Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

EagleFan 10-23-2010 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2369961)
To paraphrase, he's saying,

I'm nervous when I see people in Muslim garb because the fact is that the Muslims want to kill us all.


Wow, way to broad brush everything...

JPhillips 10-23-2010 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleFan (Post 2369960)
Look at it this way...

A serial killer is terrorizing an area and the only thing that the public know about him is that he wears a red hat. You are walking at night and when you tun the corner you see someone with a red hat walking towards you. What do you feel?

It's not bigotry, it's called being freaking human and having a survival instinct. The only people to be blamed for someone feeling nervous about seeing a muslim on a plane are the radicals that caused the problem in the first place.


So Muslims are serial killers?

That's just the point, a very small percentage of Muslims have committed acts of terror in the U.S. and not a single one of them was in Muslim garb.

btw- I tend to recall that you get rather testy when people accuse all Philadelphia fans of being unruly and violent. Can you not see the parallel?

JPhillips 10-23-2010 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleFan (Post 2369962)
Wow, way to broad brush everything...


How else do read this:

Quote:

He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts.

EagleFan 10-23-2010 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2369963)
So Muslims are serial killers?

That's just the point, a very small percentage of Muslims have committed acts of terror in the U.S. and not a single one of them was in Muslim garb.

btw- I tend to recall that you get rather testy when people accuse all Philadelphia fans of being unruly and violent. Can you not see the parallel?


When did I say that Muslims are serial killers? Can you freaking understand anything? I presented a fucking common sense point of view and you are fucking twisting every word.

EagleFan 10-23-2010 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2369965)
How else do read this:


I don't really give a shit. I just wanted to try to present a logical view to demonstrate that everything is not "racism" as people love to label things. But then you start twisting my words to say that I said "Muslims are serial killers".

EagleFan 10-23-2010 01:47 PM

If I ever come in this thread again please have me commited. I try to present one freaking point without adding any goddamn opinion of my own and people (person) start twisting those words.

I present one logical reference to attempt to explain how someone could be concerned but that does not seem to be able to be comprehended so I give up.

JPhillips 10-23-2010 01:47 PM

Come on.

There is nothing similar about a serial killer in a red hat and people in Muslim garb unless you're implying that the danger level of a Muslim and a serial killer are somehow equivalent.

JPhillips 10-23-2010 01:53 PM

Williams himself should understand his bigotry given he wrote this:

Quote:

Neither black nor white store owners are in business to display the virtues of admitting people of all colors, creeds, and fashions to their stores. They are in business to make money. I would want to take precautions to prevent robbery; I would look closely at people entering the store. The race of a potential customer would be one factor among many to be considered as I girded myself against thieves.

But in Washington and almost all other major cities, blacks do patronize jewelry stores. A jeweler in Beverly Hills who closed his door to heavily bejeweled Mr. T would be foolishly closing his cash register. Unless I am a racist, race and age cannot be the sole deciding factors in calculating whom I will and will not let into my store. And I certainly would not close my door to, say, all young black men - not even to those who are casually dressed and behaving nervously. I would act cautiously in dealing with them, as I would with an antic, strangely dressed white man.

As a cabdriver I would apply the same considerations. Discrimination can be used judiciously. I would certainly exclude one class of people: those who struck me as dangerous. Nervous-looking people with bulges under their jackets would not be picked up; nor would those who looked obviously drunk or stoned. It all comes down to a subjective judgment of what dangerous people look like. This does not necessarily entail a racial judgment. Cabdrivers who don't pick up young black men as a rule are making a poorly informed decision. Racism is a lazy man's substitute for using good judgment.

Dutch 10-23-2010 02:19 PM

Wow, you remembered something Juan Williams said verbatim? That's impressive, I'll give you that.

JPhillips 10-23-2010 02:47 PM

I figure if you can keep track of everything the AP prints I can at least keep track of Juan Williams.

Greyroofoo 10-23-2010 02:51 PM

Can't we all just get along?

lungs 10-23-2010 03:59 PM

I'm really hoping the Democrats in Milwaukee get the Cigarettes for Votes program going again. We're going to need it this year.

stevew 10-23-2010 05:51 PM

I really don't care about my house race. Kathy Dahlkemper is getting a ton of money it seems. Her one add comparing Mike Kelley's tax plan as "teachers pay more taxes, Ray Lewis gets a tax cut". I'm not big on her attempt at class warfare. That kelly is a bad person cause he is wealthy.

However Sestak better beat Toomey the douche. Seems to be getting tight. Toomey has to be stopped now.

Dutch 10-23-2010 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lungs (Post 2370049)
I'm really hoping the Democrats in Milwaukee get the Cigarettes for Votes program going again. We're going to need it this year.


Don't forget the Black Panthers All Up In Your Grill program. That was highly effective as well!

lungs 10-23-2010 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2370104)
Don't forget the Black Panthers All Up In Your Grill program. That was highly effective as well!


Voter intimidation is so Middle East. I'd hope we've moved beyond that and give cigarettes to homeless people.

In all seriousness, I did offer two of my friends a pack of cigarettes in exchange for a vote for Russ Feingold. Just doing my part.

RainMaker 10-23-2010 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2370104)
Don't forget the Black Panthers All Up In Your Grill program. That was highly effective as well!

Don't forget the mindless sheep who believe everything they are told program.

Dutch 10-23-2010 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (D) (Post 2370224)
Don't forget the mindless sheep who believe everything they are told program.


