NationStates Jolt Archive

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/27/jtp-congressmen-should-be-shot/

So, yeah. This is the kind of speech we've been hearing from the Right since '01. And well into '09 it goes, with Joe the Plumber at the head of it.

On a side note: News for you, Sam: I'm a translator and I just unclogged my own sink. I don't need you even for this.

Who gives a shit about Joe the Plumber? And since when does J the P represent the whole of the right?

The gift that keeps on giving: Sarah Palin has a competitor.

Who gives a shit about Joe the Plumber? And since when does J the P represent the whole of the right?

1- Enough people for that moron to still be news.

2- He wouldn't if it weren't for the fact that, yes, MANY people in the Right would gladly make dissent a capital crime back when dissent against Bush was impopular.

The gift that keeps on giving: Sarah Palin has a competitor.

"Competitor" being used in the same sense as one would liken their "competition" to the Special Olympics.

Oh, and H2, as you're so fond of telling Hotwife; READ YOUR SOURCE. He doesn't personally advocate shooting Congress members, or kicking them out of Congress, he just he'd slap some of them. I'd like to slap some British MPs, that doesn't mean I'm against free speech.

1- Enough people for that moron to still be news.

Only because people like you actually care about the shit that falls from his mouth.

if it weren't for the fact that, yes, MANY people in the Right would gladly make dissent a capital crime back when dissent against Bush was impopular.

Proof?

Why would he be against journalism on war, last I heard he was a war correspondent in Israel.

"Competitor" being used in the same sense as one would liken their "competition" to the Special Olympics.

Competing in the Special Olympics is an honor.

Why would he be against journalism on war, last I heard he was a war correspondent in Israel.

He actually said it while in Israel, the utter fool.

Why would he be against journalism on war, last I heard he was a war correspondent in Israel.



Competing in the Special Olympics is an honor.

Yes, but only because Special Olympians train hard and exhibit authentic qualities of excellence in what they do, whereas Joe The Plumber is basically a Jerry Springer audience member whose simplistic and uninformed commentary is entertaining in the same way as a 60 year old 300 lbs woman hamboning her 17 year old son in law.

Competing in the Special Olympics is an honor.

Stephen Lynch. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IFUNIa2NU8)

Zomg, crazy rightie is crazy, all right-wingers are like him, lolololol.:rolleyes:

Proof?

Maybe not a capital crime but...

McCain: MoveOn Should Be Thrown Out of the Country (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2007/09/mccain_moveon_should_be_thrown.html)

Maybe not a capital crime but...

McCain: MoveOn Should Be Thrown Out of the Country (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2007/09/mccain_moveon_should_be_thrown.html)

MoveOn being...?

MoveOn being...?

A liberal website (and, therefore, anathema to republicans >_>)

EDIT: here's the URL (http://moveon.org/).

People on both sides of the aisle occasionally shoot their mouth off and say something of this nature. 'tis to be discouraged and/or ignored.

Oh, and H2, as you're so fond of telling Hotwife; READ YOUR SOURCE. He doesn't personally advocate shooting Congress members, or kicking them out of Congress, he just he'd slap some of them. I'd like to slap some British MPs, that doesn't mean I'm against free speech.

Um. The video is pretty clear. What part of the following doesn't suggest those that Joe disagrees with should be shot?

Back in the day, really, when people would talk about our military in a poor way, somebody would shoot ‘em. And there’d be nothing said about that, because they knew it was wrong. You don’t talk about our troops. You support our troops. Especially when our congressmen and senators sit there and say bad things in an ongoing conflict.



Zomg, crazy rightie is crazy, all right-wingers are like him, lolololol.:rolleyes:

No one said the bolded part, but certain right-wingers seem to feel this way. JTP was made a household name by the continued support of the right-wing after all.

People on both sides of the aisle occasionally shoot their mouth off and say something of this nature. 'tis to be discouraged and/or ignored.

Agreed. And I am sure the next time someone makes a thread criticizing something a member of the left has said, you will make the same comment, right?

Also, forgive me if I've forgotten such an incident, but when was the last time someone from my side of the aisle suggested people from the other side should simply be shot?

Um. The video is pretty clear. What part of the following doesn't suggest those that Joe disagrees with should be shot?

Back in the day, really, when people would talk about our military in a poor way, somebody would shoot ‘em. And there’d be nothing said about that, because they knew it was wrong. You don’t talk about our troops. You support our troops. Especially when our congressmen and senators sit there and say bad things in an ongoing conflict.





No one said the bolded part, but certain right-wingers seem to feel this way. JTP was made a household name by the continued support of the right-wing after all.



Agreed. And I am sure the next time someone makes a thread criticizing something a member of the left has said, you will make the same comment, right?

Also, forgive me if I've forgotten such an incident, but when was the last time someone from my side of the aisle suggested people from the other side should simply be shot?
It was two nevers ago, I think.

JTP is an idiot, propped up to entertain other idiots, by a gang of manipulative cynics who are also idiots. He says things that are fundamentally opposed to all concepts of democratic government as well as specifically opposed to the US Constitution, and from the look on his face when he says them, my guess is he doesn't know it. It's like watching a dog give opinions.

But the serious part of the circus in which JTP is just one of the acts is that they really are revealing a slice of the American public that is vicious, vindictive, childish, destructive, and toxic to our way of life. JTP wishes critics of the war could just be shot. Hannity encourages discussion of violent overthrow of the US government. Other rightwingers distribute racist "jokes" about the new president. The media give camera time to liars still trying to cast doubt on Obama's citizenship (Shelby) and to lunatics talking about how he's a communist who is going to destroy the country if he is not stopped and how the military might decide they don't have to follow the orders of a non-citizen (Keyes).

