Democrats & Liberals Archives

There are No Funny Little Graphs Without Jaggies.

I’ve been getting some comments lately from gloating RedColumnites asking whether I’m going to blow up or cry. I’m sorry, but I’m non-flammable, and watertight at the moment on the ocular end of things.

Why do they expect this? Do they expect some wipeout victory? The polling indicates that while the House is a longshot, the Senate is not. Last time I checked, it took two houses of Congress to pass a bill. And somebody else.

The GOP can lie to their supporters and say they'll repeal something, but until they get the Presidency, they're not repealing anything without Obama's help. And the Senate? Well, the Republicans should realize that the filibuster door swings both ways. If they can't get the necessary number of Democrats, then the sixty vote rule applies to their legislation, too.

So, it's not really 2004, or even 1994, for that matter. Those were worse.

But more than that, If you don't have a tolerance for the ups and downs of politics, you're gonna wear yourself out.

I started out on this blog at the worst possible time for Democrats. The GOP had both houses, Bush had the Presidency, not to mention substantial popularity still left. Some folks in my family worried that I was drawing bad government attention by being so outspoken. I signed my political comments with my real name in no small part to indicate that I wasn't afraid of speaking out, that I was for an open, robust political dialogue, and that such rights should not be the casualty of some politician's disaster-backed political popularity. Of all the times to stand up for one's speech rights, I considered that the most critical.

And then the 2004 election happened. And let me tell you, what made it even worse was that I had just gotten through with The Best and the Brightest, by David Halberstam, and the parallels between Democrat LBJ and Republican George W. Bush were depressing in their correspondence. Both escalated existing situation on the flimsiest of pretenses, both had little idea of how to get out, both failed to pay for their wars out of taxpayer funds for fear that their new taxes would force people to consider what the relative value of one thing or the other was. They weren't honest with themselves or the country, and they played on people's patriotism divisively in order to gain support for their dysfunctional policies. It wasn't that Iraq was just like Vietnam, but some mistakes work out the same more or less, regardless of where you make them.

Knowing that was going to continue was pretty rough. Knowing I had four more years to deal with Bush was bad, too. But I had no idea how bad.

But even after that low point? 2006, 2008. It's not like Democrats have not won an election or kept majorities in either chamber for decades before 2010. We're not in decline as a party anymore, this year notwithstanding.

Yes, we've had a rough two years. But Republicans have had to earn that rough two years with a near constant din of negativity. I'm familiar with this level of negativity, I remember it from 2004. And what, pray tell, happened afterwards? 2006. Why? Because the reward for all that effort on the part of voters and supporters was a historic series of screw-up on every level.

The Republicans are hyping the hell out of themselves now, portraying themselves as the saviors of the country, the morality and purity brigade, so on and so forth. They're even claiming, despite the lack of a coherent plan, that they're going to reduce the deficit, and bring back the jobs.

They've got two years to deliver, against party led by a political leader who has managed to to outperform both Reagan and Clinton in the polls at this time in their presidencies. Obama's dealing with a chronically bad economy, and with all the crap that the Republicans have thrown at him, and still he outranks the Republicans in Congress in terms of popularity.

Sure, there are challenges, but Democrats have faced long odds before. The pity a Republican win will be in what kinds of policies they push. But if they decide to push that kind of policy, it will be a double-edged sword for them. They will have to deal with the consequences if they misjudge their political appeal.

If the Senate contests are any indication, they've badly misjudged it. They're going to lose a number of seats they didn't have to, because the GOP's base selected candidates so outside the norm that even the Democrats of today could defeat them, with all the negatives going against them.

And what of the Tea Party folks in Congress, doesn't that constitute a win?

The basic problem is that the Republican base punishes reasonableness, punishes compromise, and encourages nasty, impulsive behavior. Republicans were able to convince voters that Democrats were behaving like radicals, getting too radical with their policies, and too arrogant, but the problem, if they win, is that come January, they'll show people just how much contempt the Republican Party has for the government intervening on their behalf, or doing anything constructive at all. For the GOP, the Tea Partiers especially, government is their personal toybox, and they get to share those toys with their friends, the businesses in America that have backed the special interests everybody hates, who clamor for corporate welfare, who want people to give them even more freedom to do what they want, even though they've inflicted major disasters on the country with what we already gave them.

Did you see how Republicans ran and hid after that BP Apology Fiasco? That's going to be the pattern for the next two years, because today's Republican leadership considers it a virtue to be uninhibited in saying what they want. Right up until the point they find out that it makes them unpopular. Then of course, we're told we didn't hear that particular line in context. Imagine that, my fellows on the Right, replayed over and over again, because now, that fellow is your likely Energy Committee chairman.

I don't overly romanticize voters. They make mistakes. They turn to challengers to the mediocre incumbents, because they want something better. But with folks like these, I don't envision voters coming into the next election all that impressed. The Republicans might extend unemplooyment benefits, showing their hypocrisy, or they might cut them, burnishing their deficit cutting credentials, while at the same time making enemies of those people. The Tea Partiers have a basic problem, that for all their hype and snake-oil salesmanship, their policy is just a boiled down, nuttier version of the same impractical, unpopular policy that the voters hate.

And don't think that all those corporations that the Republicans appealled to and got money from aren't going to ask for Congress to vote them more corporate welfare, more tax breaks, more Government intervening on their side. If they win, By the time the Republicans, including the Tea Party candidates are done, many Republican voters will wish they stayed in bed, and many Democratic Party voters are not going to remain there.

So, if anything gets me depressed, it won't be November 2nd. The policy problems might do the job later, but I'll vent that anger by using such failures and outrages to help make Republican candidates unpopular. So, I don't see a reason to get real bent out of shape.

All these elections wil be held again in two years. Accountability will catch up to those we don't defeat now, and people like me are planning to defeat as many of the Republicans as we can. Sometimes the line points downwards on the graph, but you know what? No graph of political power goes up all the time.

Things do not get easier for the Republicans as time goes on. If their vaunted return isn't the blowout they were promising in the first place, just think how much more difficult things become as my much more liberal generation comes more into play.

So, why should I despair? I've seen worse, and fought back from worse, and like that fellow said yesterday, these are tough times, but they're not end times. Democrats like me will have another chance at the minority in the house. That's how it works in a Democracy: no victory, no majority is permanent. If you can't take that heat, get out of the kitchen.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2010 7:01 AM
Comments
Comment #311914

SD

Bush and LBJ are both Texans. Maybe its the dust?

“The pity a Republican win will be in what kinds of policies they push. But if they decide to push that kind of policy, it will be a double-edged sword for them.”

What kind of policy?

“Sometimes the line points downwards on the graph, but you know what? No graph of political power goes up all the time.”

That is one of the major points of problems of government—power and more power, which is totally the wrong way to go. Power=control. That is why you are called a socialist, because you seek more power for the government to control the people. Even present members of congress have expressed that their legislation is to control the people. That is not what the founding fathers had in mind.

Even if you find something the republicans do in the next two years that is good, you will find the wrong in it. Great to be an Alinskian, isn’t it.

Posted by: Larry at November 1, 2010 11:17 AM
Comment #311920

Larry-
I have the barest of familiarity with Alinsky. Of course, I could tell you this, but your fault-finding is not based on knowledge or discovery of information, but repeated affirmation of your pre-existing ideas.

I rely on research, and quotes and facts. I don’t have to do much to find the wrong in Republican Policy. The stories nearly always write themselves. But too many folks on the right don’t hold their people accountable enough, so you get folks who haven’t learned to curb obnoxious behaviors.

Republicans will self-destruct. I won’t have to make up Death Panels, or any such horse****. They’ll provide the ingredients of their own downfall.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2010 12:55 PM
Comment #311921

Larry, if you don’t mind, let me amend your formula…”Power=control”

Taxpayer money = Power = control.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2010 12:57 PM
Comment #311922

Why bother to respond to the latest Daugherty tape recording? He’s just a wind-up toy constantly repeating the same tired old liberal message.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2010 1:02 PM
Comment #311927

Royal Flush-
You know, perhaps if you align the right words, a bolt from heaven will strike me down.

Seriously, though, I’ve been presented with this BS before. If all you care about is a bunch of pretentious twaddle about what lousy human beings liberals are, then your party will never keep whatever it acquires, because a serious need for good policy from the people is going to meet with the fecklessness of the Republicans in doing anything positive about it.

You folks don’t want government to work. And that will become a strong, unfortunate difference of opinion between you, and the mainstream voters.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2010 2:00 PM
Comment #311928

Stephen, Democrats took their victories in 2006 and 2008 as mandates. Republicans will take whatever victories they get this week and also claim a mandate. That is the habit of the Duopoly Party - to attempt to spin everything to their persuasive advantage. Politics has become the art of sophistry, little else. Worse, so many actually believe their sophistry - as did the Democrats. Look what it has got them in the public eye.

Republicans will not win tomorrow, Democrats will lose, along with America’s future. Grid lock do nothing Congress is the last thing our nation needs right now, but, on the Day that Democrats REFUSED the majority of the people, their Public Option, Democrats guaranteed their losses tomorrow. The day the Democrats compromised on the Stimulus and attempted to protract it out over 2 years instead of giving the economy the kind of shot in the arm tooling up for WWII gave, they handed at least of houses of Congress to the Republicans - and the grid lock and paralysis that will be the result.

The Democratic Party has no unity. It is a collection of politicians and PAC’s and Committees centered on local interests with no national vision, no national integrity, and no national agenda. All politics may be local on election day, but, a political party that acts that way, will lose nationally. The American people’s concerns are national - the economy, job security, wages, Guantanamo, health care inflation, national debt and deficits. Democrats lost tomorrow’s races by failing to be a national party addressing these national issues of concern to local voters everywhere.

The same was true of Republicans when they had the majority. And will be true in January when Moderate Republicans war with the Tea Party wing and fail to act in unison to deliver solutions to the national issues of concern to a majority of Americans who are invested in our nation’s future.

The GOP never was a big tent party, and it was no surprise when they attempted to become one, that they would fail, miserably, (2001 - 2009). The Democratic Party has a very long history as a Big Tent Party, whose historical role as majority depended upon identifying 2 or 3 of the people’s major and national concerns, and going ALL OUT to address those in an uncompromising way.

But, it appears to be a history forgotten by the leadership these last 21 months, as they lost they sight of the really important national issued demands of the majority of Americans, the economy and jobs, and the major threat to to our economic future which is health care inflation. Democrats compromised and were split on all three of these demands of the majority of Americans.

So, the power ping pong continues, but, with the pace sped up, in which majority status is transferred from one side of the net to the other. America’s future is dimming fast, and Democrats had the opportunity and mandate to correct that and failed. Yes, Republicans were obstructionist, yes, Republicans lied in the media, yes Republicans took full advantage of the Citizens United ruling. But, none of these had ANYTHING to do with Democrats failing to unite around their mandate and to address it without compromise.

In other words, Democrats failed to lead on behalf of the people, and instead were lead by the politics, the wealthy special interests, and the Republicans to compromise their every effort from fiscal discipline, to economic stimulus, to freedom and liberty from government intrusion, eavesdropping, and detainment without due process, to health care reform which utterly failed to reform health care inflation threatening our economic future.

Democrat’s base, Independent voters, and a majority of Republicans are not fools, and were not fooled by such half-hearted and compromised results. Guantanamo is still open for business, the economy is barely growing, unemployment remains well above normal and static, jobs are still leaving our shores, the Obama administration is still spying and eaves dropping on law abiding Americans everywhere in America, we still have 50,000 combat troops in Iraq where violence is still a daily occurrence, al-Queda has relocated to Yemen as we continue to spend billions we don’t have in Afghanistan, our national debt continues to grow and deficits as far as the eye can see remain the order of the day, and the anxiety level of the American people and voters remains as high today as it was the day Republicans lost their majority in Nov. 2008.

These are all inescapable facts, Stephen D. and Democrats have to own these facts. Democrats failed to deliver even a single issue resolution or victory for the American people and their future in America. Some Americans benefitted under the Democrats, to be sure, but, some Americans aren’t a majority, and we still elect by majority in this country.

Now we will have divided government again as was the case between 2006 and 2008, during which the Do-Nothing Congress was resurrected. What a squandered opportunity Democrats delivered to the American people. Little better than squandered opportunity Republicans enjoyed a few years back.

May the anti-incumbent ranks of American voters swell like a Tsunami to forcibly divorce the Duopoly Party from their wealthy special interests and corporate campaign donors who continue to deny the American people their common will for peace, prosperity, and liberty to pursue happiness in America, without government feeling them up in airports, taking their money and wasting it, eavesdropping on their comings and goings, and incarcerating them for personal and private activities harming no one else, but, most of all, for depriving us a sense of national security about our future in America which is rapidly becoming a six foot hole in the ground, surrounded by national debt as grave fill.


Posted by: David R. Remer at November 1, 2010 2:36 PM
Comment #311930

Royal Flush, the power and control comes from campaign donations of wealthy and corporate special interests. Taxes are simply allocated as repayments. The power and control is in the hands of the campaign donors, the politicians are merely their puppets, or addicts to campaign financing who must have their fix every 2 to 6 years foregoing all other interests save securing their next fix.

The power and control is NOT in taxes. Taxes are what the powerful and controlling interests are repaid with. The power and control lies with the campaign donations and threat to withhold them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 1, 2010 2:42 PM
Comment #311935

Thread begins with some history and some relative information.

Thread ends with synopsis and prognosis.

Entry #311914…nothing positive, no real input or argument. Very negative and some name calling.

Entry #311921…nothing positive, no real input or argument. Very negative, but no name calling.

Entry #311922…nothing positive, no real input or argument. Very negative, and some name calling.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 1, 2010 2:55 PM
Comment #311936

SD wrote; “If all you care about is a bunch of pretentious twaddle about what lousy human beings liberals are…”

Whoa big feller…you ascribe thoughts to me that I don’t believe or practice. I have never, and don’t now, believe liberals are lousy human beings. Mistaken…yes…afflicted with a mental disorder when it comes to their political philosophy…yes, anxious to spend the money of other people on causes they promote…yes, in favor of bigger more intrusive government and distrustful of individual liberty…yes.

Mr. Remer would like to correct my post above by writing…”Royal Flush, the power and control comes from campaign donations of wealthy and corporate special interests. Taxes are simply allocated as repayments.”

He is simply arguing which came first…the chicken or the egg. Donations fuel legislation, legislation fuels donations…both require taxpayer money.

Taxpayer money = Power = control

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2010 3:04 PM
Comment #311940

No, you don’t believer we’re lousy human beings, just insane. Gee, thanks.

You want people, essentially, to fear their own power, so they don’t employ it to defend their interests against the wealthy and the powerful. So you call people crazy for wanting to see government help folks. You call people crazy for wanting a foreign policy that works, and which doesn’t make our country look like the dictatorships we despise. You call people nuts for wanting to do something about massive unemployment, rather than let it do both long term economic and fiscal damage.

I don’t FEAR government. I believe it must be tamed to the purposes of the people. I believe when it’s not directed to such purposes, it becomes a plaything of speciall interests, helping the elite calcify and ossify their favored status quo, even if it endangers our economy, our environment, and our country.

I am not afraid. And I am not in despair. I know my party can win elections, and I know that if I fight long enough and hard enough, you’ll be the one breathing into a paper bag on election day, wondering how it all went wrong.

The real power is in the people, and their will to determine the nature of their government. No government in America can function without this power and it should not be taken for granted. My bet is that your people will take it for granted, because you always have.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2010 3:21 PM
Comment #311946

Royal Flush, no, it is not chicken or egg. Taxes are RE-payment, note the RE, which comes AFTER the wealthy campaign donations. First the donations (bribery or blackmail) then the repayment (taxes).

It is NOT the OTHER way around. It has never been the other way round. The contributions are made with the expectation of influencing favorable legislative treatment. The favorable legislative treatment is a RESULT of the contributions, and the addiction to them to buy elections instead of winning them on what could otherwise be debates between the candidates aired as part of a media’s license.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 1, 2010 3:48 PM
Comment #311950

SD wrote; “No, you don’t believer we’re lousy human beings, just insane. Gee, thanks” and “So you call people crazy for wanting to see government help folks. You call people crazy for wanting a foreign policy that works, and which doesn’t make our country look like the dictatorships we despise. You call people nuts for wanting to do something about massive unemployment, rather than let it do both long term economic and fiscal damage.”

Get a grip SD…I said mental disorder in your political philosophy. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

Frankly SD, I am worried about you. Now you say I am calling people crazy and nuts. Can you provide the sentence where I wrote that in my post?

Liberals never tire of finding more folks to help with other people’s money. Any sensible person, not suffering from a mental disorder, will understand the difference between a temporary program to help folks who can and wish to work and a program lasting decades which creates and enables generational dependency upon government.

What liberals perceive as helping some people with other people’s money is merely an attempt to feel good about themselves. Since they tend not to be charitable with their own assets they take solace in spending others assets. And, the very root of their desire is to create and sustain even more millions of American’s who are dependent upon the largess of government so they can keep their seats of power promising ever more handouts to those who willingly give up freedom in exchange for a few pieces of silver.

Poverty sucks and those liberals who foster it by enabling it to continue should hang their heads in shame. It’s not likely to happen though as they can’t kick the “feel-good” high they get from bringing more folks down to their level of misery.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2010 4:07 PM
Comment #311953

David Remer:
An astute analysis and essay on the state of American Government. Really excellent. The Democrats, for want of the balls to propagate what they stand for, stood for…….nothing. The Republicans, anxious to stop Democrat’s success, no matter what, stood for…… nothing. Both parties have achieved….next to nothing. What a sad state of affairs. Literally.

Posted by: steve miller at November 1, 2010 4:49 PM
Comment #311954

American’s elect representatives to express their wishes in Washington thru legislation. American’s also form groups of like minded people to hire advocates (better known as lobbyists) to encourage those elected representatives to favor their groups. Regardless of who came first, it is taxpayer money that funds both.

