Democrats & Liberals Archives

Vote for Boring Government: Vote for Democrats

I was feeling good about the directions things were going politically, until I read about this.

See, that’s my big problem. Republicans aren’t content for that government we elect to function properly.

I believe that we elect those people to be responsible stewards, not people who pull stunts with our nation's future at stake. It's not bad to take chances, it's bad to take chances stupidly. The downside to playing this wrong is not merely considerable, it's catastrophic. No other majority, Republican or otherwise, has ever taken this chance.

You might think government's too big, just as you might think a car's going too fast, but the solution is not to steer either one into a brick wall. Governments are a big factor in their nation's economy, and to just run spending up against a break wall may very well end our excess spending, but it will also, likely enough, wreck the economic engine as well.

If you truly are a realist, you'll understand that this is the wrong way to end our reliance on debt financing. For all their posturing, the Republicans of 1994 didn't run this nation into a brick wall. They allowed a strengthening economy and a budget tightened in a time of surplus to resolve the problem.

Or put another way, the Republicans are going to repudiate the approach that they effectively took with President Clinton to successfully balance the budget. They are not even going to do things the way they once did things right.

It's one thing for a party not to learn from its failures, but to fail to learn from its successes?

Democrats were not so unwilling. They agreed to Pay-Go the minute they got in. They funded their major, ongoing initiatives on tax dollars and offsets, not new deficit spending.

And where they did deficit spend, they spread the wealth evenly, generated jobs, and helped get us out of the immediate crisis, and back growing.

Ah, but we can't have things going so well, if the programs are liberal, now can we? Not content to jump on failures, the Republicans have continually attacked where Democrats have succeeded. Not even his successful defeat of our enemy, Osama Bin Laden, inspired the Republican to give credit. No, giving Democrats credit on anything would encourage them to do things their way, and you know, even if it works better, we just can't have that, can we? Oh, especially if it works better!

I promise you one thing: Democrats are not interested in holding this nation hostage to implement policy they can't otherwise force people to support. We're not interested in running huge deficits, nor are we interested in having a crappy economy. We're interested in a return to better times, times of peace, where energy doesn't cost you an arm and a leg. We're interested in seeing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security set on a sustainable course for decades to come. I mean, why would we want our flagship programs to fail, or become an unbearable burden? What in that for us? What would be in that for anybody?

I want all of you to actually look at and consider the implications of the Republican's rhetoric. If they are right, Democrats would have to be implausibly disinterested in their own good fortunes.

I mean, look at what happened with the Republicans when they wrecked the economy, both times. It wasn't pretty. Republicans claim we'd raise taxes like crazy, but do you remember what happened in 1994, after Democrats raised taxes? There's often a political price to pay for putting such policies in place. To act as if Democrats could just ride tax rates like Slim Pickens riding his nuke to oblivion is just foolish.

Most of us just want a country that works, where we're not half a step behind every problem we've got, where we're not getting into some additional kind of idiocy over some political crap. If we get into a war, we want to get into it for a good reason, not over a slapdash collection of badly analyzed intelligence. We don't want to wait ten years to get the guy who killed three thousand American. We don't want to support a dozen or so authoritarian regimes only to see the hardship they impose on their people rebound on us.

We want America to get its finances straight, but not punish the average working or middle class American to do so. We want to see those who cheat people and act irresponsibly on Wall Street go to jail, or at the very least not get million dollar bonuses for running their businesses into the ground.

I could go on, but it would be better if I just summarized: I want a government that keeps things together that makes things better. I don't need it to make everything alright, but where it's involved in my life, I want it helping me, aiding me, on my side.

I want a government that succeeds at its responsibilities before it even thinks of performing for its constituents. I want a government that solves more problems than it creates, even if solving the problem is politically inconvenient, even damaging. I want a government that sets the stage for the rest of America to succeed, rather than being a boat anchor on the fortunes of the middle class and poor in order to reward the already blessed, already recovered rich.

I want a government that can make me feel like it's safe to look away from the news for a little bit, rather than one that keeps on dumping one crisis after another on me, so it can extort policies I don't want from me.

Republicans seem to want their government to be entertaining, their leaders to be action heroes, their pundits to be master storytellers spinning out these outlandish plots, and all of them locked in a life and death battle with the Democrats for the fate of the country.

Me? I just want the people in govenrment to stop doing stupid crap. I want them to face our problems rather than ignoring them to primp and preen for their constituents.

I want a government that stops losing me sleep as to whether we'll still have a functional, much less growing economy in another year. And you know what? I'm not losing sleep over the people who are doing their jobs. I'm losing sleep over what the Republican Party is doing to my country.

Next year, let's vote to make government boring again, to make it dependable, to make it to where you can turn your back without having your government shove this country into another debacle. Let's go back to the days when you could fall asleep watching political news.

Update 3:00 CST:

“The full consequences of a default — or even the serious prospect of default — by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar.”

Bonus points for any Republican who can name who said that without clicking this link.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2011 1:46 PM
Comments
Comment #323257

Nothing even resembling fear-mongering in SD’s comments is there?

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 16, 2011 7:47 PM
Comment #323261

Royal Flush-
Your party assumed it could get away with not unwinding the positions of Lehman Brothers, trying to make itself look conservative. That didn’t work out as planned.

Your party assumed it could let the law of the jungle solve the problem of “Too Big To Fail.”

The markets didn’t see it that way.

Republicans are good at convincing themselves, these days, to take big risks with both their own welfare, and that of the nation.

The rest of us aren’t amused anymore.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2011 9:13 PM
Comment #323262

And to think that SD believes that not a single democrat had a hand in the Lehman Bros, et al failures and crookedness. It is truly difficult to see when you are so blind.

SD, when ya gonna fess up that the democrats have done a lot of wrong in the financial doings of the government. Starting with Ding and Dong (Dodd and Frank).

Posted by: tom humes at May 16, 2011 9:19 PM
Comment #323264

tom humes-
Hmmm. Fun with the distinction between categorical and particular statements.

