CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:58 pm
 


In July 2008, a 61-year-old librarian was arrested at a McCain campaign event in Denver for carrying a sign that read, "McCain=Bush." ("Woman Arrested at McCain Event for ‘McCain=Bush' Sign," AlterNet, July 7, 2008)

In 2005, three people were ejected by police from a Bush town hall meeting in Denver after they arrived in a car with a bumper sticker that read, "No More Blood for Oil." ("Politicians Are Stifling Dissent, Critics Say," Knight-Ridder [via Common Dreams], February 4, 2006)

In October 2004, three school teachers in Medford, Oregon, were threatened with arrest by police and thrown out of a political rally featuring President Bush after they showed up wearing T-shirts with the slogan, "Protect Our Civil Liberties." ("Teachers' T-Shirts Bring Bush Speech Ouster," NewsChannel 8, Portland [via Common Dreams], October 15, 2004)

In July 2004, a Wisconsin county supervisor wearing a blue-denim shirt over a T-shirt that said "Kerry for President" was ejected from a Bush campaign speech after the Secret Service reportedly took his driver's license, social security number, and phone number. (" County Supervisor Booted from Bush Event for Wearing Hidden Kerry T-Shirt," The Progressive, July 22, 2004)


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1734
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:00 pm
 


Never said it was illegal
Never said gun ownership rights were a bad thing


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 22594
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:02 pm
 


Akhenaten Akhenaten:
Never said it was illegal
Never said gun ownership rights were a bad thing


Dude...I don't think anyone cares what you say anymore.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14139
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:04 pm
 


Look, the point is. Health Care reform does not threaten anyone's constitutional rights. Taking a gun to protest what is supposed to be a rational discussion and debate has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.
Their constitutional right to be cowboys isn't being threatened, so why the guns?
Is it illegal? Well from what the Americans on here are saying, it's not.
Yet constitutional rights were threatened regularily under the Bush regime.
Where were the Rep's armed protesters then?

The far political right in the US has done a major disservice to the American people by getting them all lathered up over this matter. So that now, any real chance of resaonable discussion on the subject will be shot to hell, and it'll be a question of who can shout louder.

And of course, I hear the typical right wing stance from Canadians too, that it's their right. But ask yourself this, If that had been just another ordinary day, would there have been people jsut hanging around with assault rifles?
They were there to make a point, and that point had nothing to do with gun ownership or freedom.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1734
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:06 pm
 


ridenrain ridenrain:
Akhenaten Akhenaten:
Never said it was illegal
Never said gun ownership rights were a bad thing


Dude...I don't think anyone cares what you say anymore.


lol. What a childish response. Reminds me of the kind of retort my daughter might try....back when she was 5 years old! LOL! If you didn't care you wouldn't respond. Guess what? no one cares about your hyper-liberal paranoia either, or your need to argue what people didn't say rather than what they did say. Pinhead.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:10 pm
 


Akhenaten Akhenaten:
Never said it was illegal
Never said gun ownership rights were a bad thing


you've been on and on about how the weapon is a threat.. i.e. illegal


:roll:


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1734
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:12 pm
 


$1:
you've been on and on about how the weapon is threat.. i.e. illegal


Nope, go read it again. Try to read just the words written without inserting your own (the "i.e." part is your erronious assumption or misunderstanding). I never once insinuated it was illegal, a veiled threat yes, but illegal no. Not once. Post back with some bullshit about how I did and welcome to Ingoresville.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:15 pm
 


so a threat is not illegal..

good, thanks for playing...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:19 pm
 


$1:
Republicans, religion and the triumph of unreason

Johann Hari: How do they train themselves to be so impervious to reality?

Wednesday, 19 August 2009
The Independent/UK

Something strange has happened in America in the nine months since Barack Obama was elected. It has best been summarised by the comedian Bill Maher: "The Democrats have moved to the right, and the Republicans have moved to a mental hospital."


The election of Obama – a black man with an anti-conservative message – as a successor to George W. Bush has scrambled the core American right's view of their country. In their gut, they saw the US as a white-skinned, right-wing nation forever shaped like Sarah Palin.

When this image was repudiated by a majority of Americans in a massive landslide, it simply didn't compute. How could this have happened? How could the cry of "Drill, baby, drill" have been beaten by a supposedly big government black guy? So a streak that has always been there in the American right's world-view – to deny reality, and argue against a demonic phantasm of their own creation – has swollen. Now it is all they can see.

Since Obama's rise, the US right has been skipping frantically from one fantasy to another, like a person in the throes of a mental breakdown. It started when they claimed he was a secret Muslim, and – at the same time – that he was a member of a black nationalist church that hated white people. Then, once these arguments were rejected and Obama won, they began to argue that he was born in Kenya and secretly smuggled into the United States as a baby, and the Hawaiian authorities conspired to fake his US birth certificate. So he is ineligible to rule and the office of President should pass to... the Republican runner-up, John McCain.

