An interesting pair of views on Romney as president

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Phanatik**

Karon wrote:
Coulter wrote:In a stunning follow-up to her number one bestseller Slander, leading conservative pundit Ann Coulter contends that liberals have been wrong on every foreign policy issue, from the fight against Communism at home and abroad, the Nixon and the Clinton presidencies, and the struggle with the Soviet empire right up to today’s war on terrorism. “Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason,” says Coulter. “Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don’t.” From Truman to Kennedy to Carter to Clinton, America has contained, appeased, and retreated, often sacrificing America’s best interests and security. With the fate of the world in the balance, liberals should leave the defense of the nation to conservatives

You believe that gak, Phanatik?

Democrats/liberals care about getting (re)elected. They will say or do or spend anything to do so. They will ignore history, or distort it. They isolate groups, tell them they have been victimized and then pander to them. They would spend this country into oblivion so long as they are in charge when the fall happens. And hope to be in charge of the chaos that follows.

Van Jones, Obama advisor:
“I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of… I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary…I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th..By August, I was a communist.”

Regards,

**Ma55ter_fett**

Regardless of who wins in the next election I plan on moving to Scotland/Ireland/great Brittan a few years after I graduate. I’ve always wanted to travel in Europe extensively and it would be easier to do so if I lived over there.

I'll probably write in a candidate for the next election... maybe frazzled…

**Frazzled**

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Regardless of who wins in the next election I plan on moving to Scotland/Ireland/great Brittan a few years after I graduate. I’ve always wanted to travel in Europe extensively and it would be easier to do so if I lived over there.

I'll probably write in a candidate for the next election... maybe frazzled…

A vote for Frazzled is a vote for Freedom.
Frazzled and the Wienerdog Party for President. They'll run the fat cats out!

**Easy E**

Don't blame me. I voted for the the Wiener dog.

**Phanatik**

It seems like every candidate is a dog in this race.

**Manchu**

Phanatik wrote:Democrats/liberals care about getting (re)elected. They will say or do or spend anything to do so. They will ignore history, or distort it. They isolate groups, tell them they have been victimized and then pander to them.

I just think it's important that people see this mindset in its proper context:

Phanatik wrote:You see, McCarthy was right...

**Phanatik**

Manchu wrote:
Phanatik wrote:Democrats/liberals care about getting (re)elected. They will say or do or spend anything to do so. They will ignore history, or distort it. They isolate groups, tell them they have been victimized and then pander to them.
I just think it's important that people see this mindset in it's proper context:
Phanatik wrote:You see, McCarthy was right...

So, what, did I kick your dog?
Are you buds with Van Jones or something?
Do you think "communists" is just a bogeyman created by conservatives to scare little republicans?

Best,

**Manchu**

I think mass hysteria is bad for our Republic.

**Phanatik**

Manchu wrote:I think mass hysteria is bad for our Republic.

And you are the arbiter of what constitutes hysteria? I think I'll wait for the movie.

boni pastoris est tondere pecus non deglubere

Best,

**Manchu**

Why McCarthyism is bad should not merit discussion among reasonable adults.

**Melissia**

Which is why Phanatik is discussing it.

McCarthy is long since gone to his grave, and good fething riddance to him and his paranoic finger-pointing arse. We should have left the witch hunts to rot in the annals of history, rather than listen to that clown.

But we have a different clown tot alk about now. Romney. And I think that's what this thread is about. I mean, I would assume to know that, considering I made the thread.

**Phanatik**

Manchu wrote:Why McCarthyism is bad should not merit discussion among reasonable adults.

And once again the liberal censorship machine goes into action to trample on free expression by declaring that only they know what topics are fit for conversation.

Do you guys get paid, by George Soros no doubt, or do you do this for free?
Melissia, for someone supposedly studying for a chem degree, you seem to have a lot of free time to depose other's comments.

Have a nice day!

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:I think mass hysteria is bad for our Republic.

