Jump to content

US Politics #2


BloodRider

Recommended Posts

Newt Gingrich, Ladies and Gentlemen. Who knew he visited these boards.*

Hey Scott, that was pretty good. And about half of them are right too! :kiss: :kiss:

*I know, Occam's Razor simply suggests that FLoW and SYM just gives good copypasta, and that they do not have original thoughts. But I think it is fun to think that Newt read GRRM and now posts here.

What, exactly, have I copied and pasted? If by that you mean linking to articles with excerpts, then sure, I do that occasionally. It's certainly no less than anyone else here does. Just look at the post I'm quoting!

You folks do do your best to belittle those who disagree with you using the same sort of confrontational manner you are wont to use. The only opposing opinions you pretend to tolerate are ones which are given with an almost groveling deference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLOW,

The standard applied to refusing a buliding permit based upon "offensiveness to the community" for a church would need to be very high and subject to De Novo review if the permit were denied and its denial appealed. We're talkin about a clearly expressed right to freely exercise your religious faith. That right isn't limited to those faiths people find asthetically pleasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You folks do do your best to belittle those who disagree with you using the same sort of confrontational manner you are wont to use. The only opposing opinions you pretend to tolerate are ones which are given with an almost groveling deference.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes sleeping in your bed built on bigotry and ignorance that much easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, SYM is right here, he didn't do anything that could be construe as "copy and paste" in this case. I think he linked, and then wrote some comments. Is it almost the same as those of Newt? I guess so, but one cannot blame people for having opinions that are shared by others. People could still slam him for the idiocy or short-sightedness of such opinions though.

You know what, SYM might post/link to plenty of rightwing vitriols and talkingpoints but I as least respect the fact that he does not self-enclose himself in an echo-chamber by blocking out posts from people who slammed him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, exactly, have I copied and pasted? If by that you mean linking to articles with excerpts, then sure, I do that occasionally. It's certainly no less than anyone else here does. Just look at the post I'm quoting!

You folks do do your best to belittle those who disagree with you using the same sort of confrontational manner you are wont to use. The only opposing opinions you pretend to tolerate are ones which are given with an almost groveling deference.

People respond cordially to Blauer, FLOW and Starkimus a signifcant portion of the time, in large part because those three are willing to have a discussion. When the only thing you contribute to a thread are occasional drive-by snide bits of snarkery, it shouldn't surprise you that no one is willing to engage seriously or cordially with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLOW,

The standard applied to refusing a buliding permit based upon "offensiveness to the community" for a church would need to be very high and subject to De Novo review if the permit were denied and its denial appealed. We're talkin about a clearly expressed right to freely exercise your religious faith. That right isn't limited to those faiths people find asthetically pleasing.

Every zoning code I've seen allows churches to be located in any of the codes designation. Its the least restricted use normally. I don't completely agree with this. I have some issues with church's locating in industrial areas. I'm no expert on New York City's code but from what I've read its pretty much already been approved, and any attempt to deny the permit now is going to expose NYC to huge litigation cost. I'm sure Mayor Bloomberg knows this; I see that he supports the mosque. I'm fairly certain FLOW knows this too, so I'm finding it hard to take him seriously on this subject.

I think he's trying to make a point just for the sake of making a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You folks do do your best to belittle those who disagree with you using the same sort of confrontational manner you are wont to use. The only opposing opinions you pretend to tolerate are ones which are given with an almost groveling deference.

I'd never describe any of Tormund's posts as "given with an almost groveling deference" but I do have a fair amount of respect for his honesty and consistency of principles.

People just don't like your posts. In your case, it's not the game, it's the player that people hate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, SYM is right here, he didn't do anything that could be construe as "copy and paste" in this case. I think he linked, and then wrote some comments. Is it almost the same as those of Newt? I guess so, but one cannot blame people for having opinions that are shared by others. People could still slam him for the idiocy or short-sightedness of such opinions though.

You know what, SYM might post/link to plenty of rightwing vitriols and talkingpoints but I as least respect the fact that he does not self-enclose himself in an echo-chamber by blocking out posts from people who slammed him.

Who would do such a thing! They would have to be jackals to do that. :leaving:

Actually, in the spirit of full confession, I have got a few people on ignore. None of them are conservatives or Libertarians. All of them are either radical lefties, who's pseudo-babble drives me bonkers, or people who simply are incomprehensible - 'cause I just don't have the time to parse some persons barely shaped thoughts into an actual communique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get back to topics that aren't stupid:

On the Sherrod story:

Anyway, here's an interesting bit from Glenn Greenwald that maybe some lawyers could illuminate. There is the suggestion that Breitbart has opeaned himself to legal liability with this whole thing:

If someone purposely distorts a video to cast false aspersions on you, that's a form of defamation and other tortious conduct that's probably actionable. As a practical matter, it's probably difficult to prove damages (if she is offered her job back). Beyond that, Breitbart is claiming it wasn't him but his "source" who did the editing, and you'd probably have to have a fight over whether he can conceal the source's identity under some sort of shield law. But there's little question that she was defamed and injured through wrongful and likely actionable conduct.

I think there could be claims against Breitbart either way because, as I said, I think it was clear even from the video in edited form that she was making the opposite point of the one he claimed she was making. That's a form of recklessness that could be actionable even if he wasn't the one who did the editing.

Finally, I think it'd be worth it to sue him just to uncover his "source" who did the editing. "Journalists" are supposed to expose their "sources" if they use the journalist to perpetrate a fraud.

Which maybe explain his furious backpedaling: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011257-503544.html

Also, here's a nice summary of Fox New's backpeddling and smearing and attempts to ignore what they did. Good times!

