More Far-Right Violence?

[LisaM22]

"More Far-Right Violence? Anti-Immigrant Suspects In Arizona Killing Have Ties To White Supremacists"

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/more_rightwing_violence_anti-immigrant_suspects_in_1.php#more?ref=n

[Tracian]

Again, I think trying to connect these freaks with 'Far Right Wing' is like connecting radical environmental groups with 'Far Left'

Those terms are counter productive meant to divide our nation rather than unite it.

[Details]

Interesting developments.

I wouldn't call her part of the Minutemen - nor would I call them white supremacists - their goal is stopping illegal immigration, and they expelled her quite awhile ago when they found out what she was about. In another article, a Hate group tracking center director agreed - said she was not part of that group at all, was regarded as a nut by them.

Sounds to me like she's got a very different agenda, and was just looking for anywhere she could recruit people - using the Minuteman name, looking into Aryan Nation - but going to Syria - she's obviously mostly nutjob, partly thug, no doubt some fair bit bigoted racist too.

[Tracian]

:confused: The OP posted FAR. What would make you happier? Extremist element? Is there a difference?

They are not Far Right...they are fanatics. That is the point. I don't know why it is so important to try to use little 'buzz' words.

What as Hilter? Far Right? GMAB. These fanatics are extremists, most of them want to over throw the government, they do not embrace anything from either party.

[flareon]

Again, I think trying to connect these freaks with 'Far Right Wing' is like connecting radical environmental groups with 'Far Left'

Those terms are counter productive meant to divide our nation rather than unite it.

You are exactly right. It is just sheer silliness and tasteless rhetoric to try to compare these people to the far right wing of the Republican party.

If this is the case, then I guess all of the senseless killings done each day in the inner cities is because they feel emboldened because of the victim mentality and unsuccessful welfare programs touted by the far left wing of the Democratic party.

[flareon]

Wow, you really expect to be taken seriously when you call Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh radical elements of "RW extremism" (tm) Yeah, like Joy Behar and Keith Olberman are the radical elements of "LW extremism" (tm)

Riiiiight...wing extremism....its what's for dinner.

LMBO

IMHO

It is amusing. The only reason Coulter and Limbaugh are on their radar screens is because their garbage sources bring them up on a constant basis.

[LisaM22]

It is amusing. The only reason Coulter and Limbaugh are on their radar screens is because their garbage sources bring them up on a constant basis.

the right hasn't said a word, they even invited them to their CPAC, Fox has them both on as well

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qtvtBGWgBc

[LisaM22]

Again, I think trying to connect these freaks with 'Far Right Wing' is like connecting radical environmental groups with 'Far Left'

Those terms are counter productive meant to divide our nation rather than unite it.

I do not think these fanatics are of the far right, I think it is the tone of the far right that is pushing them over the edge, though some do have far right beliefs, like the pro-life terrorists - it's like calling all muslim extreamists terrorists, that is not true, but they do give the fanatics that extra push they need to kill or terrorize others, they make the fanatics feel like they have a MISSION

[MercedesV]

I think the recent batch of fanatical violence is very frightening. From Dr. Tiller, to the horrid shooting at a recruiting center and of course the horrid shooting at the Holocaust museum.

What I find of great concern, and which isn't getting much attention is two recent episodes which involve different members of the GOP.

From an article one episode:

South Carolina GOP activist and former chairman of the state elections commission Rusty DePass has apologized for saying a gorilla that escaped from a zoo was an "ancestor" of Michelle Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/14/rusty-depass-south-caroli_n_215439.html

And then another episode:

# E-mail shows U.S. presidents; Obama depicted as white eyes on black background
# It was sent by aide to Diane Black, head of Tennessee Senate Republican Caucus
# Aide says she sent it to "the wrong list of people;" Black says she won't be fired
# Tennessee Democrats call the e-mail "racist smear," call for aide to be fired

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/16/tennessee.email/index.html

[watcher2005]

Hmm. I'm sure this was all in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

[gamma]

They are not Far Right...they are fanatics. That is the point. I don't know why it is so important to try to use little 'buzz' words.

What as Hilter? Far Right? GMAB. These fanatics are extremists, most of them want to over throw the government, they do not embrace anything from either party.

Wrong. They most certainly are Extreme Right Wing Terrorist's. You can give them any of name you wish, but it doesn't mean it's so.

IMO, JMHO

[gamma]

It is amusing. The only reason Coulter and Limbaugh are on their radar screens is because their garbage sources bring them up on a constant basis.

There is NOTHING amusing about extreme right wing hatred. Nothing.

JMHO

[gamma]

Wow, you really expect to be taken seriously when you call Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh radical elements of "RW extremism" (tm) Yeah, like Joy Behar and Keith Olberman are the radical elements of "LW extremism" (tm)

Riiiiight...wing extremism....its what's for dinner.

LMBO

IMHO

Wow, you really expect to be taken seriously when you call Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh radical elements of "RW extremism" .

You betcha. We've already had two murders because of the hate and violence they incite. You may think that's OK, but most of the free world does not. JMHO

MO

[LisaM22]

I think the recent batch of fanatical violence is very frightening. From Dr. Tiller, to the horrid shooting at a recruiting center and of course the horrid shooting at the Holocaust museum.

What I find of great concern, and which isn't getting much attention is two recent episodes which involve different members of the GOP.

From an article one episode:

South Carolina GOP activist and former chairman of the state elections commission Rusty DePass has apologized for saying a gorilla that escaped from a zoo was an "ancestor" of Michelle Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/14/rusty-depass-south-caroli_n_215439.html

And then another episode:

# E-mail shows U.S. presidents; Obama depicted as white eyes on black background
# It was sent by aide to Diane Black, head of Tennessee Senate Republican Caucus
# Aide says she sent it to "the wrong list of people;" Black says she won't be fired
# Tennessee Democrats call the e-mail "racist smear," call for aide to be fired

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/16/tennessee.email/index.html

crazy, and these people are supposed to be leaders

[gamma]

ITA Maybe those running around quoting Limbaugh and Coulter will some day see the light.
And there are some of us who are neither right or left..just somewhere in the middle, but still have utter disdain for those who spout their hatred daily. Their poison little minds are attempting to infect those who can't think for themselves.