Like 1% is the cause of all our evils and are really Evilly Evil? I hear those Evilly Evil Bankers all have crooked noses. We should make them wear red hats to distinguish them so we know who we're dealing with.

**Melissia**

Frazzled wrote:Like 1% is the cause of all our evils and are really Evilly Evil?

That's not mass hysteria. Noone's asking them to be thrown in jail or charged with treason. Noone's saying they should be hanged, or expelled from the nation. Just that the government should stop favoring the rich so much as it currently does.

**Manchu**

Phanatik wrote:And once again the liberal censorship machine goes into action to trample on free expression by declaring that only they know what topics are fit for conversation.

You're right. Let's take a minute to consider that there might have been a good reason why all those women were murdered during the witch hunt craze. No no, skip that -- let's just assume the only reason we think burning women accused of witchcraft at the stake is bad is because of the "liberal censorship machine" (or the fluoridization of our precious bodily fluids or whatever). So, we've cleverly figured it out (secure under our tinfoil hats), so let's get busy right away burning these chicks. Witches and communists, too. You call Anne Coulter; I'm sure she has some plans drawn up already.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Like 1% is the cause of all our evils and are really Evilly Evil?
That's not mass hysteria. Noone's asking them to be thrown in jail or charged with treason. Noone's saying they should be hanged, or expelled from the nation. Just that the government should stop favoring the rich so much as it currently does.

Actually those statements have been made frequently by Occupy members on boards.

**Manchu**

Frazzled wrote:
Manchu wrote:I think mass hysteria is bad for our Republic.
Like 1% is the cause of all our evils and are really Evilly Evil?

Right, because Communists are not secretly controlling the federal government there also cannot be a very small group of people in this country that own most of the wealth. Furthermore, because there are no unicorns there also cannot be corn or horses or unicycles.

**Melissia**

Frazzled wrote:Actually those statements have been made frequently by Occupy members on boards.

So? There's always nutjobs in every movement. The tea party is full of them. The Green party is full of them. The D and R parties have them too. So does the Libertarian party.

**Manchu**

Also, Frazz, I have to say I don't think being wealthy makes one evil. I do think that if one is both evil and wealthy then the consequences will be that much greater.

**Phanatik**

Manchu wrote:
Phanatik wrote:And once again the liberal censorship machine goes into action to trample on free expression by declaring that only they know what topics are fit for conversation.
You're right. Let's take a minute to consider that there might have been a good reason why all those women were murdered during the witch hunt craze. No no, skip that -- let's just assume the only reason we think burning women accused of witchcraft at the stake is bad is because of the "liberal censorship machine" (or the fluoridization of our precious bodily fluids or whatever). So, we've cleverly figured it out (secure under our tinfoil hats), so let's get busy right away burning these chicks. Witches and communists, too. You call Anne Coulter; I'm sure she has some plans drawn up already.

Really, witch burning?

And in any case, those women floated, like wood.

**Frazzled**

Phanatik wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Phanatik wrote:And once again the liberal censorship machine goes into action to trample on free expression by declaring that only they know what topics are fit for conversation.
You're right. Let's take a minute to consider that there might have been a good reason why all those women were murdered during the witch hunt craze. No no, skip that -- let's just assume the only reason we think burning women accused of witchcraft at the stake is bad is because of the "liberal censorship machine" (or the fluoridization of our precious bodily fluids or whatever). So, we've cleverly figured it out (secure under our tinfoil hats), so let's get busy right away burning these chicks. Witches and communists, too. You call Anne Coulter; I'm sure she has some plans drawn up already.

Really, witch burning?

And in any case, those women floated, like wood.

What else floats?
silence
oh come on...
A rock?
No....
Wood?

Yes Wood!

**Manchu**

Phanatik wrote:And in any case, those women floated, like wood.

One turned me into a newt.

I got better.

**Melissia**

Phanatik wrote:Really, witch burning?

