Paul Supporters Attack Protester

[oladub]

It's funny how Juan Williams got raked over the goals and lost his job because he stereotyped Muslims. Aren't you basically doing the same thing? Taking the actions of a few and painting with a broad brush?

The political talk show hosts on MSNBC do this all the time. Funny, because these are the same people who will scream the loudest if one of their chosen groups is stereotyped.
Some peoples hypocrisy knows no bounds.

There must be something wrong with Protestants because there are no Protestants on the Supreme Court to reflect or represent the 50% of Americans who are Protestants. New Yorkers and Ivy Leaguers are much better represented. Of course, President Obama very recently declared people who didn't agree with his policies as 'enemies' who could come along as long as they stayed in the back of the bus. He said something about 'treat them like enemies' too. Maybe the President was referring to, as Detroitj72 suggested, "white protestant males" as being the enemy just in time for the election. Even Grandpa Dunham met the description.

[stipes]

And they think Detroit is dangerous???

[Detroitej72]

Of course, President Obama very recently declared people who didn't agree with his policies as 'enemies' who could come along as long as they stayed in the back of the bus. He said something about 'treat them like enemies' too.

Nice try. Turn off the right wing media and put down the glass of kool aid.

Perhaps you have forgotten how it was your president who said "your either with us or your against us", in regards to anyone who didn't agree with him.

[oladub]

Nice try. Turn off the right wing media and put down the glass of kool aid.

Perhaps you have forgotten how it was your president who said "your either with us or your against us", in regards to anyone who didn't agree with him.

QUIZ TIME: who said the following?

"We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends"

1) Barack Obama recently instructing his audience how they should treat fellow Americans.
2) The right wing media making talking points
3) Gino Salvatore addressing his 'specialists'
4) A Chicago politician

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

1)Barack Obama
2)Some cracker blue dog southern sheriff

Were those not the President's recent words rather than the right wing media's? I'm not about to dismiss them. Seems like he decided to be divisive instead of being the uniter he campaigned to be. Gee, why don't Republicans want to cooperate with Barack Obama?

You are being presumptuous about me supporting Bush. Find somewhere where I ever represented myself as a Bush supporter.

[Jimaz]

From WLKY: Man Charged After Woman's Head Stepped On Outside Debate

[Pam]

From WLKY: Man Charged After Woman's Head Stepped On Outside Debate

When are they going to charge the one who slammed her onto the ground?

[Gistok]

Anybody that tries to justify this curbstomping of a 110 pound woman by a fat redneck pussy and his gang of thugs, is as big an asshole as the stomper.

... and then after adding post after post in defense of the stompers they say on other threads... "oh but I'm not in support of either political party!"

Funny that!

[firstandten]

QUIZ TIME: who said the following?

"We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends"

1) Barack Obama recently instructing his audience how they should treat fellow Americans.
2) The right wing media making talking points
3) Gino Salvatore addressing his 'specialists'
4) A Chicago politician

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

1)Barack Obama
2)Some cracker blue dog southern sheriff

Were those not the President's recent words rather than the right wing media's? I'm not about to dismiss them. Seems like he decided to be divisive instead of being the uniter he campaigned to be. Gee, why don't Republicans want to cooperate with Barack Obama?

Needless to say I am disapointed in your last few posts. I now don't know if you are a true libertarian or a right wing zealot. That quote was taken out of context. The actual quote went something like this


“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

The overall climate that Obama is operating in is summed up by his quote in the Rolling Stones interview.

"I still remember going over to the Republican caucus to meet with them and present our ideas, and to solicit ideas from them before we presented the final package. And on the way over, the caucus essentially released a statement that said, "We're going to all vote 'No' as a caucus." And this was before we'd even had the conversation. At that point, we realized that we weren't going to get the kind of cooperation we'd anticipated. The strategy the Republicans were going to pursue was one of sitting on the sidelines, trying to gum up the works, based on the assumption that given the scope and size of the recovery, the economy probably wouldn't be very good, even in 2010, and that they were better off being able to assign the blame to us than work with us to try to solve the problem."

