Right-Wing Extremism: The Real Referendum of 2012

[California Girl]

Clue: Disagreeing with your political views is not 'extremism'. You do yourself no favors by labeling everyone who disagrees with Obama as 'extremist'. It makes y'all look fucking stupid.

Yeah, but so did voting for Obama in the first place.

True.

These 'extremists'.... let's just remind ourselves what they actually 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

Yea.... that's a dangerous bunch of people there, huh?

What I find really funny..... this guy calls himself a 'journalist'.... and then claims that, being a 'journalist' means he writes based on his own opinions. No wonder our media is dying.... it's been infiltrated by fucking idiots who don't give a shit about real journalism. The guy is just another left wing hack who thinks he's a 'journalist'.

 

[Lakhota]

It sure is a pleasure to watch James Schlarmann kick ass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

you really are a whiner..and a parrot who feels he need to write a book to do it...waaa

Either give me a link to your collective works, where you show only original thought, or shut the fuck up. You're one of those people who likes to criticize but you're not offering ANYTHING. You're posting on a message board, which seems to be dominated by people of your political viewpoints. Why don't you do what I'm doing, and go engage the other side on their turf.

You'll be chewed up and spit out before you knew what hit you. Yeah, I'm a parrot alright.

LOL, typical left winger who doesn't like to be told they are full of shit..Tells people to shut the Fuck up..
and you call what you're doing, engaging the other side..by writing and putting down people who belong to the Republican party?

so here a clue for you, some people aren't buying your every word or think you know what the hell you're are talking about.
But you want to blow smoke up peoples asses, have at it...Just don't think some of us here on this message board won't CALL you on it...

I think he thought he was going to barge in here and wave his "journalism" title at us, and we'd just fall at his feet and tell him how wonderful he was.

Of course, for someone who brags about being a journalist, he has no frigging clue what the word even means. Back in my day, REAL journalists at least owned dictionaries, and opinions were labeled as such.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you belong to the "other" party why don't you write about the Democrats taking back their party from the nutjobs, Progressives?
instead you worry about the Republicans..
like you really care

Well, for starters, the extremists in the Republican party are the Tea Party. Not all Progressives are nutty. YOU may think that, but you are extremely biased. I don't deny that there are certainly some extremists in the Democratic party, but I'd like you name some of the ones you think are just crazy, or nutjobs as you put it.

I do care Stephanie. Because there was a time in this country, not that long ago, when both sides could disagree vehemently but compromises were made. One side would step aside to let the majority rule make the call. If it was wrong, the other side would know they'd get their day at the ballot box, and things could be reversed or reformed. Now, it's just "FUCK YOU, YOU LIBTARD COMMIE FAG FACE SHIT EATING FUCK HOLE!" That's not discourse.

I care because I used to be a Republican, and I left because I hated where the party was going on social issues, and the fiscal policies came quickly next when I realized I don't want a government who reinforces the "life isn't fair" axiom. I would like to see the Republican party taken back from the Tea Party because I believe that the Tea Party has been poison to dialogue and discourse and compromise. It's all or nothing with the Tea Party, and frankly, that never works.

I would think that you, as a 'journalist' lol, would appreciate that words have meaning. Calling the TEA Party 'extremist' is absolutely fucking ludicrous. (You might want to google the words 'absolutely' and 'ludicrous' to ensure you get my drift.)

Only a left wing hack would label other Americans 'extremist' - unless those 'extremists' have perpetrated acts of violence. Have the TEA Partiers committed any such acts? No. Therefore, your words are hysterical hyperbole.... not good for a 'journalist' lol

Given his earlier PROUD rejection of objectivity and lack of bias, I think he also needs to Google the word "journalism". To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what he thinks it means."

 

[Cecilie1200]

It sure is a pleasure to watch James Schlarmann kick ass.

Well, I'm glad you're at least finding your hallucinations entertaining.

 

[California Girl]

It sure is a pleasure to watch James Schlarmann kick ass.

Yes dear. Whatever you say.

 

[tjvh]

It sure is a pleasure to watch James Schlarmann kick ass.

After his wishes to dismantle the U.S. Military come true, he just might have to do "exactly that"- to defend himself... Because there wont be anyone else to do it. I find his complete disdain for the Military unnerving, and quite ignorant with regard to keeping America ahead (technologically) of those who seek to do us harm.

 

[Stephanie]

It sure is a pleasure to watch James Schlarmann kick ass.

you and he are losers..you two deserve each other...

pathetic little lives

 

[California Girl]

It sure is a pleasure to watch James Schlarmann kick ass.

you and he are losers..you two deserve each other...

pathetic little lives

Don't upset Lacky... she'll stamp her feet and leave the forum in disgust... again.

 

[Oldstyle]

Not for nothing, James...but you seem a little "confused" by what you do want. You say that you understand that isolationism is a bad thing and that wasn't what you were asking for...but that was after you'd stated that we should only have a military large enough to protect our own shores. So which is it? Should we only be concerned with what's happening in the US?

What exactly is an "intelligence orientated" defense budget? I'm afraid you've lost me with that notion. The gathering of intelligence is a wonderful thing but if you don't have a military to utilize that intelligence then what good is it? You ramble on about our using a cyber attack to put a crimp in the Iranian weapons development program? Do you seriously think THAT is going to stop the Iranians from developing a bomb? I mean it's a nice fantasy but I don't think anyone really thinks that's going to work long term. The fact is...if we want to stop Iran then we're most likely going to have to launch a military strike against their weapons development infrastructure. Either us or the Israelis. Your cyber attack simply delayed...it didn't prevent.

You really see democracy springing up in the Middle East? I'm sorry but I don't. I think we're about to see the formation a solid block of nations run by religious fundamentalists that will totally subvert the democratic process. You can already see it happening in Egypt.