These people should be on meds, not television.

“I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting,” he said.
Classic.

Also, forgive me if I've forgotten such an incident, but when was the last time someone from my side of the aisle suggested people from the other side should simply be shot?

Ahem:

Further, masturbation does not, by itself, constitute a deliberate intent to be lascivious if it is not directed at the prison staff. Anyone who says otherwise should be shot.

Classic.

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii155/macabreVjoyride/caturday/oh-the-ironing.jpg

Y'know, I was raised a conservative.

I was raised to respect the rights of others, even if you don't agree with them. To oppose things like hate speech legislation and gun restrictions, because they restricted the rights of others. To believe that government governs best when it governs least. To support the individual against the group, and to be wary of the power of the state.

I don't know what the fuck these Republican morons are, but I sure wish they'd stop lying about being conservatives.

Also, forgive me if I've forgotten such an incident, but when was the last time someone from my side of the aisle suggested people from the other side should simply be shot?

Hasnt really happened.

You're saying nobody has ever advocated shooting a republican? :S

2- He wouldn't if it weren't for the fact that, yes, MANY people in the Right would gladly make dissent a capital crime back when dissent against Bush was impopular.

Umm k, proof?

Y'know, I was raised a conservative. I was raised to respect the rights of others, even if you don't agree with them. To oppose things like hate speech legislation and gun restrictions, because they restricted the rights of others. To believe that government governs best when it governs least. To support the individual against the group, and to be wary of the power of the state. I don't know what the fuck these Republican morons are, but I sure wish they'd stop lying about being conservatives.

I could not agree with this more if I had written it myself. Somewhere, the Republican Party stopped being conservative, and now they're just Democrats who like guns.

I lean left but even I think Moveon should leave, and take WND with them.

Especially Wingnutdaily.

Right now their top stories are once again on "Obama being an ebil Illegal" complete with Generals that agree with us!!!!

Umm k, proof?

Because he's a liberal and liberals never ever, ever lie. How could you ever doubt someone as kind, considerate and informored as Heikoku 2. :rolleyes:

If you can't tell, I am in no way serious

I could not agree with this more if I had written it myself. Somewhere, the Republican Party stopped being conservative, and now they're just Democrats who like guns.

Not really. To my mind they've abandoned real conservative values and are instead serving as the political mouthpiece of religious fundamentalists and large corporations.

Meanwhile the Democrats don't ever seem to have had real liberal values in the first place and are instead serving as the political mouthpiece of pro-unionist groups and whoever else is paying them cash. Small wonder most Americans identify as independents.

Actually, I would argue that Joe the Plumber's words *are* Free Speech rather than merely against it. That's the difference between a free society and a totalitarian system. In the Marxist systems a ruler can not only talk about killing his people but up and do it. (Vide Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and Hitler in that regard). In a free society it is the people who can talk about shooting the politicians instead. :)

If you feel this is wrong does that mean you would like to have Randi Rhodes tossed into jail for wishing out loud on her show that someone would kill President Bush? o_O

Actually, I would argue that Joe the Plumber's words *are* Free Speech rather than merely against it. That's the difference between a free society and a totalitarian system. In the Marxist systems a ruler can not only talk about killing his people but up and do it. (Vide Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and Hitler in that regard). In a free society it is the people who can talk about shooting the politicians instead. :)

If you feel this is wrong does that mean you would like to have Randi Rhodes tossed into jail for wishing out loud on her show that someone would kill President Bush? o_O

1- Hitler was not a Marxist.

2- They ARE also against it. It's the beauty of it, one can use free speech to speak out against it. Much like one can use a gun to kill a weapons salesman.

Actually, I would argue that Joe the Plumber's words *are* Free Speech rather than merely against it. That's the difference between a free society and a totalitarian system. In the Marxist systems a ruler can not only talk about killing his people but up and do it. (Vide Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and Hitler in that regard). In a free society it is the people who can talk about shooting the politicians instead. :)

If you feel this is wrong does that mean you would like to have Randi Rhodes tossed into jail for wishing out loud on her show that someone would kill President Bush? o_O

Nazi Germany was a Marxist government? Okay then.

I don't think anyone is saying they aren't free speech. I think the irony is that he's using free speech--speech which would be treasonous in some places--to advocate... against free speech.

1- Hitler was not a Marxist.

2- They ARE also against it. It's the beauty of it, one can use free speech to speak out against it.Much like one can use a gun to kill a weapons salesman.

Damn your quick typing Heikoku!

Damn your quick typing Heikoku!

Yeah, yeah, yeah. AND I'm doing it in English, AND well. ;)

I'm that good. :p

He goes beyond attacking freedom of speech: he is implicitly questioning the patrotism of those who criticize the army and its mission.

he is implicitly questioning the patrotism of those who criticize the army and its mission.

What new lows can the Republicans reach!

What's that you say? They've been doing this for years? Ah.

Back in the day, really, when people would talk about our military in a poor way, somebody would shoot ‘em. And there’d be nothing said about that, because they knew it was wrong. You don’t talk about our troops. You support our troops. Especially when our congressmen and senators sit there and say bad things in an ongoing conflict.






He says that's what happened "back in the day." Not what he personally wants to do.

What new lows can the Republicans reach!

What's that you say? They've been doing this for years? Ah.

Because the embarrassment that is Joe the Plumber = the whole of the Republican party now?

Not really. To my mind they've abandoned real conservative values and are instead serving as the political mouthpiece of religious fundamentalists and large corporations.

