And? Some revolutions aren't violent....
Posted By: sam on 2008-10-09
In Reply to: well you mentioned those countries - Joe sixpack
remember the old take them over without firing a shot?
If you were really concerned, whch you obviously aren't...you can do the research and see what happens to socialist countries...they evolve into dictatorships and/or communism, and the middle class disappears...money at the very top, and that's it. The middle class and the lower class become the same. Yeah I know you think it can't happen here. I don't imagine the countries where it has happened thought it could happen there either.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Not defending violent protesters, but for the 10,000 others
nm
Hannity's violent revolution..(sm)
This is what's on Hannity's webpage.
http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/02/hannitys-america-what-kind-of.html
Isn't this something like....oh.....maybe inciting treason or something?
Gee, the only violent hate groups I see around here
@@
Murdering near-term babies isn't violent?
nm
Report: 50% rise in violent hate groups
Southern Poverty Law Center: 50% rise in violent hate groups
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Wednesday April 15, 2009
|
A new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which tracks the activities of violent hate groups in the United States, has found an alarming rise in the number of such groups, from 602 in 2000 to 926 in 2008.
This comes on the heels of a controversial report on "violent extremism" from the Department of Homeland Security, which has outraged many conservatives by seeming to lump them in with extremists.
Morris Dees, the founder of the SPLC, told CBS's Harry Smith on Wednesday that he believes the two reports do "synch up pretty much" and that "the report from the Department of Homeland Security should be taken very seriously."
However, the SPLC's own report focuses very narrowly on groups which actively preach violence, including neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the "racist skinhead subculture." It also notes the surprising rise of "anti-Semitic black separatists calling for death to Jews on bustling street corners in several East Coast cities."
"A key 2008 hate group trend was the increasing militancy of the extremist fringe of the Hebrew Israelite movement," the report states, "whose adherents believe that Jews are creatures of the devil and that whites deserve death or slavery. These radical black supremacists have no love for Barack Obama, calling him a 'house nigger' and a puppet of Israel. They preach to inner-city blacks that evil Jews are solely responsible for the recession."
Dees told Smith, "The political climate, the election of Obama, the immigration issues ... and now, especially, the economy is almost causing a resurgence of what we saw in the days of Timothy McVeigh, almost a militia movement that's being reborn. ... I think that an American person is much more likely to be harmed by a domestic terrorist extremist group than by one from abroad."
Dees also emphasized that many extremist groups are recruiting Iraq veterans and even active-duty members of the military because of their expertise with arms and explosives. "It's a serious issue," he stated, "especially with a lot of these guys coming back with post-traumatic stress syndrome, coming back to a failing economy, the inability to buy a home and get a job and get credit."
This video is from CBS's The Early Show, broadcast Apr. 15, 2009.
Video at: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_50_rise_0415.html
Yeah, 'cause this sounds pretty violent to me
The Quran says, "Surely those who have faith (in Islam) and the Jews and the Christians and the Sabaeans - whoever believes in God and the Last Day - their reward is with their Lord and they will neither fear nor grieve" (Quran 2:62 and 5:69).
We KILL violent criminals; apparently some think unborn children are the
criminals as they are murdered as well.
Sad.
So Christians aren't supposed to political? Or we aren't supposed to let our morality, faith
our conscience guide us politically?
I'm sorry, that is a separation I cannot make. My faith and religious convictions are part of the whole person that I am. I vote my conscience. I want political leaders who reflect my morality. I also happen to believe there are many Christians out there like me. There is no "separation" of church and state for me, which by the way was a concept (nowhere specifically mentioned in the constitution) meant to protect the church from the government more so than the government from the church.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that commercial. There are condom commercials, "personal" lubricant commercials, and penis and sexual performance enhancing commercials -- why would anyone be offended by a pro-life commercial? The fact that anyone would be offended is a testament to just how twisted society has become!
Probably because there aren't
nearly as many of them. And I noticed the tally keeper yesterday was only tallying those posts she wanted to count. Sound like politics?
As for rabid, thanks for the enlightenment but the definition I prefer is 1 a: extremely violent : furious b: going to extreme lengths in expressing or pursuing a feeling, interest, or opinion <rabid editorials> <a rabid supporter>
CERTAINLY NOT:
2: affected with rabies
Well, though, I would hope none of the "rabid" Republicans (or Democrats) are "affected with rabies" but hey, maybe that's something to ponder. After all, rabies does affect the brain. LOL
aren't
YOU special . . .
They aren't done yet. This is just day 1 of
cutting the pork. Let's wait and see what they will do by Friday.
