Democrats & Liberals Archives

The government is going to come and take your guns...

You, (assuming “you” are extreme right wing militia or a supporter of them), then you, are afraid that the government is going to take your guns. Now, we could talk about the implied impotency of your sick need to have a gun in order to feel powerful, but I know that you are not even ready to deal with that issue. So , I will leave that alone for now :) You might have a little sense though, so this article is directed at you. Militia Links First, I absolutely agree that; through the early nineteen hundreds, well disciplined, moderate, armed citizen militias could provide an effective rear guard defense against tyranny.

That was then. This is now. Today, with fighter jets, smart bombs, tanks, computer data bases, mind altering anti-depressant drugs to moderate the moods of the masses, and other modern innovations - armed citizen militias are nothing more than impotent piss ants. The right wing extremists do have political power based on their activism.

Their guns are counter-productive.

Every strength conveys a weakness and every weakness conveys a strength. They are afraid that the government is going to come and take their guns. That fear is a weakness, but it fuels their political activism which is the corner stone of their strength. It is a bit of a losing proposition. We draw to ourselves the very things that we fear most.

They are afraid that the government is going to come and take their guns, so what do they do? They become defensive, join militias and become terrorists. What happens? First, they discredit their own movement. Second, we got a batch of right wing nut job terrorists running around with guns. Oh dear... Oh my... What are we going to do? We better pass some anti-gun laws and take those guns away! That is one scenario.

Suppose that they don't become terrorists - (in large numbers). What happens then? The government does not give a rat's poop chute about their piss ant pee shooters. So, the government does not come after their guns. Then what? The American people will figure out that they are a bunch of damn fools and their movement will be discredited. So, if the right wing nut jobs are nutty enough to actually use their guns, then they will be exposed as nut jobs and their guns will be taken away. If they are not nutty enough to actually use their guns, then they will be exposed as nut jobs and will be discredited... Right wing extremism is self limiting.

Scenario number three: The government tries to take away their guns. The American people rise up. The American military sides with the American people and says "oh no you aint." Military dictatorship is established. People then rise up against the military. The military takes away the guns.

In the long run, the right wing extremists lose no matter what they do. Right wing nut jobs are creating the preconditions that will justify and necessitate the government coming and taking their guns. They will be crushed. That is good and necessary. But our democracy could suffer, even conceivably falter as a result. Probably not though. They are just piss ants... Just stomp on em and be done with it.

See: The Hutaree militia and the rising risk of far-right violence

See: Militants, Tea Party and Republicans Battle against Immigration, Health Reform and Obama

See: Tea Party In The Military; A New Danger To Democracy

See: Some Oklahomans want a state militia to resist Washington


Posted by Ray Guest at April 13, 2010 10:45 PM
Comments
Comment #298932

Tell me Ray, do your UAW union members in Michigan, whose roots are from Kentucky and Tennessee, hold to the same views of gun ownership as you?

I really enjoy reading your post: it reads like it came straight out of the liberal democratic party play book of talking points:

extreme right wing militia

right wing nut job terrorists

Right wing extremism

right wing extremists

Right wing nut jobs

far-right violence

If you had a better understanding of the Kings English, you wouldn’t have to express yourself with expletives.

What happened to that love from the left? Can’t we all just get along? Got anything positive you would like to say to the other 80% of American people who are not liberals? Or is your post just to the 20%?

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 13, 2010 11:45 PM
Comment #298938

Beretta 9
Good question. Lots of blue collar workers support responsible gun ownership. Ray does make a point and raise an alarm. Surely you must agree that active armed treason must be repressed? At this point most of those activities are comming from the right.This was not the case in the 60-70s, but now it is.

Posted by: bills at April 14, 2010 4:25 AM
Comment #298939

Beretta9,

My parents were from Kentucky. I was born in Ohio. You continue to want to say us “libruls” have some agenda against guns when several “liberal” posters here have told you they have no problem with responsible gun ownership.

This is far different from believing that owning a gun is a means for armed insurrection is either needed or sane, or even plausible.

I ran into an NRA member once on a project I was working on. He told me that gun ownership was against the law in Canada. I did a search on the internet, since I have a mobile connection. No such law existed. He was still convinced something he read in some NRA material told him that was true.

I gave you a link in the center column that explains some of the issues with the tea party members. It isn’t a fantasy that some of those members are wing nuts.

Posted by: gergle at April 14, 2010 5:18 AM
Comment #298940

Tea Partiers just can’t and don’t help themselves:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/crime/springboro-tea-party-leader-sought-by-police-650515.html

Posted by: gergle at April 14, 2010 5:41 AM
Comment #298941

gergle
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030500a.htm

Canadian gun laws require all guns to be registered and all gun owners to have trainning. For handguns the applicant must show they are a collector,a serious target shooter or have a demonstrable need to protect themselves. This is for information only. I am not advocating for similer laws in the US except ,perhaps the trainning requirment. Last I heard the NRA doen’t think that is such a bad idea.

We on the left know full well that the real enemy of liberty in the US, the monster in the dark, has always been from the reactionary forces and that the camoflage of choice will be the flag,tri-cornerd hats,false patriotism and rascism . Exetremist groups that threaten or carry out violence should be dealt with as severely as the Sybionese Army,the Panthers and Weathermen of the 60-70s.In the event that the same reactionary forces responsible for imflamming the TP and their spin off wackos manages to again sieze power the left had better start armming.
Beretta and others do have a point,although they may not know it. An armed populace is not likely to be able to overthrow an organized government but they sure are a lot harder to push around. Witness El Salvador. The usual tactic for repression was the civilian police would show up in the daytime, search a home,sieze any “illegal firearms”,arrest likely troublemakers. That night the death squads would come.
Another example. What if the Jews and leftist of Europe had been armed and shot back every time the Nazis tried to arrest them? It is not likely that even Hitler would have been willing to pull from combat the millions of troops that would have been necessary to exterminate them if they had been able to fight back.That means guns.

Posted by: bills at April 14, 2010 6:50 AM
Comment #298944

Bills:

“Surely you must agree that active armed treason must be repressed?”

This is irresponsible of the left to even suggest American citizens want to overthrow the government. I have not seen any group that even suggests this. The events of the 60’s and 70’s involved actual violence, not the make believe violence you speak of. One of Obama’s mentors is Bill Ayres, who was actually involved in these terrorist acts. This is a continued attack by the left because this movement a threat to your own socialist agenda. The Tea Party movement is made up of millions from all political persuasions.

As I posted yesterday, the Tea Party movement is up 8% in the last month alone. Of the movement, 55% are republican, 14% are democrat, and the rest are independent. 80% are white and 6% are black and the other 14% are other. Contrary to the lefts desire to make this movement look like some kind of radical group, organized by republicans, it is truly a grassroots group that has come into existence as the result of both major parties refusing to listen to the America people. Any effort by the left to do this is simply causing our ranks to grow. The left is merely reiterating the statements made by the likes of Pelosi when she called them “Astroturf”, and it shows how out of touch the left has become.

Gergle:

My wife’s family and mine also came from Kentucky. In the early part of the 20th century, many from these states moved to Michigan and Wisconsin to cut timber. They had been loggers and when the timber was no longer available they moved north. After WWII another migration moved to Michigan to work in the auto industry. My wife’s and my father were also part of this group. So the result is a very large group of auto works and their decedents whose roots are from these two states. I will guarantee these people hold to the freedom of keeping and bearing arms as well as being members of the UAW. In fact many of them also belong to the NRA. Bill Clinton told Al Gore, after he lost his presidential bid, that he lost as a reult of the NRA grassroots move against him. He couldn’t carry WV, a democrat state or even his home state of Tenn. The point was made because Ray’s stand on gun ownership is not in sync with his fellow union members.

Again, you make the same mistake as bills:

“This is far different from believing that owning a gun is a means for armed insurrection is either needed or sane, or even plausible.”

This statement is irresponsible, and reflects the hatred the left has for all Americans.

Concerning Canadian guns laws: there are very heavy restrictions against the right of Canadians to own firearms. England and Australia fall under similar laws, England having the most stringent. During WWII, Americans actually donated private weapons to be sent to English citizens and arm them against a German land invasion. After the war, the British people were disarmed once again. So even the socialist British government understood the need to arm their citizens during a crisis. These laws in Canada, Australia, and England are much more involved than you attempt to treat them. They involve very high taxes on permits, licenses, guns, and ammo. It involves memberships in very expensive, elitists shooting clubs, which the common people do not have the connections and the finances to become a member. As with every other thing the liberals do; it gives rights to the rich elitists and keeps the common man under their thumb. Australia went so far as to confiscate millions of dollars worth of guns, some of which were collectables that can never be replace, and they destroyed these guns.

I have been an NRA member for many years, and it has been the NRA that has stood in the gap, to prevent liberals from trampling our 2nd amendment rights into the ground. The membership has grown over the years because more and more Americans understand the goal of the left.

As to whether the left is against the 2nd amendment: yes they are and they have been attempting to destroy our right to keep and bare arms for years.

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 14, 2010 9:48 AM
Comment #298945

Dear Ray

Here are the reasons most of us on the right own a weapon;

A.. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broken.

B.. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broken.

C.. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broken.

D.. ‘The War on Poverty’ started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor” and they only want more. The number of poor keeps growing, your plans don’t work.

E.. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are both broken.

F.. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broken.

G.. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

H..The Healthcare Bill is now signed and will cost us $1 trillion a year and you don’t believe taxes will rise?