So given the environment he's working under what do you expect him to do or say?

[oladub]

firstandten, You correctly point out that President Obama suggested to a Latino audience that they 'punish our enemies' so the answer is 1) Barack Obama recently instructing his audience how they should treat fellow Americans.

Libertarians are opposed to metastasizing government whether that of Bush or Obama. President Obama will get my cooperation to the extent that he can slash government spending, end his wars, obey the Constitution, and expand liberty. He isn't doing a very good job of those things. I really don't expect much of him but was rather surprised when he declared those who disagree with him to be enemies to be punished.

[gibran]

I think the his metaphor is perhaps harsh..but the actions that the Tea party represents could be construed as a call to arms and has the potential to be even more extreme... you have today a republican calling for a war in Iran to stimulate the economy and will back the republican support for bipartisanship... that is dangerous. What is Liertarian on the surfcae sounds nice..but in reality they are calling for is an end to big government..when we just had two disasters that call for futher regulation >>>coal mine and oil spills... as well as a safety net for the underemployed and the poor. Libertarians just want their corners of the world protected from paying higher taxes..and forgeting they are part of a bigger picture..with responsibilities... and they too will be in line for "government handouts" if ever they are caught in circumstances that are out of their hands like natural disaster or unemployment.

[Detroitej72]

Needless to say I am disapointed in your last few posts. I now don't know if you are a true libertarian or a right wing zealot. That quote was taken out of context. The actual quote went something like this

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

A true libertarian would not use a sound bite out of context to support their argument.

Besides, isn't it ironic that the cons and their political party are running commercials in NM and AZ urging all Latinos to sit this election out to send a message to Democrats. Talk about a desperate and, frankly, UN-American strategy that should insult all veterans who fought for this country.

[mjs]

What is Liertarian on the surfcae sounds nice..but in reality they are calling for is an end to big government..when we just had two disasters that call for futher regulation >>>coal mine and oil spills... as well as a safety net for the underemployed and the poor. Libertarians just want their corners of the world protected from paying higher taxes..and forgeting they are part of a bigger picture..with responsibilities... and they too will be in line for "government handouts" if ever they are caught in circumstances that are out of their hands like natural disaster or unemployment.

The coal mine and oil spills happened under the President that has spent more than any other President outside of WWII. The regulations were in place and his budget is obviously without bounds and yet I've never seen big government more of a lap dog to big business. Regulations mean nothing if the chief executive won't enforce them because he needs more ads to hold his party's power after he goes against the American public.

What regulation have you seen from this democratic congress that you are trying to protect? Dodd-Frank is nothing but a windfall for attorneys and scammers and a nightmare for regulators. Simply reinstate Glass-Stegall and all its precedence for god's sake. BP stock has been doing but great since the President put his boot on their throats as he describes it. Tea party folks aren't telling Democrats to keep in place laws that protect BP from being sued for the damages they caused. Tea party folks didn't tell Congress to pay Goldman 100% of their AIG insurance payments with tax dollars after Goldman both crashed AIG and made a killing beting they could crash them.

Look up the term federal preemption. The Feds come in and write regulation in areas they're not supposed to, then tell the states that they can not write regulation in that area because its now a Fed thing, and then don't enforce the regulation they used to preempt the states because its now much much more cost effective for the regulated to buy the regulators. Why in God's name can't Florida and Louisiana sue BP and Halliburton for costs they have incurred due to BP and Halliburton's gross negligence? Thats OK, Uncle Sam will get the bill. His pockets have no bottom.

This is the balance of power and the government regulation and spending system you want to preserve? I prefer a government of the people by the people and that means a system where the Feds have to share power and control with the states so as to make it much much harder for big influence to get in. Federal government is not the solution; its the problem.

[mjs]

Besides, isn't it ironic that the cons and their political party are running commercials in NM and AZ urging all Latinos to sit this election out to send a message to Democrats. Talk about a desperate and, frankly, UN-American strategy that should insult all veterans who fought for this country.