Their poisonous little minds have already infected too many extreme right wing terrorist's, IMO. They're bigots who hate everything and everyone except their own agendas.

IMO

Hi Suzz!! :seeya:

[gamma]

Of course. The fact that Tiller the Killer was a notorious late term abortionist who had been shot at previously and his assasin is a nut case is beside the point. And the murderer at the Holocaust Museum is very unbalanced based on what I have read about him means nothing if you can prove that he had an AM radio.:rolleyes:

I betting that the SON of the murderer at the Holocaust Museum knows his Father better than you do. He gave a statement on the National News yesterday that his Father was full of Hate and Evil, and always has been. He also stated he wished his Father had been the one killed instead of the innocent guard [All Paraphrased}.

Therefore, you can spin this any way you want, but the truth will prevail.

IMO

[gamma]

:ohmy: Some apology huh? And the email was obviously sent from work. And how does calling a gorilla an ancestor of MO warrant just a mere apology. Oh these are just plain wrong can't even think of an appropriate adjective :(

IMO Lisa has made a valid point re: the far right !

Forrester, in his Web posting, said, "Ms. Goforth does not seem to understand what she did wrong. She has apologized for 'sending [the e-mail] to the wrong list of people.' I believe that any list of people would have recognized this e-mail as offensive and hateful."

I can believe that. It's frightening the hate that surrounds us in this country, isn't it? she definitely should be fired. Since when is anyone better than anyone else because of their ethnicity, or religion? Yet, we have many, EVERYWHERE (even on "some" message boards) that actually think that criteria makes the determination of who is better than whom. GMAB! They're so lost.

IMO

[gamma]

And what does that have to do with Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh? The killer at the Holocaust Memorial is 82 years old, neither Coulter nor Limbaugh are even in their 60's. If the killer "was full of Hate and Evil, and always has been", it's quite a stretch to blame either of them for him moral bankruptcy.

IMO

I was responding to your post, remember this:

Originally Posted by choco_con
Of course. The fact that Tiller the Killer was a notorious late term abortionist who had been shot at previously and his assasin is a nut case is beside the point. And the murderer at the Holocaust Museum is very unbalanced based on what I have read about him means nothing if you can prove that he had an AM radio.

Just for the record Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Riley, and many others incite those hateful, evil extreme right wing terrorist's. Understand now?

IMO, JMHO

[gamma]

Amen to that. It's very revealing when a son wishes his own father dead. Thank goodness his son had the intelligence and the courage to betray the ways of his father.
One son wishes his father dead, the other cries for his dad to be alive.

Hi Gamma:smile:

Exactly. :thumbsup:

[LisaM22]

Why, are you considering voting for her should she run for National office in the future? If Bill Ayers isn't a terrorist for bombing police offices and the pentagon, why should those who bomb abortion clinics be considered terrorists? Obama doesn't think Ayers is a terrorist, thus using logic, he must also not feel those who bomb abortion clinics are terrorists either.

Bill Ayers was a terrorist imo, he turned his life around, not many terrorist do that, I am surprised he did, guess almost going to prison for life scared him straight, he got very lucky

[theal3]

Bill Ayers was a terrorist imo, he turned his life around, not many terrorist do that, I am surprised he did, guess almost going to prison for life scared him straight, he got very lucky

He wasn't convicted of anything. Yes he talked the talk and hung out with folks, but in the end. Not convicted. Yes, lucky. Almost like lots of life experiences we've all had when young: almost PG, almost a DUI, almost the Father, almost killed, almost caught, almost divorced, on the edge...... then you turn it around as you get beyond your idealist 20s or 30s? IMHO..... who her are the puritans? IMHO. And Ayers did what he did, when Barack was a toddler. Geeze Louis,,,, didn't Hannity harp on that enough in the last election cycle, which was all last summer and ended last Nov. IMHO

[LisaM22]

He wasn't convicted of anything. Yes he talked the talk and hung out with folks, but in the end. Not convicted. Yes, lucky. Almost like lots of life experiences we've all had when young: almost PG, almost a DUI, almost the Father, almost killed, almost caught, almost divorced, on the edge...... then you turn it around as you get beyond your idealist 20s or 30s? IMHO..... who her are the puritans? IMHO. And Ayers did what he did, when Barack was a toddler. Geeze Louis,,,, didn't Hannity harp on that enough in the last election cycle, which was all last summer and ended last Nov. IMHO

yep, some on the right think it justifies terrorism on the right or something

[theal3]

yep, some on the right think it justifies terrorism on the right or something

The left in extreme, throws stones at property, or blocks a driveway or a business, or hangs from trees to save a neighborhood, or gets on boats to save whales or dolphins, or sets fires to parking lots: not kill people. The left "hate speech" IMHO is about process, or priorities, or the enviorenment, or animals, or science, or for peace.....or justice or equality..... the right does bad things about other peoples behavior or habits or jokes, or art, or movies, and are always anti government, and they want to get elected and run for office? It's so nutty. IMHO

[magythekat]

"More Far-Right Violence? Anti-Immigrant Suspects In Arizona Killing Have Ties To White Supremacists"

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/more_rightwing_violence_anti-immigrant_suspects_in_1.php#more?ref=n


Sooo? What else is new? We all know how crazy the white supremacists are? What does this have to do with the price of eggs in China? :tonguewag::rolleyes:

[magythekat]

Again, I think trying to connect these freaks with 'Far Right Wing' is like connecting radical environmental groups with 'Far Left'

Those terms are counter productive meant to divide our nation rather than unite it.

Kudos Tracian...spoken like a true American patriot! Bright Blessing to you dear.

[momof6]

Are some of you people saying only far right wingers cause some to go off?

Where does that leave the far left? I haven't seen them mentioned. Like ELF, PETA, Code Pink, or what about Ayers and his left wing bombers (home terrorist). And I do believe Tiller was far left. He got payed big bucks to dismember live innocent babies.


