Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Not socialism, not fascism, but a thugocracy
Zindaihas
Member UncommonPosts: 3,662
Many of you may have heard the story last week about how Don Obama told the head of an investment bank to roll over and accept the White House brokered Chrysler restructuring deal or he would use the press corps to destroy the company's reputation. The investment bank did, in fact, cave to the intimidation and now the company's lead attorney, Thomas Lauria, a Democrat, is talking about it.
This attorney must be a pretty brave guy, because Don Obama is likely to sick the IRS on him. Welcome to your future America. A future where the private sector and the citizens live in fear of their government.
Comments
Is this the new improved freedom we've been hearing about?
I have a funny feeling this fellow is going to "commit suicide" very soon.
____________________SIG______________________
The real power is smart enough to hide itself BEHIND the throne. Every President is a Public Relations agent for that obscured power, and nothing more.
You know what I love about your posts, Zindaihas? They are consistent, and I mean that as a compliment. You have a single tracked, focused, and very determined mind to get a certain point across and you won't stop until you do. But it always seems your posts have a familiar origin. Let's take this one for instance.
The name your source site is called, innocently enough (lol), REDSTATE. Now to those who don't know what a 'redstate' is:
They make no bones about their position. They are HARD right. Any harder, they'd put Ron Jeremy out of business. Now about the author and his article. His name is Eric Erickson and he ends his Redstate contribution with:
This after calling Obama a thugocracy among other things the entire thread. That's okay, after all it IS an opinion piece. So then I asked the real question: Do I believe the thugocracy or the activist? Yes, I said "activist". Why would I say that?
Well, to find that out, you have to go to his blog site where if you look to the right, you'll see he's in no less than two other right wing blogs, although these are of the local Georgia "corn pone" kind to which he is more suited. But the interesting thing is what he says while describing these sites and his involvement in them.
About this one he calls the Peach Pundit (cute as a button, huh?), he writes:
Yes, he said when he wants to get away from "right wing activism".
About Redstate, he says:
So I guess the real question is... "Do I believe a thugocracy or a peachy activist who blogs all day for several right wing havens"?
As an Independant and based on how we poll now and during the election, you can pretty much figure out that I don't believe a word of this guy's stuff from the Party of No. I'm interested in checking out his blog history at the Pundit, to see just what he means when he says "cover objectively, without just being a place to mouth off the party line."
I don't know much about Georgia politics, but I'm going to click that link, and see just how fair he is claiming he would be in real life on a neutral site. It ought to be interesting. If the man if fair to Obama as the president and gives fair views on local issues regarding the public, I'll look at the Redstate article in a different light. Otherwise....
I hope we can have a dialogue about your source, the topic and it's contents without personal attacks. Do you think that's possible?
"TO MICHAEL!"
You too, are consistent my old friend. Rather than address the content of the story, you attack the source, which is your SOP. I did not look for a specific site to find this story, I simply did a search on Thomas Lauria's name and took the first hit that appeared. The fact that it was Redstate just made it that much sweeter because I figured it would be immediately discredited by someone such as yourself.
But now that we have that behind us, we don't have to limit the story to Redstate. I didn't see it, but I heard the story was also reported on ABC News' Sunday morning political program with George Stephanopoulos; not posted yet on Youtube. And let's go ahead and link a post from the forum of one of the more obsure independent sources you will probably come across. But I am sure you will find a way to dismiss that as well.
You know, when a story is reported, just because you don't like the source does not mean that it didn't happen. But your standard comeback is, "why isn't the mainstream media reporting this?" Well did it ever occur to you that the story will make the Obama administration look bad, and therefore, the major news sources have a vested interest in ignoring it? After all, most of the media is in bed with this administration, so what incentive is there in reporting this story?
You can't prove a negative. If the media ignores a story, you can't prove that it happened (unless you were part of it). But if it is reported, regardless of the source, there is at least some burden on the doubters to discredit it. Simply saying, "I don't trust the source," is not enough. I don't know if this story has legs, but keep an eye out for Thomas Lauria. He appears to be willing to talk, so it might not be over yet. And don't look to your usual sources. My guess is you're not going to find it there.
Help me. Help me understand this. It confuses the heck out of me.
This all occurred as Bush was leaving office, DURING his administration. Where were these "conservatives" or "right-wing extremists," then? It is like they are --suddenly!-- conservative because there is a Democrat in office.
You have become a parody of yourself.
"If you can't out wit them, report them till they're banned!"- PopinJ'
Oh sure, the Clintons get into some shadey business before being elected and those involved with them begin to decide to kill themselves one by one and suddenly all democrates are branded with this policy of business.