What??? That doesn't make one iota of sense. No group could possibly watch an ad that says don't vote and then do anything other than be motivated to vote. What kind of frickin moron would think the way to political influence is not voting? What kind of moron campaign strategist would use that strategy?

[mjs]

Wait, some people think that the solution to a great recession caused by Fed Reserve manipulation, consumer debt, large banks, and Fannie and Freddie can be solved by Fed Reserve manipulation that forces consumer debt and legislation that expands large banks and Fannie and Freddie. Ok, now I can see what kind of morons.

[oladub]

A true libertarian would not use a sound bite out of context to support their argument.

Besides, isn't it ironic that the cons and their political party are running commercials in NM and AZ urging all Latinos to sit this election out to send a message to Democrats. Talk about a desperate and, frankly, UN-American strategy that should insult all veterans who fought for this country.

The quote wasn't taken out of context. Had George Wallace or David Duke said the same thing to groups of white southerners, they would have been derided as racists. Imagine this:

“If Southern Whites sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

Latinos in AZ are smart enough to not buy into such Republican advertisements but that doesn't make Obama's quote less racist than if David Duke or Gearge Wallace had said the same thing to their 'friends'.

[firstandten]

firstandten, You correctly point out that President Obama suggested to a Latino audience that they 'punish our enemies' so the answer is 1) Barack Obama recently instructing his audience how they should treat fellow Americans.

Libertarians are opposed to metastasizing government whether that of Bush or Obama. President Obama will get my cooperation to the extent that he can slash government spending, end his wars, obey the Constitution, and expand liberty. He isn't doing a very good job of those things. I really don't expect much of him but was rather surprised when he declared those who disagree with him to be enemies to be punished.

Again, its punish our enemies in a political sense, there is nothing new about this. It happens each and every election cycle.You have made an extention of that statement to the effect that the president says this is how we should treat americans who disagree with us on a day-to-day basis. I don't believe that is what he is saying and I find hard after reading the quote that you could make the jump from punish in a political sense at the polls, to disrespecting fellow americans in a general sense.

But I think you miss the bigger point of my post of which you didn't address and I would like your thoughts on it.

How do you govern effectively when one political party as a key part of their political strategy decides to "gum the works" as Obama describes it.

If you ram your agenda thru you get blasted, if you wait for bi-partisanship it doesn't happen and you still get blasted, plus you still don't get your agenda thru. Knowing it will take some time to see results maybe even a couple of years, while in the mean time that other party can add their spin throw in some sound bites and make it seem that the Presidents agenda isn't doing a thing.

Granted as far as politics go this borders on genius strategy and it will result with them winning some seats in the House and Senate. But it sends a very big F.U.
to the American people who are suffering and looking for answers.

The party thats doing this has NOT shown in any way, shape or form that they have any thing better than the BS supply side economics they used to get us in this mess in the first place.

So my question stands... Given the political landscape that the President is operating under was that statement to the Latino group really that bad ?
My feelings is he is reacting to a political reality and its time to take the gloves off.

[mjs]

How do you govern effectively when one political party as a key part of their political strategy decides to "gum the works" as Obama describes it.

Since we're talking honestly and not the politician BS spin hyperbole. Thats how plans are affected in and out of government. If someone thinks a law or anything else shouldn't get passed, they should try to stop it with the means available to them. Its the loyal opposition playing their role in society.

If we're talking about supposed over use of things such as filibusters, the Dems should have changed the law as Obama is now proposing they do. Filibusters are a changable rule of Congress, not written in stone under Constitutional protection. If they want to change it, then quit the bitching and change it.

If you ram your agenda thru you get blasted, if you wait for bi-partisanship it doesn't happen and you still get blasted, plus you still don't get your agenda thru.

All most of us ever wanted was for them to read the bills and let the press vent it. They vote for them and later claim they didn't know what was in it. Shame on them! They should either delay it long enough to read it, vote No because they don't understand it, or pull an all nighter. Once again, we're tired of the games and finger pointing.