Fox News spent much of July 19 and 20 ginning up controversy about the false claim that Shirley Sherrod made racist remarks at a NAACP meeting earlier this year. As the claim unraveled, Fox media personalities disappeared their role in the story, continued to smear her as "descriminat[ory]" in the face of contradictory evidence, and boldly suggested the network did not contribute to the controversy.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007210066

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, exactly, have I copied and pasted? If by that you mean linking to articles with excerpts, then sure, I do that occasionally. It's certainly no less than anyone else here does. Just look at the post I'm quoting!

You folks do do your best to belittle those who disagree with you using the same sort of confrontational manner you are wont to use. The only opposing opinions you pretend to tolerate are ones which are given with an almost groveling deference.

Your copypasta is memetic. You paste other peoples thoughts right into your psyche. Then, joy, you feel the need to share that with us.

If I may, your frustration stems from the fact that we are not as vulnerable to nonsense like you. You mistake legitimate criticism and an attempt to engage you on a factual level as belittling, and then in a very immature nay childish fashion you pout and say it's not fair, or everyone is out to get me.

Try, at least, defending your ideas. Have some balls. Give some evidence that isn't a copy and paste link. Show your work if you want full marks.

But you know that all the opinion of a radical Stalin lovin' communist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, here's a nice summary of Fox New's backpeddling and smearing and attempts to ignore what they did. Good times!

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007210066

Well it's a template for how the modern right wing operates. Never admit you're wrong, accuse your opponents of your own worst sins, and blame other people for the fuckups that you created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeb Bush makes sense as someone for the GOP to nominate, but for his name.

But perhaps he makes so much sense in every other way that it may not matter?

I'm torn on this. This isn't the first time I've seen it brought up.

To be honest, I think I might want Jeb Bush more than some of the GOP's candidates, and certainly I'd take him over Palin in a heartbeat.

There are 300 million people in this country, surely there are qualified candidates out there not named Bush or clinton.....

Three decades with only two families running the country(ish) is more than sufficient for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People respond cordially to Blauer, FLOW and Starkimus a signifcant portion of the time.

Some people do. Others are simply rude and repeatedly engage in ad hominem attacks. I don't choose to use SYM's posting style here, but its certainly no worse than that of some people on the other side of the spectrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 300 million people in this country, surely there are qualified candidates out there not named Bush or clinton.....

Three decades with only two families running the country(ish) is more than sufficient for me.

Equating the Clintons with the Bush's seems wrong to me. You're missing the forest for the trees. In Clinton's case, he was raised in a middle class family, with no significant political ties worthy of note. Hilary's father was a sort of business man that had some access to some politicians, and definitely well to do. None of Bill or Hilary's siblings are political players.

Compared that to Bush. G.W. Bush's grandfather was a Texas politician (State senator? something like that?). George H. W. Bush was head of CIA, ambassador to China, and then U.S. President. George W. Bush's brother was Governor of Florida.

The two just doesn't compare to me. Maybe if Chelsea becomes President, and then her children become political figures, then we'd have something more comparable. Until then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every zoning code I've seen allows churches to be located in any of the codes designation. Its the least restricted use normally. I don't completely agree with this. I have some issues with church's locating in industrial areas. I'm no expert on New York City's code but from what I've read its pretty much already been approved, and any attempt to deny the permit now is going to expose NYC to huge litigation cost. I'm sure Mayor Bloomberg knows this; I see that he supports the mosque. I'm fairly certain FLOW knows this too, so I'm finding it hard to take him seriously on this subject.

I think he's trying to make a point just for the sake of making a point.

I'm not offering an opinion on what NYC should do based on the law. That's purely a legal question. I'm simply stating a personal preference. It might be legal to fart in an elevator, but it isn't very nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Equating the Clintons with the Bush's seems wrong to me. You're missing the forest for the trees. In Clinton's case, he was raised in a middle class family, with no significant political ties worthy of note. Hilary's father was a sort of business man that had some access to some politicians, and definitely well to do. None of Bill or Hilary's siblings are political players.

Compared that to Bush. G.W. Bush's grandfather was a Texas politician (State senator? something like that?). George H. W. Bush was head of CIA, ambassador to China, and then U.S. President. George W. Bush's brother was Governor of Florida.

The two just doesn't compare to me. Maybe if Chelsea becomes President, and then her children become political figures, then we'd have something more comparable. Until then.

I wasn't equating the two families in any way except to point out that they have both significantly influenced the direction of the federal government over the last three decades.

Certainly it's more blatant in the case of the Bushes, but it makes no real difference in this context, since I wasn't really comparing them in that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't equating the two families in any way except to point out that they have both significantly influenced the direction of the federal government over the last three decades.

Certainly it's more blatant in the case of the Bushes, but it makes no real difference in this context, since I wasn't really comparing them in that way.

A much better comparison would be the Bushes and the Kennedys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, this is great:

If Andrew Breitbart Edited It:

Karate Kid: Disturbed youth manipulated by charismatic foreigner into assaulting members of local athletic club

The Wire: The cause of all of Baltimore's problems is a government-run socialized police force

Wargames: Scientists and liberal teenagers damage millitary readiness, protect communists

Aladdin: Swarthy thief flees jail, abducts princess, kills trusted advisor & performs coup d'etat.

Good Night and Good Luck: Commie pinkos run the mainstream media.

Wizard of Oz: Illegal alien murders elderly homeowner.

Chinatown: Kindly magnate John Huston doesn't lose sight of old-fashioned family values.

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...