Right-Wing Extremism: The Real Referendum of 2012

[OldUSAFSniper]

Let's see: Several threads on how Scott Walker was going to be recalled; several threads on how the tea party is DEAD and all that's left is to cover it with dirt; several threads on how radical the republicans have become.

Every couple of years, this country tries a progressive. Jimmy Carter was a miserable FAILURE, probably the absolute WORST President in modern history. Bill Clinton was NOT stupid. After two years of governing from the left, he saw the writing on the wall (1994 mid-terms) and adopted the Republicans agenda (welfare reform, etc.) and became a two-termer. And now there's Barry and the boys, who like Carter, refuses to move to the center.

Barry isn't as smart as Bill and the group from Arkansas. He won't move to the center and he will be a one term President. Even his OWN party members are disappointed and talk about staying home. I can tell you with CERTAINTY that the tea party ISN'T STAYING HOME. Want to make a prediction on what happens in November?

I have a feeling that for a group who was declared dead on this very forum, the TEA PARTY is going to be the lefts boogie men one more time...

And I am chuckling all the way to the polls...

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

I didn't ask you to defend a term...I asked you to DEFINE one! Specifically what a "intelligence orientated" defense budget means. You throw out terms like that like they mean something and then when someone asks what the heck you're talking about, you don't seem to be able to come up with a coherent reply. The reason you sense "condescension" from me is that I'm quite frankly not impressed by your rather simplistic world view.

Did I really use the word orientated? Weirdly it's not coming up on my brower's spel-check. If that's a real word, that's crazy, and proof the English language is a baffling motherfucker. You want me to define "intelligence oriented?" Fine.

I mean that I'd rather our primary focus be on intelligence, on knowing the goings-on of the world. As great as I think our intelligence community is, I think they're probably underfunded and understaffed. So I want to allocate more resources to that endeavor, pair down the size of the military over all, and free up some much needed resources for infrastructure development.

You say that you're not advocating isolationism but you started this off with the following:

"You are wrong. Because I'm not naive enough to think that every nation needs a way to defend its sovereignty from outside attack. But since I do not believe in either nation building or empirical growth of a nation, I do not believe we need anything other than what we should have to protect our own shores, and if we need to send some troops overseas to help allies in a joint effort that has a reasonable objective and stopping point, I'm for that too."

So which is it, James? Do you not believe we need anything other than what we should have to protect our own shores...or do you believe that we ARE in fact the defacto police force for much of the world? You can't seem to decide yourself...yet you're here putting yourself out there as an authority on issues like this? It's rather amusing to watch.

Dude. I don't have to choose one or the other, because they are not mutually inclusive or exclusive of each other. I do believe we only need a military force big enough to defend ourselves from attack, and to carry out missions and operations with our allies. But that doesn't mean that I can't see what we've become, a world-policing force. I just don't WANT that anymore. Do you get that?

And who the fuck ever said I was an authority? Not me. I've just got ideas based on what I'd like to see my government do.

You accuse conservatives of not being willing to compromise on this situation? Let's examine OUR little give and take on the issue. I state that I would be in favor of 10% ACROSS THE BOARD CUTS and how do YOU respond? By saying that you think the cuts should come from Defense first before they come from other governmental entities like Medicaid, the Post Office and HUD.

You do understand how compromises work, right? You state your terms, I state mine, and THEN we talk. But it's not being immovable for me to state what I would prefer to 10% across the board. I don't think 10% across the board is a fair compromise.

So who wasn't willing to compromise...you or myself? I was willing to take cuts to Defense but you immediately bridled at the thought of cutting elsewhere. It's why I laugh when progressives like yourself talk about compromise, James. Your notion of what that MEANS is a bit skewed.

Well, I already explained it above, but let me go into some further detail. You're running into my Liberal Principles. I know, you're taught that we have none. But we do actually have quite a few. One of them is that I think it's immoral to have a military force that's so big and not also pay for our citizens' health care. Or we have so many guns and bombs and tanks, but we can't make class sizes smaller for kids.

