Jump to content

US Politics: I am a blatant racist and that will give unfair advantages to minorities or something


Inigima

Recommended Posts

Trolling through the last thread for a subtitle, and this gem jumped out at me.



grumdin: I think you will find that those of us here on the left often agree with you on the issues you cited. I think you have a caricatured view of what we believe and have been arguing with that. Many of us (myself included) are deeply uncomfortable with both W- and Obama-era expansions of the surveillance state; I would venture to say that pretty much all of us are opposed to the militarization of law enforcement, and agree that it's happening. I don't know that it's a federal issue though.



Maybe don't assume you know our opinions before you even know what they are.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in other words Ingima you don't know which Kool-aid to drink?

Makes sense to me.

Being smart enough to stay away from the Kool-aid is part of being a responsible citizen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We got through a full US Politics thread in three days???

That usually only happens at election time. I just finished reading the old one (that closed Wednesday)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We got through a full US Politics thread in three days???

That usually only happens at election time. I just finished reading the old one (that closed Wednesday)!

Well, you have to agree there was some big, big trolling driving it forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you have to agree there was some big, big trolling driving it forward.

Indeed. We have our very own anti-Semite among us now. We asked and Ran said we can keep him as long as we take him for daily walks.

You gotta admit, with posts like that, your asking to be ignored by almost everyone..

Once again, your inability to read even the simplest context amuses me greatly.

And this seems relevant, or at least fun. The 10 Truest Things Harry Truman Said About Republicans

#3. “A bureaucrat is a Democrat who holds some office that a Republican wants.”

#5. “It's an old political trick: "If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em."

#6. “A leader in the Democratic Party is a boss, in the Republican Party he is a leader.”

#9. "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."

#10. “The Republicans … will try to make people believe that everything the Government has done for the country is socialism. They will go to the people and say: "Did you see that social security check you received the other day—you thought that was good for you, didn't you? That's just too bad! That's nothing in the world but socialism. Did you see that new flood control dam the Government is building over there for the protection of your property? Sorry—that's awful socialism! That new hospital that they are building is socialism. Price supports, more socialism for the farmers! Minimum wage laws? Socialism for labor! Socialism is bad for you, my friend. Everybody knows that. And here you are, with your new car, and your home, and better opportunities for the kids, and a television set—you are just surrounded by socialism! Now the Republicans say, ‘That's a terrible thing, my friend, and the only way out of this sinkhole of socialism is to vote for the Republican ticket.’"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://news.yahoo.com/advice-democrats-dont-recovery-073618756--election.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Election-year memo to Democratic candidates: Don't talk about the economic recovery. It's a political loser.


In addition, Stan Greenberg, James Carville and others wrote that in head-to-head polling tests the mere mention of the word "recovery" is trumped by a Republican assertion that the Obama administration has had six years to get the economy moving and its policies haven't worked.So say Democratic strategists in a blunt declaration that such talk skips over "how much trouble people are in, and doesn't convince them that policymakers really understand or are even focusing on the problems they continue to face."

Coincidentally or not, Democrats have largely shelved the "R'' word.

Apparently pursuing policies that has caused the greatest shift of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy in the history of this nation was not what folks thought they were getting when they voted for Obama. Note record stock prices, a booming high end real estate market and record corporate profits does not equal an economic recovery for the majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And surely, that couldn't be the goal of law enforcement carrying weapons. Ludicrous!

It is not like they have not fired first before Don't you remember when those government snipers killed that man's wife son and dog? Ruby Ridge or something like that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trolling through the last thread for a subtitle, and this gem jumped out at me.

grumdin: I think you will find that those of us here on the left often agree with you on the issues you cited. I think you have a caricatured view of what we believe and have been arguing with that. Many of us (myself included) are deeply uncomfortable with both W- and Obama-era expansions of the surveillance state; I would venture to say that pretty much all of us are opposed to the militarization of law enforcement, and agree that it's happening. I don't know that it's a federal issue though.

Maybe don't assume you know our opinions before you even know what they are.

I was making no comment on any supposed hypocrisy amongst folks posting on here, just pointing out some of the few things I approve from the current administration. Though of course the mass protests against the drone strikes, the NSA abuses, the ongoing erosion of basic rights have been decidedly absent. Why is that? One of the greatest mistakes the tea party/liberty movement has made is not supporting the Occupiers on the grounds they were a bunch of left wing hippies. True they were a bunch of left wing hippies but on the grounds that my enemies enemy can sometime by my friend we should have backed them 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AP,

Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke.

So, Democrats and Republicans have killed the family farm by creating subsidies that have made it profitable for Agrabusiness to replace the family farm. How is that helping the "American Farmer"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not like they have not fired first before Don't you remember when those government snipers killed that man's wife son and dog? Ruby Ridge or something like that

True enough, but it's not far-fetched to believe that self-defense is what they're after here, is it? Given that they were dealing with armed, potentially violent protesters, it seems only natural that they would be armed as well. Besides, given how it actually went down, it sounded like the feds did everything they could to avoid a conflict, so it doesn't sound like a violent confrontation was top on their priority list.

We got through a full US Politics thread in three days???

That usually only happens at election time. I just finished reading the old one (that closed Wednesday)!

The last time this happened, if I remember correctly, was during the 2012 election. Of course, I don't come around all that often...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True enough, but it's not far-fetched to believe that self-defense is what they're after here, is it? Given that they were dealing with armed, potentially violent protesters, it seems only natural that they would be armed as well. Besides, given how it actually went down, it sounded like the feds did everything they could to avoid a conflict, so it doesn't sound like a violent confrontation was top on their priority.

So did the rancher he told people to not bring guns
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So did the rancher he told people to not bring guns

Regardless, many of the protesters did bring guns, and some were quoted as having violent intent. Perhaps Bundy didn't mean for the affair to turn into a fight, but at best both sides took precautions in case such a scenario were to arise. And, had the feds not backed out, it probably would have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least 10 suspected al-Qaeda combatants and three civilians died Saturday in a U.S. drone attack on south Yemen, the nation's Supreme Security Commission said.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/04/19/13-people-die-in-us-drone-attack-in-south-yemen/

I thought the deal with these countries was that the U.S. could conduct drone warfare in their territory but that the local government would deny knowledge and even condemn the strikes if they wanted to. Has that been scrapped, since everyone and their grandma apparently knows the real deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...