NY Gov. Cuomo to Right-to-Lifers -- You are not welcome in NY State

[PB the Deplorable]

I guess I should have. 

You are so fast and loose with the figures (Carter's mess, Reagan's miracle) that you neglected to mention Volcker was Carter's nominee for Fed Chair...

I have mentioned that several times in the past.  He was an excellent choice.  Stopped clock, right once.

... The "poor" were ignored and the "middle class" were virtually destroyed by Reagan.  Wages have remained stagnant, a fact you've never attempted to refute because you can't.  People's retirements were wiped out by Enron and then Lehmann Brothers, another fact you cannot dispute.  Reagan helped destroy union negotiating power by empowering companies to take jobs out of the country...

The 'poor' have been decimated by the buildup of the welfare state by the Liberals and the destruction of their schools by the Teachers Unions and the Educrats.  Too many are now nearly illiterate and unemployable.  Reagan didn't do that, the Democrats did.

Did you really miss the technology revolution - venture capital freed up by restructuring the tax rates.  Silicon Valley and all the related tech pockets around the US.  Hardware, software, computing power, communications.  New business startups, all those jobs, all the IT jobs in every company out there, all the people in those companies using the new technology to become more productive and earn higher wages.  You really are clueless about how things work and about what was going on from 1982-2008.  Anyone can pick and choose just the statistics they want, then distort them - you might want to look around you once in awhile and see if what the Left is insisting on rings true.

If the middleclass was ever poor, how is it city and suburban housing values doubled several times over in those years and the middle class were still able to afford them and bid them up?  Is that not a reflection of rising middle class wealth?

Enron?  Lehman Brothers?  That was Reagan?  You are delusional

As far as moving jobs offshore, there is plenty of blame to go around.  Reagan, Bush, Clinton, D's and R's.  Taxes, union demands, EPA regs, all have a hand in that as well.

By the way, if you think the free trade exporting of jobs is all Reagan, who is it right now - right now - that is pushing through the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) on the sly - no oversight, no amendments?  What will that do to more of our jobs?

Who is it pushing amnesty and refusing to close our southern border to more cheap labor?  How is that helping the poor we already have now?

[Yorkshire pud]

If the middleclass was ever poor, how is it city and suburban housing values doubled several times over in those years and the middle class were still able to afford them and bid them up?  Is that not a reflection of rising middle class wealth?

?

That's easy. Cheap money. Nothing to do with rising income. All to do with banks throwing out the welcome mat to lend money to 100% of value, and taking the most innocuous 'income' (such as ad hoc overtime) as solvency. This causes a housing bubble, artificially increasing the perception of a thriving economy, and in turn generating the upward spiral.  And it's fine right up until someone pulls the plug, and then it all comes crashing down.

Enron?  Lehman Brothers?  That was Reagan?  You are delusional

Well, Thatcher and Reagan followed similar fiscal policies. In the UK, de-regulation of not only the financial industry but across the board, made some loose cannons even more trigger happy. Enron is a good example; They were forthcoming weren't they? Union Carbide in Bhopal, India? That's ongoing. Sure it wasn't Reagan's fault directly, but he got stuff in place to make it easier. Then there's the small matter of supplying arms to Iran; financial support and weapons to genocidal maniacs in central America, who today get their funds from kidnapping, because the CIA tap was turned off.

As far as moving jobs offshore, there is plenty of blame to go around.  Reagan, Bush, Clinton, D's and R's.  Taxes, union demands, EPA regs, all have a hand in that as well.

Funny that. In the UK the unions and those goddamned liberals warned about the dangers of de-regulating and privatising publically owned utilities. That they'd cost jobs and national identity..  And what do you know? It came to pass...

By the way, if you think the free trade exporting of jobs is all Reagan, who is it right now - right now - that is pushing through the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) on the sly - no oversight, no amendments?  What will that do to more of our jobs?

Oh it's a problem now because it's Obama? Were you complaining to the Whitehouse before Obama? The damage was done before Obama or even Bush 2.

Who is it pushing amnesty and refusing to close our southern border to more cheap labor?  How is that helping the poor we already have now?

Hmm, the native Indians may have a had a similar view when they were invaded for a different reason; You should have lived in that era to fight their corner.

[PB the Deplorable]

?