Meanwhile the Democrats don't ever seem to have had real liberal values in the first place and are instead serving as the political mouthpiece of pro-unionist groups and whoever else is paying them cash. Small wonder most Americans identify as independents.
Do they really? Then why don't independent candidates win?
How can you identify as an indy if you vote for the big two?

Because the embarrassment that is Joe the Plumber = the whole of the Republican party now?
That's certainly the public perception, especially when the Republican candidate in the last election held him up as some kind of common-man-on-a-pedestal, a Real American(tm) as opposed to all those nasty Fake Americans who question the Patriot Act and the erosion of Constitutional rights, and the validity of letting more people's children or parents be killed overseas in a war some believe should never have been started. I doubt most people would question the need to go into Afghanistan, but the war in Iraq should never have been started, and CERTAINLY not before matters in Afghanistan were concluded. Now we're fighting in two separate fronts. What does history tell us about getting ourselves into a two front ass-kicking contest?

If you've got a problem with people thinking that someone who was presented as a representative of the Republican ideal is representative of the Republicans, I suggest taking it up with McCain's campaign and the national committee.

The gift that keeps on giving: Sarah Palin has a competitor.

Wow.
The next Republican primaries are going to be called SABRE: "Super Assholes' Battle RoyalE".

1- Enough people for that moron to still be news.

2- He wouldn't if it weren't for the fact that, yes, MANY people in the Right would gladly make dissent a capital crime back when dissent against Bush was impopular.

Strawman. Try again.

Wow.
The next Republican primaries are going to be called SABRE: "Super Assholes' Battle RoyalE".

A Triple Threat Match with Palin, Jindal and Joe.

Lovely.

Because the embarrassment that is Joe the Plumber = the whole of the Republican party now?

Maybe not yet. But when he evolves into Joe the President in 2012...

Strawman. Try again.

Curiously enough, when YOU pick a SATIRE forum and make wild predictions about Obama making it a policy, THAT isn't a strawman, then?

Respect me. You know for a fact that I argue better than that.

Because many people think "I don't like one of the main candidates, but I REALLY don't like the other one. Clothespin time! Lesser of the two evils! The crook not the fascist! J'ai mal au coeur!"

What's been happening to the Republican party is actually rather shameful--it's been subverted, over the last twenty-odd years from a middle class party, with a realist foreign policy outlook, to a xenophobic, anti-intellectual populist movement that lives in the South only. Is it any wonder that many of the traditional conservatives went Obama in 2008? If the GOP wants to reclaim a position as a viable national party, it needs to look very hard at where it's going, and get to doing an about face.

Otherwise, it'll just be the party of redneck idiots, with no room for William F. Buckley or Friedman.

Um. The video is pretty clear. What part of the following doesn't suggest those that Joe disagrees with should be shot?

Back in the day, really, when people would talk about our military in a poor way, somebody would shoot ‘em. And there’d be nothing said about that, because they knew it was wrong. You don’t talk about our troops. You support our troops. Especially when our congressmen and senators sit there and say bad things in an ongoing conflict.



Thing is, I don't agree that he's actually saying that they should be shot. He's pulling it out as an example to show just how seriously people took smack-talk about our troops.

What he's saying is that we should take things super serious and not criticize the troops, not that the people who do so should be shot. I don't agree with him, but let's not read too much into it.

Thing is, I don't agree that he's actually saying that they should be shot. He's pulling it out as an example to show just how seriously people took smack-talk about our troops.

What he's saying is that we should take things super serious and not criticize the troops, not that the people who do so should be shot. I don't agree with him, but let's not read too much into it.

Well, I beg to differ. Especially given that my quote was part of his explanation as to which members of Congress he would personally want to physically assault, it certainly seems that he is saying some of them should be shot (or at the very least there would be nothing wrong with shooting those with whom he disagrees).

"Bash some heads in"?

You're saying nobody has ever advocated shooting a republican? :S

Can you give an example of a prominent member of the Democratic Party so advocating? I can't think of one.

He says that's what happened "back in the day." Not what he personally wants to do.

Context. He had already said he would physically assault members of Congress and "clarified" those remarks by referring to shooting them.

Because the embarrassment that is Joe the Plumber = the whole of the Republican party now?

No. But JTP is obviously a current standard-bearer for the Republicans. Among other things, he was mobbed by admirers when he was recently a keynote speaker for CPAC and he was the featured speaking at a recent meeting of Capitol Hill Republicans.

Context. He had already said he would physically assault members of Congress and "clarified" those remarks by referring to shooting them.

Hmmm, I'm not sure. I think he just means that's what would've happened in less enlightened times.

No. But JTP is obviously a current standard-bearer for the Republicans. Among other things, he was mobbed by admirers when he was recently a keynote speaker for CPAC and he was the featured speaking at a recent meeting of Capitol Hill Republicans.

Somebody made him a keynote speaker? What the Hell's going on?

He says that's what happened "back in the day." Not what he personally wants to do.

Yeah, and I'd just LOVE to hear what dates "back in the day" means to this idiot. He doesn't know what he's talking about, but he doesn't know it in a very populist and loud manner. Thus, TV time.

Ignore and watch evaporate.

What's been happening to the Republican party is actually rather shameful--it's been subverted, over the last twenty-odd years from a middle class party, with a realist foreign policy outlook, to a xenophobic, anti-intellectual populist movement that lives in the South only. Is it any wonder that many of the traditional conservatives went Obama in 2008? If the GOP wants to reclaim a position as a viable national party, it needs to look very hard at where it's going, and get to doing an about face.