I’ve never said Democrats were uninvolved. I’ve never said that Dodd and Frank bore no responsibility. But how the hell does just one representative in the House, and just one senator somehow make all the policy changes that were required for the important events of the Financial crisis to occur?

And where the Republicans in all this? Magically, they disappear from frame. Despite the fact that for the vast majority of the lead up to the economic collapse, they were in charge. They introduced the legislation, decided whether in went forward or not.

Your argument distracts the reader from the presence of a critical set of players in the room. One representative and one Senator could not cripple the world’s greatest economy all in the space of a couple years. No matter how guilty they are, legislation requires majorities, requires ways past filibusters, etc.

It’s not a matter of simple rhetoric on my part, the votes of the Republican Party are public record, your people have the blood of the laws they destroyed on their hands.

Frankly, it’s a pathetic argument to try and paint me as a hypocrite on this subject because I focus so sharply on Republicans. Why? Because if you ask me, I believe it was a mistake for them, too, to support what they did, to support the conglomeration of banks, to support the dark market in OTC derivatives. I’m not trying to tell you that it was okay when the Democrats supported it. It wasn’t. The policy in general was a mistake, and should have been entirely corrected.

But, what I would point out is that before this economic crisis came along and made your mission to deregulate the banks so unpopular and suspect, your people were boasting about it, and insisting that it remain the way it was for the good of the economy. You were forever cautioning that we shouldn’t increase regulation, because that would harm the economy.

But hey, let’s forget all that. They’ve learned their lesson, right? Wrong. Your side still opposed Wall Street Reform, and never had a serious proposal to deal with it.

I want change. I want financial markets that don’t resemble roller coasters in their paths and in the puke that ends up all over the place. I’ve had it with just letting all these critical American systems blow up in our faces. We need something better than a system of naive laissez faire.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2011 10:00 PM
Comment #323265


Tom Humes, ding and dong were ranking members when the damage was done. Mutt and Jeff (Shelby and Oxley) were the chairmen.

But yes, Stephen has always had a problem admitting that his party sold out to the Corpocracy Republicans for money, and still are in large part.

You will here little talk about not taking corporate donations from either side in the next election cycle.

There are differing versions of corpocracy.

Democrats have the problem of protecting the programs that the people like. Those are the hallmarks of the party and to do otherwise is political suicide for the party.

Republicans have the problem of convincing the people that they really don’t like and don’t want those programs. To continue to pursue this strategy could threaten the party with marginalization again.

Posted by: jlw at May 16, 2011 10:23 PM
Comment #323268


Tom, the real culprits on the Democratic side of the issue were Rubin, Summers, and these guys lied to me Clinton. They, along with Republicans like, Gramm, Leach, and Bliley got the ball down court and Bush and the Republicans slam dunked it. While adding two unfunded wars, massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and trillions in additional debt. I almost forgot Greenspan, who sorrowfully said he was wrong about self-regulation of the market, before riding off into the sunset with his millions.

The banks big customers got the bailout and the foreclosures are still happening. So the banks got the properties as well. Summers was the primary author of the housing derivatives.

In the next election cycle, the corpocracy will invest a couple billion on Democrats and Republicans. Two or three billion is dirt cheap to buy the government of the United States.

Posted by: jlw at May 16, 2011 11:05 PM
Comment #323272

jlw-
No, I don’t have any trouble admitting that. In fact I once wrote an entire article about it.

It’s not that I’m unaware of or unwilling to admit how compromised the current crop of Democrats in Washington are. I just don’t think attacking them directly is the best strategy. If I can make Republican policy deeply unpopular, tie it around their necks like an albatross, then those who support that policy in my party will either get with the program, or get kicked out of office.

I don’t figure I’ll win all the battles all at once. But I figure if I win the right battles first, the other battles either get easier, or don’t need to be fought at all.

Yes, Democrats were compromised. But I’d rather take out the ones who compromised them, who make the offending policy their mission, rather than those who I can likely convince to back off.

Break the Republicans, and you make it harder for the conservative Democrats to do damage.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 17, 2011 8:24 AM
Comment #323279

SD writes; “I don’t figure I’ll win all the battles all at once. But I figure if I win the right battles first, the other battles either get easier, or don’t need to be fought at all.”

I wonder if SD can name just one battle he has won personally here on Watchblog. Just whom has he convinced to go over to the dark side? Obviously, his small voice persuades no one either here or in the general public. I wonder why he believe he has such influence?

I read that Nevada has joined Maine in getting their states exempt from Obamacare. There are more to come. Dear Leader might have to answer some very embarrassing questions about why his administration has to grant so many waivers if this crappy obamacare is so great.

As I understand it, the waivers are granted because the administration agrees that the provisions will cause harsh consequences if not granted. He will need an expert flim-flam person writing that answer for him. And, his staff will have to keep their fingers crossed that Dear Leader doesn’t flub the answer when reading it from the ever present teleprompter.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 17, 2011 3:46 PM
Comment #323283


Stephen, the only part of your argument that I buy is the part about tying a dead albatross around their necks.

A moderate Republican sticks a finger in the air to test the wind and it gets shot off by the far right.

The Democratic Party becomes a moderate Republican party for corporate dollars, compromises Democratic principles with the radical right and we are supposed to say, gosh fellas, we wish you wouldn’t do that, but as long as you give us good rhetoric, we will continue to vote for you.

You can’t shame these Democrats, they need the money. They had their opportunity. They passed a health care bill that was basically written by the industry and filled with Republican amendments, then passed it without a Republican vote.

They helped (putting it mildly) to deregulate Wall Street, then faked re-regulation. Dodd may have been shamed into leaving the Senate, but he left with a parting shot at Democratic principles.

IMO, Medicare does need some reform. I no longer trust Democrats to negotiate those reforms.

Rhetorically, the parties are miles apart. Productively, they are not.

I would like to support globalization, but I can’t, because it has become an instrument for attacking American workers.

