This is but one of the tired, over-used and ridiculous arguments liberals use on a daily basis. "Republicans are taking my civil rights away! We live in a police state! Bush is Hitler! More importantly, ALL Republicans are facists!"
Are these not fascist tactics?
Quote:
Democrats objected when the panel's acerbic chairman, Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), brought up a 90-page substitute measure that had been released shortly before midnight the night before. Democrats said they needed more time to read it. Thomas disagreed.
In response, Democrats objected to a normally perfunctory motion to dispense with the reading of the dense legislation. A clerk obligingly began reading it line by line, pausing only when Thomas interrupted to announce: "In the House, the minority can delay. They cannot deny."
As the reading resumed, the Democrats departed to a library just off the main hearing room, leaving only Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-Calif.) to prevent the Republicans from obtaining unanimous consent to skip the reading. After a few minutes, Thomas asked again for the unanimous consent, and instantly brought down his gavel. Stark told reporters he had objected, but Thomas had replied, "You're too late."
Pretend for a minute that the Republican party isn't doing this. Do you really want bills introduced at midnight and committees voting on them before they can be read? Do you really want committee chairmen asking for votes and 'bringing down the gavel' before those in the committee can respond and thus, turning a group vote into a one man vote?
1. often Fascist An advocate or adherent of fascism.
2. A reactionary or dictatorial person.
So you are a fascist then. You certainly fit the reactionary part. These are not fascist tactics. But they are tactics. As he said, look it up, this is what the Republicans had to deal with when Dems were in power.
Not they are not. I might suggest you buy a dictionary and a history book.
Democrats did the exact same things when they had control.
Exactly. This is about one thing: Power. The Democrats don't have it and they are besides themselves with anger because of it. The Republicans don not have to consult with the Democrats, just as the President does not have to form a bipartisan committee to make appointments.
Fact check: BR called someone polarized. [pinch]. Yep, still awake. Damn.
Excuse me. I hate both democrats and republicans. I'll get my shots in on both of them. Fact check: SDW once again spoke about something of which he knows nothing about. [pinch]. Yep, still awake. Oh wait, there's no surprise there.
Exactly. This is about one thing: Power. The Democrats don't have it and they are besides themselves with anger because of it. The Republicans don not have to consult with the Democrats, just as the President does not have to form a bipartisan committee to make appointments.
And no, they are not fascist tactics.
So you support the tyranny of the ever so slight majority?
Why can't you idiots stop using these loaded terms like "fascist" or "hitleresque" or "nazi" or "scott"? It would stop a lot of problems from escalating if you would stop using purposefully provocative language and spoke to eachother like the adults you supposedly are. In other words, grow the **** up.
How would you describe the act of calling for a vote while simultaneously ending it by 'dropping the gavel' just so the opposition couldn't vote?
That's what was reported, but is that really true? The Democrats ran to the media ASAP on this one.
As for the rule of the slim majority, that's life. Congress was Demcoratic for 40 years. Now it's not. This is no different than the Senate refusing to confirm Bush's nominees on purely poltical grounds. No different at all.
The level of hysterics here never ceases to amaze me.
Referring to my place of employment, a dear friend; a learned, aged, and now retired technowizard once told me: 'You can't buy entertainment like this." The same can certainly be said about this forum and some of it's Umbridge-esque * visitors.
Kayla sleeping well? Are you or Mrs. SDW2001? My three kids tested the wife and I for about six weeks each until their stomachs were large enough to hold a full night's charge of milk.
Think of this period as SEAL training: a time of worthy challenge to be enthusiastically met that leads to a great reward: in this case, a child who sleeps soundly through the night. A child whom you will look in upon as she sleeps in her bassinet and wonder and delight that you helped to create her.
V/R,
Aries 1B
Indianapolis
*Umbridge-esque : Referring to or like Dolores Umbridge, High Inquisitor of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
Question from a curious Canadian: Do liberals in the US feel scared? I think that I might. I remember being shocked a few years ago when I realized that "liberal" in the U.S. had become a very, very dirty word, indicating something only slightly less despicable than, say, a murderer. Meanwhile, here in Canada, the party in charge for much of the last century has been the "Liberal" party. Liberal by name, liberal by nature.
Question from a curious Canadian: Do liberals in the US feel scared? I think that I might. I remember being shocked a few years ago when I realized that "liberal" in the U.S. had become a very, very dirty word, indicating something only slightly less despicable than, say, a murderer. Meanwhile, here in Canada, the party in charge for much of the last century has been the "Liberal" party. Liberal by name, liberal by nature.