The lady that helped kill these people sounds nutty. The man that killed the soldier recently, stated that he thought his killing was justified because our soldiers are killing muslims.

We can throw out names all day of who is stirring what pot and we would have a lot of names on the list. It all boils down to choice. A person can choose to kill or not. Or a person can try to change things they don't like peacefully.

[YoYo]

Are some of you people saying only far right wingers cause some to go off?

Where does that leave the far left? I haven't seen them mentioned. Like ELF, PETA, Code Pink, or what about Ayers and his left wing bombers (home terrorist). And I do believe Tiller was far left. He got payed big bucks to dismember live innocent babies.


The lady that helped kill these people sounds nutty. The man that killed the soldier recently, stated that he thought his killing was justified because our soldiers are killing muslims.

We can throw out names all day of who is stirring what pot and we would have a lot of names on the list. It all boils down to choice. A person can choose to kill or not. Or a person can try to change things they don't like peacefully.

Excellent post.

[Tracian]

The left in extreme, throws stones at property, or blocks a driveway or a business, or hangs from trees to save a neighborhood, or gets on boats to save whales or dolphins, or sets fires to parking lots: not kill people. The left "hate speech" IMHO is about process, or priorities, or the enviorenment, or animals, or science, or for peace.....or justice or equality..... the right does bad things about other peoples behavior or habits or jokes, or art, or movies, and are always anti government, and they want to get elected and run for office? It's so nutty. IMHO


That is not always true. The extreme eco-terrorists also spike trees that cause injury to workers, they have fire bombed labs, they have vandalised property.


http://science.howstuffworks.com/eco-terror.htm/printable


Now, I am against clear cutting, I am against animal testing and furs. I do not consider these people extreme left, I consider them criminals that think the end justifies the means.

Why I object to calling racists 'extreme right wing' is because these people (using the term loosely) are against everyone, including several that are members of the GOP. They are not radical right wing, they are bigots, that would turn on the Republican Party just as fast as they would turn on the Democrats.

For instance:

The right is basically Pro Life---
Many Catholics are also Pro Life--

Most White Supremacist groups are against Catholics; even though they share a common thread in the issue of Pro Life.

[Tracian]

Many people feel the same way about the dangerous rantings of glenn, ann and rush.:wink:


I watch Glenn Beck on occasion, because I personally like to hear both sides of an issue, and I enjoy the times Penn is on the show. The other two...not interested at all.

Just because a show has 'ratings' it does not mean that everyone that watches is in complete agreement with the comments or thoughts that person is offering.

[Tracian]

Kudos Tracian...spoken like a true American patriot! Bright Blessing to you dear.

Thank you for the kind words. It is my opinion if we (as a society) continue to demonize the opposing party, no matter who is the President, nothing will be accomplished.

There is many positive things that both parties can bring to our country, I don't understand the constant focus on only the negative areas, real or hyperbole.

[flareon]

I don't think terrorism of any kind is acceptable. Whether it be the bombing of a police station or abortion clinic. I don't associate with either, regardless of whether they bombed an abortion clinic when I was 5 or not. Its called being principled. It's a shame more people don't expect that in their politicians.

IMO

You are exactly right, but many people's ethics and values are determined by the letter behind the name or if they can wring some value out of the relationship.

[watcher2005]

You are exactly right, but many people's ethics and values are determined by the letter behind the name or if they can wring some value out of the relationship.

People tolerated things from Bush that they would have complained about under Clinton. People are giving Obama a pass for things that were complained about under Bush.

[daniel green]

"More Far-Right Violence? Anti-Immigrant Suspects In Arizona Killing Have Ties To White Supremacists"

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/more_rightwing_violence_anti-immigrant_suspects_in_1.php#more?ref=n

Horrible. Just horrible.

[jubal]

It appears that the left truly believes that everything bad that has ever happened and IS happening in this country is the fault of the right.

So does that mean that every left wing president just hid in a closet and did nothing? It sure sounds that way. Wow, with a track record like that we really shouldn't have too high of expectations for the current left wing president now should we.

[LisaM22]

People tolerated things from Bush that they would have complained about under Clinton. People are giving Obama a pass for things that were complained about under Bush.

yep, the right wanted things Bush offered, a move towards a theocracy being a big one and were willing to ignore the small stuff and sadly latter the big stuff

with democrats you already see people speaking out against Obama when they do not approve, had republicans done this during the last 8 years they would of had more respect now

I mean, how could people defend palin's saying she did not think those that terrorize doctors are terrorists, how? its simple, they are anti-choice and if they attacked Palin for it, then they believe they would be supporting choice

[Tracian]

Sure they're part of the subject. They have played a major role in inciting the Extreme Right Wing Terrorist's.

JMO



I am not a fan of any mentioned, but IMO, to imply or blame them for the actions of lunatics, is like blaming the dog that Son of Sam claimed ordered him to kill.

[LisaM22]

It appears that the left truly believes that everything bad that has ever happened and IS happening in this country is the fault of the right.

So does that mean that every left wing president just hid in a closet and did nothing? It sure sounds that way. Wow, with a track record like that we really shouldn't have too high of expectations for the current left wing president now should we.

not true at all, republicans have done a lot of great things for this country before the religious right took them over, i wish they could take back over their party again, be nice to have two parties to choose from again - the Bush Admin cause many problems, no doubt about that, Obama has to clean that up sadly, i think republicans should try and help clean up the mess

[Tracian]

yep, the right wanted things Bush offered, a move towards a theocracy being a big one and were willing to ignore the small stuff and sadly latter the big stuff

with democrats you already see people speaking out against Obama when they do not approve, had republicans done this during the last 8 years they would of had more respect now

I mean, how could people defend palin's saying she did not think those that terrorize doctors are terrorists, how? its simple, they are anti-choice and if they attacked Palin for it, then they believe they would be supporting choice


Many Republicans have left the party because of Bush's policies; but remain with the core beliefs of the conservative party; Obama did not win the election on the Democratic vote exclusively.