The lobbyist for all American’s does not exist. Many believe our elected representatives should be America’s lobbyists, but they are not. It is not possible for any elected officer to represent the views of all the people who comprise the electorate. We are simply to divergent in our views about everything to find a person who could possibly please all. Politics is the art of compromise. When well done, the majority is pleased. When not well done, few are happy.

This last congress, under the direction of obama, did not learn or practice the art of compromise and many will be fired for doing a lousy job. A whole new bunch will take their seats with many elected despite the wishes of either party. We need more of this.

Lobbyists will never disappear as long as some group of people wishes to influence our legislators to favor them, whether corporations, or groups comprised of individuals. There is not one single issue that is discussed politically that does not have a lobbyist hired by people to represent their point of view.

Mr. Remer promotes VOID in the belief that those elected under their philosophy will not be affected by lobbyists. Won’t happen and never will.

The TEA party stood up to the Republican Party and elected candidates for a number of seats that were not the Rep’s choice. And, they stood for a single issue that all but the liberals and socialists could rally behind. That being, smaller government and no tax increases.

While some dems/libs/socialists on WB may be scratching their heads wondering how such a victory only two years ago could be in such shambles today, it is only too obvious for those who take their political blinders off and revisit the real world.

Spending beyond our means can not be sustained at current levels. Crunch time is coming, and coming soon. Conservatives advocate belt-tightening in our government now, rather than later when it will be much more painful or impossible to accomplish. Despite all the rosy forecasts of economic recovery spouted by obama and his coharts, to be accomplished by even more spending, American’s are wide awake and not buying this scam any more.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2010 4:50 PM
Comment #311957

Royal Flush demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of the anti-incumbent movement by writing: “Mr. Remer promotes VOID in the belief that those elected under their philosophy will not be affected by lobbyists.”

I promote VOID because it is the only way to replace the wealthy special interests and lobbyists as the bosses of our representatives with the American people as their new bosses. Our politicians don’t represent us. They represent the wealthiest of campaign donors and most threatening of lobbyists who demand to be repaid in your and my tax dollars. 3.7 BILLION dollars spent on this election. I can assure, Royal Flush, the bulk of that did not come from working middle class Americans who should be the boss of government. It came from the wealthiest corporations and lobby organizations - and those reelected by those funds will repay them with your and my tax dollars.

But, of course, I don’t expect party loyalists to buy any of this. And that’s fine. Registered independents now outnumber party loyalists of either party and their numbers will only grow as will the anti-incumbent vote. The American people will vote anti-incumbent or they will suffer a failed government and economy. It is that simple a proposition.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 1, 2010 5:19 PM
Comment #311961

steve miller, thanks. It takes a true independently thinking person to acknowledge the truth of it. And our numbers are growing with each passing election of failure, incompetence, and corruption.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 1, 2010 5:30 PM
Comment #311962

Royal Flush-
Word of advice: Don’t hairsplit with a guy who memorized the dictionary when he was a kid.

Second Word of Advice: This may seem odd to you, but there are Liberals here to tell you what liberals actually think, and most of them are not agreeing with you. So, quit while you’re not ahead.

Tell me, since taxpayers end up paying back all the deficit spending, weren’t Republicans being generous with the assets of others when they:

1) Deficit spent to institute the Medicare Drug Benefit?

2) So charitably rescued the People of Iraq from a dictator they weren’t themselves overthrowing, and paid for billions in reconstruction?

3) Gave trillions in tax cuts to the Wealthy, requiring more deficit spending to make up for the shortfall in revenue?

Really, your argument is one of these kinds of arguments that depends on what people’s definition of necessary and unnecessary beneficence is. Of course, that’s what we had an elected government for.

Do I want people all that dependent on government? Not really. But I don’t want government standing aside while they starve, while the nation’s mired in chronic unemployment, or whatever else. Government, in my view, moderates, keeps the healthy, robust tumult of life from going off the rails.

But it isn’t, in my view, for ruling every aspect of life. I really don’t want to be bothered telling everybody what to do I just want to set things up so we’re all able to enjoy our freedom and our lives as much as possible, and on as sustainable a basis as we can manage, so we’re not simply consuming ourselves into poverty.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2010 5:30 PM
Comment #311967

SD, we know very well what liberals want and it certainly isn’t individual freedom. Apparently that is one word in the dictionary you didn’t memorize.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2010 6:15 PM
Comment #311968

I am signing off for today to play poker. My prayer is that our nation is well served by those elected tomorrow, whomever they may be. God bless and save our county and all of its people and bring us peace and prosperity.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2010 6:20 PM
Comment #311970

Here are some quotes from the Arnold Ahlert column today.

Regarding the “respect” they demonstrate for the American public with regard to passing legislation:

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill.’ What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”—Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.)

“We have to pass the (health care) bill so you can find out what’s in it.”—House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

“No one will know until this is actually in place how it works.”—Sen. Chris Dodd, (D-CN) on the financial regulation bill.

Regarding the economic “recovery:”

“I do see green shoots”—Fed Chairman Ben Bernake

“The fact is, the recovery act is working.”—Democrat Vice President Joe Biden

“Three million jobs created or saved”—the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisors

“Now, every economist who has looked at it has said that the recovery did its job. It put a brake on the collapse of the economy. We avoided a Great Depression. We are now growing again.”—President Barack Obama on the $800 stimulus package

“Recovery Summer”—the Obama administration’s slogan for three months.

“It’s the biggest bang for the buck when you do Food Stamps and Unemployment”—Nancy Pelosi

“I am truly angry as I go around the country watching�people absolutely, fundamentally blown away by the greed and the policies of the last eight years, of the last administration.”—Joe Biden, who apparently forgot that the last two years of those eight Democrats controlled both houses of Congress

Regarding why they think voters have turned against them:

“…we haven’t really gotten the credit for what we have done, but we will take it to the voters and have a Democratic majority to follow through on it.”—Nancy Pelosi

“We were at the top and we’ve fallen very hard. So people have been hurting, and I understand that, and it doesn’t give them comfort or solace for me to tell them, you know, but for me we’d be in a worldwide depression.”—Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)

“People out there are still hurting very badly, and they are still scared. And so part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared.”—Barack Obama

“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so, people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,”—Senator John Kerry (D-MA) apparently forgetting a slogan known as “hope and change.”

“It’s the world we’re in. It’s a much more negative, critical world, and people are sour now.”—Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

“We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. I think Fox is part of that tradition—it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world.”—Barack Obama

Regarding Democrats’ respect for the Constitution:

“The federal government can do most anything in this country.”—Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA)

“I don’t worry about the Constitution.”—Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL)

Regarding Barack Obama’s post-partisan politics of inclusion:

“So it’s not surprising then that 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.”

“I won.”

“We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

“Essentially, what the other side has decided is that they are going to try to ride fear and anxiety all the way to the ballot box on November 2.”

This is your side doing the talking. Part of that success story you believe in.

Posted by: Larry at November 1, 2010 7:32 PM
Comment #311972

Hmmmmm … when will enough voters finally understand that they are a major part of the problem, because simply flip-flopping between the IN-Party and the OUT-Party in the duopoly is not going to stop these 10 major abuses which are still causing a steady decline of the nation?

When will enough voters finally understand that they a major part of the problem, because their repeatedly rewarding arrogant, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates will only lead to more failure, pain, and misery (check out this time-lapse animation of unemployment map of the U.S.).

At any rate, the voters have the government that tney elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, … , at least, until repeatedly rewarding failure and repeatedly rewarding arrogant, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians wiht 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 1, 2010 7:56 PM
Comment #311973

Larry nearly all those quotes are taken out of context and have completely different meanings when put back into the contexts they belong.

Posted by: john in napa at November 1, 2010 7:59 PM
Comment #311975

like pelosi? how?
like conyers? How?
like dodd? how?
like the balance? how?

Posted by: Larry at November 1, 2010 8:42 PM
Comment #311976

“We have to pass the (health care) bill so you can find out what’s in it.”—House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

yup she did say that however this is the entire paragraph;


“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.
“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”


can do that for almost all the half quotes you posted…

Posted by: john in napa at November 1, 2010 8:52 PM
Comment #311979

sorry i mistakenly used a right wing site to get the text for the speech… the following is correct… the quote Larry posted used the first sentence of the next paragraph tacked onto the end of the prior paragraph in her speech distorting what was said

“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.


“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President’s economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation—innovation begins in the classroom—clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform. Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon.

Posted by: john in napa at November 1, 2010 8:56 PM
Comment #311980

full text of the speech

wont even bother with the rest its all distortion and blarney

Posted by: john in napa at November 1, 2010 9:03 PM
Comment #311982

Royal Flush-
If you want to be the willing propagandist of the right with these BS little comments, be my guest. That’s all half the things you post are. Little snarky comments about my patriotism, my mental health, whatever the hell else.

Where the heck does policy fit in?

Larry-
More BS Propaganda. What ever happened to the GOP that could discuss policy. Oh yeah, that’s right, you got it all figured out, what the perfect policies are, so all you have to do now is force them down people’s throats no matter how bad the results are. Yeah, if it doesn’t work out, it’s because you didn’t have enough power or your people weren’t conservative enough to make it work.

They don’t pay Republicans to do actual thinking any more up in Washington. They’ve just become high priests of a cult of dogmatic policies.

All Republicans try to do nowadays is prove what utter bastards the Democrats. Well, if you win tomorrow, you get to prove to the rest of America that you can be cooperative, end the gridlock, work with Democrats. Or you can prove to the Tea Partiers what great roadblocks you can throw up, what kind of adolescent stunts your people can pull. What will it be this time, more heckling during the the state of the union, more attempts to impeach a Democratic President for the crime of being in the Oval Office?

But you can’t prove both. You’re going to have to prove that you’re good for more than just being boat anchors, because America’s already rejected that style of Katrina Libertarianism. Folks will not wait for you people to grow up and decide that governing is part of the job description.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2010 9:34 PM
Comment #311985

SD

Too many assumptions on your part. You assume you are right. You assume you are both smart and wise. You assume the democrats have done it right. You assume the republicans always do it wrong. You assume you can blow that smoke by me. You assume enough for the title of ass-u-me, but not me. You think you have persuasion on this blog. BS does not persuade very many people. That is what you are smokin’ and blowin’. What I posted above is exactly what your henchmen said. And they are the ones who know something? What do they know? Nothing? Anybody that buys into that stuff you write is politically wacko. Good night.

Posted by: Larry at November 1, 2010 10:16 PM
Comment #311986

Larry;

Don’t forget, Obama called anyone against his policies, “enemies”.

But he is backpeddling on that one.

I don’t see how john of napa’s quote of the entire speech changes anything. It still comes down to, the obamacare bill is passed and we still don’t know what is in it.

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 1, 2010 10:28 PM
Comment #311995

Many don’t know what’s in it because they don’t want to know what’s in it. They are afraid if they found out what’s really in it they’d have to admit they’d been misguided by the very people they depend so strongly on to show them the way. Reading and thinking are two hard things to do, and many are either too lazy to do them, or are too busy thinking up ugly things to say, so they don’t have time to do them.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 1, 2010 11:00 PM
Comment #311996

Dude, Did you read all 2500+ pages of it?

Posted by: KAP at November 1, 2010 11:09 PM
Comment #311998

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser” - Socrates

Posted by: john in napa at November 1, 2010 11:12 PM
Comment #312000

Holy Crap! Obama failed to choose a word wisely for public consumption. WOW! This is a big deal for conservatives, because it is such a rare event. Seize on it, the opportunity may never rise again. Will Boehner seek impeachment over it?

Fact, their are political enemies in our government - they are called Democrats and Republicans. Everyone knows this. Everyone lives this. Everyone has breathed this for the last 18 months of campaigning. There is no news here. Enemies is absolutely the appropriate word to describe Democrats and Republicans. They are tearing this country apart. That’s why sensible Americans are increasingly registering as Independent voters.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 1, 2010 11:21 PM
Comment #312014

>Dude, Did you read all 2500+ pages of it?
Posted by: KAP at November 1, 2010 11:09 PM

KAP,

The way Congressional bills are written, many pages have few words on them. The number of pages in the Health Care Act is actually only 1,071, and many of them are nearly empty. How many pages in War & Peace?

Yes, I have. No I did not understand every word and phrase. Yes I am satisfied that it will do much more good than harm to America and Americans. I wouldn’t understand many or most of the bills that get passed, as they are all written by lawyers and and for the courts.

If you will find the web page ‘whitehouse.gov’, you can see how easy it is to really get familiar with it. And, if you go to ‘healthcare.gov’, you can see how it will directly effect you as an individual.

Mostly, if you merely open your mind to what is happening around you, and take your head out of the sand, you’ll find it not as scary, as expensive, or as ‘communistic’ as you’ve been led to believe. Learning is hard, but somebody’s gotta do it, and it might as well be you.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2010 6:51 AM
Comment #312018

The probable Republican gain is a direct function of the difficult recovery from the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. Nothing more, nothing less.

The public blamed the Republicans for getting us into this mess and now blames the Democrats for not getting us out of the mess, post haste.

The Democrats over sold the “change” idea and failed to temper their rhetoric with realistic expectations for economic recovery. There are no miracles. In an age of instant gratification, they should have known better. I recall thinking, at the time, that Pelosi should wipe that silly smile off her face at Obama’s first State of the Union. Troubled waters were ahead.

The Republicans cynically became the party of “NO” for the simple reason that they understood that economic recovery would be tepid regardless of economic policies. It was the “rope a dope” strategy. Let the heat of the sluggish economy sap the strength of the Democrats like the heat of Zaire sapped Forman’s strength. Oppose everything, offer nothing. Let the Democrats own the recovery. Why, they even disavowed any relationship to the very economic programs they initiated, i.e., TARP, auto bailouts, first stimulus package in Feb. 2008, etc.

Posted by: Rich at November 2, 2010 7:38 AM
Comment #312021

Rich,the public blames republicans for getting into this mess, and they blame democrats for getting us further into the mess. So you are partly right.

Posted by: Bill at November 2, 2010 9:17 AM
Comment #312022

Dude, I’m glad you did read it and I’m happy you are satisfied with it but many people aren’t. You say you didn’t understand all of it, those phrases are the ones that just might jump up and bite you in the a$$.

Posted by: KAP at November 2, 2010 10:04 AM
Comment #312023

Bill,

The recent Republican (Tea Party) led mantra that federal deficit spending e.g., stimulus, TARP, etc. is somehow causally related to the current economic problems and unemployment is very misplaced. It was the private sector that collapsed! Today, there is a huge output gap between consumer demand and productive capacity. In the absence of governmental deficit spending that gap would be larger and unemployment significantly higher. There are real reasons that the Federal Reserve is engaging in another round of QE to stimulate the economy.

I fault the Democrats for not being more realistic about the prospects for economic recovery and for not focusing a greater degree of attention on financial reform and economic stimulation. The health care issue was a huge distraction and a political mine field that should have been avoided or scaled back when it was apparent that it would only result in an unacceptable compromise.

Posted by: Rich at November 2, 2010 10:20 AM
Comment #312031

Larry-
I assume I am right? Often I provide evidence for my beliefs, which folks like you promptly dismiss because it doesn’t come from your party-approved sources.

Do I assume that Democrats are always right? No. But I’ve seen the Republican policies fail. I’ve seen the facts on why they did.

You, mister, assume that you can forever coast on insults and derision. Well, if the likely outcome occurs, then you’ll have to answer for the actions of your majority. You can scream socialism and whatever then, but as you inartfully write, you will not have persuasion.

I quote sources, and seek out facts to support my side of the argument. I believe and feel that’s the best way of holding a debate. As for henchmen and cronies?

What a laugh. I’m a down and out Texas Democrat who relies on the power of his words and his facts to persuade people. I don’t have henchmen. I don’t have cronies. You, sir, have an overly active, and an overly paranoid imagination.

And if you really had trust in your beliefs, really had trust in your facts, you would bring them out, so that others could verify your evidence, so we could put your arguments to the test.

Instead, you just berate me, call me a political wacko. Well, to each his own. I don’t have to call many of the Republican candidates wackos. I can point to their BS, quote it, and many people will agree from the outset. How many? Hell if I know. But you know what? I think I have a message that can resonate with people.

Beretta9-
It bans recissions, creates an insurance exchange, regulates who can participate. It bans pre-existing conditions on both children and adults, the adults beginning in 2014. It reduces what the tax payers pay in unnecessary subsidies to companies carrying out Medicare Advantage, and reduces the taxpayer cost to big Pharma. It allows kids to stay on their parent’s insurance until age 26. It raise taxes here and there to help pay for it all. It contains a mandate to prevent people from only going for insurance when they get sick, and it raises funds for medicare to take care of the folks who cannot afford insurance. It does many things to make it easier for small businesses to afford to ensure their employees.

I know what’s in the bill. Many others know what’s in the bill. If you don’t know, it’s plainly because you’ve refused to find out for yourself.

Quit with the propaganda BS. The readers deserve better than the rehash of the arguments that mainly applied before the bill was passed. It’s been law for over six months. If you had really been interested in knocking it on account of substance, you could have easily read the bill, which is only two hundred-something pages in regular format.

The lack of real, substantive criticism is a damning silence for the Republicans. Either they are so addicted to flash that they’re unwilling to find real nits to pick, or they don’t think they can get the revulsion they need from voters with the truth.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2010 12:08 PM
Comment #312032

Stephen,

I admire your perseverance, but this is like trying to describe a mime’s act to blind men.

They respond with ridicule because that’s all they’ve got. They have yet to put forth a plan, except to defeat Obama at every turn, because, like Bush, they can’t see beyond the initial victory.

I suppose we could just let them bulls**t and bluster because soon the shoe might be on the other foot.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 2, 2010 12:52 PM
Comment #312035

Hi, I’m a Tea-Partier

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2010 1:37 PM
Comment #312036

Rocky Marks-
Like I said to Marysdude earlier, I’m not just speaking to them, but everybody else. I could join them as they wallow in their toxic rhetoric, but that would just make me feel depressed.

