god must bless america

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

ok let me quote from the report

"DHS/I&A assesses that the combination of environmental factors that echo
the 1990s, including heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms restrictions and returning military veterans, as well as several new trends, including an uncertain economy and a perceived rising influence of other countries, may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements. To the extent that these factors persist, rightwing extremism is likely to grow in strength."

"After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military
veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing
extremist groups."

Just a wee bit of stereotyping?

At least Obama is consistent with the Clinton policy of 'loathing the military' and showed it when snubbing Medal of Honor recipients inauguration night.

Strange that those who are so "offended" by the realistic report are the same ones who generally don't have any problem at all with racial profiling. Profiling Muslims? Awesome. Profiling trouble-making extremist right-wing groups and learning what types of people they're going to go after and keeping an eye on them to minimize threat potential? Terrible. Offensive. EGAD!

Hell, Malkin (who's leading the charge on being so outraged by this) has written an entire freaking book dedicated to explaining why internment camps were awesome.

This is typical, just like spending complaints. Eight years of out of control spending under Bush? Suh-WEEEEET! Two months of out of control spending to try to stimulate an economy under Obama? Terrible. Offensive. EGAD! TEABAG NOW!

Selective, mostly manufactured, outrage would be hilarious if it weren't so goddamn annoying.

So your message basicaly boils down to it's good when we do it, bad when you do. Got it loud and clear, at least it's simple and concise.

Weak sauce Dell.

[Riot]

The report most obviously doesn't come remotely close to calling returning American veterans terrorists.

Thanks for posting that, Dell

"Stereotyping" ? You mean, like where the report calls all good gun-owning Americans terrorists?

Obama "loathing the military" - yet he just helped them out incredibly with the new veteran medical records legislation just passed. Can't believe our President put veterans on the top of his priority list just after his election, the evil Muslim Fascist.

[dellinger63]

[quote=brianwspencer]
This is typical, just like spending complaints. Eight years of out of control spending under Bush? Suh-WEEEEET! Two months of out of control spending to try to stimulate an economy under Obama? Terrible. Offensive. EGAD! TEABAG NOW!QUOTE]

Little bit of a difference in the amount of spending though huh?

And if you thought Bush was out of control, compare numbers and realize Obama is like a skid row drunk who happened to find an American Express black card and wants to get as much as he can off of it before it gets shut off. Leftys were concerned about who paid for Nancy Reagan's gown just a short time ago and now not a peep about Slick Willie getting a $300 haircut while holding up flights at LAX or Michele O's personal makeup artist.

[Riot]

Tax dollars do not pay for Michele O's personal makeup artist. Tax dollars do not pay for a President's food, either. Some State parties - yes. Gifts to heads of state - no. Daily eating, clothes, etc - nope.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Little bit of a difference in the amount of spending though huh?

And if you thought Bush was out of control, compare numbers and realize Obama is like a skid row drunk who happened to find an American Express black card and wants to get as much as he can off of it before it gets shut off. Leftys were concerned about who paid for Nancy Reagan's gown just a short time ago and now not a peep about Slick Willie getting a $300 haircut while holding up flights at LAX or Michele O's personal makeup artist.

Point being, if you guys are all $hitting in your pants to condemn wild, irresponsible spending, you either condemn it across the board (when it's happening...not this "oh yea, well in retrospect Bush sucked too." That doesn't count. It's a pathetic attempt to establish credibility....where were you for 8 years?) or you keep your mouth shut. Those are the two honest options.

Or, as the 2009 Right M.O. goes, you just complain about Obama and get your panties all in a twitch when people rightfully call you out as a hypocrite.

At the very least it's making my life easy, because it's not even taking much intellectual engagement to be able to see through all of it and dismiss it, because you aren't even bothering to take the time to craft semi-coherent, logical arguments. And by "you," I mean nearly all of the Right, not just you personally. So depending on your POV, your intellectual laziness at least lets you keep some good company.

Now let's stop arguing and get back to the important stuff -- fancy haircuts and how all our vets are about to turn into suicide bombers!!!!!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Point being, if you guys are all $hitting in your pants to condemn wild, irresponsible spending, you either condemn it across the board (when it's happening...not this "oh yea, well in retrospect Bush sucked too." That doesn't count. It's a pathetic attempt to establish credibility....where were you for 8 years?) or you keep your mouth shut. Those are the two honest options.

Or, as the 2009 Right M.O. goes, you just complain about Obama and get your panties all in a twitch when people rightfully call you out as a hypocrite.