My calculator doesn't go that high for adding up the pork they want to cut, but I think it's more than 2%.
I will take a wait-and-see attitude with my finger on the "favorites" key to renounce them if they don't cut all the pork out.
no, they aren't.
I hate this discussion. Do you actually know any gay people? I doubt it or you would not think that way. Most people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are just trying to go about their business and live their own lives. There are always people making a big issue of something or another, whether gay or straight, and the gay population does not do so anymore than any other group. As is always the case, only those making an issue get the attention thus painting a whole population. If everyone would just keep their nose out of everyone else's business we would all be better off. Truly, another person's lifestyle is no one else's business unless it infringes on the rights of others.
Since we obviously aren't going to be able to have..(sm)
any meaningful conversation today, how about this? Keep in mind he was one of the main ones going after Clinton for having an affair. Hmmmm....
Top Republican resigns leadership post over affair
1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Republican US Senator John Ensign has resigned his Senate leadership post one day after admitting to an extra-marital affair, the chamber's top Republican said in a statement Wednesday.
"He's accepted responsibility for his actions and apologized to his family and constituents. He offered, and I accepted, his resignation as chairman of the Policy Committee," said Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
The post is the fourth-ranking leadership position among Senate Republicans.
Ensign, a rising star of the Republican Party regarded as a possible contender in the 2012 presidential election, admitted to the affair at a news conference Tuesday in his home state of Nevada.
Ensign, 51, a staunch conservative with a record of strong family-values stances, vowed to remain in office after describing the affair as "absolutely the worst thing I've ever done in my life."
Nope we aren't
you can believe that but it just ain't so...
You aren't serious, surely. SM
This is the man who told the biggest lie of all time, i.e., the lie that launched the Vietnam War. HIs presidency was filled with graft and collusion. You can't be serious!
We aren't going to be THAT lucky.
Ignorance is, for whatever reason, simply not knowing something.
Like not knowing how the Downing Street memos have made your leader out to be a liar.
Like not knowing the history of our relationship to Iraq so you can make a coherent judgment about what is going on there now, and why.
Like not knowing that Bush tax cuts and budget deficits are strangling and endangering the country even worse than Reagan had a chance to do.
You know, stuff like that. Now there is plain and simple ignorance, where people just aren't exposed to the facts and so just don't know about them. Then there is also totally willful ignorance where people have every opportunity to see and understand the facts but simply refuse to do so. That's real ignorance of the kind you were probably referring to.
Going under fast, aren't they.
Starting to sound a mite peeved:) Look, person - we KNOW some people support this screw-up of a profiteering war. Like you. What don't you get about that? WE KNOW.
Now, tell us YOU KNOW that just as many - to judge by the 300,000 versus the 300, ONE HUNDRED times as many DO NOT support this mess any longer.
Why do you seem to feel that people who agree with you are somehow PROOF that yours is the only way to think? What are you going to do about the REST of those who do not believe what you do? What are you going to do when soldiers are speaking 100,000 to 1 against the war? You better think about it, because it's shaping up that way.
But you're asking for it, aren't you?
How many other boards do you go on and play devil's advocate? Do you go on the Christianity board and give the atheist's point of view? Do you go in the smoker's sections and preach quitting? Do you go to bars and brag that you're a teetotaler? How popular do you expect to be when you go to where people are happily doing their thing and start messing with them? You're mainly here to make trouble, IMHO. So when some of it comes back on you, stop whining!
Aren't you the one who WANTS states
I don't mean for that to sound rude, just an honest question. I seem to remember you saying you wanted more power to go to individual states, so do you agree with the states having control in this case? I appreciate the information and will check it out. I already know my state's income eligibility requirements and will post them below if anyone is curious. I found them at mt.gov.
For Montana:
2007 CHIP Income Chart
Effective July 1, 2007
*Annual Adjusted Gross Income (before taxes) |
Household Size
(Children and Adults) |
Household Income |
Family of 2 |
$23,958 |
Family of 3 |
$30,048 |
Family of 4 |
$36,138 |
Family of 5 |
$42,228 |
Family of 6 |
$48,318 |
Family of 7 |
$54,408 |
Family of 8 |
$60,498 |
Some employment-related and child care deductions apply.
These guidelines are effective July 1, 2007.
Income guidelines may increase in 2008.
* If a child qualifies for Medicaid, health insurance will be provided by Medicaid. |
Well aren't you just special then.
xx
Well, since she didn't and you aren't....
what is the point of this post other than looking down your nose and making moral judgments?