Both parties are practicing governmental malpractice,they have FAILED in every “government service” they have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars. Now your party wants to give complete amnesty to foreign citizens that do not want ot be Americans they only want to come here to make money, unlike our (your) ancestors. This will add 15 to 30 million uninsured people to the 40 million uninsured Americans we are now adding to healthcare.

Every state that at is governed by todays Democratic Party and backed by overwhelming union membership is unsustainable and on the verge of bankruptcy.In 1950 government services cost 34% of GDP now it’s 61%; and this is good thing? How do you Democrats live your own lives? How can you ignore these facts or are you that partisan?


People on the right are not looking to overthrow your precious government, it’s destroying itself at a good pace thank you very much; but when this unsustainable financial bleeding comes to a head in this country, my family will be alive and your kids will look up at you and ask what now daddy their at the door?

Posted by: MikeE at April 14, 2010 9:56 AM
Comment #298947

MikeE-
The post office is gradually going under because regular mail has become largely obsolete, thanks to the internet.

Which kind of cancels out that point, since the Internet began as a government research project.

Medicare and Medicaids main fiscal problem is America’s healthcare cost problem. Oh, and on the subject of the cost of Healthcare reform? I freely and openly admit taxes will go up. We’re not starting up those new problems and those entitlement increases the way the Republicans did, with their unwillingness to raise any taxes or cut any spending. We’re practicing actual fiscal discipline, not just waxing poetic about it while our legislation increases the burden, like Republicans did.

The Department of Energy has spent most of its existence under Republican Presidents who could give a crap less about conservation and alternative energy sources. If you want to tell me how that’s conducive to it fulfilling its purpose, be my guest.

And as for the war on poverty? Since those policies have been in place, the poverty rate in this country has been cut in half. Tell me: how do you measure progress, success? I guess since there are still poor people, we lost that war, didn’t we? No room for mere improvement in your philosophy, it seems. Liberals have to solve the problem absolutely before you’ll give them credit.

If you’re saying we need to take a good hard look at the fiscal picture, and make tough decisions, sure, I’m with you. But thirty years of conservative leadership on the fiscal front has left America more indebted not less, because they count on wishful thinking to pay bills instead of hard cash.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 14, 2010 10:31 AM
Comment #298948

Mike E-
Oh, and I didn’t catch this before I posted this: You said Healthcare would cost a trillion dollars a year.

You are poorly informed, if you say that. That cost is over ten years.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 14, 2010 10:34 AM
Comment #298950

My general response to the post?

Let me be plain to the conservatives here: the paranoia won’t lead anywhere constructive.

Fact is, Liberals don’t have the political will to push Gun Control like they once did. It’s not even a major subject on the horizon, like financial reform or a jobs bill. With crime low, despite economic tough times, not enough people feel threatened enough by it that folks are hammering their leaders for it.

But of course, if you have people who are willing to believe that Democrats would do this, they don’t have to even think of doing it for the subject to be brought up. There are a ****load of politicians out there who are coming up short on real reasons for people to elect and re-elect them. There are also a ****load of people in the conservative media who need people scared to keep them on the edge of their seats watching their programs for guidance.

So what do they do? They invent fictional menaces to come from the liberal side of things. They invent death panels, they invent division strength increases in IRS agents, and they even darkly hint at concentration camps for Republicans. They get people scared and paranoid, so that nobody else can talk them down, appeal to them through their personal interests.

In essence, the Republican Party is literally driving it’s constituents crazy so they will become too paranoid to vote for anybody else.

Fact of the matter is, they’re getting a lot of other people scared, too, but not of the government.

Ray’s tone could use some work, but he’s right about one thing: the militias and the militarism on the right, the secessionary impulses, aren’t going to encourage a great deal of tolerance from the majority of people in this country.

I would direct the folks from the Red Column to look back into their own history, post-civil war. Owing to the massive breach of the peace caused by the strongly Democratic south, the Republicans were able to effectively seal the Democrats into the Deep South for the next two or three generations.

More recently, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the Branch Davidian standoff did little to reassure people about the freedoms enjoyed by folks on the far right.

But either way, the point is this: the more Republicans go down the road of trying to impose their will by force, the more openings they deliver to Democrats to marginalize them. The Republicans have already effectively inverted the old order, trading the Dixiecrat’s old territories for their old territories. If you don’t believe me, just look at the maps.

Once upon a time, you didn’t hear Republicans beating up on the politics of the Northern States, they ran the politics of those states. They were the party of industrial advancement, the party that protected the Union. Democrats were the folks who once had the problem with the legacy of Dixie.

Now Republicans, through one of the most perverse reversals of modern political history have become that party. They’ve become the party that challenges the unity of the country in order to maintain their political status quo.

I would ask Republicans to consider the ironies of the positions they are now in. I would like them to realize that they’re in a position of having betrayed the founding principles of their party, simply in order to position themselves as the diametric opposite of their opponents.

Once Republicans could be environmentalists. Now their policy is run by folks who dispute scientific consensus to aid industry. Once Republicans could put forward a healthcare plan with mandates and full coverage. Now they criticize the President for essentially passing their own plan. Once Republicans could raise taxes when the country needed to get its ducks in a row on deficit fighting, but now even the mention of it gets you primaried.

In the effort to become everything the Democrats are not, the Republicans have become nothing like the party they once were. They’ve become an inconsistent, illogical force for the preservation of a status quo that is popular with absolutely no-one. I pity the constituents who have to apologize for, rationalize all this.

It feels to me as if the Republican Party is having a nervous breakdown. I hope it recovers as soon as possible so it can charge a positive course for the years ahead. For now, though, the Republicans seem to be trying to keep the old conservative movement going, instead of letting it die its natural death, and replace it with something that addresses the needs and situations of now.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 14, 2010 11:04 AM
Comment #298951

MikeE
..also Social Security is not broken. There are 11 trillion in reserves.

Posted by: bills at April 14, 2010 11:05 AM
Comment #298953

Dear Stephen

How do I measure failure in the war on poverty?

As quoted “The black family has crumbled more in the last 30 years than it did in the entire 14 decades since slavery.” Dr. Julian Hare, Dir. - San Francisco

Marriage Portrait
• In 1963, when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. declared, “I have a dream,” more than 70% of black families were headed by married couples. Today, 40 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, married couples head only 46% of black families.
• More alarming, 45% of black men have never married and 42% of black women have never married.
• Married black women declined from 62% to 31% between 1950 and 2002.
• By age 30, only 52% of black women will marry compared to 81% of white women, 77% of Hispanics and Asians.
• Only 6% of black men and 2% of black women marry Whites.
• In 1970, just 33% of black women, age 20-29 were unmarried. By 1992, that number exploded to 70%.
“Black men and women are less likely to be married and more likely to divorce when we do marry.” -The Black Commentator, Margaret Kimberley. Black Families - A Glass Half Empty and Half Full, April 23, 2004.

Parenting Portrait
• 70% of all black children are born out of wedlock.
• 65% of never-married black women have children, double that for white women.
• 22% of never-married black women with incomes over $75,000 have children, 10 times that of white women.
• 62% of black families with children are headed by a single parent.
• 85% of black children do not live in a home with their fathers.
• Only 15-20% of black children born today will grow up with 2 parents until age 16.
• Over 80% of long-term child poverty occurs in broken or never-married homes.
• 70% of African-American boys in the criminal justice system come from single-parent homes.

This is not success; we have destroyed black families in America in the name of good intentions and should be ashamed.

Stephen said
“The Department of Energy has spent most of its existence under Republican Presidents who could give a crap less about conservation and alternative energy sources. If you want to tell me how that’s conducive to it fulfilling its purpose, be my guest.”

I guess the 12 years under Democrtic control with Carter and Clinton don’t count.

Tax cut always work; they worked for Jack Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. No country in history ever taxed itself in prosperity. We are heading into the Weimar Republic, our country is buying its own debt, printing money at an unprecedented rate, and chasing entrepreneurs out of this country at a rate of two times that of last year. I’m not seeing much success there.

And as far as healthcare goes, you may trust government numbers; I however find they always give the wrong or understated information to satisfy the uninformed public for that moment so they get their bills passed. The problem is, after they sucker us into their programs it is too late. I don’t vote with my feelings because it sounds good, I don’t trust any of them, therefore I vote with my common sense.

Posted by: Mike E at April 14, 2010 11:36 AM
Comment #298955

bills
I don’t know where you get your info from but SS will be broke in 10 years,that is unless the feds pay back what they took, but that is highly unlikely.

Posted by: MAG at April 14, 2010 1:55 PM
Comment #298956

“This is not success; we have destroyed black families in America in the name of good intentions and should be ashamed.”…
NO! The black families have destroyed THEMSELVES, and it is they who should be ashamed. It is high time we stopped whipping ourselves for what others are doing to their own.

Posted by: capnmike at April 14, 2010 1:59 PM
Comment #298957

Mike E-
Despite this, what was forty percent poverty in the sixties is now closer to twenty percent.

I think blacks in America can clean up their own family problems, and that’s much easier when you don’t have as much economically to worry about.

