Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 191 To 200 Of 657 Comments
<em>SEVEN DAYS IN MAY</em> MEETS <em>COME NINIVEH COME TYRE</em>
@Rick:
I have never disagreed with you more.
Ava Gardner can NEVER be considered a complication. It violates several laws of physics, I think.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.09.2009 @ 15:13
'SILENCE EQUALS ASSENT:' WHY POINTING OUT CONSERVATIVE LUNACY MUST BE DONE
@FreedomsTruth (one last time):
"I don’t fall for the ‘guilt-by-association’ aka McCarthyism claims, that because the right has a fringe therefore the whole right is wrong. The left has its fringe, the Castro/Chavez-loving crowd, the ‘kill all SUVs’ eco-extremists, the anti-population nuts, the impeach Bush BDS folks, the Socialist Democrats. If the other shoe fits, then the entire Democrat party is a bunch of communists … which gets us back to the kinds of hyperbole you are (rightly) objecting to. " (comment #3)
"That is no different on the left. You’ve just describe the proggo-sphere in reverse." (comment #13)
"Some on the right are reading Alinsky and taking the tactics of the left seriously." (comment #30)
"It’s a wonderful label, and us classical Jeffersonian liberals are ticked off that the leftists and socialists stole it from the real classical liberals way back when. (New Deal era?) Then again, leftists and socialists are natural thieves, hijacking labels left and right." (comment #31)
I won't bother with the rest. I have no doubt that what I'm trying to point out is completely escaping you, but perhaps some other readers of this thred might notice what I noticed.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.10.2009 @ 20:48
FreedomTruths#62:
"My point has been that the Left has successfully used certain tactics in the past 8 years and prior, and that some on the right are picking up on those tactics.
You are free to only condemn right-wingers for frothing in manners that ape what left-wingers were doing in the previous Bush administration if that is your wish."
So the bad behavior from the Left is because they are the originators of the bad bad behavior. The bad behavior of the Right is aping the bad behavior of the Left -- so the behavior from the Right has its genesis in the Left.
Left bad = Left bad.
Right bad = Left bad.
No, I think I read you right.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 2.10.2009 @ 16:52
@FreedomsTruth:
Communism is not the same thing a Socialism.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 2.10.2009 @ 14:56
correction:
"subservient" to Saudis . . . not "subversive" to Saudis.
and manning . . .
I hope, with all of the conversations we've had here at Rick's Funtime HappyLand, you know that I do honestly respect your opinion. I may rarely agree with you, but you clearly do think about your ideas and beliefs (unlike many people, both here and elsewhere). There are many people in the world I don't mind slighting or outright insulting. However, you are not one of them, and if my tenor suggests that sometimes . . . well, I'm a jerk. I try to control it, but sometimes it slips out when I'm on a roll. So if I'm getting rude, it's not intentional and I'm sorry.You're still wrong, though.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.10.2009 @ 23:41
Let me work backwards here . . .
"Closing up the channels of information to the public is well underway, I believe. Example: name the 30-odd Czars on Obama’s staff, and explain their responsibilities and authority in their areas, and then tell me what their precise relationship is to the Cabinet Members in the very same areas. Can you do it without significant difficulty? I doubt it."
So . . . you task me with naming 30-government employees, their exact job description, the legal authority for the position, and the precise hierarchy between each of the 30 and the Cabinet?
You are right . . . I can't do that without significant difficulty. Actually, let me strike that. I CAN do it without difficulty. I CAN't do it without effort. 30 people, 30 job descriptions, 30 legal explanations, 30 government interrelations -- at the very minimum I'm looking at 120 seperate pieces of data. If each took me 5 minutes to find (and the legal explanations would take FAR longer), you've tasked me with 10 hours of labor. That's tedious. But difficult? No.
I'll do one as an example:
(starting search at 4:38 PM. Went to Yahoo, search term “US Government Czars, picked first one that caught my eye)
Drug Czar: R. Gil Kerlikowske
Official Title: Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy
Authority (personal): almost four decades in law enforcement, working in several States. Last position was as Chief of Police for Seattle, a position he held for almost a decade. Full bio at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/about/director.html
Authority (legal): Originally, it came from the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. Legislation and Executive Orders have maintained it and expanded it since then (most recently The Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006). The explicit authority for there to be a director for this Office comes in 21 USC 1701, Section 102. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ469.109.pdf
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/about/authorizing_legislation.html (lists the authorizations, a link to the data, and a brief summary of what impact each had on the Office in its entirety)
“The principal purpose of ONDCP is to establish policies, priorities, and goals for the Nation's drug control program. To achieve this, ONDCP is charged with producing the National Drug Control Strategy. The Strategy directs the Nation's anti-drug efforts and establishes a program, a budget, and guidelines for cooperation among Federal, State, and local entities.”