Otherwise, it'll just be the party of redneck idiots, with no room for William F. Buckley or Friedman.

Exactly. Of course, the other option is that it can stay as the party of redneck idiots, lose its viability and leave the US as virtually a one-party state until the more conservative Democrats and Independents take it over and revitalise it, or even form a new party if it's too far gone for that. Either way it'll leave the marginal electorate where it belongs -- on the margins.

The other alternative -- that it will continue to remain relevant despite being a party of redneck idiots -- has the uncomfortable implication that the US is actually full of redneck idiots, which, while it's probably true, is something we'd rather not admit to the rest of the world.

Can you give an example of a prominent member of the Democratic Party so advocating? I can't think of one.


Is JTP a prominent member of the republican party?

Is JTP a prominent member of the republican party?

CPAC and the Republicans in Congress appear to think so.

I don't understand this willingness that some people show to make excuses for others. JTP used very clear words and made very direct statements. In terms of tone and apparently philosophical outlook, they are in keeping with other statements he has made in other contexts. Clearly JTP does not believe in free speech, he does not believe in a free press, and he does believe that the public and the media should be censored from criticizing the war and that criticizing the troops (something he just made up, most likely as a mask for criticizing the war) should be an act that is punished by physical punishment (beating, shooting).

In order to make excuses for this and claim that he didn't really mean it, some people in this thread have to make up shit of their own, imagining that something is going on inside JTP's head that they have no evidence for whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but I will take JTP's actual words over someone else's unfounded speculations about what he might have meant by them.

I don't understand this willingness that some people show to make excuses for others. JTP used very clear words and made very direct statements. In terms of tone and apparently philosophical outlook, they are in keeping with other statements he has made in other contexts. Clearly JTP does not believe in free speech, he does not believe in a free press, and he does believe that the public and the media should be censored from criticizing the war and that criticizing the troops (something he just made up, most likely as a mask for criticizing the war) should be an act that is punished by physical punishment (beating, shooting).

In order to make excuses for this and claim that he didn't really mean it, some people in this thread have to make up shit of their own, imagining that something is going on inside JTP's head that they have no evidence for whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but I will take JTP's actual words over someone else's unfounded speculations about what he might have meant by them.

Marry me! :D

In terms of what the right can say...

Watching Glenn Beck is like being taken back to the, well I'm not even sure what time it takes one back to.

He's talking with Trace Atkins about guns stores being filled with people buying up ammunition, the 'gut feeling' people have that 'something's going down', that it's best to 'be prepared', and then the following line...

'The 2nd amendment is to protect against tyranny, we have to protect our freedom of speech and, well, if people come knocking on my door having a problem with what I say, well I have a problem with them'.

The only consistent point of view is to at least shoot someone.

In terms of what the right can say...

Watching Glenn Beck is like being taken back to the, well I'm not even sure what time it takes one back to.

He's talking with Trace Atkins about guns stores being filled with people buying up ammunition, the 'gut feeling' people have that 'something's going down', that it's best to 'be prepared', and then the following line...

'The 2nd amendment is to protect against tyranny, we have to protect our freedom of speech and, well, if people come knocking on my door having a problem with what I say, well I have a problem with them'.

The only consistent point of view is to at least shoot someone.
There's a lot of that going on. I mean, seriously, are these people so pissed off at not being the top dogs for a couple of years that they are actually preparing for armed rebellion over it? They're not even willing to wait two years for the midterm elections, to see if they can take back Congress -- they just want to set up an army of their own and get ready to kill people? This is fucking ridiculous, but it's also scary. Just how far are these lunatics willing to go just because they lost an election? We can only hope that it's as much pissing into the wind as everything else they've done, but still, they are scaring me.

2- He wouldn't if it weren't for the fact that, yes, MANY people in the Right would gladly make dissent a capital crime back when dissent against Bush was impopular.
Bullshit statements are no less intolerable from lefties than right-wingers.

There's a lot of that going on. I mean, seriously, are these people so pissed off at not being the top dogs for a couple of years that they are actually preparing for armed rebellion over it? They're not even willing to wait two years for the midterm elections, to see if they can take back Congress -- they just want to set up an army of their own and get ready to kill people? This is fucking ridiculous, but it's also scary. Just how far are these lunatics willing to go just because they lost an election? We can only hope that it's as much pissing into the wind as everything else they've done, but still, they are scaring me.

The odd thing is that commentators such as Geraldo and, and this is frightening in itself, Bill 'no spin zone' O'Reilly, seem moderates compared to Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh, it's weird.

Watching FOX is watching the Republicans split, the hard-right are loving this, they want to split the party, cast off the moderately right-wing and plummet straight into an extremely nasty area of politics.

Ironically, they rely on the support of the most subsidised members of the most subsidised states, gun-loving, fundamentalist, bigoted and subsidised by blue states.

Moderate republicans need to come up with something fast or they're going to be branded as a whole, someone needs to speak up.

The odd thing is that commentators such as Geraldo and, and this is frightening in itself, Bill 'no spin zone' O'Reilly, seem moderates compared to Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh, it's weird.

Watching FOX is watching the Republicans split, the hard-right are loving this, they want to split the party, cast off the moderately right-wing and plummet straight into an extremely nasty area of politics.

Ironically, they rely on the support of the most subsidised members of the most subsidised states, gun-loving, fundamentalist, bigoted and subsidised by blue states.

Moderate republicans need to come up with something fast or they're going to be branded as a whole, someone needs to speak up.
I agree. The fact that they would hold onto people like these hard rightwingers just to keep up their membership rolls -- and refer to these loons as their "base" -- just reinforces my mistrust of all political organizations. Is there nothing that isn't okay? Is there nothing that will get other Republicans to blow the whistle and actually kick someone from the club?