[LisaM22]

Many Republicans have left the party because of Bush's policies; but remain with the core beliefs of the conservative party; Obama did not win the election on the Democratic vote exclusively.

that is true, when I said republicans, I meant the current main stream republicans, not the true republicans that had more conservative views, not many in power like that anymore

[Tracian]

that is true, when I said republicans, I meant the current main stream republicans, not the true republicans that had more conservative views, not many in power like that anymore

Honestly, I don't think there are many main stream republicans, one of the corner stones of the republican party is small government; and that was lost over the last eight years.

The party does need to go back to the basics and rebuild.

[LisaM22]

Honestly, I don't think there are many main stream republicans, one of the corner stones of the republican party is small government; and that was lost over the last eight years.

The party does need to go back to the basics and rebuild.

that is exactly what I mean, the republican party has become the religious right's party, republicans need to take back their party - there is nothing "conservative" about the current republican parties actions over the last 8 years

[TBIBeg]

that is exactly what I mean, the republican party has become the religious right's party, republicans need to take back their party


Americans need to take the entire country back! It's not just republicans, the Libs have been infiltrated by the far left and the democratic party is farrrrr from united. (PUMA)

We need new blood.

[LisaM22]

Americans need to take the entire country back! It's not just republicans, the Libs have been infiltrated by the far left and the democratic party is farrrrr from united. (PUMA)

We need new blood.

Obama is not far left, he is mid center if anything maybe a little too far center, what to you makes him far right?

as far as the democratic party, I hope that never happens, I do not want a party that just drinks the koolaid

Americans have voted and we are taking our country back....

[Tracian]

Americans need to take the entire country back! It's not just republicans, the Libs have been infiltrated by the far left and the democratic party is farrrrr from united. (PUMA)

We need new blood.




IMO, the first step is to set term limits for Senators and Representatives.

[LisaM22]

IMO, the first step is to set term limits for Senators and Representatives.

I disagree with that, I think they should be voted for as they are now, maybe a age limit like 65 or something though

[TBIBeg]

IMO, the first step is to set term limits for Senators and Representatives.

I agree 100% No life long reps. I don't want professional politicians... I want representation that actually represents ME, an average, working American!

[TBIBeg]

<snip>

Americans have voted and we are taking our country back....

No, IMO, it was just given to a different set of crooks.

[Carol25]

And they go round and round!:biggrin:
Yep, sit back, put your feet up and watch. :bored:

[Carol25]

I agree 100% No life long reps. I don't want professional politicians... I want representation that actually represents ME, an average, working American!
I'm still waiting for Mr. Smith....

[flareon]

Americans need to take the entire country back! It's not just republicans, the Libs have been infiltrated by the far left and the democratic party is farrrrr from united. (PUMA)

We need new blood.

You're exactly right. There is not really any difference in the parties except for which lobby is paying for the votes.

[Tracian]

I agree 100% No life long reps. I don't want professional politicians... I want representation that actually represents ME, an average, working American!



I agree. They are basically too comfy in their offices, and are playing to lobbyists rather than the American people.

[rowstreeter]

Nah, that's Obama's one trick. I love Rush Limbaugh!! Ann Coulter on the other hand, I don't much care for. I still think claiming either Coulter or Rush are "RW extemists" (tm) is just a left wing talking point that diminishes any valid arguments by the purveyor of such tripe.

IMO

Would you call Rush and Ann C. "moderate" Republicans? Would you call them "moderate" conservatives? What WOULD you label their talking points? Rush: "I hope he fails", referring to Obama. I don't want to thing that "moderate" anythings would find that statement "moderate".

[TBIBeg]

Would you call Rush and Ann C. "moderate" Republicans? Would you call them "moderate" conservatives? What WOULD you label their talking points? Rush: "I hope he fails", referring to Obama. I don't want to thing that "moderate" anythings would find that statement "moderate".


I hope he fails is another liberal lie that you can't seem to stop perpetuating.

He said he hoped Bo's policies fail....and so do I.



Otherwise, Rush gets on my last nerve.

[TBIBeg]

you decide (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuYjWbAU2eU) video

I hope Obama fails (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/20/limbaugh-obama-fail/) text

Apparently you and the blog you linked have a problem with 'context'.

It's obvious that he is talking about BO's policies.

So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is.

I'm an American, I vote and I hope his policies fail too!

[TBIBeg]

I love Rush. He cracks me up. Today he said they should rename Iran, the "Fox News Channel". Then Obama would denounce it everyday. :laugh:

I can honestly say that listening to Rush on a regular basis has never stirred me to murder anyone or to hate another race. Same goes for my friends, family and co-workers who listen to him and the others that the left love to hate, either.


He is funny sometimes and many just can't 'get' his sarcastic humor. But, I also find him condescending so I don't listen that often. I do, however, listen the Glen and Sean. :patriot:

[emdragon]

Apparently you and the blog you linked have a problem with 'context'.

It's obvious that he is talking about BO's policies.

So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is.

I'm an American, I vote and I hope his policies fail too!

So if Obama's policies fail doesn't that mean HE fails?
Same difference the meaning and over all outcome is the same.

[TBIBeg]

:lol: Context? Then you best read that quote again.


Yes, 'context'. You should try it.


You look silly pushing the point otherwise.

[TBIBeg]

So if Obama's policies fail doesn't that mean HE fails?
Same difference the meaning and over all outcome is the same.

Let's say I give you that...so what?

I don't agree with his policies and I hope they all fail. Will he in turn be a failure? Sure. But that's what happens when the uninformed masses elect a wanna be rockstar junior senator that didn't even complete his term to be the POTUS.

You get what ya pay for. ;)

[emdragon]

Coulter has a law degree and 7 NY Times Best Sellers.

So I guess you're right - the equivalent position in the Dem party probably would be held by a Comedian.

:smile:

Millie the Bush's dog had a book on the NY Times best sellers list.

[TBIBeg]

Speaking of silly ... try looking at what you posted and read again as it begins:
So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption)

I need four: I hope he fails.

