Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 271 To 280 Of 657 Comments
PALIN'S OUTRAGEOUS DEMAGOGUERY: WHY NOT? EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT.
@Anon 43:
So Pelosi said some protesters are carrying swastikas . . . which is true. They have. Here's an example:
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/97283/thumbs/s-FTCOLLINS-large.jpgHere's another pic. It's at 4:30 of the video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32337676I especially like the fact that it's a toddler the sign with the swastika is propped up on. Classy.
What she DIDN'T say in that link is that "people on the other side are Nazis", which is what Rick claimed, and Moltenorb pointed out nobody can seem to find proof of. Republicans comparing and/or calling Democrats Nazis? examples are a dime a dozen.
If Reds calls Blues "Nazis" and the Blues say "you're calling us Nazis", that's not quite the same thing as "[b]oth sides have been flinging the 'N' word ('Nazi') around like a monkey in a zoo tossing his feces at the gawkers", is it?
Maybe she has called the protesters Nazis . . . she has certainly said some stupid things in the past. But I haven't heard it. And something tells me with how every statement and action by Dems is being distorted by the Right, if she did it would be on every whack-a-doodle web site across the country.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.08.2009 @ 17:03
“'I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.' (Obama on health care protestors, yesterday)."
You're saying this quote is about the protesters? That they are the ones that "created this mess" that needs to be cleaned up? You SURE he's not talking about the ecconomic crisis? Republican pols and pundits that in his opinion blew the economy out?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/07/obama-tells-economic-critics-way/
C'mon Rick . . . now you're just being sloppy.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.08.2009 @ 14:00
SHOUTING DOWN THE OPPOSITION AT HEALTH CARE MEETINGS IS NOT THE ANSWER
@David:
Did you go and scream down everybody that didn't chant?
@Bald Ninja:
"Seriously, you think that the amount of anger and protest being seen around the country is being generated by corporations like this? Really!?!"Are some people angry? Absolutely. Do I think that some/alot/all of these "spontaneous" protests are being ginned up? Absolutely.
As you point out, Teh Evil ACORN and others have made it a point to attend TownHalls . . . do you really think Repubs (or in this case, corporate lobbyists) are "above" that? What about the Republican Aids "protesting" at the Florida recount?
I'll ask it again -- do you think that people disrupting town hall meetings across the country spontaneously and independently all got the idea at the same time, all by themselves, while at the same time a group was pushing this exact tactic? That seems pretty . . . uncredible.
btw, I wasn't aware ACORN was in the habit of shouting down people asking questions at town halls. Any video or proof of that?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.08.2009 @ 15:45
Bald Ninja:
As Mike said above, what about the memo? A group funded by Health care insurance lobbyists sends out a memo detailing these exact tactics . . . and spontaneously the exact tactics are used across the country? When this had never happened before? Sure, people had disrupted meetings before, here and there, but all of these patriots suddenly all decided to do this at the same time all on their own? That's extremely coincidental. Unbelievably so.
Here's a link to the memo:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.08.2009 @ 12:29
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/08/memo-details-co-ordinated-anti-reform-harrassment-strategy.php?page=1
"The fact that an organization sent out a list of scheduled town hall meetings in key districts does not mean anything except liberals are worried that the right - usually moribund when it comes to protesting anything - is aping their long cherished tactics."
The fact that the "scream like howler monkeys" idea is part of the organization is the issue that most liberals seem to be focusing on.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 4.08.2009 @ 13:20
BIRTHERS vs. TRUTHERS: WAR OF THE LOONS
@funny man:
"Over time with the occasional hick up, sane minds will prevail."
For almost 4 decades I've held fast to that belief. I won't lie . . . I'm starting to doubt.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 4.08.2009 @ 02:29
"The question said advance knowledge of September 11 attacks. How anyone can interpret that to mean the PDB would fit I can’t see."
If the question is read "had advanced knowledge that an attack was going to specifically happen on Sept. 11", then I agree the Memo is irrevelant. If you interpret the question to mean "advance knowledge that an attack was coming, like the one that occured on Sept. 11", then the PDB could apply.
Maybe it is obviously one and not the other (coffee may not have kicked in for me yet), but the way its phrased here and at Rasmussen seemed vague. Of course, I habitually parse things looking for ambiguity, so the confusion may well be limited to me."Besides, there aren’t more than 10% of any party who was even aware of the PDB so your theory is hogwash."
Not disputing that statement . . . but do you have a reference I could read to get more info? I find that shocking. Well, maybe not shocking. Staggeringly disappointing?
You're assuming that most people - most Democrats - are into 9/11 arcanity like the PDB or the actions of the FAA that day. Not one in 10 Americans know much of anything about the 9/11 Commission's work.
ed.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.08.2009 @ 14:10
"For Democrats - 35% of whom believed in 2007 that George Bush had advance knowledge of the attacks"
Your link to the article doesn't indicate how the question was phrased. Based solely on the "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside The United States" Memo, I may have answered yes (Independent, not Dem) even though I firmly believe he and the Administration had nothing to do with the attack, nor did they know it was coming and choose to let it happen. But "someone's trying to attack" "yeah, whatever, you covered your butt, let me get back to golf" could be interpreted as "advanced knowledge" dependging on how the pollster worded the question without the attendant implication of being a Truther.
btw, the article also said 14% of Republicans and 18% of Independents believed he had advance knowledge. Any data on the Birther spread across parties?