Bullshit statements are no less intolerable from lefties than right-wingers.

No lefty has really made any "bullshit" comment on this topic.


The "centerist" 'BUT BOTH SIDES ARE JUST AS BAD!!!" BS is totally naive (in regards to US politics at least). Anyone honest with themselves can see one side (the right), as a whole, is clearly much worse then the other.

What does history tell us about getting ourselves into a two front ass-kicking contest?

WWII was fought on two fronts,(in Europe and in the Pacific)and we won that.

WWII was fought on two fronts,(in Europe and in the Pacific)and we won that.

Except that in WII we had other countries that were helping us. As opposed to now, where even the countries, few that they are, that are helping as are getting sick of our shit.

Except that in WII we had other countries that were helping us. As opposed to now, where even the countries, few that they are, that are helping as are getting sick of our shit.

And? The answer to the question still remains the same.

The odd thing is that commentators such as Geraldo and, and this is frightening in itself, Bill 'no spin zone' O'Reilly, seem moderates compared to Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh, it's weird.

Watching FOX is watching the Republicans split, the hard-right are loving this, they want to split the party, cast off the moderately right-wing and plummet straight into an extremely nasty area of politics.

Ironically, they rely on the support of the most subsidised members of the most subsidised states, gun-loving, fundamentalist, bigoted and subsidised by blue states.

Moderate republicans need to come up with something fast or they're going to be branded as a whole, someone needs to speak up.

Barringtonia, believing in the right to self defence does NOT make you a hard-liner. In many cases it just means we take the Constitution seriously.

No lefty has really made any "bullshit" comment on this topic.


The "centerist" 'BUT BOTH SIDES ARE JUST AS BAD!!!" BS is totally naive (in regards to US politics at least). Anyone honest with themselves can see one side (the right), as a whole, is clearly much worse then the other.

Bullshit. the left has just as many whackoes and extremists as the right - but they haven't been in power for eight years, so they aren't as visible.

Bullshit. the left has just as many whackoes and extremists as the right - but they haven't been in power for eight years, so they aren't as visible.

And you can show me evidence of some lefty extremists saying just as cooky things as "Lets shoot all the senators who disagree with me!"?

Well, I beg to differ. Especially given that my quote was part of his explanation as to which members of Congress he would personally want to physically assault, it certainly seems that he is saying some of them should be shot (or at the very least there would be nothing wrong with shooting those with whom he disagrees).

Beg to differ all you want, but it won't change what he said. He said he would slap certain members of Congress, but he said that back in the day they would've been shot. He's already clarified what he wants to do--which is still pretty bad of him--he's just using the "shooting" to underlie the seriousness of his point.

He's failing at it, but that's what his own words seem to imply.

And you can show me evidence of some lefty extremists saying just as cooky things as "Lets shoot all the senators who disagree with me!"?

Not off the top of my head. But I can show you a few who blew up some places (and some people) over the years to advance their agendas, which is at least as kooky as anything the right's done.

Barringtonia, believing in the right to self defence does NOT make you a hard-liner. In many cases it just means we take the Constitution seriously.

While not everyone who appreciates the right to own guns is a hard-right supporter, every hard-right supporter strongly defends the 2nd amendment to the extreme.

Beyond that, this pointing to the Constitution as the be all and end all of the argument is, for me, a divisive problem in the US. What's in the Constitution is not set in stone. Just because 'it's in the Constitution' doesn't mean it's sacrosanct as an eternal right, yet some people seem to hold it in such reverence that the very fact it's there means it's the end of any debate on the subject. We can all own tanks, it's a commandment.

Yet I digress...

WWII was fought on two fronts,(in Europe and in the Pacific)and we won that.
What happened to Germany caught between Europe and Russia?

Barringtonia, believing in the right to self defence does NOT make you a hard-liner. In many cases it just means we take the Constitution seriously.I take the Constitution very seriously, but that doesn't mean it can be used to end an argument with "But it's in the Constitution!"
So? Slavery is also in the Constitution. (Reversed later, yeah, I know.)

The First Amendment doesn't give me the right to advocate the murder of other people, just as the Second doesn't give me the right to own a tank. There has to be a limit to it somewhere.

What happened to Germany caught between Europe and Russia?Seventy million people died. (Estimated.)

And Germany lost. I suppose that counts.

What happened to Germany caught between Europe and Russia?

Doesn't matter what happened to Germany. Your question wasn't about Germany. Your question also wasn't 'Is it wise to fight on two fronts at the same time?' Your question was 'what does history tell us about getting ourselves into a two-front ass-kicking contest?' The answer is that history tells us that last time that happened, we won.

I take the Constitution very seriously, but that doesn't mean it can be used to end an argument with "But it's in the Constitution!"
So? Slavery is also in the Constitution. (Reversed later, yeah, I know.)

The First Amendment doesn't give me the right to advocate the murder of other people, just as the Second doesn't give me the right to own a tank. There has to be a limit to it somewhere.

The other funny thing is that communism and Russia is always pointed to as the end result of 'the left'. 'These people want to control us, they want to be like communist Russia, tell us what to do, say, eat, how we work, spy on us and silence those who dissent.'

Wait a minute, which party said being against the war, and by association 'the party' and its dear leader, was traitorous, which party expanded the right of government not only to tap phones and read email but also section you off into 'magic land' where you're not technically on American soil, no constitutional protection, you're not technically in another land, no Geneva convention, you're essentially in a void, a vacuum and no rights can exist in a vacuum, throw in some torture..

