Comments Posted By Hugh Larious
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 16 Comments
'UNRULY' CONSERVATIVES SHOCK THE GOP IN NY23
Better watch out Michael...Gayle is smarter than you are. She will inform us all of that in her next post. Again.
Comment Posted By Hugh Larious On 2.11.2009 @ 13:45
'SILENCE EQUALS ASSENT:' WHY POINTING OUT CONSERVATIVE LUNACY MUST BE DONE
@Freedoms Truth "8 years of lunacy, lies and hyperbole from the BDS left has trained some on the right to imagine that it’s how the opposition is *supposed* to behave."
Seriously? You are blaming the left for how the right is acting? That is ridiculous. Maybe the left originally learned how they were "supposed" to behave from the right? Makes as much sense as your statement.
I just love how you absolve the right of any responsibility for their current actions. Wow. I'm amazed.
Comment Posted By Hugh Larious On 30.09.2009 @ 11:36
WHY DO CONSERVATIVES SEE RED WHEN OBAMA TALKS GREEN?
Well said
Indeed.
Comment Posted By Hugh Larious On 28.04.2009 @ 14:01
Well said
Indeed.
Comment Posted By Hugh Larious On 28.04.2009 @ 13:57
I find it funny that the right waited until a republican wasn't in office (president) before throwing their tantrums.
Is it because the current bailout is significantly larger? A bailout is still a bailout. What is your "A $ amount bailout/stimulus package...I'm going to a tea party then!" breaking point? 200 billion?
Comment Posted By Hugh Larious On 14.04.2009 @ 14:58
@EBJ:
I hated most of the last bailout package just as much as I hate most of the current stimulus package. The difference as I see it between me and "tea party" participants is that I don't hate it more just because a democrat is president.
Comment Posted By Hugh Larious On 14.04.2009 @ 14:54
"...to show our concerns on the tax and spend policies of this administration..."
"...I wonder why the Left is so concerned about our peaceful protest demonstrations?..."
I believe it is because people on the left/center don't understand what the hell the right is trying to accomplish? There is one, and only one, reason why the right is throwing "tea parties"...and that is because democrats are in control.
If the tea parties are to "show concerns of spending policies of an administration" where were the goddamn tea parties during the prior administration?
Comment Posted By Hugh Larious On 14.04.2009 @ 13:43
FIRST, THEY CAME FOR THE SMOKERS
@Wramblin' Wreck:
I don't think paying 100% for your own medical bills will work. It would work great for small procedures, maybe a broken bone, flu care, small dental work, etc. What happens when a major 3 car wreck happens on the freeway? Make the person who caused it pay for everyone? What if they don't have enough money? So now the cost goes to the people who weren't at fault. But again, say that person doesn't have enough money...who pays the rest of that bill? A payment plan? What if you are paying a mortgage, car note, medical expenses for your kids (because they get into all sorts of trouble – bicycle wrecks, falling out of trees, you name it), and you don't make a lot of money...how do you go about paying for a large medical bill (for something that wasn't even your fault)? Say medical costs were driven down - you would still run across high dollar procedures...ongoing cancer treatments...not for lung because now those people have to pay for their own...but say breast cancer – what adult decision did someone make in their life to be hit up with breast cancer later on or pancreatic cancer even. People wouldn't have enough money for ongoing issues that weren’t their fault.
Having to pay for insurance is not a bad thing - you average out the costs of expensive medical bills over a large group of people paying monthly premiums - basically an odds game. The problem is when you also include the costs of another large group of people who do not pay a monthly premium - the uninsured (Slight oversimplification of the problem - you are right that pricey healthcare is another issue too). Next thing you know my insurance company is getting charged $100 for a $1 arm sling just to make up for them not getting paid by someone else.
Comment Posted By Hugh Larious On 2.04.2009 @ 14:39
DON'T YOU WISH YOU WERE A FLY ON A WALL?
"You further the case for you being stupid by quoting the Declaration of Independence – a document that has no force of law whatsoever. Using your (il)logic, German and Japanese POW’s should have been tried in our courts like pickpockets. Holy Jesus! Even the Geneva Convention doesn’t mandate that."
