“Our country is being destroyed. Every generation has had to fight the fight for freedom… Terrorism? Yes. That’s not the big battle,” he said. “The big battle is in D.C. with the radicals. They aren’t liberals. They are radicals. Obama, Pelosi, Walz: They’re not liberals, they’re radicals. They are destroying our country.”
Let me get this straight, in Quist’s mind, suicide bombers aren’t as bad as the public option? I knew Quist was a Bachmannista, but I think the student has become the master. If Bachmann want’s to hold onto her title of craziest Republican in Minnesota, she’s going to have to up her game.
There is some truth that liberty battles must first be fought at home. Terrorists are trying to destroy our freedoms everyday and we all acknowledge that. The Democrat D.C. crowd has also taken our liberties in 2009. Ownership of private companies, forced modifications of financial contracts with banks, forced purchasing of health insurance. These all infringe on our individual liberties granted to every man.
If we don't ensure our liberties at home first and give them up willingly to liberals than it is no better than giving them up to terrorists.
Your argument falls flat on its ass, MOA.
Who was responsible for the largest single revocation of civil rights since Lincoln suspended habeous corpus? Conservatives with the USA Patriot act, that's who.
And now, a litany of right-wing rebuttals, absurdly claiming that since a lot of liberals voted for it, they're somehow just as guilty. Forget it, right-wing lemmings. The bill that the left voted for and the one that acutally became law were vastly differernt. Just another sleight of hand by the treasonous right.
The fact that Democrats have since gaining the White house advocated for continuing the Patriot Act with few modifications does make them nearly as guilty as the collection from both parties that passed it in the first place. That is on top of Obama signing in to law the immunity for telecommunication companies that were accessories to government spying on its own citizens, throwing more troops into the middle east and ramping up remote drone assassinations in foreign countries. Guess that puts both parties in the group that Pete wants executed by firing squad. What is the matter Pete? Don't you support our President? Are you a traitor? Nope, just an idiot who is only able to admit the sins of one party. The kind of person neither party could do without.
You guys sure do love Democracy until you lose. Then it's revolution time for you.
Isn’t this the guy who lost his election by a landslide
during Arne Carlson’s last tenure as gov
& then got appointed by Arne
despite the voter rejection?
In 1994, Quist won the endorsement at the state Repub convention over Carlson, who had already served one term. Carlson challenged him in the primary and won easily. In that same election, lt. governor Jonelle Dyrstad (sp?) lost her primary challenge to then Rep-Rod Grams, who went on to win the general election for a U.S. Senate seat.
One more time, since the login went wonky:
Isn't this the guy who lost his election by a landslide
during Arne Carlson's last tenure as gov
& then got appointed by Arne
despite the voter rejection?
Quist is off his (cheney)in' rocker.
As is MOA.
Tim Walz is the highest ranking enlisted man to ever serve in the US House of Representatives, and RightWingNuts think he's more dangerous than Al Qeda??!?
What a buch of (cheney)in' lunatics.
Taking domestic political advice from Al Quist is like taking investment advice from a panhandler… sure to be wrong but damn entertaining. Al Quist is clown with exactly no chance at getting elected to anything higher than John Birch Society Sergeant at Arms.
Al must be stroking himself nightly on the dream of Minnesota liberals in their Volvos being sent to Guantanimo.
Leaving the nomination to Quist - that is, not putting up a better candidate - means that the Republicans no longer view Walz as vulnerable.
It's more like Bachmann is a Quist acolyte than the other way round. He's been at this for a while:
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/19...
"He's careful not to repeat his contention that women are genetically predisposed to following men's authority."
I think Quist is part of the GOP's unspoken political program: to change their image from "Party of No" to "Party of Comic Relief".
Look, your arguments always fall flat because you ass them on something that is completely fabricated. I never voted for or supported GWB…
There you go with the straw man arguments, again. There is ample, documented evidence that the patriot act was a ruse by the right. What the democrats voted 'yes' to, and what actually became law, were not the same things. So don't try to claim they supported it. They didn't.
I agree that the idea that opposition to elected officials is not treasonous. That idea was first posted by a half-wit with whom I am sure you are well acquainted.
Master of the straw man, you are. You should design the next burning man!