It's like they completely lost the point, that the problem in the USSR was twofold, a failed economic program and brutal repression.

It's as though the Republicans are saying, 'hey, the brutality was fine but hell, those economic programs, free national healthcare is but a step to nothing but cabbage in the supermarket...'

Apologies for further digressing, watching FOX agitates my brain.

*snip*
Apologies for further digressing, watching FOX agitates my brain.Eh, it's alright.

Is Cuba a state-member of the Geneva Convention?

Eh, it's alright.

Is Cuba a state-member of the Geneva Convention?

Cuba has no rights over Guantanamo, none at all, I don't know if it's a member, I don't think it would make any difference either way.

I take the Constitution very seriously, but that doesn't mean it can be used to end an argument with "But it's in the Constitution!"
So? Slavery is also in the Constitution. (Reversed later, yeah, I know.)

The First Amendment doesn't give me the right to advocate the murder of other people, just as the Second doesn't give me the right to own a tank. There has to be a limit to it somewhere.

I never said there wasn't. I just object to the correlation between the right-wing nutters and those of us who soberly and sanely support the second amendment and object to end-runs at the constitution. I support the 1936 act banning fully-automatic weapons; I do not support the DC handgun ban.

Cuba has no rights over Guantanamo, none at all, It's not US territory, it's Cuban territory on lease to the US government.

I just object to the correlation between the right-wing nutters and those of us who soberly and sanely support the second amendment and object to end-runs at the constitution. I support the 1936 act banning fully-automatic weapons; I do not support the DC handgun ban.

I said the same thing a couple of days ago. Some clown was maundering on about how Obama was going to confiscate every firearm in the country. I likened it to William F. Buckley dissassociating himself from the John Birch Society.

It's not US territory, it's Cuban territory on lease to the US government.

Under a permanent agreement. Which, I should add, the US is in violation of - they haven't allowed the government of Cuba access to the rent money.

Under a permanent agreement. Which, I should add, the US is in violation of - they haven't allowed the government of Cuba access to the rent money.No, they give them access to it, Castro doesn't cash it. And the wording of the permanent agreement is very strict. Unless I'm mistaken, a prison camp is not a coaling station, or necessary for a naval base's operation.

No, they give them access to it, Castro doesn't cash it. And the wording of the permanent agreement is very strict. Unless I'm mistaken, a prison camp is not a coaling station, or necessary for a naval base's operation.

? My understanding was that it counted as Cuban government monies, and thereby frozen in the US. Can't say I've really researched it, though.

? My understanding was that it counted as Cuban government monies, and thereby frozen in the US. Can't say I've really researched it, though.No, the...Treasury Department (IIRC) sends them a check each year for the lease.

No, the...Treasury Department (IIRC) sends them a check each year for the lease.

Cool. Weird that Castro doesn't cash it, then; I realise that Cuba wants the US out of there, but considering the Cuban economy, it's kind of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Cool. Weird that Castro doesn't cash it, then; I realise that Cuba wants the US out of there, but considering the Cuban economy, it's kind of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Don't think Castro is suffering, it is the people that do that (as always). So he can survive the lost of money and show all his friends that he don't take cash from the oppressive US...

It's not US territory, it's Cuban territory on lease to the US government.

Exactly, it's magic land.

Exactly, it's magic land.That's why I was asking if Cuba was a party to the Geneva Convention. (I can't find it anywhere.) Cuba is the US's landlord, and we've done quite a few things to make us bad tenets.

That's why I was asking if Cuba was a party to the Geneva Convention. (I can't find it anywhere.) Cuba is the US's landlord, and we've done quite a few things to make us bad tenets.

It's a moo point, like a cow talking, it doesn't mean anything.

It's a moo point, like a cow talking, it doesn't mean anything."We ignore things that are (possibly) illegal because they aren't relevant"? Interesting.

They wouldn't be a primary signatory, as Cuba wasn't an independent country then. I don't know if they've officially signed on since.

"We ignore things that are (possibly) illegal because they aren't relevant"? Interesting.

...and effective :)

Beg to differ all you want, but it won't change what he said. He said he would slap certain members of Congress, but he said that back in the day they would've been shot. He's already clarified what he wants to do--which is still pretty bad of him--he's just using the "shooting" to underlie the seriousness of his point.

He's failing at it, but that's what his own words seem to imply.

He answered the question about whose heads he wanted to "bash in" by talking about how people back in the day got shot. I see a clear connection there.

BAh, nvm.

No lefty has really made any "bullshit" comment on this topic.
Uhu... so you're saying that Heikoku's incredibly bullshit claim that the right would've made saying Bush was lame a capital crime wasn't actually false.

*slow clap*
The "centerist" 'BUT BOTH SIDES ARE JUST AS BAD!!!" BS is totally naive (in regards to US politics at least). Anyone honest with themselves can see one side (the right), as a whole, is clearly much worse then the other.
Neocons are bad. Neocons do not make up the whole of the Republican party, however. I really do wish it would go back to its pre-Carter kind of thinking, so the US had a viable alternative to the far too broad coalition that is the Democratic Party.

McCain/Palin was going to be lame. Obama/Biden has potential, but with the amount of people that dropped out of the tougher cabinet positions, I'm not sure that the party has enough confidence in its own abilities to work through the oncoming depression.

Uhu... so you're saying that Heikoku's incredibly bullshit claim that the right would've made saying Bush was lame a capital crime wasn't actually false.