These aren't fringe phenomena: a Research 200 poll found that a majority of Republicans and Southerners say Obama wasn't born in the US, or aren't sure. A steady steam of Republican congressmen have been jabbering that Obama has "questions to answer". No amount of hard evidence – here's his birth certificate, here's a picture of his mother heavily pregnant in Hawaii, here's the announcement of his birth in the local Hawaiian paper – can pierce this conviction.

This trend has reached its apotheosis this summer with the Republican Party now claiming en masse that Obama wants to set up "death panels" to euthanise the old and disabled. Yes: Sarah Palin really has claimed – with a straight face – that Barack Obama wants to kill her baby.

You have to admire the audacity of the right. Here's what's actually happening. The US is the only major industrialised country that does not provide regular healthcare to all its citizens. Instead, they are required to provide for themselves – and 50 million people can't afford the insurance. As a result, 18,000 US citizens die every year needlessly, because they can't access the care they require. That's equivalent to six 9/11s, every year, year on year. Yet the Republicans have accused the Democrats who are trying to stop all this death by extending healthcare of being "killers" – and they have successfully managed to put them on the defensive.

The Republicans want to defend the existing system, not least because they are given massive sums of money by the private medical firms who benefit from the deadly status quo. But they can't do so honestly: some 70 per cent of Americans say it is "immoral" to retain a medical system that doesn't cover all citizens. So they have to invent lies to make any life-saving extension of healthcare sound depraved.

A few months ago, a recent board member for several private health corporations called Betsy McCaughey reportedly noticed a clause in the proposed healthcare legislation that would pay for old people to see a doctor and write a living will. They could stipulate when (if at all) they would like care to be withdrawn. It's totally voluntary. Many people want it: I know I wouldn't want to be kept alive for a few extra months if I was only going to be in agony and unable to speak. But McCaughey started the rumour that this was a form of euthanasia, where old people would be forced to agree to death. This was then stretched to include the disabled, like Palin's youngest child, who she claimed would have to "justify" his existence. It was flatly untrue – but the right had their talking-point, Palin declared the non-existent proposals "downright evil", and they were off.

It's been amazingly successful. Now, every conversation about healthcare has to begin with a Democrat explaining at great length that, no, they are not in favour of killing the elderly – while Republicans get away with defending a status quo that kills 18,000 people a year. The hypocrisy was startling: when Sarah Palin was Governor of Alaska, she encouraged citizens there to take out living wills. Almost all the Republicans leading the charge against "death panels" have voted for living wills in the past. But the lie has done its work: a confetti of distractions has been thrown up, and support is leaking away from the plan that would save lives.

These increasingly frenzied claims have become so detached from reality that they often seem like black comedy. The right-wing magazine US Investors' Daily claimed that if Stephen Hawking had been British, he would have been allowed to die at birth by its "socialist" healthcare system. Hawking responded with a polite cough that he is British, and "I wouldn't be here without the NHS".

This tendency to simply deny inconvenient facts and invent a fantasy world isn't new; it's only becoming more heightened. It ran through the Bush years like a dash of bourbon in water. When it became clear that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, the US right simply claimed they had been shipped to Syria. When the scientific evidence for man-made global warming became unanswerable, they claimed – as one Republican congressman put it – that it was "the greatest hoax in human history", and that all the world's climatologists were "liars". The American media then presents itself as an umpire between "the rival sides", as if they both had evidence behind them.

It's a shame, because there are some areas in which a conservative philosophy – reminding us of the limits of grand human schemes, and advising caution – could be a useful corrective. But that's not what these so-called "conservatives" are providing: instead, they are pumping up a hysterical fantasy that serves as a thin skin covering some raw economic interests and base prejudices.

For many of the people at the top of the party, this is merely cynical manipulation. One of Bush's former advisers, David Kuo, has said the President and Karl Rove would mock evangelicals as "nuts" as soon as they left the Oval Office. But the ordinary Republican base believe this stuff. They are being tricked into opposing their own interests through false fears and invented demons. Last week, one of the Republicans sent to disrupt a healthcare town hall started a fight and was injured – and then complained he had no health insurance. I didn't laugh; I wanted to weep.

How do they train themselves to be so impervious to reality? It begins, I suspect, with religion. They are taught from a young age that it is good to have "faith" – which is, by definition, a belief without any evidence to back it up. You don't have "faith" that Australia exists, or that fire burns: you have evidence. You only need "faith" to believe the untrue or unprovable. Indeed, they are taught that faith is the highest aspiration and most noble cause. Is it any surprise this then percolates into their political views? Faith-based thinking spreads and contaminates the rational.