The big difference here, my friend, is that I don't worship war or those who make it. War to me is a sad and necessary part of life in very, very rare circumstances. That's why I don't think cutting 10% of the largest sucker of resources and everywhere else is fair. It's why I don't think a flat tax is fair. Because you're not cutting the same proportionally. Again, that's not fair, that's not equitable, and it's not even moral. Sorry kids, you have to cram 10 more kids into this class room so America can keep developing weapons of mass destruction.

As for Egypt and what to "call it"? You're the one who's slapped the DEMOCRACY label on Egypt. I've simply pointed out that replacing a dictator with an Islamic theocracy does not mean that democracy is alive and well in Egypt. It's my opinion that what's going to replace Mubarek in Egypt is going to be a lot closer to the Iranian model than the American model...an opinion I base on my own observations and not something I've gleaned from "Faux News".

Was there an election held in Egypt, yes or no?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You didn't define the term I asked about, James. You have a rather bad habit of making vague off the cuff remarks that I'm assuming you "think" sound intelligent but when someone asks you to clarify what it is you're talking about you struggle to do so

Which term would you like me to defend? You have a terrible habit of thinking you're the final authority on what I am or am not saying, and that it's your plays to ply a thick coat of condescension to your commentary on what it is I'm saying. And as much as I am THRILLED to be lectured by you...



Isolationism isn't just about having a paired-down military though. Isolationism is also a foreign policy philosophy that says we shouldn't do anything outside our borders. That's not what I am advocating, at all. I am indeed advocating a much smaller armed forces, yes. I am indeed advocating that we not go off into every corner of the world with a massive army. Yes.

I am not advocating that we just pull up our tent stakes, bring everyone back home and bury our heads in the sand. If we trimmed our defense budget and the size of our military we could still protect our borders and help if there were clearly defined objectives and actual approval from Congress to assist any efforts our allies need help with.

It's actually you, my smug friend, who needs a refresher in what Isolationism actually is:



Your elementary grasp of what Isolationism actually means is laughable. I never said we should do any of the things up there. In fact, I said that I would rather we make treaties and alliances for our combat missions so that we're not bearing the brunt of the cost. I never even said I didn't want us to help out in troubling situations. Just that we don't need the vast military industrial complex.

There are plenty of countries in the world that don't have a massive military and still aren't isolationists. If you don't see how that's possible, that's your thing. But thank God there's a whole other side of the aisle that does see how we can cut the size of the military and still be totally safe.

It's the hawks in your party who pull this shit that make this issue so untenable. If it's not even up for debate, then yet again you see the extremism of "NO COMPROMISE EVER!!!"

Military Should Be Exempt From Spending Cuts, Top Republicans Say



Once I filter out your condescension from this paragraph, I'm left with nothing worth responding to, because I already said it above.

As for it being "DEFINITELY" Democracy that's sprung up in the Middle East? Are you actually paying attention to what's happening in Egypt? It's being ruled by a military junta. The Muslim Brotherhood took almost 50% of the votes in the latest elections. I would make the point that what we're seeing in Egypt is the elimination of a repressive dictatorship with a repressive theocracy replacing it. Polls in Egypt show that by almost 2 to 1, Egyptians support strict Islamic theology over modernization and religious freedom. I'm sorry but that definitely ISN'T democracy.

Yeah, typical Conservative, paranoid, war-hawk. Check it out dude: Just because we don't like the results of the election, doesn't make it a real democracy. Do you really think we got it right the first time? Like I said, we had to actually scrap the first government we had because it didn't work. No one came in, toppled our leader, then installed a puppet regime when we couldn't figure it out the first time.

It is Democracy. I know Faux News really wants us to be scared of what happens there, and we should definitely be concerned because it's a big deal. But to call it something other than Democracy because YOU don't like the outcome so far? Pfffft.

Question for you james
Was America intended to be a Republic or democracy?

James are you there?

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

Which term would you like me to defend? You have a terrible habit of thinking you're the final authority on what I am or am not saying, and that it's your plays to ply a thick coat of condescension to your commentary on what it is I'm saying. And as much as I am THRILLED to be lectured by you...



