Florida State Seminoles

[Owlman]

forgive my political vice

The worst part of it is that it'll make the debate extremely boring unless they are going to talk about things other than Israel. If they are going to talk about things other than Israel, than they shouldn't be limiting the debate.

[10ac]

They're both preachers, they're both bigots, Ones black and ones white. (of course you knew that) I just was curious about what the other end of the spectrum thought about it.

[Jungle Rat]

I wonder how many millions of dollars have been donated in the past two years to Republicans just for the sole purpose of beating Obama in 2012? I'd bet a few hundred. All to lose a fight they knew they'd lose in the first place. Bet that money could have been used to help other ::: cough ::: Americans. Republicans are not Americans. They are the British circa 1773.

[10ac]

They're certainly no better than the Democrats.

[Jungle Rat]

Of course not.

[Owlman]

They're both preachers, they're both bigots, Ones black and ones white. (of course you knew that) I just was curious about what the other end of the spectrum thought about it.

Really? Wright's church has implemented policies that are bigoted??? Wright has done something that limits the rights of others?

By your analogy, eCat is the same as the leaders of Hezbollah. You equate spoken words, words that are frequently out of context, with action. I am not in any way a fan of Wright, but the way you label, everyone on this thread would be the same as the pastor of the above church.

All of this because of a 'Chickens have come home to roost' sermon.

[Bklyn]

It got Malcolm in trouble too. Everyone should just retire the analogy. Nothing good comes from it.

[sardis]

forgive my political vice

------------------------------

On Wednesday, Dec. 7, the Republican Jewish Coalition will host a presidential-candidates forum featuring Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. Not invited is the GOP candidate currently polling around third in New Hampshire and second in Iowa: Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). The explanation:

Paul was not invited to attend the RJC's candidates forum because the organization - as it has stated numerous times in the past - "rejects his misguided and extreme views," said [RJC Executive Director Matt] Brooks.

"He's just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization," Brooks said. Inviting Paul to attend would be "like inviting Barack Obama to speak."

Link via the Twitter feed of an approving Jamie Kirchick.

Brooks gave a more detailed critique of Ron Paul back in May:

"As Americans who are committed to a strong and vigorous foreign policy, we are deeply concerned about the prospective presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul. While Rep. Paul plans to run as a Republican, his views and past record place him far outside of the Republican mainstream. His candidacy, as we've seen in his past presidential campaigns, will appeal to a very narrow constituency in the U.S. electorate. Throughout his public service, Paul has espoused a dangerous isolationist vision for the U.S. and our role in the world. He has been a virulent and harsh critic of Israel during his tenure in Congress*. Most recently Paul gave an interview in which he voiced his objection to the recent killing of Osama Bin Laden.

Brooks added, "We certainly respect Congressman Paul's right to run, but we strongly reject his misguided and extreme views, which are not representative of the Republican Party."

Weird punctuation in the original.

So what are these "extreme views"? Over at The Huffington Post, Dovid Efune, the director of The Algemeiner Journal and Gershon Jacobson Foundation, offers an explanation:

Paul's positions on Israel have been almost uniformly derided. Whilst claiming to be non-interventionist on the issue, he has routinely adopted Arab talking points on Israel, even comparing Gaza to 'a concentration camp.' His Isolationist mantra may appeal to fiscal conservatives, but in the real world its implementation would create a global power vacuum that would likely be filled by supporters of Israel's enemies.

Anti Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman has a perhaps unintentionally interesting take about Paul, U.S. politics, and Israel:

with the exception of Ron Paul, there is not much difference between the parties

And no orthodoxy-definition would be complete without David Frum:

Of the 8 candidates competing for the Republican presidential nomination, 7 declared themselves intense supporters of the State of Israel, the sole exception being crank no-hoper Ron Paul.

I'm no expert on Ron Paul's Israel views, and I reserve the right to be outraged later by what I don't know now, but what I find interesting here is the namecalling-to-content ratio. Here, let's count it out:

Name-calling: 1) "misguided and extreme," 2) "so far outside of the mainstream," 3) "like...Barack Obama," 4) "will appeal to a very narrow constituency," 5) "dangerous isolationist vision," 6) "uniformly derided," 7) "claim[s] to be non-interventionist," 8) "Isolationist," 9) "differen[t]," 10) "crank."

