CSNbbs

This letter from a former Republican state rep regarding the Abbott/Patrick insanity is worth reading.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/fd...eHelm2.jpg

Never thought I would miss W....

I have an idea - since "the United States" and the horrible people who volunteer to risk their lives by serving in its military are such a threat to Texas, why don't Texas Republicans lead the fight to move all military bases from Texas? That'll go over well.

(05-05-2015 10:27 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I have an idea - since "the United States" and the horrible people who volunteer to risk their lives by serving in its military are such a threat to Texas, why don't Texas Republicans lead the fight to move all military bases from Texas? That'll go over well.

Please don't paint us all with the same brush. I fully support the training of our troops and fear nothing from the Feds, except an audit.

(05-05-2015 01:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-05-2015 10:27 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I have an idea - since "the United States" and the horrible people who volunteer to risk their lives by serving in its military are such a threat to Texas, why don't Texas Republicans lead the fight to move all military bases from Texas? That'll go over well.

Please don't paint us all with the same brush. I fully support the training of our troops and fear nothing from the Feds, except an audit.

Too bad our governor doesn't agree with you.

(05-05-2015 01:13 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-05-2015 01:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-05-2015 10:27 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I have an idea - since "the United States" and the horrible people who volunteer to risk their lives by serving in its military are such a threat to Texas, why don't Texas Republicans lead the fight to move all military bases from Texas? That'll go over well.

Please don't paint us all with the same brush. I fully support the training of our troops and fear nothing from the Feds, except an audit.

Too bad our governor doesn't agree with you.

I think the whole brouhaha is silly. I think the governor made a mistake getting involved. I think you made a mistake attributing this attitude to the entire Republican Party. I am not a "card-carrying" Republican, but tend to support them, so I guess I can be included for discussion's sake.

(05-05-2015 09:18 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]This letter from a former Republican state rep regarding the Abbott/Patrick insanity is worth reading.

I think the key word here is former.

(05-05-2015 01:25 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-05-2015 09:18 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]This letter from a former Republican state rep regarding the Abbott/Patrick insanity is worth reading.

I think the key word here is former.

True. I'd like to see current Republican office holders standing up to this paranoid nonsense. Of course, the current ones either believe this crap or are afraid of the primary voters who do.

That's why I have limited sympathy for OO's protestations. I'm not generalizing from a few nut jobs at a town hall. I'm reacting to actions by the people in the two highest offices in the state...

Gohmert steps into the fray. What a surprise.

http://gohmert.house.gov/news/documentsi...tID=398216

I think all that needs to be done is a change in venue to Austin, away from those worried to those unworried. I would still support it.

(05-05-2015 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think all that needs to be done is a change in venue to Austin, away from those worried to those unworried. I would still support it.

Fine with me, but then they'll complain that Austin's getting the pork.

(05-05-2015 04:53 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-05-2015 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think all that needs to be done is a change in venue to Austin, away from those worried to those unworried. I would still support it.

Fine with me, but then they'll complain that Austin's getting the pork.

That's two ayes, zero nays, motion carries.

I think the 'uproar' over these comments is grossly blown out of proportion.

ONE of them, Gohmert I believe merely expressed 'appall' that the areas named as 'enemy' territories were (in his opinion) areas where Republicans and people who 'clung to their guns' had a strong majority. If he honestly thought there was some ill intent (other than by inference), 'Appall' wouldn't have been the word to describe it.

The other appears to be placating some crazies whose votes count just as much as any other voters... and sort of a 'we will give this all the oversight it deserves' sort of comment. It is ludicrous to think that war games being conducted on and near State Guard facilities wouldn't already have oversight by the State Guard... so the 'promise' to assign oversight is certainly pandering, but it is hardly worth getting one's dander up over.

I'm sure that some would have wanted a politician to chastise and refute someone with a crazy concern, but that is neither polite, serves a purpose nor politically expedient.

The people who have written these complaint letters are either those who wouldn't vote for a Republican if they were the only people on the ballot, or those who have been (imo) mislead by their interpretations of what these people said.

There are plenty of reasons not to like these or any other politicians... we don't need to be putting even more words in their mouths in order to do it.

(05-05-2015 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think all that needs to be done is a change in venue to Austin, away from those worried to those unworried. I would still support it.