Your aren't running for VP and won't be
McCain camp made such as issue about Obama's lack of foreign travel, boasting about how many times he had been overseas to visit the troops, and claiming that made him a more viable foreign policy candidate. He openly challenged Obama to make his trip overseas, gleefully hoping that Obama would end up looking like a rookie. Obama responded in kind, met with world leaders, garnered open support from Iraq's president and turned out 250,000 Berliners for his speech. Not too shabby for a rookie. So, if there was so much flap over Obama's not having been overseas and how that made him inexperienced, what does it say about his VP pick, who applied for a passport last year? McCain can't have it both ways. This issue is being raised to point out McCain double standards.
You aren't too bright, are you?
No message
Are you sure you aren't talking about
Barrack Obama.....uh....and....uh...his....uh....ability...uh....to pause.....uh....because that....uh....teleprompter....uh....isn't telling...uh....him what to....uh....say. You cut SP down for issues that can be said of Barry Obama. The biggest difference is that Obama is running for president. SP is running for VP.
And your precious ones aren't, am I right?
nm
Ah, duh.........those aren't the news ones yet!!
xx
Aren't you supposed to be
working right now for the worst Transcriptionist company in the world, MQ/Cbay? Get back to work and spare us your opinion.
Aren't you lucky? PA Not only do we have
both candidates run a commercial every break, but also local politicians bombarding the airways.
I live in a county that receives TV from 4 different legislative districts and it's absolutely sickening. 
If you aren't going to bother
to look for the information to back that up then why bother bringing it up?
And I appreciate the fact that you aren't
I am also voting for McCain for all the reasons already stated. I have to admit I was undecided at the very beginning. Obama is obviously very intelligent and an eloquent speaker, but it's the stuff that started coming out of his mouth that disturbed me, especially share the wealth. Also his past associations scare me. And I hope people are paying attention.
(I jokingly tell me kids to watch who they hang out with now in case they ever decide to run for office, but it's the truth...it can definitely come back to haunt you!)
I am shocking aren't I?? LOL s/m
Thank you for your voice of reason! That's what I've been trying to say. We need to make our voices heard. I for one think the Constitution has done just fine the way it is and I intend to keep making my voice heard. I daresay that the idjits in Washington, whoever reads them, groans when they see my email and I'm on a first name basis with both our Senator and Representative and I imagine they don't like me much since I never agree with what they do, 1 Republican, 1 Democrat!!!!!!
Those of us that aren't black could
never understand in a million years what this election to means to many black people. Just 40 years ago, they could not even vote. Obama never referred to himself as being akin to MLK -- that tag was put on him by others as a standard for the few black people in our society that have been held up as examples of what any human being can accomplish if given the opportunity. I ask you, if you or your ancestors (blacks, Jews, etc.) had been held in slavery for hundreds or thousand of years, being treated as non-humans, would you not consider it a victory to finally be recognized as an equal? Get over your self-righteous indignation and accept it for what it is -- a progressive step forward long overdue.
They aren't dems now, that is for sure nm
nm
Well, aren't you pleasant?!
NM
Well, looks like the automakers aren't
going to get their bailout. It's on Meet the Press. They say "let 'em file bankruptcy." Michigan Senator Levin is fighting for it. "GM now produces more models getting 30 mpg than any other car maker. Things have changed if only people would recognize it. No other country would allow their car industry to die."
They want top management to go. GM top manager says he will not resign.
Senator Shelby is totally against it. He thinks it's a waste of taxpayer money and just postponing the inevitable.
$200 billion in lost taxes according to Senator Levin.
A banrkupcy filing could cost the economy $175 billion in the FIRST year and bankrupcies could take years to unravel, according to a reporter in one of the newspapers (couldn't catch the name).
See Thomas Friedman article on Wednesday in the NY Times for more on not bailing them out.
They aren't going to set them free here.
They are going to be asking, "you want fries with that" the next time you cruise through the drive-thru. For crying out loud.
Yes, I think that they should close Gitmo and move the prisoners to U.S. soil. They are our prisoners after all. Then they should all get FAIR trials instead of rigged hearings. There is a federal penitentiary in my state. I would have no problem with them being relocated here.
I guess you are going to freak out when the prisoners found either not guilty or found innocent come here to live because they will not be allowed back in their native country or the country they were living in at the time of their capture. Maybe they will be asking if you want fries after all.
They aren't saying questioning
Obama because if things fail, they will still blame Bush. That is their plan. If they totally screw this country up worse than it already is, they will say that this was all unavoidable because of the stupid stuff Bush did. They will not take responsibility for anything. That is why we still have crooks like Nancy Pelosi in office and Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc. We have crooks like Geithner running the IRS now. Obama's own aunt is here illegally. There are different sets of rules for politicians obviously and even more so when it comes to dems and pubs. The dems ridicule Bush and turn around and so something ignorant and still blame it on Bush.