At the very least it's making my life easy, because it's not even taking much intellectual engagement to be able to see through all of it and dismiss it, because you aren't even bothering to take the time to craft semi-coherent, logical arguments. And by "you," I mean nearly all of the Right, not just you personally. So depending on your POV, your intellectual laziness at least lets you keep some good company.

Now let's stop arguing and get back to the important stuff -- fancy haircuts and how all our vets are about to turn into suicide bombers!!!!!

So I take bitching about 8 years of uncontrollable spending, in your words, and now witnessing Obama take the deficit from 400 billion to 1,750 billion in one year, in support is not hypocritical? or can't dems be hypocritical a la black racists.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

So I take bitching about 8 years of uncontrollable spending, in your words, and now witnessing Obama take the deficit from 400 billion to 1,750 billion in one year, in support is not hypocritical? or can't dems be hypocritical a la black racists.

Not in this case, because YOU weren't bitching about uncontrollable spending for 8 years...unless of course I missed that consistent POV coming from you around here.

I frankly don't care a whole lot...and wasn't bitching about Bush's spending when it was happening the same way I'm not bitching about Obama's.

I only do it now when you guys want to all of the sudden start holding people to a standard you just seem to have found three months ago. Your hypocrisy and transparency isn't all that much my personal problem to fix. I'm at least consistent.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Not in this case, because YOU weren't bitching about uncontrollable spending for 8 years...unless of course I missed that consistent POV coming from you around here.

I frankly don't care a whole lot...and wasn't bitching about Bush's spending when it was happening the same way I'm not bitching about Obama's.

I only do it now when you guys want to all of the sudden start holding people to a standard you just seem to have found three months ago. Your hypocrisy and transparency isn't all that much my personal problem to fix. I'm at least consistent.

OK let me try and understand this thought process. A $400 deficit for a day of betting is equally as bad as a $1,750 deficit? If you don't bitch about losing $400 you can't bitch about $1,750? Is that democratic math?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

OK let me try and understand this thought process. A $400 deficit for a day of betting is equally as bad as a $1,750 deficit? If you don't bitch about losing $400 you can't bitch about $1,750? Is that democratic math?

You seem to be trying to prove that 1,750 is more than 400, and yes, I certainly agree with you. Numbers are a strong spot for me, so hopefully we can agree on that.

Your analogy to wagering only halfway works though.

Of course losing $1,750 is worse than $400. But if your budget for each day was $125 and you went ape$hit out of control then yes, it makes no sense to be only upset about having gone MORE out of control. You're either for going overboard or against it (your type is good with those 'for or against' only dichotomies, right?). You don't get to be okay with going totally overboard and being irresponsible but then be completely against going MORE overboard than that. They're either both wrong or they're both not, and you expose yourself as a hack when only one makes you mad based on the degree and who is doing it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Not in this case, because YOU weren't bitching about uncontrollable spending for 8 years...unless of course I missed that consistent POV coming from you around here.

I frankly don't care a whole lot...and wasn't bitching about Bush's spending when it was happening the same way I'm not bitching about Obama's.

I only do it now when you guys want to all of the sudden start holding people to a standard you just seem to have found three months ago. Your hypocrisy and transparency isn't all that much my personal problem to fix. I'm at least consistent.

no, he wasn't. dell didn't start with political posts til the dems started their electioneering.

[GBBob]

[quote=Danzig]no, he wasn't. dell didn't start with political posts til the dems started their electioneering.[/QUOTE]

Can you define that and what about it is relevant to Dell's paranoia?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Not in this case, because YOU weren't bitching about uncontrollable spending for 8 years...unless of course I missed that consistent POV coming from you around here.

I frankly don't care a whole lot...and wasn't bitching about Bush's spending when it was happening the same way I'm not bitching about Obama's.

I only do it now when you guys want to all of the sudden start holding people to a standard you just seem to have found three months ago. Your hypocrisy and transparency isn't all that much my personal problem to fix. I'm at least consistent.