Isolationism isn't just about having a paired-down military though. Isolationism is also a foreign policy philosophy that says we shouldn't do anything outside our borders. That's not what I am advocating, at all. I am indeed advocating a much smaller armed forces, yes. I am indeed advocating that we not go off into every corner of the world with a massive army. Yes.

I am not advocating that we just pull up our tent stakes, bring everyone back home and bury our heads in the sand. If we trimmed our defense budget and the size of our military we could still protect our borders and help if there were clearly defined objectives and actual approval from Congress to assist any efforts our allies need help with.

It's actually you, my smug friend, who needs a refresher in what Isolationism actually is:



Your elementary grasp of what Isolationism actually means is laughable. I never said we should do any of the things up there. In fact, I said that I would rather we make treaties and alliances for our combat missions so that we're not bearing the brunt of the cost. I never even said I didn't want us to help out in troubling situations. Just that we don't need the vast military industrial complex.

There are plenty of countries in the world that don't have a massive military and still aren't isolationists. If you don't see how that's possible, that's your thing. But thank God there's a whole other side of the aisle that does see how we can cut the size of the military and still be totally safe.

It's the hawks in your party who pull this shit that make this issue so untenable. If it's not even up for debate, then yet again you see the extremism of "NO COMPROMISE EVER!!!"

Military Should Be Exempt From Spending Cuts, Top Republicans Say



Once I filter out your condescension from this paragraph, I'm left with nothing worth responding to, because I already said it above.



Yeah, typical Conservative, paranoid, war-hawk. Check it out dude: Just because we don't like the results of the election, doesn't make it a real democracy. Do you really think we got it right the first time? Like I said, we had to actually scrap the first government we had because it didn't work. No one came in, toppled our leader, then installed a puppet regime when we couldn't figure it out the first time.

It is Democracy. I know Faux News really wants us to be scared of what happens there, and we should definitely be concerned because it's a big deal. But to call it something other than Democracy because YOU don't like the outcome so far? Pfffft.

Question for you james
Was America intended to be a Republic or democracy?

James are you there?

A Representative Republic is a form of Democracy. So your question is irrelevant.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Question for you james
Was America intended to be a Republic or democracy?

James are you there?

A Representative Republic is a form of Democracy. So your question is irrelevant.

OH yes that Representative Republic is a form of Democracy argument. I've heard it before.
There is a difference James , in a Republic it's governed by laws not by the majority.

 

[Oldstyle]

I didn't ask you to defend a term...I asked you to DEFINE one! Specifically what a "intelligence orientated" defense budget means. You throw out terms like that like they mean something and then when someone asks what the heck you're talking about, you don't seem to be able to come up with a coherent reply. The reason you sense "condescension" from me is that I'm quite frankly not impressed by your rather simplistic world view.

Did I really use the word orientated? Weirdly it's not coming up on my brower's spel-check. If that's a real word, that's crazy, and proof the English language is a baffling motherfucker. You want me to define "intelligence oriented?" Fine.

I mean that I'd rather our primary focus be on intelligence, on knowing the goings-on of the world. As great as I think our intelligence community is, I think they're probably underfunded and understaffed. So I want to allocate more resources to that endeavor, pair down the size of the military over all, and free up some much needed resources for infrastructure development.

You say that you're not advocating isolationism but you started this off with the following:

"You are wrong. Because I'm not naive enough to think that every nation needs a way to defend its sovereignty from outside attack. But since I do not believe in either nation building or empirical growth of a nation, I do not believe we need anything other than what we should have to protect our own shores, and if we need to send some troops overseas to help allies in a joint effort that has a reasonable objective and stopping point, I'm for that too."

So which is it, James? Do you not believe we need anything other than what we should have to protect our own shores...or do you believe that we ARE in fact the defacto police force for much of the world? You can't seem to decide yourself...yet you're here putting yourself out there as an authority on issues like this? It's rather amusing to watch.

Dude. I don't have to choose one or the other, because they are not mutually inclusive or exclusive of each other. I do believe we only need a military force big enough to defend ourselves from attack, and to carry out missions and operations with our allies. But that doesn't mean that I can't see what we've become, a world-policing force. I just don't WANT that anymore. Do you get that?

