[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
As soon as people can look themselves in the mirror and finally face the fact that healthcare, stimulus, bailouts, cap n trade, ___________________ etc. is not about the things the name implies, but is in reality simply a means for centralizing as much power as quickly as possible, it all falls into place.
More conspiracy theories. You should look up a guy named Joe McCarthy, you’d probably like him.
When will conservatives get over this conspiracy crap? The stimulus was needed (we see now [actually, many saw way back at the beginning of the year] that a BIGGER stimulus was needed). The bailouts were needed (yay capitalism). If they really wanted power, and nothing else, they would have been better off letting the economy totally implode and then declaring martial law or something.
Cap and trade, healthcare ARE meant to transform America, and they were more or less upfront about it, seeing as he ran on a platform of change. But why shouldn’t we change things? Because this is such an awesome country? Riiighht.
[/quote]
I’m sorry, I’m not totally clear how you describe yourself. But, am I correct in understanding that you’re a self-described socialist? Perhaps I misremember, and it’s someone else I have in mind.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
As soon as people can look themselves in the mirror and finally face the fact that healthcare, stimulus, bailouts, cap n trade, ___________________ etc. is not about the things the name implies, but is in reality simply a means for centralizing as much power as quickly as possible, it all falls into place.
More conspiracy theories. You should look up a guy named Joe McCarthy, you’d probably like him.
When will conservatives get over this conspiracy crap? The stimulus was needed (we see now [actually, many saw way back at the beginning of the year] that a BIGGER stimulus was needed). The bailouts were needed (yay capitalism). If they really wanted power, and nothing else, they would have been better off letting the economy totally implode and then declaring martial law or something.
Cap and trade, healthcare ARE meant to transform America, and they were more or less upfront about it, seeing as he ran on a platform of change. But why shouldn’t we change things? Because this is such an awesome country? Riiighht.
[/quote]
Hang in there pal. You’ll get it. It’ll probably be too late, but you WILL get it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
As soon as people can look themselves in the mirror and finally face the fact that healthcare, stimulus, bailouts, cap n trade, ___________________ etc. is not about the things the name implies, but is in reality simply a means for centralizing as much power as quickly as possible, it all falls into place.
More conspiracy theories. You should look up a guy named Joe McCarthy, you’d probably like him.
When will conservatives get over this conspiracy crap? The stimulus was needed (we see now [actually, many saw way back at the beginning of the year] that a BIGGER stimulus was needed). The bailouts were needed (yay capitalism). If they really wanted power, and nothing else, they would have been better off letting the economy totally implode and then declaring martial law or something.
Cap and trade, healthcare ARE meant to transform America, and they were more or less upfront about it, seeing as he ran on a platform of change. But why shouldn’t we change things? Because this is such an awesome country? Riiighht.
I’m sorry, I’m not totally clear how you describe yourself. But, am I correct in understanding that you’re a self-described socialist? Perhaps I misremember, and it’s someone else I have in mind. [/quote]
Yes he is a socialist, the only thing that changed is his avatar.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Anyone remember Trent Lott? Tell me there isn’t a different burden of proof, based on race and political party, in maintaining one’s non-racist status.
This is fairly obvious. 'Course, if someone today says, “I voted for the segregationist and I’m proud of it!” I certainly hope there is a bit of controversy. Don’t you? And isn’t this exactly what he did?
I thought he said some kind words at the birthday party of a doddering 100 year old man.
And I wrote those “kind words” above. Go get the exact quote if you’d like. He said he had voted for the segregationist candidate, that he was proud of it, and that if the rest of the country had followed, “these problems” wouldn’t have occurred.
“When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.” [/quote]
So basically I got the quote right.
Thurmond led a splinter party specifically against Truman’s Civil Right platform with the rallying cry “Segregation Forever!” Lott said he was “proud” to have voted for this man/party. At least Byrd has the common courtesy to pretend he’s changed his views.
I’m not really “outranged” (sic) by any of this. And you’ll probably never believe it, but I think all of this should have been brought to light and caused controversy.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
tom63 wrote:
They’re Harvard folk, not really into that common sense thing. They get so caught up in their pseudo intellectualism that they don’t understand things like simple economics.
The people who nearly destroyed our economy understood “simple economics.” Try again.[/quote]
Yeah right, try again. Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd are two such examples. they socialist tards just like you, but you have the excuse of being a dipshit college kid. They should know better.
I hope that no one is getting too excited about Van Jones being dismissed. He will turn up in another job with in the administration and most will never hear about it.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’m not really “outranged” (sic) by any of this. And you’ll probably never believe it, but I think all of this should have been brought to light and caused controversy.
[/quote]
Now, that’s rather ‘outrangeous.’ It was ‘outrangeous’ of me to assume you didn’t think the Jones thing was deserving of scrutiny. Don’t be ‘outranged’ at me, though I’d understand if you were.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
As soon as people can look themselves in the mirror and finally face the fact that healthcare, stimulus, bailouts, cap n trade, ___________________ etc. is not about the things the name implies, but is in reality simply a means for centralizing as much power as quickly as possible, it all falls into place.
More conspiracy theories. You should look up a guy named Joe McCarthy, you’d probably like him.