Why aren't you complaining that...
...we are spending 10 BILLION DOLLARS a MONTH for a fake war in Iraq?
Why aren't you complaining that Bush gave his "hungover" buddies on Wall Street a few hundred billion to play with, without any accountability whatsoever (and Wall Street is still whining for more)?
Aren't you sweet.
Did Liberals Cause the Sub-Prime Crisis?
Conservatives blame the housing crisis on a 1977 law that helps-low income people get mortgages. It's a useful story for them, but it isn't true.
Robert Gordon | April 7, 2008 | web only
The idea started on the outer precincts of the right. Thomas DiLorenzo, an economist who calls Ron Paul "the Jefferson of our time," wrote in September that the housing crisis is "the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers." The policy DiLorenzo decries is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to lend throughout the communities they serve.
The Blame-CRA theme bounced around the right-wing Freerepublic.com. In January it figured in a Washington Times column. In February, a Cato Institute affiliate named Stan Liebowitz picked up the critique in a New York Post op-ed headlined "The Real Scandal: How the Feds Invented the Mortgage Mess." On The National Review's blog, The Corner, John Derbyshire channeled Liebowitz: "The folk losing their homes? are victims not of 'predatory lenders,' but of government-sponsored -- in fact government-mandated -- political correctness."
Last week, a more careful expression of the idea hit The Washington Post, in an article on former Sen. Phil Gramm's influence over John McCain. While two progressive economists were quoted criticizing Gramm's insistent opposition to government regulation, the Brookings Institution's Robert Litan offered an opposing perspective. Litan suggested that the 1990s enhancement of CRA, which was achieved over Gramm's fierce opposition, may have contributed to the current crisis. "If the CRA had not been so aggressively pushed," Litan said, "it is conceivable things would not be quite as bad. People have to be honest about that."
This is classic rhetoric of conservative reaction. (For fans of welfare policy, it is Charles Murray meets the mortgage mess.) Most analysts see the sub-prime crisis as a market failure. Believing the bubble would never pop, lenders approved risky adjustable-rate mortgages, often without considering whether borrowers could afford them; families took on those loans; investors bought them in securitized form; and, all the while, regulators sat on their hands.
The revisionists say the problem wasn't too little regulation; but too much, via CRA. The law was enacted in response to both intentional redlining and structural barriers to credit for low-income communities. CRA applies only to banks and thrifts that are federally insured; it's conceived as a quid pro quo for that privilege, among others. This means the law doesn't apply to independent mortgage companies (or payday lenders, check-cashers, etc.)
The law imposes on the covered depositories an affirmative duty to lend throughout the areas from which they take deposits, including poor neighborhoods. The law has teeth because regulators' ratings of banks' CRA performance become public and inform important decisions, notably merger approvals. Studies by the Federal Reserve and Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies, among others, have shown that CRA increased lending and homeownership in poor communities without undermining banks' profitability.
But CRA has always had critics, and they now suggest that the law went too far in encouraging banks to lend in struggling communities. Rhetoric aside, the argument turns on a simple question: In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?
The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later. In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation's Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard's Joint Center), that activity "largely came to an end by 2001." In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened.
Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.
Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."
Yellen is hardly alone in concluding that the real problems came from the institutions beyond the reach of CRA. One of the only regulators who long ago saw the current crisis coming was the late Ned Gramlich, a former Fed governor. While Alan Greenspan was cheering the sub-prime boom, Gramlich warned of its risks and unsuccessfully pushed for greater supervision of bank affiliates. But Gramlich praised CRA, saying last year, "banks have made many low- and moderate-income mortgages to fulfill their CRA obligations, they have found default rates pleasantly low, and they generally charge low mortgages rates. Thirty years later, CRA has become very good business."
It's telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That's because CRA didn't bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator. Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did.
And that is not political correctness. It is correctness.
A little touchy, aren't we?
I never said anything about Christianity. All I did was provide the definition of a cult. However, if the shoe fits, wear it!
Hypocritical, aren't you? Because you would
nm
Touchy, aren't we.....LOL (sm)
I do plenty of reading, thank you very much. However, at this point scientific reports supporting or not supporting the idea of global warming are a dime a dozen. And why is that? Exactly why do we not have as you would say one definitive voice either giving validity to or negating claims of the human footprint? Perhaps this topic hasn't had the funding lately (I'd say for about the last 8 years) that it deserves? And why is that? Because there's still money to be made in oil.