Rush subsequently back peddles a bit, but he said what he said.

Backpedaled? The entire quote was one stream... Not multiple. So yes, just silly. Did BO's feelings get hurt or something?

[emdragon]

Let's say I give you that...so what?

I don't agree with his policies and I hope they all fail. Will he in turn be a failure? Sure. But that's what happens when the uninformed masses elect a wanna be rockstar junior senator that didn't even complete his term to be the POTUS.

You get what ya pay for. ;)

"uninformed masses" sounds like how we ended up with Presidency of George W Bush....

[rowstreeter]

So if Obama's policies fail doesn't that mean HE fails?
Same difference the meaning and over all outcome is the same.

It ALSO means we, as a country, fail. So I don't think it's too patriotic to agree with Rush. IMO

[rowstreeter]

Obviously, that is your opinion and not a fact. You can believe whatever you choose, but it doesn't make it reality. Carter failed and America is still standing. FDRs policies succeeded and we are at the brink of financial collapse due to the debt associated with Social Security and Medicare. FDR's success is directly affecting America's financial failure. Therefore, Obama's like minded progressive agenda will destroy America if it succeeds and it's failure will only benefit America.

IMO

Have you been seeing any news since 2007? Social Security and Medicare has nothing to do with the current financial crisis we are facing, or maybe you missed all the financial scandals that happened with unregulated banking practices during the Bush administration. Bush's policies FAILED and the nation now has to deal with those failures. But you know that.

[rowstreeter]

OF course I am aware of what the MSM reports. I am also aware of the Community Reinvestment Act of the CARTER administration and it's role in the mortgage crisis. I am also aware of the Social Security and Medicare unfunded obligations that are never talked about....are you?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/28/magazines/fortune/babyboomcrisis_walker.fortune/index.htm

I am well aware of the jaundiced views that all of our current problems were started by Roosevelt, Johnson, and Carter. You DO recognize Bush had 8 years to fix whatever you are concerned about, and the Republicans had 8 years of Congressional majority from 1998, and did NOTHING to "fix" it. That canard about the Community Reinvestment Act and Carter has been well debunked. So sorry you missed it.

"The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday. ..In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems"

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe-election-politics/578987-data-debunk-myth-affordable-housing-push-caused-crisis.html

[YoYo]

No, I'm responding to a question posed to me by another poster. Are you trying to divert this thread?

Said poster has a problem with you using historical information for debate ........ and yet same poster has a someone "historical" quote as her siggy. Go figure.

[rowstreeter]

Your source is a College Message Board???

OK, I get it now.

:smile:

My source is the President of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank.

"Janet L. Yellen, Ph.D., President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Amid the deepest recession of the postwar era, the Federal Reserve faces one of the gravest challenges of its 96-year history. Yellen assesses the state of the economy while explaining the thinking and the actions behind some of the Fed's precedent-shattering initiatives to rescue a financial system in crisis and help jump-start economic growth." read more"

http://events.sfgate.com/san-francisco-ca/events/show/86990516-janet-yellen-a-view-of-the-economy-from-the-federal-reserve

Video here.

http://www.univsource.com/edu-channels/show-video/Janet-Yellen-SF-Federal-Reserve-Bank-discusses-US-recovery-from-recession--Haas-School__GAGbbPpBvt4.html

[rowstreeter]

As quoted on a College Message Board.

I'd consider both pretty much equally credible, BTW.

:smile:

Google is your friend.

[TBIBeg]

It ALSO means we, as a country, fail. So I don't think it's too patriotic to agree with Rush. IMO

Oh no sweetpea, BO a country does not make.

We will survive him and we will be rid of him in four years.

Mark my words.

[flareon]

Oh no sweetpea, BO a country does not make.

We will survive him and we will be rid of him in four years.

Mark my words.

Let's hope you are right about the last comment, but you are absolutely right about the Obama's success or lack of success being the end of this country. Even the economy will survive in spite of his missteps.

[LisaM22]

Oh no sweetpea, BO a country does not make.

We will survive him and we will be rid of him in four years.

Mark my words.

Obama is our President, our leader and we have all seen how leaders can effect the direction of this country, Obama will be in office 8 years, I can guarantee, you that, Obama is one of the good ones.. Obama is for the people

[Charms]

Obama is our President, our leader and we have all seen how leaders can effect the direction of this country, Obama will be in office 8 years, I can guarantee, you that, Obama is one of the good ones.. Obama is for the people

Exactly. Even if some of the people are not for him.
He's an equal opportunity people's president, regardless of social or economic status, skin color or education level.
He's a man sent to do a job that bush could not do.

[flareon]

The economy will Revive! It was during the bush mistakes that we survived. President Obama will be re elected in 4 years. The GOP is a ridiculous party full of errors, racist comments and people who cannot pull together because they are still traumatized by the election of Barack Obama - sort of like you are.

Traumatized - you're a hoot sparky. :biggrin:

[LisaM22]

the far right fanatics have been attacking Obama sense before he even officially took office

[LisaM22]

You mean back when he was occupying the Office of the President Elect?

:biggrin:

is that really an office? and what valid reason could one really attack a president elect for?

[LisaM22]

His ideology. His voting record. His policy pledges.

seems counter productive to me, you lost the election, why would you bother attacking the president elect at that point

[TBIBeg]

He is not for me. I stand for less government, decreased spending, lower taxes, more liberty and less control.

Obama is the antithesis of what I stand for.

IMO


:cool: AMEN!

[LisaM22]

He is not for me. I stand for less government, decreased spending, lower taxes, more liberty and less control.

Obama is the antithesis of what I stand for.

IMO

really? I thought you supported Bush

[rowstreeter]

You thought wrong. I didn't vote for either candidate in 2000. I voted for Bush in 2004 because he was less horrible than Kerry and we were in the middle of the war. The only thing I credit Bush with is preventing another attack on US soil. There has not been an acceptable candidate on the Presidential ballot in decades.

IMO

Begging the question, who, in your estimation, was "an acceptable candidate on the Presidential ballot"?