This kind of race-baiting doesn’t help encourage people to be autonomous, doesn’t encourage the kind of pride that has people stand up and take the reins of their own destiny. It is either based on the thinly veiled racism of some, who believe that minorities are doomed to underperform no matter what we do for them (The Bell Curve theory), or its based on the the thinly veiled economic elitism of the notion that if you’re poor, you did something to deserve your poverty, that you were unfit specimens in the economic laboratory of the market (Social Darwinist/Objectivist Theory). I’d say the angst over entitlements has done more to fuel bad fiscal policy than anything else, because people are reacting emotionally now to tax cuts and spending, rather than really considering costs, benefits, and the economic future.

You talk of tax cuts always working. Well, Bush’s 41 and 43 and Reagan gave out massive tax cuts. They all ran record deficits, so that little magic thing about deficits being prevented by the dividends of tax cuts never materialized. Reagan and Bush ended up raising taxes before their administrations were through, Reagan three times.

Though Republicans gleefuly pointed to Obama’s lowered poll numbers, they forgot Reagan had polled as low as 37%. You know why he polled that low? Because even two years after his Tax cuts passed, Unemployment was at 10.8 percent.

Meanwhile Obama has turned a 10.1 percent into a 9.7 percent unemployment rate, has turned around the job losses into job gains, and very likely prevented the end of the heretofore very ungrateful capitalist system.

I know Republicans like to accuse Obama of being a socialist, like to bandy about that line about Rahm Emmanuel saying they shouldn’t waste a crisis in order to illustrate Obama’s opportunistic support of socialism, but you tell me: were there any better conditions out there than those we had last year to just stick it to the capitalists and nationalize the financial system?

I mean, sure, we socialized their losses. Republicans like Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 did plenty of that without blinking an eye. But in real, textbook Marxist Socialism, the clear thing to do there would have been to push for immediate nationalization of the banks, total and utter control, not bailouts they could keep to themselves to keep their balance sheets afloat without loaning people money.

Maybe Obama’s a New Deal Capitalist, a proponent of something that cuts socialism off at the pass. But of course, Republicans get to have their cake and eat it, too, so when a Democrat saves Capitalism from the screwups of the Republicans, it’s the Democrats who are accused of trying to destroy capitalism.

You talk of trying to vote with your common sense. I would talk to people about actually voting with your common sense. It’s like the old joke with the doctor. “It hurts when I do this.”

Well, stop doing that.

It hurts deficits when we elect Republicans.

Let’s stop doing that.

It hurts our country’s prestige and loses us war when the current Republicans are in power.

Let’s stop doing that.

It hurts our economy to allow so much overheated speculation and anarchic financial mismanagement.

Let’s stop doing that.

The things that have hurt our country the most in this last generation have been Republican policies. We’ve lost an unimaginable amount of wealth, or never really gained it in the first place, thanks to their policies.

Let’s have the common sense to fear outcomes that have a remote chance of happening, which have happened.

Let’s quit relying on the fairy-tales of the conservative movement, it’s neet little intellectual paradoxes that give us more order with less government, more revenues with less taxes, lower deficits with greater spending and greater tax cuts, etc. Let’s rely on a practical sense of how to government, and how to fund things.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 14, 2010 2:56 PM
Comment #298958

Mike E, you evil guy you. How dare you use logical statistics to explain the plight of blacks. You must be a race-baiter to even suggest thse facts.

Stephen said, “This kind of race-baiting doesn’t help encourage people to be autonomous…”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomous

From Webster:

2 a : having the right or power of self-government b : undertaken or carried on without outside control : self-contained
3 a : existing or capable of existing independently b : responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole

This makes Stephen’s statement an absolute joke. The liberal government has absolutly no intention of allowing people to be self existant. Liberals want the whole country to be dependent upon government.

HAHAHA

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 14, 2010 3:16 PM
Comment #298961

This liberal hates Americans…….that is, Americans that tell this liberal that he hates Americans. I own guns, I work construction, I fish & hunt, joined the military at age seventeen. And, I have an Obama “change has come” plate hanging on the wall. I don’t mind if people have different views, think things need to be done differently, but….enough is enough!!! Stop telling me who I am, and what I want, you don’t know shit about me, or what I want.

OK, I’ll tell you what I want: I want a country where we all work together, even when we disagree, for the common good. Not try to shoot the other guy down, especially when to do so would hurt us all.

There are a lot of us who love America, really love this great land, who are sick at heart to watch people who supported elective wars and corporate welfare, who watched as the federal deficit soared….and said nothing. And said nothing. Until a Democrat stepped in and did what was necessary to save corporate bacon, oh, and the country. But THAT was SOCIALISM!!! Can’t have that, can we?

Where the F%$#K were you three years ago???!!??!!
Sorta takes the wind right outta your philosophical sails, eh?

Posted by: steve miller at April 14, 2010 4:16 PM
Comment #298962

it’s difficult to understand the fear and loathing expressed by some on the left of a movement (tea party) that has as its goal a return to governmental fiscal sanity. and, why would liberals be against the choice of owning legal weapons. i read frequently that they favor free choice in nearly every other area of american life.

tea party numbers are growing despite the best efforts of liberals to besmirch their goals.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 14, 2010 4:50 PM
Comment #298964

Royal Flush:

Amen brother to all you said..

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 14, 2010 5:02 PM
Comment #298969

Steve,

Save your breath! Everybody knows that only conservatives love this country. Only they understand the Constitution and what America stands for. They are fiscal and economic experts with a great track record with the minor exceptions of the Great Depression ding and the current Great Recession. Don’t let the facts get in your way.

Posted by: Rich at April 14, 2010 7:28 PM
Comment #298970

I don’t know where the rightists get the idea that the Left somehow “loathes” the tea party movement. Personally, I believe its just a bunch of hysteria created by 60 million people who voted for McCain. The same group of people who supported the Bush administration throughout it’s time in control.

I don’t believe the right wing activists when they claim to be able to balance the budget in the next few years. Neoconservativism has such a strong grip on the right wing, especially on Fmr Gov Palin. I can’t fathom a right wing government cutting the budget in places where cuts are needed most such as at the DoD. The GOP had the reins for a good chunk of the 2000s and fiscally speaking they made things worse, not better.

why would liberals be against the choice of owning legal weapons. i read frequently that they favor free choice in nearly every other area of american life.

Liberals believe in freedom of choice. That’s why we’re called liberals. Lib as in liberty. I believe that anyone should have the right to do whatever they want, so long as they don’t infringe on another person’s liberty. Conservatism is based upon conserving the institutions that existed prior to our country’s founding. Conserving institutions such as the divine monarchies and their associated aristocracies common in Europe at the time. Conserving government support of religious institutions in a manner similar to the Christian faith’s role in Europe at the time.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but a great deal of the rightist platform is about taking away the liberties we’ve cherished as Americans. Taking away the right to security and privacy in one’s personal communications. Taking away the right to habeus corpus. Taking away the right to due process. Taking away the right to a trial by one’s peers. Taking away the right to not be punished cruelly or unusually. Taking away the right to be free from unnecessary searches and seizures without a search warrant. Taking away the right to marry the person that one loves. Taking away the right to control what goes on in one’s own body.

What rights does the left want to take away?

I’ve heard the claim that taxes are an affront to liberty, but I fail to see the logic there. There is no right not to be taxed; we learned that when we had the Articles of Confederation and the Federal Government had no power to tax. Our current Constitution plus the 16th amendment fixed that. The Constitution also gives Congress power to spend the monies it raises on the “general welfare” of our nation. Our founders knew that there were certain expenses that were best spread amongst the entire population rather than a few individuals.
I’ve also heard concerns regarding the second amendment, but I fail to see how they can be substantiated. The Democratic Party has controlled Congress since 2007 and the Presidency since 2009, yet there has been no change in federal gun laws. I don’t care whether or not you or any other law-abiding citizen else owns a gun, it’s not my business. If a person with a criminal history wants to own a gun that’s a different story, but such a person lost their rights when they were convicted by their peers in a trial where he/she received the due process he/she deserved.

I think all the other participants here at WB feel similarly about the second amendment. I mentioned in the other thread that the 2nd Amendment was intended to prevent another situation like that which happened on April 19, 1775 26 miles west of Boston. Colonists had a cache of weapons in Concord, and Thomas Gage felt threatened by it so he dispatched the British Military to seize the weapons. Our government is not allowed to do that because of the second amendment. While it has been pointed out that the logistics of mounting an armed rebellions against a repressive government have changed a great deal since the eighteenth century, the original amendment in all its glory is still law and it must be respected.

Lastly,
Maybe we should welcome all lifestyle choices into our society. ;)

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 14, 2010 8:26 PM
Comment #298971

“it’s difficult to understand the fear and loathing expressed by some on the left of a movement (tea party) that has as its goal a return to governmental fiscal sanity.”

Fear and loathing?
Really?

The Tea Partiers have opposed every single thing that President Obama has done from the moment he set foot into the White House up to, and including, the recent nuclear treaty he is advocating.
A treaty, BTW that is along the lines of what Reagan and Gorbachev signed as the INF treaty in 1987.
So was Saint Reagan wrong as well.
No man is wrong all of the time. Even a blind squirrel find a nut once in a while.
So this leads me to believe that you folks have an agenda that is, despite what you say to the contrary, counter to whatever progress Mr. Obama, the President of this country, is trying to make in pulling America out of the hole it we find ourselves in.
Mr. Obama has been asked to produce a birth certificate proving that he was born in the US. The certificate was produced, yet certain segments of your movement continue to question the veracity of this document.

Am I supposed to see this a normal course of events?

I continue to see, and hear bitching and moaning about “rights” having been taken away.

What rights have you lost?