Today, the Democratic Party is further right than the Republican Party was when Reagan was president.

Today I received some of those address labels, with an American flag on them, from a corporation wanting my business. The corporations says “they’re a great way to show your patriotism.” The corporation has shown it’s patriotism by outsourcing American jobs. The Democratic Party showed it’s patriotism by helping the corporations outsource American jobs.

Posted by: jlw at May 17, 2011 4:37 PM
Comment #323285

jlw-
The question is not the static condition of the party, but the dynamic. If we focus on the non-ideal state of the party, well, it becomes the answer every time as to why the Democrats don’t deserve power, and with the Republicans in charge, or at least dominant in policy circles, that means the problems persists.

I think I should remind you that both Healthcare Reform and Wall Street Reform were dead issues before. If you say, “the current reforms are not enough”, I say you’re right. If you say they’re largely symbolic, right again.

But just five years ago, they were the dimmest of possibilities. The fact that anything passed, especially in spite of a Republican filibuster on both counts, shows something has changed.

If we want to be passive, we can say that because of the failure to get what we really wanted, that we lost. But look at the other side. This is the stuff they’re fighting against. Why? Because they recognize that now that the taboo has been broken, things are going to move further in that direction.

That’s why our friend Royal Flush and his friends in the GOP constantly harp on socialism: they’re afraid of losing power. They’re afraid that if they don’t pound the crap out of any movement of ours now, it will take over.

The shortfalls are largely a result of the pressure they and their allies have brought to bear. If it weren’t for them, we could have pushed this much further, and they know it. You can either fall in step with their campaign to get people like you to quit in despair, or you can decide that you’re going to take advantage of the breaking of the Republican’s policy stranglehold, and pry the fingers off that much more.

I’m not interested in just expressing my support for a preferred policy, and failing to concern myself with whether it would even pass. I want to create substantive change, not just release a lot of hot air politically. I want to leverage political power to change policy, even if I have to deal with a system that only slowly changes at first.

Royal Flush-
First let me point out that even if my posts have been relatively unsuccessful, as you would have it, I don’t expect your work’s been successful at all. You just have too much contempt for those who don’t share your views.

Before you attempt to turn that around on me, just compare our different styles. Do you see me taking half the potshots you do at people? I’ve stayed here as long as I have because when I take the debate to my opponents I’m not looking to damage them half as much as I’m looking to damage whatever case they’re presenting.

That’s why you’re constantly attacking them as “talking points”. Well, a talking point is just a formal method of debate. A talking point, can be right, wrong, or unprovable. You don’t try to prove, disprove, or show as unprovable much of anything that I put up. You just give reasons you’re going to ignore it.

By contrast, I’ve explained why I find the scapegoating of Dodd and Frank for the economic disaster to be nonsense. I’ve given reasons that this Republican Talking point is wrong. I’ve also written an entire post debunking the Republican Talking point that it was Freddie and Fannie’s failure that took down the market. Rather than simply say, “The Republicans are a bunch of fascists, so they must be wrong” I cited lower than average default rates, a diminishing market share, a regulatory inability to take on the riskiest loans, and so on as reasons the Republicans were wrong.

It may be a futile effort with some, but I like to think that for those who come here and read, it’s a more refreshing thing to read than more hackneyed cliches of rhetoric about socialists and trying to destroy America from your side. I don’t even like that approach from my side. It works when you’re among friends, but your friends will almost always share your biases.

My sensibility is that I want it to be possible for somebody with a halfway-open mind to read what I’ve written, and come to agree with it, even if they’re not a Democrat or a Liberal.

As for the waivers from “dear leader”, they only get granted if the program that the people come up with does the job that Healthcare reform is meant to do. Which means you must hate it, because that means it must be Obamacare by other means!

By the way, if you want to know how bad your political prospects on the right are, how about this: In a match-up between Sarah Palin and Dennis Kucinich, Kucinich wins.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 17, 2011 5:50 PM
Comment #323287

I offer to your attention a film about six priorities of the generalized instruments of management by countries and people of Earth.
Six Principles of Global Manipulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fF3TQ0lJnU
Anti-Qur’an Strategy of the Bible Project Wheeler-Dealers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1wXgXwj3MI
Nibiru and Annunakis on the Swiss francs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDoU3tLwc3o

Posted by: tank at May 17, 2011 6:10 PM
Comment #323290

This should be “Vote for Socialists; Vote for Democrats”.

Now the left would have us to believe we are spreading conspiracy theories, or that we hate union haters, or that we are falsely accusing the left of being communist. You make the call. I would really like to know Warped Reality’s take on this event in CA, with unions and communists walking arm in arm. I guess the sad thing is the left cannot understand why conservatives call Obama and his cronies, socialists… But it turns out that is what they are…

“Look at the pictures below…were they taken in Cuba? Venezuela? Bolivia? Ecuador, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Argentina, maybe Puerto Rico?

Nope… Los Angeles, USA just the 7th of May…this is what happened while we slept…while we went to school, went to work, while we raised our families. While we watched CNN or CBS, ABC or NBC or listened to NPR or read the New York Times and never saw, read or heard a minute of coverage of this travesty…while we let our guard down and we let the Marxist/Socialist/Communist Left and Progressives creep into our schools, the unions, the media and our government…banners and posters with the images of Ernesto “Che” Guevara (Castro’s executioner) and Lenin would make Fidel Castro, Joe Stalin or Karl Marx proud to be an American!
A May Day rally in Los Angeles, co-sponsored by the SEIU and various communist groups, as well as other unions, reflected yet another step in the normalization of self-identified communist and socialist ideologies in the Obama era. Not only did the SEIU help to organize the rally in conjunction with communists, they marched side-by-side with communists, while union members carried communist flags, communists carried union signs, and altogether there was no real way to tell the two apart.”


http://www.ringospictures.com/index.php?page=20110501

Posted by: Mike at May 17, 2011 6:16 PM
Comment #323292

Mike-
No, it should be as it is.

