Barney Frank, could e be right?

Barney was not only correct in his response to the woman, but he was human.
It is a relief to see a politician who responds as though he is a normal human.

Advocate wrote:

Barney was not only correct in his response to the woman, but he was human.
It is a relief to see a politician who responds as though he is a normal human.

Yeah, correct to compare her to an article of furniture,
because of her objections to Obama 's health care plans.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Barney was not only correct in his response to the woman, but he was human.
It is a relief to see a politician who responds as though he is a normal human.

Yeah, correct to compare her to an article of furniture,
because of her objections to Obama 's health care plans.

No, he compared her to a table, b/c she called Obama and Barney Nazis; not b/c of some principled objection to a policy.

Cycloptichorn

The principle was that Obama 's policies were too similar
to those of the 3rd Reich.

Quote:

The principle was that Obama 's policies were too similar
to those of the 3rd Reich.

That's not a principle; that's idiocy. And insulting to those who actually had to deal with the consequences of Nazi Germany.

Cycloptichorn

i.e. policies that r too similar to those of the 3rd Reich, to which the victim objects.

Quote:

i.e. policies that r too similar to those of the 3rd Reich, to which the victim objects.

No policies being proposed are similar to the 3rd Reich, in any meaningful way. And the point of the lady's comment was not to comment on specific policies, it was to be insulting.

If you want to dish it out, you ought to be prepared to take it. She was clearly unprepared.

This is a dumb line of argument you are pursuing, David. Why defend a fool?

Cycloptichorn

I 'll do what I damn well please,
and u don t get to define what the victim means when she objects.
U can t re-define her objections.

If Obama s policies r too similar to those of the 3rd Reich
for her liking, then she is well within her rights to object
whether u approve or not.

Quote:

I 'll do what I damn well please,
and u don t get to define what the victim means when she objects.
U can t re-define her objections.

If Obama s policies r too similar to those of the 3rd Reich
for her liking, then she is well within her rights to object
whether u approve or not.

Heaven forbid; I would never dream of telling someone that they couldn't say what they wanted! She doesn't need my approval to make herself look like a damn fool.

Similarly, Barney Frank doesn't need your or my permission to say what's on his mind, and he owes no apology to anyone for his decision, either. The lady was clearly set on causing trouble, she had no valid comments to add to the discussion, and he dealt with her accordingly.

Cycloptichorn

If Obama 's policies r too similar to those of Germany 's national socialists for her liking,
then she is correct to cause trouble to interfere with them.
She is not obligated to ignore that.

]Yeah, correct to compare her to an article of furniture,
because of her objections to Obama 's health care plans.

Quote:

If Obama 's policies r too similar to those of Germany 's national socialists for her liking,
then she is correct to cause trouble to interfere with them.
She is not obligated to ignore that.

Nobody said she was obligated to ignore anything. But, when you go around calling people Nazis,
you'd better be prepared for some derision to come your way. Clearly, she was not properly prepared.

Cycloptichorn

OmSigDAVID wrote:

]Yeah, correct to compare her to an article of furniture,
because of her objections to Obama 's health care plans.

a person shouldn't be exempt from being compared to a piece of wood
if they are demonstrating the reasoning abilities of a piece of wood

Upon what evidence
have u concluded that she clearly was not properly prepared?
What constitutes proper preparation, as distinct from improper preparation?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

If Obama 's policies r too similar to those of Germany 's national socialists for her liking,
then she is correct to cause trouble to interfere with them.
She is not obligated to ignore that.

Nobody said she was obligated to ignore anything. But, when you go around calling people Nazis,
you'd better be prepared for some derision to come your way. Clearly, she was not properly prepared.

Cycloptichorn

Upon what evidence
have u concluded that she clearly was not properly prepared?
What constitutes proper preparation, as distinct from improper preparation?





David

Quote:

Upon what evidence
have u concluded that she clearly was not properly prepared?
What constitutes proper preparation, as distinct from improper preparation?

Probably the fact that she got caught flat-footed
and looked like a real dumbass up in front of the crowd.
U WISH!
Look, this was a stupid thing for her to do, she got smacked down appropriately,
and there's nothing else to discuss really.

Cycloptichorn

The congressman came out looking like a fool.
She looks great.

Quote:

The congressman came out looking like a fool.
She looks great.

Ridiculous. Invoking Godwin's law and rambling makes nobody look great. You just like anything that's anti-Democrat.

I must say, your insistence that she 'looks great' makes you look like a fool also.

Cycloptichorn

[