*slow clap*

Its not a far leap to make considering some comments Rummy made about anyone who doesnt support the president hating America, and various right wing talking heads and politicians saying that if you critized the president during the war you were a terrorists sympathizer.

Doesn't matter what happened to Germany. Your question wasn't about Germany. Your question also wasn't 'Is it wise to fight on two fronts at the same time?' Your question was 'what does history tell us about getting ourselves into a two-front ass-kicking contest?' The answer is that history tells us that last time that happened, we won.
With allies we don't have now, unless you think Russia is on board with any of this? No?

Its not a far leap to make considering some comments Rummy made about anyone who doesnt support the president hating America, and various right wing talking heads and politicians saying that if you critized the president during the war you were a terrorists sympathizer.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Besides, its not like no one on NSG has ever used hyperbole.

Besides, its not like no one on NSG has ever used hyperbole.

Indeed. I love you so much right now that I would gladly have hot male-on-male action with you if you so requested.

(See?)

Besides, its not like no one on NSG has ever used hyperbole.

No, never, not at all.

Especially not here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14560743&postcount=3)

No, never, not at all.

Especially not here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14560743&postcount=3)

Either youre agreeing with me, or youre trying to play "GOTCHA" and say "OMG look its a libruhl talkin bout shootin peoplez!"

In which case, I would like to point out, the poster in question is not a mouth peice and current "figure head" for one of the US's two major political parties.

Joe is.

Either youre agreeing with me, or youre trying to play "GOTCHA" and say "OMG look its a libruhl talkin bout shootin peoplez!"

In which case, I would like to point out, the poster in question is not a mouth peice and current "figure head" for one of the US's two major political parties.

Joe is.

Ouch.

Beg to differ all you want, but it won't change what he said. He said he would slap certain members of Congress, but he said that back in the day they would've been shot. He's already clarified what he wants to do--which is still pretty bad of him--he's just using the "shooting" to underlie the seriousness of his point.

He's failing at it, but that's what his own words seem to imply.

Again, I'd like to know just WHEN JtP thinks "back in the day" was. WHEN was it that someone would be shot for merely dissenting? I am certain he has no fucking clue, but I'd love to hear him make a further ass of himself by trying to answer that question.

Again, I'd like to know just WHEN JtP thinks "back in the day" was. WHEN was it that someone would be shot for merely dissenting? I am certain he has no fucking clue, but I'd love to hear him make a further ass of himself by trying to answer that question.

Shooting members of Congress is an important part of the history of Real America™. There's an evil liberal conspiracy to keep it out of the history books which is why none of us sheeple know about it.

Also, did you know that the first firemen in America were organized to burn books? True story.

A side question: what's the singular of sheeple? Sheeperson? Shep...man?

Either youre agreeing with me,

This one. It was the most easy to access bit of hyperbole.

or youre trying to play "GOTCHA" and say "OMG look its a libruhl talkin bout shootin peoplez!"

In which case, I would like to point out, the poster in question is not a mouth peice and current "figure head" for one of the US's two major political parties.

Joe is.

Joe is an idiot.

Ouch.

You only wish princess.

Again, I'd like to know just WHEN JtP thinks "back in the day" was. WHEN was it that someone would be shot for merely dissenting? I am certain he has no fucking clue, but I'd love to hear him make a further ass of himself by trying to answer that question.

No, no. I agree. He is talking out of his ass.

Again, I'd like to know just WHEN JtP thinks "back in the day" was. WHEN was it that someone would be shot for merely dissenting? I am certain he has no fucking clue, but I'd love to hear him make a further ass of himself by trying to answer that question.

Joe's talking future tense, he's just got a terrible understanding of grammar. He's referring to 2010, when he gets into congress and gets shot. *nod*

Joe's talking future tense, he's just got a terrible understanding of grammar. He's referring to 2010, when he gets into congress and gets shot. *nod*

Now there's a surprise. I think I'm gonna have a heart attack and die from that surprise.

-- Iago the parrot.

You realize some people on the right support civil liberties, right? Or maybe I'll lump you in with Communists, Hippies, etc., and assume you believe everything they do because you share the same side of the political spectrum?

This one. It was the most easy to access bit of hyperbole.

I assumed so. Youre a pretty reasonable poster here. My other half was directed at others inevitably bringing that up.

You realize some people on the right support civil liberties, right?

You guys should be in the spot light more then.

Or maybe I'll lump you in with Communists, Hippies, etc., and assume you believe everything they do because you share the same side of the political spectrum?

Except, no one has stated that everyone on the right hates civil liberties.

Everyone on the right does have a persecution complex. Or so it would seem from NSG.

Now there's a surprise. I think I'm gonna have a heart attack and die from that surprise.

-- Iago the parrot.

Good quote.

You guys should be in the spot light more then.



Except, no one has stated that everyone on the right hates civil liberties.

Everyone on the right does have a persecution complex. Or so it would seem from NSG.



Good quote.

Well, we try, and I was trying to get you to put "Religious" in front of the word "Right" when you want to criticize the people you seem to be attacking. THEY have the Persecution Complex. Not specifying does imply that you see all of us as one in the same.

Well, we try, and I was trying to get you to put "Religious" in front of the word "Right" when you want to criticize the people you seem to be attacking. THEY have the Persecution Complex. Not specifying does imply that you see all of us as one in the same.


No, its safe to say that 99% of the right wingers on NSG have a persecution complex and think those of us on the left* are planning some sort of Final Solution for them. Me just saying "the right" was intentional there.


*-And they tend to see most 'moderates' as closet lefties. Mostly cause most moderates dont hate teh gheyz.