Oh sure, the Clintons get into some shadey business before being elected and those involved with them begin to decide to kill themselves one by one and suddenly all democrates are branded with this policy of business.
1993 was so... 1993. Yawn.
Please try to stay on topic and let's keep the conspiracies down to a minimum, shall we?
This thread can only take so many.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Not liberal, not conservative, not red, not blue, but green. Green is the new color and the banks and corporations have showed is their will to power. Eventually we will have to do something or we will continue to get screwed.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
then you say later:
Why are you listing a source that you claim 'you didn't see and only heard' of? Of course we have to limit the story to Redstate when the only link you provide is... Redstate. I cannot see the rumor in your mind that told you it's floating supposedly on Youtube. Where'd you "hear" that anyways?
Zind, Zind, Zind... don't you see what you just tried to do there? You just tried to prove a negative, lol!
Now, onto your source for this post, Erick Erikson. I checked into his claim about attempting to be fair and boy!.. what a crock. Take a look at this from his own admission. This is the reason Republicans aren't getting anywhere with the American people:
Yep, you guys read right. He had the temerity to proudly label that childishness an "Epic Win."
Apparently this guy is so much of a right-wing believer, he takes the very same tactics that his idols use in Washington when things don't go their way in Congress. Obstruct, delay, inhibit, antagonize, hold hostage, and scuttle any attempt the majority of people want when they don't have enough votes. Classic clownshoes.
So let's recap. He vowed for days before the meeting to stop the resolution. He gets inside and tries to kill it by getting it tabled. Fail. He then proceeds to pull a Washington style tactic and hold the council hostage by standing up and introducing 101 RESOLUTIONS of pure nonsense at a local community board. Basically, his thought was "Hey- these people have lives, so they won't sit here for each last one of these votes". He was right, they relented. I only shudder to think how empty this dude's life is to sit around and WRITE down 101 resolutions of pure crap, just to keep people in a building, then refer to it as if it's one of the greatest victories in his life. Pure fail.
I wondered what all this talk was about this guy getting insulted that made the other guy say the woman lost her chance on the amendment. Oh boy.. it's a doozy.
Your guy is a clown, Zindaihas. I can't believe he is even employed. He seems to be better suited selling cars or something. Why Fox News hasn't noticed this guy already and offered him a show, or at the least.. to be a writer, is beyond me.Erick Erickson was Twittering (appropriately enough) and wrote this about the retiring judge David Souter that George Bush appointed:
I really hope the majority of the people in that county are able to get business done eventually. If he is this way on something as trivial as a resolution honoring Obama, I'd hate to see what kind of nonsense he pulls when they have to fix roads, vote for budgets and hire employees. Those poor Georgians...
And no, I don't believe the activist.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Robert Gibbs was interviewed on Laura Ingraham this morning. He could not deny what was said - he only repeated Bill Burton's statement that "there is no evidence" that the incident happened. They would not state that it did, in fact, not happen, but there is simply no evidence.
And, now the quote of the day:
"Welcome to Cinco de Cuatro...uh...Cinco de Mayo at the White House."
-- President Barack Obama, in another un-telepromptered moment
Obama Democrats Accent Bullying Over Governing: Amity Shlaes
Commentary by Amity Shlaes
May 5 (Bloomberg) -- So Michele Bachmann’s version of history is “from another planet.” Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana, is “chronically stupid.” And Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second-ranking Republican in the House, is “busy lying constantly.”
That at least is according to posts on three left-leaning blogs.
Writers who are not pro-Barack Obama are suffering character assassination as well. George Will of the Washington Post, the nation’s senior conservative columnist, has been so assaulted by bloggers that his editor, Fred Hiatt, recently wrote, “I would think folks would be eager to engage in the debate, given how sure they are of their case, rather than trying to shut him down.”
The disconcerting thing isn’t that the bloggers or their guests did this slamming. We’re used to such vitriol in campaign time. What is surprising is that the attacks are continuing after an election.
In the past, politicians and policy thinkers tended to be magnanimous in victory. They and their friends focused, post- victory, on policy and strategy -- not on trashing individuals.
It ought to be especially true this time, given what wonders are befalling the Democrats. Between Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Al Franken in Minnesota, it looks like the Democrats are in the process of making their Senate majority filibuster-proof. Then there’s the president’s new opportunity to mold the Supreme Court, with the resignation of David Souter.
Still, somehow, the magnanimity isn’t there. Indeed, the closer the Democrats get to total power, the nastier the commentators friendly to them have become.