Mr Obama has been accused of being a communist, of socializing this country.
He had the opportunity to do so, why didn’t he do it when he had the chance?

Last time I checked I still had my guns. I am quite sure if you look you still have yours.

Again, please tell us all, what were those rights you have lost?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 14, 2010 8:37 PM
Comment #298972

wr, your definition of conservative is…simply…silly as is your definition of liberal. more reading would serve you well.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 14, 2010 8:41 PM
Comment #298973

sorry rocky, your comments don’t address fiscal sanity which is the goal of the tea party.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 14, 2010 8:44 PM
Comment #298977

“sorry rocky, your comments don’t address fiscal sanity which is the goal of the tea party.”

Yeah, but they do address some of the weirder moments that have been thrown up by some of the “leaders” in your group.

If you want to talk about the “sanity” of the group, you have to deal with the insanity of the group as well.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 14, 2010 9:33 PM
Comment #298978

bills,

Guns are NOT illegal to possess in Canada, which was my point, not whether they require registration. Canada has a far different history than the US, and as Stephen points out, it’s simply a trojan issue to distract voters. My point is many NRA members have distorted and ignorant views about actual gun laws, as shown below.


Berretta9,

It isn’t that expensive to own weapons in Canada.

How much does a licence cost and how long does it last? A Possession-and-Acquisition Licence will cost $60 if it is just for non-restricted firearms or $80 for any combination of non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited firearms. These licences need to be renewed every 5 years. Possession-Only Licences also have to be renewed every 5 years. Until May 16, 2009, the fee to renew or upgrade certain licences is waived. A minor’s licence costs $10 for up to one year; $20 for up to two years, and $30 for more than two years. You have to pay for a Possession-and-Acquisition Licence if you upgrade from a minor’s licence when you turn 18.


On your other distortion:

My parents were from Kentucky. I was born in Ohio. You continue to want to say us “libruls” have some agenda against guns when several “liberal” posters here have told you they have no problem with responsible gun ownership.

This is far different from believing that owning a gun is a means for armed insurrection is either needed or sane, or even plausible.


You then said:

This statement is irresponsible, and reflects the hatred the left has for all Americans.

My family came to Kentucky with Daniel Boone, as one of the original settlers. As I have stated, I have no issues with responsible gun ownership. I do have an issue with people “obsessed” with guns. I am a “Social Liberal” as many in my family are. They have similar views. Kentucky is not a uniform place. Please don’t ascribe your views on all Kentuckians.

Our views ARE far different from believing that owning a gun is a means for armed insurrection, is either needed or sane, or even plausible.

A gun is a tool for hunting food, or self protection. Obama and liberal causes are not a reason for waving gun issues about and creating hysteria over secession and armed insurrection as many on the right are advocating. This is as true as it was when the Black Panthers and the Weathermen advocated armed insurrection.

I/we do not hate Americans. Can you explain why you claim to know our views better than us, and apparently hate us so much as to paint us with your hatred brush?

We don’t hate you just because you are a relatively new immigrant.

Posted by: gergle at April 14, 2010 9:49 PM
Comment #298980

Yes extremism exists. It is loud and it is growing. It thinks it is a concerned and responsible notion aimed at the betterment of its existence. It thinks it is noble and needed in a time of strife when those who can are stealing away their God given rights. It thinks it is only pursuing fiscal sanity and hopes to regain just that by replacing those who do with those who did. Like a dog it chases its tail with no idea that it will never catch it. Seems like a lot of wasted energy when one considers that the end result will be no new result. But then isn’t that the goal of the pack leader. Keep them chasing bones for you so that you can enjoy the meat while the chasers are distracted with their bones.

Sorry tea partiers, but it all just seems way to obvious. The GOP has claimed you, you are largely white, largely conservative, largely republican and right leaning independent and are very likely to vote republican. If it looks like a republican and smells like a republican, chances are it is.

The republican party will benefit greatly, fiscal sanity will magically get lost in the wash once all those bones have been chased. Ideologies and policies that were decried as ism’s before will suddenly appear as patriotic and just plain good old American traits. Funny how that works. A little praise and a pat on the head will be enough to make those chasers conveniently forget why they were chasing those bones in the first place.

Posted by: Rickil at April 14, 2010 10:13 PM
Comment #298981

I won’t attempt to go into the rather shallow racism presented in the subject of the decline of marriage except to say the following:

The largest group of recipients of welfare is, by far, single white women.

Marriage, in general, has declined in the 20th century, in most western liberal democracies.

I leave you with these links:

http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/B239.html

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_sduniontrib-the_decline.htm

Posted by: gergle at April 14, 2010 10:36 PM
Comment #298982

gergle:

“Obama and liberal causes are not a reason for waving gun issues about and creating hysteria over secession and armed insurrection as many on the right are advocating. This is as true as it was when the Black Panthers and the Weathermen advocated armed insurrection.

I/we do not hate Americans. Can you explain why you claim to know our views better than us, and apparently hate us so much as to paint us with your hatred brush?

We don’t hate you just because you are a relatively new immigrant.”

1. First of all, I didn’t waive “gun issues about”, this post was written by a liberal, Ray Guest, who believes gun owning conservatives are a threat to a socialist government. The comments laced with hatred are in his post.

2. Would you like to show us evidence of “armed insurrection the right is advocating”? While you at it, prove to us they are from the right. This is bullshit from the left to try to discredit anyone who disagrees with your liberal socialist agenda.

3. As to whether you or liberals hate America: all I have to go by is your speech and your actions concerning that matter. When the left spends so much time personally attacking good Americans, because they wish to exercise their free speech and be part of the Tea party movement, I would have to call the lefts response a form of hate. What nice things have you or the left ever said about Sarah Palin or the rights of Tea Partiers to assemble and protest?

All this talk about the Tea Party is because the left absolutely fears the Tea Party. They also fear Sarah Palin and that’s why they attack her so viciously.

Concerning Canadian gun laws: why should anyone have to pay for a license? What business is it of the government? This is just another form of tax, on the workingman. A little tax here and a little tax there, and first thing you know, your just working to hand all your money over to the government.

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/The-Failure-of-Canadian-Gun-Control.htm

http://www.rkba.org/comment/brown/England.html

And this one is truthful:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 14, 2010 10:46 PM
Comment #298989

Beretta9,

I never claimed YOU did wave “gun issues about”.

I gave you a link already in the center column:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/so_you_think_slavery_wasnt_at.php

Yes, I do fear Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and other advocates of stupidity and violence.

why should anyone have to pay for a license? What business is it of the government? This is just another form of tax, on the workingman. A little tax here and a little tax there, and first thing you know, your just working to hand all your money over to the government.

A. This is about Canada not the US.
B. It isn’t what you said, or I discussed.
C. Changing the subject doesn’t make your previous statements true or arguments better.

Posted by: gergle at April 14, 2010 11:43 PM
Comment #298990

Oh and this comment

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/007029.html#298940

BTW, did you actually read the snopes article? I think it argues against your position on guns.

Posted by: gergle at April 14, 2010 11:49 PM
Comment #298996

This quote from this morning’s NYT poll article is telling about another core of Tea Partiers:

The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11 percent of the general public.

While the poll describes the members as wealthier, and more educated than the general population, the opinions they hold seem rife with ignorance.

Well off, angry, old, white men, disgruntled over helping black people isn’t a great demographic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?hp

Posted by: gergle at April 15, 2010 7:48 AM
Comment #298998

Beretta9-
You have no idea what liberals are like if you believe what you say.

Discouraging people leads to more dependence. And what have the Right done but stack the deck against minorities wherever they could. Do you think vote caging increases autonomy? Doing nothing about chronic unemployment due to bad economic decisions?

How would you like being treated like the problem child of American society? Republicans bristle at being labelled rednecks, yet they freely use racist stereotypes to degrade Obama, alleging he’s simply being handed everything despite the fact the guy graduated Harvard Law in the top ten percent.

I don’t see what being impatient and intolerant with people mistakes does for the cause of increasing their autonomy. All you’re really doing is making people dependent on your good graces.

Besides, I think cutting the poverty rate in half better qualifies as getting people autonomous than forcing them to drag themselves up from the crappy position we put them in without a safety net. The best way to encourage autonomy is keep people’s lives from being destroyed by their poverty.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 15, 2010 8:58 AM
Comment #298999

gergle:

The topic of the post was gun confiscation…

You brought in the civil war with your post and you linked to a site that was linking to another site… Why not link to the original site and then add your comments, instead of using another liberal’s thoughts on the second link. As to the subject of the link, the civil war was not primarily about slavery: the main cause of the civil war was states rights. At least that is what I learned in school 50 years ago. The way the left has been able to re-write history, there is no telling what the history books say now.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/crime/springboro-tea-party-leader-sought-by-police-650515.html

So what? The police look for some nut case. You say this nut represents all Americans that are part of the Tea Party, and then I tell you Bill Ayres represents all liberals. How you like that analogy? I live 30 miles from Dayton Dailey News, and this is no big deal around here. It must be big in your area. This article means squat…

Concerning the poll, here is the first paragraph:

“Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.”

First of all, I wouldn’t believe anything the NYT/CBS came up with, since they are part of the problem. The MSM is feeding the hatred toward the Tea Party. Secondly, you guys need to get your lies together. Either we are wealthy, old, educated, white men or we are ignorant, poor, white trash…what is it? Wasn’t it Obama, who called us a bunch of ignorants, who clinged to their guns and religion?