No, its safe to say that 99% of the right wingers on NSG have a persecution complex and think those of us on the left are planning some sort of Final Solution for them.
O rly?

No, its safe to say that 99% of the right wingers on NSG have a persecution complex and think those of us on the left* are planning some sort of Final Solution for them. Me just saying "the right" was intentional there.


*-And they tend to see most 'moderates' as closet lefties. Mostly cause most moderates dont hate teh gheyz.

Well please specify next time.

O rly?

:rolleyes:

Please see 'hyperbole' post.

Well please specify next time.

When its relevent. Sometimes I will lump you all in one group. And when I do, its intentional.

Please see 'hyperbole' post.
That's not hyperbole, that's just you talking bollocks.

O rly?

http://netninja.com/images/lj/ya_rly.jpg

That's not hyperbole, that's just you talking bollocks.

No, its deliberate exaggeration. Hence hyperbole.
But, Im not going to allow you to derail this thread into a big long winded speech about how what I say is unacceptable and fuels the whole "us vs them" conflict, which is also inevitable from where this is going, so Im ending it here.

But, Im not going to allow you to derail this thread into a big long winded speech about how what I say is unacceptable and fuels the whole "us vs them" conflict, which is also inevitable from where this is going, so Im ending it here.
No, don't let me prevent you from spewing bile and hatred.

Me, the big spoilsport. You go on swatting at those daemons.

No, don't let me prevent you from spewing bile and hatred.

Me, the big spoilsport. You go on swatting at those daemons.

But, Im not going to allow you to derail this thread into a big long winded speech about how what I say is unacceptable and fuels the whole "us vs them" conflict, which is also inevitable from where this is going, so Im ending it here.

:rolleyes:

If you really want to have the last word, just say it and Ill let you.

If you really want to have the last word, just say it and Ill let you.
Fallacious.

I say Limbaugh/Plumber 2012.

Id vote for that.

With allies we don't have now, unless you think Russia is on board with any of this? No?

The allies we have now doesn't have anything to do with your question. It's not my fault you don't like the answer.

Fallacious.
:eek2: :confused:

.........I originally read that as fellatio.....:$

:eek2: :confused:

.........I originally read that as fellatio.....:$

Fellatious.

Fellatious.

Now, that's just disturbing...:D

Yes, but only because Special Olympians train hard and exhibit authentic qualities of excellence in what they do, whereas Joe The Plumber is basically a Jerry Springer audience member whose simplistic and uninformed commentary is entertaining in the same way as a 60 year old 300 lbs woman hamboning her 17 year old son in law.
Ge- 'rab!!!!

WWII was fought on two fronts,(in Europe and in the Pacific)and we won that.

There is a subtle difference between being on the winning side and winning. We won on the Pacific front. We helped Russia win on the European front.

There is a subtle difference between being on the winning side and winning. We won on the Pacific front. We helped Russia win on the European front.

We still won though, subtle differences notwithstanding, which was the essence of the question.

Oh, and H2, as you're so fond of telling Hotwife; READ YOUR SOURCE. He doesn't personally advocate shooting Congress members, or kicking them out of Congress, he just he'd slap some of them. I'd like to slap some British MPs, that doesn't mean I'm against free speech.

I call Tony Blair, Hazel Blears, Jacqui Smith, David Cameron, Harriet Harman and Alastair Darling.

We still won though, subtle differences notwithstanding, which was the essence of the question.

It's not a true two front war, since one was a through a buffer country front, and you had massive help from the other front of one theater.

It's not a true two front war, since one was a through a buffer country front, and you had massive help from the other front of one theater.

It was fought on two fronts, that makes it a two-front war. You can slap all the conditions and qualifications you like on it afterwards, but the answer to Kat's original question still remains.

It was fought on two fronts, that makes it a two-front war. You can slap all the conditions and qualifications you like on it afterwards, but the answer to Kat's original question still remains.

^This, actually. I don't it terribly matters whether the U.S. fought through buffer countries or not. The fact that it was fought on two geographically separate fronts qualifies it as such.

^This, actually. I don't it terribly matters whether the U.S. fought through buffer countries or not. The fact that it was fought on two geographically separate fronts qualifies it as such.

Except that the notion of a two-front war being inadvisable (or even disastrous) precludes those two fronts being 10,000 miles apart. Germany was the best example of that problem in WWII, not the USA.

Except that the notion of a two-front war being inadvisable (or even disastrous) precludes those two fronts being 10,000 miles apart. Germany was the best example of that problem in WWII, not the USA.

Then you're using a definition that is narrower than what is commonly accepted.

I call Tony Blair, Hazel Blears, Jacqui Smith, David Cameron, Harriet Harman and Alastair Darling.
Means I get David Miliband and Nick Clegg. VICTORY IS MINE!

Then you're using a definition that is narrower than what is commonly accepted.

The common understanding I believe meant fighting two fronts that were situated next to your border, or at least territory under your influence. Sending your troops to someone else's front tends to dilute the meaning somewhat.

Besides, having someone else spend vastly more manpower than you in one front fighting on your side dilutes it even further.

The common understanding I believe meant fighting two fronts that were situated next to your border, or at least territory under your influence. Sending your troops to someone else's front tends to dilute the meaning somewhat.

Besides, having someone else spend vastly more manpower than you in one front fighting on your side dilutes it even further.

I understood it to be this:

In military terminology, a two-front war is one in which fighting takes place on two geographically separate fronts. It is usually executed by two or more separate forces simultaneously or nearly simultaneously, in the hope that their opponent will be forced to split their fighting force to deal with both threats, therefore reducing their odds of success.