I know that reading is hard for you, and I commend you for trying, but you still failed at doing it.

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:Also, Frazz, I have to say I don't think being wealthy makes one evil. I do think that if one is both evil and wealthy then the consequences will be that much greater.

however those statements are routinely made and generally the whole point of the Occupythisparksnooneelsecanandheydontletthosehomelessinheretheyarelikeeatingallourfoodweretryingtoprotestforthepoorhere!

1% are evilly evil adn the cause of all our problems. its completely not my fault that I got this degree in BA in basketweaving and can't a job after 7 years of college and $80,000 in debt the government should pay for it! Oh and yea the government needs to make sure I get $20 an hour whether I work...er or not!

**Melissia**

Frazzled, stop with the strawmen. It just makes you look like a petulant child.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:Frazzled, stop with the strawmen. It just makes you look like a petulant child.

Stop with arguing that those are statements of radicals within a group, when the group itself displays no goals or statements. if you have no platform, then all the wingnuts in your small group will be taken at their word.

And just WTF do you think 99%er means in the first place?

This is awesome. From OccupyHouston

OccupyHouston 1st General Assembly Minutes – Sept. 30th
September 30th, 2011 · Cassie · GA MinutesOne commentHouston General Assembly Meeting #1 convened at 12:25pm 9/30/2011
Moderator- Craig
An introduction into the General Assembly process was given according to the Quick Guide to Dynamics of Peoples Assemblies.
Floor discussion on process, unable to reach consensus.
Nick- began moderating in order to facilitate the discussion of the general assembly process.

Robert- spoke on process, offered sample proposal

PROPOSAL “We should require people to turn off their cell phones at GA meetings because of the potential for disruption and surveillance.

Consensus was not reached and he had an issue with the debate process regarding proposals which do not immediately reach consensus as the sample did.
Mario- had to leave early and briefly spoke on vision. He was positive about the opportunity that the meeting offers, but for actions sake, he suggests that we coordinate with activist groups who are aware of OccupyHouston. He also observes that the largest historical protest in Houston was in 2006 in response to an immigration bill.
Brian- asked would the size of the group (IE. small vs large) affect the assembly process

Nick- said that it does

Darren- suggested that preliminary discussion of small and large issues be held in workgroups.

Craig-suggests process workgroup, seconded by ‘woman in pink’

Robert-explained that he was just making an example and not a serious proposal.

Raffi-opposed this on grounds of irrelevance and time limitations.

Nick-gave 10 minutes to discuss the cell phone issue as practice for the GA process.

‘woman in pink’- opposed the proposal because it suggests that the GA has control over its members.

‘older woman’- observes initial cell phone objection derailed discussion. Quotes Quick Guide to Dynamics of General Assembly regarding Direct and Indirect consensus.

Brian- Blocks the cell phone issue on ‘woman in pink’s grounds

Andrea- Agrees with Brian, not concerned with surveillance as these meetings are open

‘larger older woman in purple’- reiterates that this is an example

Craig- moves to table discussion and move forward on grounds that consensus has been reached

CONSENSUS- sample proposal “We should require people to turn off their cell phones at GA meetings because of the potential for disruption and surveillance.” rejected.
Nick-Thinks that ‘goals’ are too big to discuss right now, calls for discussion from those who had yet to speak.

‘Houston Indymedia photographer’ – asks if anyone has an issue with photography at the meeting and is glad that people showed up.

Group – various words of encouragement.

‘Man in Green’- suggests our group should advocate for people to vote

Nick- Moves to stack re: Vision and Goals

‘larger older woman in purple’- suggests accountability and justice as goal

John- Stresses importance of outreach to “other communities” such as immigrants, labor, and anti-war groups. Suggests we unite around common issues.

Robert- Announced that NYPD will back off aggressive tactics and suggests that the same might be the case in Houston. Also suggested that this would lead to a corresponding drop in media coverage and has concerns regarding individual or unified messages during protest.