This link, just like your last one, don’t mean squat…

gergle, you really have a hangup about guns and Tea Parties, don’t you.

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 15, 2010 9:02 AM
Comment #299001

Beretta,

“Wasn’t it Obama, who called us a bunch of ignorants, who clinged to their guns and religion?”

I may not be a rocket surgeon, but you could at least get the quote right.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29590_Obama-_Small-Town_People_Cling_to_Religion_Guns_and_Xenophobia

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Frankly, I don’t see what the hubbub was all about.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 15, 2010 10:22 AM
Comment #299002

RF, I’m sorry but its not silly. The etymologies ofboth words is documented.

Also, it is demonstrable that conservatives attempted to ignore large parts of the Constitution during the Bush administration. I listed above a small selection of their efforts. Beyond the second amendment, I really haven’t seen much respect from conservatives for the rights of We the People. Conservatives love to talk about shrinking the government, but they always find a way to increase the size/scope of our military and to increase the social restrictions on the citizenry. Of course the tax cuts every conservative advocates for coupled with the new spending will only worsen our current fiscal insanity.

Bretta9, I don’t think anyone here has challenged the rights of those affiliated with the tea party movement to assemble and protest. A very small number of people along the fringe of the tea party movement have resorted to going beyond peaceful demonstrations and have entered the arena of violence. This isn’t surprising, every large movement, no matter how well-intentioned its leaders, will have fringe lunatics who engage in violence. The civil right’s movement has the Black Panthers, Gandhi had the Hindu Nationalists, the anti-Vietnam War movement had the Weathermen, the environmental movement has eco-terrorists, and Islam has Al Qaeda. I just think the mainstream participants in these groups should condemn any acts of violence by the fringe.

I’m glad that the tea party movement has motivated some people to become more active in politics than were involved before. It’s a real tragedy that nearly all elected officials are elected by only pluralities of the voting-age population rather than absolute majorities. I just don’t think the insinuation that the Tea Party is a grassroots movement from all across the political spectrum is true. The tea party movement is nearly entirely made up of conservative Republicans and GOP leaning independents. Nothing wrong with that, just don’t pretend to be something bigger than you really are. If you want an example of a true grassroots movement, you should take a look at Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 15, 2010 10:54 AM
Comment #299013

The gov will not come and take my guns, will never happen. Sorry hype master flex.

Posted by: Ben at April 15, 2010 3:33 PM
Comment #299014

Rocky:

Whatever…..

Warped:

“I don’t think anyone here has challenged the rights of those affiliated with the tea party movement to assemble and protest.”

Well Warped, you stand alone as a liberal, because Ray Guest, Stephen, bills and many others don’t agree with you. When the left spends all their energy personally attacking those who do not agree with them, I have to think they do not believe in the 1st amendment. They simply repeat the Obama/liberal talking points. I commend you for your stand that all Americans have the right to exercise the free speech.

Secondly: you slipped this little statement in, “A very small number of people along the fringe of the tea party movement have resorted to going beyond peaceful demonstrations and have entered the arena of violence.”


Perhaps you could link to a violent act that was done by a Tea Party conservative? Not the MSM talking point, but an actual act of violence.

It’s hard to tell who is who at these assemblies, especially when the left is calling for infiltrators to cause problems to make the TP look bad. Don’t you agree?

Stephen:

I don’t care to be called a redneck, and none of my friends mind either.

You said, “yet they freely use racist stereotypes to degrade Obama,”

Proof, Stephen, proof……..this is a blanket statement with no proof.

Again, you made these statements, “Discouraging people leads to more dependence. And what have the Right done but stack the deck against minorities wherever they could….All you’re really doing is making people dependent on your good graces….Besides, I think cutting the poverty rate in half better qualifies as getting people autonomous than forcing them to drag themselves up from the crappy position we put them in without a safety net. The best way to encourage autonomy is keep people’s lives from being destroyed by their poverty.”

These are such ignorant statements; I don’t know where to begin.

1. For the past 60+ years, the Democratic Party has done everything they could to make people dependent upon government.
2. The Democratic Party has done everything they could to stack the deck against minorities.
3. The Democratic Part has done everything they can to make all Americans dependent upon the good graces of government.
4. “Cutting the poverty rate in half”, tell me Stephen, when is this fantasy going to take place. The Democratic Party has been dumping billions of taxpayer dollars into solving this problem for decades. When is this going to happen? You people have been saying the exact same thing for 60+ years and I realize you are just a young pup with great and noble ideas. But, believe me, I have been listening to this crap for years. Word for word, the same crap. I’m sure Royal Flush and others can testify to the same thing I say.
5. “Autonomy” means being about to take care of one’s self, but I am sure, you are using it to mean be taken care of by the government.
6. The only safety, is the net that comes from having a job and supporting ones self. The left cannot comprehend why 60+% of the American people are furious at what Obama and the left is doing to our country. Well let me tell you, he is destroying jobs. You make industry the enemy, but industry provides the jobs. He has destroyed the tax base, because there are no jobs, and now he seeks to raid companies, banks, pension plans, and wherever else he can go to get cash. Our country is broke. We have no money. Your answer to all our woes is more entitlements, but we can’t pay for the ones we have now. At what point do you say enough? I can only assume the left is in league with Obama to destroy America. Which makes all your claims of patriotism moot.

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 15, 2010 3:35 PM
Comment #299016

beretta, iam sure you know that many liberals live in a magical world in which all can ride in the wagon with no one to pull it. rather than equal opportunity for all they demand equal results for all. this logically results in all reaching the bottom of the poverty barrel together.

liberals believe that life is a zero sum game. for every success there must be someone made to fail. if we can not all succeed, we must punish those who do. this is why we hear our liberal politicians so frequently employ the word “fair” to justify their socialist actions.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 15, 2010 4:16 PM
Comment #299017
Perhaps you could link to a violent act that was done by a Tea Party conservative? Not the MSM talking point, but an actual act of violence.

It’s hard to tell who is who at these assemblies, especially when the left is calling for infiltrators to cause problems to make the TP look bad. Don’t you agree?

I was talking about the cutting of Perriello’s gasline as well as the bricks thrown into windows of the offices of several Congress people.

Do those vandals’ sympathies lie within the tea party movement? We’ll never know for certain unless the perpetrators are caught at some point. Until then, the best guess is that these acts were done by right wingers. However, this fact does nothing to discredit the greater movement. Every political faction has their fanatics and its understandable that a few of them will end up committing violent acts. It just needs to be understood that the mainstream members of such a faction need to condemn such violence.

I consider myself a part of the environmental movement, but I condemn the lunatics that vandalize SUVs or do other ridiculous things to make a point. I assume that you feel the same way regarding the vandals who cut Periello’s gasline and those who tossed bricks through congressperson’s windows.

Well Warped, you stand alone as a liberal, because Ray Guest, Stephen, bills and many others don’t agree with you. When the left spends all their energy personally attacking those who do not agree with them, I have to think they do not believe in the 1st amendment. They simply repeat the Obama/liberal talking points. I commend you for your stand that all Americans have the right to exercise the free speech.

Do not commend me just for observing our Constitution. That should be second nature, not something worth of commendation.

While I don’t agree with everything the leftist posters have said about the Tea Party Movement, I don’t believe I’ve read anyone write that they did not have the right to protest. I have read attempts to discredit the movement, but surely that is not the same as saying that the movement does not have the right to exist? I haven’t participated in David’s article in the green column, so maybe something was said there, but I doubt it.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 15, 2010 4:22 PM
Comment #299018

Baretta and RF
EXACTLY.

Posted by: MAG at April 15, 2010 4:26 PM
Comment #299019

Beretta 9-
No Proof?

The irony is, you know these people must be pretty dedicated racists if they’re digging up the whole Watermelon stereotype. That’s a fairly old, obscure kind of stereotype. That’s Sambo and Blackface old.

As for not knowing where to begin, I don’t blame you.

1) Because here you simply state your conclusion and expect me to concede its truth. Why?

2) If you’re talking about the modern Democratic Party, where’s your proof of this? I know you consider it clever argument to just repeat my charges back at me, but I can cite a history that stretches from the Southern Strategy to “Obamabucks” with fried chicken on them to support my assertion that modern Republicans rely on racial appeals to white voters to get themselves elected. Heck, you only have to seen how many Dixiecrats, including Strom Thurmond, ended up in the Republican party to understand where this strategy was aimed at.

3) Now you’re just repeating yourself.

4) Actual fact. Look at the poverty rates for both Blacks and Whites. More or less, cut in half. Blacks were once in the forties, now they’re in the twenties.

5) Well, we can’t all be absolutists with the term. Autonomy for me means relative, not absolute independence. But since when do most people have absolute autonomy? Do most people grow their own food? No. Are most people self-employed? No. Do most people bargain with the people at the stores they go to for merchandise? No. But hey, we can indulge our illusions, can’t we? I’m talking encouraging people to do most things for themselves, the way an average person could. I’m talking going out there and being able to get a job without too much trouble. I’m talking about being able to build a life of your own that you can be proud of, not remaining on government assistance your whole life.

6) Let’s talk about comprehension here. The gallup tracking poll has Obama at 49 to 45 on the job rating. He has 57% favorables, the opposite of your claim.

And irony of ironies, you can’t find a poll that has people talk about the Republicans better trusted on Healthcare than Democrats, though they’ve succeeded in poisoning people on the subject.