The one thing you can't deny is the fact that the earth's temperature is rising. We can dispute the impact that humans have had on the rate of this warming, but that doesn't change the fact that it is warming. Assuming you have done your share of reading as well, you should know that the polar ice caps are at this moment melting and sea levels are rising. Yes, they've been doing this for a long time, but now the effect is exponential. Hmmm....wonder what happened there...
So, regardless of how global warming came about (which is the true argument), why wouldn't we want to try to do something about it?
Tell me, what do you think will happen when the ice caps are gone? (And yes, they are definitely melting....look it up.) What do you think will happen when the CO2 buildup gets to the point of suffocation? (Yep, that's been documented as well.) Or maybe that's just not important to you. Maybe God will just appear and it will all go away? Or maybe you pray to a different god....perhaps the one that lives in your wallet?
The society that does not explore progressive thinking is the society that is oblivious to the dangers ahead.
So why aren't you protesting...(sm)
cap and trade instead of taxes? It sounds to me like you're a little confused. BTW, Obama has already recognized potential problems with cap and trade and has stated they will do something to offset those costs.
You are really sucked into that lie aren't you?
xx
A little sensitive, aren't you?
How is pointing out other things that are noted in the bible suddenly taking a dig at Christianity? You have no idea of my belief system, but apparently when you don't have a good response to a valid point, the debate tactic of choice is to cast aspersions upon the character of the other debater.
For the record, the aunt I mentioned was my father's brother's wife. Per the bible, my father should have married her.
Again, I ask, why should you be determined the arbitrer of normal? 100 years ago, the idea of women having any function outside the home was abnormal, a belief in part supported by the bible. 40 years ago, the mixing of races was viewed as abnormal, a belief supported in part by the bible.
Does 'natural' define normal? Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. Monogamy is seen much less in the 'natural order' of things...does that therefore make the notion of a lifetime union of 2 people abnormal? What does that do the whole concept of marriage?
'Normal' is an individual concept, and for almost everything that is defined is normal, there is a range that is still normal. Normal body temperature is 98.6, but there is a range around that which is still considered normal. Normal age for starting 1st grade is 6, but there is still a range around that which is still considered normal.
And frankly, I believe nestled somewhere in the bible which you seem to believe you should be ruled by, it says 'judge not lest you be judged', so slinging petty digs/insults, seems to be violating one of the tenets you claim to hold so dear.
You really are clueless aren't you?
There is a word for rising up against your government and our founding fathers made sure the CITIZENS of this country, who OWN their government, had in place a constitution which actually ALLOWED us to rise up and speak AGAINST our government if EVER we felt our government was out of control.
That's why the 'right to bear arms' was put in there or did you overlook that too?
You are so diluded in your thinking that you actually BELIEVE no one is supposed to speak out against their government. Do you know WHY our founding fathers wanted to make sure Americans had firearms? To stand up and resist a tyranical government when it is out of control.
You better be glad somebody cares enough for your backside that they still understand what your rights are, cause you SURE DON'T!
You have no problem with anyone speaking against our government; you have a problem with someone speaking against THIS president, cause he is black and you can't stand it! If you do nothing else, be honest about that at least.... it's so obvious!
They aren't teaching
Peter how to kiss Paul. They are, however, trying to reinforce to our children that if Peter kisses Paul, it's acceptable. We will continue to teach them that it's not. We do not teach our kids to bash others who are different but to bash the bad behaviors that others engage in. The homosexual community's doublespeak isn't going to work.
You aren't a republican NOW...(sm)
because right now it happens to suck to be a republican. I don't think treason is the word though....I think the word you guys used was unpatriotic.
Give it up, B. They aren't listening. NM
You aren't aware of what compassion is.
It includes responding IMMEDIATELY to those in need. It includes a leader who makes RESPONSIBLE appointments to vital public posts (not lazy college drinking buddies who used to run horse associations). How carelessly you toss out accusations of taking political advantage while the leader you support carefully selects two black victims to hug on camera (the prettier the better)far from the stark reality of the war zone he helped create a few miles away. Or, stand in an airplane hangar trying desperately to smother his yawns while fauning public officials brief him on camera and tell him how well things are going, while badly needed helicopters are sitting uselessly behind him for impressive props. Political advantage? - Bush a la Rove has NEVER missed a single opportunity to take political advantage in every way possible, up to and including the death of every 9/11 victim, despite the fact that the victims' families are in no way satisfied with his bogus hand-picked impartial commission's findings. Please! You're just bitter because nobody likes your man anymore. The fact that he has royally screwed up not just this time but ALL ALONG is his fault, not ours. We're just pointing it out.
You aren't doing that though. So that makes you a liar. nm
|