If I’m not talking substance, I’m no more helping this system than they are. If I don’t continue to believe that what’s real and what’s provable is more important than what gratifies me for a split second, then I’ll likely quit this political blogging enterprise, because I’ve got enough crap in my life that depresses me.

I want to stand up for what is right and true. I don’t want to be another spewer of toxic venom, just looking to beat up on the undesirables.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2010 1:37 PM
Comment #312037

Stephen, just because you keep saying the same mantra, doesn’t mean it is true or we should accept it.

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 2, 2010 1:48 PM
Comment #312039

KAP,

I’m sure, in your lifetime, you’ve signed contracts. I’m also sure that on the rare occasions that you actually read the contract, you might have skimmed over something that was a little vague, and took the word of the contract holder that you were not being taken advantage of. If the bulk of any contract (every one I’ve ever seen takes at least a degree in law to understand 100%) is understandable, and the person presenting it is reasonably trustworthy, and the contract has been read by several entities that you trust, it truly rarely bites you in the buttock…I promise. I again invite you to read it. It won’t bite you in the buttock just reading it. Think about all that has gone into it and the numbers of perfectly reasonable people who have read it, and understand it. Then see what the Congressional Budget Office has to say about it. Go to the healthcare.gov site I mentioned to see how you are to be effected directly. What the hell! It can’t hurt you to make the attempt, and it MIGHT just help you to understand that the President and Congress of the United States of America are NOT your enemy.

Some members of Congress are corrupt. Some of your neighbors are running Meth Labs. Some people are bad. Some people are good. Most people are somewhere in between. The American government is not all bad, and is NOT your enemy.

You sluff the Health Care Bill off, mostly because conservatives in power have said some ugly things about it. That is modern politics. If you give yourself half a chance to think for yourself, you might find that there is more good than bad, and you will likely sleep better at night just knowing that. The boogy-man is NOT hiding under your bed, and he did NOT write the Health Care Bill.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2010 2:13 PM
Comment #312041

Adrienne,

That is one savy cartoon. We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2010 2:23 PM
Comment #312042

marysdude writes; “Many don’t know what’s in it because they don’t want to know what’s in it.”

Few American’s are aware that beginning January 1, 2013, ObamaCare imposes a 3.8% Medicare tax on unearned income, including the sale of single family homes, townhouses, co-ops, condominiums, and even rental income.

Seniors especially will be negatively impacted by this provision in the HC bill. But then, why be surprised when the ORP (obama, reid, pelosi)comrades took $500,000 million from Medicare to pretend to pay for the HC legislation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2010 2:26 PM
Comment #312043

>Stephen, just because you keep saying the same mantra, doesn’t mean it is true or we should accept it.
Posted by: Beretta9 at November 2, 2010 01:48 PM

Yeah, Stephen, please don’t let facts and data get in your way. Don’t say what you believe and offer evidence as to why that might be a suitable way to think. You’ve got to learn to fly by the seat of your pants like the folks who say things like, “Stephen, just because you keep saying the same mantra, doesn’t mean it is true or we should accept it.”

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2010 2:27 PM
Comment #312045

RF,

Both of the things you persented are damned lies.

The 3.8% tax on unearned income is for sles of homes where the income from the sale exceeds %250,000. How many people do you know who will be hurt if they realize more than $250,000 dollars in profit on a sale?

The $500 million was never removed from Medicare, merely moved from piller to post.

See factcheck.com for the true story on both issues…or don’t, you rarely check your talking points for facts, which is why you have the gall to spout this rot in the first place.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2010 2:33 PM
Comment #312046

PS:

The percent sign at the first 250,000 figure should be a dollar sign…damned spell check anyways.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2010 2:35 PM
Comment #312051

marysdude;

Thank you for defending Stephen and including his proof;

Oh, sorry, there is no proof because there were no links to facts; all we have is Stephens rants:

“I know what’s in the bill…Quit with the propaganda BS.”

Stephen words are the BS, because neither he nor you know what is in obamacare.

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 2, 2010 2:52 PM
Comment #312052

dude called my comments lies…”Both of the things you persented are damned lies.”

I didn’t indicate the $250k requirement so how in hell could it be a lie? $500,000 million ($500 billion) was in fact taken from Medicare regardless of how you may wish to spin it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2010 2:54 PM
Comment #312053

Adrienne, dude….the cartoon was great, and targeted level of intelligence was right on. Clear, concise language and age (level) appropriate.
Thanks!

Posted by: jane doe at November 2, 2010 3:01 PM
Comment #312055

Marysdude and SD

If you are so savvy about the contents of the so-called health care bill, then tell me some of the things you found in the bill that have nothing to do with health.

Marysdude
Tell my cardiologist that the money was moved from pillar to post. He is not aware of it. He does know that he is getting much more less that before.

Baretta9
I some way, shape or form there have been others that have told SD that just because he says it, does not make it the truth. If fact several of us have informed him that his writing is not always factual. It must be those conservative talking points sites he keeps going to. Alas, that is not true. Those things he writes are from liberal, progressive or any other place on the left.

The left sure is being thin skinned. They think 2012 will solve it all. But the opposition is in charge of redistricting according to the 2010 census. Let us all see what that brings forth. There is a real possibility that democrat districts now become republican districts. Before you southpaws jump on that, all the parties do it and that does not make it right or wrong it is just the way it is done.

Posted by: tom humes at November 2, 2010 3:15 PM
Comment #312056

>obama, reid, pelosi)comrades took $500,000 million from Medicare to pretend to pay for the HC legislation.

RF,

I took the figure from YOU.

>Few American’s are aware that beginning January 1, 2013, ObamaCare imposes a 3.8% Medicare tax on unearned income, including the sale of single family homes, townhouses, co-ops, condominiums, and even rental income.

RF,

Tell me where in your post you did not mean to cause fear in Americn citizens that they were going to have a 3.8% tax increase if they sold their home? Unless you qualify just WHO is going to pay it, it becoame a self sustaining LIE. You are not running for office, and the folks here on WB are not campaigning against you, so your exaggerations, and the lies you perpetuate through ommission are supposed to do what exactly? Do you think someone is going to come over to the dark side because you can spout talking point lies better than somebody else?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2010 3:23 PM
Comment #312057

dude writes drivel.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2010 3:31 PM
Comment #312058

>Marysdude
Tell my cardiologist that the money was moved from pillar to post. He is not aware of it. He does know that he is getting much more less that before.

tom humes,

If you’d actually talk to your cardiologist, he will likely inform you that this is not the only time his income from Medicare has changed (either up or down). Any change in his income has nothing to do with the new Health Care Bill. The changes in Medicare will have more to do with “Medicare Advantage” than regular Medicare. Medicare Advantage is the membership program that has been the biggest sieve of fraud in Medicare, and it never hurts to slow down fraud in a government program…er…I think that anyway…

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2010 3:33 PM
Comment #312065

Tom Humes,

Doesn’t Stephen also write for that liberal bastion of incoherent lies, the DailyKos? Maybe he is getting his facts from his own articles. I think I’ll start writing for a conservative web site and then use my own material as proof, yeah, that’ll work…

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 2, 2010 4:15 PM
Comment #312066

Beretta9…luv your sense of humor.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2010 4:16 PM
Comment #312069

Baretta9 and Royal Flush

What is good for the gooose is good for the gander. SD will be assigned the role of the goose.

Posted by: tom humes at November 2, 2010 4:27 PM
Comment #312070

RF, thx, I’m just trying to throw a little humor out the depressed democrats.

On a side note, where are the boys? The left is strangely silent today. They must be busy busing the illegals to the polls. Or they’re planning their excusses for why they lost. Or they are in deep depression. I believe, since obamacare has not kicked in yet, we conservatives should all chip in and buy each liberal on WB a Prozac licking block.

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 2, 2010 4:31 PM
Comment #312072

Marysdude-
It gets better. The exclusion on the tax doubles for married homeowners to $500,000. There is precisely one state in the union that has median home prices (meaning half are below, half are above) that high: Hawaii.

Beretta9-
You accuse me of just repeating a mantra. I listed, off the top of my head, policies I knew were in the bill, thereby completely refuting your claim that nobody did. But then you go:

Stephen words are the BS, because neither he nor you know what is in obamacare.

Enlighten me, good sir. What is in there? Death camps for conservatives? A secret public option? Special appropriations for death rays for Obama’s private police force?

Tell me what rational reasons I should have to prefer your total ignorance over my partial ignorance. I know what’s in the bill. You don’t. Readers should value knowledge over ignorance.

tom humes-
No, no, no, you tell us. It’s your argument. As for him getting less, it may have something to do with the fact that the Republicans are blocking the fix to the poorly constructed deficit-reduction formula (also authored by the GOP) that has doctor’s fees growing at lower than market rates. Thank your deficit hawks for that bit of idiocy.

And really? No election solves everything. This is an ongoing process, and you really shouldn’t count your unhatched chickens two years out

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2010 4:34 PM
Comment #312077

Beretta9-
I mainly link primary sources and news articles. Why? Because then people don’t have to take my word for everything to believe my argument.

That’s more important than you think. You are content to act like all these talking points, all this name-calling is somehow more powerful.

It isn’t. Folks know you for what you are, and so if they’re not fellow travellers of yours, their opinion of your comments won’t square with what you expect them to think.

I am to talk to more than just Democrats, and talk to them in terms that are shared.

You may have your tag team partners cheering you on, but for what? For being rude to another Democrat? If somebody were to come here, and force you to cite facts and post with some manners, would you have anything really to say?

I don’t like to just play rhetorical tennis. I like to score actual points, find the facts that make the difference in the argument, or have them already at my command.

As for Prozac licking blocks? save them for yourself. I mean, because you guys chose the wrong candidate, your people have very little chance of taking the Senate. That means, you can be partners, you can be roadblocks, but you can’t be both, and for a party that wants to be a brickwall for the Democrat’s agenda, but not get blamed for gridlock in Washington, that’s a disaster.

Republicans are running on an adrenaline high that nobody can keep up forever. Sooner or later, your side will burn out, especially when your people prove just as feckless as they did before.

You folks are running on hate and fear. You’re running on being contrarian to the Democrats no matter what. What you fail to realize is, eventually, you will find yourself on the wrong side of an issue, and you won’t have the good sense to change sides. That happened with Katrina. That happened with Wall Street. I bet it will happen again.

And if it doesn’t? The tea party comes and puts more idiots up as challengers, putting races in question that shouldn’t be.

I have no reason to be pessimistic about the long term.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2010 4:59 PM
Comment #312080

Mr. Daugherty writes; “Marysdude-
It gets better. The exclusion on the tax doubles for married homeowners to $500,000. There is precisely one state in the union that has median home prices (meaning half are below, half are above) that high: Hawaii.”

Just a wild guess but I believe that it is mostly the over 50 crowd that will get hit with this God-awful tax as they have the most equity in their homes. There are many, many seniors who are single, by choice or by death of a spouse. Even in this depressed housing market the advocates of the tax predict that 5% of American’s will be paying the tax amounting to hundreds of billions being snatched from the private purse.

As I said in another post on this subject, the 3.8% and $250K cap is just the start. Congress has a wonderful record of increasing taxes and when they need a few more hundreds of billions they can simply reduce the cap to $200 or $150k and raise the tax.

Additionally, Daugherty and dude speak only to home sales. What about the remainder of taxable assets…”ObamaCare imposes a 3.8% Medicare tax on unearned income, including the sale of single family homes, townhouses, co-ops, condominiums, and even rental income.”

When a majority of American’s discover this little known provision in the HC bill there will be hell to pay for the liber/socialists. Of course, they planned on keeping control of congress so they can provide an antidote to this poison pill for their constituents.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2010 5:10 PM
Comment #312084

GOP approval rating: 26%. If I am not mistaken, that is lower than the total number of registered Republicans. And is proof that the election today is not about voter embrace of Republicans, but, a dissatisfaction with the results of Democratic policy to date. For all intents and purposes, voters only have 3 ballot options, Democrat, Republican, and anti-incumbent. And we shall see all three options exercised in the ballot results when this day is over.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2010 5:28 PM
Comment #312086

Stephen, unless you have a Constitutional law degree; you, me, nor any other common person knows what is in the HC bill. Proof of that is that new information is coming out about the bill every week.

Let me try to explain this one more time: the conservatives will hold their congressmen and senators feet to the fire. We want them to stop Obama and the socialist dead in their tracks. The only way we will be disappointed is if our elected leaders continue to break bread and compromise with liberals. That is why we left the republicans hang out to dry in 2006 and 2008. I will admit this to you; if the republicans DON’T do what they told us they would, the Republican Party is finished. But we don’t need you, a Marxist, to tell us what our politicians should do to succeed. Since when does a Marxist want a conservative to succeed?

The purpose of this site is for disputing, not for debate, because you are not going to change me, and we are certainly not going to change you. Your goal is “Gotcha” and our goal is to laugh at you. That’s right Stephen, we laugh at the left’s arrogance and ignorance.

I have been watching the liberals loose it on WB. Who needs the Prozac? The left needs it and it will be worse tomorrow. You talk about “Facts” and your “Facts” are nothing more than liberal talking points. You guys on the left have been accusing the right of lying about obama’s accomplishments for months, and yet obama, the media, comedians, and all the other talking heads have been praising his accomplishments for how long? Yet, poll after poll, has shown for months that the American voters don’t like what Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are selling. The left is on the verge of losing house seats in solid blue districts, why, because even the democrats don’t like what is going on. You’re talking about districts who never listen to Fox News, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh, and yet they still don’t like what is happening. It doesn’t take Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh to tell the coal miners in the blue state of WV, that they are unemployed because Obama shut down the coal mines. The left are an arrogant bunch to believe they can convince conservatives that all Americans are stupid. Even after a year, almost 60% of Americans still want to overturn obamacare and yet the 60% is ignorant in your book.

Stephen, you need to wake up and smell the roses.

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 2, 2010 5:35 PM
Comment #312087

SD

I retraced this entire post from your initial entry to the last entry you put up. Where did you hide the links and sources? Just wondering. My computer might be too new to review old material.

Posted by: tom humes at November 2, 2010 5:38 PM
Comment #312088

Royal Flush-
Oh, quite rich. You want us to discuss the taxes you fear, rather than the taxes that are actually there.

The past ten years has been a vivid demonstration of the failure of governments that address problems that are not there while neglecting problems that are.

Let me repeat, for you and all the readers this simple fact: The law, as written, as it is now, would not begin to tax the profits of a home sale until they reached $250,000. That is, After all the mortgage payoffs and fees, after whatever repair costs you incurred. You could have a $400,000 house, but if it costs you 160,000 to pay off the mortgage, you won’t pay a dime of this tax.

And that’s if you’re single. If you’re married, and your house is worth that much, you would not pay that tax at all, even if every dime returns to you in profit.

If inflation becomes a factor, that is, if it doesn’t take decades for home prices to recover from this current housing slump, the fix is ridiculously simple. But for that to be a factor, in many markets, the inflation would have to be off the charts, particularly if the house is owned by a couple. We’re talking doubling, even tripling of the value. Just what would lead to that happening?

If the majority of Americans are told that this provision will affect them, whoever says so is ignorant of the facts or lying. So, be my guest, lie to people, expose your ignorance, if that is the reason you claim this. I mean, that’s the way you build trust and confidence of people in your word.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2010 5:42 PM
Comment #312092

Mr. Remer wrote; “…the election today is not about voter embrace of Republicans, but, a dissatisfaction with the results of Democratic policy to date.”

I would agree with that assessment. American’s in general are not pleased with either major party. Much was expected from the dems when they took control of the entire federal government in 2008 because much was promised. The dems squanderd numerous opportunities to pass legislation that would please a majority of voters and help the nation. Their reach exceeded their grasp.

Unfortunately for the dems and America, the liberal wing of their party was pulling the strings and their policies are not popular with a majority of Americans. We will most likely see more conservatives in the next congress and, if they don’t lean to far right, should be a positive influence on the entire Republican party.

Frankly, I do expect the R’s to retake the house and gain some senate seats. But, I have no illusions about what the next congress may accomplish with obama holding the veto pen. If obama moves more to the center we could really have some achievements.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2010 5:47 PM
Comment #312093

The voters do have 3 choices today: Democrat, Republican, or a vote against Obama’s agenda.

52% are voting against Obama’s agenda:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/november_2010/52_say_election_is_referendum_on_obama_s_agenda

Congressional approval rating by RCP, 19.8%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

Reid’s approval rating 29%

This election is not for republicans, it is not against democrats, it is against a liberal socialist agenda.

Why does Remer advocate anti-incumbent, but supports Obama. The idea that this is an anti-incumbent vote is a lie, and someone is trying to take credit for it. It is an anti-agenda vote, period.

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 2, 2010 5:50 PM
Comment #312098

You would not know a Socialist if he slapped you in the face. You throw that term around as though you actually know what you are talking about…what rot! Just another Rovian ploy.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2010 6:06 PM
Comment #312099

Mr. Daugherty scolds me by writing; “If the majority of Americans are told that this provision will affect them, whoever says so is ignorant of the facts or lying.”

Typical liber/socialists sleight of hand. The tax will only affect 5% of Americans today so let’s gouge them good. Hell, the other 95% can’t imagine ever having that kind of equity in their homes.

Mr. Daugherty, not only are you a flaming liberal in your comments, you are a diehard pessimist as well. You apparently can’t imagine our real estate market recovering and thriving. I understand your pessimism because your politics are liberal and liberals never expect individuals to do well without government intervention. And a liberal government would never allow individual homeowners to attain that kind of equity in their homes. They would have to be taxed to punish them for thrift and brains.

I would guess that being inside your mind today must be painful.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2010 6:07 PM
Comment #312100

tom humes-
It’s true that this column doesn’t feature the links and sources for what we’re discussing here. That belongs to the comments I made on Paul Siegel’s latest entry.

Here is the link:The Spokesman Review Letter

That in turn-and this is what makes his argument truly pathetic-I found on Snopes.