Perhaps you would consider running yourself. You seem to know better than all major world economists who unite in their assessment that what Obama's team is doing is the right thing to do with the mess Bush left with us.

[TBIBeg]

Begging the question, who, in your estimation, was "an acceptable candidate on the Presidential ballot"?

Perhaps you would consider running yourself. You seem to know better than all major world economists who unite in their assessment that what Obama's team is doing is the right thing to do with the mess Bush left with us.


Link please?


The kid he had handling the auto bail out hasn't even finished college.

[LisaM22]

Begging the question, who, in your estimation, was "an acceptable candidate on the Presidential ballot"?

Perhaps you would consider running yourself. You seem to know better than all major world economists who unite in their assessment that what Obama's team is doing is the right thing to do with the mess Bush left with us.

probably someone like that preacher on fox news, what's his name, huckabee?

[LisaM22]

You thought wrong. I didn't vote for either candidate in 2000. I voted for Bush in 2004 because he was less horrible than Kerry and we were in the middle of the war. The only thing I credit Bush with is preventing another attack on US soil. There has not been an acceptable candidate on the Presidential ballot in decades.

IMO

you voted for Bush, that means you supported him, as far as Bush's Iraq war, it did NOT make us safer and it cost us a lot, both in $$$ and lives

[rowstreeter]

Lisa, let me explain something to you, okay?

You can vote for a candidate and NOT support everything they do.

Do all Clinton voters support adultery? No.

I am against Gay Marriage. So is Obama. Does that mean I support him? No.

You think that people support Bush just because they are conservative or have a (R) next to their name. Foolish thinking by far. Many, I repeat, MANY conservatives were against Bush on many different things. Most of those people also voted for him.

Geez, why do you make it so hard? JMHO :rolleyes:

Why are you against Gay marriage? As a happy mom, if one of your children were gay and wanted to marry the person s/he loved would you still be against it? Would you refuse to go to the wedding?

What would you, as a mother do?

What does being against Gay marriage have to do with R or D? Many people in both parties support Gay marriage, and many people don't. It's more a religious issue than a political one for most of those that oppose it. It's a political and human rights issue for those that support it.

[rowstreeter]

Shouldn't you be asking Obama those questions? He is the one making the decisions.


:wink:

Millions of people are asking him that. And millions are not happy with his answers so far, but Obama has a open mind and may someday see the issue more clearly, if one of his loved ones is involved in such a relationship.

You avoided the question about how you would deal with loved ones who are Gay and want to marry. Do you know any Gay people who are married? There are tens of thousands now, and the world hasn't ended.

[rowstreeter]

In an effort to get out your talking points you failed to read my response. I didn't say Bush made us safer, I said "I credit Bush with is preventing another attack on US soil". Your desire to twist my vote into some sort of frothing devotion is projection on your part.

IMO

Clinton didn't keep us safe from the first attack on the WTC, in 93, but during his 8 years, he put the perpetrators in prison forever. Clinton also warned Bush about the continuing threat, and yet, Bush failed to do so, and failed to arrest or convict the instigator of the 9/11 attack. Instead Bush had more Americans killed in Iraq than died on 9/11. Not a good way to "keep us safe" or "prevent another attack", IMO.

[Tracian]

Millions of people are asking him that. And millions are not happy with his answers so far, but Obama has a open mind and may someday see the issue more clearly, if one of his loved ones is involved in such a relationship.

You avoided the question about how you would deal with loved ones who are Gay and want to marry. Do you know any Gay people who are married? There are tens of thousands now, and the world hasn't ended.


Bolding mine:

That does not mean someone has an 'open mind' it means that they are willing to chance their POV because it now is a personal issue, and it benefits them personally to change their POV.

[rowstreeter]

Bolding mine:

That does not mean someone has an 'open mind' it means that they are willing to chance their POV because it now is a personal issue, and it benefits them personally to change their POV.

The example I cited is ONE WAY people become more clearly aware of the issues on a personal level. There are other ways. Do you agree that when someone has a personal experience in life they can change their opinions?

Or, is your point that Obama has a closed mind, or that personal experience is a disingenuous way to change, and all opinions should be fixed for life?

[Tracian]

The example I cited is ONE WAY people become more clearly aware of the issues on a personal level. There are other ways. Do you agree that when someone has a personal experience in life they can change their opinions?

Or, is your point that Obama has a closed mind, or that personal experience is a disingenuous way to change, and all opinions should be fixed for life?


No, my point was having an open mind is not the same as changing an opinion because you (collective) personally benefit from it.

But following this logic, I suppose Cheney also as an open mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090601/ap_on_re_us/us_cheney

[rowstreeter]

No, my point was having an open mind is not the same as changing an opinion because you (collective) personally benefit from it.

But following this logic, I suppose Cheney also as an open mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090601/ap_on_re_us/us_cheney

I am afraid you lost me somewhere in the cobwebs of your logic. Having an open mind DOES mean we learn more, and change our opinions based upon our learning more about a topic.

I would hope you agree that education is a personal experience, and that not all people are equally educated in the facts.

If you want to debate, perhaps you can refine your thinking a bit, I don't think a personal experience of a loved one who is Gay is the ONLY way to learn, but it sure changes the priorities in a hurry, and is JUST ONE EXAMPLE of how people change.

[Tracian]

I am afraid you lost me somewhere in the cobwebs of your logic. Having an open mind DOES mean we learn more, and change our opinions based upon our learning more about a topic.

I would hope you agree that education is a personal experience, and that not all people are equally educated in the facts.

If you want to debate, perhaps you can refine your thinking a bit, I don't think a personal experience of a loved one who is Gay is the ONLY way to learn, but it sure changes the priorities in a hurry, and is JUST ONE EXAMPLE of how people change.


I will ignore the rude 'cobweb' remark, as when one begins insulting it denotes their failing to have a debate.

Having an open mind means that as you learn, you can change your position; agreed.

Having an open mind does not mean, you change your opinion simply because you personally benefit from doing so.

Bristol Palin once said "abstinence is not realistic" then she became a spokesperson for abstinence and she was attacked for 'changing her position'.