Content: 1) "virulent and harsh critic of Israel," 2) "voiced his objection to the...killing of Osama Bin Laden," 3) "routinely adopted Arab talking points," 4) "compar[ed] Gaza to 'a concentration camp," 5) "would create a global power vacuum that would likely be filled by supporters of Israel's enemies."

Looking at the five content items, 1) is supported only by 4); 2) intentionally left out the phrase "legal method of," 3) is a general and largely contentless insult, 4) is a discrete piece of hyperbole that rubs my literalist heart the wrong way, too (though the full quote contains two qualifiers: "Palestinians are virtually in like a concentration camp"); and 5) is the Transitive Property run amok, though it does at least hint at the real-world question/critique of what, exactly, replaces hegemonic American responsibility for world affairs, and which bad actors are more likely to do badder things.

Does this, plus Paul's principled rejection of all foreign aid, his relentless espousal of the "blowback" theory of terrorism, and his negligence in allowing to appear under his name during the first Clinton administration some newsletter conspiracy theorizing about (among other things) the 1993 World Trade Center bombing being a "setup by the Israeli Mossad" enough to disqualify him for the grownups' table on foreign policy?

Well, I'm neither Republican nor Jewish nor a member of a Coalition, so the immediate event is not my call (though I do believe that dissonance is more illuminating than seven-part harmony). That said, this seems to me more of an attempt to draw boundaries around acceptable policy discourse than any active concern that President Dr. Ron Paul would be actively anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. The fact that he is a political outlier on an effectively bipartisan U.S. foreign policy that has become increasingly expensive and unpopular strikes me as a count in favor, not against. And nothing Paul said at last month's largely grotesque American Enterprise Institute foreign policy debate struck me as more objectionable than Mitt Romney's grovel that his first overseas trip as president would be to Israel.

You also forgot to mention he is 3rd place in Montana...

[eCat]

forgive my political vice

The worst part of it is that it'll make the debate extremely boring unless they are going to talk about things other than Israel. If they are going to talk about things other than Israel, than they shouldn't be limiting the debate.

yea, at a minimum it would 7 against 1. You'd think they'd want that. The problem is that they are scared his message resonates with too many Americans. You aren't scared to let a man who is wrong speak.

[Hizzy III]

What the Republicans need is a conservative version of Jesse Jackson. I'd look forward to hearing his unique brand of colloquialism and how he would alliterate his viewpoints. Of course, Herman could've been in the ballpark except I think he's not sure what his own views are on much of anything at this point, especially with all the 'tang that's showing up out of the woodwork.

"Okay, okay... I DO know her but, um, we... uh... we were just friends. THAT'S ALL!"

[Bklyn]

Brock O'Bama lays down the Populist Kenolitch in the Jayhawk state...

“Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success,” he said. “Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and investments than ever before. But everyone else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t — and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/us/po ... &seid=auto

[Owlman]

I forgot to post this when I saw this earlier this week:

I just think the Congressman was out of line:

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/11 ... nt-own-me/

Rice University professor to Alaska Republican: “You don’t own me”

By DAN McGRAW

A Texas private university professor didn’t shy away from reminding an Alaskan Republican who paid his salary — the taxpayer.

Rice University professor Douglas Brinkley created a national stir today when he got into a heated verbal exchange with Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, after testifying about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Young, who supports drilling in ANWR, set off the fiery exchange when he called Brinkley’s testimony “garbage” and then mistakenly called Brinkley “Dr. Rice.”

“It’s Dr. Brinkley. Rice University is a university,” Brinkley said. “I know you went to Yuba (Community) College…”

Young, who is visibly angry in the video of the exchange, shouted back, “I’ll call you anything I want to call you when you’re in that chair. You just be quiet.”

Brinkley, of course, didn’t take those comments lightly or back off.

“You don’t own me,” the professor said. “I pay your salary. I work for the private sector and you work for the taxpayer.”

Committee Chairman Doc Hasting, R-Wash., stepped in to break up the heated argument.

Brinkley told Hastings that he felt it was necessary to correct Young after he had mistakenly called him the wrong name and called his testimony garbage.

“You would do that if someone did that to your name,” Brinkley added.

And they didn’t make nice after the meeting either.

Luke Miller, a spokesman for Young, said the fiery exchange was “nothing more than a publicity stunt by Mr. Brinkley in order to sell books.”

“Witnesses are invited to testify before Congress to answer questions and provide insight, not repeatedly interrupt a Committee Chairman and Members of the Committee and be disrespectful,” Miller said in a statement. “People will want to make this into more than what it really is; an attempt by an author to create a stir and sell books.”