Your people are very good at making issues toxic, politically, not so good at offering desirable alternatives. How quick do you think people would be to reach for Paul Ryan’s Medicare Voucher plan? How likely is that to pass any Congress any time soon?

There is a reason to have a safety net, to have the Federal government capable of economic intervention. How much worse would things be if people were on the street, rather than taking unemployment checks? If the banks were being run on, instead of being shuffled through the resolution authority of the FDIC? If Obama had not put the stimulus in place, how much worse would the economic pressures be for reform?

You’re so interested in getting what you want politically, that you don’t seen how much of a disaster that has been for your party. You don’t see how successfully stalling the bailouts could have simply collapsed the system, giving the real socialists and far left Democrats the opportunity to sweep what Republicans there remained from power. Without the Democrats to scapegoat, your party would be the one facing the music on unemployment, only you’d be facing it on something more like 12% unemployment or worse, and you’d be dealing out the bailouts like candy yourselves.

If you were smart, politically, you’d let Democrats clean up the mess, and then take them on politically. You’d let Deficits become a real issue, without the ambiguities of a Deflationary environment.

Unfortunately, the republicans have taken a move first, think second mentality, like a poor chess player.

The Democrats are going to push through economic reforms, and they’re quite confident they can win this fight. I don’t envy the Republicans that try to push us on this.

Democrats have the advantage of being able to deliver results, rather than excuses, when Americans ask for them. The entire Republican plan the last few years has been getting in their way on that. Now they have to answer for why they’re going to get in the way of Wall Street, and Tea Partisans are going to have to face how screwed up and twisted their movement really is.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 15, 2010 4:36 PM
Comment #299021

mr. daugherty, at what point did advocating for governmental fiscal sanity become screwed uo and twisted?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 15, 2010 4:53 PM
Comment #299024

Well, we have a conundrum. WR blaimed right wing conservatives for acts of violence, not because he has evidence, but because “IT MUST BE SO”. Great, so much for innocent until proven guilty.

And Stephen went on, and on, and on, and never gave any proof of racist statements.

Come on Stephen, you know the rules…proof

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 15, 2010 5:48 PM
Comment #299029

S.D.
So far Democrats have added to the mess where do you get they will clean it up? I think you’ve been watching to much of Olderman and Maddow.

Posted by: MAG at April 15, 2010 6:36 PM
Comment #299030
Well, we have a conundrum. WR blaimed right wing conservatives for acts of violence, not because he has evidence, but because “IT MUST BE SO”. Great, so much for innocent until proven guilty.

I guess by the same token then there’s no need for the left to apologize for or condemn the actions of Bill Ayers & the Weathermen. Bill Ayers has never been convicted by a jury of his peers so he is innocent in the eyes of the law.

I’m sorry, but that’s not how it works. Innocent until proven guilty is how we operate our judicial system, but not how we live our lives. If I wanted political advice, I would not ask Bill Ayers for it, based on my belief that he is a radical domestic terrorist who has shown no remorse for the atrocities he has committed. The left has and should condemn the violence committed by Bill Ayers & the Weathermen. I assume that a rightist such as yourself condemns and distances yourself from the radicals who vandalize private property for similar reasons?

In all honesty, I don’t understand why this is such a big deal. Just because some right-wingers commit acts of violence doesn’t mean that the rest of the right is anything other than a civilized group of citizens merely advocating for what they believe to be true. The actions of the few does nothing to discredit the voices of the many others who engage the political debate in a civil and respectful manner.

Let’s just condemn all the violence on all sides and move on. There are thousands of other issues I’d rather be talking about than this. In retrospect, I regret commenting on this topic; I should have steered clear of it like I did to David’s piece in the center column. This talk about violence is a sidelight and a distraction from the real issues at hand.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 15, 2010 7:35 PM
Comment #299032

as radio host mike savage is fond of saying…liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 15, 2010 8:01 PM
Comment #299033

Royal Flush-
Well, to start with, it can become screwed-up and twisted when all the methods you would propose to achieve those ends have been historically proven to fail at them. In that case, you’re not truly advocating fiscal sanity, just trying to force a kind of fiscal insanity you happen to approve of on people.

But then, that wasn’t really the subject.
This is. See, that’s the start of your prominent Tea Party movement.

Shouldn’t that be strange to you? That the Rant of the Year that starts this all is a Wall Street reporter cheered on by a Wall Street crowd for saying that folks with bad mortgages shouldn’t be helped? Shouldn’t calling that populism, siding with banks and traders against those in danger of losing their homes not be the start of a populist movement?

And isn’t it funny that people have the lowest income taxes in half a century, thanks to this President, and they’re attacking him for a high-tax policy?

But hey, it’s the sentiments that matter, not the facts, right? When anybody just says the magic words that get people like you riled up, when they start spouting the conservative orthodoxy, you’re just going to line up and agree, even if it all leads back to the people whose betrayal you bemoan.

The Tea Party Movement is the Republican Party trying to hijack the populist discontent their own crappy policies created. That’s what’s twisted. If you folks really are populists, really are for low taxes, Obama’s not the person you should be fighting. It’s the leadership that continues to lead your people around by the nose.

Beretta9-
I gave you a link. Did you bother to follow it? I can provide similar statements, Wikipedia articles on major Republican figures who switched from the Democrats in Dixie, I can show you the Witch Doctor image, linked to all kinds of racist stuff.

Let me ask you a question: where does all this talk of “states rights” come from in the Republican Party? Why did Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, and Rick Perry all become Republicans, and who are they appealing to when they insinuate that political disputes might end in secession?

Has it occurred to you that it is not coincidence that the Republican of this decade sounds, with their talk of states rights, secession, nullification, popular sovereignty, like a Democrat of the South of the 1840s and 50’s?

Abraham Lincoln, and the Republicans who followed for a century afterwards were dedicated Federalists in their sensibilities. Where Southern Democrats would once talk about States Rights, and make noise about the intrusion of the government into local affairs, now it’s Republicans. More to the point, now its Republicans who represent the same places. What do you think happened?

I tell you what I think happened: what was once a mostly Northern and Federalist party tried to get cute with Southern voters. They got a taste of what they could draw for them, and ended up getting swallowed whole by the Dixiecrats when they got too invested in the Dogwhistle politics.

Naturally, most Republicans don’t register this because most Republicans, like most Democrats, mainly pay attention to the recent surface clutter of politics. The parties seem to be what they’ve always been.

You only have to look back in time, and realize that when people were talking bout States Rights, and things like Bussing and Welfare, They weren’t merely talking about current events. They were making references to racial politics of that time, exploiting the racial stereotypes that many had firmly planted in their minds.

MAG-
Democrats have reform packages, legislation. They’re at least responding to the need. However, Republicans are just blocking and complaining. When the Republicans start articulating a comprensive, logically consistent and coherent alternative, then we can talk about the Republicans about being solutions.

And if the Democrats offer something imperfect? Well, then we push them for something better. That’s the way Democracy should work.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 15, 2010 8:21 PM
Comment #299034

S.D.
Who’s need? Surely not what a majority of Americans want. Your party is getting us deeper and deeper in debt is all I can see. You will see how Democracy works come November when Democrats become the minority again.

Posted by: MAG at April 15, 2010 8:36 PM
Comment #299035

“I regret commenting on this topic; I should have steered clear of it like I did to David’s piece in the center column. This talk about violence is a sidelight and a distraction from the real issues at hand.”

Well stated! If people would spend less time spewing hatred at each other and spend a bit more time educating themselves on the issues, there might be a chance of some enlightening debate. Neither side has a monopoly on truth and wisdom. Health care, the economy, financial regulation, wars in Afghanistan/Iraq, etc. are not simple issues. They deserve thoughtful analysis, not knee jerk, tribal reactions.

In the recent health care debate, everybody had an opinion on the merits of the various proposals. Yet, very few actually read the bills (Democrat or Republican)or had a clue as to alternative options. Conservatives opposed the final bill that is essentially a conservative proposal from the Heritage Foundation and implemented by a conservative govenor in Massachussets. Liberals supported the bill. Go, figure! Simple tribal politics with no attention to the actual policies.

Posted by: Rich at April 15, 2010 9:08 PM
Comment #299036

Rich:

I agree with you completely, but every time conservatives try to educate liberals; the liberals start calling the conservatives bad names.

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 15, 2010 9:17 PM
Comment #299040

Beretta9:

First of all, I wouldn’t believe anything the NYT/CBS came up with, since they are part of the problem. The MSM is feeding the hatred toward the Tea Party. Secondly, you guys need to get your lies together. Either we are wealthy, old, educated, white men or we are ignorant, poor, white trash…what is it? Wasn’t it Obama, who called us a bunch of ignorants, who clinged to their guns and religion?

This link, just like your last one, don’t mean squat…

gergle, you really have a hangup about guns and Tea Parties, don’t you.

I think it’s pretty clear that you believe what you believe irrespective of an avalanche of contrary evidence given to you, by myself and others. If you wish to rewrite history as many Southern schools did and still do, I think that speaks to the ability to read and interpret, or perhaps a desire to decieve. The link regarding the civil war, is about the allusion to armed insurrection. It is shown in the link with the statements made by the governments of the southern states that the reason they seceded was over slavery. But since you seem to take the stance, “facts be damned”, it is pointless to argue with that kind of logic, or less than sane reasoning.

The Tea Party is a conglomerate of it’s members. If you wish to distance yourself from selected individuals, that is fine, but until the “party” does, it will continue to be represented by the wingnuts.