Bastrop's practically Austin at this point. Several of my coworkers commute in from there.

(05-06-2015 10:30 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]ONE of them, Gohmert I believe merely expressed 'appall' that the areas named as 'enemy' territories were (in his opinion) areas where Republicans and people who 'clung to their guns' had a strong majority. If he honestly thought there was some ill intent (other than by inference), 'Appall' wouldn't have been the word to describe it.

No. You have cherry-picked his least weak point (though even it is not entirely accurate; check Arizona and Southern California).

But he also did his share of pandering on this specific issue ("Certainly, I can understand these concerns" ["that the U.S. Army is preparing for modern-day martial law"]), made a few wild accusations against the Obama administration, and threw in doses of alleged persecution of Christians and "just across our border" fear-mongering for good measure.

To be fair, most of this is par for the course for Gohmert.

Quote:It is ludicrous to think that war games being conducted on and near State Guard facilities wouldn't already have oversight by the State Guard.

"Asked by McClatchy whether it felt compelled to mobilize troops in order to monitor the exercises, Lt. Col. Joanne MacGregor, the unit’s public affairs officer, responded: 'The Texas State Guard stands ready to support the governor of Texas when called upon to serve.'

"Leaders of the Texas State Guard 'are in the process of examining the best way to meet the governor’s intent,' MacGregor said."(link)

Which doesn't give the impression that this oversight is at all routine.

Quote:I'm sure that some would have wanted a politician to chastise and refute someone with a crazy concern, but that is neither polite, serves a purpose nor politically expedient.

No. This stuff should not have been dignified with an official response or the involvement of the State Guard.

Quote:The people who have written these complaint letters are either those who wouldn't vote for a Republican if they were the only people on the ballot, or those who have been (imo) mislead by their interpretations of what these people said.

Which one of those categories do you think Todd Smith falls under?

And for the record (since the bell can't be un-rung) I give credit to the extant cooler-headed Republicans like Mac Thornberry, and wish them luck against their primary challengers.

I don't believe the army is trying to invade or conquer or take over Texas. At this point in time, that is quite frankly crackpot stuff.

At the same time, I don't see anything wrong with the kinds of actions that state agencies are taking here, unless they violate some federal or state statute, and I'm not aware of anything here that violates any such statute. I can see any number of benefits arising from the actions being taken, as I understand them.

I think the mouth-running on both sides is a lot worse than anything that is actually happening.

(05-06-2015 01:39 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2015 10:30 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]ONE of them, Gohmert I believe merely expressed 'appall' that the areas named as 'enemy' territories were (in his opinion) areas where Republicans and people who 'clung to their guns' had a strong majority. If he honestly thought there was some ill intent (other than by inference), 'Appall' wouldn't have been the word to describe it.

No. You have cherry-picked his least weak point (though even it is not entirely accurate; check Arizona and Southern California).

Actually, I only responded to the one single article I read on the subject and this was their entire quote of him. I've admitted he is likely creating a mountain out of a molehill for political purposes... but since when is that uncommon for a politician?

Quote:But he also did his share of pandering on this specific issue ("Certainly, I can understand these concerns" ["that the U.S. Army is preparing for modern-day martial law"]), made a few wild accusations against the Obama administration, and threw in doses of alleged persecution of Christians and "just across our border" fear-mongering for good measure.

Case in point. You're implying that by saying he 'understands their concerns' that he actually believes they have merit. People with agoraphobia have merit-less fears, but we all understand them, don't we? Is he being a politician? Absolutely... but at least in what you've quoted here (I have no idea about what the guy REALLY thinks) you're similarly cherry-picking quotes and even adding your own parenthetical comments to cast them in their worst light. I think there are some legitimate concerns about what is happening 'just across our border'... and the State Department warnings about them kind of lay claims of 'fear-mongering' a little moot. Over-stating? You bet. That's what politicians do... you know... like how Republicans are trying to starve poor people.

Maybe you're right that he's a crackpot. MAYBE he's just a run-of-the-mill, pandering politician like 90% of the rest of them. Either way, SOME are trying to use him to paint a wider group of people with his brush... and that is wrong.

Quote:

Quote:It is ludicrous to think that war games being conducted on and near State Guard facilities wouldn't already have oversight by the State Guard.