It’s a myth, an urban legend. The 3.8% tax exists. But it doesn’t kick in until the property is well over the median home value in most places, which by definition means it doesn’t affect the majority of such taxpayers.

Beretta9-
Can you tell me why a Constitutional Law degree is required to read what is in a statutory law? I’ve read plenty of cases arguing with Dan and David Remer about Article V that touched on Constitutional law, and that didn’t require such training to understand.

It doesn’t take a constitutional law degree to understand something else: A bill passed out of the House requires passage in the Senate and Signature by the President in order to become law.

Your party is expected, according to the polls to take the house. We’ll see. But if that happens, you only get the house. Your Tea Party candidates self-destructed sufficiently to give us the Senate, so essentially, you don’t pass much of anything without our help.

Want to try a government shutdown? Throw some other political temper tantrum? Get people thinking perhaps there was something to the claim that things didn’t get done last congress because your party gummed up the works?

See, that’s why I I’m not depressed. I’m not happy, but I have something to look forward to: exposing the Republicans in Washington for what they’ve been the past four years: selfish bastards who aren’t getting the hint from the American people that politics is less important than policy.

I cut my political teeth doing this. It’s natural to me, and I anticipate the folks with the room temperature IQs will be the gift that keeps on giving. I also think that if the Senate Democrats and White House get their act together, they’ll push one bill after another on the House to force them to vote against things that will come back to haunt them in the upcoming elections.

Wake up and smell the roses yourself, or rather what’s fertilizing them and stuck on your shoe: your party will have no choice but to compromise, and your friends will be quick to punish them for it. And if they hold off? The rest of the country punishes them for promoting gridlock.

I’ve fought back from worse, like I said in my entry. If I couldn’t take the heat, I’d be getting out of the kitchen. If I remember correctly, your people have spent the last four years saying that it’s the end of the world that our side won. Now that’s when you need prozac! A lost election is not the end of the world. Maybe your party needs the rest and relaxation.

As for the rest? Facts are facts. Prove them, disprove them, but quit trying to make politics the primary means of judging what is true or not. Politics doesn’t make things true or false. You don’t get away with crap arguments just because you believe Republicans are right all the time.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2010 6:08 PM
Comment #312102

Baretta9 and Royal Flush

I’m starting a new business and thought you two would be interested in being part of top management.

It will be an employment agency for former government employees who the people had no more use for. Since I believe there is redeeming value in everybody, our main focus is to show mercy on those “servants of the people” and give them priority. Political afilliation is of no concern. We will be bipartisan.

They will have to go thru some training. For example:
Learning how to count money. Counting Pennies-101
How to grip a broom and shovel. Manual Labor-101
How to listen to the boss. Personal Improvement-101

There will be other training also. But if you want on board you will need references. Many on WB will not qualify as a good reference. Be in touch.

Posted by: tom humes at November 2, 2010 6:19 PM
Comment #312103

I would advise liberals to stay away from tall buildings tomorrow. The temptation to jump may become overpowering.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2010 6:21 PM
Comment #312104

Royal Flush-
Sleight of hand? I’m not the one trying to get people scared of a tax that won’t affect them.

Look at this chart. In most states, the median home price, that is, the one where 50% of other homes sell for more, and 50% sell for less, is below the first threshold, that for single taxpayers.

If we take the married exemption? Then only Hawaii has a greater median cost. No sleight of hand required. Simply put, you have to profit quite well from your home sale to have this apply. And then, you only get taxed for what’s over that threshold. That’s the flat fact of this tax.

As for whether I’m a pessimist? The facts are that pressures on home prices in the wake of this disaster are mainly downwards. If we’re dealing with inflation in home prices, we’re talking about another boom. You can fantasize about it, but even if an optimistic scenario can be presented, I think it will take some time to work through the problems of the credit markets and the housing market, so growth across the board is years off.

As for this?

And a liberal government would never allow individual homeowners to attain that kind of equity in their homes. They would have to be taxed to punish them for thrift and brains.

I would guess that being inside your mind today must be painful.

It would break your heart to see how much fun I’m having. ;-)

Really, mister, its a 3.8% tax that only applies on unearned income over $250,000 worth of income, which goes up to $500,000 if you’re married. Which means even if they do get taxed, they get the first $250,000 or $500,000 with no tax applied.

And most? Most people will never see this tax applied to them. So your argument is just another one of these wierd Republicans arguments that tries to invoke populist outrage on behalf of the top earners, even on a paltry tax rate of 3.8%

Do lecture me on sleight of hand, Mr. Copperfield.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2010 6:29 PM
Comment #312105

Tom…I appreciate your offer. I accept. I wonder if there is much demand for clowns, shepherds, barrel-makers, food tasters, draq queens, sword-sharpeners, dog companions, wild animal cage cleaners, bubble gum counters, BB gun inspectors, etc?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2010 6:29 PM
Comment #312108

Mr. Daugherty writes; “That’s the flat fact of this tax.”

OH YES…it is so insignificant that it will bring in over $200 billion according to the bean counters. If it is just to punish the people who have equity in their homes then it is directly aimed at seniors. Beyond that Mr. Liberal, I happen to believe that the real estate market will recover quickly once many of the liber/socialist in congress are replaced. Historically, American’s have considered their homes as being their greatest asset. You and the liberals would punish the folks who establish too much equity in their homes over time.

Who in the hell gave you that right? The new house will gut this God-awful HC bill and Americans will cheer the effort.

Those who would punish our senior Americans for accumulating some wealth over their lifetime should be tarred and feathered on the public square.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2010 6:47 PM
Comment #312110

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

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 2, 2010 6:52 PM
Comment #312111

Tom, I also accept the position. Might I suggest jobs that don’t require much thinking, because those liberals losing their jobs have been brain dead for quite a while.

On the serious note, I heard on the radio the other day, that there are a lot of Democrat staff who are having a problem with being unemployed. I guess they will now face what millions of Americans have faced as the result of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi’s aganda.

News Flash: Coats (R)IN wins Senate seat; Paul (R) KY wins Senate seat.

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 2, 2010 7:05 PM
Comment #312114

I just heard that Senator Fiengold in Wisconsin is going down…hurrah…my sister and her husband live there and just hated this guy’s politics for years.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2010 7:15 PM
Comment #312115

I have decided to back off on my comments to Mr. Daugherty. I now realize that I am in a fight with an unarmed person.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2010 7:18 PM
Comment #312116

If you read your own link, you’d understand that only an idiot would combine or compare liberalism with Socialism. That puts you in the rarefied air.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2010 7:20 PM
Comment #312120

Liber/socialists exist right here on WB. Read more carefully dude. Some liberals are socialists…all socialists are liberals.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2010 7:26 PM
Comment #312124

Royal Flush-
Over ten years. So, 20 billion dollars a year.

And still, most people won’t pay it.

So, it doesn’t matter for most people’s equity.

As for what will magically improve home costs, what are you promising? Are you promising to reinstate the system you had going, which failed so spectacularly, where an unregulated market in derivatives helped distort the housing market?

Yeah.

Oh, by the way, I agree that Christine O’Donnell is not a Witch. Apparently, she’s not a Senator either. And That Iott guy? He’ll have plenty of time to devote to his new musical number, Springtime for Hitler.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2010 8:02 PM
Comment #312127

Royal Flush wrote: “Beyond that Mr. Liberal, I happen to believe that the real estate market will recover quickly once many of the liber/socialist in congress are replaced.”

Then, you haven’t a clue about the economics and financial conditions surrounding the real estate market in the U.S. It is going to take several years, at least, for any significant portion of the overleveraged under-securitized properties to move off the balance sheets of the banks, Fannie & Freddie, and AIG, and ANY attempt to move those properties onto the market in any significant way will result in torpedoing property values all across the country, exacerbating the underwater mortgage crisis still underway as well as defaults and bankruptcies - all big drains on economic growth going forward.

Your comment indicates you have no grasp on this issue, whatsoever. There is NO political solution to this, only financial and economic ones and they have to metered into place gradually and slowly as to not undermine the the 1.5 to 2% GDP growth we are experiencing at this time.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2010 8:25 PM
Comment #312128

Royal Flush-
As for being in a fight with an unarmed man? Oh, how terrible? Me, I don’t have any compunction about taking facts to the heads of the fact-free arguers.

I don’t have any compunction about taking you to task for getting bent out of shape over a 380 dollar tax on ten thousand dollars worth of property, that will only apply if people’s property is well beyond the medians or averages for most property in most given states.

You’ve taken an unfortunate approach here of asking us to pity and come to the aid of those who don’t need the help. Meanwhile, this tax is part of Obama’s overall effort to pay for, rather than leave to deficit spending, the cost of his HCR package. Now, if Republicans had done similarly, this country would be in more than a trillion dollars less debt.

I would ask our readers to ask themselves, what is the greater evil here, if we can call it that?

The first way of doing things, Obama has Congress levy a tax that does not touch the first quarter million dollars in profit EVER. That’s true whether the value exceeds that threshold or not. Thereafter, the tax is 3.8%, which comes to about $380 for every $10,000 worth of property. This is the great plague of taxation that Royal Flush is getting bent out of shape over. This is why he has to invoke an unrealistic level of home price appreciation, in spite of what the numbers concerning home values are nowadays. This is why he has to ask you to pity or be outraged on behalf of maybe the top five percent of property owners.

This will generate $20 billion a year in revenue, and over ten years, help pay for $200 billion of Obama’s plan. That’s 200 billion dollars of paid for government. I know that Royal Flush wouldn’t reform healthcare at all, given the chance, but if we took his tax position, Obama would still be saddling you with the same cost, plus interest.

Which is what Republicans did With Medicare Drug Benefits and Medicare Advantage. Rather than pay for these programs with taxes, they just put them on credit.

Republicans cannot resolve deficits, if they do not admit that taxes, even moderate taxes like this one, are necessary to pay for government. They don’t have the political will or power to cut the programs necessary to offset their tax cuts, so, quite deliberately, they run huge deficits. It’s not that they’re too liberal- that’s not what lead to their fiscal disaster. No, they’re too rigid, too unwilling to sacrifice practical policy for the sake of a foolish consistency in politics. They would rather run huge deficits than ask you for the money for programs up front.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2010 8:26 PM
Comment #312131

The clearest picture here is that those on the left do not have the ability to understand how a conservative thinks, whereas a conservative knows full well the mindset of the leftist. That is why you southpaws are in such an uproar about the failures of a democrat controlled congress that could do anything it wanted to, but didn’t have the ability to do it, and a president who is a Marxist. He has done everyting to show that. He has admitted that one of the most trusted mentors was a communist. Leftists cannot see beyond their nose when it comes to understanding the opposition. Good night. Time to watch C-SPAN.

Posted by: tom humes at November 2, 2010 8:37 PM
Comment #312137

tom humes-
I just heard a Republican Representative basically refuse to call for spending cuts besides discretionary spending, which is a small part of the federal deficit.

You talk of Southpaws not understanding anything, but you righties don’t understand that your leader’s math makes lies out of their promises from day one.

Enjoy your single-chamber majority while it lasts. You folks make it too easy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2010 8:57 PM
Comment #312144

Stephen, I was just going to put in an “assignment”…well, really a big request.
Rand Paul has not even been inside the building yet, and he has already committed us to anarchy!!!!!
Debt ceiling…..anarchy! The dumb ass has just proven that he has the brain-power of a stump!
Can you explain with your patience, what that all means to us, and the rest of the world.

Posted by: jane doe at November 2, 2010 9:36 PM
Comment #312145

Sorry, David….please….feel free to get on this one, too.

Posted by: jane doe at November 2, 2010 9:38 PM
Comment #312148

I just want to say to the Republicans, now you have the responsibility to govern. Now that you’ve had your chance to feel good about being a Republican again, now you have more than good feelings to deal with.

You have the same policy decisions to make that allowed you to alienate and blunder your way to the minority before.

And you know what your people say? We’re going to do everything just like we did before.

Have fun. Democrats no longer expect to get things done these next two years, so the high expectations are gone. Now, Republicans will be in the spotlight. Will they let their daffy members waste taxpayer dollars on fruitless frivolous investigations? I think they will. Will they continue to play games with the basic functions of government? I think they will. Will they besiege the President, who, as he always does, comes off more mature and likeable than them? Yes. I expect it. Why? Because in their rigidity and their zealotry, Republicans are damn inflexible, and therefore, damn predictable.

So, you know what? I think people need to once again learn the difference between the Republican fantasy, and the Republican reality. Republicans can make brilliant, broad promises, while casting their vitriol at Democrats. But for the last ten years, the general rule has been that Republican promises are made to be broken.

There is nothing that Republicans have done better this past decade than bring their supporter’s hopes up, and send them crashing down. You got on this roller coaster again, with this party, buying their bull**** promises all over, despite the results last time.

I can’t think of more poetic justice than for Republicans to win such an impotent majority, after all they’ve done to hamstring the Democrats.

Celebrate tonight. 2012 is two years away, and your party hasn’t begun to do the damage that will send it right back to the minority.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2010 9:49 PM
Comment #312149

>Liber/socialists exist right here on WB. Read more carefully dude. Some liberals are socialists…all socialists are liberals.
Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2010 07:26 PM

Apparently the name calling MUST go forward, the ConservoFascists won’t let it die. Some conservatives are Fascist, and ALL Fascists are Tea Party members…hmmm…rolls right off the tongue.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2010 9:53 PM
Comment #312150

Rand Paul will be a great addition to the Senate and so will Mark Rubio. In the words of our illustrious vice president, Rubio is a clean, well mannered, intelligent Hispanic. He has a great political future ahead of him.

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 2, 2010 9:56 PM
Comment #312152

jane doe, I find your comments about Rand Paul prejudiced and without any empirical evidence to support them. We all know politicians say one thing to get elected, and legislate in very different ways to get something, anything, accomplished during their tenure in office. Let’s wait and see what Rand Paul does as a Senator. We know he had libertarian philosophy. But, Rand Paul is going to be the only Libertarian in the Senate. If he adheres to a strict Libertarian agenda, decriminalizing recreational drugs, for example, he will accomplish nothing legislatively in his time in office. Rand Paul, if he is to make a mark for himself in the Senate, will have to compromise and make deals with his other 99 cohorts. Let’s wait and see what he does.

I believe in democracy. I believe democracy is not perfect, but, that it is better than all other ways of installing leadership for a national government. I am not, therefore, going to prejudge the collective wisdom of his state’s voters in electing him to the Senate. If we wanted cookie cutter replicants for Senators, there would be no need for the democratic process. Install an authoritarian and go to the heart of being an efficient decision making government. That’s not for me.

Democracy is dynamic, constantly changing and adjusting and adapting to what came before and toward the ideals established in its Constitution and observance of the rule of law. Rand Paul will be lawfully elected. Let’s not prejudge the wisdom of that process nor the man before he has cast a single vote on a single issue. There will be plenty to critique after the fact, I am sure.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2010 9:58 PM
Comment #312153

dude….have you learned nothing?!?
Bullying and browbeating are the only social amenities they really know.

Posted by: jane doe at November 2, 2010 10:00 PM
Comment #312154

Stephen said, “I just want to say to the Republicans, now you have the responsibility to govern.”

Help me Stephen, I’m having a problem here. In 2006, the Democrats took control of the congress and yet everything was Bush’s fault. Now the Republicans will most likely only take the House, and you say it’s up to the Republicans to govern? Are you saying the reponsibility for governing during the last 2 years of Bush’s presidency was the Democrat House and Senate?

Posted by: TomT at November 2, 2010 10:03 PM
Comment #312156

Stephen said, “Republicans can make brilliant, broad promises, while casting their vitriol at Democrats.”

Stephen, we could take these same words and apply them to Obama

Posted by: TomT at November 2, 2010 10:08 PM
Comment #312157

David, my question/comment was based on his victory spiel.
National debt….debt ceiling….and throwing the entire world into chaos. I wasn’t being a smart-ass, just asking for feedback based on what all the moderators said in regard to his comment about NO MORE DEBT. Defaulting on our debts……and the domino effect heard around the world.
And his attitude was far from congenial…..

Posted by: jane doe at November 2, 2010 10:11 PM
Comment #312159

jane doe, I don’t believe that is what Rand Paul was saying, but what you said does match what the speaking heads were saying on the news.

I have to agree with David, you cannot make a decision about his political abilities without first seeing what he will do. He is calling for a balanced budget (which is good), but not based on defaulting on debt, but rather cutting spending.

Posted by: TomT at November 2, 2010 10:25 PM
Comment #312161

Don’t be upset.

The IN-PARTY will soon become the OUT-PARTY, and vice-versa.

In the mean time, these abuses and growing debt will continue the steady deterioration of the nation.

At any rate, the voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, … , at least, until repeatedly rewarding failure and repeatedly rewarding arrogant, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 2, 2010 10:26 PM
Comment #312162

TomT…….I don’t much care if you believe it or not. I sat and watched him as did a number of other people, which sparked this line of thought.

Posted by: jane doe at November 2, 2010 10:28 PM
Comment #312166

jane doe, so you and your friends discussed his speach and came to this conclusion:

“Stephen, I was just going to put in an “assignment”…well, really a big request.
Rand Paul has not even been inside the building yet, and he has already committed us to anarchy!!!!!
Debt ceiling…..anarchy! The dumb ass has just proven that he has the brain-power of a stump!
Can you explain with your patience, what that all means to us, and the rest of the world.”

Posted by: TomT at November 2, 2010 10:37 PM
Comment #312167

TomT, what do you reckon the combined I.Q. was at that party? Maybe 50!

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 2, 2010 10:39 PM
Comment #312169

I can’t tell you how happy I am the little squirrel faced Pelosi is gone, gone, gone, and I have to include that idiot Grayson in FL. He was an embarrassment to his district and state. There is a God.

Obama was not able to help Feingold in WI. He’s looking for employment. Looks like Obama didn’t help in Ohio either, I think Obama alone made 12 trips to OH.