That's not a party-specific program!

RainMaker 10-23-2010 11:18 PM

Illinois has some nasty races for Governor and Senate. First time in awhile that we've had close races in such large races.

I think I'm going to go with Brady for Governor. He's still 100 years behind on a lot of social issues, but I don't think that's going to matter as Governor. Doesn't have a strong record on anything, but he's not a Democrat which is good right now. The Illinois House and Senate are extremely corrupt and tied in with Quinn and we just need someone in there who is going to fuck with them. I really don't like either candidate and have to bite my lip with the bigoted stuff from Brady, but the State can't afford more debt and Quinn just wants to borrow money and give it to everyone who will vote for him.

Kirk and Gianoulias is much tougher. Kirk is a moderate but that's mainly because he just follows whatever the political tide is. He was a Republican for the war, then he shifted to the left when the tide shifted in 2006 and 2008, now he's somehow a fiscal conservative again (which he's never been). He's got good experience which is good and bad. Gianoulias seems like a smart guy, but he's still real young. He's also in the "spend a ton of money" camp which I'm just against right now. I'm pretty split on the two and might not make up my mind till the actual election day.

sterlingice 10-24-2010 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2370012)
I figure if you can keep track of everything the AP prints I can at least keep track of Juan Williams.


*snicker*

SI

Greyroofoo 10-24-2010 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2370246)
Illinois has some nasty races for Governor and Senate. First time in awhile that we've had close races in such large races.

I think I'm going to go with Brady for Governor. He's still 100 years behind on a lot of social issues, but I don't think that's going to matter as Governor. Doesn't have a strong record on anything, but he's not a Democrat which is good right now. The Illinois House and Senate are extremely corrupt and tied in with Quinn and we just need someone in there who is going to fuck with them. I really don't like either candidate and have to bite my lip with the bigoted stuff from Brady, but the State can't afford more debt and Quinn just wants to borrow money and give it to everyone who will vote for him.

Kirk and Gianoulias is much tougher. Kirk is a moderate but that's mainly because he just follows whatever the political tide is. He was a Republican for the war, then he shifted to the left when the tide shifted in 2006 and 2008, now he's somehow a fiscal conservative again (which he's never been). He's got good experience which is good and bad. Gianoulias seems like a smart guy, but he's still real young. He's also in the "spend a ton of money" camp which I'm just against right now. I'm pretty split on the two and might not make up my mind till the actual election day.


I didn't know that Illinois had elections. I thought they just had auctions.

Dutch 10-24-2010 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2370012)
I figure if you can keep track of everything the AP prints I can at least keep track of Juan Williams.


I guess a response was in order here, I've stopped using Yahoo! as my home page and just switched to the blank default Google search engine. I discovered that it was Yahoo! News and it's AP article selection that was a huge source of my angst since I originally assumed it was fair and balance. You should try switching your homepage away from juanwilliams.com and see if it curbs your angst. Good luck.

Glengoyne 10-24-2010 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2369805)
But he also said that it's reasonable to be fearful of all Muslims in Muslim garb. That's the very essence of bigotry, whether he wants to admit it or not....


See, and I think it is YOU that is adding the ALL. I think it is reasonable for people to feel uncomfortable while boarding a plane and noting the presence of middle eastern men, whether they are in "garb" or not. Possibly the same for women in the ubiquitous "garb". I haven't felt that way when I have been placed in that position while flying. That said, I don't think it would be an impossibility for me given the right circumstances.

I give JW the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't ALWAYS feel this way about EVERYONE he observed in such dress, also that muslim garb wasn't the only element to his own assessment of his safety while flying. I don't equate the inclusion of racial profiling into this assessment as racism, although giving race too much weight in a flash assessment of an individual is misguided and naive.

I don't think Juan Williams is moving all that far away from his position in that statement you quoted. I just think, from his perspective that he is copping to being a little "lazy", and not a little racist. That was why he couched his comments. He was conscious of the fact that he isn't on the "high ground" here. He was admitting to something that embarrassed him.

SteveMax58 10-24-2010 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glengoyne (Post 2370374)
I don't think Juan Williams is moving all that far away from his position in that statement you quoted. I just think, from his perspective that he is copping to being a little "lazy", and not a little racist. That was why he couched his comments. He was conscious of the fact that he isn't on the "high ground" here. He was admitting to something that embarrassed him.


I think this is the crux of the issue & what saddens me most about dialog in this country any more. It isn't good enough to acknowledge your honest feeling while stating what you know to be the case(or the more noble reaction). Trying to reconcile those 2 things is the very heart (IMHO) of getting past racism/racial issues as a topic in this country (in a good sense).

But rather than embrace his honesty (both emotional & intellectual) he was fired. Whether he was fired as a matter of convenience due to past actions, or fired for this particular issue on its own merits, I think this type of firing does more to add divisive speech to race relations rather than create the atmosphere to better them.

But as it stands...he'll get his own books, his own show, make a lot more money now, and decide that being controversial feeds his family better than being "honest". Sure "honesty" got him to this point...but it doesn't sell very well on most topics which is what Hannity, O'Reilly, Olberman, Maddow, Coulter, Limbaugh, Moore, and many other people have found out.

JPhillips 10-24-2010 01:43 PM

Where does he say this was something that embarrassed him? Instead of coping to a natural, if undesirable feeling he says that we have to deal with the fact that there is a war between the USA and Muslims.