"Asked by McClatchy whether it felt compelled to mobilize troops in order to monitor the exercises, Lt. Col. Joanne MacGregor, the unit’s public affairs officer, responded: 'The Texas State Guard stands ready to support the governor of Texas when called upon to serve.'

"Leaders of the Texas State Guard 'are in the process of examining the best way to meet the governor’s intent,' MacGregor said."(link)

Which doesn't give the impression that this oversight is at all routine.

Impressions, especially from reporters quotes aren't facts.

MacGregor's response is absolutely routine military jargon. They serve at the pleasure of the State. They stand ready to do whatever their commander in chief orders them to do (assuming it doesn't otherwise violate their oath).

You also left the rest of her quote off of the second quote. It reads: She said they are working with the U.S. Special Operations Command “in order to alleviate any possible public concerns.”

It sounds like she believes the governor's intent was to alleviate any possible public concerns. What is wrong with that?

Quote:

Quote:I'm sure that some would have wanted a politician to chastise and refute someone with a crazy concern, but that is neither polite, serves a purpose nor politically expedient.

No. This stuff should not have been dignified with an official response or the involvement of the State Guard.

The state guard was involved anyway. the exercise takes place on/near their land.

Yeah, you're right. we shouldn't dignify people with claustrophobia either. Their concerns are all in their head as well.

The REALITY is that there are people who are legitimately concerned about the over-reaching government. They aren't really concerned about an 'invasion' per-se, but they ARE worried about the increasing power of the Federal government relative to the states... and this should be a very understandable concern

Quote:

Quote:The people who have written these complaint letters are either those who wouldn't vote for a Republican if they were the only people on the ballot, or those who have been (imo) mislead by their interpretations of what these people said.

Which one of those categories do you think Todd Smith falls under?

So now I have to list every single person and their possible reasons?

Essentially the latter. Todd Smith is a politician, right? I think he's obviously responding in a way that furthers his own political goals and needs.... and the left has mislead people and it has some traction with voters... and Todd Smith is distancing himself from those conceptions. Why should he put his political capital on the line to defend someone else?

(05-06-2015 01:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't believe the army is trying to invade or conquer or take over Texas. At this point in time, that is quite frankly crackpot stuff.

At the same time, I don't see anything wrong with the kinds of actions that state agencies are taking here, unless they violate some federal or state statute, and I'm not aware of anything here that violates any such statute. I can see any number of benefits arising from the actions being taken, as I understand them.

I think the mouth-running on both sides is a lot worse than anything that is actually happening.

Agreed. A few on the right tried to make a mountain out of a mole-hill... and it has somewhat backfired... Of course, it isn't what some on the left have wanted to claim it is, but that doesn't mean that it was 'smart'.

There's a difference between thinking what was said wasn't good or smart, and thinking that it was 'crazy'.

(05-07-2015 02:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, I only responded to the one single article I read on the subject and this was their entire quote of him. I've admitted he is likely creating a mountain out of a molehill for political purposes... but since when is that uncommon for a politician?

Quote:But he also did his share of pandering on this specific issue ("Certainly, I can understand these concerns" ["that the U.S. Army is preparing for modern-day martial law"]), made a few wild accusations against the Obama administration, and threw in doses of alleged persecution of Christians and "just across our border" fear-mongering for good measure.

Case in point. You're implying that by saying he 'understands their concerns' that he actually believes they have merit. People with agoraphobia have merit-less fears, but we all understand them, don't we? Is he being a politician? Absolutely... but at least in what you've quoted here (I have no idea about what the guy REALLY thinks) you're similarly cherry-picking quotes and even adding your own parenthetical comments to cast them in their worst light.

If you're going to accuse me of that, then at least read his full statement. I already provided the link. My parenthetical was a direct quote of his words, that "these" referred to.

So should the governor of South Carolina have put out an official response to the people of South Carolina alleviating their fears that Obama wanted to nuke Charleston?

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articl...h-carolina

At some point, you need to call a spade a spade and not give in to the crazies on either side. Recognizing them, and even appeasing them by providing oversight, gives credence to their cause. Unless Abbot already had plans to send state forces to oversee these exercises prior to this nonsense hitting the airwaves, he should have just stayed out of it.

