Here you go, Pale: Bikers stop Baptists A-holes at Soldier Funeral...

No I was refering to when a lib points at one of those crowds and paints all conservatives with the same brush. Or when a Conservative points at extreme socialists and paints all libs with the same brush.
 
deaddude said:
No I was refering to when a lib points at one of those crowds and paints all conservatives with the same brush. Or when a Conservative points at extreme socialists and paints all libs with the same brush.

Well... that's not exactly what you said dd. You said groups like these had a more "reasonable" sect in them. Just what would that be?
 
deaddude said:
No I was refering to when a lib points at one of those crowds and paints all conservatives with the same brush. Or when a Conservative points at extreme socialists and paints all libs with the same brush.

The only times people compare mainstream liberals to the wacko fringe are when the mainstream politicians start using the same talking points as the wackos. E.g. Gore, Kennedy, Reid, Clinton, etc start using the "Bush lied, people died" mantra that the extreme left uses on a daily basis. Then its hard to separate the extreme left and the so called moderates.
 
insein said:
The only times people compare mainstream liberals to the wacko fringe are when the mainstream politicians start using the same talking points as the wackos. E.g. Gore, Kennedy, Reid, Clinton, etc start using the "Bush lied, people died" mantra that the extreme left uses on a daily basis. Then its hard to separate the extreme left and the so called moderates.

Well then... Fiengold must be a good example of the extreme left then. He's calling for the "IMPEACHMENT" of President Bush. It's hilarious! But, aside from it being a joke, it's politics. He's running for President, and he's trying to appeal to the extreme left.
 
Pale Rider said:
Well then... Fiengold must be a good example of the extreme left then. He's calling for the "IMPEACHMENT" of President Bush. It's hilarious! But, aside from it being a joke, it's politics. He's running for President, and he's trying to appeal to the extreme left.
Not exactly, at least yet. This really belongs in 'politics':


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008091

The Impeachment Agenda
Russ Feingold reveals what many Democrats really want.

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Republicans are denouncing Senator Russ Feingold's proposal to "censure" President Bush for his warrantless wiretaps on al Qaeda, but we'd like to congratulate the Wisconsin Democrat on his candor. He's had the courage to put on the table what Democrats are all but certain to do if they win either the House or Senate in November.

In fact, our guess is that censure would be the least of it. The real debate in Democratic circles would be whether to pass articles of impeachment. Whether such an inevitable attempt succeeds would depend on Mr. Bush's approval rating, and especially on whether Democrats could use their subpoena power as committee chairs to conjure up something they could flog to a receptive media as an "impeachable" offense. But everyone should understand that censure and impeachment are important--and so far the only--parts of the left's agenda for the next Congress.

And not just the loony left either, though it's getting harder to distinguish them from the mainstream variety. Mr. Feingold is hardly some Internet crank. He's a third-term Senator from a swing state who has all but announced his intention to run for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008. He was the first major Democrat to call for the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq, and half his party was soon demanding the same.

As a legal matter, Mr. Feingold's censure proposal is preposterous. The National Security Agency wiretaps were disclosed to Congressional leaders, including Democrats, from the start. The lead FISA court judges were also informed, and the Attorney General and Justice lawyers have monitored the wiretaps all along. Despite a media drumbeat about "illegal domestic eavesdropping," Mr. Bush's spirited defense of the program since news of it leaked has swung public opinion in support.

But as a political matter, the Wisconsin Senator knows exactly what he's doing. He knows that anti-Bush pathology runs so deep among many Democrats that they really do think they're living in some new dictatorship. Liberal journals solemnly debate impeachment, and political-action groups have formed to promote it. One of our leading left-wing newspapers recently compared Mr. Bush to J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, as if there were even a speck of evidence that this White House is wiretapping its political enemies.

When the fever gets this hot in supposedly mainstream forums, Mr. Feingold is right to conclude that the facts behind any censure or impeachment motion won't really matter. All that will count is the politics, which means it will come down to a question of votes in Congress. And several leading Democrats have already raised the "impeachment" card.

California Senator Barbara Boxer loudly wrote four legal scholars late last year asking if the NSA wiretaps were impeachable. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has introduced a resolution calling for the creation of a "select committee to investigate the administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."

In other words, everything that Mr. Bush has been accused of during the last five years, no matter how Orwellian or thoroughly refuted, will be trotted out again and used as impeachment fodder. And lest you think this could never happen, Judiciary is the House committee through which any formal impeachment resolution would be introduced and proceed. As the country heads toward 2008 and a Democratic nomination fight, John Kerry and Hillary Rodham Clinton would be hard-pressed to avoid going along with Mr. Feingold, Al Gore, and others feeding the bile of the censure/impeach brigades.

Which brings us back to Mr. Feingold's public service in floating his "censure" gambit now. He's doing voters a favor by telling them before November's election just how Democrats intend to treat a wartime President if they take power.

Not only do they want to block his policies, they also plan to rebuke and embarrass him in front of the world and America's enemies. And they want to do so not because there is a smidgen of evidence that he's abused his office or lied under oath, but because they think he's been too energetic in using his powers to defend America. By all means, let's have this impeachment debate before the election, so voters can know what's really at stake.
 
Kathianne said:
Not exactly, at least yet. This really belongs in 'politics':


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008091

Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about.

I'll say it again, I don't think liberals will be happy until they've gutted America of all it's strength, morals, and image.

Liberals and their communistic, socialistic, terrorist appeasing, apologistic ways are the enemy within in America.
 
insein said:
The only times people compare mainstream liberals to the wacko fringe are when the mainstream politicians start using the same talking points as the wackos. E.g. Gore, Kennedy, Reid, Clinton, etc start using the "Bush lied, people died" mantra that the extreme left uses on a daily basis. Then its hard to separate the extreme left and the so called moderates.

Thankfully there is no such confusion on the Right. Absolutely no collusion between normal conservatives and religious fanatics for example.
 
Nuc said:
Thankfully there is no such confusion on the Right. Absolutely no collusion between normal conservatives and religious fanatics for example.

show me some evidence of where the right has specifacly pandered to the extreme anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti everything non catholic right.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top