Dutch 10-24-2010 02:03 PM

Quote:


...but it doesn't sell very well on most topics which is what Hannity, O'Reilly, Olberman, Maddow, Coulter, Limbaugh, Moore, and many other people have found out.


Or the AP for that matter. :D

DaddyTorgo 10-24-2010 04:12 PM

Pictures of Muslims Wearing Things

SteveMax58 10-24-2010 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2370430)
Where does he say this was something that embarrassed him? Instead of coping to a natural, if undesirable feeling he says that we have to deal with the fact that there is a war between the USA and Muslims.


I don't know that he said that, maybe on a different day or show, possibly.

But if you watch the entire segment (not just the trimmed down portion) he is actually lecturing O'Reilly about not making his (i.e. O'Reilly's) blanket statements about muslims without at least qualifying it (or giving scope).

flounder 10-25-2010 06:36 AM

Here's a transcript of the entire segment as well as the segment before.

Spoiler

Glengoyne 10-25-2010 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2370430)
Where does he say this was something that embarrassed him? Instead of coping to a natural, if undesirable feeling he says that we have to deal with the fact that there is a war between the USA and Muslims.


He starts off by saying "I'm not a racist" or words to that effect. He is on the record with books on the subject of civil rights. To think that he isn't embarrassed by his admission to straying into racial profiling(my words), seems to reflect an effort to define his position on a complex issue using only his words from a two minute sound-byte.

Also, the war between the USA and Muslims was JW quoting the Times Square Bomber, conceding a point to B.O. while going on to disagree with O'Reilly's argument.

RainMaker 10-25-2010 03:03 PM

I still don't see what Juan Williams said that is so bad. Everytime I've heard him make an argument, whether I agree or not, it's well thought out and offers perspective. I thought what he was saying made sense. He was saying that despite his record on civil rights and his disgust toward racism/bigotry, even he feels uncomfortable in settings. That we have gotten so PC that we can't even discuss that.

I don't think he was fired for what he said as much as it was an excuse for NPR to fire someone who appears on hate speech shows. The sad thing is that Williams is so much better than the hacks on that network. Having him appear with a dope like Mary Katharine Ham is embarrasing to the guy.

He'd make a great host of a show but not sure there is a venue for him. Fox doesn't have the audience intelligent enough to understand him and the other networks aren't going to both with him either.

WSR 10-25-2010 10:29 PM

Nice attempt at bipartisanship there Mr. President:

Quote:

We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

Obama assails GOP on clouded final campaign push - Yahoo! News

DaddyTorgo 10-25-2010 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSR (Post 2371210)
Nice attempt at bipartisanship there Mr. President:



Obama assails GOP on clouded final campaign push - Yahoo! News


Why should he be bipartisan when the Republicans have not only repeatedly demonstrated that they won't be bipartisan, but have also come out and explicitly ruled out being bipartisan??

WSR 10-25-2010 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2371254)
Why should he be bipartisan when the Republicans have not only repeatedly demonstrated that they won't be bipartisan, but have also come out and explicitly ruled out being bipartisan??


As I see it, they are not willing to work in a bipartisan manner on his Socialist initiatives and spending our great grandchildren into debt. I know how this sounds, but I am one of the Independents that have been disillusioned by his rhetoric and empty promises.

RainMaker 10-26-2010 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSR (Post 2371273)
As I see it, they are not willing to work in a bipartisan manner on his Socialist initiatives and spending our great grandchildren into debt. I know how this sounds, but I am one of the Independents that have been disillusioned by his rhetoric and empty promises.

Learn what Socialism is before using the word.

DaddyTorgo 10-26-2010 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSR (Post 2371273)
As I see it, they are not willing to work in a bipartisan manner on his Socialist initiatives and spending our great grandchildren into debt. I know how this sounds, but I am one of the Independents that have been disillusioned by his rhetoric and empty promises.


Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2371279)
Learn what Socialism is before using the word.


Seriously. The rhetoric you're using there marks you as one of those "independents" who isn't really independent at all.

Did you know for instance that the federal budget actually shrank by 9% this year?? (I believe this fact is correct, I only heard a snippet of it while I was working out, so don't jump down my throat if I got some piece of it wrong).

Sure we're still running massive deficits, but that's hardly the fault of Obama exclusively. The last president to present a balanced budget was a democrat, before Bush blew it out of the water with his massive deficit spending on foreign wars and tax cuts for large corporations and the top percentiles of earners.

Greyroofoo 10-26-2010 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2371287)
Did you know for instance that the federal budget actually shrank by 9% this year?? (I believe this fact is correct, I only heard a snippet of it while I was working out, so don't jump down my throat if I got some piece of it wrong).


I would love to know what numbers you're using.

flounder 10-26-2010 05:55 AM

I think he's referring to the fact that the 2009 budget deficit was $1.4 trillion which was $162 billion below White House projections. However, that $1.4 trillion was $962 billion above 2008's deficit. Source here.

Edit: Whoops. I didn't realize there were 2010 numbers out. He's right. The budget deficit did decrease to $1.3 trillion in fiscal year 2010 according to this article.

Greyroofoo 10-26-2010 06:11 AM

Yeah that sounds about right, I thought he was referring to the total federal government expenditure, which has increased.

JPhillips 10-26-2010 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSR (Post 2371210)
Nice attempt at bipartisanship there Mr. President:


"The most you can expect is two years of good old-fashioned gridlock," Rob Bishop (R-Utah)

"The last Republican Congress didn't suffer from too little compromise, it suffered from too much." Mike Pence (R-Indiana)

"I don't care who, what, when or where, I'm not compromising." Ken Buck (R-Colorado)

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky)

And that's just this week.