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/policy/index.htmltime – currently 4:53 PM. Before I proceed, I’d like to note that all of the legislation, all of the authorizations, all of the executive orders . . . Obama didn’t do any of them. The Department (and therefore the Director of the Department) was created in 1988. So shall we blame Regan or Bush the Elder?
Where did I find all of this information? The information that is being hidden from me because the Administration is “[c]losing up the channels of information to the public”? Government web sites. If they are trying to keep me in the dark, they are doing a piss poor job about it.
Legislative relationship with relevant Cabinet Member: Now we’re getting tricky. Here’s a list of all cabinet officials currently:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet/
Does drug policy fall under Department of Justice (Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.), Department of the Interior (Secretary Kenneth L. Salazar), or Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary Kathleen Sebelius)? Apparently, some of its responsibility was previously under the Department of Homeland Security (????), but was shifted to ONDCP under the 2006 re-authorization act. Also, even though the Office is legislatively under the authority of the Executive Branch, the 06 Reauthorization Act expressly allows Congress full access to its personnel, data, research, and pretty much whatever the hell else it wants. The Office isn’t run by Congress . . . but they are shielded from it either.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode21/usc_sec_21_00001702----000-.htmlI have to stop here. To fully roadmap the legislation will take me probably a week. But all the information is there. Freely available. No sleuthing required, just reading.
Time: 5:18PM (40 minutes). Not difficult, just tedious.
All of that information that is being hidden from you by the Administration isn’t being hidden at all. It’s right there. If you want to tell me that the Federal Government is a tangled, confusing mess . . . I agree. But what does that have to do with Obama?Obama is hiding information? You know what I have access to now? White House visitor logs. You know who hid them from me? The last President. Are you saying that Obama is more secretive than past Presidents? I’m going to have to respectfully ask for an example or two, because I don’t see that supported by the facts. At all.
You find the "Czars" suspicious. The first one was Nixon's energy chief, and the term apparently was a nickname the media gave him.
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/national/story/864609.html
So "Czars" have been a part of American politics since Nixon. How you can get to suspicion of Obama from that is blowing my mind.“Why is Obama insulting UK representatives?” – I didn’t hear anything about this. What are you referring to? And if Obama did insult a UK representative . . . so what? What’s suspicious about that? Bush gave Merkel a massage at a public meeting of world leaders. It was unbelievably offensive and a clear breach of protocol. It marked him as a jerk, but that’s it. If Obama insulting somebody indicates for you a sinister hidden design . . . what is it? And how does insulting a representative from the UK further that plot?
“Acting subversive to Saudi Royals” – you mean, more subversive than walking around with them holding hands like BFFs, or having the FBI help arrange for Saudis (including a Royal) to fly the hell out of here after 9-11? Did Obama do anything other than bow too deeply (bow required by protocol)?
Our country has kissed royal Saudi ass for decades. What has Obama done (aside from a deep bow) that distinguishes the current Administration? What act has he taken that subsumes our interests to that of the Saudis? I honestly can’t think of any. Educate me.“Interfering with Honduras” – And he did that how? By saying the Presidential ouster by the Court and military was illegal? I disagree with him, but how is that interference? Have we sent troops? Black Ops? Expelled diplomats? Trade sanctions? Forbidden travel? Have we as a country done ANYTHING aside from voice disagreement? If we haven’t done anything, how are we interfering? He also criticized the Iranian elections, but you blame him for NOT interfering in Iran. I honestly don’t know what you are talking about with this.
“criticizing West Bank settlements” – how dare he? I mean, its not like part of the agreement between Israel and the Palestinians was to stop expanding the West Bank settlements. Didn’t the last Administration criticize Israel for the exact same thing in 2003?
http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/6444/abbas_says_israel_must_keep_commitments/index.html
In 2005?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/05/05/MNM210GO3Q.DTL&type=printableI repeat the question . . . what about Obama is different than any other President?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.10.2009 @ 19:01
@Manning (re:#44):
You are right that there is no information to make an opinion as to whether any of the oderous labels accurately apply.
Then why would anybody jump to them?
When I meet someone at a dinner party, I know nothing about them. They could be a serial killer. They could be a Mafia kingpin. They could be the resurrected Christ.
What does it say about me if I meet someone and say "bet he's a child molester"? To me, it says I have some serious issues that I need to work out before I engage in meeting people again. "Well, you can't prove he's NOT a child molester!" isn't helping my case.