Posted by: Bill at November 2, 2010 10:48 PM
Comment #312171

Jane, Stephen won’t be able to tell you what all this means, but he will be able to tell you what they are saying on the dailykos, Rachel Maddow Show, and the Keith Olbermann Show.

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 2, 2010 10:53 PM
Comment #312172

Bill-
Isn’t it wonderful? Problem is, people are going to care what your policies are now. You’ve promised to save the world. Now you have to deliver. You promised big to overthrow the Democrats. Now, your profoundly screwed up political plans are coming home to roost, because you get to do it without the Senate, and with a metric ton of idiots your people never taught to string coherent thoughts together.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2010 10:58 PM
Comment #312173

Stephen, your BS shows deep seated anger. Honestly Stephen, did you really think the rest of the American voters had bought into the liberal, socialist crap.

The republicans don’t have to do anything. Obama is still in control. I noticed you completely whizzed over my question about blaming republicans when they are in control, but blaming Bush when democrats were in control.

Was the question to complicated for you?

Obama is going to have to go to the republicans this time. Not the BS you have been spreading, but really try to work with them. No more back of the bus now.

Posted by: Bill at November 2, 2010 11:09 PM
Comment #312175

Bill-
Angry, aren’t we, for winners?

LOL. Still calling me names? Still annoyed that I’ve haven’t knelt before Zod?

The number one issue that is affecting Americans is jobs and the economy. If you can’t deliver results, your ass is toast. If you do something to **** up the economy, like you’ve done before, your ass is toast.

You guys could snipe from the sidelines before, and not get caught in the crossfire. Now, in the midst of this ****storm your party’s incompetence created, you have to actually create policy!

LOL.

Republicans have to actually create policy! You have to decide which voters to piss off, which political stunts you can get away with, and which you can’t. You have to make tough votes where the outcomes can be disastrous if they’re done wrong.

I can laugh as I write this, because I am utterly free from any troubling faith that the Republicans might pull something like this off, because their judgment on such matter is objectively so awful that it just boggles the mind that they could pull it off.

What killed you guys in 2006 is that your party tore itself apart with its’s absurd degree of party orthodoxy, your incredibly paranoid style of oppositional politics, and each of your faction’s wishes that they get everything they wanted, or otherwise they would bolt the caucus. Now you have to keep that rats nest of Republican politicians together, and not alienate any of your major, conflicting constituencies out there.

I don’t see you doing that. I don’t see Republican hatred for the Democrats being strong enough to keep the party from flying apart, or losing popular support. I think you hyped and vilified, and attacked your way into the best degree of unity you could manage. But if you look at the Senate and a number of other contests, you’ll see that many of the Republican candidates have fallen, in no small part because the Tea Party candidates were just so awful nobody could stomach them. This is the last hurrah of your cults of personality. Enjoy it while you can.

Sorry I couldn’t oblige you by being down when you wanted to kick me while I was there. There are a whole bunch of Democrats tonight that just found new motivation not to lose again next time, and a nation that’s soon going to find out, as it has many times before, that its faith in the people that it elected was misplaced.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2010 11:56 PM
Comment #312177

Boehner gave a victory speech tonight and it was great. The Democrats have literally been smashed tonight and it’s not over yet. It’s not been since the 30’s that anything like this has happened.

Stephen, you are wrong in your assessment. All the Republican controlled House has to do is vote on bill after bill that cuts spending, reduces the size of government, and creates jobs. The Democrats will have to vote with the Republicans or against and Obama can either veto or sign, and this will set the stage for 2012.

I believe Obama will try to get his agenda by regulation, because he certainly has lost the congress stamp of approval.

I also disagree with Stephen on the HC Bill. There is much we do not know in it, and Obama’s departments have the ability to regulate the HC bill. The things written on the pages of the Bill is not the total of what can be regulated into the Bill.

Posted by: TomT at November 3, 2010 12:14 AM
Comment #312178

Where are all the liberals on WB? Have they gone to bed early?

Since I am from Ohio, I can say, we won the Senate, we won the Governor, and the worm of a Democrat congressman we had is looking for employment.

Toomey won PA, Kirk won IL, Obama’s seat in the Senate. What a slam against Obama.

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 3, 2010 12:21 AM
Comment #312179

I’m still around. I’m staying up to see how things turn out in the senate races in Nevada and Alaska.

Posted by: Warped Reality at November 3, 2010 12:28 AM
Comment #312180

It doesn’t matter much which party has the majority in Congress, since both suck for the most part, and too many voters still continue to reward too many incumbents with re-election.
55-to-61 of 435 seats in the House and 7-to-9 seats in the Senate ain’t going to make much difference, because 62-to-70 seats in Congress is still only about 13% of the 535 members of Congress. Congress won’t get the message until hundreds of members are being ousted from Congress, as occurred in the Great Depression (206 of 531 voted out in year 1933):

  • Start __ End __ Congress _ Re-Election
  • Year ___ Year ___ # _____ Rate
  • 1927 ___ 1929 ___ 070st ___ 83.6% (087 incumbents ousted: 22(D), 64(R), 1(FL) )
  • 1929 ___ 1931 ___ 071st ___ 79.7% (108 incumbents ousted: 51(D), 44(R), 2(FL), 1(S) )
  • 1931 ___ 1933 ___ 072nd ___ 76.8% (123 incumbents ousted: 36(D), 87(R) )
  • 1933 ___ 1935 ___ 073rd ___ 61.2% (206 of 531 incumbents ousted: 59(D), 147(R) )
  • … … … … … … … …
  • 1989 ___ 1991 ___ 101st ___ 90.1%
  • 1991 ___ 1993 ___ 102nd ___ 87.7%
  • 1993 ___ 1995 ___ 103rd ___ 73.5% (142 of 535 incumbents ousted)
  • … … … … … … … …
  • 1999 ___ 2001 ___ 106th ___ 89.2%
  • 2001 ___ 2003 ___ 107th ___ 89.2%
  • 2003 ___ 2005 ___ 108th ___ 87.9% (65 of 535 voted out)
  • 2005 ___ 2007 ___ 109th ___ 88.6% (61 of 535 voted out)
  • 2007 ___ 2009 ___ 110th ___ 84.9% (81 of 535 incumbents voted out (68=16(D)+51(R)+1(I) in the House) + (13=3(D)+9(R)+1(I) in the Senate)
  • 2009 ___ 2011 ___ 111th ___ 86.9% (70 of 535 voted out (57=13(D)+44(R) in the House) + (13=3(D)+10(R) in the Senate)
  • 2011 ___ 2013 ___ 112th ___ ??.?% (about 70 of 535 voted out … ?)

Letting Laurel and Hardy or Abbott and Costello take turns at running the government doesn’t seem to be working, does it?

Letting two groups of arrogant, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians take turns won’t solve anything.

So, the deterioration continues.
There were 347,420 new foreclosures in SEP-2010 (that’s 11,580 foreclosures per day; about 4 million for year 2010, 3 million for 2009, ).

    Foreclosures:
  • Year 2010: ~4.0 million (average of about 11,000 per day)
  • Year 2009: 3.1 million
  • Year 2008: 2.5 million
  • Year 2007: 2.0 million
  • Year 2006: 1.2 million
  • Year 2005: 846,000
  • __________________________________________________________
  • TOTAL FORECLOSURES = 13.7 Million (from Jan-2005 to 2010)

Bankruptcies are more numerous than foreclosures.
Unemployment remains very high (even based on the government’s own questionable statistics).
Yet, both parties bicker and wallow in the partisan warfare, and continue to blatantly sell out American citizens, while too many voters continue to reward too many incumbent politicians with re-election!?!

Hmmmmmm … obviously, the majority of voters aren’t feeling enough pain yet?
Because it isn’t that complicated.
Rewarding failure will quite simply bring more failure, pain, and misery.
Unfortunately, too many voters love their party more than their country, have lost sight of what is really important, and prefer to wallow in the circular partisan warfare, despite the simple logic that rewarding failure brings more failure.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 3, 2010 12:44 AM
Comment #312181

B9, My district here in Ohio still has our worm Dennis, but I am glad we got rid of that useless Strickland and Fisher.

Posted by: KAP at November 3, 2010 12:46 AM
Comment #312182

TomT-
Like I’ve said. You have to choose which people to tick off, and your party hasn’t exactly been full of profiles in courage.

You folks are great as critics of government, but put you in charge, and your advantage there evaporates, because you, too have to answer to voters, and your policies almost always work against the vast majority of them, something we Democrats gleefully take advantage of. Democrats can play both sides more easily, can shape policy with greater flexibility.

Celebrate now. The tough part is actually running the House now without pissing people off. And this time? You don’t have Pelosi to blame for people’s troubles anymore. You just put John Boehner in charge.

You folks just don’t think ahead, or even think things through. You can bluff and bluster your way back to a majority from the minority, but now you have to prove to the American people that they haven’t made a mistake. Now you have to deal with the real world, which doesn’t yield so easily to focused group words and political manipulations.

My feeling is, you, and your corporate sponsors are just increasing the bad karma (figuratively speaking) that your previous decade created, and in the end, the left is going to rise all the more strongly for it. You’ve think you have these seats bought? Nope. You have them leased, and they can only be renewed if the owners want them renewed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2010 12:52 AM
Comment #312184

I have to admit that i felt some endphorinw kick in as I watched the republican numbers roll by on CNN tonight.

However, the transition and responsibility of running the house and doing it so that we are speaking to the 80% of Americans that agree on 80% of the issues is a brave undertaking.

I hope that we will see some good cooperation within the
Party to achieve that aim, but somehow i doubt that is the first order of business right now.

I will also be interested how Obama will deal with the outcome of the election; will he choose to emulate Clinton and triangulate or will he emulate Truman and run against
congress.

Stephen,

You have provided countless helpful hints as to how the republicans can improve themselves over the past four years.
I have two for you and your party:

1) look back on the posts from the election from two years ago, and take a cue. Congratulate your opponent.

2) Look inward as wll as outward for

Posted by: Rob at November 3, 2010 1:22 AM
Comment #312185

As reasoms for the outcome of today. Changes this nigh aren’t just the result of bad luck or a dirty opponent.

Finally, we are now truly all in this together. As much as the republicans will be judged by the outcome of the next two years, so will Obama. I hope that this divided government will restore some badly needed civility to the political discourse, but im guessing thag hope will likely be in vain

Posted by: Rob at November 3, 2010 1:27 AM
Comment #312187

Rob-
I am not congratulating them at all. I might congratulate you, and other reasonable Republicans like you. And warn you, that it’s probably not going to go well on your side.

But everything else? After two years of listening to folks like Royal Flush, I think they’ll congratulate themselves enough to make up for the absence of my concession. They don’t want what you want. They people like you are traitors. They want you out of their party as soon as they can manage it.

There is nobody so lonely nowadays as a Republican Centrist. They blame centrism, not their own policy rigidity for 2006 and 2008, and are prepared to test that theory to destruction.

Is it wrong not to congratulate those who you think will lead themselves and the country to disaster? To say, good luck? Is it wrong to think that it is pointless to advocate bargaining with those who will not bargain in good faith? These folks will not magically come to their senses. They will, ultimately, take this party of yours further and further right until it breaks.

They’ve simply left themselves no other option.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2010 1:38 AM
Comment #312191

I believe we are witnessing the rebirth of the Republican Party. Boehner said as much in his victory speech last night. The exit polls of voters show most people were concerned about the economy and jobs, and second was obamacare. This HC bill has to be dealt with because it will continue to cause government and spending to grow. Almost 60% of voters in exit polls still called for the repeal or defunding of Obamacare. I do not believe this HC bill will hold up in the courts and the results from the election yesterday has given Republicans control of many more states. These states will join the long list of states who are filing law suits against obamacare.

The economy will begin to make a comeback, simply because Obama and the liberal Democrats have been neutered. I predict we will see the congress extend or make permanent the Bush tax cuts.

Stephen cannot congratulate Republicans because he is a sore loser. You are correct Rob, I believe it is time for the Democratic Party to take a step back and re-access the situation. What they have been doing has not been popular with the voters. I know that every poll I have seen indicates this election was not for the Republican Party, but it was for real change and not Obama’s change. It has been shown that only 20% of American voters are liberal and this election proves it. Another issue is the Tea Party; it has been seen, without a doubt, that the TP has had a great influence in this election. Michael Steele recognized it in his speech last night. He is the head of the Republican Party, and agreed the TP energized the party and has to be considered as a viable part. The left, especially those on WB, have besmirched and ridiculed the TP, and I believe it was because they feared these people. Mark Rubio was attacked by the liberals and considered a great threat because he is Hispanic. Rubio is the future of the Republican Party. There were many House, Senate seats and Gov. and Lt. Gov seats picked up by blacks, Hispanics, and women. The Republican Party is truly the party of America. The Democrats have always been the party of the good old boys, and their attacks on minorities and women during this campaign show their bias and racism.

I will close with this: a strong message was sent to Obama yesterday and I hope he listens. But, I greatly doubt it, because he is very arrogant.

Posted by: TomT at November 3, 2010 8:51 AM
Comment #312192

TomT with his usual one way logic. “I hope Obama listens to the strong message from yesterday” - by doing what - repealing health care? I bet you didn’t think he should have listened to voters after 08 and initiated health care reform though it was one of his election promises. Those blinders working for you?

Posted by: Schwamp at November 3, 2010 9:08 AM
Comment #312193

TomT-
I can’t congratulate your party on a race well run. I think what your folks have done to this country is despicable.

You can run away from it, but your people have no real verifiable differences in the policies they claim to uphold. They just found a new way to sell it to you, to convince you you were doing it yourselves.

If you want to believe that Tea Party candidates were what made the difference, then I ask you this: Why elect Bush’s Budget director to the Senate? And why did so many Senate candidates your party offered up fail so miserably?

Your party ran on the economy and ran on jobs. Now you have to deliver. What really makes you think that the policies that destroyed jobs in the last decade have any home of creating them in this one?

Your economic policies are built on the encouragement and tolerance of fraud and deceptive practices. That’s all that kept our economy from staggering into a recession in the last decade, until the very end. But as that end demonstrated, policies that are permissive of such behavior inevitably come to a dark and dangerous end.

The Republican resurgence is nothing more than the political equivalent of the housing market and hedge funds of the last decade: a product of the willing distortion of the marketplace of ideas. And like all such frauds, like the fraud that struck us on Wall Street, it will inevitably come to a dark and dangerous end.

That’s the strong message your party failed to learn, and it will pay dearly for that failure. I know because I’ve already made it pay for such a failure before. This time, it will be worse, because people are already ticked off.

Have fun!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2010 9:17 AM
Comment #312195

Stephen;

You are a sore looser. Why don’t we wait and see what happens, before we start condemning? You are saying it is the republican controlled house’s responsibility to restore jobs and the economy. What part does the Senate and President play in this scenario?

Bill brought up a good point for you yesterday: Who was in control and held responsible for the government in 2006 thu 2008?

Posted by: TomT at November 3, 2010 9:34 AM
Comment #312198

TomT,

“You are a sore looser. Why don’t we wait and see what happens…”

No, Tom, those of you on the right that have posted in this thread are sore winners.

With the exception of Rob, who actually seemed conciliatory, virtually all of the posts from the right in this thread have been the most insulting, vitriolic, flame baiting, posts I have ever read on this site.

As I said before I admire Stephen for his perseverance, and I salute him for keeping his cool in the face of the constant barrage of arrogant bu*&%#it he has had to put up with.

If there was a message to be taken from yesterday it is that lies and half truths, if repeated often enough, will replace the facts, and in typical American fashion, the people will believe it.

I will say that the Democrats are not blameless for their defeat. If there is a lesson to be learned, the Democrats need to work even harder to serve the American people, and not to run away from the things they have accomplished.
Good things have happened in this country in the last few years, and they have happened in spite of the right’s intransigence.

Own it, lick your wounds and move on.

To those of you on the arrogant right who take this as a mandate.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 3, 2010 10:21 AM
Comment #312199

TomT-
It was always their responsibility. I never said otherwise.

As for who was in control? There’s one question to be answered by you, before I’ll answer that.

Do you approve of the 420 bills blocked by Senate Republicans in the last Congress? Or the 112 Filibusters and policies of the Bush Administration of vetoing Senate and House passed bills in the Congress before that?

If you do, then it is ironic that you call me a sore “looser”. I wonder if you would double down on calling us sore “loosers” if we went ahead and applied the same logic you did. Did you care about the economy or jobs while your folks blocked most of the Democrat’s bills, and offered none of your own?

Now you have the opportunity either to prove yourself capable or incapable of saving America and its economy your way. You marketed yourselves as the white hats riding in to save the country’s economy from the socialists.

Now you have your chance. Do you have a new approach, or are your policies no different?

It would be a pity if we went through all this rigamarole about your people changing policy, and you folks just turned out to be a force for preserving this awful status quo.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2010 10:23 AM
Comment #312201

I’ve read down through a couple of threads. Nothing has changed. The trolls are even more vitriolic and less informative than when their people were in the minority. I think I’ll take my football and go home until some of the loudest, most obnoxious find another site to ruin.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 3, 2010 10:47 AM
Comment #312203

Stephen,

You said, “There is nobody so lonely nowadays as a Republican Centrist. They blame centrism, not their own policy rigidity for 2006 and 2008, and are prepared to test that theory to destruction.”

I agree.

I think that the same may be said of the Democrats as well. Witness what happened in the primaries both in 2010 and 2008 as progressives ran the Blue Dogs and other centrists out on a rail. That was interpreted as a victory for the progressives and the left. That was clearly not a message that the American people disagreed because most of the remaining centrist Democrats were run out by the electorate last night.

A House this divided will very likely fail, and it is unfortunate for us all. I sincerely hope that the Repulicans realize that they need to govern at the center in order to maintain their current status. If they don’t, I hope that the Democrats will realize that they need to in order to win.

Rocky is right, the only mandate from last night is as weak as the mandate of 2006 and 2008. It will have the same shelf life if the parties can’t get together and figure out how to move the country forward.