You show me a photo with Communists and union members marching in the same photo together, and conclude that means that all union members are so connected, and I’ll show you a photo of Republicans with businessmen and businesswomen, and ask you whether it’s reasonable to assume that all businessmen and businesswomen are Republicans.

It’s a textbook hasty generalization.

And to what end? Even if you succeed, it doesn’t affect the right and wrong of any argument. It’s just you taking a potshot at union members and red-baiting Democrats and Liberals in general off of it. And that, to what end? Do all the mistaken policies of the Republican party suddenly become right? No.

People should be scared of the Republicans messing with the debt limit, just as they should have been scared that the Republicans might not pass the bailout, before the big panic took over, and just as people throughout the country should have been afraid that the GOP would try to prove its free market credentials, by letting an investment bank fail without considering what the failure to wind down its positions would mean.

People should be scared when they have good reason to fear. Republican policies are truly scary.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 17, 2011 6:30 PM
Comment #323293

How about, “Vote for Corrupt Government, Vote for Democrats”:

“Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.”


http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/17/nearly-20-percent-of-new-obamacare-waivers-are-gourmet-restaurants-nightclubs-fancy-hotels-in-nancy-pelosi%e2%80%99s-district/#ixzz1MeSndq43

“Nevada got a partial waiver from the health care law — a significant development that Democrats are dismissing as par for the course and Republicans are claiming as a political victory.

The Health and Human Services Department announced late Friday that Nevada had secured a statewide waiver from certain implementation requirements of the Obama administration’s health care law, because forcing them through, the department found, “may lead to the destabilization of the individual market.”

The announcement makes Nevada one of only three states to have compliance requirements under the health care bill waived.”

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/may/16/nevada-secures-partial-waiver-federal-health-care-/

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 17, 2011 6:37 PM
Comment #323296

SD wrote; “That’s why our friend Royal Flush and his friends in the GOP constantly harp on socialism: they’re afraid of losing power.”

Hardly…your a very poor reader of my comments if you believe that crap. The libs embrace socialism, I hate it, and it’s just that simple. Interest group liberalism has won some elections but it sure as hell won’t win the war.

SD writes; “You just have too much contempt for those who don’t share your views.”

False again. I have no contempt for you or any dem/lib. I repeat, I hate your socialist policies that would, if allowed, ruin this great country. I will die with a gun in my hand before I allow what I love to be destroyed.

He writes; “You don’t try to prove, disprove, or show as unprovable much of anything that I put up. You just give reasons you’re going to ignore it.”

Pure unadulterated bullshit comment. Your proof always seems to come from some liberal pen. If you can’t think for yourself, and must depend upon them for your views, that’s OK, just don’t call it “proof”. I am an original thinker, I assemble the evidence which forms my opinion, and state my position in in a clear concise manner without all the monotonous commentary attached.

I have quoted Dear Leader calling for more drilling and fossil fuel use. You refute even him. Where’s your proof that he’s wrong?

He writes; “As for the waivers from “dear leader”, they only get granted if the program that the people come up with does the job that Healthcare reform is meant to do.”

OH, REALLY? You need to get out more and read something besides the Huff post and other such toilet paper. Every single article found in the NY Times and other papers tell a different story. The truth is, it has nothing to do with the healthcare job getting done, it’s all about going broke with Dear Leaders shithead plan. Harry the Reed, bends in the wind and demands relief from obamacare for his state. How outrageous can you get? I don’t doubt that Nancy, the clown face, will join the chorus soon requesting relief for her state as well.

There is simply too much history outlining all the failures where your kind of socialism has failed. If you don’t wish to take heed from those historical lessons that’s your problem. OH, yes, I know, this time it will be different with wonderful results. OH, sure, where have I heard that before. Just keep beating that dead horse with promises of nirvana on earth. Soon SD will be the only one left in the socialist wagon wondering why it’s not going anywhere.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 17, 2011 6:45 PM
Comment #323297

This is finals week for me, so I can’t give a really detailed comment right now.

However, I don’t think anyone denies that socialists/communists exist in our country. The existence of a minute number is beneficial for our country; it’s good to hear all sorts of lousy ideas in order to gain the confidence that capitalism is the right direction for us. I see some of the photographs and videos depict people who are displeased with liberalism/Obama/the Democratic Party, so I really don’t see how you can pin this on the rest of the Left.

In any case, I doubt this is the first International Workers’ Day rally to feature these sorts of people, and I doubt it will be last. One of the wonderful things about this country is that people are free to do extremely stupid things like this.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 17, 2011 6:58 PM
Comment #323299

Mike, thank you very much for the link to A May Day rally in Los Angeles, co-sponsored by the SEIU and various communist groups.

I am not easily shocked as I’ve been around for 70 years and traveled much of the world. I must admit, those photos sent a shiver down my spine. How could it possibly be that these folks are my fellow Americans?

SD commented by writing; “You show me a photo with Communists and union members marching in the same photo together, and conclude that means that all union members are so connected, and I’ll show you a photo of Republicans with businessmen and businesswomen, and ask you whether it’s reasonable to assume that all businessmen and businesswomen are Republicans.”

I have struggled to maintain some respect for SD realizing, from his comments, that he is simply mislead. However, after reading his comment dismissing those photos as nothing unusual is the final straw for me. It is a sad day for me to find someone of SD’s stature and following on Watchblog to be so politically inflamed that he couldn’t bring himself to chastise the Americans involved in this shameful march.

I would ask him to redeem himself by writing that he would not have participated in such an anti-American march.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 17, 2011 7:14 PM
Comment #323301

Royal, we have to thank our mutual friend TH, for the Communist/Union material. I just found the link. I too, think it is disgusting and shows a group of Americans (unions) who claim to be patriotic, and yet walk are in arm with communists. When the Tea Party or conservatives in general are mentioned on WB, there is an abundance of comments linking conservative/Tea Partiers with Nazi’s; and yet not one word of condemnation for those who identify with the hammer and sickle. To top it off, we have union workers walking arm in arm with illegal aliens who demand America get out of confiscated Mexican lands. I know that God is the judge of all things; but for the salvation of our country, a 10.5 movement in the San Andreas Fault would have been justified.