Neon_Chaos 10-26-2010 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2371279)
Learn what Socialism is before using the word.


+1

lungs 10-26-2010 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2371279)
Learn what Socialism is before using the word.


The correct world he should've used was Islamomarxism.

Passacaglia 10-26-2010 07:32 AM

Islamo Marx? I must have missed the movies with him in it. Did he replace Chico?

DaddyTorgo 10-26-2010 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flounder (Post 2371320)
I think he's referring to the fact that the 2009 budget deficit was $1.4 trillion which was $162 billion below White House projections. However, that $1.4 trillion was $962 billion above 2008's deficit. Source here.

Edit: Whoops. I didn't realize there were 2010 numbers out. He's right. The budget deficit did decrease to $1.3 trillion in fiscal year 2010 according to this article.


Thanks for finding the source flounder. It was just a soundbyte I heard while getting dressed in the locker room at the gym or something.

cartman 10-26-2010 10:05 AM

Whoops. This is kinda of a big screw-up in the message. In the CA governor's race, Meg Whitman ran an ad declaring "30 years ago, anything was possible in this state". Sounds good, right? One problem with that. The governor 30 years ago was her current opponent, Jerry Brown.

Ad reminds Whitman who was governor 30 years ago – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

DaddyTorgo 10-26-2010 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cartman (Post 2371396)
Whoops. This is kinda of a big screw-up in the message. In the CA governor's race, Meg Whitman ran an ad declaring "30 years ago, anything was possible in this state". Sounds good, right? One problem with that. The governor 30 years ago was her current opponent, Jerry Brown.

Ad reminds Whitman who was governor 30 years ago – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs


Whitman's an idiot.

JediKooter 10-26-2010 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia (Post 2371339)
Islamo Marx? I must have missed the movies with him in it. Did he replace Chico?


Yes, and he played a mean trombone.

JediKooter 10-26-2010 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2371406)
Whitman's an idiot.


Just be glad you don't have to listen or watch all of her dumb ass ads. She trys to equate what she did at ebay to running the state of California.

DaddyTorgo 10-26-2010 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 2371426)
Just be glad you don't have to listen or watch all of her dumb ass ads. She trys to equate what she did at ebay to running the state of California.


Oh I'm glad :D

molson 10-26-2010 11:26 AM

I'm disappointed that it's looking more and more like prop 19 won't pass in California. So we won't have the Obama administration stepping up federal criminal enforcement of state-legal California marijuana. The public response to which would have been very interesting.

JediKooter 10-26-2010 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2371432)
Oh I'm glad :D


And lucky too!

One of her ads is harping on Brown when he was the mayor of Oakland and how the school system failed because of him. As far as I know, mayors in California don't have control over the school systems here.

I can't wait until the 2nd Tuesday in November is over.

JediKooter 10-26-2010 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2371433)
I'm disappointed that it's looking more and more like prop 19 won't pass in California. So we won't have the Obama administration stepping up federal criminal enforcement of state-legal California marijuana. The public response to which would have been very interesting.


It was looking good for a while, but, someone analyzed the language of the proposition and basically, they are saying there's no standards on how it is to be regulated from one city to the next.

albionmoonlight 10-26-2010 11:35 AM

One nice thing here has been that the House races in the Triangle are not competitive, the Senate race is not competitive, and we have no Governor election going on right now.

Basically, TV has been pretty silent, and it is easy enough to ignore/laugh at the over the top flyers and mailings of the "If you truly love your children, then you will vote for John Smith for county assessor board seat #3." type.

Basically, having lived in a swing state in '08, I am realizing that it is much nicer to have politics off the TV than on it.

albionmoonlight 10-26-2010 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2371433)
I'm disappointed that it's looking more and more like prop 19 won't pass in California. So we won't have the Obama administration stepping up federal criminal enforcement of state-legal California marijuana. The public response to which would have been very interesting.


I agree. Regardless of your view on Prop 19, it would have been a great debate to have.

albionmoonlight 10-26-2010 11:40 AM

double dola:

It is also noteworthy (to me) that the only difference that I can see between Elizabeth Dole (NC Republican senator voted out in '08) and Richard Burr (NC Republican senator who will be easily re-elected in 10) is that Dole had the misfortune of being on the ballot during the Obama-wave election and Burr has the fortune of being on the ballot during the GOP-midterm-wave election.

I'm probably channeling a bit too much Nate Silver here, but it is amazing how little their performance has to do with their campaigns or even with them. Macroscopic forces outside of the control of any one senator drove both results (IMHO).

JediKooter 10-26-2010 03:36 PM

This makes me sick. Granted, it does not show what happened prior to this happening, but, regardless, completely disgusting actions by those people. I really hope that this isn't something that Rand Paul supporters and Tea Partiers approve of.


Ronnie Dobbs2 10-26-2010 03:37 PM

Actually I just talked to them all and they all approve of it.

DaddyTorgo 10-26-2010 04:37 PM

Apparently it was the (now former) Bourbon County Commissioner for the Paul Campaign that did the stomping.

Real lovely.

RainMaker 10-26-2010 06:17 PM

WTF?!?!? No one stepped in and knocked the shit out of the guys for assaulting a woman? I don't give a shit what you stand for, if a guy is curb stomping a defenseless woman, I'm knocking him out.