Stephen,

You have said often that you don’t care about the size of the government, you just want it to work. Well, I disagree with the first half of the sentence, but I agree with the latter half. We have seen divided government work very well in the 80’s and 90’s. I sincerely hope that we see similar results in the 2010’s.

For that to work though, we have to see both sides recognize that partnership and compromise is necessary for it to happen. The first move needs to come from the White House. While it is possible that Obama can win in 2012 using the Truman approach, it is dangerous. When Truman took that approach, the economy was well into the upswing coming off of the Great Depression and the U.S. had new found moral and political capital on the world stage. I think that neither is true now. Should Obama take that route, he runs the very real possibility of harming this country.

Why does the first move have to come from the White House? For the same reason that Obama related shortly after the 2008 election: The Republicans won. Like it or not (and I’m not sure that I do, and I am one), the Republicans have the temporary power advantage and for Obama to achieve anything (most importantly pass his next budget) he now has to go through them.

However, it won’t be long that he has to do this, if Republicans to wise up. We are not more popular than the Democrats, we are just not incumbents. The VOID strategy has very much taken hold in this country and should Republicans over reach their mandate as the Democrats did their’s, then they will be out quickly as well.

Posted by: Rob at November 3, 2010 11:04 AM
Comment #312204

Marysdude-
I take it as a challenge. I’ve seen far too many places go like this. It’s what I call The Nasty Toxic Fart Republican Strategy.

They make the political discussions so hostile, so hopelessly confounded, that folks like you don’t feel like staying in the debate. By continuing their toxic hostility, the Republicans aim basically to push all but the true believers out, who, having let the fart themselves, are insensitive to its true stench.

That’s why I don’t let it get me down. It’s designed to get me down, to make me feel like ****.

I won’t let them have the satisfaction of pushing me out.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2010 11:13 AM
Comment #312206

Rob-
A great many of the blue dogs actually fell in this election. They were in the vulnerable districts. They thought they could defend themselves by running away from Obama, by distinguishing themselves. People simply didn’t care. I mean, what’s inspiring about somebody who has nothing good to say about anybody? They have to oppose Republicans and their stuff somewhat so that Democrats vote for them, but then they turn around, and either bash or run away from Obama and the liberals.

In effect, somebody who moves to the center by abandoning the rest of the party really just slits their own throat.

Republicans counted on Democrats to do what they unfortunately did, and that was not stand up for themselves and their party. Some let their dashed hopes get them down. Some blamed the left for wanting too much. On and on. My simple message to my party members wouldn’t be to embrace some sort of Frankensteined centrism. What would be our common ground with the hardliners? It’s no-man’s land.

No. Democrats have to restore this country’s true center. They have to push a moderation that is no built on notions of squaring the differences between the two parties, but simply, sanely dealing with our nation’s current realities.

I’m afraid most moderation is considered poisonous by your party. I believe they will try to vindicate Hoover, and all the other kinds of approaches.

As for the VOID strategy? I come down fundamentally against it. You want to know why? It’s fairly simple: just listen to either party when they win. Wave elections embolden the party that gets into power. And your party, unfortunately, will let that victory go to its head.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2010 11:35 AM
Comment #312207

Yeah, Stephen, I guess you’re right. It would give them too much pleasure.

Rob, I’d go along with you up to a degree. But, I think I’d qualify that by maybe saying this (although it is a new thought and I haven’t done my usual editing):

President Obama and Vice President Biden should both resign. With Boehner as Speaker, I think he would be next in line. That way the country would have what they asked for in this mid-term, and Republicans would have a chance to really do good or really nail the last nail in their own coffin.

Like I say, this one is off the top of my head, but the national disgrace and probable downfall into third world status, can either be drawn out and be excruciating, or cold turkey, with traumatic consequences. I’m not sure the cold turkey wouldn’t be best for all concerned.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 3, 2010 11:37 AM
Comment #312211

Mr. Daugherty wrote; “You’ve taken an unfortunate approach here of asking us to pity and come to the aid of those who don’t need the help.”

Obviously he doesn’t know many seniors who have most of their assets tied up in their homes. He thinks having over $250k in equity in a home is rare and only experienced by the very rich.

He also isn’t aware of many folks who invest in real estate rental property to provide income. Many of these rental property owners are middle class folks not uber rich or corporations.

Liberals display compassion by spending others money, even the life savings of seniors who spent a lifetime building up equity in their homes. Daugherty would have us believe that the 5% facing the penalty are all rich or corporations. Not true, many are very middle class people who by thrift have built some equity in their homes.

Conservatives understand that home ownership is a cherished goal for nearly every American and do not want government penalizing them for accomplishing their dreams. Daugherty is looking only at those who will be punished in 2013. His shortsightedness can’t look beyond and recognize how this 3.8% tax could grow along with the exemption being reduced.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 3, 2010 12:12 PM
Comment #312219

I’d just like to comment on the taxing of the wealthy. People get wealthy for many reasons, but in America all those reasons hinge on our economic freedoms, our laws, our opportunities, our fostering of entrepreneurial spirit. There is some truth in the idea that the richer you are, the more you owe back to your country. You are standing on America’s foundation, and you should be prepared to continue to strengthen that foundation. If you feel you have somehow earned your wealth all on your own, you might see how far that thought gets you in England or China.

The necessary caveat to this: Government overspends. When making the decision to cut Medicare, Transportation, Defense…we certainly don’t need to cut them out. We just need to reduce the spending — be more efficient with the funds, rely on the private market to carry the areas where government can make itself less necessary.

Tax the wealthy more, sure. Most wealthy people have discovered effective tax shelters anyway. But always strive to be more efficient with your taxpayers money.

On another topic…

Both sides of the aisle have ideas to contribute. The media continues to push the division to sell more advertising, and that creates a dichotomy in the voters that make the representatives believe they have to stick to stereotypical party lines to get re-elected. Even decent legislation might never get passed this way because representatives are too worried about their jobs.

Easy solution: term limits with lifelong stipend. If you actually manage to get elected to HR or the Senate, you serve your 4-6 years and leave with a $50K lifelong stipend so you don’t return to the workforce penniless. This will end the millionaires only club (because they won’t want to run anymore) and keep people thinking about public service rather than the perks.

Posted by: Thomas R at November 3, 2010 12:43 PM
Comment #312223

Yesterday American’s forcefully voiced their anger and disappointment with the very congress they swept into power just two years ago. I can not think of a single race in which a NON-INCUMBANT liberal won office. That a significant number of INCUMBANT liberal office holders won is remarkable.

Mr. Daugherty and others can argue what the election results mean for Republicans who now have to rule in the house, but the fact is, they now have the chance to abandon their former big-spending ways and get the country back on track to fiscal soundness.

Repudiation of much of the liberal legislation passed over the past two years is obvious. Independents, women, and others who voted the dems into office two years ago have denounced the wisdom of that vote and expect the new congress to listen and act in the nation’s best interests.

Frankly, I don’t know how the new house will work with the closer margins of party control in the senate and with obama. I do know that all spending bills must originate in the house so I do expect no new spending and perhaps a reduction in spending in some areas.

While the posts above focus primarily on the house and senate we should pay attention to the governorships won by the Republicans and state house control that has changed. With the recent census state houses all over the nation will be drawing new district lines favoring reps. In 2012 governorships become an very important factor in presidential elections.

I see opportunities for democrat candidates to oppose obama for the presidency, especially Hillary Clinton. This election has weakened obama and should he fail to work with the new congress he will be a one-term president.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 3, 2010 12:55 PM
Comment #312226

“The Constitution cannot protect us and our freedoms as a self-governing people unless we protect the Constitution. That means zero tolerance at election time for people who circumvent the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Freedom is too precious to give it up in exchange for brassy words from arrogant elites.” —economist Thomas Sowell

Believable … and scary: “We have done things that people don’t even know about.” —Barack Obama

“President Obama listed his accomplishments in office on Urban Radio Tuesday. No one gives him enough credit. Barack Obama took something that was in terrible shape and brought it back from the brink of disaster, and that something was the Republican Party.” —comedian Argus Hamilton

Posted by: Larry at November 3, 2010 1:07 PM
Comment #312237

Stephen,

You said, “No. Democrats have to restore this country’s true center. They have to push a moderation that is no built on notions of squaring the differences between the two parties, but simply, sanely dealing with our nation’s current realities.”

This is a very difficult proposition that you put out there for your party. You are asking them to follow in the shoes of the Tea Party and just to be smarter. You are asking your party which received a vote of no confidence to reinforce positions that got them there rather than to change.

To do this, the Democrats must admit one of three failures:

1) A failure in communication strategy; one that allowed the achievements to go unnoticed

2) A failure in political strategy; underestimating the backlash of the big agenda items;

3) A failure of accomplishments

It is possible that the Democrats can keep doing what they are doing now and just wait for the Republicans to implode. It may very will be a valid political strategy. Not sure that it is a valid governing one though. At some point the House and the President are going to have to get on the same page long enough to get a budget passed. I think (hope, pray) that the Republicans are sane enough to not to repeat the Gingrich mistake of allowing the President to kill them for shutting down government.


Posted by: Rob at November 3, 2010 2:03 PM
Comment #312240

It will be virtually impossible for the Democratic Party to become centrist due to the fact all the blue dog moderates were voted out. The democrats who are left in the House are left leaning liberals.

Obama doesn’t get what happened yesterday and the liberal left doesn’t get it. We still have Stephen, Rocky, Marysdude, David, and others who are in complete denial because they still think the things Obama, Pelosi, and Reid were doing was in the best interest of the country. And the sad thing is, they believe the American voters were ill-informed and ignorant and duped into voting as they did.

My question is, when obamacare comes to the floor of the House to be repealed, and it will, how many democrats will vote with republicans?

Posted by: TomT at November 3, 2010 2:25 PM
Comment #312247

Royal Flush-
To prove your case, you have to demonstrate that this tax would be both applicable and onerous to most seniors.

Is 380 dollars tax on every 10,000 dollars over $250,000 dollars (for singles) or $500,000 (for married couples) onerous? If a person who was single sold a house and got 500,000 dollars profit, they would only have to pay $9,500 in tax. If they were married and sold the same house, they’d pay NOTHING.

And for all his or her trouble, the single fellow or lady who sold that house would still reap $490,500 in profit after that tax. Or, put another way, they’d keep 96.2% of their money.

That’s the terrible burden that the five percent of people who find this applied to them will face. As for whether it grows? A future hypothetical, a proposal or a problem we will discuss when it actually happens. Until then, we’ll discuss real events and real problems, rather than making up imaginary situation to distract from current ones.

3.8% tax is not a punishment. By that measure, Texas sales tax, which is more than double that rate, is positively confiscatory. Quit the melodrama. This tax is hardly a back-breaking burden, and it will save the taxpayers money, ultimately, as we will not be having to pay back the $200 billion dollars with interest.

On your second comment: it helps if you’re trying to be stirring and heroic in your speech if you don’t misspell INCUMBENT and then write it in all caps to highlight the mistake.

As for not being able to remember a single race where a non-incumbent Democrat won? Well…

DE-AL, HI-01, LA-02 in the House, and then…

Coons and Blumenthal. Not many off the top of my head, but your rather narrow claim is disproved.

You can bluff and bluster, but now things are out of your hands, and we now have to see whether your friends in Washington are actually your friends.

Rob-
To put it plainly, I think your party has the rougher time of it, because Democrats can tolerate a measure of bipartisanship, so long as it gets results. Republicans on the other hand will punish such displays of comity. Just do a google search on what the Senate Minority leaders has said.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2010 3:22 PM
Comment #312248

TomT-
Well, the numbers speak for themselves:

Of the 39 Dems who voted against Health Care Reform, 12 are going to be returning in the next Congress.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2010 3:26 PM
Comment #312250

Royal Flush-
Manchin, too.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2010 3:42 PM
Comment #312258

TomT said: “Obama doesn’t get what happened yesterday and the liberal left doesn’t get it. We still have Stephen, Rocky, Marysdude, David, and others who are in complete denial because they still think the things Obama, Pelosi, and Reid were doing was in the best interest of the country. “

Man, your bigoted prejudiced closed minded view which centers around anyone not of your mind being in denial, really show through in your comment. NO ONE, worked harder these last two years to remove Democratic Incumbents than ME! Not even Republicans. I founded and grew the Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy PAC these last two years.

For you to include me in that statement does nothing but highlight your closed and prejudiced mind about the world you see around you. Facts and reality don’t seem to have any place in your PRE-JUDGMENTS! I am living proof of that, having been included in your statement above.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2010 4:57 PM
Comment #312266

Mr. Remer wrote; “NO ONE, worked harder these last two years to remove Democratic Incumbents than ME! Not even Republicans. I founded and grew the Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy PAC these last two years.”

Thank you very much for all your efforts Mr. Remer.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 3, 2010 5:34 PM
Comment #312269

Sorry David, I was only going by the things you write. I simply thought you were a VIODINO. Think about it.

Posted by: TomT at November 3, 2010 5:58 PM
Comment #312289

TomT, don’t gush praise on me, I worked just as hard to defeat Republican incumbents. I am equal opportunity independent. And VOID, unlike the Tea Party, is truly and completely non-partisan. I personally don’t see any fundamental difference between the two parties, controlled and puppeted as they each are by their powerful campaign donor’s and blackmailing lobbyists.

I had high hopes for Obama when he was elected. I was immediately disappointed when the Democrats first pork laden budget was passed, and like Bush Jr., Obama couldn’t find a veto pen anywhere in the WhiteHouse.
Same-o, Same-o.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2010 7:49 PM
Comment #312290

TomT, thank you for the apology, it is appreciated. It is all too easy these days in American politics for people to succumb to the temptation to group everyone who doesn’t mime oneself, into one camp and call it the Enemy Camp. But, it is a temptation we all need to resist.

There are substantial differences between Democrats and Republicans, but, when it comes legislation, both party’s politicians are compromised by the enormous sums of money and the power it buys, so prevalent in our political and legislative system these days. 3.7 Billion dollars spent on this mid-term election. And those big donors will demand repayment with tax dollars if their support is to be counted on in the next election.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2010 7:53 PM
Comment #312292

Mr. Daugherty wrote; “As for whether it grows? A future hypothetical, a proposal or a problem we will discuss when it actually happens.”

Man…you are really in left field without a mitt. Think of all the taxes that started small and grew rapidly. Take a look at Social Security or Medicare premiums…would the originators of those programs ever have imagined, or admitted at the time, that they would as high as they are today?

By the way…I specified “liberal” non-incumbent democrats.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 3, 2010 7:58 PM
Comment #312308

Royal Flush, Social Security was a flawed design upon implementation, as an entitlement paid to even the wealthiest, as opposed to its original conception as an insurance policy against poverty for the elderly. Finding a way to reform it back to its original conception is one answer that will immediately solve its long term 25% benefit cut if nothing else is done.

As for the S.S. surpluses, it was a well critiqued flawed concept to spend those surpluses in the general budget. Gore suggested a lock box, which now appears to have been a really great idea in retrospect, as those surpluses spent these last 9 years would still be available as reserves to extend full benefits for some more outlying years of projected program deficits.

Medicare has two major problems. One is no president prior to this one, having taking Obama’s measures to sick the Justice Department on those responsible for Medicare and Medicaid fraud. The Obama administration has commercials running now on TV soliciting the aid of the public in ferreting out and helping to prosecute such fraudsters. An action decades late in coming.

The second and more difficult problem is the rate of health care cost inflation in this country. There are remedies for this, but no remedy is going to be without adamant critics and opposing lobbyists. One such remedy is to provide health care delivery personnel and organizations tax exemptions for moving from for-profit to non-profit health care delivery organizations. Another, of course, was what the majority of Americans wanted, the Public Option. But, Democrats nor Republicans wanted to offend their campaign deep pocketed insurance company contributors on that one, so the American people could not find representation from EITHER party on that one, save for a paltry few Democrats and one Independent in Congress.

Make no mistake, reforming Medicare/Medicaid will truly prove to be a third rail, unless both parties agree to equally share the brunt of lobbyist and campaign donor loss for having reformed it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2010 9:12 PM
Comment #312314

David R. Remer-
What’s a VOIDINO? Sounds like a part of the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics ;-)

Royal Flush-
Look, I’ve proven that the tax is fairly light, and comes in only after a significant amount of profit has already come in. I mean, a quarter of a million dollars is not chump change as a return on investment. Moreover, I demonstrated that even if you doubled the amount of money necessary to get taxed, you’d still pay a little under ten thousands out of five hundred thousand, and that’s as a single person.

Sooooo, you have to go an invoke taxes that are hypothetical, because you’ve lost the actual argument on the real ones.

That’s why I’ll say, we can discuss such taxes when the proposals, much less the bills or the laws are real. I don’t want to discuss your fantasies, or your conviction about what’s going to happen, because there’s nothing real then to keep your imagination from running away with itself. You’re basically peddling a red herring in order to maintain this whole “scary taxes” subject without any actual substance.

I’m out in right field catching the pop fly this subject represents, while you’re doing fancy manuevers out in left field catching imaginary balls. Sure you might think you look good pretending about what might happen, but I’m the one here who’s actually keeping his eye on the ball.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2010 9:58 PM
Comment #312317

TomT,

“And the sad thing is, they believe the American voters were ill-informed and ignorant and duped into voting as they did.”

What’s even sadder is that they are, and were.

Americans are duped every day. We spend all of our teenage years trying to look 18, and then spend the rest of our lives trying to look 18.

We spend boatloads of our hard earned money on supplemental remedies for everything from wrinkles to to fast weight loss to erectile dysfunction.

“Surely you can lose those “extra” 40 pounds, without exercise, by simply cleansing your colon.”

The right has been selling fear like hotcakes for the last several years. They have been throwing around words like socialism, marxism, death panels, and radical leftists like confetti.

Hey, the left probably doesn’t have all of the answers, but I would submit that the right isn’t going to do much better for all of their hyperbole to the contrary.