Let me re-phrase my comment like this: I don't see a dramatic difference between Obama and pretty much any other Democratic Administration for the last few decades. I do see what appears to be a massive difference in the opposition to it. While previous Democratic Administrations were bad-mouthed (as were Republican Administrations), and while previous administrations were accused "in extremis" (as were Republican Administrations), it appears to this outsider that the acceptance of the extreme screaming is far, far, FAR more accepted and encouraged against Obama by the body of Reds than against any other one.
Am I wrong? Is the bat$h!t insanity simply par for the course and I just never noticed?
If I'm not wrong in thinking the Obamahatred is more extreme, far sooner in his Administration (hell, it was apparent even before he took office) . . .then what is the explanation? Did a huge percentage of Republicans all go friggin insane at the same time?
Conservatives by and large seem to take offense at allegations of racism. To me, that actually is a comforting explanation. Xenophobia makes sense. It is a common human failing. I don't know a single person, myself included, that doesn't suffer from it to some degree. That would explain logically what has been happening for the last 18 months or so. I like logic. I like explanations. "Everybody just spontaneously decided to go nuts in the same way at the same time" makes me very uncomfortable.
You say (and have said) you see communistSocialistOppressive signs in Obama and the Administration. Did you see them in Clinton? In Carter? Did you fear for the future of America then? Aside from the tenor of the debate . . . what is different?
I am certainly capable of missing obvious things, so if there IS an explanation I'm all ears. But if there isn't then at least under the rules of courtesy I was raised under, you don't presume the worst about someone without just cause. I am not a fan of most Republican politicians. I think for the most part they are liars and wrong in their positions. But I DON'T start from a posiiton of assuming they are demonic harbingers and then requiring them to prove otherwise. If they do something "Republican" I shake my head and say "God-damn Republican stupidity" . . . I don't scream "Hellspawn! You'll never have my children!!"
A sitting President wanted to speak to schoolchildren . . . and Conservatives compared it to North Korean Totalitarian Brainwashing. BEFORE he said anything. That's just insane. Every President does that, and I never heard anything close to this , especially before they said anything. That kind of behavior is seriously wrong from my perspective. It's bad for the Country.
Either this is standard operating procedure (the mainstream acceptance of the crazy by the opposition party), xenophobia being manifested in a different form, mass hysteria, or something else. My best guess is xenophobia, but if it isn't that what else is it? Is this level of crazy normal? If it isn't what changed?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.10.2009 @ 03:05
???
Godwin's Law:
"[Usenet] “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/godwin-s-lawWhat did I miss? This wasn't the first Nazi related comment, but its my understanding that when the topic is actual Nazis, the reference doesn't "count".
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.10.2009 @ 02:11
I thought Petruk used the famous phrasing of a concentration camp victim to compare the (whack-a-doodle) Right to Nazi victims, which seemed to imply that Obama and Teh Left were Nazis. Thus, Godwin's Law. Did I misunderstand the analogy?
. . . aaaaaaaaaaaand Godwin's Law kicks into effect on post #44. Given the topic of the thread, I'm impressed it took so long. Well done everybody.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.09.2009 @ 22:27
@Manning:
"They know for a certainty that any President of the United States is not, and cannot be a humanist, a socialist, a communist, or any other ist on the list, except leftist."
No. That's not what anybody said. No one claimed it was physically impossible for a Communist to be elected President. They are saying Obama isn't one.
How do they KNOW? Because he hasn't done anything Communist.
How do I KNOW Dick Cheney doesn't bugger sheep? He likes his privacy. So do people that bugger sheep! He spend time in nature dealing with wild animals . . . just like sheep fu@kers! He breathes, and for a pervert to bugger sheep they need to first breathe. It's the first step to buggery!
Are you going to tell me that you KNOW he isn't? Are you psychic? Why would anybody just assume that he isn't, after you look at all of those worrying trends?Because there's no credible evidence he buggers sheep. There is no evidence that Obama is anything except a Democrat. A Liberal. Liberal does not equal Communist, anymore than Republican equals Totalitarian Fascist. If your definition of "Communist", "Socialist", "Nazi", or "other bad -ist" is essentially "not Republican", then by definition any person who is not a Republican that holds political office in America is nation-destroying threat that merits armed revolution.
That's just unreasonable. And it dilutes any legitimate criticism of Obama by painting critics as irrational. I may have a legitimate gripe against Cheney, but if I voice them along with "and he also buggers sheep and drinks the blood of Jews", then people will assume I'm crazy and by extension my "legitimate" criticisms are crazy too.
It does absolutely no good for the Republican Party or its goals to expouse that Obama, in 1 year, has demonstrated himself the most dangerous, subversive, CommunistSocialistNazi America has ever seen. A Democrat is trying to improve the social safety net! Just like Hitler!
That's uncredible.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.09.2009 @ 17:24