I simply made the point that you have your facts wrong on the things I pointed out. Whenever you decide that you can dispute them with something other than “I don’t believe it”, I’ll be glad to debate the facts with you.

I have an issue with delusional thinking, not guns or even the Tea Party.

I feel that the Tea Party is rife with misguided, and misinformed people, who have let their rage overcome their reason. They are making people like Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin rich, and being led down a delusional path by people like Dick Armey.

They will find themselves disheartened and further frustrated with politics. Some will be encouraged to violence. This has never been a grass roots movement. It’s a cynical political creation of Republican right wingers tapping into racism, and rage.

Posted by: gergle at April 15, 2010 10:52 PM
Comment #299043

MAG-
Well, right now we’re pushing for a Financial Reform bill, which most people favor, against the Republicans who want to stop it, a position most people by far don’t take. Word is, Democrats are pushing hard for it, and the President’s not being so accommodating on this as with healthcare.

We Democrats aren’t stupid, the inane propaganda aside. We know the economy and the financial markets are the big issue. But Republicans, unfortunately, have not learned their lesson, and it shows. Mitch McConnell tried to push that talking point about this bill causing more bailouts when in fact a central part of this bill is a resolution authority specifically designed to safely take such banks out of business.

And why is he doing this? Because according to one of your party’s political memoes, the best way to deep-six something like this is to associate it with the bailouts, which nobody likes.

Fact of the matter is, Republicans are going to talk about the need to solve problems, but the’re not prepared to do much of anything about it.

Democrats, on the other hand, know that more is expected and wanted out of them, and they don’t have the psychological block that Republicans have about having government help people and rein in out of control business leaders. Sooner or later, the difference in attitude will have an effect at the ballot box. The Republicans have put themselves in a position where it’s very hard for them to stop all the bad habits that got them kicked out of the majority. Democrats at least have some where to go that their natural inclinations will serve them well with.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 16, 2010 12:46 AM
Comment #299059

S.D.
Democrats in congress are doing what they want not what the people want. You are wanting to much government. You want cradle to grave entitlements, you want government in control of all facist of life including business. You talk about government helping people, the welfare program was a big success it tought people to just sit on their fat behinds and let government take care of them. The problem with your thinking is people get to dependent on government and not themselves. Most people want jobs, not handouts. Like I said Stephen the only thing Democrats are doing now is putting me, my grandchildren and great grandchildren deeper and deeper in debt.

Posted by: MAG at April 16, 2010 10:17 AM
Comment #299064

Conservatives opposed the final bill that is essentially a conservative proposal from the Heritage Foundation and implemented by a conservative govenor in Massachussets. Liberals supported the bill. Go, figure! Simple tribal politics with no attention to the actual policies.

Posted by: Rich at April 15, 2010 09:08

rich, i am a heritage member, can you provide a link to verify your statement regarding what you say is their position?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 16, 2010 12:22 PM
Comment #299066

RF,

Have a look.

It’s the alternative plan that was offered to counter the Clinton proposal.

The first 5 pages are a critique of the Clinton Proposal. Skip to page 6 and you will see the alternative plan. Key aspects include an individual mandate and reforming the tax code to remove the incentives to tie health care with employment. The Heritage Foundation’s proposals actually go further than what Obama signed in the latter regard.

Of course when Obama & the Democrats moved to the right to placate the Republicans, they were not met with open arms, but rather the GOP moved further to the Right which is why the Heritage Foundation rejected their own ideas from 10 years ago.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 16, 2010 12:59 PM
Comment #299067

Stephen-

Again with the Dixicrats? The Dixiecrats were in existance for one election- 1948. Thurmond and Helms switched to the GOP about 20 years later in the 60’s, but most (who were still alive) stayed with the Democratic Party. Walace ran for the the Democratic nomination in 76. South Carolina got its first Republican Governor in 76 (Edwards) only by default after the Democrat was ruled ineligible. Byrd is still a Democrat.

Most of the South stayed Democrat, espeically at the State and local levels, until the late 80’s. That’s 40 years after the Dixiecrats disbanded and 20 years after civil rights. Reagan moved the South to the GOP, not Jim Crowe, racisim and the Dixiecrats.

Posted by: George at April 16, 2010 1:19 PM
Comment #299068

wr, thanks for the link. i found nothing in the doc that resembles what was passed. i would explain, but with broken arm, typing is difficult.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 16, 2010 1:26 PM
Comment #299069
i found nothing in the doc that resembles what was passed.

While I would agree that there are some differences between the two, I think it would be hard to deny that the individual mandates in the Heritage proposal and the law that was passed are very similar. I understand your injured arm precludes an in depth response from you, but maybe one of the other rightist posters can help us out and explain the difference between the Heritage proposal and the one that recently became law.

BTW, I just watched last Tuesday’s Frontline and they did a good job explaining the process of how the bill became a law including all the deal-making that was done. I learned a few things; I didn’t realize the August Town Hall meetings had a very profound impact on Senator Grassely that made him stop negotiating the compromise bill with Senator Baucus, thus putting the Democrats into the position of abandoning bipartisanship. I recommend that anyone interested in learning more about this process to watch it.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 16, 2010 2:16 PM
Comment #299070

many dems eithered ignored the messages delivered by, or cancelled, their town hall meetings. it is not reprensentive gov when legislators vote on bills they don’t read or comprehend.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 16, 2010 2:28 PM
Comment #299075

MAG-
Let me make you a deal: I’ll tell you what I want, and you’ll take that, rather than your own political propagandist’s overwrought hysteria, to be the model of what I’m actually looking for in a government.

I want a mainly capitalist system. I do not want to devolve all the means of production to the government. I do not want to redistribute all income to everybody.

George-
I’m talking a general term for Democrats who were strongly opposed to civil rights legislation, not the official party. But if we’re talking about the official party, do you recall the candidate they had for President?

That’s right: Strom Thurmond, who ended up switching parties in 1964, and helping to develop the Southern Strategy to bring in disaffected Southern Democrats. Joining him where such folks like Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, and later on, Rick Perry.

Reagan? Reagan was the beneficiary of that, not the originator. Question is, when the time came for making a speech in a Southern town, why did this member of the Party of Lincoln talk about States Rights? That was the old Democratic Party line back in the bad old days.

I know its difficult for you to believe this, but then, I’m not saying you personally joined the party or stayed with it out of unsavory motivations. I’m saying leaders in your party steered things this way, and the Republicans made a demographic shift that has them essentially saying what pre-Civil War Democrats were, once upon a time.

Royal Flush-
The town hall meeting message was an organized political stunt. There’s a huge amount of evidence that Tea Party activists were coordinated, given the same talking points, and actually deliberatedly made themselves disruptive.

This wasn’t a spontaneous outpouring of outrage. Just look at the poll numbers going in! If it had been the outgrowth of organic outrage, we would see the disillusionment and drop in popularity much faster. Instead, we see the drop start pretty much in August.

What the Tea Parties did was generate such an atmosphere of negativity that it soaked into the conventional wisdom. Then Republicans, with the help of their allies among the Democrats knee-capped the Public Option and Medicare buy-in, thereby taking some of the popularity of the bill out of the other side.

Poll support this view, as a majority were on record as either being satisfied with the legislation, or of the feeling that it did not go far enough. The Public Option and the Medicare Buy-in consistently polled well, and the bill without it consistently polled more poorly.

But then, that’s not the narrative that gets repeated over and over again, especially among the sixty percent of FOXNews-watching Tea Partisans who hear nothing else than “the Majority’s against it.”

Go look at the polls. You’ll find that beneath the surface, your majority does not exist. It’s only because you assume these people have the same reasons for disagreeing with the policy as you do that you make this erroneous assumption.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 16, 2010 5:28 PM
Comment #299076

sd, even prominate members of the dem party admit to their fear of losing control of power come nov. do you have better insight than they do. plenty of polls refute your conjecture.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 16, 2010 5:58 PM
Comment #299077

Royal Flush-
I think we’ll lose some seats. Losing the majority is another matter. I don’t see much about the Republicans that impresses me as of late. They seem a party whose political support is strained, and they’ve just now committed to fighting the Democrats on Financial Reform. That’s not going to be pretty. Where Republicans had ready-made advantages on healthcare reform, Democrats can put the pedal to the metal on the Republicans, and they know it.

Hell, Obama’s already issued a veto threat, the SEC has just charged Goldman Sachs with fraud, and the even Blanche Lincoln, who was supposedly on the fence, came down with proposals hard than what Obama had asked for. Democrats are prepared to have the fight on financial reform.

Healthcare Reform was hard on us. Now it’s your turn to suffer politically.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 16, 2010 6:34 PM
Comment #299078

Royal Flush,

First, let me wish you a speedy recovery. As for the Heritage Foundation proposing essentially the same health care reform as in the final bill,let me offer you the following quote from Stuart Butler, Vice President of Domestic and Economic Policy Studies for the Heritage Foundation, testifying before a Senate Committee in 2003:

“…In a civilized and rich country like the United States, it is reasonable for society to accept an obligation to ensure that all residents have affordable access to at least basic health care - much as we accept the same obligation to assure a reasonable level of housing, education and nutrition.

But as part of that contract, it is also reasonable to expect residents of the society who can do so to contribute an appropriate amount to their own health care. This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan - one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family. And as any social contract, there would also be an obligation on society. To the extent that the family cannot reasonably afford reasonable basic coverage, the rest of society, via government, should take responsibility for financing that minimum coverage.