‘Orange shirt brian’ – distinguishes between visions and objectives/goals.

Darreh – suggests that OccupyHouston needs direction, mentions FDR’s second bill of rights.

Craig- Agreed that process and discussion are parts of the goal.

John- suggested that goals may include different autonomous zones within an encampment, provided the example of set locations for democratic or anarchist meetings, repeats the urgency of the timeline leading up to Oct 6th.

Brian- Reiterates support for the GA dynamic

Nick- suggested limitations on signage, especially in regards to violence, racism, and oppression

Andrew – opposed division of camp, as it is not happening at NYC and suggested that occupation exists to provide focal point for future unrest

Robert – agreed with Nick’s suggestion

Sheila – Angry about corporate greed. Discussed her personal story regarding about destroying her credit cards after the Bailout.

Morgan – cautioned against paranoia

Murray – suggested that dialogue should be part of the goal, played devil’s advocate and asked those that were not against corporatism to make their case.

Nick- discussed involvement of varied groups regarding issue focus

Raffi- suggested that we work on demands

Bernette- Suggested that demands would be on signs

Nick- Suggested that we should prepare for attacks from corporate media who may try to divide us by showing that the group is not in agreement. Called for a stack on this issue

John P.- suggested that we should focus on the lack of transparency in government and that regular citizens are no longer seen nor heard.

Scott- Agrees

Darren- discussed FDR’s second bill of rights, the right to earn a good living, the disparity between ruling and working classes. “I want to work. I want a job and I want to get paid.

John – Discussed the importance of message, especially a unified message with other Occupations.

Andrew – “All of us are the 99% and we are being screwed”

Nick- raised Corruption & Corporatocracy as as possible focuses of demand

Robert – Suggested to end the federal reserve bank and corporate personhood

Nick- Abolishing the fed is very specific, We may not be able to arrive at consensus without a broader version of that goal.

Sheila – People shouldn’t be ignored

Scott – Election reform, GMO foods, flouridated water.

Nick- Suggested that some issues are widely considered to be conspiracy theories, and media may use sound bytes on these subjects to discredit us.

Brian- Egalitarianism

Larry – Strengthen positions and goals

Craig- Suggested that goals, direction, vision, and message should have their own discussion group

Nick – Opened suggestions for various working groups to tackle specific areas.

Received suggestions:

Media

Messaging

Outreach

Research

Legal

Security (Peacekeepers?)

Signage

Medical

GA Facilitation committee

Craig called for conclusion of the meeting and breakout into workgroups.
Meeting concluded at 2:09PM

**Phanatik**

Melissia wrote:
Phanatik wrote:Really, witch burning?
I know that reading is hard for you, and I commend you for trying, but you still failed at doing it.

U no, maebe Iah kant reed, butt @ leest Iah deedn't stepe on a Python rif.

**Manchu**

Yeah, people who think all rich people are evil are not so credible. But there is something American about it, as much as it is American to equate wealth and goodness.

From our English forebears we've inherited a strong prejudice against power as corruption. I prefer the Norse way of thinking: you'll know who a man is when he can do what he likes. A lot of the time, people who get a hold of money do good things with it (not least of all because it coincides with their own interests, of course). But to the American mind, no tyrant however personally amicable can really be benevolent.

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:Yeah, people who think all rich people are evil are not so credible. But there is something American about it, as much as it is American to equate wealth and goodness.

From our English forebears we've inherited a strong prejudice against power as corruption. I prefer the Norse way of thinking: you'll know who a man is when he can do what he likes. A lot of the time, people who get a hold of money do good things with it (not least of all because it coincides with their own interests, of course). But to the American mind, no tyrant however personally amicable can really be benevolent.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Dear Lord, test me!

**Melissia**

Frazzled wrote:And just WTF do you think 99%er means in the first place?

I know you don't like to read things you disagree with, Frazzled, but come on! I've explained what I think it means countless times over the past week or so.