The question said advance knowledge of September 11 attacks. How anyone can interpret that to mean the PDB would fit I can't see. Besides, there aren't more than 10% of any party who was even aware of the PDB so your theory is hogwash.
The indie-Dem spread on Birtherism is about the same - 7% for Dems and about 12% for indies
ed.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.08.2009 @ 12:43
"Even if the color black were accurate, which of course it isn’t, it happens to invoke emotional connotations that are often negative."
by the way, the accepted term when such classifications were used were Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongaloid, so "Negro" isn't the right term. Getting that out of the way . . .
Re-read the quote above cdor. Carefully. I understand your "I shall never concede a mistake" mojo is working on full tilt, but take a deep breath and think reeeeeeeealy hard about why I read that and couldn't help laughing out loud at you."I have never offended a Negro by calling them by their proper name when such designations are appropriate."
Why, how omniscient of you.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.08.2009 @ 12:24
@cdor:
I don't care what terminology you use -- I do find it amusing and horribly dating, but irrevelant. I understand you are standing behind behind your scientific objectivism (despite the fact that the scientific community has moved away from it since at least the 1970s) , but as this is a discussion on a political website (with occasional detours into that eternal optimist realm known as "Chicago sports") and not Racial Classification 101, I use the common parlance. I would be amused though to see your strict adherence to classifications from several decades ago become the norm -- watching the skinheads scream "Caucasian Power!" would be worth the price of admission.
Out of curiosity -- since Obama is 50% Caucasian and 50% Negro . . . why is he "classified" as a Negro? Why not Caucasian? Have fun with that. Free hint: any implication of "dilution" will really, really not end well.
. . . and yet again, the question of the racially-tinged (I'm sorry, "classificationaly-oriented") fears about Obama I ask about again and again fly completely under your radar. At this point, I have to assume you are implicitly conceeding that my fears are justified. Shame. I was honestly hoping I was simply being paranoid.
Anyways, if you don't want to discuss it, lets get back to what you do want to discuss.
"That is exactly why guys like David Frum are traitors to my cause. They are used by people like you to defeat people like me. You don’t care about being free, you want government to lead your life. You are my enemy."
WOW. Psychosis much? Let's see . . . where to begin . . . first, I never referenced Frum, so I never used him to "defeat" "people like you" (by the way, does this mean you've been defeated?). "I'm not sure what either "people like me" or "people like you" mean. I'm an American citizen, and I presume you are as well. I thought we were on the same team.
So . . . anybody that disagrees with you is a traitor. An enemy. They must be vanquished. There is no dissent or debate. There can be no questions. To question is to become an enemy. Good to know.(for anybody following this thread: if you wonder the Repubs are chasing away everybody but the whack-a-doodles . . . I give you exhibit A)
"It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in a way that hands all the advantages to statists — to those who believe government has a legitimate right to regulate human affairs in every particular."
So healthcare reform completely redefines the relation of citizens and their government . . . the government will now "regulate human affairs in every particular." It must be a complete paradigm shift, because there is no program by the government currently that provides healthcare to citizens. This is a massive change, using MEDICal CARE to provide MEDICal AID to citizens . . . unheard of! Why next, they'll start claiming they should providea SOCIAL SECURITY system. Of course, the very next step after that is dictating how many children you can have and what food you must eat.
You might sound more credible if you didn't jump from "I don't like this policy" immediately to "it is the end of all that is good the Apocalypse is nigh". Just a suggestion. Of course, this is a suggestion from your enemy, whom you must destroy . . . so take it with a grain of salt.
"Freedom is messy. In free societies, people will fall through the cracks — drink too much, eat too much, buy unaffordable homes, fail to make prudent provision for health care, and much else. But the price of being relieved of all those tiresome choices by a benign paternal government is far too high."
Again, you go to the ultimate extreme -- "being relieved of ALL those tiresome choices". That's nonsense, and easily demonstrated as nonsense.
YOU, the great champion of freedom, use and rely on the government to aid you. Do you make your own roads and bridges? Socialist drone! Way to rely on the government to relieve you of all you messy choices. Police? Fire Departments? Product saftey? C'mon! quit being such a pathetic sheep! Do everything yourself. If you can't . . . well, freedom is messy, isn't it?HOW MUCH you should be aided by the government is a legitimate question . . . but your nonsensical hyperbole demeans your position.
Whoops . . . just read the NRO article. I didn't realize you entire healthcare comment was a quote (or actually multiple quotes). So I guess my response is directed to Steyn instead of you.
As apparently your argument is "cuz Steyn said so" . . . why should I believe him? His article is an opinion piece. It contains no facts. All politicians that aren't actively working to keep the healthcare industry at the status quo are not to be trusted. Why? Because they aren't working to keep the healthcare industry at the status quo. No explanation about WHY the current system is better than changing it. I also find it odd that he rails against national healthcare . . . while he HAS national healthcare. You do know he's Canadian, right? Although he spends time in New Hampshire, he has never become an American citizen.
He's not a political expert . . . he's a writer. His background isn't in political science, it's in theater reviews. His opinion is fair, but why should I give him more credence than any other person? Aside from the fact that you agree with him, of course."The third front of the war I described as our Homeland. Have you been to the remains of the Twin Towers? Have you taken a plane trip? Yes, our Homeland is the third front."
An attack 8 years ago by people that are not here does not a front make. For somebody that seems to revel in hyper-military imagery and terminology, I'm suprised you didn't know that.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 2.08.2009 @ 15:13
