Liberal actress says tea parties were racist

[Facial_King]

Re: It's all over ...

My comment wasn't to be taken as a "nobody here (at FreeOnes) is a potential terrorist" or something like that. My comment was to point out that the government isn't going to be randomly wiretapping Joe Blow, who has absolutely no reason to be wiretapped. They're going to do their research, find out who could provide valuable information and who could be a serious, potential threat to our country, and then wiretap them.

[Warning: I'm at the edge of civility in this post; trying to keep it decent!]
Look at the articles I posted again. I think you're far too trusting of the government line.

My dad works for the Department of Homeland Security. I know a lot more about what really goes on than what you are reading in a newspaper or seeing on the internet.

Oh, please... I can't believe you sank to THAT kind of lame substitute-for-an-argument. Whoa! You automatically WIN any debate over the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, wiretapping, the Constitution, etc. because your dad works for DHS? So you are like some kind of SuperSPYChef with the inside scoop, the low-down? [So, everyone at DHS shares the same politics, same point of view, same understanding of the terrorism situation? Has your dad also told you that We are The Good Guys and We only spy on The Bad Guys, and we only spy on those who are really suspicious and have provided probable cause? (Such as American soldiers making personal calls back to the U.S., who are fighting the "terrorists" in Iraq & Afghanistan, so we don't have to fight them on the Streets of America????)

People are using the argument that it's "unconstitutional" a lot when it comes to this wiretapping issue (and plenty of other issues). Every single person in the United States has a different interpretation of The Constitution. To act as if wiretapping potential threats to our country is unconstitutional or unlawful is all a matter of personal interpretation. There is no place in The Constitution where it says that wiretapping somebody's phone is unlawful, so why is everybody, all of a sudden, becoming an amateur expert in governmental law?

There is also "no place in the Constitution" where it says that selling snuff films over the internet is unlawful, either, so what's your point there? The Constitution is a framework and foundation for law, it's not the U.S. Code itself!

Yes, Chef, everyone has a different interpretation (interesting that you say that, as most law-and-order ("strict constructionist") conservatives deny that it's a document open to interpretation - in other words, it's like the Bible to them - they think there's only one, solid meaning to it, and they know what it is), but some interpretations, because they are based on reason and rationality, are better than others. You gripe that everyone's becoming an amateur expert in governmental law, but you're ready to school us?? (I guess that makes sense, since based on your view of the meaninglessness of credentialing and higher education - combined with your DHS dad - your interpretation of the Constitution on these issues is just as valid as a constitutional lawyer's. Like, say, this guy's:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/14/fisa_101/

And, if the police broke down my door and starting going through my shit, and they had a justifiable reason to be doing so (IE - public safety, national secruity), who the fuck am I to get mad about that? Seriously, who the fuck am I to put personal inconvenience or annoyance in front of the safety of my fellow countrymen on the level of importance? Actually, who the fuck is anybody to do that?

Apparently for you, the only justifiable reason they need is their saying so! So, you wouldn't mind one little bit if they did that and didn't provide a warrant or any documented rationale? Do you actually think that 24 is a documentary???? Not really, they need more than just a say-so - and don't you think they SHOULD need more than that? For fuck's sake, how easy would you want to make it for a real despot to get a stranglehold on things? Again, Chef, where is that hardcore skepticism that you were encouraging everyone to have in other threads?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

That's the problem with a lot of the so-called "patriotic" Americans now-a-days: they want a better America...but, just as long as they don't have to sacrifice anything or be inconvenienced, even in the slightest degree.

First, I don't think protecting the Constitution from being trampled, in letter or spirit, qualifies as a mere "inconvenience" or "annoyance." Secondly, what if Americans define a "better America" as one that unambiguously respects the 4th Amendment to the Constitution?

I also wish you'd answer this question that I asked above:

Originally Posted by ChefChiTown View Post
Our government already has the technology and capability to monitor everything that we're doing. So, why be riled up over wiretaps?

So, are ya saying that we should really be bothered by the whole thing, or do you just not like the focus on the wiretaps??

 

[Facetious]

Janine is as far out there left as Coulter is right.

Those two each need a nice tall glass of chill.

Whatever makes 'em a living I guess. :shrugs:

I bet that at the end of the day these so called right and left wing public figures laugh at us every night as they, together, cling their glasses of Cristal (Champagne) while watching their pre recorded, made for tv talk shows.