Passacaglia 10-26-2010 06:25 PM

Well one guy kind of held out his hand, gesturing for the guy with his shoe pressing down on the girl's head to stop. So that's something.

RainMaker 10-26-2010 06:29 PM

Maybe I was raised differently.

DaddyTorgo 10-26-2010 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2371616)
Maybe I was raised differently.


You're a compassionate human being, not a piece of walking, talking excrement.

DaddyTorgo 10-26-2010 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival (Post 2371622)
Ridiculous situation all around.

There are three clear acts of stupidity here and one despicable act. First, whomever the organizers for the event were, they badly failed in their job to have adequate security in place. Second, MoveOn.org for paying some chick to leave from PA and follow Rand Paul around just to get a stupid freaking picture. Third, the idiot chick for trying to charge through a crowd to get at a political figure while wearing a wig and without any clearly identifiable purpose.

Then there's dirtbag who decided to be a big man and put his foot on her shoulder and stomp down. Thankfully he's been charged with 4th degree assault and hopefully is found guilty.

Anyone complaining about her being taken down is just stupid. I help train US Capitol Police for situations just like this. If I were in a crowd around a political figure, and someone charged like that, I'd put them down and keep them there until security/police show up. It's the right thing to do regardless of who the politician involved is. Anything that can be legitimately considered a threatening act, and this very clearly could, should be treated as such.

Kudos to the guy who grabbed her around the waste and took her to the ground. There was no way to tell what was really going on and he acted responsibly with justifiable force.


Difference is this wasn't police or private security, it was some cowboy who happens to work for the campaign.

DaddyTorgo 10-26-2010 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival (Post 2371628)
The guy who first grabs her by the waist and takes her down and the guy who stomp her are different fucking people. The first one did the right thing. The second is rightly charged with 4th degree assault.

The lack of security/police is part of the problem and that's the fault of whomever organized the event in the first place.


Agreed. I wasn't arguing that the guy who grabbed her by the waist and took her down was a horrible human being.

It's the guy who stomps on her while she's on the ground that's a POS.

Calm down.

DaddyTorgo 10-26-2010 07:03 PM

Tim Profitt, Rand Paul Supporter, Admits To Confronting Woman At Debate

Now with her side of the story, including the fact she'd been at Rand Paul events before and the campaign staff knew her.

panerd 10-26-2010 07:49 PM

LOL.

Disclaimer: Rand Paul has shown his true colors and is just another Republicrat and nothing like his father. If I lived in Kentucky I would definitely vote Libertarian and think Paul is as useless (maybe more) than a Democrat would be. He supports more war, more government in social issues, yuck. I had higher hopes when he first appeared on the scene but he sold out to the machine at some point very early in his campaign.

However, if you guys really think this is more than the good old smear tricks that campaigns have been running for years and are going to blame Rand Paul for a volunteer (and a very questionable "volunteer" at that) than go on with your Bush Jr/Obama back and forth. You can't really buy into this pre-election bullshit can you? Rand Paul has nothing to do with this (though of course it is front page news on all the liberal stations across the nation. LOL)

DaddyTorgo 10-26-2010 07:51 PM

Questionable volunteer? He was the County whatever-its-called for the campaign.

Passacaglia 10-26-2010 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2371677)
LOL.

Disclaimer: Rand Paul has shown his true colors and is just another Republicrat and nothing like his father. If I lived in Kentucky I would definitely vote Libertarian and think Paul is as useless (maybe more) than a Democrat would be. He supports more war, more government in social issues, yuck. I had higher hopes when he first appeared on the scene but he sold out to the machine at some point very early in his campaign.

However, if you guys really think this is more than the good old smear tricks that campaigns have been running for years and are going to blame Rand Paul for a volunteer (and a very questionable "volunteer" at that) than go on with your Bush Jr/Obama back and forth. You can't really buy into this pre-election bullshit can you? Rand Paul has nothing to do with this (though of course it is front page news on all the liberal stations across the nation. LOL)


Honestly, I don't think most of us here are saying this says anything about Rand Paul -- we're just pissed that this shit goes on.

panerd 10-26-2010 07:53 PM

And yes I would feel absolutely the same way if a Republican of some sort (say a member of a anti-spending group) was put down on the ground by a bunch of Democrats. Completely set-up and staged nonsense.

panerd 10-26-2010 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia (Post 2371681)
Honestly, I don't think most of us here are saying this says anything about Rand Paul -- we're just pissed that this shit goes on.


LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2371679)
Questionable volunteer? He was the County whatever-its-called for the campaign.


RainMaker 10-26-2010 07:58 PM

Yeah, I don't think this has anything to do with Paul. More to do with people who are that caught up in politics are the bottom rung of our society.

Passacaglia 10-26-2010 07:58 PM

Good thing I didn't say all! :)

DaddyTorgo 10-26-2010 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2371683)
LOL


:p

I wasn't saying Paul had anything to do with it, or condoned it or whatever (although it sure took him long enough to come out with his outrage against it).

But you can't call the guy a "questionable volunteer" if he's the county-head for the campaign. Not like they just picked him up off the street or something. That's a mischaracterization of his role.

panerd 10-26-2010 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2371691)
:p

I wasn't saying Paul had anything to do with it, or condoned it or whatever (although it sure took him long enough to come out with his outrage against it).

