internal Polls, Luxury Hawaii Estate Ready For January
    http://beforeitsnews.com/election-2012/2012/09/secret-retirement-plans-does-obama-expect-to-lose-insider-reveals-internal-polls-luxury-hawaii-estate-ready-for-january-2444992.html

    Michale.....

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    In fact, I think that's probably the smartest approach given that the game is going to be played regardless of whether you play or not.

    In other words, you don't put much faith in the moral high ground...

    Since when?? :D

    Michale.....

Comments for this article are closed.