SD will never say anything that condemns socialists, communists, illegal aliens, or liberal democrats. You have to remember, he is also a writer for the dailykos; which means, he not only uses liberal bullshit for his proof, but he also writes it for others to use.

Liberals are outraged when you question their patriotism, but they will always support a socialist/communist agenda.

Posted by: Mike at May 17, 2011 7:38 PM
Comment #323302

Great link Mike. Did anyone notice the signs condemning capitalism. These are union workers, who work for corporations, and demanding the downfall of capitalism… Does this strike anyone as strange; believe it’s called “biting the hand that feeds you”. I was an active union member for 40 years, and am still one today; but I wouldn’t be caught dead in a march with these enemies of America. It shows the true state of the unions in America. I wonder what act of violence will be next? Coming to a city near you…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 17, 2011 7:48 PM
Comment #323303

WR said,

“The existence of a minute number is beneficial for our country; it’s good to hear all sorts of lousy ideas in order to gain the confidence that capitalism is the right direction for us.”

Yes, and I don’t need to see rape and murder to realize it is wrong.

The reason I asked for your comment was because I know you are young and I wanted your take on unions not only organizing these protest, but also walking arm in arm with communists and those who would harm America.

Hope you pass your finals:)

Posted by: Mike at May 17, 2011 7:55 PM
Comment #323304
not one word of condemnation for those who identify with the hammer and sickle.

I called these people stupid, what more condemnation do you want?

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 17, 2011 7:57 PM
Comment #323305

I guess I am asking for too much. I was hoping for something a little stronger than “stupid”, when describing these traitors. I was hoping for some of that same passion from the left, when they refer to conservatives as nazi’s.

Posted by: Mike at May 17, 2011 8:03 PM
Comment #323306

Conservativethinker wrote; “These are union workers, who work for corporations, and demanding the downfall of capitalism… Does this strike anyone as strange; believe it’s called “biting the hand that feeds you”.”

I have said that liberals and some democrats suffer from a mental disorder. Their brains just don’t function like it does for most of us who love God, Country, and family.

I don’t really know what they love beyond themselves. Can any liberal answer that for me?

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 17, 2011 8:15 PM
Comment #323307

One of the wonderful things about this country is that people are free to do extremely stupid things like this.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 17, 2011 06:58 PM

“Stupid” is a rather bland description. Seeing something like this on the streets of America should generate some genuine feeling, some outrage, some patriotism. But then…

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 17, 2011 8:19 PM
Comment #323308

I would like to add that I hope some day that Warped Reality will have the opportunity to stand up and be counted among those who recognize the difference between “stupid” and dangerous.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 17, 2011 8:22 PM
Comment #323309

Comment #323304 was written before I read Comment #323303

Yes, and I don’t need to see rape and murder to realize it is wrong.

Please compare apples to apples and not to oranges. I’m not suggesting that we experiment with communism in order to experience its flaws. I just think it’s health to hear these ideas so that we can be assured how silly these people are. The correct metaphor would be to compare with fictional portrayals of rape and murder in literature, cinema, theater and other arts.

I wanted your take on unions not only organizing these protest, but also walking arm in arm with communists and those who would harm America.
I’ve never been a big fan of the SEIU or the other big unions, but I recognize their right to organize and protest.
I was hoping for some of that same passion from the left, when they refer to conservatives as nazi’s.
I don’t see these people as numerous enough to pose much of a threat, which is why I don’t spend too much of my time getting scared about them. Right-wing extremism, on the other hand, is on the rise and strikes much closer to the liberties that I cherish. I also think the difference might be a reflection of history. Stalin helped us defeat Hitler in WWII; some of the messages from WWII propaganda still reverberate today and soften our image of Stalin when we compare him to Hitler.

Personally, I have relatives who were slaughtered by Hitler’s ideology, which is also why I have a special hatred for Nazism. I can’t say the same for communism; perhaps if my grandfather came from Eastern Europe rather than the Netherlands I’d have a different opinion.

I’m just curious, do you rightists think these protesters are being malicious? Or are these well-intentioned people with misguided beliefs?

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 17, 2011 8:26 PM
Comment #323310

RF,

Personally, I shudder at the thought that such a moment could possibly arise. If such people every grow enough to reach a critical mass that could threaten our liberty we will already be too far along the road to tyranny. It’s fine when there are only a few fools to point and laugh at; it’s dangerous when the fools have enough people to point and laugh at you.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 17, 2011 8:33 PM
Comment #323311

RF

You know I’m not liberal, but let me try some adjectives that fit most democrat/liberat/leftwing/socialist types.

Self centered
Egotistical
Narcisist
Elitist
and last but not least, brainfartism

That will probably bring the cockroches out of the wood pile, but they need to see the light of day.

WR
You say a little socialism or communism is good for us. Where did you get such poppycock. A little bit of snake poison, too? A little bit of murder, too? A little bit of child molestation, too? It ends up being a big pile of dung, or for those not informed about words used in the Bible, dung is shit.

Posted by: tom humes at May 17, 2011 8:34 PM
Comment #323312

Once again the trolls on the right are trying to project their ignorance, name-calling, hatred and stupidity on others. I like nothing better then a good debate. It’s almost impossible to have an intelligent debate anymore. Luckily, the vast majority of Americans don’t believe in this crazy dangerous and stupid game the right is playing.

Posted by: Jeff at May 17, 2011 8:39 PM
Comment #323313

I just realized that another reason for my dismissive attitude towards those May Day people is the fact that I have come of age entirely in the post-Soviet era. Unlike you guys, I have had the luxury of never having to fear a Soviet invasion or some other violent imposition of communism. The Reagan Revolution killed most of these ideas decades ago so they very rarely come out in most public discussions.