 

[bustybbwlover]

here's one of my favorite things about the tea parties: a gallup pole found that 48% of people find that income taxes are about right VS 46% who say they're not right. so the tea party folks are in the minority in the strictest sense of the word (less than 51%) and a smaller percentage than those who are accepting the taxes. oh and that's the highest approval for income taxes found in a gallup poll since 1956.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117433/Views-Income-Taxes-Among-Positive-1956.aspx

 

[Hot Mega]

Janine is as far out there left as Coulter is right.

Those two each need a nice tall glass of chill.

Whatever makes 'em a living I guess. :shrugs:

I bet that at the end of the day these so called right and left wing public figures laugh at us every night as they, together, cling their glasses of Cristal (Champagne) while watching their pre recorded, made for tv talk shows.

They're both "wingers" but they are definitely not of the same stripe. They both believe the hash they believe in but Coultergeist is all about peddling her hash and sees currency in divisiveness. I don't see Garofalo peddling her hash..she isn't trying to hock a book off of every political current affair du jour. Or run around the country confronting her opponents looking to pick a verbal tif of rambling semantics.

If magically the entire US was unified Coultergeist couldn't exist. What would she do? Finally practice law? All she has is her firebrand rhetoric. She was nobody and became somebody by trading on her beliefs

Garofalo exists and is relevant beyond her rhetoric and her currency isn't derived from divisiveness. Garofalo was somebody before she conveyed her beliefs.

JMHO

 

[ChefChiTown]

Re: It's all over ...

Oh, please... I can't believe you sank to THAT kind of lame substitute-for-an-argument.

How is it lame to state that my father works for Homeland Security and that I know more than people who read the newspaper? You honestly think that what you read in the newspaper, see on TV and look at on the internet is even CLOSE to the whole story of what is really going on? Seriously, do you? Because, it's not.

Have you ever been inside of a Federal Building? Have you ever been behind closed doors in a securely guarded government office? Have you ever talked to the people who work for the government, that are responsible for keeping our country safe? Have you ever actually seen what they do on a daily basis, just to keep you safe? Seriously, have you?

I have.

There is a man by the name of Bob Brown, who used to be the Director of Immigration and Naturalization services (which is now DHS). My dad used to work directly under Mr. Brown and I knew him very well. I would spend a lot of time in the Federal Building, here in Cleveland, helping my dad network computers throughout all of the government offices. I knew a lot of other people who worked there as well and have had plenty of conversations about what they do and how they do it. I've actually seen what they do for a living. I've seen what federal agents do in order to keep you and I safe. From talking to, seeing and working around those guys, I know a lot more than what is said in a newspaper.

All you see in the newspaper is how Obama signed a bill that authorizes wiretaps and how people are upset with it. What you don't see is the reality of the situation. The reality that people like you choose to ignore.

I also wish you'd answer this question that I asked above:

Originally Posted by ChefChiTown View Post
Our government already has the technology and capability to monitor everything that we're doing. So, why be riled up over wiretaps?

So, are ya saying that we should really be bothered by the whole thing, or do you just not like the focus on the wiretaps??

You should probably read my posts before responding to them, because I already answered that question.

I just don't like how people cry about everything. Recently (for the past few years), our country has been going through this phase of rebellion. No matter what our government does, right or wrong, the public has this strong dislike of what is going on.

When our banks started tanking, people cried for help. When the government offered help, those same people cried about how the government was getting involved with businesses and their financing. It's just really annoying to live in a country full of people who are never happy. They just complain about everything that happens, even if it's what they've been asking for.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Garafalo is an airhead. If people like her continue to be divisive, then maybe the balkanization of America will happen sooner than later.

 

[Hot Mega]

Garafalo is an airhead. If people like her continue to be divisive, then maybe the balkanization of America will happen sooner than later.

That's news. Garofalo has now cornered the market on divisiveness and wrested it away from blow hards like Coultergeist, Limpbaugh, Han-nutty, O'Really and Glennbeck.

Where was I when this happened?

 

[Member2019]

Not the devil, just a hypocrite who's not keeping his word ...

Wiretapping wasn't initiated by Obama; that was Bush. All of the major changes in Homeland Secruity were also Bush. What Obama is doing is nothing new, yet, people want to criticize Obama and make him out to be the Devil.

No, not the devil. He's just a hypocrite who's not keeping his word.

If Obama was really going to do as he campaigned, I would have voted for him. But I knew he wouldn't. I knew he was lying about the lobbyists, largely because most people are ignorant of who "lobbyists" are (former, experienced industry or government officials in the overwhelming, majority of cases). I knew his shutting down Gitmo would do nothing.