But then again, they're all just part of the same group of political overlords: the lizard people (At least Rumsfeld knew how to handle that http://splitsider.com/2011/02/in-which-l...en-lizard/)

(05-07-2015 05:47 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-07-2015 02:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, I only responded to the one single article I read on the subject and this was their entire quote of him. I've admitted he is likely creating a mountain out of a molehill for political purposes... but since when is that uncommon for a politician?

Quote:But he also did his share of pandering on this specific issue ("Certainly, I can understand these concerns" ["that the U.S. Army is preparing for modern-day martial law"]), made a few wild accusations against the Obama administration, and threw in doses of alleged persecution of Christians and "just across our border" fear-mongering for good measure.

Case in point. You're implying that by saying he 'understands their concerns' that he actually believes they have merit. People with agoraphobia have merit-less fears, but we all understand them, don't we? Is he being a politician? Absolutely... but at least in what you've quoted here (I have no idea about what the guy REALLY thinks) you're similarly cherry-picking quotes and even adding your own parenthetical comments to cast them in their worst light.

If you're going to accuse me of that, then at least read his full statement. I already provided the link. My parenthetical was a direct quote of his words, that "these" referred to.

the parenthetical of 'these' is not what I was referring to and I regret using the term... It is the made a few wild accusations against the Obama administration, and threw in doses of alleged persecution of Christians and "just across our border" fear-mongering for good measure. comment.

Having said that, your selected quotes are STILL no more complete than mine. If you don't like mine because you think they are the least important, I'd say the exact same thing to you. You intentionally selected 'certain' quotes to make your point, and to make it worse, characterized the rest of of his statements as wild fear-mongering which only seeks to dismiss them without investigation.

However, it is obviously in those comments where the REAL issues lie.

Bill Clinton said: 'No matter how many millions of Americans al-Qaeda might kill, unless President Obama and Congress are among the victims these Islamists will never bring down the United States Government,” Clinton insisted. “The Tea Partiers, on the other hand, represent a very real threat. It is conceivable that they could overturn the Democratic majority in Congress this November and might even succeed in defeating the President’s bid for a second term.'

So Americans not re-electing Obama and a Democratic Congress are a bigger threat to this country than the death of millions of Americans? You don't honestly believe that, or that he believed that, do you? That is one of the things Gohmert is referring to and it happened.

Obama himself compared atrocities being carried out in the name of Islam in 2014 to atrocities carried out in the name of Christianity in 1100. That is one of the things Gohmert is referring to and it happened.

And of course, in LOCAL elections with far smaller players, FAR worse things have been said.

Those aren't wild accusations.

Now from your own article, a comment that you ignored:

'Having served in the U.S. Army, I can understand why military officials have a goal to see if groups of Special Forces can move around a civilian population without being noticed and can handle various threat scenarios. In military science classes or in my years on active duty, I have participated in or observed military exercises; however, we never named an existing city or state as a “hostile.” We would use fictitious names before we would do such a thing.'

'When the federal government begins, even in practice, games or exercises, to consider any U.S. city or state in 'hostile' control and trying to retake it, the message becomes extremely calloused and suspicious.'

Now you may disagree with him, but does that honestly sound to you like someone who is concerned about an invasion?

It DOES sound like someone who is honestly concerned that the government doesn't seem to mind labeling people with different political beliefs as 'threats to democracy' and 'hostile'. It DOES sound like someone who is honestly concerned that our leaders compare an atrocity that happened last month and is still a risk to happen tomorrow to something that happened in the 1100's (or even from 1890-1965) as remotely equal issues for the government. He is accusing the government of being insensitive and callous. The suspicion is that this is intentional and not merely an oversight... NOT because they would actually invade, but in another attempt to diminish and marginalize those with different opinions than the current administration.

As I said, is it hyperbolic? Absolutely. So were the comments he is responding to. Clinton doesn't REALLY think that the Tea party is a bigger threat to democracy than the death of millions of Americans... and Obama doesn't REALLY think that 12th century Crusaders or even early 1900's Jim Crowe laws are a bigger threat than those who killed people in the last few weeks...

but if you put the same literal and selective quotes that you and others have done, one could EASILY create that impression.