That's easy. Cheap money. Nothing to do with rising income. All to do with banks throwing out the welcome mat to lend money to 100% of value, and taking the most innocuous 'income' (such as ad hoc overtime) as solvency. This causes a housing bubble, artificially increasing the perception of a thriving economy, and in turn generating the upward spiral.  And it's fine right up until someone pulls the plug, and then it all comes crashing down.

Well, Thatcher and Reagan followed similar fiscal policies. In the UK, de-regulation of not only the financial industry but across the board, made some loose cannons even more trigger happy. Enron is a good example; They were forthcoming weren't they? Union Carbide in Bhopal, India? That's ongoing. Sure it wasn't Reagan's fault directly, but he got stuff in place to make it easier. Then there's the small matter of supplying arms to Iran; financial support and weapons to genocidal maniacs in central America, who today get their funds from kidnapping, because the CIA tap was turned off.

Funny that. In the UK the unions and those goddamned liberals warned about the dangers of de-regulating and privatising publically owned utilities. That they'd cost jobs and national identity..  And what do you know? It came to pass...

Oh it's a problem now because it's Obama? Were you complaining to the Whitehouse before Obama? The damage was done before Obama or even Bush 2.

Hmm, the native Indians may have a had a similar view when they were invaded for a different reason; You should have lived in that era to fight their corner.

I'll leave you to your delusions and searing focus on the usual handful of cherry picked distorted small picture issues while you ignore the big picture, except to say I was referring to the rise in housing prices from the early 80s to around the early 2000's.  The housing bubble you are referring to was one of a series of bubbles that came after the dot com collapse.  Which were caused mostly by Greenspan's Fed.  So, not related.

I know little about Thatcher and the details of her economic policies, except this:  Before she came to power, the UK was on the edge of economic collapse.  Whatever mistakes that were made, that collapse was prevented.  Your economy was even strong there for awhile, until she left the scene.  She was also a strong ally with Reagans foreign policy.  Am I correct in assuming that, like NiT, you're not going to give credit where credit is due their either?

Bush II?  Worst President ever.  Until Obama crawled out of his hole - he's retired the trophy, and isn't even done yet.    Wilson, FDR, LBJ and Carter deserve to be in the conversation, but can now breath easy.  (Nixon had too many positive accomplishments to be a strong contender).  I'll give credit to Bush II and even Carter - at least they were decent patriotic Americans and did their best on behalf of the country.  Can't say any of that about Barry.

Genocidal maniacs in Central America?  That really narrows it down.  Here 's a clue:  it was imperative to contain and reverse Cuban and Soviet expansion.  Regardless of whose side your Labour Party and our Democrats were on. 


Ya know, when people are on the side of never ending government expansion at home, and the USSR abroad, it's easy to understand why they hated Reagan and Thatcher.

[Yorkshire pud]

I'll leave you to your delusions and searing focus on the usual handful of cherry picked distorted small picture issues while you ignore the big picture, except to say I was referring to the rise in housing prices from the early 80s to around the early 2000's.

So was I. At the time (89-90) House prices were going up by the hour, literally. Money was cheap, and bids were flying in on properties that were fit for demolition, because of the perception it was dirt cheap to make them good and still sell at a massive profit. What happened was the locals in a less salubrious area couldn't (and still can't today) afford their first home because of the influx of outside property investors. So we have the prospect of long term stagnation; Rental or living with family is their only option because to get an average home (now) requires a deposit of several tens of thousands. Rental is dead money, and also more than a mortgage, so quite how anyone is to also save up for the deposit is anyone's guess.

The housing bubble you are referring to was one of a series of bubbles that came after the dot com collapse.  Which were caused mostly by Greenspan's Fed.  So, not related.

Not related? Eh? So ongoing economics stop through some sort of osmosis, and make it all right again before the next crap?

I know little about Thatcher and the details of her economic policies, except this:  Before she came to power, the UK was on the edge of economic collapse.  Whatever mistakes that were made, that collapse was prevented.  Your economy was even strong there for awhile, until she left the scene.  She was also a strong ally with Reagans foreign policy.  Am I correct in assuming that, like NiT, you're not going to give credit where credit is due their either?

Oh I'll give her credit where it's due. The previous shower of shit were long past their sell by date. However she promised unity, but delivered one of the most divisive periods in British history. You should have lived through it here. One thing I would give her credit for was the taking on of the Argentine Junta. That particular shower of shit tried to cover the economic collapse of Argentina by invading the Falklands, using conscripted kids as the fodder. It wasn't steeped in glory for us either; More men committed suicide because of PTSD afterwards than died in the conflict.