And while I didn't predict this exactly, it goes with the warning I have been making all along. Just as W. used Clinton's Executive Orders, and then expanding them, Obama is continuing W.'s, and expanding them. It never reverses.

Also, the wiretapping bill isn't so the government can spy on Joe Blow. It's a measure of national security. It's not like some government official is going to be tapping into your or my phone, listening in on our conversations about what we watched on TV last night or when we order a pizza.

Actually, under W., the wiretapping was only international communications. Read up.

I'm honestly tired of, "oh, he's going after the 'real bad guys' bullshit" -- out of both the Republicans and now the Democrats. To excuse this in such a way, I'm sorry, it's just more of the same old political bullshit ... It's the "I'll blame your guy, I'll ignore my guy" I'm really tired of seeing out of both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are now starting to "defend" Obama on not only keeping the same policies as W., but expanding them in some ways.

I just gotta say it ... again (now bolded) ... I told you so!

We American Libertarians have been warning about this. It doesn't matter who gets in, the non-sense continues on. And too many people are more than willing to excuse it.

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: Not the devil, just a hypocrite who's not keeping his word ...

I knew he was lying about the lobbyists, largely because most people are ignorant of who "lobbyists" are (former, experienced industry or government officials in the overwhelming, majority of cases).

How can one be lying about something and at the same time be ignorant of it? Wouldn't your ignorance (if that's the case) absolve you from a charge of lying?

Actually, under W., the wiretapping was only international communications. Read up.

That's what was said but there have been numerous violations of the act including the illegal wiretapping of a US Congressman.

I'm honestly tired of, "oh, he's going after the 'real bad guys' bullshit" -- out of both the Republicans and now the Democrats. To excuse this in such a way, I'm sorry, it's just more of the same old political bullshit ... It's the "I'll blame your guy, I'll ignore my guy" I'm really tired of seeing out of both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are now starting to "defend" Obama on not only keeping the same policies as W., but expanding them in some ways.

Obama hasn't expanded anything with respect to wiretapping law. He's just not going to prosecute pee-ons who were following orders...and he's right not to. Some are mistakenly suggestion that amounts to expanding it. They're wrong IMO.

We American Libertarians have been warning about this. It doesn't matter who gets in, the non-sense continues on. And too many people are more than willing to excuse it.

Well, I'm a Libertarian and I had a problem with it from day one and still do no matter who's president. But I suspect many on the "right" are engaging in more situational ethics. They have a problem with privacy violations but under Bush the mantra was, "If you don't have anything to hide you shouldn't care if they're listening to you"....:wave2:

 

[Member2019]

Re: Not the devil, just a hypocrite who's not keeping his word ...

Well, I'm a Libertarian and I had a problem with it from day one and still do no matter who's president. But I suspect many on the "right" are engaging in more situational ethics. They have a problem with privacy violations but under Bush the mantra was, "If you don't have anything to hide you shouldn't care if they're listening to you"....:wave2:

And that's changing under Obama? Again, what I'm seeing is really sad. Especially the commentary that goes against the 10th Amendment.

Oops! Did I suggest the 10th Amendment again? I guess I'm a "radical" now, as well as a "racist." Because "racists" used the 10th Amendment in the 1860s and again in the 1960s, I guess I'm a danger to the US federal government.

Sigh.

 

[sporty_carr]

here's one of my favorite things about the tea parties: a gallup pole found that 48% of people find that income taxes are about right VS 46% who say they're not right. so the tea party folks are in the minority in the strictest sense of the word (less than 51%) and a smaller percentage than those who are accepting the taxes. oh and that's the highest approval for income taxes found in a gallup poll since 1956.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117433/Views-Income-Taxes-Among-Positive-1956.aspx

So I take it you're one of the 48%? Well, I guess since you feel you're not paying enough taxes yet, would you mind paying mine as well? I like having more money in my pocket

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: Not the devil, just a hypocrite who's not keeping his word ...

And that's changing under Obama? Again, what I'm seeing is really sad. Especially the commentary that goes against the 10th Amendment.

Oops! Did I suggest the 10th Amendment again? I guess I'm a "radical" now, as well as a "racist." Because "racists" used the 10th Amendment in the 1860s and again in the 1960s, I guess I'm a danger to the US federal government.

Sigh.

Can't we wait and see?