(05-08-2015 04:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-07-2015 05:47 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-07-2015 02:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, I only responded to the one single article I read on the subject and this was their entire quote of him. I've admitted he is likely creating a mountain out of a molehill for political purposes... but since when is that uncommon for a politician?

Quote:But he also did his share of pandering on this specific issue ("Certainly, I can understand these concerns" ["that the U.S. Army is preparing for modern-day martial law"]), made a few wild accusations against the Obama administration, and threw in doses of alleged persecution of Christians and "just across our border" fear-mongering for good measure.

Case in point. You're implying that by saying he 'understands their concerns' that he actually believes they have merit. People with agoraphobia have merit-less fears, but we all understand them, don't we? Is he being a politician? Absolutely... but at least in what you've quoted here (I have no idea about what the guy REALLY thinks) you're similarly cherry-picking quotes and even adding your own parenthetical comments to cast them in their worst light.

If you're going to accuse me of that, then at least read his full statement. I already provided the link. My parenthetical was a direct quote of his words, that "these" referred to.

the parenthetical of 'these' is not what I was referring to and I regret using the term... It is the made a few wild accusations against the Obama administration, and threw in doses of alleged persecution of Christians and "just across our border" fear-mongering for good measure. comment.

Having said that, your selected quotes are STILL no more complete than mine. If you don't like mine because you think they are the least important, I'd say the exact same thing to you. You intentionally selected 'certain' quotes to make your point, and to make it worse, characterized the rest of of his statements as wild fear-mongering which only seeks to dismiss them without investigation.

However, it is obviously in those comments where the REAL issues lie.

Bill Clinton said: 'No matter how many millions of Americans al-Qaeda might kill, unless President Obama and Congress are among the victims these Islamists will never bring down the United States Government,” Clinton insisted. “The Tea Partiers, on the other hand, represent a very real threat. It is conceivable that they could overturn the Democratic majority in Congress this November and might even succeed in defeating the President’s bid for a second term.'

So Americans not re-electing Obama and a Democratic Congress are a bigger threat to this country than the death of millions of Americans? You don't honestly believe that, or that he believed that, do you? That is one of the things Gohmert is referring to and it happened.

Obama himself compared atrocities being carried out in the name of Islam in 2014 to atrocities carried out in the name of Christianity in 1100. That is one of the things Gohmert is referring to and it happened.

And of course, in LOCAL elections with far smaller players, FAR worse things have been said.

Those aren't wild accusations.

Now from your own article, a comment that you ignored:

'Having served in the U.S. Army, I can understand why military officials have a goal to see if groups of Special Forces can move around a civilian population without being noticed and can handle various threat scenarios. In military science classes or in my years on active duty, I have participated in or observed military exercises; however, we never named an existing city or state as a “hostile.” We would use fictitious names before we would do such a thing.'

'When the federal government begins, even in practice, games or exercises, to consider any U.S. city or state in 'hostile' control and trying to retake it, the message becomes extremely calloused and suspicious.'

Now you may disagree with him, but does that honestly sound to you like someone who is concerned about an invasion?

It DOES sound like someone who is honestly concerned that the government doesn't seem to mind labeling people with different political beliefs as 'threats to democracy' and 'hostile'. It DOES sound like someone who is honestly concerned that our leaders compare an atrocity that happened last month and is still a risk to happen tomorrow to something that happened in the 1100's (or even from 1890-1965) as remotely equal issues for the government. He is accusing the government of being insensitive and callous. The suspicion is that this is intentional and not merely an oversight... NOT because they would actually invade, but in another attempt to diminish and marginalize those with different opinions than the current administration.

As I said, is it hyperbolic? Absolutely. So were the comments he is responding to. Clinton doesn't REALLY think that the Tea party is a bigger threat to democracy than the death of millions of Americans... and Obama doesn't REALLY think that 12th century Crusaders or even early 1900's Jim Crowe laws are a bigger threat than those who killed people in the last few weeks...

but if you put the same literal and selective quotes that you and others have done, one could EASILY create that impression.

That's not a Clinton quote. It was made up by conservative satirist John Semmens.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/blogge...5184/posts

Drawing an equivalence between crazy **** actually Gohmert actually said and crazy **** written by a conservative satirist to make Clinton look bad... really makes Gravy's point for him, and eloquently.