You call me stupid for quoting the Declaration of Independence? Christ on a crutch man. Our country was formed and a declaration of independence was created. Our differences with other nations...put there on paper. Declaring who we are...what we are..what we will be. The line I quoted is everyones bread and butter. All men are created equal. Our inalienable rights. Your belief in that our declaration having no force of law and should therefore be ignored is, in my opinion, ignorant. I didn't quote that line in order for you to think that the "Declaration of Independence" police should be created...but in order to distinguish our country. Our differences with others...our beliefs...that should be protected!
You will have no right, no right whatsoever when your liberties are taken away, stripped away slowly, little by little. You will wake up one day and wonder where it all went, when did it happen...what could you have done. It happened when you said you didn't care that much if the government didn't protect your civil liberties in order to feel a little safe.
That, sir, is being like a sheep. Do you feel safe in your pen..here, let me put up one more board...it won't block out all the light. Yet. Yes, we'll keep you safe...shhhh....shhhhh. No more wolves...here...one more board.
I love how when someone questions you...wants clarification from you, all you can do is call them stupid. Don't answer the question at all. Just ignore it and call the poster names. Bravo sir. Bravo. Because I chose to write about torture you feel like I'm ignoring other civil liberties. Should I limit myself to the free speech for your pleasure? You don't want to discuss the "trickiness" of due process apparently.
So I want to know what you meant by when you wrote:
"I did not support some of what President Bush initiated as security measures these last 8 years but neither am I a civil liberties absolutist who some suspect would be enormously satisfied if the government bent over backward to obey Constitutional protections to the letter and the spirit of the law while the US suffered a horrific attack."What security measures in regard to civil liberties did you not support? If not in reference to the Military Commissions Act, what were you referring to? I can see you being bitter about his "White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives"...but that first amendment..umm...violation I guess...wouldn't make you safer from a horrific attack so you couldn't have been speaking of that one. I can see unreasonable searches and seizures probably helping against attacks. Is that what you are referring to?
I'm guessing here now...so you tell me...what civil liberties are you OK with not being guarded/protected by the government in order to feel safer (in some cases probably even be safer - but you never know...that is not a guarantee).
Comment Posted By Hugh Larious On 11.11.2008 @ 12:08
"but neither am I a civil liberties absolutist who some suspect would be enormously satisfied if the government bent over backward to obey Constitutional protections to the letter and the spirit of the law while the US suffered a horrific attack"
I am wondering at where you draw the line sir. Murder/rape/torture? It seems to me that you are ok with civil liberties being ignored when times are rough...when there is an assumption that you were protected because some information was given via torture.
What if it were an American domestic terrorist being tortured? You would be ok with that since the information they gave would save American lives. Correct? How about if it were a supposed American domestic terrorist? Maybe they are or maybe there aren't? Only torture would tell. Are you saying you would be OK with it if it ended up being a domestic terrorist...but not OK with it if it ended up being an innocent? I am sorry but you can not have it both ways. All I ask is where you draw the line. At what point would you stand up and say "NO!" to someone being tortured? When it is only an American who is just suspected of being a terrorist? Or only when it is someone you know? A friend, a family member, a member of your community? And if you are willing to stand up and say "NO!" for a friend how come not your fellow man? Be it someone from Canada, someone from Mexico, someone from France, or gasp, dare I say it, someone from Iraq or Afghanistan?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
That statement does not say anything about just being an American.
"...that you were protected because some information was given via torture."
I have come out in a half dozen posts on this site against torture under any circumstances. And if you think those are the only civil liberties questions that have arisen in the last 8 years, you are a dunce.
You further the case for you being stupid by quoting the Declaration of Independence - a document that has no force of law whatsoever. Using your (il)logic, German and Japanese POW's should have been tried in our courts like pickpockets. Holy Jesus! Even the Geneva Convention doesn't mandate that.
Learn the issues please before commenting on this site.
ed.
Comment Posted By Hugh Larious On 11.11.2008 @ 10:33