TH,

Never have I said a little bit of communism is good. It might be good to talk about on a theoretical level inside a philosophy class, but outside of the classroom it is doomed to enslave us all. Socialism, on the other hand, is government control over the production and distribution of goods and services. Although such top-down control is usually a terrible idea, there are a few exceptions, which were recognized by our founders when they limited our government to a few enumerated powers. I don’t think you are an anarchist or anarcho-capitalist, so I’ll spare you the explanation as to why we need a government run military instead of private armies or why government courts are better than private arbitrators.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 17, 2011 8:51 PM
Comment #323314

Conservativethinker-
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I can tell I hit an effective formulation because nearly every Republican is trying to change it to something else.

According to your article, The Obama Administration granted a 5% waiver on Nevada Insurance company’s ratio of money spent on paying people’s medical bills to money spent on overhead. They had asked for 8%.

Nevada happens to be one of the worst hit states by the recession, so you might factor that in, before you carry on about corruption.

On the other link, you say nearly twenty percent of businesses granted waivers from the law are fancy gourmet places. Well, thank God for a good math education, because I know that means that eighty percent of those waivers are going to other kinds of businesses. Of course, If we could take the gourmet restaurants out of consideration through a revision in the law, I’d be all for it, but are you really interested in negotiating with folks like me?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 17, 2011 9:12 PM
Comment #323316

Warped,

Re/ your question, I believe what we are seeing is well orchestrated plans by union leaders along with these other groups. There is an anti-American movement taking place. I also believe this is not a fringe movement; it will grow. Pertaining to the common workering uinion members, they are misguided and have no concept of what is going on, because most of them love America.

Posted by: Mike at May 17, 2011 9:24 PM
Comment #323317

Where do you get the notion that these sorts of people are growing more numerous? Union membership is declining, the Overton window is far to the right of where it has been at any time since the gilded age.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 17, 2011 9:30 PM
Comment #323320

SD, I don’t think it has as much to do with flattery as it does “boredom”. I find Mike’s comments much more interesting and so does a few others. It seems his post has taken on a life of it’s own.

The problem with your posts are, you always defend socialist and never find fault. To listen to you, we must believe every word that comes out of the mouth of a sociaist liberal is the very word of God.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 17, 2011 9:35 PM
Comment #323321


Royal Flush-
You say:

I have struggled to maintain some respect for SD realizing, from his comments, that he is simply mislead. However, after reading his comment dismissing those photos as nothing unusual is the final straw for me. It is a sad day for me to find someone of SD’s stature and following on Watchblog to be so politically inflamed that he couldn’t bring himself to chastise the Americans involved in this shameful march.

I would ask him to redeem himself by writing that he would not have participated in such an anti-American march.

Redeem myself? Of what? I don’t march with them, or agree with them about the extent that government should control the economy. If their philosophy is more than just misguided, I still remain guiltless. Only your erroneous assumptions lead you to judge me so, but what else is new?

I have said that liberals and some democrats suffer from a mental disorder. Their brains just don’t function like it does for most of us who love God, Country, and family.

I don’t really know what they love beyond themselves. Can any liberal answer that for me?

What can any Liberal say to a person who says that they’re brain-damaged narcissistic nuts?

Liberal this, liberal that, mental disorder, mental disorder. I end up feeling like I want to throw something after your comments.

How many people actually feel like agreeing with you after that? You got all the red-meat right-wingers cheering you on, but then, those aren’t the people you need to convince.

I’ve spent the last several years trying to convince people beyond my party of what I believe. You can taunt me about whether or not they’ve been persuaded, but I think most people at least come away from my post having at least understood my point of view, and failing that, come away not feeling like they need a shower.

I don’t need to hate Republicans, or think they have some organic brain defect or form of Psychopathic personality disorder to disagree with them.

I more or less reduce it down to the merits of your arguments. You can call it a liberal talking point, but only a red-meat conservative is going to find that discouraging. Again, the question is, how do you persuade people who don’t say “megadittoes” when you take a shot at Democrats?

Your party’s coasting on adrenaline, coasting on anger and fear and hate. Eventually, though, your party has to have something better than that to support it, and if you’re not considering the ideas, the policies, or the approaches to problem on the merits, you’re not going to find it.

Mike-
I count myself fortunate not to be a Republican, and have the kind of fearful fantasies poured into my ear everyday by the earnest prophets of doom.

It’s not that you people are much different than us, evil, crazy or anything like that. Its just that if you’re told that everything’s a pitched battle to the death between good and evil, you’re going to lose perspective, sooner or later.

I am not going to worry about the Communists or the Socialists, not because I don’t care, or think that they’re right, but because I’m confident that the freedoms of this nation put all crackpot sensibilities, left/right/center, fringe or mainstream, whatever, to the test.

I’m not going to lose sleep over this. America can handle a difference of opinion, including, and especially, our difference of opinion with communism. We don’t have to man the bunkers and horde the ammunition to win against these people, we just got to argue well on the merits.

I have that kind of faith in my country. I believe that people who are in great error, who screwed things up when they had the chance, can and will be exposed by the free flow of information between people who are free to share it.

No dark conspiracy will survive the light of day in this great country of ours, and people like me will gladly throw open the shades to cast light on it, if we think that party has even a bare chance of success.

If you ask me, the reason most Democrats don’t feel compelled to slam communism and communists like you ask, is because their error and their fringiness is so obvious that it’s a waste of our time.

If you want to waste time purusing a fringe, be my guest. I just think it’s pretty useless. It’s like trying to crush a paper cut-out. There’s not much you can do to make communism less popular.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 17, 2011 9:40 PM
Comment #323322

conservativethinker-

The problem with your posts are, you always defend socialist and never find fault. To listen to you, we must believe every word that comes out of the mouth of a sociaist liberal is the very word of God.

Communism and socialism in America’s a dead horse. Your party’s just so uptight about capitalism, that you can’t tell the difference between what my party stands for, and what they do.