Knowing it will take some time to see results maybe even a couple of years, while in the mean time that other party can add their spin throw in some sound bites and make it seem that the Presidents agenda isn't doing a thing.

If this is successful, shame on the voters then and their MTV attention spans. In a democracy, for better or worse, the masses always get the government they deserve. The President had an excellent, respect worthy response on the Daily Show when Jon Stewart asked him to address that concern.

[firstandten]

Since we're talking honestly and not the politician BS spin hyperbole. Thats how plans are affected in and out of government. If someone thinks a law or anything else shouldn't get passed, they should try to stop it with the means available to them. Its the loyal opposition playing their role in society..

I agree with that, I believe in the role of the loyal opposition, however what concerns me and this is where I think a tightrope is being walked. There can be a difference between being the loyal opposition and complete and total obstructionism. There is nothing that the American people can gain from No votes as a matter of general principle without meaningful discussion and the give and take that bi-partisanship is suppose to bring to the table.

If we're talking about supposed over use of things such as filibusters, the Dems should have changed the law as Obama is now proposing they do. Filibusters are a changable rule of Congress, not written in stone under Constitutional protection. If they want to change it, then quit the bitching and change it...

Again, I think there is a place for filibusters but the rule should be changed to actually make them do it. Make them read from a phone book and do the other crazy stuff they have to do to keep it going. My understanding is all they have to do now days is to declare there intent to filibuster and not actually have to go thru the process of filibustering.

All most of us ever wanted was for them to read the bills and let the press vent it. They vote for them and later claim they didn't know what was in it. Shame on them! They should either delay it long enough to read it, vote No because they don't understand it, or pull an all nighter. Once again, we're tired of the games and finger pointing...

This is nothing new, folks haven't been reading bills for a long time. I see this line of discussion as a delaying tactic. Congresspeople have staffs, other congresspeople on various committees that the bills are assigned to, that understand the content of various bills. I don't buy that argument.

If this is successful, shame on the voters then and their MTV attention spans. In a democracy, for better or worse, the masses always get the government they deserve. The President had an excellent, respect worthy response on the Daily Show when Jon Stewart asked him to address that concern.

As a people we are in trouble. I see a lack of people wanting to read for information, they want to be spoon fed information. Thats why sound bites are so effective. A sound bite throws out the message that the person wants you to hear, but adds little to no context in which the message can be truly evaluated. Our lack of attention spans and our unwillingness to do even the most basic research creates a culture where Papasito in another thread said:

The people get mad at the repubs and vote the Dems in
The people get mad at the Dems and vote the Repubs in

And the cycle continues.

[ghettopalmetto]

This is nothing new, folks haven't been reading bills for a long time. I see this line of discussion as a delaying tactic. Congresspeople have staffs, other congresspeople on various committees that the bills are assigned to, that understand the content of various bills. I don't buy that argument.

The bills are written by attorneys who work for the various committees. A friend of mine was once one of these attorneys, for the House Homeland Security Committee.

As such, the bills are written in legalese. Your average Congressman would either not understand the language in the bill, or would require, as in the case of the health care legislation, hundreds upon hundreds of hours to dissect and analyze it. I'm certain we want to pay these folks $165,000 a year to propose and vote upon legislation, not conduct legal research that their staffers are already doing for them. Talk about government inefficiency....

The Tea Partiers have placed an outsized emphasis on "reading the bills". Let's see the Tea Partiers cast the first volley by reading the bills themselves.

[gdogslim]

a move on . org activist was shoved to the ground? that should be good news

[Gistok]

a move on . org activist was shoved to the ground? that should be good news

For anyone with half a brain... no attacks against ANY individuals are good news!

[oladub]

The bills are written by attorneys who work for the various committees. A friend of mine was once one of these attorneys, for the House Homeland Security Committee.

As such, the bills are written in legalese. Your average Congressman would either not understand the language in the bill, or would require, as in the case of the health care legislation, hundreds upon hundreds of hours to dissect and analyze it. I'm certain we want to pay these folks $165,000 a year to propose and vote upon legislation, not conduct legal research that their staffers are already doing for them. Talk about government inefficiency....

The Tea Partiers have placed an outsized emphasis on "reading the bills". Let's see the Tea Partiers cast the first volley by reading the bills themselves.

There was a "Read the Bills Act" which, of course, Democrats did not support.

The "‘Read the Bills Act’ can’t be waived and requires Congress to…
* Read the entire bill out-loud before a quorum
* Post all bills on the Internet for seven days before voting
If ignorance of the law is no defense for citizens, such ignorance must not be permitted to Congress. That’s why RTBA also provides citizens with a solid legal defense against laws passed in violation of these requirements. Babka concluded: “The 72-hour rule is insufficient to prevent Congress from doing too much, too fast, with too little understanding. But it moves in the right direction, and its inadequacy will show why we need the REAL Read the Bills Act.”-libertymaven


SENATOR Rand Paul [[gloat, gloat), for his part, supports a time period proportional to the length of a bill before it can be voted on. No more shoddy ramming through of 900 or 2,000 page bills and being told that it was too important to have to read it.

What kind of government are you calling for anyway GP? You seem to prefer that elected representatives just vote on things which are over their heads because some experts have told that to? If I went to a lawyer and he/she handed me a 900 page contract and to just sign it, I would escape their office pronto but you want our elected representatives to be docile and trusting. Is it any wonder that the corporations have stolen so much of middle class wealth with such toadies in elected office?

[Papasito]

Look at the backlashes to the "Health Care" bill. All companies have to report any transaction over $500.00. What does that have to do with Health Care? Nothing. This is the crap that should be reviewed before the Government "approves the bill so they can see what's in it".

If there was a Republican President and a Republican majority in the Senate, Democrats would be screaming to have every word of every line read before a bill is voted for/signed. They would treat every piece of legislation as if it were a Republican power grab.

Truth is, it doesn't matter who is the majority, and who is the minority. What matters is that these people were elected, by us, to represent us, and what is in the best interest of the people they represent. It is thier job to know and understand everything in the bills they have come before them, so they can make an informed decision.

If your elected official can't do something this basic, they have no business representing you in the first place.

[firstandten]

There was a "Read the Bills Act" which, of course, Democrats did not support.

Neither did the Republicans, the bill has no congressional sponsors

BTW congrats to you with Rand Paul. Lets see if he holds true to his libertarian principles

[oladub]

Neither did the Republicans, the bill has no congressional sponsors

BTW congrats to you with Rand Paul. Lets see if he holds true to his libertarian principles

I am more closely aligned with Ron than Rand. Rand seems to be about half way between Ron and the mainstream Republican Party. MSNBC commentators Maddow and Olberman are having a cow though. They are blaming the coming world economic collapse primarily on Rand Paul. Maybe the blaming everything on Bush thing is getting stale so they are jumping the gun a little and assigning Rand the new Judas goat role to absolve the Obama administration of shortcomings. It might backfire if it casts Rand into a more prominant role. Maddow tried to destroy the Paul campaign the day after he won the Republican nomination but her attempt failed and Paul went on to defeat Kentucky's attornery general by 10%. Here, the bombastic Alex Jones covers the MSNBC panic session concerning Rand Paul. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xzFZDXzkyU

Two of my favorite Democrats, that is to say Democrats with redeeming qualities, were defeated: Russ Feingold and Alan Grayson. Johnson, the new Republican senator replacing Feingold, is a bad news neocon who supports the Patriot Act, opposes Federal Reserve transparancy, and wouldn't tell me where he would cut the budget when I asked him - twice.

Back to Ron Paul if I may. Ron Paul is now the ranking member of the House Fin.SubCommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy & Technology. Whether or not the Republican leadership will entrust Paul to run this subcommitee remains to be seen. The bankers don't like Ron Paul and I suspect will be begging for someone more compatable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...and_Technology