And who the fuck ever said I was an authority? Not me. I've just got ideas based on what I'd like to see my government do.



You do understand how compromises work, right? You state your terms, I state mine, and THEN we talk. But it's not being immovable for me to state what I would prefer to 10% across the board. I don't think 10% across the board is a fair compromise.

So who wasn't willing to compromise...you or myself? I was willing to take cuts to Defense but you immediately bridled at the thought of cutting elsewhere. It's why I laugh when progressives like yourself talk about compromise, James. Your notion of what that MEANS is a bit skewed.

Well, I already explained it above, but let me go into some further detail. You're running into my Liberal Principles. I know, you're taught that we have none. But we do actually have quite a few. One of them is that I think it's immoral to have a military force that's so big and not also pay for our citizens' health care. Or we have so many guns and bombs and tanks, but we can't make class sizes smaller for kids.

The big difference here, my friend, is that I don't worship war or those who make it. War to me is a sad and necessary part of life in very, very rare circumstances. That's why I don't think cutting 10% of the largest sucker of resources and everywhere else is fair. It's why I don't think a flat tax is fair. Because you're not cutting the same proportionally. Again, that's not fair, that's not equitable, and it's not even moral. Sorry kids, you have to cram 10 more kids into this class room so America can keep developing weapons of mass destruction.

As for Egypt and what to "call it"? You're the one who's slapped the DEMOCRACY label on Egypt. I've simply pointed out that replacing a dictator with an Islamic theocracy does not mean that democracy is alive and well in Egypt. It's my opinion that what's going to replace Mubarek in Egypt is going to be a lot closer to the Iranian model than the American model...an opinion I base on my own observations and not something I've gleaned from "Faux News".

Was there an election held in Egypt, yes or no?

I hate to break this to you, James...but we already spend huge amounts on intelligence gathering. At what point do we "know" enough to act? I'm rather baffled by what you think all that intelligence is going to do for us if we don't have a military capability to react to it.

So you've decided to abandon our role as the "protector" of those who can't protect themselves? Since we'll no longer BE the world's policeman I'm assuming that you're fine with Somali pirates holding the world's oil supply hostage...with North Korea attacking South Korea...with China taking back Taiwan...with Al Queda establishing bases in Africa and elsewhere?

I love your take on compromise, James! I agree to cut 10% from Defense and ask that you do the same from other programs but you declare that you can't DO that because it runs counter to your "liberal principles"? Ah, cutting Defense runs counter to my "conservative principles" but I was willing to do that. THAT is what compromise means. What you think should happen is that I should compromise MY principles so that YOUR principles are upheld. Take a step back and think about that...

I don't worship at the altar of war. I'm a historian who understands that wars happen and woe be any country that isn't prepared to deal with them. As for your contention that we spend too much money on defense and not enough on education? Sorry, James but we currently spend more per student than any other industrialized nation and yet our kids aren't learning anything. Gee, think that money might not be the problem?

As for whether elections were held in Egypt? Elections are held regularly in Cuba...does that make Cuba a democracy? Try not to be TOO stupid...

 

[amrchaos]

That was 2008 election

Leftwing extremism is what the 2012 elections about.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The War on Women, the Fight Against Marriage Equality and the Let the Rich Get Richer forces of the Republican party are going to be put under intense scrutiny by the Obama campaign, and they may be shocked when their messages of intolerance, devolution and Plutocracy are left to die on the vine.

I hope this is true but when these things have been discussed here, the right has said they want more laws, bigger government to control the intimate actions of Americans AND they want more money given to the wealthy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - they WILL vote for those things and against their own best interests.

 

[thanatos144]

Lets cut to the chase shall we....Right wing is for conserving our freedom....Left wing is for fascism in telling us what to say, think, eat, and fuck.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Lets cut to the chase shall we....Right wing is for conserving our freedom....Left wing is for fascism in telling us what to say, think, eat, and fuck.

Amen brother. It's funny how the established republican part is more more liberal than the base, yet the establishment is trying to do all these right wing things? Uh no.

And lets face it, democrats always talk about the rich, but the only rich they ever complain about are republicans, they never bash the democratic rich people, so that is why we laugh at their retorts on the subject, because they're not against the rich, they're against republicans.