BTW, I played golf with a gentleman from Canada the other day. When the side talk turned to politics, he stated that he was amazed at how polarized this country is.

I could only sheepishly agree.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 3, 2010 10:16 PM
Comment #312318

Stephen said to RF:

“Sure you might think you look good pretending about what might happen, but I’m the one here who’s actually keeping his eye on the ball.”

Stephen, you’re the one making al the predictions about what the republican congress will do in the next 2 years.

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 3, 2010 10:18 PM
Comment #312320

“BTW, I played golf with a gentleman from Canada the other day. When the side talk turned to politics, he stated that he was amazed at how polarized this country is.”

That’s because they sold out to socialism year ago. Since nobody has any rights anymore, there is no reason to be polarized in Canada.

Posted by: TomT at November 3, 2010 10:25 PM
Comment #312324

TomT,

“Since nobody has any rights anymore, there is no reason to be polarized in Canada.”

That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read here.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 3, 2010 10:54 PM
Comment #312325

Beretta9-
Yes, and they’re based on what I know about the competitive pressures of the GOP. They do have to base their hopes somewhat on independents and non-Republicans, so if they lose them, they could lose some seats. Of course, they also have to maintain a certain level of base appeal, or else their margines decrease and its the same problem.

Polls indicate that the base might have particular places where they disagree strongly with the public, and vice versa. Republicans must balance between the two, but the GOP’s very adamant about not compromising, in order not to alienate a base that’s already supported Tea Party primarying of even staunch conservatives. They’ve even shown a willingness to support and apologize for candidates who haven’t gone over well with voters.

Polls also indicate, though, that the public wants less gridlock out of the government in general. Which, to please the Tea Party and hardline conservatives, and to avoid primary problems, Republicans might just have to consent to, or else explain persuasively.

This is why I think Republicans have a problem here, a conflict, and one that doesn’t necessarily end well for them, if they can’t find a way to survive alienating the Tea Party or repudiating its wish for gridlock. Democrats, on the other hand, have considerably greater flexibility. They won’t fault Obama for trying to govern, at the very least.

So, I think the Democrats can use the GOP’s inflexibility against it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2010 11:00 PM
Comment #312343

Stephen, “Polls Indicate”

Links Stephen…

“Republicans must balance between the two, but the GOP’s very adamant about not compromising, in order not to alienate a base that’s already supported Tea Party primarying of even staunch conservatives.”

Stephen, do you mean like when the liberal left of the Democratic Party rammed socialist programs down the throats of the Americans through a party line vote? I guess you would know about alienating voters, since democrats took the largest hit since the 40’s.

What eles does your crystal ball say?

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 4, 2010 10:45 AM
Comment #312382

Stephen D. asked: “What’s a VOIDINO? Haven’t a clue. That was someone else’s typo or invention, having nothing to do with anything I am involved with. It was probably a typo misspell of the VOID organization’s URL, voidnow.org.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 4, 2010 5:01 PM
Comment #312383

Baretta9, are you aware the GOP’s health care reforms in their plan includes all the essential provisions of the current Health Care Reform law except the individual mandate?

Obviously not.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 4, 2010 5:05 PM
Comment #312395

We have RINO’s (Republicans in name only), DINO’s (Democrats in name only), and VOIDINO’s (Vote out incumbents democracy in name only)

Posted by: TomT at November 4, 2010 5:53 PM
Comment #312438

TomT, what lunacy is this: “Vote out incumbents democracy in name only”. One is either for or not for voting out incumbents. There is no such thing as VOIDNO. I was advocating voting out incumbents when Republicans were in power and I continue to advocate voting out incumbents when Democrats are in power.

Your comment is NUTS, delusional, and hallucinatory, because these facts and reality have no meaning for you whatsoever. Health insurance helps people pay for counseling, you know. Do you have health insurance?

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 5, 2010 2:36 AM
Comment #312443

Tell me David, did you campaign for ANY incumbent democrats? I know your liberal stand would cause you to vote against conservative republicans, but, what were your feelings about incumbent liberal democrats?

We all have political persuasions. I am a conservative and I voted against the liberal democrat Congressman, Senator, and Governor in my state. They were incumbents and I voted to oust incumbents. On the other hand, if they had been conservatives, I would have voted to keep them. So even though I agree with voting out incumbents, had they been conservatives, I would have been a VOIDINO, because I would have not held true to my stand on voting out incumbents.

You on the other hand are a liberal (I have deduced that from your posts) and you propose voting out incumbents; so when you go in the voting booth, do you vote out all incumbents, or do you just vote out the conservative incumbents. It is not logical for you to vote out an incumbent who has the same political ideology as you, because the purpose of one voting for a politician is to vote for someone who believes the same as we do.

I am not trying to attack you or be a smart aleck. I am just saying, to be a true “vote out incumbents” voter, it means we must vote out all incumbents, no matter what their political persuasion. Do you follow me?

And if you go into the voting booth for the purpose of voting out all incumbents, no matter political persuasion, damage could be done to your personal views of politics. If everyone held to your beliefs, the Tuesday elections would have resulted in a complete reversal of the House and Senate. Today, conservative republicans would have an overwhelming control of the House and Senate. Is this what you wanted?

Posted by: TomT at November 5, 2010 9:22 AM
Comment #312450

>You on the other hand are a liberal (I have deduced that from your posts) and you propose voting out incumbents

TomT,

When DRR said some of your postings contained lunacy, he had no idea of just how lunatic it could get. DRR has posted some of the most biting commentary about liberals you’ve ever read. At times I’ve thought he was a dyed in the wool Repulifascist, because of what he’s said. You will have a tough time backing that up.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 5, 2010 11:17 AM
Comment #312452

David R. Remer-
I was joking. It looked like the name of a particle (like a neutrino).

56% of Americans want the politicans of both parties to work together rather than stand on their principles.

Even Republicans are evenly split, though they are the party that shows the most interest in just making stands on principle.

What is the number one priority for Americans?

Passing new stimulus bill - 38%

That as opposed to the 24% who want to cut Federal Spending, and the 23% who want to repeal healthcare, and the 8% who prioritize tax cuts being extended for everybody.

The economy is the overwhelming priority of the American people. My crystal ball :-} says that the Republicans will get their asses kicked if they obsess over undoing Obama’s legislative achievements.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 5, 2010 11:35 AM
Comment #312453

TomT,

I think it is truly interesting the way the conservatives in this country can think up cute nicknames for people, especially if they can denigrate those people in the process.
What is even more interesting is that when they are called on it, without batting an eye they boldly claim it was a joke, and go out of their way to continue to denigrate their subject for not having a sense of humour.

I am continually amused at the probability that conservatives, emotionally, seem never to have made it out of the fourth grade.

BTW, that was a joke.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 5, 2010 11:55 AM
Comment #312467

Rocky, my conversation was with Mr. Remer, but since you responded, perhaps you could explain wht the heck you are talking about.

Are you talking about calling Tea Party Conservatives, teabaggers?

Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about!

Posted by: TomT at November 5, 2010 2:48 PM
Comment #312473

TomT,

“Are you talking about calling Tea Party Conservatives, teabaggers?”

Are you aware the the tea party folks were calling themselves that long before they knew what that meant.

“Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about!”

If you didn’t know who Mr. Remer was why wouldn’t you click on the link on any of his posts to find out?

Honestly, conservatives have been using RINO as a pejorative for so long I can only wonder why you would bring something up as comparatively insulting as VOIDINO.

You asked me in an earlier post if I thought the American people were duped, here is a link to a clue.

http://skepchick.org/blog/2010/11/how-do-you-construct-a-political-fake-fact-hodgman-tells-us/

Now this segment was done in a humorous way, but it certainly smacks of the truth about how these “facts” come about, and why some people believe them.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 5, 2010 3:13 PM
Comment #312475

Here’s another;

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/40018314#40018314

How these things even get legs is beyond me.

Disagree with Rachel Maddow all you want, but the subject matter as truth/fact is beyond the pale.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 5, 2010 3:21 PM
Comment #312483

TomT,

So now do you have any idea what I am talking about? The point being that we have people in this country who’s livelihood depends on controversy. If there were none of these “truths” they would be out of a job.
We have “America’s Truth Detective” on national radio saying that Obama is spending $200 million dollars a day, and 1/10th of the American Navy for a field trip to India.
We have Sean Hannity, who’s radio show is so special that every day is a “Special Edition” of the Sean Hannity radio show talking about Obama spending $200 million dollars a day…
We have Michelle Bachmann, who is vying for the House Speakers job, a job that is second in the line of succession to the President, saying Obama, etc, etc.
We have Glen Beck saying that the trip will cost $2 billion dollars on national TV.

These comments are only since the elections 3 days ago.

So I dare you to ask me again if I think the American people were duped.

Hell yes!

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 5, 2010 3:54 PM
Comment #312484

Rocky;

I am in full suport of voting incumbents out, but I am also a VOIDINO, because even though I suport VOID, I only support it so far. Because I would not vote out an incumbent who beleved like me. Hense, I am a VOIDINO. I was not slamming Mr. Remer.

In case you haven’t heard, Kieth Olbermann has been canned by MSNBC. I guess the results of the polls have finally reach management. Is Rachel Maddow next?

Posted by: TomT at November 5, 2010 4:00 PM
Comment #312486

Tom,

Did you actually read why Olbermann was suspended and not fired?

If you had you would know that it wasn’t a result of the polls.

Perhaps another Internet lie being spread by conservatives?

Olbermann was suspended indefinitely for making campaign contributions, which is against the policy of the corporation he is employed for, and BTW is unethical for a responsible journalist to do.

You guys are just too much.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 5, 2010 4:08 PM
Comment #312493

TomT,

So I will assume that once you saw that it was Rachel Maddow doing the piece that you dismissed it alltogether, and didn’t bother to watch it.

And with this comment;

“Is Rachel Maddow next?”

I can assume that when confronted with the truth of the matter you would choose to, in typical conservative fashion, attack the messenger rather than the message.

On last question and I will leave you to your fantasies.

On the off chance you might of heard of the $200 million dollar trip, do you believe it as reported?

I don’t expect you to respond, but at least I feel better now.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 5, 2010 5:18 PM
Comment #312494

Rocky, the clip being from Rachel’s segment was the first bite….the clips from the talking heads from Faux clinched it for them.
Even flat denial from the W.H. goes nowhere when entering into a vacuum.
Since success visited some of their spaces, most mental storage areas (brains) have become even more vacuous. We can only look for more assenine lunacy being launched from now on.

Posted by: jane doe at November 5, 2010 5:28 PM
Comment #312495

Jane,

It’s curious that while the left is being accused of having a mental disorder, all of the lunacy seems to be on the right.

Sadly, it’s only going to get worse before it gets better.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 5, 2010 5:35 PM
Comment #312500

Rocky,

That link in #312475 Is one of the most frightening things I have ever seen. It should be required for all conservatives to be handcuffed to their chair until they have seen and heard it all the way through. They will still deny, deny, deny…but, at least they would know. Knowing might even scare THEM.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 5, 2010 6:36 PM
Comment #312502

Dude,

Even if only half of what Maddow says is true…

I have seen many attacks from the right on Maddow, and Olbermann. They have been called biased, leftists, etc, etc, but not one person from the right has ever refuted what they say.

The problem as I see it is that the right knows it is being lied to, but they don’t care.
The right doesn’t give a rat’s ass about this country, they just want to be in power.

No matter what it takes.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 5, 2010 7:09 PM
Comment #312516

Dude, these people have minds like steel traps! They only open to certain noises and once in, the information is trapped, zapped and snapped shut.
It’s the zapping that curdles the matter. So many years of exposure has left them just nearly mind-less.
And Boner….what a ‘effing’ snob. When asked if he would care to sit down and have a “slurpie conference” with President Obama…he kind of curled his lip….even more than normal, and said…”uhn….how about a Merlot?”
Think I’d tell him to kiss my what, and bring his own jug.

Posted by: jane doe at November 5, 2010 9:24 PM
Comment #312517

Rocky and dude,
Keith O and Rachel M are probably the most intelligent and literate broadcasters around. You know how frightening and intimidating that is to the right fringe. When they talk above the comprehension levels, it’s kind of scary to think what they might be saying.

Posted by: jane doe at November 5, 2010 9:29 PM
Comment #312531

He couldn’t have been to intelligent jane to get his self suspended indefinitly. MSNBC needs to get rid of more of these overpaid jerks that say the same BS everyday. Even CNN is going more to the FOX like format of balanced journalism instead of just Republican bashing journalism.

Posted by: KAP at November 5, 2010 10:34 PM
Comment #312534

OMG….do you know what a ridiculous statement that is, KAP? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Well, I guess you’d be right in the fact that Fox doesn’t bash Republicans.

Posted by: jane doe at November 5, 2010 10:46 PM
Comment #312535

KAP,

I double dare you to actually sit through that video that Rocky linked to. Not just until you get antsy or mad, but all the way through it. Please go to #312475 and click. I don’t think you can possibly regret doing so.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 5, 2010 10:47 PM
Comment #312536

Dude and jane I heard about the 200 mil. BS story. Some news source leaked BS and FOX ignorantly picked up on it and Bachmann was just as stupid going on CNN talking that smack. But jane, Olbermann got canned for being stupid and not clearing his contributions with the bosses of MSNBC. All I do hear out of the four stooges of MSNBC is nothing but conservative and Republican bashing. At least FOX has Democrat contributors, namely Beckel, Williams, Trippy and a few others, I might see 1 Republican contributor on MSNBC.

Posted by: KAP at November 5, 2010 11:09 PM
Comment #312540

KAP,

You didn’t do it did you? You couldn’t take the heat…damn…

As far as Olbermann is concerned…he did the same thing Juan did. He first ticked his boss off about something else entirely, then stuck his foot in his mouth. That, is an offense that any supervisor might take advantage of. I don’t like it because there are limited liberal voices out there and I think it would be better if there were more balance…oh, well…we can’t have everything. Besides, I think it was merely a pi**ing contest between Griffin and Olbermann, and will likely be okay once the dust settles. We’ll see.

Now, to the important stuff. KAP please see the video…all the way through…don’t chicken out. I know Rachel can be irritating, but what is said is important, I think, to us all in this instance.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 5, 2010 11:29 PM
Comment #312544

Dude to be honest Maddow makes me want to gag. I skimmed though parts of the video if Matthews did the video I’d probably listen to the whole thing. Maddow irritating is an understatement.

Posted by: KAP at November 6, 2010 12:08 AM
Comment #312546

Rocky and dude,
Keith O and Rachel M are probably the most intelligent and literate broadcasters around. You know how frightening and intimidating that is to the right fringe. When they talk above the comprehension levels, it’s kind of scary to think what they might be saying.

Posted by: jane doe at November 5, 2010 09:29 PM


Right…What we have is an idiot and a man hating dyke who say the same thing over and over. If they are so smart, why is MSNBC on the bottom of the food chain?

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 6, 2010 12:38 AM
Comment #312550

KAP,

That’s a coward’s way out, and you know it. The below is not in Rachel’s irritating voice, but it tells a tale you should become familiar with:

host Rachel Maddow closed her program Friday night with a segment about the suspension of her “colleague and friend Keith Olbermann,” arguing that the suspension underscores the difference between MSNBC and Fox News.

Maddow ran down a list of Fox News hosts’ and contributors’ political donations and fundraising activities, ranging from Sean Hannity’s political donations to Glenn Beck’s on-air fundraising to Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin’s political careers.

Maddow argued that MSNBC’s suspension of Olbermann in light of his political donations (without prior network approval) showed that it is a real news organization, as opposed to Fox News, which allows its hosts to engage in political activity without consequence.

“Let this incident lay to rest forever the facile, never-true-anyway, bull-pucky, lazy conflation of Fox News and what the rest of us do for a living,” she said. “I know everybody likes to say, ‘Oh, that’s cable news, it’s all the same. Fox and MSNBC, mirror images of each other.’ Let this lay that to rest forever. Hosts on Fox News raise money for Republican candidates. They endorse them explicitly, they use their Fox News profile to headline fundraisers. Heck, there are multiple people being paid by Fox News now to essentially run for office as Republican candidates….They can do that because there’s no rule against that as Fox. They run as a political operation; we’re not.”

You will notice that she skipped the chance to substitute the real name of the FAUX network…:)

Posted by: Marysdude at November 6, 2010 6:26 AM
Comment #312551

>What we have is an idiot and a man hating dyke who say the same thing over and over. If they are so smart, why is MSNBC on the bottom of the food chain?
Posted by: Beretta9 at November 6, 2010 12:38 AM


B69(tee hee),

The answer to your question:

Because MSNBC viewers are not wrapped in hate, and don’t spew filth every time they open their mouths. America has more media watchers who subscribe to that sewer than to reason and logic. That is not the problem of course, the problem is that proponents of that filth (small number that it is) contaminate every one they come into contact with, with the same ugliness.

KAP,

B69(tee hee)’s rant, is the very reason you should watch that video. I know it will be like getting a tooth pulled without antiseptic, but please ‘do it for the kids sake!’.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 6, 2010 6:38 AM
Comment #312556

mary’s dud (tee hee)

I guess it would depend on Fox News’s working contract compared to MSNBC’s. You know dud (tee hee) those pesky rules we live by. I guess Olbermann broke the rules and paid the price.

“America has more media watchers who subscribe to that sewer than to reason and logic.”

So dud (tee hee), 7 million viewers watched Fox News on election day, compared to what, maybe a couple hundred thousand on MSNBC? And those pesky Fox viewers are just plain stupid and illogical for not watching MSNBC instead?

