RunRyder RC
WATCH
 3 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3     NEXT    >> ] 1683 views Post Reply
Home🌌Off Topics🌌Off Topics News & Politics › Carter: Rep. Wilson comments 'based on racism'
09-18-2009 12:04 AM  11 years ago
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Yes Rush speaks for all of us,just as Pelosi speaks for all of you.
Pelosi is speaker of the house and third in line for the presidency. She holds more power than Rush could ever dream of. Rush is WAY too controversial for politics.

Rush speaks for what I hear is 10% of conservatives. He is the EXTREME far right and unfortunately many take him as the icon of conservatism. Many views he holds are probably healthy, but many are not.

No, this Jimmy Carter quote will not go down as truth. It will go down as one of the stupid things politicians say. Fewer than 12% of people polled agree with him.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 12:06 AM  11 years ago
evo4ever

rrApprentice

kenna w.v.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Sarcasm
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 12:07 AM  11 years ago
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Sarcasm
I know you attempted that, but Pelosi is a bad example. Pelosi DOES speak for liberals. Whether they agree with her or not, she is the party leader.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 12:52 AM  11 years ago
OzarkCopterBum

rrApprentice

Arkansas Ozarks

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I don't follow this. Even if Rush were a member of the KKK it could not make Carter's implication that everyone who is upset about current government direction are doing so because they are racist.
I don't believe what Carter was implying was that everyone that gripes is racist. He stated it was a fringe element he was talking about. I have gripes about Obama, I just don't do it here. I don't consider myself racist nor do I consider anyone racist until I see or hear them say something or forward around certain emails, etc.

But I have to say some of the signage I've seen at these tea bagger protests stop just short of some of the more traditional slurs and the Freedomworks tea party organizer guy posting on his blog that Obama is an "Indonesian Muslim Turned Welfare Thug." I can think of a dozen or more email forwards that were overtly racist and couldn't be construed any other way. Then there's guys like Limbaugh and his spew and Republicans falling all over themselves to not offend him, apologizing when they do and having him be the featured speaker with standing ovations at the big RNC event awhile back.

Add all that in with weapons being brought to presidential events, heckling the president during during a congressional address and nobody on the right really coming out strong and saying much about it and you get the sort of climate you have now.

Its time for strong Republicans to take a stand against this crap because if they don't they'll be associated with it.
Repo man's got all day and all night! Lets go get a drink!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 01:32 AM  11 years ago
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I don't believe what Carter was implying was that everyone that gripes is racist.
I went back, read his entire comment a couple times. The media has done a WONDERFUL job of sensasionalising this event. He wasn't saying that "everyone who gripes" is a racist at all.

That said, Bush did get a lot of heckling when he was president. I think it just goes with the job. Some of the comments I've seen, like "Send Obama back to Kenya" are over the top. But unfortunately those comments only take away from the legitimate concerns of people who are worried about where the country is heading.

Carter hopefully will make some people double check themselves so that the REAL concerns may be heard.
weapons being brought to presidential events
This I don't have a problem with, so long as they aren't intending on using it. It is someone's 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

Now if they'd never carried a weapon EXCEPT for a presidential address, you can bet they are doing it to make a point. A form of free speech. I actually find it OK, because I STAUNCHLY believe in the constitution. The people doing this meant no harm and were not arrested. I'll bet they HOPED to be arrested to sensationalise their loss of rights. But I am so happy that they weren't. The fact that no one was killed and no one was arrested only goes to show that freedom is NOT dead in this country and there are still people brave enough to exercise their rights.
nobody on the right really coming out strong and saying much about it
Except for the entire congress which spoke against Wilson's outburst, and then helped vote him into a disapproval. Things are OK in politics.
Its time for strong Republicans to take a stand against this crap because if they don't they'll be associated with it.
If the republicans had any strength they'd have a majority and a president. Unfortunately, the only way they are going to get strength is by people becoming upset about the democratic agenda. It's like we all vote for the lesser of 2 evils and I think the light is coming on for a lot of people.

Every country has politics, not every country has a constitution that stands between politicians and their consituency. Republicans and Democrats alike have wiped their behinds with that wonderful document and WE THE PEOPLE need to hold them accountable for it. ANY congressman who votes a bill that attacks the constitution should be voted OUT! We are in major danger of VOTING our way into loss of freedoms because we see everything as DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN while both parties are screwing us.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 01:57 AM  11 years ago
evo4ever

rrApprentice

kenna w.v.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Well said Aaron29. I am also a strong believer in constitution and not Republican or Democrat. The post you put up should be the kind of speeches we hear coming from Washington from both sides, not the he said she said squabbling we have now.
Devan
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 02:21 AM  11 years ago
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Also,

America was intended to be a representative democracy.

It was never intended to have a 2 party system.

That means that your congressman would, under the constitution, have been able to vote against abortion and yet for stem cell research, if that is what his constituency, his voters, wanted.

Under the 2 party system, the PARTY is represented, not the CONSTITUENCY, as it was meant to be. An individual voter has to give up individual ideas in order to get others, since the "party" has a stand on issues.

Ever notice how things are a package deal? What if someone wanted healthcare but still wanted the 10 commandments placed around. Who can he truly vote for? Who is his representative?

What if you were against healthcare but wanted rights for gay marriage? Who would you vote for?

I wish that EVERYONE in congress were independent. It would give voters choices for what is important to them. It would also allow a politician to be flexible and not always vote on party lines to get party favors.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 02:28 AM  11 years ago
OzarkCopterBum

rrApprentice

Arkansas Ozarks

MyPosts All Forum Topic
The media has done a WONDERFUL job of sensasionalising this event.
I wont argue that point with you either.
That said, Bush did get a lot of heckling when he was president.
He got shoes thrown at his head. But he was never heckled during a presidential address by a representative in the House.
This I don't have a problem with, so long as they aren't intending on using it. It is someone's 2nd amendment right to bear arms.
I do and I don't. Yes it is a right but is a presidential rally REALLY the place to exercise that right? Wonder why no one has ever felt the need to exercise that right up until recently.
I guess the Secret Service has the right to set a perimeter that they control, don't be surprised when that perimeter gets extended to a mile or two under total lockdown at future presidential appearances. I was living in Hot Springs AR when Clinton was in office. It constantly amazed me how accessible and approachable he was, nothing like what we saw under Bush and now with Obama.
Except for the entire congress which spoke against Wilson's outburst, and then helped vote him into a disapproval. Things are OK in politics.
Uhhhh, I'm not so impressed.


Associated Press


The final vote tally was 240-179, generally but not entirely along party lines. It was 233 Democrats and seven Republicans voting to chastise Wilson, 167 Republicans and 12 Democrats opposing the measure and five Democrats merely voting "present."

SNIP

The Office of the House Historian said the resolution marked the first time in the 220-year history of the House that a member had been admonished for speaking out while the president was giving an address.
If the republicans had any strength they'd have a majority and a president. Unfortunately, the only way they are going to get strength is by people becoming upset about the democratic agenda.
Or offering better ideas and implementing them and showing actual leadership qualities. Aligning the party with kooks because they are part of the base isn't going to do it. McCain was pretty much forced to do it after his campaign rallies started getting out of hand. I still honestly believe that isn't the campaign that he wanted to run but "sold his soul to the devil" and that's what he ended up with. There was a time when he was an honorable and respected man but that wasn't representative of it.
It's like we all vote for the lesser of 2 evils and I think the light is coming on for a lot of people.
A vote for the lesser of two evils, is still a vote for evil.
Jerry Garcia

Tea parties aren't the answer, its just Republicans in drag. I'm still trying to figure out how any elected official is allowed to speak at these alleged anti government rallies...
We are in major danger of VOTING our way into loss of freedoms because we see everything as DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN while both parties are screwing us.
I'd like to see a really strong independent or Libertarian candidate. You are right that the 2 party system just sucks but it will take a really strong candidate to break the cycle.
Repo man's got all day and all night! Lets go get a drink!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 02:35 AM  11 years ago
FrankC

rrApprentice

Ocala, Florida

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Aaron, I will mildly disagree with parts of what you said. If you are in either the House, or the Senate, and you are registered as a Democrat, you are required to vote whatever the DNC tells you to vote. Good or bad, does not matter. What your constituents want, does not matter. If you dare to have a conscience, or if you dare to actually represent the people who voted for you, then you will be run out of the party. They will do to you what the did to Joe Lieberman, when the leadership of the DNC came and campaigned AGAINST him and forced him out of the party. On the other hand a Republican can vote any way he or she wishes, and will be labeled a 'maverick' if that vote is contrary to what the party dictates. In that case he or she will also be the darling of the main stream media.

Extending this just a bit, it is the career politicians who hold one seat for decades that are a huge part of the problem. That is why I always say to vote out the incumbents and try someone new. We need a clean sweep up there in the District of Corruption.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 02:41 AM  11 years ago
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
The Office of the House Historian said the resolution marked the first time in the 220-year history of the House that a member had been admonished for speaking out while the president was giving an address.[/I]
I wonder how many outbursts there were in history, and how bad they were. There HAS to be a time in history when someone at least Booed during an address. This is simply the first ADMONISHMENT.

Wilson screwed up and paid for it. I think we can move on now. I wasn't aware that support for/against him was so biased. That's too bad as you would hope that civility would have it's place in politics and that everyone would agree what is or isn't appropriate. I'm not sure what the polls come out to, but I'm pretty sure the average person doesn't want someone bursting out during an address. You want to comment on it on a talk show or to a reporter afterwards? Fine. But don't interrupt.

My problem with the democratic party is they think government is the answer to things. It's a fundamental difference between the repulicans and democrats. Democrats seem to think that when there is a social problem that government must step in and fix it. But the problem is that the government cannot give anything to anyone that it doesn't first take from someone else. Like in the form of taxes.

Republicans have a more hands off approach except they really miffed me with the "Patriot" Act. It was sweeping and denied a lot of people their 4th amendment rights. It also goes against the "small government" mindset that usually the Republicans are applauded for.

It seems to be working to catch terrorists, but at what cost!? I'd rather be free than secure. Like Benjamin Franklin eluded to.

So I'm in a position where I see BOTH parties enacting unconsitutional changes. The left and their anti-gun and anti-talk radio approach is disgusting in the same way the Republicans miffed me.

I tend to lean a little Republican, but truly wish a party would arise that is more constitutional.
You are right that the 2 party system just sucks but it will take a really strong candidate to break the cycle.
The non-partisan candidate usually doesn't get enough attention. Maybe when people are fed up with the left and right the middle ground will get more power.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 02:44 AM  11 years ago
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
What your constituents want, does not matter. If you dare to have a conscience, or if you dare to actually represent the people who voted for you, then you will be run out of the party.
This is my problem, Frank. The constitution, as written, was never intended to have parties. It was intended to be a representative democracy.
If you are in either the House, or the Senate, and you are registered as a Democrat, you are required to vote whatever the DNC tells you to vote. Good or bad, does not matter.
You have to hand it to them for having UNITY. Something the republicans lack.

But this UNITY is really only a congressman's devotion to his party. He should be devoted to his people.

Any congressman who votes against party lines, and for his constituency, is a hero in my opinion.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 02:51 AM  11 years ago
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
The funny thing is this...

None of this matters as long as the judicial branch of the government holds strong to the constitution.

And by this, I mean they hold strong to it. Not try to "interpret" it. We all know what it says.

And yet still, things that are a bit iffy pass ALL the time.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 02:51 AM  11 years ago
1stPlace

rrApprentice

Ohio USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
weapons being brought to presidential events
Why haven't you called out MSNBC Ozark?

Watch at YouTube

Helicopters are cool!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 02:56 AM  11 years ago
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
If someone took a shot at the president he would be doing this country a GREAT disservice. Other than the moral failure of murder, it would have other consequences.

What a selfish act! The country votes, a president is elected, and someone takes him out. What right does an assassin have to deny voters the electoral process?

If the assassin disagreed with his policies, it would simply lead to martyrdom and probably accelerate his policies. Biden would be president and Pelosi would be VP. You think anything would change with them running things?

Also, doing so would likely lead to widespread gun control which would be extremely difficult to defend, even on constitutional grounds, because government always uses an emergency to enact change.

Might even cause a race war among extremists. People in the middle, who have no racism, could still be victimized by those who are racially charged into fighting.

It would be UGLY, my friend. I hope no idiotic assassin is out there planning that.

But unlike the guy in that interview might worry, these guys showing up to rallies with guns are not assassins. In fact they are least likely to be, because they are so overt.

The only threat they pose to security is a possible unintended diversion from a real threat. It looks as though the secret service has things under control or they'd have sent those guys packing.

What they are doing is a bit misguided and irresponsible use of the 2nd amendment, but it is a right all the same and I'm glad it can be exercised.

It's like free speech. People say some STUPID things but I'm glad no one can shut them up. We truly live in the best country in the world.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 03:33 AM  11 years ago
flustercluck

rrVeteran

Newnan Ga (Just S. of ATL)

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I wonder whether anyone has changed anyone else's mind on anything yet. As in, "Ok, I see and understand your point; doggone it, you're right! I'm coming over to YOUR side!"
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 03:33 AM  11 years ago
evo4ever

rrApprentice

kenna w.v.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
WOW a non argumentitive meaningful discussion between both sides. This is what has to happen all over this country for things to get going in the correct direction. Keep it up guys. I completely agreewith Aaron29 I also tend to lean right on some issues while leaning left on others. For example I am for the 2nd amendment, then on the other hand gay marriage to me is a non issue. Where am I going to find a candidate that best represents me, not in either of the two parties.
Devan
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 03:36 AM  11 years ago
OzarkCopterBum

rrApprentice

Arkansas Ozarks

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Why haven't you called out MSNBC Ozark?
Firstly because I wasn't aware of it. Contrary to popular belief, all liberals do not have MSNBC beamed directly onto their eyeballs 24/7.

Secondly, I don't think weapons at presidential appearances are a good idea, no matter the bearers intentions. The secret service's job is hard enough without having to sort through the weapons bearers to try and figure out which are crazies and which are merely 2nd supporters.

Think about it, there have been SIX presidential shootings and attempts in my lifetime. Kennedy, Ford, Ford, Reagan, Clinton, Bush.

In my view, the REALLY patriotic thing to do would be to leave it at home or even in your vehicle, out of respect for the office no matter who holds it at that time.
Repo man's got all day and all night! Lets go get a drink!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 03:47 AM  11 years ago
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
The secret service's job is hard enough without having to sort
That was my point, as well. They have the right, but is this the proper place to use it?
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 03:52 AM  11 years ago
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
That said, it's the liberal stance on the second amendment that sort of clashes with their own title..."liberal"

When you see that word, liberal, you should think "freedom" or "liberty"

But instead you think of big government, gun control, sweeping government takeovers of mortgage/banking/industry/healthcare, and some freedom of speech issues.

If they liked free markets and reversed their stance on those two constitutional issues I could probably be a democrat. I could proudly call myself a liberal.

But it's my opinion that the issues of big government, gun control, sweeping government takeovers of mortgage/banking/industry/healthcare, and freedom of speech issues are gross enough that Democrats don't DESERVE the title of LIBERAL.

A true LIBERAL would embrace the BILL OF RIGHTS FULLY!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
09-18-2009 03:53 AM  11 years ago
baby uh1

rrVeteran

St. James, Mo.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I agree on the point that even though it's a right under the second ammendment to carry a weapon, doing it at a Presidential visit is way over the top and foolish.
Also it is good to see congress confirm that neither the first ammendment or the truth is allowed on the floor of the House.
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 3 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3     NEXT    >> ] 1683 views Post Reply
Home🌌Off Topics🌌Off Topics News & Politics › Carter: Rep. Wilson comments 'based on racism'
Print TOPIC

 7  Topic Subscribe

Sunday, July 25 - 4:07 pm - Copyright © 2000-2021 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online