You’re really doing the actual socialists a favor, by allowing Capitalism to become so dysfunctional that it discredits the system. Me? I’m not burning with enthusiasm to nationalize businesses, or whatever. I’d like a way to unwind or divest the big banks so we can let banks fail without having an heart attack. I want market mechanisms to have a proper stage to work from, and which aren’t so kludged up with conglomeration that letting them work means watching the economy do a suicidal swan dive.

Like I said, what I want is BORING. If Bank of America goes under, I want it to be, a month or two later, like it never happened. I want somebody right back in their place. But that can’t happen while Bank of America is so big its failure constitutes a systemic risk.

I want a system where the market forces can operate without triggering the market’s own self-destruction.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 17, 2011 9:48 PM
Comment #323323

Was that clear?

Let me repeat: I want a system where the market forces can operate without triggering the Market’s own self-destruction.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 17, 2011 9:49 PM
Comment #323325

SD

If socialism and communism is dead in the USA, then why is there a socialist caucus in congress, with a substantial number belonging to it? Then there are those that don’t belong to it for a variety of reasons. You can’t explain that fact away. You can spin like a VW in the ditch in a snow storm, but like the VW you will go nowhere.

Posted by: tom humes at May 17, 2011 11:11 PM
Comment #323332
why is there a socialist caucus in congress

There is no socialist caucus in Congress. There is a progressive caucus; one socialist organization unilaterally claimed that the progressive caucus was a socialist caucus, but they are wrong.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 17, 2011 11:46 PM
Comment #323334

That’s not true SD. You talk the talk but don’t walk the walk:

“I’d like a way to unwind or divest the big banks so we can let banks fail without having an heart attack. I want market mechanisms to have a proper stage to work from, and which aren’t so kludged up with conglomeration that letting them work means watching the economy do a suicidal swan dive…Let me repeat: I want a system where the market forces can operate without triggering the Market’s own self-destruction.”

This statement goes against everything you have been preaching. You want government to be there to bail out every failing operation. Do you feel the same way about liberal states that have spent and taxed themselves into oblivion? SD, you have the mindset of a liberal and that mindset is that everything is too big to fail. Therefore, government bails them out. The fundamental difference between me and you is that I say, let them fail. We have a court system to handle bankruptcies. But you believe government must have its hand in everything. The market mechanisms will never have the opportunity to work, will they? You want to control the banks, the businesses, the stock market, what we eat, and drink, smoke, and of course our health system. But the left does have the gift of prophecy; they are able to determine suicidal swan dives before they take place.

Strauss-Kahn, the former/present (who knows) head of the IMF is a perfect example of a socialist. While he controls where the funds of the IMF are going and preaches his socialist/communist message of equal distribution of wealth and that all men should receive equally, whether they work or not; he lives in a $3000 a night hotel, earns over half a million a year plus bennies and graft, owns multiple million dollar homes around the world, and last but not least he believes the laws are for everyone else but not him. This is what you believe Stephen. You think everyone’s property belongs to you and that it is your mission in life to re-distribute this property from those who have to those who don’t have. Oh, wait, did I mention: those who have, who are not part of the elite. You have no problem with Hollywood millionaires, or liberal millionaires who are living on old money (Kerry’s and Kennedy’s). Liberal’s always like to use someone else’s money.

“Communism and socialism in America’s a dead horse. Your party’s just so uptight about capitalism, that you can’t tell the difference between what my party stands for, and what they do.”

Communism and socialism will never be dead as long as there are socialist liberals like yourself trying to make a difference. Let’s see now, was it socialism and communism that made America great? Why no, it was CAPITALISM. That’s right Mr. Daugherty, I said it and let me repeat, it as CAPITALISM that made America great. Silly boy, and you ask why do conservatives get so uptight about capitalism. I know what your party stands for; every time obamba and his people open their mouths, we know what they stand for…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 17, 2011 11:54 PM
Comment #323336

There are 70 House Democratic members who belong to the Socialist Party. What is the difference between the Progressive Caucus and the Socialist Caucus, they are both made up of the same politicians.

“From the Preamble of the SPA:

We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources,meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.

Note that some of what they stand for is boilerplate from both Democrats and Republicans. It is their “vision” of a “humane social order” that is based on the “equitable distribution of resources” among other nonsense that sets the socialists apart from rational people.”


http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/socialist_party_of_america_rev_1.html

You will notice, in the Preamble of the Socialist Party; liberals on WB defend the same things.

WR; unions may be declining in America (despite Obama’s goal to unionize everyone), but you will notice that not all the groups in LA were union. There is a move among these people to cause civil disobedience. You don’t believe it now, but just keep watching…

Posted by: Mike at May 18, 2011 12:16 AM
Comment #323338

Interesting, isn’t it? It’ll be a cold day in Hades, when I buy a GM:

“In late 2010, General Motors agreed to sponsor a propaganda film celebrating the 90th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP made film titled (translated to English) “The Birth of a Party” or “The Great Achievement of Founding the Party” is set to premiere all over the Communist nation on June 15 reported China AutoWeb last September. The auto website adds:
“According to an announcement posted on Shanghai GM’s official web site yesterday, whose title reads “joining hands with China Film Group, Cadillac whole-heartedly supports the making of the Birth of a Party…”


“The United States government currently own 33% of the GM company following the auto-bailouts of 2009, and GM CEO Daniel Akerson describes China, as the “key to [GM’s] success.” (h/t The Detroit Bureau)
Presently, GM’s business in China is selling more autos in the Asian country than in the United States. The Washington Post noted last week that China was GM’s solution to help the car-maker recover from bankruptcy, so the company “is only expected to widen as an increasing number of Chinese grow rich enough to purchase their first car.”
Along with concern over China’s ownership of trillions of dollars of U.S. debt, it is truly troubling that an American company financially supported now by the U.S. taxpayer is happily promoting Communist propaganda that glosses over the atrocities of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. What’s next for GM? Selling military vehicles for the Chinese to threaten their own people with?”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/may/17/gm-sponsors-and-celebrates-soon-be-released-chi-co/

Posted by: Mike at May 18, 2011 12:41 AM
Comment #323346

We’ve been taken over!