 

[Buford]

People who work hard, raise their families, play by the rules, respect private property, etc, etc, are now the radicals and the ones who are out of step. Quite a propaganda machine.

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

The War on Women, the Fight Against Marriage Equality and the Let the Rich Get Richer forces of the Republican party are going to be put under intense scrutiny by the Obama campaign, and they may be shocked when their messages of intolerance, devolution and Plutocracy are left to die on the vine.

I hope this is true but when these things have been discussed here, the right has said they want more laws, bigger government to control the intimate actions of Americans AND they want more money given to the wealthy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - they WILL vote for those things and against their own best interests.

You're totally right. They're the only voting block that actively, passionately and proudly votes to harm themselves further. Every single time.

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

Lets cut to the chase shall we....Right wing is for conserving our freedom....Left wing is for fascism in telling us what to say, think, eat, and fuck.

Wow. Really? The Right Wing is For Freedom Huh?

Okay, how about:

1. Two Gay People Getting Married
2. A woman having an abortion
3. Masturbate
4. Watch pornography
5. Smoke Pot
6. Burn the American Flag
7. Speak out against war in the middle of a war

I could seriously write that list for days on end, but those are the big ones. So tell me again how the Right doesn't want to tell you what to say, think, eat or fuck?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The War on Women, the Fight Against Marriage Equality and the Let the Rich Get Richer forces of the Republican party are going to be put under intense scrutiny by the Obama campaign, and they may be shocked when their messages of intolerance, devolution and Plutocracy are left to die on the vine.

I hope this is true but when these things have been discussed here, the right has said they want more laws, bigger government to control the intimate actions of Americans AND they want more money given to the wealthy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - they WILL vote for those things and against their own best interests.

You're totally right. They're the only voting block that actively, passionately and proudly votes to harm themselves further. Every single time.

obama will do anything, lie, steal, even create shit to deflect from a shity obama economy isn't that right James?

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

People who work hard, raise their families, play by the rules, respect private property, etc, etc, are now the radicals and the ones who are out of step. Quite a propaganda machine.

The fallacy of your argument is your assumption that people on the Left don't do those things too.

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

I hope this is true but when these things have been discussed here, the right has said they want more laws, bigger government to control the intimate actions of Americans AND they want more money given to the wealthy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - they WILL vote for those things and against their own best interests.

You're totally right. They're the only voting block that actively, passionately and proudly votes to harm themselves further. Every single time.

obama will do anything, lie, steal, even create shit to deflect from a shity obama economy isn't that right James?

I'm not going to dignify this with any kind of response. It's hyperbole and crazy-talk.

 

[California Girl]

You're totally right. They're the only voting block that actively, passionately and proudly votes to harm themselves further. Every single time.

obama will do anything, lie, steal, even create shit to deflect from a shity obama economy isn't that right James?

I'm not going to dignify this with any kind of response. It's hyperbole and crazy-talk.

Irony!

 

[California Girl]

People who work hard, raise their families, play by the rules, respect private property, etc, etc, are now the radicals and the ones who are out of step. Quite a propaganda machine.

The fallacy of your argument is your assumption that people on the Left don't do those things too.

On the subject of 'fallacy of an argument'.... those 'extremists' in the TEA Party.... they stand for:


1. Protect the Constitution
2. Reject Cap & Trade
3. Demand a Balanced Budget
4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
6. End Runaway Government Spending
7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
9. Stop the Pork
10. Stop the Tax Hikes


Please show me exactly how they are 'extremists'. TIA.

 

[Stephanie]

obama will do anything, lie, steal, even create shit to deflect from a shity obama economy isn't that right James?

I'm not going to dignify this with any kind of response. It's hyperbole and crazy-talk.

Irony!

no kidding

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're totally right. They're the only voting block that actively, passionately and proudly votes to harm themselves further. Every single time.

obama will do anything, lie, steal, even create shit to deflect from a shity obama economy isn't that right James?

I'm not going to dignify this with any kind of response. It's hyperbole and crazy-talk.

I fully understand James if I supported obama and someone made that comment too me I would run away from it also.