Bennett: Karen. And you brought a friend. A bear and a lame duck. I can’t tell if this is the U.S. government, or a Disney movie.
Karen: Don’t get cute with me, Bennett. We need to talk about this bill you’re pushing.
Bennett: Do you mean the bill reaffirming that America is awesome? Because that is a valuable use of Congress’ time, and anyone who doesn’t think so must want the terrorists to win.
Park: You know the one I mean! Tracking Beings like this is a massive violation of civil liberties. Not to mention overkill! There are less than forty in the nation. And they’re exponentially less dangerous than humans. I know the incident with the rabbit has you worried —
Bennett: What? It does not! Why would I care what happens to that brat?!
Park: . . . I wasn’t saying you were worried for her. Point is, when you stop being spooked and look at the facts, all she committed was a glorified incident of vandalism. Far from a national security issue.
Bennett: I d-don’t have time for this. Save it for committee. I have meetings to get to.
Oh man, if Bennett is so un-cool under pressure, how on earth did he get to Congress?
I think we’d all be amazed at how some people get into Congress.
Heck, look at Strong Thurman’s last period of service – he had to sleep through portions of various committee meetings…
… He’s a lot less clever than he likes to think he is, isn’t he?
Yes he is. I have found its a pretty common defensive mechanism for when a person gets in over their heads for a long period of time…everyone eventually gets tired of the little voice in their heads screaming “I’m going to f this up so badly! I am SO bluffing! We’re all going to die!”
Hey, US DoD policy in the Cold War era!
Isn’t everyone?
Or, more grammatically: “Aren’t we all?”
Um, X, you may not have realized this, but…that statement about republicans and democrats might just be considered inflammatory by some…?
I find it more interesting that Bennett is trying to create situations to justify the “false flag” then his transparent attempt to capitalize on it…Chap can get into a lot of trouble doing that…
Okay, first up, what you did was make a broad generalization about two groups in a theoretically negative fashion while holding up a third in a more positive light. You’re generalization also implied that only Conservative Republicans (which is not a strict or well defined term to begin with) opposed those measures that you held to be indicative of the stance you were opposing. This is not the case, and creates a second issue of contention.
If your goal was to point out a failure within our Congress to protect civil liberties, it might have been wiser to simply say “The majority of Congress (on both sides) does not care about civil liberties,” instead of trying to pick out one group or another.
X: the response Rippy should have gotten there was “Sorry, my bad, I’ll try to be less inflammatory in the future.”
But no, you had to go insisting that you weren’t being inflammatory at all. Complete with the obligatory gratuitous mention of the racist bullying you got in elementary school.
I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt here for a long time. And you keep not adjusting, not learning what people find abrasive and confrontational and inflammatory, not giving any evidence that you’re even *trying* to learn.
Therefore: You are now disallowed from talking about politics on the BICP website.
You can make comments that are directly related to what’s happening on the page, but no vaguely-related generalizations. I get to decide what counts as “directly related” and what doesn’t. Comments that don’t count will be deleted, and you’ll be suspended from commenting for a week after making them.
If you have a comment and think it *might* count as related, but aren’t sure…please, save yourself the trouble and don’t make it at all. Or take it to a part of the Internet that I don’t moderate. Since this is almost all of it, you should have no trouble finding a more suitable place.
Clarification for anyone scrolling past: This rule only applies to X. For everyone else, keep doing what you’ve been doing. Your internal senses of “what’s on topic” have done perfectly well so far, and you should feel no worries about carrying on as usual.
[Reply meant for the last comment on the tree.]
The reason I said “if you’re not sure, don’t make the comment” was to save you the trouble of wasting my time with questions like this.
The answer is no. Stop asking.
Since when does a Democrat care about civil liberties? Probably since it’s THEIR liberties. I suppose her position is more affected by the fact she owns being that by her political party.
Similarly, the support for Patriot Act and NDAA certainly WASN’T caused by the supporter’s political party.