Up to now, Obama has not responded well to this onslaught of unreason. He has had a two-pronged strategy: conciliate the elite economic interests, and joke about the fanatical fringe they are stirring up. He has (shamefully) assured the pharmaceutical companies that an expanded healthcare system will not use the power of government as a purchaser to bargain down drug prices, while wryly saying in public that he "doesn't want to kill Grandma". Rather than challenging these hard interests and bizarre fantasies aggressively, he has tried to flatter and soothe them.

This kind of mania can't be co-opted: it can only be overruled. Sometimes in politics you will have enemies, and they must be democratically defeated. The political system cannot be gummed up by a need to reach out to the maddest people or the greediest constituencies. There is no way to expand healthcare without angering Big Pharma and the Republicaloons. So be it. As Arianna Huffington put it, "It is as though, at the height of the civil rights movement, you thought you had to bring together Martin Luther King and George Wallace and make them agree. It's not how change happens."

However strange it seems, the Republican Party really is spinning off into a bizarre cult who believe Barack Obama is a baby-killer plotting to build death panels for the grannies of America. Their new slogan could be – shrill, baby, shrill.

[email protected]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 22594
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:24 pm
 


PublicAnimalNo9: Yeah.. we're the angry ones..


$1:
Why don't you people who think that carrying heat to an appearance by the President just admit the one thing that you all believe but are too gutless to say out loud: you refuse to accept that you lost the 2008 election to a FUCKING NIGGER, you won't tolerate it, and that you're going to kill him to get the power back in your own hands.

pp-13.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1734
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:25 pm
 


martin14 martin14:
so a threat is not illegal..

good, thanks for playing...



Is that really the best you can do? Why not actually read my points instead of trying to spin them? Yes, you can bring a rifle to a protest and even if brinign the rifle is not illegal the point of doing it is to make a veiled threat. Yes I think you might have it now. Was it really that hard to comprehend? I don't think it is, i think you're just playing a dishonest game.... Thanks for playing.


Last edited by Akhenaten on Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11362
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:29 pm
 


American Conservatism has jumped the Shark.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14139
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:39 pm
 


ridenrain ridenrain:
PublicAnimalNo9: Yeah.. we're the angry ones..


$1:
Why don't you people who think that carrying heat to an appearance by the President just admit the one thing that you all believe but are too gutless to say out loud: you refuse to accept that you lost the 2008 election to a FUCKING NIGGER, you won't tolerate it, and that you're going to kill him to get the power back in your own hands.

pp-13.


I didn't say you were the angry ones. You didn't answer my question either.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:40 pm
 


Akhenaten Akhenaten:
martin14 martin14:
so a threat is not illegal..

good, thanks for playing...



Is that really the best you can do? Why not actually read my points instead of trying to spin them? Yes, you can bring a rifle to a protest and even if brinign the rifle is not illegal the point of doing it is to make a veiled threat. Yes I think you might have it now. Was it really that hard to comprehend? I don't think it is, i think you're just playing a dishonest game.... Thanks for playing.




You are the one being dishonest here.


Akhenaten Akhenaten:
Never said it was illegal
Never said gun ownership rights were a bad thing



you go again and again about how bringing a gun is making a threat to the people
around the person, yet making threats is illegal.
you are not able to reconcile this, and continue the idea that threats,
and now 'veiled' threats are somehow legal.

And it is gun ownership rights that allow this kind of activity at a legal
protest, which you have been howling about since the beginning of this thread.
So how can you now say 'never said gun ownership rights were a bad thing',
when you so clearly consider the excercise of these rights
to be so threatening to the population.



come on, stop the hypocrisy here.....


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1734
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:45 pm
 


I just finished explaining my point, you ignore it and carry on with crap I didn't say.

$1:
And it is gun ownership rights that allow this kind of activity at a legal
protest, which you have been howling about since the beginning of this thread.


No I haven't. I haven't once said or even implied that gun owership is bad. Not once. You're either lying or stupid, take your pick.

$1:
you go again and again about how bringing a gun is making a threat to the people


Yes it is my opinion that bringing a rifle to a protest is making a veiled threat. This is pretty easy to recognize.

$1:
around the person, yet making threats is illegal.


You're not that stupid, I know it. Uttering a threat can be illegal. Making a veiled threat is not. I could expect to have to explain that difference to a kindergarden student but not an adult. It's really not that hard to understand. Please stop playing little games and maybe we can start over.

$1:
You are the one being dishonest here.

Nope. You're making crap up and purposely being obstinant. My point is really pretty easy to understand, in fact it's pretty eay to come up with a rational counterpoint -- something you're not even going to bother and try to do, instead you'll argue something I didn't say rather than something I did say. That and pretending that "all threats are illegal" is your dishonesty not mine.


Last edited by Akhenaten on Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:49 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 408 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 20  21  22  23  24  25  26 ... 28  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.