But you can't call the guy a "questionable volunteer" if he's the county-head for the campaign. Not like they just picked him up off the street or something. That's a mischaracterization of his role.


OK I will come out and say it and call me Alex Jones if you want. The rank and file Republicans hate Rand Paul. Why I have no idea, unlike his father he is basically just them with a little more anti-spending rhetoric. He will continue supporting all the wars and social nonsense the Republicans support. So when this happens within a week of the election it smells of a complete set-up. Not by Democrats but by Republicans. I could be wrong and the guy is just an idiot but it doesn't seem right to me. Seems like the same old bullshit tricks that have been going on for years.

panerd 10-26-2010 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2371707)
Um, that of course is why the RSCC is spending millions on the race and this race is one of the ones _they_ have to win to have any shot at the Senate majority. So yes, it is completely out there.


Ever since Ross Perot mysteriously disappeared from the 1992 election campaign I don't put anything past the behind the scenes guys that really control the power. Nothing. Don't know which side set this one up but it seems pretty far fetched to believe it is just a coincidence that the election is next Tuesday.

WSR 10-26-2010 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos (Post 2371326)
+1


Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2371279)
Learn what Socialism is before using the word.


You're both right (and I'm sure you love to hear that). I should have used Marxist, not Socialist . . .

Quote:

(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


DaddyTorgo 10-26-2010 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSR (Post 2371807)
You're both right (and I'm sure you love to hear that). I should have used Marxist, not Socialist . . .





LMAO

Like I said - clearly you're one of those "independents" who just so happens to vote Republican 10 out of 10 times.

That or you've got the bad taste to watch a steady diet of Fox news.

Glengoyne 10-27-2010 01:59 AM

Well one of my friends said that "stomp" was an exaggeration. Certainly to say that her head was stomped on is an over statement, as it didn't look like her head was directly involved. The guy definitely shoved her down with his foot. When I think of stomp I think of a foot raised above and then thrusted down, while this guy's foot was clearly placed on her before he did his dirty work. Not the kind of hair I'd want to split. Stomp is fair...I'm not sure about "head".

In any case, I agree with HiFi. Citizens stopping her, and bringing her to the ground seems reasonable, and not unduly necessary. Shoving her or kicking her crosses the line. I don't have problem with charges being filed, although wouldn't this be battery and not assault?

RainMaker 10-27-2010 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSR (Post 2371807)
You're both right (and I'm sure you love to hear that). I should have used Marxist, not Socialist . . .

Pick up an 8th grade Civics book when you get a chance.

Just because you heard the word thrown around on some talk show doesn't make it right. Read what Marxism is and then realize how utterly stupid you sound. You are up there with those who called Bush a Nazi. People parroting something they heard to try and look informed, while looking like a moron to anyone with an IQ over 80 (or an 8th grade education in government).

JPhillips 10-27-2010 08:45 AM

Now the stomper is asking for an apology from the stompee. Sounds crazy, but the guy Cheney shot apologized, so I guess this makes some sort of sense.

SirFozzie 10-27-2010 10:43 AM

"I don't think it's that big of a deal," Profitt said. "I would like for her to apologize to me to be honest with you."

What. The. Fuck.

At least the Rand Paul campaign fired this asshole.

JediKooter 10-27-2010 11:00 AM

Everybody is a victim...

Passacaglia 10-27-2010 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 2371931)
Everybody is a victim...


How dare you say that to me? I demand an apology.

JediKooter 10-27-2010 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia (Post 2371937)
How dare you say that to me? I demand an apology.


You demand an apology from me? Now I'm owed an apology.

JPhillips 10-27-2010 01:45 PM

I'd like an apology for having to read about these apologies.

WSR 10-28-2010 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2371838)
Pick up an 8th grade Civics book when you get a chance.

Just because you heard the word thrown around on some talk show doesn't make it right. Read what Marxism is and then realize how utterly stupid you sound. You are up there with those who called Bush a Nazi. People parroting something they heard to try and look informed, while looking like a moron to anyone with an IQ over 80 (or an 8th grade education in government).


Good times. Let's keep this up.

8th grade civics book? I would look at one, but it's obvious you're not through with it yet.

For the sake of argument, the summary of Marxism from Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy is fairly straight forward for ya. It states, in relevant part,
Quote:

The analysis of history and economics come together in Marx's prediction of the inevitable economic breakdown of capitalism, to be replaced by communism.
Karl Marx (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So, although I initially supported President Obama, I have moved closer to the Conservative's point of view since his election. The expansion of government is alarming to me at this point and I want less government in my life, not more. And, I see Capitalism, which I believe has made this country so great, slowly eroding when it is seen as evil (as portrayed by the powerful public employee unions and the President).

I live in CA and I have plenty of friends who are Democrats, and the majority of them are disillusioned at this point with Obama. (Which is pretty consistent with polls I've seen.) Health Care Reform, the landmark legislation that will likely define President Obama, is not being well received by the folks I know. When it is fully implemented in 2018, I believe the politicians instrumental in passing it (Pelosi, Reid, Obama) will be vilified for generations to come. Once our employers decide to pay the penalty and send us off to the exchanges, we will realize the claim that we would keep our health plans was unfounded.

The problem with all this is that when the Republicans last controlled Congress and the Presidency, they went crazy and spent money like drunken sailors. So, I don't have a lot of faith in them either at this point.