Bush II?  Worst President ever.  Until Obama crawled out of his hole - he's retired the trophy, and isn't even done yet.    Wilson, FDR, LBJ and Carter deserve to be in the conversation, but can now breath easy.  (Nixon had too many positive accomplishments to be a strong contender).  I'll give credit to Bush II and even Carter - at least they were decent patriotic Americans and did their best on behalf of the country.  Can't say any of that about Barry.

Genocidal maniacs in Central America?  That really narrows it down.  Here 's a clue:  it was imperative to contain and reverse Cuban and Soviet expansion.  Regardless of whose side your Labour Party and our Democrats were on. 

I know Carter's former next door neighbour and I'm told you got what you got with him. But as for Soviet expansion? Since when did the USA get the memo that said they could invade another sovereign state, overthrow an ELECTED government that they found inconvenient this time, and fund a right wing militia, who funded by the CIA murdered thousands on behalf of the CIA? They did the same in Indonesia in 63, and 3 million were masacred in that one, yet at the same time it was perfectly reasonable to impose their playboy dictator of choice in Iran (AKA Shah of Iran)...and of course there's Bush's ex employee Karzai in Afghanistan... For every 'commie' incursion I can bring you several that were entirely undemocratic declarations odf war without the declaration. It's as bad as the slaughter that Stalin imposed on the Soviet Union-yep including Communists.

Ya know, when people are on the side of never ending government expansion at home, and the USSR abroad, it's easy to understand why they hated Reagan and Thatcher.

It isn't about government expansion, it's about a level playing field. But presumably you support the unfettered expansion of the huge multi nationals who own governments, and pretty much tell governments (and by extension their citizens) what, how and when they'll do things? You think Google is a benign search engine? Or Mc Donalds a little diner down the road? Or the big oil and gas companies are really interested in reducing the energy bills?

[Ben Shockley]

Pud, Nowhere Man -- I think you are forgetting certain axioms of right-wing "thought" necessary to making any sense of P*B's diatribes or the historical hallucinations of right-wingers in general.   Inter alia, you must remember these.

Right Wing Rule 7A:
Any events or policies seen by consensus as "bad" that occur or are enacted during a Republican Presidency have absolutely nothing to do with the Republican President.
Right Wing Rule 7B:
Any events or policies seen by consensus as "bad" that occur or are enacted during a Democratic Presidency are incontrovertible proof of the Democratic President's personal criminality and affiliation with Satan.

Specifically regarding foreign policy and events:
Right Wing Rule 33G:
Any purges, pogroms, or genocides that occur under any regime who flies a flag containing more than 5% red, and/or who use the word "People" in their party title, are incontrovertible proof that any movement anywhere that claims to represent "the people" is determined to bring about the mass murder of everyone everywhere.
Right Wing Rule 33H:
Any victims of purges, pogroms, or genocides that occur under any regime who were installed by U.S.-backed coup are not actually dead.

And while we're at that:
Right Wing Rule 33F:
Any foreign regime which presents any impediment to American capitalist exploitation of the resources or populace of that foreign region is to be portrayed to the American populace as an immediate mortal threat.
Right Wing Rule 33J:
Violence against foreign regimes as described in (33F) which cannot feasibly be portrayed as necessary for "immediate national defense" will be portrayed as "spreading democracy" within the offending region.
Right Wing Rule 33K:
Casualties and destruction inflicted in foreign regions consequent to "spreading democracy" as occasioned under (33J) are to be dismissed under provisions of (33H).

[Ben Shockley]

Here's a report on the economy during the Reagan years. It's dull, complicated, informative, and tough to get through. You know, like actual economics. I get that it's from the Cato Institute and will be questioned by some...

I welcome how you allow that some of us will (only) "question" something from the Cato Institute.

At least you apparently don't feel that you can credibly predict that any on the other side in here will automatically dismiss something-- like so many righties in here automatically dismiss anything our President says, or automatically dismiss (or more frequently, attack) any person or political movement who claim or use certain mere words (i.e., "progressive"), or dismiss or attack those who profess ideologies or simply possess academic- or professional backgrounds that the righties have no understanding and only a badly-twisted conception of.

"Questioning" versus "reflexive dismissal or attack."   Yes, there is a difference.