"Liberal" here in the United States has come to mean something terrifying (by way of the actions and stated desires of those calling themselves "Liberal" ). For details, see Ann Coulter's book, Treason:
Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism
Classical, Jeffersonian Liberals were on the side of individual rights, Capitalism and the United States of America. Modern Liberals are not.
They expect you to sit back quietly while they're taxing you to death. If you elect a party other than theirs into office in order to roll back taxes, they will go nuts.
They are masters of intimidation.
Blood forbid that you should call the Sargent At Arms in the House of Representatives to maintain order and decorum when one of Their Kind physically threatens one of Your Kind while at the same time calling them a "...Fruitcake!". Your attempt to uphold the standards of conduct of the United States House of Representatives and to prevent an act of battery will cause you to be accused by them of trying to establish a police state and to trample their rights (a claim to a right to beat up whomsoever they please?). Seems to me that a political party from somewhere in history used ("We're victims!") tactics like that in order to gain power... some time in the late twenties/early thirties... somewhere between France (Ha! France!) and Poland....
One of the Liberal's Leaders, a broom-rider named Pelosi, may well be insane. I am lead to this conclusion only after listening to her speaking to the House of Representatives.
You said, ""liberal" in the U.S. had become a very, very dirty word,". This is because, I think, that more and more Americans are seeing that today's desperate-for-power Liberals are fighting very, very dirtily indeed.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
This is but one of the tired, over-used and ridiculous arguments liberals use on a daily basis. "Republicans are taking my civil rights away! We live in a police state! Bush is Hitler! More importantly, ALL Republicans are facists!"
Are these not fascist tactics?
Democrats objected when the panel's acerbic chairman, Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), brought up a 90-page substitute measure that had been released shortly before midnight the night before. Democrats said they needed more time to read it. Thomas disagreed.
In response, Democrats objected to a normally perfunctory motion to dispense with the reading of the dense legislation. A clerk obligingly began reading it line by line, pausing only when Thomas interrupted to announce: "In the House, the minority can delay. They cannot deny."
As the reading resumed, the Democrats departed to a library just off the main hearing room, leaving only Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-Calif.) to prevent the Republicans from obtaining unanimous consent to skip the reading. After a few minutes, Thomas asked again for the unanimous consent, and instantly brought down his gavel. Stark told reporters he had objected, but Thomas had replied, "You're too late."
Pretend for a minute that the Republican party isn't doing this. Do you really want bills introduced at midnight and committees voting on them before they can be read? Do you really want committee chairmen asking for votes and 'bringing down the gavel' before those in the committee can respond and thus, turning a group vote into a one man vote?
Originally posted by bunge
Are these not fascist tactics?
...
Not they are not. I might suggest you buy a dictionary and a history book.
Democrats did the exact same things when they had control.
Originally posted by Scott
Not they are not. I might suggest you buy a dictionary and a history book.
fas·cist __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(fshst) n.
1. often Fascist An advocate or adherent of fascism.
2. A reactionary or dictatorial person.
Originally posted by bunge
fas·cist __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(fshst) n.
1. often Fascist An advocate or adherent of fascism.
2. A reactionary or dictatorial person.
So you are a fascist then. You certainly fit the reactionary part.
Originally posted by Scott
Not they are not. I might suggest you buy a dictionary and a history book.
Democrats did the exact same things when they had control.
Exactly. This is about one thing: Power. The Democrats don't have it and they are besides themselves with anger because of it. The Republicans don not have to consult with the Democrats, just as the President does not have to form a bipartisan committee to make appointments.
And no, they are not fascist tactics.
Pretend for a minute that the Republican party isn't doing this.
Pretend for a minute that the Democratic party is not an utter disaster right now.
Originally posted by NoahJ
So you are a fascist then. You certainly fit the reactionary part.
Caught RED handed!
Originally posted by NoahJ
These are not fascist tactics. But they are tactics. As he said, look it up, this is what the Republicans had to deal with when Dems were in power.
"They did it first" doesn't fly with me. If it's wrong, it's wrong. It is fascist enough for my tastes.
Originally posted by SDW2001
:
Fact check: BR called someone polarized. [pinch]. Yep, still awake. Damn.