That is why the bipartisan approach is so important, which is where I jumped into this thread. I expect inexperienced Congressmen to be partisan, but the tact Obama is taking is really beneath the office of the Presidency. I believe most Americans are moderate and just want these politicians to quite the bickering and get to solving the country's problems.

Groundhog 10-28-2010 12:54 AM

Obama is who I hoped he wasn't.

DaddyTorgo 10-28-2010 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSR (Post 2372344)
Good times. Let's keep this up.

8th grade civics book? I would look at one, but it's obvious you're not through with it yet.

For the sake of argument, the summary of Marxism from Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy is fairly straight forward for ya. It states, in relevant part, Karl Marx (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So, although I initially supported President Obama, I have moved closer to the Conservative's point of view since his election. The expansion of government is alarming to me at this point and I want less government in my life, not more. And, I see Capitalism, which I believe has made this country so great, slowly eroding when it is seen as evil (as portrayed by the powerful public employee unions and the President).

I live in CA and I have plenty of friends who are Democrats, and the majority of them are disillusioned at this point with Obama. (Which is pretty consistent with polls I've seen.) Health Care Reform, the landmark legislation that will likely define President Obama, is not being well received by the folks I know. When it is fully implemented in 2018, I believe the politicians instrumental in passing it (Pelosi, Reid, Obama) will be vilified for generations to come. Once our employers decide to pay the penalty and send us off to the exchanges, we will realize the claim that we would keep our health plans was unfounded.

The problem with all this is that when the Republicans last controlled Congress and the Presidency, they went crazy and spent money like drunken sailors. So, I don't have a lot of faith in them either at this point.

That is why the bipartisan approach is so important, which is where I jumped into this thread. I expect inexperienced Congressmen to be partisan, but the tact Obama is taking is really beneath the office of the Presidency. I believe most Americans are moderate and just want these politicians to quite the bickering and get to solving the country's problems.


:lol:

:rolleyes:

Greyroofoo 10-28-2010 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groundhog (Post 2372348)
Obama is who I hoped he wasn't.


Muslim?

RainMaker 10-28-2010 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSR (Post 2372344)
Good times. Let's keep this up.

8th grade civics book? I would look at one, but it's obvious you're not through with it yet.

For the sake of argument, the summary of Marxism from Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy is fairly straight forward for ya. It states, in relevant part, Karl Marx (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I know exactly what Marxism is. I simply don't see how we are shifting anywhere near Communism. Can you provide some examples of this? Understanding that Communism means the end of wage labor and abolishing of private property. As well as the ownership of the means of production. Those are some massive changes to everything I've seen take place although you seem to have more information on this than the rest of the world. Please enlighten us on what has been done to shift our country in that direction (and big spending doesn't mean Communism).

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSR (Post 2372344)
So, although I initially supported President Obama, I have moved closer to the Conservative's point of view since his election. The expansion of government is alarming to me at this point and I want less government in my life, not more. And, I see Capitalism, which I believe has made this country so great, slowly eroding when it is seen as evil (as portrayed by the powerful public employee unions and the President).

Can you provide examples of how Capitalism has eroded?

Last I checked, we were all able to start companies, work for who we want to work for, and pretty much do whatever we want with our careers. Out of the 500 largest companies in the world, nearly 30% of them are based in the United States. I run a small business myself, so if you have insight into when I can expect to be taken over, it would be appreciated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSR (Post 2372344)
I live in CA and I have plenty of friends who are Democrats, and the majority of them are disillusioned at this point with Obama. (Which is pretty consistent with polls I've seen.) Health Care Reform, the landmark legislation that will likely define President Obama, is not being well received by the folks I know. When it is fully implemented in 2018, I believe the politicians instrumental in passing it (Pelosi, Reid, Obama) will be vilified for generations to come. Once our employers decide to pay the penalty and send us off to the exchanges, we will realize the claim that we would keep our health plans was unfounded.

I doubt it will define him. Medicare didn't define President Bush despite it being a much larger health care overhaul that will cost much more in the long term. Can you tell me what aspect of the health care plan has you so disillusioned?

As for employers paying a penalty and dropping you, wouldn't you be fine with that? You just railed a paragraph up about capitalism, and by God in a free capitalistic economy, employers should have a right to determine who they provide health insurance to. In fact, you should be against any penalty whatsoever for a company not carrying you since that's bigger government. Unless your "big government" anger doesn't apply to your health insurance. You are worried about employers not covering you, yet his plan actually gives them incentive to carry you. I'm thinking you didn't quite think that argument through.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSR (Post 2372344)
The problem with all this is that when the Republicans last controlled Congress and the Presidency, they went crazy and spent money like drunken sailors. So, I don't have a lot of faith in them either at this point.

That is why the bipartisan approach is so important, which is where I jumped into this thread. I expect inexperienced Congressmen to be partisan, but the tact Obama is taking is really beneath the office of the Presidency. I believe most Americans are moderate and just want these politicians to quite the bickering and get to solving the country's problems.


Here's a little secret, both parties are the same. They will both spend ridiculous amounts of money because in the end, it's what people want. Sure we don't want a giant national debt, but we also want things. We want Social Security, Medicare, good schools, nice roads, and a big bad military to keep us safe. There have been a lot of polls that show this. Ask someone if they want to cut spending and they'll say yes. Ask them if they want to cut education, military, health care, roads, police, etc and they'll say no.

Now take a look at where our spending comes from. The majority of it is tied up in Social Security, Medicare, military, and Veterans benefits. About 67% goes to those areas. Another 9% goes to just paying interest on previous debt. So the only way you're going to really put a dent into our deficit is by cutting those areas.