So is Bristol Palin also 'open minded'? Or do you think she changed her position because it benefits her as a paid spokesperson?

Likewise, if someone says, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman only' Then suddenly someone they love and respect come out, and wants to marry...they flip on the 'belief' is that because they are suddenly 'open minded' or is it because they too, have a selfish reason for changing that position---IOW, until it hit 'home' it was not anything that was even considered.

[LisaM22]

Lisa, let me explain something to you, okay?

You can vote for a candidate and NOT support everything they do.

Do all Clinton voters support adultery? No.

I am against Gay Marriage. So is Obama. Does that mean I support him? No.

You think that people support Bush just because they are conservative or have a (R) next to their name. Foolish thinking by far. Many, I repeat, MANY conservatives were against Bush on many different things. Most of those people also voted for him.

Geez, why do you make it so hard? JMHO :rolleyes:

Obama supports equal rights for all, he knows his religious beliefs are bigoted and that equal right in this country trumps his religious beliefs

well if you were against bush you sure were quite about it and kept it to yourself and then of course you voted for him.... it is good though to see republicans distance themselves from the likes of bush and the religious right that do not truly have conservatism at their heart

[LisaM22]

I know when my daughter held up a liquor store, I thought laws on armed robbery should be changed! :rolleyes:


IMO

how so? what laws?

[Tracian]

Obama supports equal rights for all, he knows his religious beliefs are bigoted and that equal right in this country trumps his religious beliefs

well if you were against bush you sure were quite about it and kept it to yourself and then of course you voted for him....

Seems a lot of mixed signals are being sent.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obamagays17-2009jun17,0,2575638.story


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/17/2009-06-17_govt_workers_get_samesex_benefits_boost.html

Now, in fairness, Obama is most likely being advised not to commit political suicide by forcing too many social issues at once. Also it seems that congress is going to have to back him on other changes.

[LisaM22]

"He knows his religious beliefs are bigoted"

That pretty much defeats any arguments you follow up with. How do you know what Obama knows about his religious beliefs? What you deem bigoted is nothing more than your opinion.

Because you want what you want and therefore it's okay to diminish everyone else's beliefs. Some of which have been held by millions of people for thousands of years.

If I apply your logic, then your beliefs are bigoted because they dismiss and denigrate the beliefs of millions of other people.

IMO

I want equal rights for my fellow Americans as does Obama

[LisaM22]

All Americans have the same rights under the Constitution as it stands.

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-----Lenin

same could of been said with interracial marriage, wasn't true then and is not true now

[YoYo]

Some equate equal rights to "I want all of mine, and some of yours."

MO

[LisaM22]

Some equate equal rights to "I want all of mine, and some of yours."

MO
yep, I agree, some want the right to deny others the rights they themselves enjoy - sad isn't it

[YoYo]

yep, I agree, some want the right to deny other the rights they have to marry the one consenting adult they love

Talk to Obama about that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-besen/gays-to-obama-weve-seen-e_b_217681.html

[LisaM22]

You are conflating the truth to fit your talking points. In America today, any man can marry any woman. At that time any man could not marry any woman.

IMO

so your discriminating based on sex, why can a women not marry anyone a man can?

[LisaM22]

I am not discriminating against anyone for anything. I am merely pointing out the error in your logic and why your argument fails.


IMO

why can a women not marry anyone a man can?

[LisaM22]

maybe would be clearer like this

why should a women not be able to marry anyone a man can and visa versa?

[LisaM22]

I understand that is not the case in every state in the country.

IMO

your correct, but sadly the fed doesn't even recognize those marriages where equal rights has become the norm

[LisaM22]

I think the vice versa that you just threw in kind or blows up your argument but I'll play along.

Then you didn't mean legally equal?

You meant biologically equal?

Or something?

:confused:

equal rights regardless of ones biological sex yes

[LisaM22]

The federal government doesn't "recognize" any marriages. That's a state issue. Just like it is legal in Arkansas to marry at 16, but you have to be 18 to wed without parental consent in CA. This is NOT a Federal Government issue.

not true, federal taxes would be one example

[LisaM22]

Oh, OK.

So the Man/Woman thing was just kind of a distraction?

:confused:

yes, it's nothing more then a distraction;, if that is the word you want to use... both should be considered equal in the eyes of the law

[LisaM22]

Biologically, there is no equality. Men and women are structured differently biologically. Your argument makes no sense.

so you do not think that men and women should have equal rights in this country?

[LisaM22]

You mean the marriage penalty? You are seeking equality to be penalized?

equality everywhere, heath insurance, social security, ect....

[rowstreeter]

yep, I agree, some want the right to deny others the rights they themselves enjoy - sad isn't it

Well, that is the bottom line, and what amazes me is that some people rationalize this based upon their "religious" beliefs. What kind of religion gets tax free status to preach inequality of rights? Oh wait, they ALL do!

[LisaM22]

Men and women do have equal rights currently under the US Constitution.

if they did, men and women would have the same ability to marry the ones they loved, right now a man can marry a women, but a women can not

[LisaM22]

You keep changing the argument. Men and woman are equal. There are states that recognize the union of same sex couples as civil unions and some as "marriage". Health insurance for same sex domestic partners is provided by quite a few private businesses and several state governments. I am all for equality under social security. Let's grandfather anyone 40 and older and then abolish it and let anyone 39 and younger invest that income in an interest bearing checking account, real estate, gold, mutual funds, CDs, etc. Then there will be no issues around social security any more.

IMO

the federal government doesn't recognize all state marriages equally, do you think they should?

[LisaM22]

You're doing it again! :ohmy:

You're blending Sexism and Homophobia and coming out with...

Well, I'm not sure what it is but it just ain't right!

:sad:

cause they are one and the same in this particular instance both are effected by this discrimination

[LisaM22]

Where in the constitution does it give the federal government the power to legislate based on "love"?

where does it say a women should not be allowed to marry the same person a man can marry, if a man can do it, why not a women?