Evidently, this is not the first time Olbermann got in trouble:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1017730/keith_olbermann_chris_matthews_demoted.html

You might be interested in this article:

“Msnbc Going Down-down-down..
Posted by Ulsterman in Telewatching on September 28, 2010”


“Yet further evidence released this week that once Comcast completes its buyout of NBC Universal there will be a major shakeup at the flailing MSNBC cable news network. A Politico-George Washington University poll found that MSNBC ranks lowest of all cable news networks.
And it wasn’t even close.
According to the poll, Fox News continues its viewer domination, with 42% saying it was their main source of news. 30% indicated CNN while an abysmal 12% cited MSNBC. Industry insiders now speculate that it was NBC’s decision to make MSNBC a far-left news network that ultimately proved its undoing. “When Bush was president, MSNBC enjoyed higher ratings simply because mainstream Americans had grown angry toward the then president. Since Bush has left office, these same viewers have lost interest in MSNBC’s brand of angry liberalism. Personalities like Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz in particular have become, for a lack of a better term, played out in the current political climate. Sponsors are stepping away from MSNBC because it simply lacks the audience or prestige to give a good bang for buck regarding advertising dollars.” Said Lance Blegorn, media consultant for the Atlanta based advertising firm MediaMotek.
What is now clear is that if MSNBC does not alter its programming, and overall tone of its cable news content, it will fall further and further into the abyss of irrelevancy.”


Read more: http://telewatcher.com/telewatching/msnbc-going-down-down-down/#ixzz14Vhhpebz

Dud (tee hee), notice the poll says, “MSNBC’s brand of angry liberalism”. This kind of flies in the face of Maddow’s (dyke:tee hee) comments, doesn’t it? I guess it’s all about the money, or lack of (tee hee). MSNBA is gong the way of Air America, hahaha.

Pesky proof of reality… (tee hee)

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 6, 2010 10:04 AM
Comment #312559

Dude All I hear out of the 4 stooges (now three) is nothing but FOX hating and bashing Republicans. I don’t have to listen to a video to know that. B9 is right MSNBC is going the way of Air America because they only cater to liberals. MSNBC viewers are not raped in hate as you said but MSNBC’s comentators are, they spew only hate and filth and that is what is bringing them down. Olberman is only the start, next I hope is Shultz, then Maddow, Matthews last.

Posted by: KAP at November 6, 2010 10:40 AM
Comment #312561

KAP, if the liberals are suffering from depression and rejection now, what are they going to do when the liberal wackos are taken of the cable news shows. They will have to look to other sources for their talking points, haha.

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 6, 2010 10:58 AM
Comment #312562

KAP, Beretta9,

So what we have here is the right again ignoring the message to attack the messenger and from what I gather from your posts, apparently the truth depends on how popular the vehicle is.

Personally I don’t care about the ratings at MSNBC, CNN, or Fox. I don’t care if the information comes from someone that is liberal or conservative. All that matters is the truth.

Did the commentator, Maddow, speak the truth?

Frankly, I don’t want her words to be true either. I would find it appalling to know that 50% of American voters are complete idiots, believing the information they get from an echo chamber that spews lies, and eschews the truth for better ratings, and vote their conscience on those lies.
I would find it equally appalling that anyone would ignore the message simply because the messenger isn’t popular.

As I have looked up through the posts on this thread I see a lot of links to polls. IMHO, polls are useless. They are, like ratings, merely an indicator of how good a sales job has been done, and Americans can be sold anything if it’s shiny enough.

So guys, prove Maddow wrong. Show me some “reality” that disproves the facts she stated.

My hope is that you can. I am willing to be wrong on this. Because if you can’t this country is in deep s*&t.

BTW, I’m not holding my breath.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 6, 2010 11:10 AM
Comment #312563

Rocky, Her message is for the liberal audience and she tells them what they want to hear as FOX tells the conservative audience what they want to hear. As far as truth goes I like to find out for myself outside of the MSM. Rocky, Maddow and her co workers on MSNBC are biased liberals as FOX personnalities are biased conservatives. So your guess is as good as mine as to who is telling the truth.
B9 They still have KOS and Huffington Post rags.

Posted by: KAP at November 6, 2010 11:42 AM
Comment #312576

KAP,

“So your guess is as good as mine as to who is telling the truth.”

That’s the crux of the biscuit.
Are we so incurious as to denigrate the messenger without caring about the truth?

It shouldn’t matter whether the source of the truth is biased or not. It shouldn’t be the truth “from a certain point of view”.

The truth is the truth, and we all should be searching for it, no matter where we find it. If the source makes us uncomfortable, all the better. It might actually make us think for a minute, and perhaps, re-align our priorities.

So the question remains, did Maddow speak the truth?

I am glad I’m not holding my breath.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 6, 2010 1:13 PM
Comment #312581

KAP,

You fail every test of the curious mind. That makes you merely another ditto-head, with nothing to base your judgments on other than those you ‘trust’ to speak for you. A good definition might be ‘mindless follower’. Go to the link in #312475, watch it all the way through (no cheating) and come back and tell me how dishonest her video is. Then we might be able to come of one mind on some things. I’ve cringed through several of FAUX’s most noxious offerings and it did not kill me. Go for it!

Posted by: Marysdude at November 6, 2010 1:32 PM
Comment #312582

NPR (a neutral media), MSNBC (NBC too), ABC and CBS fell prior, so as soon as MSNBC is gone, it will be all FAUX, all the time, and y’all can rejoice. Nothing but exaggerations, deceptions and lies twenty-four/seven/three sixty-five…whee!

Posted by: Marysdude at November 6, 2010 1:40 PM
Comment #312583

I have a vision…I see the future America…I see little children standing with their little hands over their hearts reciting…

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of Corporation, LLC, and to the Republic for which it no longer stands. One divided nation, under a very strange conservative God, divided, with no civil liberties, and injustice for all.”

Posted by: Marysdude at November 6, 2010 1:53 PM
Comment #312584

Dude, Rocky, I just finished listening to that rant by Maddow. I find it funny to say the least. Truthful, like she said anything can be written on the internet and some dumb ass will take it as fact. As far as being frightening “NO”.
Both sides have their loons. You have Pelosi, Republicans have Bachmann. I have heard stupid things on both FOX and MSNBC. I think a new show should be started called “MSM’s Bloopers” and like I said I DON’T take any news commentators comments as fact. What I find odd about the now 3 stooges of MSNBC is why they don’t report on the stupidity of the left and there has been plenty of that like there has on the right.

Posted by: KAP at November 6, 2010 2:06 PM
Comment #312588

HEAVEN AND HELL

While walking down the street one day a Corrupt Senator was
tragically hit by a car and died.

His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

“Welcome to heaven,” says St. Peter. “Before you settle in, it seems
there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts,
you see, so we’re not sure what to do with you.”

“No problem, just let me in,” says the Senator.

“Well, I’d like to, but I have orders from the higher ups. What we’ll
do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can
choose where to spend eternity.”

“Really?, I’ve made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,” says the
Senator.

“I’m sorry, but we have our rules.”

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes
down, down, down to hell.

The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf
course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it
are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.

Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him,
shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while
getting rich at the expense of the people. They played a friendly game
of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and the finest champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who is
having a good time dancing and telling jokes.

They are all having such a good time that before the Senator realizes
it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator
rises.

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens in heaven where St.
Peter is waiting for him, “Now it’s time to visit heaven…”

So, 24 hours passed with the Senator joining a group of contented
souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They
have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone
by and St. Peter returns.

“Well, then, you’ve spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now
choose your eternity.”

The Senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: “Well, I would
never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I
think I would be better off in hell.”

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down
to hell…

Now the doors of the elevator open and he’s in the middle of a barren
land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed
in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more
trash falls from above

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulders.

“I don’t understand,” stammers the Senator. “Yesterday I was here and
there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar,
drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there’s just a
wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What
happened?”

The devil smiles at him and says,

“Yesterday we were campaigning, Today, you voted..”

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 6, 2010 2:50 PM
Comment #312623

Marysdude, MSNBC is NOT neutral. On balance, their programming is unabashedly left leaning. However, MSNBC does a good job of separating their News which is real factual news, from the political infotainers like Chris Matthews, Maddow, and others. Rattigan is biased toward the Independents, and quite non-partisan in his approach as far as Dems and Reps go. He is a bi-partisan critic.

MSNBC hosts 3 hours of Joe Scarborough, a former Republican Congressman who remains a Republican but, exhibits no biased constraints on applauding or defending Obama and Democrats when in his opinion they deserve it. Which makes the Joe Scarborough show what I might truly call more fair and balanced. His co-host leans liberal, and he has a great many liberal guests on right along side conservative guests and he treats them all with respect and cordial conduct as they debate the issues of the day.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2010 9:27 PM
Comment #312629

DRR,

I think I said NPR was neutral media, and then only before it became right biased. MSNBC has always been left biased for the most part, just as FAUX has swerved right. The main difference has always been the extremes that FAUX has been willing to go to show their bias. I think I was trying to say that FAUX’s successes has caused all media to attempt to copy, and soon we’ll have no liberal media left. The balance has shifted in America because of a few hundred thousand far right kooks. As unsuccessful as the KKK was as an organization, their ethos have taken over our information providers.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 7, 2010 6:48 AM
Comment #312644

KAP,

“What I find odd about the now 3 stooges of MSNBC is why they don’t report on the stupidity of the left and there has been plenty of that like there has on the right.”

Where does FOX report on the stupidity of the right?

Perhaps you haven’t followed the point to it’s logical conclusion.

There may be only 10 people watching MSNBC on a regular basis. I won’t include myself in that number because I drop in to watch only occasionally. Limbaugh claims his “bully pulpit” attracts more than 20 million listeners a week. Hannity likewise has equally high ratings both on the radio and on FOX. Beck is well, Beck.

Carl Sagan once said;

“If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs.”

Well, it would seem, IMHO, that we are up for grabs. To those that listen to, or watch the triad of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck their word is unassailable. There are few, if any, skeptical questions asked, and when there is any dissent from the gospel of the right, those questioning are dismissed as liberal socialists, or “stooges”.

And that’s just so wrong on so many levels.

I have, for most of my adult life considered myself a moderate, and I have been criticized roundly for not strictly adhering to the ideology of the left or the right.

Well excuse me, but screw ideology. Ideology cossets the lie.

If those in this country don’t start asking skeptical questions of their “most popular”, and “highest rated demagogues, and demanding answers, I fear for us all.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 7, 2010 11:21 AM
Comment #312647

The Droid will hear you if you speak up. The Droid is all knowing. The Droid will take care of you. The Droid hates descent. The Droid will lie to you, and ask you to believe the lie. If you do not believe the lie, the Droid will cause a severe shock in that collar you have around your neck.

A classic example of the media and leadership of the right, and especially of the Tea Ba-ba-b-Party.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 7, 2010 12:55 PM
Comment #312649

Rocky FOX does talk about the stupidity of the right. I don’t listen to Beck, Limbaugh, or very much of Hannity. When Beck is on I switch to Matthews and when Hannity is on I’m usually watching some other program in that time slot and as far as Rush NEVER.

Posted by: KAP at November 7, 2010 2:05 PM
Comment #312651

KAP,

“Rocky FOX does talk about the stupidity of the right.”

Really?

Couldn’t prove it by me.

“I don’t listen to Beck, Limbaugh, or very much of Hannity.”

Never said you did.
I have and do, and while you may not listen, there are tens of millions in this country that hang on their every word.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 7, 2010 2:52 PM
Comment #312652

Rocky, You ever watch O’Riely? He gets down on the stupidity of both sides. He even defened BHO on occasion.

Posted by: KAP at November 7, 2010 3:10 PM
Comment #312677

KAP,

O’Reilly?

Oh you mean the guy that seems to think that all Muslims are responsible for Sept. 11th?

“He gets down on the stupidity of both sides.”

Yeah, and in the process has defined his very own brand of stupid.

Not somebody I want to look up to.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 7, 2010 8:32 PM
Comment #312680

Rocky, You can use all the political corret terms you want but it was Muslims that were responsible for 9/11. No matter what term you give them, be it Radical, extremist or what ever they were in fact MUSLIMS. It was a general term he used.

Posted by: KAP at November 7, 2010 9:28 PM
Comment #312685

KAP,

It was ‘terrorists’ who took down the towers. Whatever label you use other than that is merely bigotry. Terrorists have bombed trains in Japan, and in that same country exposed folks to saran gas. Terrorists have attacked the underground railway in England, trains in Spain and France. Terrorists have taken out American Embassy’s, killed Jews at Olympic events, bombed each other, committed rapes and genocide in various places in the world. Terrorists have bombed federal buildings and committed serial murders in America. They were all terrorists, but not all were Muslim. The hate you spew toward a billion plus peoples is appalling.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 7, 2010 10:18 PM
Comment #312686

KAP,

Yes, extremists were responsible for Sept. 11th, however I can’t determine if some people can tell the difference.

Frankly, I don’t consider it “politically correct” to recognize that all Muslims weren’t responsible for for the extremists any more than I would blame all Catholics for the actions of some of their priests.

BTW, I don’t necessarily believe in political correctness, but I do recognize when someone pees on my shoes and tells me it’s raining.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 7, 2010 10:20 PM
Comment #312687

Dude They were terrorist of the MUSLIM persuasion, they were not Jews, they were not Christians, they were not African or whatever. They were Islamic, Muslim, Radical or extermist if you want to use that term. It is NOT spewing hate over all Muslims it is giving a general ethnic grouping. It’s like saying a gang of whites robbed a bank, does that mean all whites are bank robbers. OF COURCE NOT.

Posted by: KAP at November 7, 2010 10:31 PM
Comment #312689

Rocky I don’t blame all Muslims no more then I blame all Catholics for actions of some of their priests. It is just giving an ethnic grouping of the responsible party.

Posted by: KAP at November 7, 2010 10:39 PM
Comment #312702

According to KAP, the 50,000 or so Muslim women who were raped, and the 100,000 or so Muslim men who were tortured and murdered by Serbians, was Christian terrorism.

So Muslim terrorists committed terrorism against America by killing less than 3,000, and Christian terrorists killed and raped 150,000 Bosniaks. In numbers, that would seem to put the Christians way out in front for terrorism…Rah Rah Rah! Christians are ‘winning’, in the war OF terrorism.

Many Muslims look upon the invasion of Iraq as a continuation of the Christian Crusades…Christian numbers FOR terrorism just keeps climbing…damn it’s going to be pretty hard for Muslims to beat that kind of score.

Holding a whole people accountable for the actions of a few is what happens when you skip the political correctness, and call a spade a pitchfort. Muslims did NOT fly airplanes into the twin towers. Terrorists, who were mostly of the Muslim faith, flew those planes. If you insist on using Muslim to describe that terrorist act, you are just as big a bigot as O’Reiley.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 8, 2010 7:00 AM
Comment #312704

KAP-
My opinion on political correctness is that it represents two problems. One is liberals getting anal retentive about vestigial issues of culture, race and gender and other prejudices in the language. This, I believe, is more silly than harmful. The language will adapt in time, the attitudes are what matter, really.

The other problem is people reacting against political correctness, and thereby using that reaction as an excuse to indulge in their favorite, out-of-favor-with-society bigotry.

That, I don’t think is so cute.

The terrorists were Muslim. That is correct. Just as it is correct that Christians slaughtered and raped Muslims in the Balkans during the last decade. Just as it’s correct that most Christians in this country balked at what the Serbians did, and most Muslims balked at what the al-Qaeda terrorists did.

I’m more interested in what is correct and incorrect, than what is politically correct and incorrect.

And you should be, too. What does it matter if you’ve shown those damn liberals that they’re not the boss of what you say and believe, if you’re boxing in a whole bunch of people into a category of enemies where they don’t belong? Where’s the brake here on what is right or wrong to say about somebody, where belief has to end, and an examination of the facts has to begin?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 8, 2010 10:43 AM
Comment #312706

S.D. I agree. I did NOT box a whole group into the mix. As I gave the example to Dude ” A group of whites rob a bank does that mean that all whites are bank robbers” Of course not just like all Muslims are NOT terrorist just like all Serbians are NOT rapist.

Posted by: KAP at November 8, 2010 11:25 AM
Comment #312708

That is even more damnable when there is a fire smoldering already. It is the misuse of language during heated times that incites folks to rebel against Mosques being built in a given neighborhood. To vandalize religious buildings and deface religious symbols. It is such speech that encourages bullying by ganging up. The problem is not so much that it is done sometimes, but rather that it is defended, even when it is obviously doing harm. PC has little to do with whether words cause physical and mental harm to innocents. Common decency precludes doing deliberate harm to a totality of a people, whether by word or deed.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 8, 2010 11:50 AM
Comment #312709

Saying that a group of white’s robbed a bank, will not cause vigilantism to break out against the white races. Saying Muslims created terrorist acts against America has and will. You have every right to say the damnable things you repeat, and I would never infringe in any way upon those rights. I also have every right to label you a bigot, because, to me, the misuse of language, in order to do deliberate harm to people because of their faith or color is absolutely bigotry.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 8, 2010 11:57 AM
Comment #312710

Dude, Even Muslims know that Muslims were the ones who created the terrorist attacks and have condemned them. Dude read the last paragraph you wrote #312702 “Muslims did not fly the planes into the twin towers, Terrorist who were mostly of MUSLIM faith did”. Your basicly saying the same thing I am.

Posted by: KAP at November 8, 2010 12:14 PM
Comment #312724

What I’m saying does not incite to riot or to prejudicial acts of violence against a people. How you say something counts, When you say something counts. Why you say something counts. It is your choice, but if you choose to say something in such a way as to contribute to the problem…it just ain’t right, period. And, it is a hundred times worse if you have an audience of several million folks who trust your opinion.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 8, 2010 2:25 PM
Comment #312725

Dude talk about over reaction.

Posted by: KAP at November 8, 2010 2:49 PM
Comment #312727

Dude, Also after what O’Riely said on the View I haven’t heard of any riots or violence.

Posted by: KAP at November 8, 2010 2:56 PM
Comment #312745

And, your point?

Over reaction?

O’Reiley said something that contributed to the native’s unrest. If it did not lead to a direct confrontation or harm (we’ll likely never really know about that), at the very least it can be added to all the other similar things that have been said in the same vein. Do you at least admit that too much of a good thing is not necessarily a good thing?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 8, 2010 4:26 PM
Post a comment