In that post, I said that an entire party that does everything it can to obstruct the agenda of the opposite party, on nearly every bill that comes before them, just because they're bitter they lost, and refuse to be adults and step aside and let the people's will be implemented, are borderline treasonous. And those that support them are too.
So who's the REAL idiot. Look in your own mirror.
"There is ample, documented evidence that the patriot act was a ruse by the right. What the democrats voted 'yes' to, and what actually became law, were not the same things. So don't try to claim they supported it. They didn't. "
PART 1
I have to confess to being ignorant as to what you're referring to when you differentiate between what Democrats voted for and what was in the Patriot Act. Personally, I think the Democrats acted rather gutlessly and caved to the Republican pushes to pass the most egregious parts of the Patriot Act. In addition, I sadly have to agree with Kerosene that Obama has NOT done enough to differentiate himself from Bush regarding these issues. Some of it I chalk up to political expediency- which is disappointing but given real world considerations we must choose our battles.
PART 2
The political right has always been better at slogan politics. Democrats caved before the slogan "you're soft on national security". Democrats got rolled just like their previous standard-bearer, John Kerry, got rolled time and again. It still makes the Republicans worse in my book, but I'm sorry, I just can't forgive the Democrat's tendency to fold rather than effectively fight for what it right.
My point was that a defense for Democrats with a claim of Republican sins is pointless. I am not a Republican, I don't support any political party. For the Patriot Act, Telecom Immunity and the other issues the fact remains that there has been no efort by the Democrats to repeal them or change there effect. They have the ability to do so and becasue they do not they now own them just as much as the Republicans.
You claimed that people acting within the law when executing their responsibilities in our system of government were committing treason becasue they were not in line with those of the party in power. Same thing I presented. That kind of idea is complete idiocy, destructive and boils down to a threat of violence as I believe we still kill traitors in this country. You wanted to use a complete fabricated, idiotic definition of treason then you can't complain when it backfires. Besides forcing representatives to "let the people's will" be implemented sounds like you are advocating for direct democracy which is not in our constitution. Are you a traitor? Nope, still just a poorly educated knuckle-dragger.
Alan Quist is Michele Bachmann's mentor in all things political. Where do you think she gets her batshit crazy ideas from???
I love watching original topics get perverted into an overall discussion of this, that and the next thing.
Allen Quist is genetically predisposed to get beat on like a bongo drum at the ballot box. Again. If Quist represents the only Republican in the party’s view that allegedly has the best chance of being elected….
Wow, you are a moron. The changes made to Patriot revise the unconstitutional portion, and BUSH signed telecom immunity…not obama
KH, KH, KH, (Cracker was never as good as CVB, btw, imo)
That's all ya got? Bush practically turns our country into a fascist regime with a load of unconstitutional revocations of civil rights, and you try to equate Obama voting for telecom immunity (which I opposed, btw. One can oppose votes their elected reps make and not be treasonous, you halfwit) with that?
In your addlepated brain, a jaywalker and an axe murderer both deserve the same sentence, because, after all, they're both criminals.
See loj's comment. It goes double for me.
You are correct. Obama did however vote for it, has supported it and has since instructed the justice department to defend it in the courts. So though correct your point is mute.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-27/bay-area/17...
Which were those changes to the Patriot Act that you speak of? Do those minor revisions mean you support the vast majority of the Patriot Act?
Unfortunately, Kerosene is right. Obama has hardly toed the line of many of his supporters on the left, particularly those who have had serious civil liberties objections to many Patriot Act provisions.
Not mute, moot.
I agree about CVB. The rest, not so much.
Look, your arguments always fall flat because you ass them on something that is completely fabricated. I never voted for or supported GWB. I was against the war before it began (unlike so many elected Democrats) and have thought the Patriot Act was an obviously a power grab based on fear-mongering. So you can eliminate that method of argument from your limited arsenal.
You criminal analogy is interesting but you applied it poorly. A more accurate construction would be that I am not willing to overlook a case of armed assault simply because the criminal didn't mortally wound the victim like the last criminal did. I am more than willing to say that Obama is a bit better than GWB on these issues but the difference are small.
I am also unwilling to do as you do and carry water for criminal political parties either because I find one a bit less offensive than another or because one has a tendency to provide hand outs to the right group of people.
I agree that the idea that opposition to elected officials is not treasonous. That idea was first posted by a half-wit with whom I am sure you are well acquainted. I assume you own a mirror, right?