Sheriff Joe Arapio slapped down by judge.

[RandFan]

I'd love to see a video of GOP members cheering for the above. Got a link?

I take it you thought the GOP debates were a waste of time and didn't watch them. I actually watched them and was appalled. It's one thing to think some policies necessary. It's another to cheer for them.

GOP debate: Thou shalt kill, cheer the Republicans

GOP Debate Hall of Shame: Audiences cheer torture, executions, and letting people go without health care; boo gay soldier serving in Iraq and statement that whole Muslim world not responsible for 9/11 (Video)

I will say that they didn't "cheer homophobia" but they did boo a gay service man.

 

[newyorkguy]

May I?

Two spontaneous and enthusiastic outbursts during the most recent Republican presidential debates caught a lot of people's attention.

During the first debate, held at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., the audience cheered wildly when it was pointed out that Texas Gov. Rick Perry had overseen a record-breaking 234 executions in his state.

Link

The audience Monday night’s CNN Tea Party Express Republican primary debate was eager to see the death of a hypothetical man who was in a coma and also did not have health care insurance.

Link

The first and last were easy to find. I highlighted the words in Randfan's message, right-clicked on "Search Google..." and voila! The middle one, " Cheer for homophobia," is tougher to find. I find a lot of links to Republican expressions of homophobia, but a link to a video with Republicans cheering an expression of homophobia is harder to find.

 

[RandFan]

May I?

Link

Link

The first and last were easy to find. I highlighted the words in Randfan's message, right-clicked on "Search Google..." and voila! The middle one, " Cheer for homophobia," is tougher to find. I find a lot of links to Republican expressions of homophobia, but a link to a video with Republicans cheering an expression of homophobia is harder to find.

Thanks. I don't typically include sources for stupidity at major events that were televised over and over. Perhaps I should.

I'm not a partisan. I'm not a democrat. I watched the debates with serious attention. I was very, very impressed with one John Huntsman and seriously considered him against Obama. However, that group of clowns and idiots along with the bizarre outbursts, as a former lifelong Republican I was truly embarrassed by what my party had become.

IMO: Since the Southern Strategy, the GOP has become obstructionist, partisan to the point of not being able to legislate, ugly with xenophobia and have not kept pace with social progress. They are stuck in a time that never was. They think Ozzy and Harriet was a documentary and not simply an idolized world that never existed.

I poke fun but sometimes I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry. Had the GOP nominated Huntsman and there was no asinine and inappropriate cheering and booing I would have sung their praises.

Sadly, the lunatics are running the asylum.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I take it you thought the GOP debates were a waste of time and didn't watch them. I actually watched them and was appalled. It's one thing to think some policies necessary. It's another to cheer for them.

GOP debate: Thou shalt kill, cheer the Republicans

GOP Debate Hall of Shame: Audiences cheer torture, executions, and letting people go without health care; boo gay soldier serving in Iraq and statement that whole Muslim world not responsible for 9/11 (Video)

I will say that they didn't "cheer homophobia" but they did boo a gay service man.

Two questions:

When did the Republicans turn into the party of youtube comments?

Remember when Bush was in office and the Republicans distanced themselves from the extremists? Those were good days.

 

[newyorkguy]

The reality here is though, there's more than one way to look at this.

You see these people who have these extreme emotions and opinions. Where do they go? They're right-of-center (obviously) so the Republican Party is where they look. It's probably better they join a Tea Party, than one of the really extreme fringe groups.

So long as they're part of a mainstream faction -- even one on the outer fringes of mainstream -- it's possible at some point they may become more reasonable. They may become more moderate. They may rein in their more anti-social feelings.

We're a lot safer having Michele Bachmann leading these people than someone like Harold Covington.

 

[Minoosh]

Do the police have any reason to believe you have contraband?

Well no, I always put out the joint before I roll through - JOKING! It's just a major international corridor, that's all. Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant arrests annually in a sparsely populated area. There is reason to believe the vehicles have been in Mexico, statistically speaking.

You know there was a time when conservatives felt, as law-abiding citizens, when someone wants to know who you are or where you're going, the proper answer was, "None of your damn business!"

There are still "conservatives" who feel that way, but the label has come to mean something entirely different.

What you're saying sounds like privacy and liberty are being conflated. I don't think it's the government's business what books I check out of the library - however, the government has this information. I don't really expect much privacy anymore. That's not as much due to the government as it is to exploding information technology.

Apparently a lot of people don't mind being under surveillance - they wire themselves for it. There was some Facebook feature, "where are you right now" - like I really want my movements archived forever? But some people don't mind. It may be somewhat generational.

A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested.

Being arrested never affected my politics much.

 

[Minoosh]

Of course but Franklin was no dummy. He made certain to qualify his premises to ensure there would be no mistake that there would be trade offs. His point was trading "essential liberty" for a "little temporary safety".

Thanks for the reminder. His qualifying words mark him as a careful writer. I appreciate careful writing.

I have never thought of "weasel words" as a negative - generally I see them as evidence that a position is well thought out, nuanced and that the writer is being careful to render statements factually accurate or, in an editorial, defensible.

 

[KDLarsen]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...-arpaio-recall-fails-20130530,0,7548060.story

"Despite a recent court ruling that the department run by Maricopa County’s top cop used racial profiling in his quest to crack down on illegal immigration, a recall effort against Sheriff Joe Arpaio has failed. On Thursday, members of Respect Arizona and Citizens for a Better Arizona -- who launched the recall effort against Arpaio -- failed to gather the necessary 335,000 valid voter signatures by the 5 p.m. deadline. The aim was to force a recall election."


Good Ol' Uncle Joe!

There was a lawsuit opposing the recall effort, led by child molester, generic birther, and allround douche bag Larry Klayman. The judge in that case took two months to realise he might have a conflict of interest, seeing as he was named a partner of the law firm that defended Arpaio in the discrimination case

 

[Garrison]

The reality here is though, there's more than one way to look at this.

You see these people who have these extreme emotions and opinions. Where do they go? They're right-of-center (obviously) so the Republican Party is where they look. It's probably better they join a Tea Party, than one of the really extreme fringe groups.

So long as they're part of a mainstream faction -- even one on the outer fringes of mainstream -- it's possible at some point they may become more reasonable. They may become more moderate. They may rein in their more anti-social feelings.

We're a lot safer having Michele Bachmann leading these people than someone like Harold Covington.

It's a nice theory but look what happened to the UK Labour Party in the 1980s. It had drawn in a lot of hard left loonies and far from being moderated by the majority they tore the party in two and it was more than a decade before they had a shot at power again.

 

[newyorkguy]

I'm not talking about the far-right's effect on the Republican Party. I'm talking about the effect on society of people who are far-right. To keep them on the reservation so to speak.

You're citing an example from another country thirty years ago. I'm talking about the United States now.

An example would be 2010 when the freshman Tea Party Republicans arrived in Washington. They didn't want to pass a Federal budget. They wanted to "bring the whole thing down" and we can "start all over." Now if they had been a separate party they might've tried it. But they were still part of the Republican Party. The more moderate and rational Republican leadership convinced them that what they were proposing was very dangerous, that it might do drastic damage to the American economy. That if you try extreme measures you have to be willing to see that it may have unintended consequences. And to be responsible for that.

The Republican leadership got them to modify their positions, to act more responsibly. That was a huge plus for our country.

 

[DDWW]

The GOP crazy train. Cheer for killing. Cheer for homophobia. Cheer for those who die for lack of insurance. Now they are too apathetic to get rid of someone who is clearly a nut job of the highest order.

Gotta love 'em.

So you will now profile all Rebuplicans for " cheering for killing. Cheer for homophobia........ " even though you should know that is not true.

You just proved that you are a racist and BIGOT.

Welcome to real life bigot.

 

[elbe]

You just proved that you are a racist [...]

How's that now?

 

[DDWW]

How's that now?

Because you do not have to profile one race to be a racist. That was the argument supported by the original ruling and defended here so vigorously. Latinos are made up of all races as does the GOP. Just trying to be consistent here.

At least you did not question the bigotry.

 

[elbe]

Because you do not have to profile one race to be a racist. That was the argument supported by the original ruling and defended here so vigorously. Latinos are made up of all races as does the GOP. Just trying to be consistent here.

At least you did not question the bigotry.

I may question calling Rand a bigot for not liking GOP policies, but, yeah, racist doesn't follow.

 

[RandFan]

So you will now profile all Rebuplicans for " cheering for killing. Cheer for homophobia........ " even though you should know that is not true.

You just proved that you are a racist and BIGOT.

Welcome to real life bigot.

Dude, I'm talking about the PERCEPTION of the GOP. I admire George Will, Bob Dole, John Huntsman and many, many republicans. I've said over and over that I want a viable GOP. I've said that I don't trust politicians in any party that has fiat power. I've said that I don't have a home team and I subscribe to Johnathan Haidt's thesis outlined in The Righteous mind and the essay by Sam Harris the Fire Place delusion. I've said over and over that the GOP is NOT monolithic.

The problem is the crazies that are getting their way in candidates and policy. It's the crazies that get the attention.

Another thing, if Hilary gets the nomination to challenge the GOP I very likely won't vote for her, if that is the GOP puts up someone like Huntsman or Christie. I also won't vote for her if the both the house and senate are dominated by Democrats.

One last thing, I grew up a proud Republican. I didn't leave the party until 2 years ago. I proudly voted for Reagan and I liked him very much. I mourned his passing on this forum. I'm a big Eisenhower fan. I voted for both Bush I and Bush II (twice each). I'm a big fan of Susan Collins and many other republicans.

If you want to think me a bigot I don't mind. You are entitled to an opinion but it's flat out wrong. Racist? WTH? Against what race?

 

[RandFan]

I may question calling Rand a bigot for not liking GOP policies, but, yeah, racist doesn't follow.

Thank you. I'm against many current policies, general mind set and strategy. I think the crazies have far to much influence in the GOP. The GOP should have been downright embarrassed over the cheering of killing and the booing of a gay service man.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If you want to think me a bigot I don't mind. You are entitled to an opinion but it's flat out wrong. Racist? WTH? Against what race?

If you don't like people for being bigots, then you are bigot!

(why do conservatives use this line of reasoning?!)

 

[RandFan]

Because you do not have to profile one race to be a racist. That was the argument supported by the original ruling and defended here so vigorously. Latinos are made up of all races as does the GOP. Just trying to be consistent here.

What in the sam hell are you talking about?

At least you did not question the bigotry.

I may question calling Rand a bigot for not liking GOP policies, but, yeah, racist doesn't follow.

 

[elbe]

Thank you. I'm against many current policies, general mind set and strategy. I think the crazies have far to much influence in the GOP. The GOP should have been downright embarrassed over the cheering of killing and the booing of a gay service man.

I was worried that it was a bit awkwardly phrased.

 

[RandFan]

I was worried that it was a bit awkwardly phrased.

Understood. I'm not perfect.