Being consistently wrong is nothing to brag about. Let me ask you and the other lefties that unilaterally defend Obama's spending, a question? Where are your posts on Bush's spending? Had you raised the issue perhaps the people on the right may have been willing to debate you. Of course none of you are complaining about the spending except in rebuttal to our complaints which are just as or in some cases more valid because of the enormity of the money being bandied about. My biggest question concerning the entire thread is that if this guys rights were violated why do some feel he should get "millions"? I mean does that supposed violation, not letting a guy pee during a song, really be the cause of such sustained agony that he should be rewarded by hitting the lottery? Pay his lawyers fees, give him a couple grand for his trouble and ask him not to come back seems like a fair penalty to me.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Being consistently wrong is nothing to brag about. Let me ask you and the other lefties that unilaterally defend Obama's spending, a question? Where are your posts on Bush's spending? Had you raised the issue perhaps the people on the right may have been willing to debate you. Of course none of you are complaining about the spending except in rebuttal to our complaints which are just as or in some cases more valid because of the enormity of the money being bandied about. My biggest question concerning the entire thread is that if this guys rights were violated why do some feel he should get "millions"? I mean does that supposed violation, not letting a guy pee during a song, really be the cause of such sustained agony that he should be rewarded by hitting the lottery? Pay his lawyers fees, give him a couple grand for his trouble and ask him not to come back seems like a fair penalty to me.

seems to be the reaction far too often. explains why car insurance is so high...millions don't grow on trees.
they ought to refund his ticket and be done with it.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Being consistently wrong is nothing to brag about. Let me ask you and the other lefties that unilaterally defend Obama's spending, a question? Where are your posts on Bush's spending? Had you raised the issue perhaps the people on the right may have been willing to debate you. Of course none of you are complaining about the spending except in rebuttal to our complaints which are just as or in some cases more valid because of the enormity of the money being bandied about. My biggest question concerning the entire thread is that if this guys rights were violated why do some feel he should get "millions"? I mean does that supposed violation, not letting a guy pee during a song, really be the cause of such sustained agony that he should be rewarded by hitting the lottery? Pay his lawyers fees, give him a couple grand for his trouble and ask him not to come back seems like a fair penalty to me.

My "millions" comment was a sarcastic response to the anger at him...to the "Frenchy" comments and to all the BS he probably faced from the Yankee's crackerjack security squad. Of course I don't think he should get Millions, but anything less is really slap in the face to an organization with a payroll like that

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Being consistently wrong is nothing to brag about. Let me ask you and the other lefties that unilaterally defend Obama's spending, a question? Where are your posts on Bush's spending? Had you raised the issue perhaps the people on the right may have been willing to debate you. Of course none of you are complaining about the spending except in rebuttal to our complaints which are just as or in some cases more valid because of the enormity of the money being bandied about. My biggest question concerning the entire thread is that if this guys rights were violated why do some feel he should get "millions"? I mean does that supposed violation, not letting a guy pee during a song, really be the cause of such sustained agony that he should be rewarded by hitting the lottery? Pay his lawyers fees, give him a couple grand for his trouble and ask him not to come back seems like a fair penalty to me.

I'll quote myself earlier today:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Neither, really. They're both probably too much, and once the floodgates are open, let's just do it the American way and go as big as we can.

That's the thing, is that I'm not the one complaining about Obama's spending, so I don't need to be accountable for not complaining about Bush's spending...why would I have done that? Obviously, like Bob says, I disagree with what he was spending it on, but I certainly wasn't complaining about the amount. That was supposed to be your job based on how we now know you feel about spending as of three months ago...

I didn't complain about Bush's spending because it doesn't frankly bother me that much, inasmuch as we're talking about raw dollar amounts, even though it was clearly "too much" by your guys' standards. I'm a liberal, I'm pretty behind a great deal of government spending, so like I said, there would have been no reason for me to go out of my way to criticize the spending.

That's exactly why I never talked about it, because I didn't care that much...and guess what? I still don't care that much. It's ONLY relevant whether you guys that are complaining NOW were complaining back then when his spending was out of control...and you weren't.

I shouldn't be expected to complain about something that doesn't bother me, right? But you should be expected to complain when YOUR guy does the same thing you're mad about when OUR guy does, even if it's on a smaller scale. That's why it only comes up in response to your current complaints, because pointing out transparent hypocrisy is usually a pretty easy thing to show that people aren't being intellectually honest in a discussion.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Being consistently wrong is nothing to brag about. Let me ask you and the other lefties that unilaterally defend Obama's spending, a question? Where are your posts on Bush's spending? Had you raised the issue perhaps the people on the right may have been willing to debate you. Of course none of you are complaining about the spending except in rebuttal to our complaints which are just as or in some cases more valid because of the enormity of the money being bandied about. My biggest question concerning the entire thread is that if this guys rights were violated why do some feel he should get "millions"? I mean does that supposed violation, not letting a guy pee during a song, really be the cause of such sustained agony that he should be rewarded by hitting the lottery? Pay his lawyers fees, give him a couple grand for his trouble and ask him not to come back seems like a fair penalty to me.

give the guy season tickets to the yankees. That could be torture these days.