 

[bustybbwlover]

So I take it you're one of the 48%? Well, I guess since you feel you're not paying enough taxes yet, would you mind paying mine as well? I like having more money in my pocket

the fact is the government is going to take my money heedless of how i 'feel' about it (by the by i feel that it's a meaningless illusion). however, i agree more with spending my money upon our social programs, then upon our war machine. now i'd spend a lot more on the people than upon the corporations but no politician ever does what one individual wants. anyway i voted for clemente/mckinney and i knew they'd lose. nonetheless i'd rather 'waste my vote' upon people i believe in

 

[Facial_King]

Re: Not the devil, just a hypocrite who's not keeping his word ...

I'm honestly tired of, "oh, he's going after the 'real bad guys' bullshit" -- out of both the Republicans and now the Democrats. To excuse this in such a way, I'm sorry, it's just more of the same old political bullshit ... It's the "I'll blame your guy, I'll ignore my guy" I'm really tired of seeing out of both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are now starting to "defend" Obama on not only keeping the same policies as W., but expanding them in some ways.

I just gotta say it ... again (now bolded) ... I told you so!

We American Libertarians have been warning about this. It doesn't matter who gets in, the non-sense continues on. And too many people are more than willing to excuse it.

Don't include me in THAT group. I'm with the group of progressives that are more than happy to critique Obama's various sell-outs and letdowns to the people who voted for him, such as the example set by Glenn Greenwald, for starters...

A LOT of progressive Dems and unaffiliated progressives (such as myself) are doing that.

 

[busenbust]

Racist?? Tea Parties?? :rofl:

 

[doclocke]

Re: It's all over ...

How is it lame to state that my father works for Homeland Security and that I know more than people who read the newspaper? You honestly think that what you read in the newspaper, see on TV and look at on the internet is even CLOSE to the whole story of what is really going on? Seriously, do you? Because, it's not.

Have you ever been inside of a Federal Building? Have you ever been behind closed doors in a securely guarded government office? Have you ever talked to the people who work for the government, that are responsible for keeping our country safe? Have you ever actually seen what they do on a daily basis, just to keep you safe? Seriously, have you?

I have.

There is a man by the name of Bob Brown, who used to be the Director of Immigration and Naturalization services (which is now DHS). My dad used to work directly under Mr. Brown and I knew him very well. I would spend a lot of time in the Federal Building, here in Cleveland, helping my dad network computers throughout all of the government offices. I knew a lot of other people who worked there as well and have had plenty of conversations about what they do and how they do it. I've actually seen what they do for a living. I've seen what federal agents do in order to keep you and I safe. From talking to, seeing and working around those guys, I know a lot more than what is said in a newspaper.

All you see in the newspaper is how Obama signed a bill that authorizes wiretaps and how people are upset with it. What you don't see is the reality of the situation. The reality that people like you choose to ignore.



You should probably read my posts before responding to them, because I already answered that question.

Wow, this is pretty much completely unverifiable.
Stupid question about this line: "What you don't see is the reality of the situation. The reality that people like you choose to ignore." Given the context of your whole post, that you know more about this reality than we do because you have seen things not published in the newspapers--well, um, how can one choose to ignore something that has been hidden from one?

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: Not the devil, just a hypocrite who's not keeping his word ...

And that's changing under Obama? Again, what I'm seeing is really sad.

Sigh.

The difference between you and me is I guess, I don't expect a president to complete his entire agenda after 3 months on the job. Especially when much of what he must deal with immediately are crisis situations held over from his predecessor.

But again, we'll see if crow is served or not and to whom.

 

[Red Spyder]

Damn, all this talk about wiretaps, surveillance, etc, etc is making me want to dust out the old tinfoil hat.....

 

[don_equis]

Damn, all this talk about wiretaps, surveillance, etc, etc is making me want to dust out the old tinfoil hat.....

Shit I am about to do like "Signs".


She is weird and it sucks that she is calling me (non partisan, big goverment hater) a racist...I wish I could summon my indian/african ancestors.

 

[Facial_King]

Re: It's all over ...

Wow, this is pretty much completely unverifiable.
Stupid question about this line: "What you don't see is the reality of the situation. The reality that people like you choose to ignore." Given the context of your whole post, that you know more about this reality than we do because you have seen things not published in the newspapers--well, um, how can one choose to ignore something that has been hidden from one?

Yeah, that's an interesting point. I was going to go through the various problems with his entire post, but I can't even decide where to begin.

I guess we should just relax and trust the watchers and let them do their secret work, no oversight necessary. If we've done nothing wrong, we've nothing to fear, blah, blah, blah, etc....

ukey: