US Marine puts US Congressman in his place.

So you have somene who worked for the government , gets an education plan from the government , healthcare from the government and if he worked for long enough for the government gets a retirement plan from the government complaining that the government should butt out.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So you have somene who worked for the government , gets an education plan from the government , healthcare from the government and if he worked for long enough for the government gets a retirement plan from the government complaining that the government should butt out.

Well it is only socialism when someone else gets stuff you understand.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Well it is only socialism when someone else gets stuff you understand.

its only socialism when someone else gets stuff you pay for

[Biggles]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

its only socialism when someone else gets stuff you pay for

And you get stuff they pay for

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Biggles

And you get stuff they pay for

But I dont want their stuff

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20...10_176261.html

[Biggles]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

But I dont want their stuff

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20...10_176261.html

That's pretty funny, but Cuba is a communist state, not a social-you know what, forget it, I know what I think of the difference between the two, but I don't wanna hijack this thread)

[Aramike]

Typical right wing BS. Doesn't make sense, but it sounds tough, and that's all that counts.

Really? Made perfect sense, even though I didn't agree completely. But I understand what he said and his motivations for saying so.

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. (Even though I actually do believe that you do understand it, but as a typical lefty you find your side to be "elite" and any other opinion must be labeled nonsensical garbage.)

He's a Marine vet, so whatever he says has to be extra-true!

There is a perception in this country by many people that those who serve have earned the priviledge of speaking, whereas everyone else just excercises their right. I have no problem with that perspective as it honors the individuals who serve us all.

I could say your point makes no sense, but it does and I disagree with it. I like to think of myself as intellectually honest. You should try it.

"Stay away from my children!" Dey ain't go no need for edjikation.

Umm, you did know the context of that point wasn't education, right?

Oh, and maybe you don't get this, either (not a surprise): The Congressman is part of the FEDERAL government. Education is handled locally. The Marine was talking to the Congressman. Ergo, he was telling the Congressman to keep the federal government away from his children.

It's amazing what a little thinking can do for you. The thick irony here is that you lefties were so worked up over Bush's FEDERAL No Child Left Behind, but when a guy tells the feds to stay out of his children's lives, well that must be just some hill-billy, crazy-folk talk, right?

He gets pissed off because the plan preserves the right that he cares so much about. Brilliant. Would he be happier if it didn't give him what he wanted?

Again, you don't get something that is so incredibly obvious. He's pissed off because he doesn't feel that the federal government has any authority to "allow" us to have any rights! I agree with him, because if we start allowing the government to allow us to do certain things, we have then ceded the authority to them to DISALLOW certain things.

Quite franky, even I find it offensive when politicians say that they will "let" me do something.

It may be semantics, but with the nationalization track record of liberals over the Obama presidency, why take the risk?

And yes, how dare this administration AND THE PREVIOUS REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION take drastic measures to try and stave off another Great Depression. It would have been much better to do nothing, and let unemployment reach 30%.

Considering that only around 5% of the stimulus has actually be spent, and the economy is stabilizing, it seems as though Obama's massive spending plan has been either a failure, or a waste of 95% (which to me is also a failure).

And the thing is, he actually had notes to read off of. He took notes, and that was the best he could do?

He did better than you've done in this entire post, and you have Google and the edit function to work with.

We conveniently don't know what the Democrat's response was, but I can imagine it was weak-kneed and pathetic. They have to start calling these idiots out on their BS.

I agree (and immediately said in this thread) that the rebuttal should not have been cut.

Also, note how I have nothing to comment on regarding his Nazi tirade. He may have just been making fun of the idiot Pelosi, but to be honest, I'm REALLY sick of hearing the Nazis come up EVERY freakin' time we have a contentious issue. But I can't help but wonder if you shared the same indignation when the left wing nuts were making similarly absurd accusations about Bush...

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Really? Made perfect sense, even though I didn't agree completely. But I understand what he said and his motivations for saying so.

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. (Even though I actually do believe that you do understand it, but as a typical lefty you find your side to be "elite" and any other opinion must be labeled nonsensical garbage.)

First off, you don't know a thing about me. Second off, by no means do right wingers have a monopoly on stupidity. There are responsible Republicans who are rational. If they disagree with health care, bully for them. Only problem is, they seem to be a dying breed. Many Repubs today appear to be plunging to the bottom as fast as they can, to capitalize on the lowest common denominator with rhetoric similar to the BS this guy was spouting.

There is a perception in this country by many people that those who serve have earned the priviledge of speaking, whereas everyone else just excercises their right. I have no problem with that perspective as it honors the individuals who serve us all.

I do not accept that. Holding to that perception opens the door to the notion that the truth value of speech rests more on who is speaking than on what is being said, which this guy took advantage of.

I could say your point makes no sense, but it does and I disagree with it. I like to think of myself as intellectually honest. You should try it.

That's rich coming from you. Feigning incomprehension to try and score a cheap point is one of your favorite tricks. I don't use it, but I believe you cannot honestly say the same.

I see no mention of his constitutional oath crap. Do you accept it or not? Do I have permission to find it nonsensical?

Umm, you did know the context of that point wasn't education, right?

Oh, and maybe you don't get this, either (not a surprise): The Congressman is part of the FEDERAL government. Education is handled locally. The Marine was talking to the Congressman. Ergo, he was telling the Congressman to keep the federal government away from his children.

It's amazing what a little thinking can do for you. The thick irony here is that you lefties were so worked up over Bush's FEDERAL No Child Left Behind, but when a guy tells the feds to stay out of his children's lives, well that must be just some hill-billy, crazy-folk talk, right?

No @#$% Sherlock. Since when does being a member of the Federal government prevent you from talking generally about certain topics? As soon as it provides an opportunity to make political hay, I guess.

Again, you don't get something that is so incredibly obvious. He's pissed off because he doesn't feel that the federal government has any authority to "allow" us to have any rights! I agree with him, because if we start allowing the government to allow us to do certain things, we have then ceded the authority to them to DISALLOW certain things.

Quite franky, even I find it offensive when politicians say that they will "let" me do something.

It may be semantics

DING DING DING DING! It's all meaningless semantics, distorting the intention behind the original language to create a talking point. I'm reminded of another Marine, Zell Miller speaking at the 2004 Republican Convention, who got wild applause for criticizing Democrats for referring to the occupation of Iraq, rather than its liberation. It's that kind of pointless macho posturing BS, based on nothing but the distortion of words, that I'm going on about. The fact that this guy pulled that trick using language describing a part of the plan which he would be in favor of, made it even dumber.

but with the nationalization track record of liberals over the Obama presidency, why take the risk? Considering that only around 5% of the stimulus has actually be spent, and the economy is stabilizing, it seems as though Obama's massive spending plan has been either a failure, or a waste of 95% (which to me is also a failure).

Listen to what he actually says. He wasn't talking about the stimulus package, he was talking in part about the National SOCIALIST TAKEOVER OF THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY!1!!!1 Too bad the present day "takeover" began under Bush, and was initiated by die hard free marketers. But hey, what are facts to right wing nuts?

He did better than you've done in this entire post, and you have Google and the edit function to work with.

I beg to differ.

Also, note how I have nothing to comment on regarding his Nazi tirade. He may have just been making fun of the idiot Pelosi, but to be honest, I'm REALLY sick of hearing the Nazis come up EVERY freakin' time we have a contentious issue. But I can't help but wonder if you shared the same indignation when the left wing nuts were making similarly absurd accusations about Bush...

I thought the Bush-Hitler stuff was idiotic back then, just as I think the Obama-Hitler crap is stupid, thank you very much.

To sum it up: if you're against health care because you have reason to believe that it'll be too expensive, or that the government has the anti-Midas touch, or that collective action is inherently wrong, or that it's every American's god given right to have the opportunity to have their coverage dropped at the worst possible time, or that it's a good and righteous thing that the US pays far and away the most for health care as a percentage of GDP while receiving average care, with a sixth of the country having no care at all, then great, we can have a debate.

This guy didn't bother with actual reason, though. He just got up there with the same old BS rhetoric which we've heard for months, most of which doesn't even make sense as I've shown, and he got praised for it.

Apparently you feel that your points are so weak, you must buttress them with insults. I initially answered in kind, but then decided to remove them. I'm ending this conversation before you turn it into a flamewar.

[Aramike]

First off, you don't know a thing about me.

Wrong. I know exactly what you show me through your writings. Unless you're lying, communicating poorly, etc., that's what I know and the extent of what I know. And that's the position my commentary comes from.

Second off, by no means do right wingers have a monopoly on stupidity. There are responsible Republicans who are rational. If they disagree with health care, bully for them. Only problem is, they seem to be a dying breed. Many Repubs today appear to be plunging to the bottom as fast as they can, to capitalize on the lowest common denominator with rhetoric similar to the BS this guy was spouting.

Judging by the fact that Obama's popularity is waning, and most polls show the nation is heading towards the right, I'm going to suggest that your making a biased statement with no actual basis in fact.

You're entitled to your opinion. Just like me, and my opinion is that you're wrong.

I do not accept that. Holding to that perception opens the door to the notion that the truth value of speech rests more on who is speaking than on what is being said, which this guy took advantage of.

Whether or not you accept it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Furthermore, no one has a right to have their speech be of any value whatsoever. It's up to people to decide such things. However, people can also decide to respect a certain type of individual with listening a little closer when they speak.

That's rich coming from you. Feigning incomprehension to try and score a cheap point is one of your favorite tricks. I don't use it, but I believe you cannot honestly say the same.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I specifically said that I *DO* comprehend what you're saying, but disagree with it.

I see no mention of his constitutional oath crap. Do you accept it or not? Do I have permission to find it nonsensical?

Dude, its called political rhetoric. From some perspectives, the congressman has not kept his oath. From others, he has. But the bottom line is that it was an opinion, and I can understand why the individual has it (even though I do not agree).

Political rhetoric is about accentuating a point, not making one. So yes, it makes perfect sense in context. I don't agree with him, but it makes sense.

No @#$% Sherlock. Since when does being a member of the Federal government prevent you from talking generally about certain topics? As soon as it provides an opportunity to make political hay, I guess.

Wow, go back and read my point again. You really missed it. Badly.

DING DING DING DING! It's all meaningless semantics, distorting the intention behind the original language to create a talking point. I'm reminded of another Marine, Zell Miller speaking at the 2004 Republican Convention, who got wild applause for criticizing Democrats for referring to the occupation of Iraq, rather than its liberation. It's that kind of pointless macho posturing BS, based on nothing but the distortion of words, that I'm going on about. The fact that this guy pulled that trick using language describing a part of the plan which he would be in favor of, made it even dumber.

Are you kidding? Do you even live in this country? Do you have ANY idea how it works?

The reason the language is being picked over so much is because you have a judiciary that answers to no one. So, while there may be no intent for, say, Death Panels, someone could easily later say that that's what the bill means. A judge could easily then interpret that to be correct, should it be challenged and brought to court. So while the bill specifically doesn't say certain things, it can be (clearly) interpetted in certain ways.

And really, have you even known ANY politician or bureaucrat to not interpret things in the way they WANT them to mean?

Listen to what he actually says. He wasn't talking about the stimulus package, he was talking in part about the National SOCIALIST TAKEOVER OF THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY!1!!!1 Too bad the present day "takeover" began under Bush, and was initiated by die hard free marketers. But hey, what are facts to right wing nuts?

Seriously, you should stop and try to read my points carefully, in context, before you respond. You're not doing yourself any favors.

Read my point again, in the context of what I was responding to. I even made it easy for you, using the "quote" function.

I beg to differ.

Keep begging.

I thought the Bush-Hitler stuff was idiotic back then, just as I think the Obama-Hitler crap is stupid, thank you very much.

Fair enough. To be honest, somehow I doubt that you've expressed such indignation over it (which is actually what I wrote, anyway), but I have no reason to believe that you supported it, either.

To sum it up: if you're against health care because you have reason to believe that it'll be too expensive, or that the government has the anti-Midas touch, or that collective action is inherently wrong, or that it's every American's god given right to have the opportunity to have their coverage dropped at the worst possible time, or that it's a good and righteous thing that the US pays far and away the most for health care as a percentage of GDP while receiving average care, with a sixth of the country having no care at all, then great, we can have a debate.

Too bad you have no idea who you're talking to. I'm not a "right wing nut". In fact, I'm fiercely independant. Furthermore, I have stated, time and time again, that I'm in favor of healthcare reform and even nationalized healthcare. Frankly, I believe we already have a foolish, incredibly inefficient version of that.

However, the Obama plan is simply STUPID. No way around it. I've actually made suggestions to the kind of plan that I think would work in other threads. Obama's plan will not work.

No large nation has efficient nationalized healthcare ... but in my opinion, that doesn't mean it is impossible.

This guy didn't bother with actual reason, though. He just got up there with the same old BS rhetoric which we've heard for months, most of which doesn't even make sense as I've shown, and he got praised for it.

I praise anyone who stands up to elected officials for the right reasons.

By the way, you really should research topics more prior to engaging in debate on them. You DO know why the marine was pissed at Congressman Baird, right? Hint: Google "Baird Brownshirt".

Apparently you feel that your points are so weak, you must buttress them with insults. I initially answered in kind, but then decided to remove them. I'm ending this conversation before you turn it into a flamewar.

Wasn't trying to be insulting, but oh well. Some people don't have thick skin.

And no, my points aren't weak. Judging by your replies, you just never bothered to read them.