The obligations on individuals does not have to be a “hard” mandate, in the sense that failure to obtain coverage would be illegal. It could be a “soft” mandate, meaning that failure to obtain coverage could result in the loss of tax benefits and other government entitlements. In addition, if federal tax benefits or other assistance accompanied the requirement, states and localities could receive the value of the assistance forgone by the person failing to obtain coverage, in order to compensate providers who deliver services to the uninsured family.”

Perhaps, we could quibble on the issue of soft or hard mandates. However, the essential ideas are strikingly similar.

Posted by: Rich at April 16, 2010 7:02 PM
Comment #299079

perhaps…we’ll see

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 16, 2010 7:03 PM
Comment #299085

Stephen the problem is your “generalization” of still doesn’t match history. That’s because they didn’t leave, save guys like Thurmond and Helms, until the late 80’s and after Clinton’s first term (1994).

Jimmy Carter carried the South in 1976. Zell Miller, Jim Hunt, and my friend Dick Riley were all Democratic governors of the 80’s. It took until 2000 to get a Republican in the Mississippi governor’s mansion. George Wallace, you remember him, was the Democratic governor of Alabama until the late 80’s. Fritz Hollings, the Governor who put the Confederate Flag on top of South Carolina’s State House, retired a Democrat in 2005.

When was Lott a Democrat? Anyway….

If the exodus was all about racism and civil rights then why did it take 25 years after Voting Rights for the South to flip to the GOP?

Posted by: George at April 16, 2010 10:15 PM
Comment #299088

George-
The simple answer is, such changes don’t happen overnight. The push and pull of politics also doesn’t work just on that subject. In essence, a generation of post-war Democrats had to retire for the full effect to be seen. A generation had to pass where it was assumed that Democrats were the undisputed champions of the South.

I’m talking about the final result here, and where it got started.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 16, 2010 11:22 PM
Comment #299102

No Stephen, the simple answer is that you used Dixiecrat, a specific movement (and not a generalization) within the Democratic Party that supported segregation and Jim Crow, to paint as racists Democrats like me who left the party after Reagan.

I was a kid when the Voting Rights bill passed, I learned about Jim Crow in history books, and I attended racially integrated schools. Racism and the Dixiecrats didn’t start me down the path to becoming an independent, and I take offense to your implications.

George Westbury

Posted by: George at April 17, 2010 9:14 AM
Comment #299113

financially, we have become a morbidly obese country on a mission to outlaw diet and exercise. we can’t inflate our money supply to get out of debt as our biggest costs are entitlement programs with indexed increases tied to inflation. and, we have no political will to cut spending or enact broad tax increases. we’re…screwed.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 17, 2010 12:53 PM
Comment #299117

“we’re…screwed”

So what you’re saying is that it doesn’t matter who gets elected in November.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 17, 2010 1:50 PM
Comment #299118

pretty much unless americans are willing to sacrifice to get our financial house in order with tax increases for all and huge spending cuts. not much political will for that on either side..

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 17, 2010 2:13 PM
Comment #299120
Comment #299113

financially, we have become a morbidly obese country on a mission to outlaw diet and exercise. we can’t inflate our money supply to get out of debt as our biggest costs are entitlement programs with indexed increases tied to inflation. and, we have no political will to cut spending or enact broad tax increases. we’re…screwed.
Posted by: Royal Flush at April 17, 2010 12:53 PM
Comment #299117

“we’re…screwed”

So what you’re saying is that it doesn’t matter who gets elected in November.

Rocky
Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 17, 2010 01:50 PM
Comment #299118

pretty much unless americans are willing to sacrifice to get our financial house in order with tax increases for all and huge spending cuts. not much political will for that on either side..
Posted by: Royal Flush at April 17, 2010 02:13 PM

RF, I agree 100%. The electorate has very poor understanding of our budget situation.

Some good reading material about how poorly informed most Americans are:

Polling the Budget

Another discussion of polls regarding the budget

An interactive rectangular-shaped pie chart of Obama’s 2011 budget

I hope you enjoy them.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 17, 2010 3:09 PM
Comment #299121

(The spam filter doesn’t like the number of links I have so I’m splitting my comment into two.)

The lowest taxes in 60 years are incompatible with the highest levels of government spending since the end of WWII. The high levels of spending during WWII were justified by the threat to the world posed by the Axis powers, the deep recession justifies the current expenditures. The 10 trillion dollar question is whether or not the Obama administration will tamper down spending after the economy recovers as we head into 2011 and 2012 like the Truman administration lowered spending in the second half of the 1940s. If Obama doesn’t do that, he won’t get my vote in 2012.

If the GOP really wanted to solve the budget issue, they’d get behind Mitt Romney. When Romney went to Salt Lake City the Olympics were horribly over budget. Romney fixed it and the 2002 games went fine and made a profit. When Romney came to Massachusetts, our previous GOP governor had left a budget disaster. Romney was able to balance it.

We will need some deep cuts, especially in the entitlement programs for the elderly. Social Security was originally a program to insure people who lived longer then they had expected that they would have enough money to live. Nowadays it’s become a retirement program for everyone. Social Security benefits should only be given out to people who live extraordinarily long.

If we use the numbers from 1935 and scale them to today we get 87.5 years. Maybe 85 years old could be doable, but the original intention was that the average worker in 1935 was not supposed to collect benefits. Of course we also need to remove the fact that incomes above 100000 dollars are exempt from payroll taxes.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 17, 2010 3:11 PM
Comment #299124

wr, enjoyed the links.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 17, 2010 4:49 PM
Comment #299199

George-
No. Not every Democrat who left the party left them over racial issues. The Neocons are one set of examples. There are others who left over moral issues, and so on and so forth.

But if you listen to the rhetoric, if you recall what was being said in times before, Republicans have adopted a lot of rhetoric that used to be that of the Dixiecrats. States Rights did not use to be a Republican war-cry. The Heirs of Lincoln did not threaten secession, they celebrated the man who defeated the secessionists. Things like the tenth amendment claims, and the arguments about nullification and the like all combine with the others to produce a unique fingerprint that corresponds to one basic movement in American politics.

If you don’t like the stark similarities, that’s your problem, not mine.

To say that the Republicans are racists, ipso facto, is wrong. But to say that your party hasn’t taken on a lot of those who were disgruntled by my party’s support for Civil Right’s legislation is defiant of historical fact. They did, and those people, whenever they came along, have influenced the party in ways that has landed the Republicans into similar geographical isolation and has them saying similar things to what the Democrats of the confederacy have said over their history.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2010 11:40 PM
Comment #299201

Happy Patriots Day everyone!

The original Patriots Day was a true example of people exercising their second amendment rights (even though the Bill of Rights did not yet exist).

http://www.nps.gov/mima/patriots-day-2010.htm

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 19, 2010 12:26 AM
Comment #299367

All,

Thanks for comments. I have been busy selling real estate and am just now getting back. I hoped and intended that this article spark a lively discussion… and it did. I did not get far before I found something that I needed to respond to.

First.

I should have made it clear that I am not personaly opposed to guns. I was at a gun store today and having nostalgia for my old Winchester Lever action 30/30. What I was attempting to confront here was one facet of America’s obsession with false power - and - the irration paranoid fears of the extreme right wing.

I used also have posted a link to my prior article: It is true.

Beretta9,

You wrote:

This is irresponsible of the left to even suggest American citizens want to overthrow the government. I have not seen any group that even suggests this.

You are joking me… Right? You did read my links?

Stephen Daugherty,

Thanks for answering MikeE’s post about various “”failed”” government programs like the postal service and social security. I would add that the postal service is still the most cost effective way to send snail mail, and has long been the spinal column for commerce in this country. it has paid for itself millions of times over. I would also add that on energy independence Reagan canceled Carter’s programs that would have led to energy independence.

MikeE, Stephen,

I see you guys had a good debate going.

Warped Reality,

Thanks for your post. I especially liked what you wrote:

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but a great deal of the rightist platform is about taking away the liberties we’ve cherished as Americans. Taking away the right to security and privacy in one’s personal communications. Taking away the right to habeus corpus. Taking away the right to due process. Taking away the right to a trial by one’s peers. Taking away the right to not be punished cruelly or unusually. Taking away the right to be free from unnecessary searches and seizures without a search warrant. Taking away the right to marry the person that one loves. Taking away the right to control what goes on in one’s own body.

Royal Flush,

You wrote:

it’s difficult to understand the fear and loathing expressed by some on the left of a movement (tea party) that has as its goal a return to governmental fiscal sanity.

I am not opposed to fiscal responsiblity. I think we should reduce military spending and reduce our militarist policies - at least a little bit… I also we need to increase taxes to rates - at least a little bit. I think that the cap on social security withholding should be removed. I think Social Security should be means tested. Social Security benefits are indexed to inflation. Social Security retirement age should be indexed to life expectancy… We have should have single payer health care. Yes, I want to cut government spending and have specific suggestions for doing it.

gergle,

Thanks as always.

I have to go to bed now - real estate needs selling tomorrow…



Posted by: Ray Guest at April 22, 2010 11:48 PM
Comment #299595

More evidence connecting the exchanges in the health care reform bill and the ideas put forward by the Heritage foundation:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/01/barack-obama/obama-says-heritage-foundation-source-health-excha/

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 27, 2010 1:07 AM
Post a comment