Excuse me. I hate both democrats and republicans. I'll get my shots in on both of them. Fact check: SDW once again spoke about something of which he knows nothing about. [pinch]. Yep, still awake. Oh wait, there's no surprise there.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Exactly. This is about one thing: Power. The Democrats don't have it and they are besides themselves with anger because of it. The Republicans don not have to consult with the Democrats, just as the President does not have to form a bipartisan committee to make appointments.
And no, they are not fascist tactics.
So you support the tyranny of the ever so slight majority?
Don't forget that they called the Dept. of Homeland Security on the Dems in Texas.
No it wasn't. You're thinking of the Texas Rangers.
Originally posted by BR
Why can't you idiots stop using these loaded terms like "fascist" or "hitleresque" or "nazi" or "scott"?
How would you describe the act of calling for a vote while simultaneously ending it by 'dropping the gavel' just so the opposition couldn't vote?
Originally posted by bunge
How would you describe the act of calling for a vote while simultaneously ending it by 'dropping the gavel' just so the opposition couldn't vote?
I would call it unfair and explain why. I wouldn't start throwing about stupid intentionally provocative terms like "fascist" or "scott".
Originally posted by bunge
How would you describe the act of calling for a vote while simultaneously ending it by 'dropping the gavel' just so the opposition couldn't vote?
That's what was reported, but is that really true? The Democrats ran to the media ASAP on this one.
As for the rule of the slim majority, that's life. Congress was Demcoratic for 40 years. Now it's not. This is no different than the Senate refusing to confirm Bush's nominees on purely poltical grounds. No different at all.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's what was reported, but is that really true?
We're discussing what was reported. We have to take all discussions based on 'reports' with a grain of salt.
Originally posted by BR
I would call it unfair and explain why.
Well I called it an authoritarian police state but didn't explain why because I thought it was self-explanatory.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Thank you.
The level of hysterics here never ceases to amaze me.
Referring to my place of employment, a dear friend; a learned, aged, and now retired technowizard once told me: 'You can't buy entertainment like this." The same can certainly be said about this forum and some of it's Umbridge-esque * visitors.
Kayla sleeping well? Are you or Mrs. SDW2001? My three kids tested the wife and I for about six weeks each until their stomachs were large enough to hold a full night's charge of milk.
Think of this period as SEAL training: a time of worthy challenge to be enthusiastically met that leads to a great reward: in this case, a child who sleeps soundly through the night. A child whom you will look in upon as she sleeps in her bassinet and wonder and delight that you helped to create her.
V/R,
Aries 1B
Indianapolis
*Umbridge-esque : Referring to or like Dolores Umbridge, High Inquisitor of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
Come to Canada
Originally posted by Chinney
Question from a curious Canadian: Do liberals in the US feel scared? I think that I might. I remember being shocked a few years ago when I realized that "liberal" in the U.S. had become a very, very dirty word, indicating something only slightly less despicable than, say, a murderer. Meanwhile, here in Canada, the party in charge for much of the last century has been the "Liberal" party. Liberal by name, liberal by nature.
Come to Canada
"Liberal" here in the United States has come to mean something terrifying (by way of the actions and stated desires of those calling themselves "Liberal" ). For details, see Ann Coulter's book, Treason:
Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism
Classical, Jeffersonian Liberals were on the side of individual rights, Capitalism and the United States of America. Modern Liberals are not.
They expect you to sit back quietly while they're taxing you to death. If you elect a party other than theirs into office in order to roll back taxes, they will go nuts.
They are masters of intimidation.
Blood forbid that you should call the Sargent At Arms in the House of Representatives to maintain order and decorum when one of Their Kind physically threatens one of Your Kind while at the same time calling them a "...Fruitcake!". Your attempt to uphold the standards of conduct of the United States House of Representatives and to prevent an act of battery will cause you to be accused by them of trying to establish a police state and to trample their rights (a claim to a right to beat up whomsoever they please?). Seems to me that a political party from somewhere in history used ("We're victims!") tactics like that in order to gain power... some time in the late twenties/early thirties... somewhere between France (Ha! France!) and Poland....
One of the Liberal's Leaders, a broom-rider named Pelosi, may well be insane. I am lead to this conclusion only after listening to her speaking to the House of Representatives.
You said, ""liberal" in the U.S. had become a very, very dirty word,". This is because, I think, that more and more Americans are seeing that today's desperate-for-power Liberals are fighting very, very dirtily indeed.
Cordially,
Aries 1B
Originally posted by bunge
Well I called it an authoritarian police state but didn't explain why because I thought it was self-explanatory.
So you will sensationalize your opinion and not provide support. You're just as bad as Scott on this one.