[gx2music]

is Cuomo a practising Catholic?   because if he is , then i find his comments regarding right-to-lifers utterly perplexing.
it's fair to say that the Pope is the biggest "right to life" proponent out there.   Mr Cuomo should come clean , and just say he's an atheist or agnostic..

Pelosi is another one that claims to be "Catholic" , and yet supports policy that is at odds with Catholic doctrine.

[FightTheFuture]

is Cuomo a practising Catholic?   because if he is , then i find his comments regarding right-to-lifers utterly perplexing.
it's fair to say that the Pope is the biggest "right to life" proponent out there.   Mr Cuomo should come clean , and just say he's an atheist or agnostic..

Pelosi is another one that claims to be "Catholic" , and yet supports policy that is at odds with Catholic doctrine.

Yeah, he is a practicing Catholic, like Ted Kennedy was a practicing Catholic.

[gx2music]

Pud, Nowhere Man -- I think you are forgetting certain axioms of right-wing "thought" necessary to making any sense of P*B's diatribes or the historical hallucinations of right-wingers in general.   Inter alia, you must remember these.

Right Wing Rule 7A:
Any events or policies seen by consensus as "bad" that occur or are enacted during a Republican Presidency have absolutely nothing to do with the Republican President.

incorrect.   The Rand Paul wing of the Republican party fully blames Nixon for the dropping of the gold standard.
managing a right wing party is like herding cats , as you are trying to unite  social conservatives with defense hawks with fiscal monetarists

[gx2music]

Pud, Nowhere Man -- I think you are forgetting certain axioms of right-wing "thought" necessary to making any sense of P*B's diatribes or the historical hallucinations of right-wingers in general.   Inter alia, you must remember these.

Specifically regarding foreign policy and events:
Right Wing Rule 33G:
Any purges, pogroms, or genocides that occur under any regime who flies a flag containing more than 5% red, and/or who use the word "People" in their party title, are incontrovertible proof that any movement anywhere that claims to represent "the people" is determined to bring about the mass murder of everyone everywhere.
Right Wing Rule 33H:
Any victims of purges, pogroms, or genocides that occur under any regime who were installed by U.S.-backed coup are not actually dead.

33G is just based on observation  e.g. the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea   ,  the Peoples Republic of China

33H is incorrect.    The Rand Paul wing of the GOP regularly talks about "blowback".   They don't ignore it.     33H more accurately applies to the Reaganite wing , who gloss over the death squads of central america during the 1980s.

[Ben Shockley]

Hey gx2music --
I appreciate your use of specific Paulist factoids in the effort to slightly contradict me, as well as how you apparently "get" the sarcasm of my method.  In those, you at least surpass the usual rightie around here who would fully embrace the "revealed right-wing wisdom" that I had "enumerated," but then just (as I also illustrated) reflexively bash me as an America-hating subhuman for hinting that any of it might be wrong.

I also appreciate how you, gx2, as an apparent Paulist, don't shy away from being classified as a "right-winger."  Rather than looking at my "list" and just disclaiming all of it --which you were free to do, and some Paulists would-- you only distance yourself from it in little steps.   Anyway, you apparently concede that the modern Republican Party has become fully-fledged "rightist."
It just astounds me how so many stalwart self-styled Republicans (including a lot of the resident righties in here) resent or run away from the "right-wing" classification.   Those people sense that the term "right-wing" is used in common parlance to describe a set of traits and policies that by general consensus are held to be rather "negative."   And a lot of those Republicans blatantly exhibit those traits in their personalities, and fully support those policies -- but it just seems that they don't want anyone putting the pieces together and putting a label on it.

[Ben Shockley]

is Cuomo a practising Catholic?   because if he is , then i find his comments regarding right-to-lifers utterly perplexing.
it's fair to say that the Pope is the biggest "right to life" proponent out there.   Mr Cuomo should come clean , and just say he's an atheist or agnostic..
Pelosi is another one that claims to be "Catholic" , and yet supports policy that is at odds with Catholic doctrine.

Surely, by this point in the thread, someone has already pointed this out, but I don't want to look back for it.

As I understand the context of Gov. Cuomo's comments, he was:
-- rhetorically addressing potential seekers of elected office in NY state.  Toward that end, he was
-- acknowledging real-world beliefs and voting habits in that state,
-- not voicing his personal beliefs and prejudices.

Context matters, boys!

[PB the Deplorable]

... Context matters, boys!

Yes, because when the Leftist thugs out to steal our country occasionally drop their masks and say something that reveals their true selves, it's never what they actually meant - it's 'out of context' or they somehow 'misspoke'...

You didn't build that.

[NowhereInTime]

Yes, because when the Leftist thugs out to steal our country occasionally drop their masks and say something that reveals their true selves, it's never what they actually meant - it's 'out of context' or they somehow 'misspoke'...

You didn't build that.

No, you really didn't.   If you ever truly thought through that statement you would understand it means we are connected and all in this country,  this economy,  this society together.
But your ego and inflated sense of self would never allow you to see that.

[Birdie]

The right must want uninsured victims of botched, illegal abortion procedures showing up at emergency rooms for treatment. That will sure make the country better and lower taxes.
The fact that banning guns will only provide an avenue for gangs/criminals to make a ton of money by providing illicit services registers with the right. Why can they not see banning abortion will do the exact same thing? Means of abortion have been around for centuries. It is not going anywhere, ever. It might as well be safe.
In my book, religious freedom also means politicians don't get to shove their ideology down my throat by creating laws based on their religious views.

[Ben Shockley]

You didn't build that. [P*B echoes SO meaningfully for the 1,000th time]

No, you really didn't.   If you ever truly thought through that statement...

P*B knows and understands all he needs to, Nowhere.  He is confident that if he just keeps repeating that dog-whistle, enough good Americans will exercise some good old bootstraps ingenuity, invent time machines, and go back to pre-election 2012 and erase Part 2 of the nightmare that P*B has been living since 5 November 2008.
I mean: back before that last election, P*B was hoping that if he just kept repeating the message --spreading the gospel-- of what he felt was a self-evidently disqualifying utterance by Obama, enough dumb-asses would "bite" that Obama couldn't possibly win re-election.  Of course, P*B knows that Obama didn't really win, but that's another story.

P*B's repeated dismissal of context, regarding political terms and phrases, goes hand-in-hand with his type's overall anti-empiricism.  In fact, notice that when "context" is directly mentioned, P*B does more than "merely dismiss" it-- he engages in basically a counter-contextual polemic.  To wit: that "context" not only doesn't matter, but, in any analysis of discourse, to invoke "context" is invariably an indicator of deception, and to even consider it is a sign of moral weakness and an obstacle to "real understanding."  For P*B and his like, real understanding comes only by faith; in matters of political speech, that means faith in one's revealed knowledge of a given speaker's "true character."
Because P*B and his like "know" what people are really about, they know what a person truly means before he/she speaks or writes the first word.  Thus, the actual words that the person ultimately issues are irrelevant, and the order in which the words are arranged and the milieu in which they are delivered --the "context"-- are even more irrelevant.

[UnscreenedCaller]

Surely, by this point in the thread, someone has already pointed this out, but I don't want to look back for it.

As I understand the context of Gov. Cuomo's comments, he was:
-- rhetorically addressing potential seekers of elected office in NY state.  Toward that end, he was
-- acknowledging real-world beliefs and voting habits in that state,
-- not voicing his personal beliefs and prejudices.

Context matters, boys!

This was political fallout from the governor's race when Carl Palladino, the antithesis of a moderate, ran against Cuomo. He's probably gearing up for another run and making noise. Frankly, I live here and don't pay attention to Palladino, as there is nothing he offers with which I can agree, and I don't particularly like his attitude.

[b_dubb]

Pud, Nowhere Man -- I think you are forgetting certain axioms of right-wing "thought" necessary to making any sense of P*B's diatribes or the historical hallucinations of right-wingers in general.   Inter alia, you must remember these.

Right Wing Rule 7A:
Any events or policies seen by consensus as "bad" that occur or are enacted during a Republican Presidency have absolutely nothing to do with the Republican President.
Right Wing Rule 7B:
Any events or policies seen by consensus as "bad" that occur or are enacted during a Democratic Presidency are incontrovertible proof of the Democratic President's personal criminality and affiliation with Satan.

Specifically regarding foreign policy and events:
Right Wing Rule 33G:
Any purges, pogroms, or genocides that occur under any regime who flies a flag containing more than 5% red, and/or who use the word "People" in their party title, are incontrovertible proof that any movement anywhere that claims to represent "the people" is determined to bring about the mass murder of everyone everywhere.
Right Wing Rule 33H:
Any victims of purges, pogroms, or genocides that occur under any regime who were installed by U.S.-backed coup are not actually dead.

And while we're at that:
Right Wing Rule 33F:
Any foreign regime which presents any impediment to American capitalist exploitation of the resources or populace of that foreign region is to be portrayed to the American populace as an immediate mortal threat.
Right Wing Rule 33J:
Violence against foreign regimes as described in (33F) which cannot feasibly be portrayed as necessary for "immediate national defense" will be portrayed as "spreading democracy" within the offending region.
Right Wing Rule 33K:
Casualties and destruction inflicted in foreign regions consequent to "spreading democracy" as occasioned under (33J) are to be dismissed under provisions of (33H).

^^^^ +1

[PB the Deplorable]

P*B knows and understands all he needs to, Nowhere.  He is confident that if he just keeps repeating that dog-whistle, enough good Americans will exercise some good old bootstraps ingenuity, invent time machines, and go back to pre-election 2012 and erase Part 2 of the nightmare that P*B has been living since 5 November 2008.
I mean: back before that last election, P*B was hoping that if he just kept repeating the message --spreading the gospel-- of what he felt was a self-evidently disqualifying utterance by Obama, enough dumb-asses would "bite" that Obama couldn't possibly win re-election.  Of course, P*B knows that Obama didn't really win, but that's another story.

P*B's repeated dismissal of context, regarding political terms and phrases, goes hand-in-hand with his type's overall anti-empiricism.  In fact, notice that when "context" is directly mentioned, P*B does more than "merely dismiss" it-- he engages in basically a counter-contextual polemic.  To wit: that "context" not only doesn't matter, but, in any analysis of discourse, to invoke "context" is invariably an indicator of deception, and to even consider it is a sign of moral weakness and an obstacle to "real understanding."  For P*B and his like, real understanding comes only by faith; in matters of political speech, that means faith in one's revealed knowledge of a given speaker's "true character."
Because P*B and his like "know" what people are really about, they know what a person truly means before he/she speaks or writes the first word.  Thus, the actual words that the person ultimately issues are irrelevant, and the order in which the words are arranged and the milieu in which they are delivered --the "context"-- are even more irrelevant.

This was Ben's long-winded response to my mention of Obama's infamous 'You didn't build that' comment.

I guess Ben meant Obama doesn't agree with the rest of the Left that successful people ('The Capitalists') are a bunch of greedy bloodsuckers who've stolen the resources and labor of others and everything they have is ill gotten.

No, of all the Lefty nut jobs out there, Barry is the one who doesn't agree with this, so he must have meant something else.

[onan]

This was Ben's long-winded response to my mention of Obama's infamous 'You didn't build that' comment.

I guess Ben meant Obama doesn't agree with the rest of the Left that successful people ('The Capitalists') are a bunch of greedy bloodsuckers who've stolen the resources and labor of others and everything they have is ill gotten.

No, of all the Lefty nut jobs out there, Barry is the one who doesn't agree with this, so he must have meant something else.

I don't know why you keep beating the comment "he didn't build that." Unless it is your intention to mislead. It has been explained, and if you listen to the entire statement, it is clear that the reference is to infrastructure... which the motherfucker didn't build.

[PB the Deplorable]

I don't know why you keep beating the comment "he didn't build that." Unless it is your intention to mislead. It has been explained, and if you listen to the entire statement, it is clear that the reference is to infrastructure... which the motherfucker didn't build.

Oh god, are you still under the impression this guy is something other than a Marxist radical?  That explanation would be a little more convincing if he'd been making positive comments about entrepreneurs, the market economy, and the private sector all along.

Then there's his statement that he wanted to 'fundamentally change' our country - just another misstatement that needs to be interpreted for us rubes?

[Ben Shockley]

I don't know why [P*B keeps] beating the comment "he didn't build that." Unless it is [his]intention to mislead...

"Unless" P*B wants to mislead about Obama??
Onan, brother-- if I'm ever on trial for murder, and the prosecution has 37 corroborated eyewitnesses and live video of me doing the crime, I want YOU on my jury!

[onan]

Oh god, are you still under the impression this guy is something other than a Marxist radical?  That explanation would be a little more feasible if he'd been making positive comments about entrepreneurs, the market economy, and the private sector all along.

Then there's his statement that he wanted to 'fundamentally change' our country - just another misstatement that needs to be interpreted for us rubes?

Perhaps I am. I think I know myself better than you do. I didn't say anything other than you are using a fallacy to make your argument. And it isn't the first time. It seems to me that rather than admit your argument is on weak ground you would rather take me to task for a less than nuanced understanding. Basically if you can't see your dishonesty here, you are being irrational.

[Ben Shockley]

Oh god, are you still under the impression this guy is something other than a Marxist radical?... 

I honestly wonder what P*B would think or say when presented with an actual "Marxist" or "radical" or both.

Well, the truth is that he just knows and uses a meaninglessly simplified socio-political taxonomy.  For P*B, there are precisely 2 political categories of people: "right-thinking people" like him, and "radical leftists" which is everyone else.  Specifics don't matter.  Stated ideologies don't matter.  Globally-shared definitions don't matter.  Unless you share P*B's ideology, and no matter what the difference is-- you're a "radical leftist," period.

[PB the Deplorable]

Perhaps I am. I think I know myself better than you do. I didn't say anything other than you are using a fallacy to make your argument. And it isn't the first time. It seems to me that rather than admit your argument is on weak ground you would rather take me to task for a less than nuanced understanding. Basically if you can't see your dishonesty here, you are being irrational.

I take a known radical, who is saying the exact same thing the rest of the Leftists routinely say (albeit in a nicer tone), at his word - and I'm irrational and dishonest because I'm not buying the convoluted explanation all the Libs an Progressives put out as damage control.

Whatever

[onan]

I take a known radical, who is saying the exact same thing the rest of the Leftists routinely say (albeit in a nicer tone), at his word - and I'm irrational and dishonest because I'm not buying the convoluted explanation all the Libs an Progressives put out as damage control.

Whatever

All or nothing defensive statements also lead to a conclusion of irrational thought.

Look, with all your (presumed) anger with Obama, it seems to me you could present actual fabrications rather than a misrepresentation.

[Ben Shockley]

I know this is useless, but what the hell:

I take a known radical...

"Radical" in what accepted use of the term?  Other than in your idiosyncratic use of the term as I documented in my last post.
"Known" by whom other than fools on Faux "News" and right-wing shill radio talkers?

[onan]

I honestly wonder what P*B would think or say when presented with an actual "Marxist" or "radical" or both.

Well, the truth is that he just knows and uses a meaninglessly simplified socio-political taxonomy.  For P*B, there are precisely 2 political categories of people: "right-thinking people" like him, and "radical leftists" which is everyone else.  Specifics don't matter.  Stated ideologies don't matter.  Globally-shared definitions don't matter.  Unless you share P*B's ideology, and no matter what the difference is-- you're a "radical leftist," period.

Ya know, that is a shame. Because PB is no slouch. But yeah, my eyes just glaze over anymore with the marxist, alinsky, liberal thuggery stuff.

[Ben Shockley]

...Look, with all your (presumed) anger with Obama, it seems to me you could present actual fabrications rather than a misrepresentation.

"Misrepresentation" is all they have, onan.

The only thing they "actually" have against Obama is the thing I called them out on this afternoon, and it makes 'em reeel mad when someone says it out loud or writes it plainly.  Hint: it starts with "r" and ends with "ace."
Beyond that, it's all sputtering, desperate rationalization, and the harder they deny the real core of their Obama-hatred, the more ridiculous becomes the desperate sputter.

[PB the Deplorable]

... liberal thuggery stuff.

Remember that cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal?  The 'Free Mumia' guy?  Shot the 26 year old cop dead during a traffic stop?

After he was convicted and sent to prison, there was a lawyer who joined in defending him, a guy named Debo Adegbile.  Managed to get Mumia's death sentence converted to life.


So 2014 rolls around and who does Obama choose to appoint as head of the Civil Rights Division in the Dept of Justice, and whose nomination is now waiting Senate confirmation?  Debo Adegbile.


Ok, so he decided to represent a high profile convicted cop killer.  All the usual platitudes about everyone needs representation and someone has to do it and all that.  But surely Obama could find someone else to head up the Civil Rights Division?  Couldn't he? 

This person has no business being appointed to a high level Federal position.  Certainly not as head of Civil Rights at Justice.  And Obama has no business appointing him to that position.

This whole Administration is riddled with contemptible Leftists like this.



By the way - as far as the thuggery, beyond this appointment how else should a president that sics the IRS and various other agencies on his opponents be described?  The Liberals used to understand this.