Brinkley took his own jab at Young in press. From The Washington Post:

Brinkley was unapologetic when we reached him, calling Young “a crazy zealot for molesting the refuge” and saying he wished he “could have gone mano-a-mano” with him. “I was hoping for the chance to get into a heated debate with him, but, alas, it’s hard in that forum.”

Brinkley, who is a history professor at Rice University in Houston, wrote “The Quiet World” about efforts to protect the Alaskan wilderness. He’s advocated for making ANWR a national monument to protect it from oil and gas drilling.

The colorful discussion is below.

[Hizzy III]

Janet Reno meant bidness!

[eCat]

Our government cannot oppress innocent men.............therefore they have to make criminals out of them
(some of this was pointed out by the daily show)

Our government , led by patriots like Lindsey Graham, has decided that the terrorist that we spent billions of dollars fighting over there so we won't fight them here, have indeed landed here and are infiltrating the ranks of American citizens.

They have decided that it is now time to detain American citizens presiding on American soil and keep them without trial until terrorist hostilities against American ends.

Rand Paul and a handful of Senators voted against this measure. Rand pointed out how absurd the definition of terrorist is now. A person missing fingers (Rohm Immanuel), association with radicals or extremists (such as being in the congregation of Reverand Jeremiah Wright) , owning waterproof ammunition or even having more than 7 days worth of food on hand.

Rand was followed by John McCain who mocked him for saying that Rand is for letting terrorists go out and kill again.

Lindsay Graham said that its not like we are targeting American citizens who are in the mafia or gangs, this is Al Qaeda and want to kill Americans and destroy our way of life. No one bothered to point out to him that gangs in America are responsible for thousands of deaths to American civilians, multiple times more than all so called American terrorists combined, yet he understands how wrong it is to attempt to take away the constitutional rights of gang members.

On the campaign trail in 2007, Obama said "This is America, we don't detain citizens without a trial", now in 2011, the Obama administration is threatening to veto this legislation - not because of his belief that detaining American citizens without trial is wrong but because it LIMITS HIS AUTHORITY to do so by forcing him to ask for a waiver and set parameters on when and how he can do it.

I fucking hate the people that run this country. I really do.

[Jungle Rat]

[Owlman]

Our government cannot oppress innocent men.............therefore they have to make criminals out of them
(some of this was pointed out by the daily show)

Our government , led by patriots like Lindsey Graham, has decided that the terrorist that we spent billions of dollars fighting over there so we won't fight them here, have indeed landed here and are infiltrating the ranks of American citizens.

They have decided that it is now time to detain American citizens presiding on American soil and keep them without trial until terrorist hostilities against American ends.

Rand Paul and a handful of Senators voted against this measure. Rand pointed out how absurd the definition of terrorist is now. A person missing fingers (Rohm Immanuel), association with radicals or extremists (such as being in the congregation of Reverand Jeremiah Wright) , owning waterproof ammunition or even having more than 7 days worth of food on hand.

Rand was followed by John McCain who mocked him for saying that Rand is for letting terrorists go out and kill again.

Lindsay Graham said that its not like we are targeting American citizens who are in the mafia or gangs, this is Al Qaeda and want to kill Americans and destroy our way of life. No one bothered to point out to him that gangs in America are responsible for thousands of deaths to American civilians, multiple times more than all so called American terrorists combined, yet he understands how wrong it is to attempt to take away the constitutional rights of gang members.

On the campaign trail in 2007, Obama said "This is America, we don't detain citizens without a trial", now in 2011, the Obama administration is threatening to veto this legislation - not because of his belief that detaining American citizens without trial is wrong but because it LIMITS HIS AUTHORITY to do so by forcing him to ask for a waiver and set parameters on when and how he can do it.

I fucking hate the people that run this country. I really do.

It is clearly unconstitutional

[AugustWest]

I thought Crow said Obama would usher in a golden age of peace and prosperity and all the peoples of the world would love us because Obama is president instead of the hated george Bush and that Obama would overturn the patriot act and we would be more free than ever before.

[Bklyn]

Power is a helluva drug and information ultimately will lead to cynicism...oftentimes healthy cynicism.

When you saw it happen to Carcetti, you knew it could happen to anybody.

[Bklyn]

WTF? ANOTHER shooting at Va Tech today...

[Hizzy III]

Same reaction here.