Wild Internet
The explanation for this perpetual venom is threefold, and starts with the Internet. Years ago, out of a sense of civics, gentle and gentlemanly newspaper editors used to allow a certain honeymoon period post-election. Winners got to bask, and losers sulk.
Internet scribes are not into civics. Most bloggers lack editors: Even as he attacked Bachmann for errors, the author on The New Republic’s Plank blog misspelled her name. Even when editors are involved, they often leave blogs alone, on the lazy premise that spontaneity outranks accuracy.
Another force at work is the relevance of history. The most recent attack on Bachmann came after she misspoke and called the 1930 tariff “Hoot-Smalley” rather than its accurate name, Smoot-Hawley. Bachmann also implied that Franklin Roosevelt signed the tariff into law, rather than its actual signator, Herbert Hoover.
Biden’s Slip
Vice President Joseph Biden made much larger slips when talking about the same period on the campaign trial. In an ecstasy of anachronism, he told Katie Couric, “When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’”
The problem for Bachmann was also her implication that the New Dealers’ policies failed to bring recovery. Since this happens to be accurate, it’s a sensitive point, as I myself have noted watching the bile poured on my own 2007 book on the period.
But the most important factor here is Democratic weakness. The party isn’t comfortable yet at the summit of political power.
The unsteadiness began with Obama: Instead of shaping the stimulus package himself, according to his own principles, he handed over the work to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House Appropriations chairman, who in turn produced a porky package without discernible philosophy.
Unsure Policies
Unsure of whether it wanted to punish or stimulate -- and so choosing to attempt both -- the administration generated legislation to help financial institutions and legislation that hurts them by restricting rates and terms for the credit cards they issue. Obama’s call for putting more student loans in federal hands is clever politically, and may even save students money in the short term, but it likely will restrict the availability of such loans in the future.
In short, Obama speaks beautifully but is on his way to a “D” grade when it comes to making the U.S. attractive for international investment, a fact the Chinese are already noting by shopping for non-U.S. bonds.
The Democrats of 2009 are showing less awareness than their predecessors did in President Bill Clinton’s time on the importance of low taxes and reasonable regulation. Only these permit strong growth, a point made articulately by none other than Bachmann herself, in the now-infamous “Hoot-Smalley” TV clip.
Mission to Distract
Because the ruling Democrats have tilted too far left, their allies are out on a mission of distraction, trying to prove that everyone else is too far to the right. On the key question of trade, Americans are pretty sympathetic to Bachmann’s pro-trade views, according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Citizens don’t necessarily line up with the protectionist unions and House Speaker Pelosi.
So here’s a new motto: more leadership, less bloggership. Voters tend to tire the ad hominem approach. By smearing others, rather than putting forward ideas, the scribblers smear themselves instead.
(Amity Shlaes, author of “The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression” is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)
So, apparently your point is that they can neither confirm nor deny the accusations based on lack of evidence.
What's postworthy about that?
"TO MICHAEL!"
So, apparently your point is that they can neither confirm nor deny the accusations based on lack of evidence.
What's postworthy about that?
And your point earlier was that you don't believe him because of his party affiliation.
What was postworthy about that?
------------------
Originally posted by javac
well i'm 35 and have a PhD in science, and then 10 years experience in bioinformatics... you?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/218865/page/8
So, apparently your point is that they can neither confirm nor deny the accusations based on lack of evidence.
What's postworthy about that?
Because there is a possibility that it did happen. You are simply dismissing the incident as it did not happen. I am not stating that it did, but when the "there is no evidence" argument is used, it usually means it did happen.
They did not state they could not confirm, or deny it, what they stated, and they way they did, was there was no evidence that it did happen. It seems they lack the confidence to state "This did not happen."
As moot as this whole incident seems, if it is true, and imagine for a minute it is, this will ruin Obama. This will prove that all the "right-wing fanatic's" worries of the Obama administration creating an oppressive government is true.
Or, is that ok with you simply because it was someone that disagrees with his policies?
So, apparently your point is that they can neither confirm nor deny the accusations based on lack of evidence.
What's postworthy about that?
Because there is a possibility that it did happen. You are simply dismissing the incident as it did not happen. I am not stating that it did, but when the "there is no evidence" argument is used, it usually means it did happen.
They did not state they could not confirm, or deny it, what they stated, and they way they did, was there was no evidence that it did happen. It seems they lack the confidence to state "This did not happen."
As moot as this whole incident seems, if it is true, and imagine for a minute it is, this will ruin Obama. This will prove that all the "right-wing fanatic's" worries of the Obama administration creating an oppressive government is true.