I'm not confused at all, friend. I think you can have a smaller military force and still not be isolationist. We can put a larger emphasis on intelligence. You are right that we still need boots on the ground, but I'm really less concerned about the size of the military's operational units than I am about all the money we send shipping them overseas and constantly having to resupply overseas and the cost of constantly having a ton of weapons development programs like we're still in an arms race with someone.

Cyber operations are definitely real. I'm sure there are a lot of sneaky nerd-related missions that mean a lot towards the objective, absolutely. Why wouldn't that be really important? Like I said, I'll find the TED talk. I think you'll find it fascinating.

It is DEFINITELY Democracy that sprang up in the Middle East. You may see some growth pangs, but we had our own stutter-start before the Constitution, and we had slavery still and counted black people as 60% of a white person. So they'll figure it out too.

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. You started off this discussion with me by stating you thought that the military should only be large enough to protect our shores from outside attack...then back tracked on that concept when I pointed out that isolationism has a rather spotty history...now you're back again stating that you don't think we should maintain forces elsewhere in the world because of the cost. So you're right back to being an isolationist again. Like so many progressives you seem to be struggling to cope with how to handle having a military. Part of you understands the need for the need for an armed force to protect us but the "starry eyed" progressive in you wants badly to defund it.

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.

 

[Stephanie]

It sure is a pleasure to watch James Schlarmann kick ass.

you and he are losers..you two deserve each other...

pathetic little lives

Don't upset Lacky... she'll stamp her feet and leave the forum in disgust... again.

What a life, set out to come on a message board to kick peoples asses.
shallow and petty
I figured she was the one who brought the idiot over here

 

[koshergrl]

Grump loves him too.

Funny.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you and he are losers..you two deserve each other...

pathetic little lives

Don't upset Lacky... she'll stamp her feet and leave the forum in disgust... again.

What a life, set out to come on a message board to kick peoples asses.
shallow and petty
I figured she was the one who brought the idiot over here

Thing is has anyone seen him do that? I haven't seen it happen. James has the same mentality as truth don''t matter Lahkato rdean flaygo chris and a couple of others. the only difference between james and them he's more long winded about it.

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

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...

You started off this discussion with me by stating you thought that the military should only be large enough to protect our shores from outside attack...then back tracked on that concept when I pointed out that isolationism has a rather spotty history...now you're back again stating that you don't think we should maintain forces elsewhere in the world because of the cost. So you're right back to being an isolationist again.

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:

i·so·la·tion·ism   [ahy-suh-ley-shuh-niz-uhm, is-uh-] Show IPA
noun
the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc.,seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

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

Like so many progressives you seem to be struggling to cope with how to handle having a military. Part of you understands the need for the need for an armed force to protect us but the "starry eyed" progressive in you wants badly to defund it.

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.

 

[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...

You started off this discussion with me by stating you thought that the military should only be large enough to protect our shores from outside attack...then back tracked on that concept when I pointed out that isolationism has a rather spotty history...now you're back again stating that you don't think we should maintain forces elsewhere in the world because of the cost. So you're right back to being an isolationist again.

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

Like so many progressives you seem to be struggling to cope with how to handle having a military. Part of you understands the need for the need for an armed force to protect us but the "starry eyed" progressive in you wants badly to defund it.

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?

 

[Katzndogz]

Democracy didn't win in Libya, in Egypt and it certainly isn't winning in Syria. One despot was exchanged for another despot. The majority of the people likely don't care who is in charge either way, they simply want to be left out of it.

 

[JamesSchlarmann]

Democracy didn't win in Libya, in Egypt and it certainly isn't winning in Syria. One despot was exchanged for another despot. The majority of the people likely don't care who is in charge either way, they simply want to be left out of it.

Was there an election held? Were there results? That is Democracy. There could have been shenanigans, I'm not denying that at all. But since I haven't seen any proof of that, I don't want to speculate on that. If there has been, please link me to some, so I can read up on it. I don't like election fraud, that's indefensible. But just because we don't like the outcome, doesn't mean it's not Democracy.

I wonder how many presidents we've elected and the outside world goes, "Well, it's not really Democracy..."

 

[thanatos144]

Right wing extremism huh??????Guess we are not all socialists anymore LOL

 

[Oldstyle]

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...

You started off this discussion with me by stating you thought that the military should only be large enough to protect our shores from outside attack...then back tracked on that concept when I pointed out that isolationism has a rather spotty history...now you're back again stating that you don't think we should maintain forces elsewhere in the world because of the cost. So you're right back to being an isolationist again.

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

Like so many progressives you seem to be struggling to cope with how to handle having a military. Part of you understands the need for the need for an armed force to protect us but the "starry eyed" progressive in you wants badly to defund it.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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".

 

[Oldstyle]

Democracy didn't win in Libya, in Egypt and it certainly isn't winning in Syria. One despot was exchanged for another despot. The majority of the people likely don't care who is in charge either way, they simply want to be left out of it.

Was there an election held? Were there results? That is Democracy. There could have been shenanigans, I'm not denying that at all. But since I haven't seen any proof of that, I don't want to speculate on that. If there has been, please link me to some, so I can read up on it. I don't like election fraud, that's indefensible. But just because we don't like the outcome, doesn't mean it's not Democracy.

I wonder how many presidents we've elected and the outside world goes, "Well, it's not really Democracy..."

Is it just me, James...or do you ALWAYS seem to need to "read up" on the issues that you're here pontificating on?

Here's a suggestion. Go read up on them FIRST...and then come back and discuss what you've learned.

And by the way...Cuba holds "elections" on a regular basis. I suppose by your definition that THEY are a democracy as well?