[rowstreeter]

I think we've had enough of the sophomoric pot-shots at equality, laced in the style of forensic points. It's time people who opposed Gay marriage came out and told us what their real argument in favor of denying that right is. Perhaps they have an argument we have never heard before, and would make it obvious to all of us that keeping marriage only between a man and a woman is a sound social policy. So far, I have not seen that convincing argument.

Perhaps someone here knows what it is.

It is also interesting that this thread, about hateful speech, and far-right violence, is now centered on who we choose to sleep with and how we choose to be recognized for doing so. Somehow violence and sexual contact are closely related.

[LisaM22]

Nope. I think the Federal Government needs to get out of anything to do with marriage. Where in the constitution is Congress empowered to regulate marriage?

so you think they should not acknowledge anyone as being married?

[LisaM22]

Well, with that line of reasoning, you might as well throw in Racism since there are male and female, gay and straight minorities, too.

How about Ageism, same argument?

:confused:

racism is not a issue in this instance as white and blacks can marry, only the sex discrimination applies here and there is no racism in applying that discrimination

ageism is not the same argument as no one is allowed to marry a child, see the difference, men are allowed to marry women, women are not allowed to do the same

[LisaM22]

I do not think it is the role of the Federal government to "acknowlege", regulate, or in any other way not specifically provided within the constitution, have any involvement in marriage. I don't know that I can be any clearer.

what about healthcare, should it be that anyone that is married gets the same rights as anyone that is married?

[YoYo]

Your agenda's showing.:thumbdown: I'm sorry you don't appreciate a civil debate on this issue, but I for one am not taking the bait.

Sorry.

:patriot: .........

[LisaM22]

Where I think you're wrong is in presenting this as sex discrimination.

Unless, of course, you can show me where it is legal for a man to marry a man and not for a woman to marry a woman.

That's the part of your argument that I think falls apart and is disingenuous.

:smile:

it's legal for a man to marry a woman, but not a women to do the same, that is discrimination

[LisaM22]

I'm not sure I understand.

The federal government should not be involved in contracts between private companies and individuals. If a healthcare insurer has policies against providing insurance to same sex domestic partners, then don't do business with that company. If there is a private insurer who's policy is to provide insurance to same sex couples, then they would probably be very successful. That's what competition is about. I know the company I work for provides health care benefits for same sex couples and the state I live in provides health care benefits to same sex couples.

so Obama should treat all his married employees equally and the federal government should as well regardless of their sexes

[LisaM22]

Obama is required under the law to treat all his employees equally under the law. Their marital status should not come in to play because marital status is not a factor in an employees ability to do their job.

IMO

I agree, but sadly the law doesn't agree with you right now - they do married couples are NOT treated equally under the law as it is today when it comes to some benefits

[LisaM22]

But it's the same for all woman and all men. In some states,regardless of sexual orientation, a a straight woman cannot marry another woman, nor can a straight man marry another man. There is no discrimination based on sexual orientation because neither gay nor straight individuals have any greater right than the other. If you go back to the argument of love, I go back to the argument of where in the US constitution is the word "marriage" ever mentioned, much less any place where the power to legislate issues based on "love" is conferred on congress.

no it is not, do you have problems reading? a man can marry a women and a women can not do the same, that is not equal - the government does not recognize all marriages equal

[LisaM22]

Of course it does. There are laws on the books regarding discrimination in the workplace regarding marital status. There are laws on the books regarding discrimination against individuals on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation. I don't understand what you are saying. All married couples are treated equally under the law.
well the benefits for married couples are not equal, many same sex couples are legally married, do they get the same benefits when it comes to federal jobs?

[MercedesV]

No you are ignoring the fact that NO woman can marry a woman regardless of her sexual orientation, so there is no discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is equal. If straight women could marry and homosexual women could not, THAT would be inequality based on sexual orientation. Arguing that homosexual women don't want to marry men, so it's unfair is not the same as discrimination and inequality.

That just isn't accurate. In some states, very few but some, a woman can marry a woman. Or a man another man. There is no equality about it. Their marriage is recognized in that state but not others.

[LisaM22]

There are states that recognize same sex couples as married. There are states that do not. That is where that decision should be made because there is nothing in the federal constitution to confer that power on the federal government. I have no problem reading. You have a problem accepting the logic because it doesn't fit your preconceived outcome.

does the government give the same benefits to all marriages same sex or otherwise?

[LisaM22]

It is incumbent upon the governement to treat all individuals equally. If an employer provides benefits to married people, then it has to provide benefits to all people who are married.

well doma prevents that and should be repealed then - the law denies some benefits to same sex married couples

[LisaM22]

I don't know why you are hung up on the government, but in my state, the government provides benefits to same sex couples. An employer would be required by law to provide the same benefits to all it's employees, so if same sex marriages are legally recognized in that state, they would be required by law to provide benefits.

ah, see now there is the rub, the federal government does not only have employees in ONE state

[LisaM22]

There is no federal doma. If it exists in your state and you want it changed, then it's your duty to hire the people in your state that can work to overturn that law.

doma is federal as well, take away doma at the federal level is what we were talking about here

http://www.domawatch.org/index.php

"The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. 37 states have their own Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs), while 2 more states have strong language that defines marriage as one man and one woman. There are 30 states that have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage, including the three states (Arizona, California, and Florida) that passed constitutional amendments in November 2008."

[LisaM22]

I didn't realize DOMA passed. I don't think the Federal government should be involved in issues related to marriage. They don't have the constitutional power to do it. That's what happens when you give government power, they take more and more of it and exert more and more control over you.

IMO

been saying that for years, i agree, the government should never have the power to take away our rights

[LisaM22]

You're kidding right? That's all the federal government does is take away your rights. Has been since the early 1900's.

I said should never, not that they have not

[momof6]

LisaM22 says she is for equal rights.......But she is always cutting down people she calls the religious right. Now why can't the religious right, be able to live the way they want? She doesn't like certain radio personalities because they have different views (Rush for example). Do they not get equal rights?

Equal rights is only for the things you agree with. If you don't agree with it, then you call people "far right"