Or, is that ok with you simply because it was someone that disagrees with his policies?
Assuming the story is true, and I don't know if it is, it would only ruin Obama if his supporters both cared about the truth and did not want an oppressive government. I'm not so sure that either of those things matter to them, as we can see on these forums day after day.
The ends justify the means and all that.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Yep, Bachman is from another planet, Planet Noclue...
...or Planet Tinfoil. Take your pick.
------------------------------
According to his own state, Jindal IS from Planet Stupid.
Err, Planet Chronically Stupid.
-----------------------------------------
Cantor is from Planet Hypocrisy.
Cantor's not just a citizen of Planet Hypocrisy, he's the President! That video speaks for itself.-----------------------
The author of Vemoi's link should have stopped at the first paragraph.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Agreed.
What bothers me most is the casting aside that there is any possibility that it is true. I'm not saying it is, because I do not know. But the trend of not questioning leadership is becoming extremely difficult for me to swallow.
I didn't say because of party affliation. It was based on his OWN claims as a Republican activist, later discounted as "fair" by his own actions in his local board council and Twitterings. If you were reading I said I was doubtful, but I'd have to see what his other writings were like.
Those other writings revealed a pettiness so serious, as to scrutinize his overall body of work and link as "investigative".
"TO MICHAEL!"
I didn't say it didn't happen. What I am saying is there is NO EVIDENCE of it happening, so that makes it rumor. What don't you understand about that? I heard George Bush took cocaine quite a few times. Do I see any proof of that? No. Does it mean he didn't? No. But because there is no proof, I cannot say it DID happen, no matter how many liberals try to connect dots to it. Until they show me proof, his nostrils are virgin. I have no idea why you cannot fathom that. But I guess you'd rather entertain the notion without proof than discount it. On that, we will NEVER agree, I happen to live in the United States; not pre-war Germany.
It's that simple. Post what you like, but don't suggest that because a soft link that admits there is no proof, IS proof. Don't assume because they don't want to address a rumor means the rumor is true.
When it comes out that there is proof, then I'll side with the right wingers on it. Until then, I have to take the lefties word nothing happened because.. nothing happened, lol.
"TO MICHAEL!"
The problem here is you're being quite biased and taking a side rather than looking at it objectively and without bias. Remember, the actual attorney representing the firm is a lefty liberal democrat saying that it did happen.
I'm not saying it happened. I'm stating it is a possibility that it did and it is possible it didn't. However, as I stated before, using the excuse "there is no evidence" usually means something did happen. Remember Clinton? "No evidence" was their argument - that is until a nice little dress showed up with a crusty semen stain.
Until he presents proof (cmon'.. they were talking to HIM), this is posturing.The attorney works for hedge funds. You know what those are right? Part of the reason the country is in the mess it is in today because of their secrecy and unregulated activities. The attorney works for those guys. These guys:
So- Zindaihas, the author of his link, the author that THAT guy's link, and the attorney HIMSELF all never described the attorney as a "lefty liberal democrat"? And I'm being biased?
Where do you see anyone at all say that or even suggest he's leftist-leaning? Or is it your argument as it appears to be, that because someone is a Democrat they are automatically a "leftist"? I guess you never heard of a "Reagan Democrat", and if you hadn't you shouldn't even be in this forum. I seriously doubt a leading bankruptcy attorney who represents major hedge funds and money managers is a "leftist liberal." You accusing someone of being biased in this thread is the funniest thing I have ever read.
I seriously don't know what I take the time to rebut you anymore. You simply just don't type anything that makes sense, is easily disprovable, or simply dispelled by yourself in the very same paragraph you type.
"TO MICHAEL!"
The problem here is you're being quite biased and taking a side rather than looking at it objectively and without bias. Remember, the actual attorney representing the firm is a lefty liberal democrat saying that it did happen.
I'm not saying it happened. I'm stating it is a possibility that it did and it is possible it didn't. However, as I stated before, using the excuse "there is no evidence" usually means something did happen. Remember Clinton? "No evidence" was their argument - that is until a nice little dress showed up with a crusty semen stain.
Do you seriously not see the irony in your post?
"I'm not saying it did or did not happen, but it probably happened because "There is no evidence" usually means "It did happen" by some twist of logic. Also, you're the one being biased".
Now that just gets to the point ..great read...
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Great site!! one of my favorites...would we expect anything less from a LIberal.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
I would say yes if I were basing the assumption on a political factor, but that was a generalization based upon observation for any incident. Anytime the defense is "there is no evidence that this did happen" usually fails.