So by all means, point us in the direction of the candidate who is on the stump promoting cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Benefits, and our military. I'd love to see how many votes they'll get. And if you aren't for cutting those areas, you aren't serious about cutting spending.

albionmoonlight 10-28-2010 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2372367)
So by all means, point us in the direction of the candidate who is on the stump promoting cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Benefits, and our military. I'd love to see how many votes they'll get. And if you aren't for cutting those areas, you aren't serious about cutting spending.


This cannot be said enough, IMO.

DaddyTorgo 10-28-2010 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2372367)
I know exactly what Marxism is. I simply don't see how we are shifting anywhere near Communism. Can you provide some examples of this? Understanding that Communism means the end of wage labor and abolishing of private property. As well as the ownership of the means of production. Those are some massive changes to everything I've seen take place although you seem to have more information on this than the rest of the world. Please enlighten us on what has been done to shift our country in that direction (and big spending doesn't mean Communism).


Can you provide examples of how Capitalism has eroded?

Last I checked, we were all able to start companies, work for who we want to work for, and pretty much do whatever we want with our careers. Out of the 500 largest companies in the world, nearly 30% of them are based in the United States. I run a small business myself, so if you have insight into when I can expect to be taken over, it would be appreciated.


I doubt it will define him. Medicare didn't define President Bush despite it being a much larger health care overhaul that will cost much more in the long term. Can you tell me what aspect of the health care plan has you so disillusioned?

As for employers paying a penalty and dropping you, wouldn't you be fine with that? You just railed a paragraph up about capitalism, and by God in a free capitalistic economy, employers should have a right to determine who they provide health insurance to. In fact, you should be against any penalty whatsoever for a company not carrying you since that's bigger government. Unless your "big government" anger doesn't apply to your health insurance. You are worried about employers not covering you, yet his plan actually gives them incentive to carry you. I'm thinking you didn't quite think that argument through.



Here's a little secret, both parties are the same. They will both spend ridiculous amounts of money because in the end, it's what people want. Sure we don't want a giant national debt, but we also want things. We want Social Security, Medicare, good schools, nice roads, and a big bad military to keep us safe. There have been a lot of polls that show this. Ask someone if they want to cut spending and they'll say yes. Ask them if they want to cut education, military, health care, roads, police, etc and they'll say no.

Now take a look at where our spending comes from. The majority of it is tied up in Social Security, Medicare, military, and Veterans benefits. About 67% goes to those areas. Another 9% goes to just paying interest on previous debt. So the only way you're going to really put a dent into our deficit is by cutting those areas.

So by all means, point us in the direction of the candidate who is on the stump promoting cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Benefits, and our military. I'd love to see how many votes they'll get. And if you aren't for cutting those areas, you aren't serious about cutting spending.


RainMaker wins.

Much more patience than I have to type that all out...kudos to you man.

molson 10-28-2010 10:50 AM

We're not heading towards a socialist state but I don't think that it's irrelevant, for discussion's sake, that many posters here (and it's safe to assume, many democrats in power), believe such a system is not only desirable, but practical for America. Their poltiical views are based on whatever would take us in that general direction, just like some extreme conservatives' views are are based on whatever would take us in the general direction of a theocracy. It doesn't mean we'll actually get to either (I hope), but it's not irrelevant to recognize who WOULD take us to either place if they could.

molson 10-28-2010 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2372460)
Actually, 92% of American's would prefer wealth distribution like Sweden's over ours.


92% of people want more money then they have. Are these the same people they poll that want lower taxes but 10X the government services?

Sweden's awesome, I love sweden. My grandparents are from Sweden. It ain't happening here though for 6 hundred billion reasons. Our government (either party) can't do 1% of what Sweden does with about 10,000X of the money (numbers made up and exagerated). Sweden's also not really a socialist state. They like their private property. They also don't like outsiders. It's easy to take care of everyone at a small party when you don't let anyone else in and you have lots of shit to give away.

If Vermont split of as their own country, closed the borders, everyone would be happy, there would be limited wealth disparity, and they'd have a higher standard of living than the U.S. as a whole. The same thing just isn't going to work with the entire U.S., at least until a third party emerged (not holding my breath).

For me, the best we can hope for with what we have if for the government to be as small as possible. I'm not so much "small government" as I am "small American government". At least leave more for the state governments, which can more easily be reformed. In Sweden, there's no reason to be "small government" because they don't have Democrats (vomit) and Republicans (vomit) running things. I guarantee if we send our politicians, and political parties, and corporations, and lobbyists over there to run things we could ruin Sweden in just a few days.

Here, the liberals actually try to convince us that the Democratic party and Obama is the answer, and that these elections between D dickhead and R dickhead for legislative office matter. I don't know whether that's sad or whether they're trying to trick me, but I ain't buying it.

molson 10-28-2010 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2372469)
Yeah, all the American government ever has done is defeat fascism, build an Interstate Highway system, put a man on the moon, all but eliminate extreme elderly poverty, and cover the health care of the elderly for much cheaper than private insurance.

But yes, Sweden's a social democratic state. Which is where I, who's probably the most liberal poster on here, am politically. I've never seen anybody on this board advocating for taking over the means of production.


The current versions of the Democratic and Republican party are not representative of the greatness of this country.

You're not Sweden politically, you lack the nationalism and racism. And you're not religious enough (or at least spirtual enough).


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.