When will conservatives get over this conspiracy crap? The stimulus was needed (we see now [actually, many saw way back at the beginning of the year] that a BIGGER stimulus was needed). The bailouts were needed (yay capitalism). If they really wanted power, and nothing else, they would have been better off letting the economy totally implode and then declaring martial law or something.
Cap and trade, healthcare ARE meant to transform America, and they were more or less upfront about it, seeing as he ran on a platform of change. But why shouldn’t we change things? Because this is such an awesome country? Riiighht.
[/quote]
Actually the first one of these stimulas plans startd when GWB gave out those checks back in his first term in office. Over the long term did it work? Nope. The bailouts haven’t worked either because we now have double digit unemployment.If we had let the capitalist system run it coarse a long time ago we probably wouldn’t be in this fix.
I know I mentioned it already on this thread but since you like Van Jones and Barry O. so much then you must be a fan of reparations from slavery. Are you ready to pay that?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
tom63 wrote:
They’re Harvard folk, not really into that common sense thing. They get so caught up in their pseudo intellectualism that they don’t understand things like simple economics.
The people who nearly destroyed our economy understood “simple economics.” Try again.[/quote]
No, [Strom Thurmond] did not say he voted for the “segregationist candidate”. You know that but continue to type it here. You can’t just lie and get away with it, Pinocchio.[/quote]
Sloth put the exact quote above. Here it is again if you missed it:
“When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”
Strom Thurmond was the segregationist candidate when he ran. Google it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I want to make clear, again, I’m not defending Lott or Strom. I’m asking why the SAME standard isn’t applied.[/quote]
To be fair to Gambit_Lost he did say neither one of them should have remained.
When Lott spoke about Thurmond he was not saying that if we had had his segrationist policies we would be better off. I guarantee you the thought never crossed his mind. He was speaking of Thurmond’s conservatism generally. Whatever you think of Lott he is not an idiot and even if he believed it would know that if he said the country would be better off with blacks back in their place it would be political suicide. As it turned out, even his explanation of that did not save him.
However, absolutely, why can Byrd be an officer in the KKK and all is forgiven because he says he doesn’t believe that anymore? David Duke thoroughly renounced his KKK past and I still wouldn’t support him despite agreeing with a good bit of his stated policies. I can’t get past the judgment of somebody who could ever embrace that worldview. I may count them as a friend, but I don’t want them in office.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I want to make clear, again, I’m not defending Lott or Strom. I’m asking why the SAME standard isn’t applied.
To be fair to Gambit_Lost he did say neither one of them should have remained.
When Lott spoke about Thurmond he was not saying that if we had had his segrationist policies we would be better off. I guarantee you the thought never crossed his mind. He was speaking of Thurmond’s conservatism generally. Whatever you think of Lott he is not an idiot and even if he believed it would know that if he said the country would be better off with blacks back in their place it would be political suicide. As it turned out, even his explanation of that did not save him.
However, absolutely, why can Byrd be an officer in the KKK and all is forgiven because he says he doesn’t believe that anymore? David Duke thoroughly renounced his KKK past and I still wouldn’t support him despite agreeing with a good bit of his stated policies. I can’t get past the judgment of somebody who could ever embrace that worldview. I may count them as a friend, but I don’t want them in office.[/quote]
I think I can best express what I’m trying to get at, with a couple of questions. “President Obama, were you completely ignorant of Jones, your former czar, and his beliefs? If not, well, why the heck did he get that post? If you were ignorant of him and his beliefs, can you now, having been informed, publically repudiate him and his beliefs?”
Basically, I see a parallel between Lott and Obama, and Jones/Wright with Strom. So while the Jones-Wright/Strom side of the equation hasn’t escaped public outrage, why has only Lott paid the price between him and Obama?
I don’t want just a resignation. I want Obama to say Jones is a racist, and his beliefs are despicable and should be condemned by every American. If that has happened and I missed it, I apologize.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I don’t want just a resignation. I want Obama to say Jones is a racist, and his beliefs are despicable and should be condemned by every American. If that has happened and I missed it, I apologize.[/quote]
Expecting such responsibility from a president is insane. He didn’t apologize for his comment about Officer Crowley and his stupid behavior, what makes you think he will apologize for this?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I don’t want just a resignation. I want Obama to say Jones is a racist, and his beliefs are despicable and should be condemned by every American. If that has happened and I missed it, I apologize.
Expecting such responsibility from a president is insane. He didn’t apologize for his comment about Officer Crowley and his stupid behavior, what makes you think he will apologize for this?[/quote]
Maybe he will have another “learning moment” or whatever the fuck it was he said to backpedal out of the Crowley thing.
Good riddance to a worthless radical agitator who deserves no place in the executive branch. It defies belief that such an extremist - a self-admitted Marxist in the 1990s (that’s hard work, considering those ideas were flatly discredited right before that decade) and radical race-monger - was in charge of millions of taxpayer money (he participated in the doling out of stimulus money to “green jos” works) without any public accountability.
Jones’ ouster will raise the profile of the battle against the czars, which looms as the larger question.
And, as an aside, during the election, we heard that Obama was the “next” Lincoln, the “next” FDR, and even the “next” Reagan. All nonsense. Why not make the obvious comparison: a former academic with a professorial, detached demeanor who deplored the democratic impulses of the unwashed masses and who believed the country needed to be “managed” by professional administrative politicians (read: czars)?
If Obama is the “next” anyone, he is the “next” Woodrow Wilson.