Posted by: womanmarine at May 18, 2011 6:28 AM
Comment #323347

Mike-
The Chinese Branch of GM is its own company, for all intents and purposes. So, a Chinese company that sells only in China helps the Chinese government, and you blame the domestic General Motors company for this? I doubt they had a thing to do with the decision.

The other article, if you read it all down to bottom seems to be a case of one of your people treating somebody else’s perjorative namecalling as the real factual name.

This is what happens when you research to confirm theories, rather than put them to the test. Shanghai GM doesn’t run its political endorsements past Detroit GM. The Progressive Caucus likely never called it the Socialist Caucus. That’s likely just one of you name calling it, and then somebody else taking that name-calling to be the self-professed title.

My Uncle and I were talking about radio signalling, and about how in order to reduce the noise, you’d run the signal through a filter. However, if you made the filter too strong, all you’d have in that signal would be the filter.

I’m sorry, but in both cases here, your filter, and the filter of the Republicans has become the signal. Ask yourself a couple questions, if you doubt me: Would America’s GM endanger its image by supporting the Chinese Communists? Would the Democrats, not wanting to get labelled as socialists or communist, have dared to actually call something the Socialist Party Caucus?

You’re too invested in these theories to realize their implausibility, especially given that the active years would have been that of the 80s to the 2000s, and none of your people noticed or made a big deal out of it. Wouldn’t that have been a low-hanging fruit for your party?

If the first link was true, wouldn’t we have heard about that fact sooner?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 18, 2011 8:24 AM
Comment #323348

mike-
Oh, and in case you didn’t sense the irony, just ask yourself: what would Lenin have thought of China at this point, with it’s very business oriented economy? Much as you’re trying to red-bait here, what’s left of Chinese Communism is hardly Mao Zedong’s old socialist Republic. It’s hand in glove with capitalism today.

And while I’m at it, could it be possible that the owners of Walmart are Communist plants? I mean, just look at all they’ve done to help the Chinese become a major economic power, and at American business’s expense, no less!

The problem with paranoid BS is that it doesn’t necessarily tell you what the real problems or who your real enemies are.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 18, 2011 8:50 AM
Comment #323349
What is the difference between the Progressive Caucus and the Socialist Caucus

The progressive caucus is an actual organization, whereas the socialist caucus only exists in the minds of rightists and socialist propaganda.

liberals on WB defend the same things

You truly have no idea what liberalism is. I believe fundamentally in maximizing individual liberty. I should be able to do whatever I want to do with my life without interference from either the government, corporations or other people unless my action infringe the liberties of others. I am fundamentally opposed to the idea wealth should be divided equally. I support equal opportunities for everyone, but I recognize that some will succeed and some will fail, which inevitably leads to unequal outcomes. My ideology is the polar opposite of what is preached by these loonies, who would enslave us all if given the chance. We are fortunate that these loonies always remain on the margins and never wield any power of their own.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 18, 2011 9:05 AM
Comment #323350

SD;

Help me out here; the left hates free trade agreements, and as you commented they hate Wal-Mart for a myriad of reasons, but they have no problem with GM (33% owned by the US Government) investing in Chinese propaganda? This just proves one thing; Stephen Daugherty will defend a socialist liberal government and anything they attempt to do. If Obama is involved in it; you have absolutely no problem.

“The Chinese Branch of GM is its own company, for all intents and purposes.”

What does this twisted statement mean Stephen? Perhaps we should look at the link:

“Shanghai General Motors Company Limited (Shanghai GM; Chinese: 上海通用汽车) is a joint venture between General Motors and Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC). Shanghai GM manufactures and sells automobiles in mainland China. The company manufactures and sells Chevrolet, Buick, and Cadillac vehicles. Shanghai GM was founded on June 12, 1997 with 50% investment each from Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation and General Motors.”

So, “your intents and purposes” really means GM (USA) invested 50% in the GM (China). Boy, you love to twist things around to fit your argument, don’t you? And here we are back to the beginning; GM (US), supported and helped finance propaganda films.

“Would the Democrats, not wanting to get labelled as socialists or communist, have dared to actually call something the Socialist Party Caucus?”

Stephen, you are the one who came out with this statement: “Communism and socialism in America’s a dead horse.” I didn’t say it, you did… And then, when I offer proof that socialism is not dead and that in 2010, 70 members of the House belong to the Socialist Party, you try to split hairs of the wording of Socialist Party or Socialist Caucus. What we have here is 70 politicians who do not care what people think, and have openly declared themselves to be socialists. Unlike some who are still hiding in the closet. So Stephen, man up, and quit trying to tell us you are something you are not.

“mike-
Oh, and in case you didn’t sense the irony, just ask yourself: what would Lenin have thought of China at this point, with it’s very business oriented economy? Much as you’re trying to red-bait here, what’s left of Chinese Communism is hardly Mao Zedong’s old socialist Republic. It’s hand in glove with capitalism today.”

Next you will be trying to tell me China has freedom of speech, freedom of religion, no political prisoners incarcerated, a dollar in every pocket, and a chicken in every pot. Only a socialist liberal could paint a communism with such rosy colors.

Warped Reality:

“The progressive caucus is an actual organization, whereas the socialist caucus only exists in the minds of rightists and socialist propaganda.”

Word Games….

“You truly have no idea what liberalism is. I believe fundamentally in maximizing individual liberty. I should be able to do whatever I want to do with my life without interference from either the government, corporations or other people unless my action infringe the liberties of others. I am fundamentally opposed to the idea wealth should be divided equally. I support equal opportunities for everyone, but I recognize that some will succeed and some will fail, which inevitably leads to unequal outcomes. My ideology is the polar opposite of what is preached by these loonies, who would enslave us all if given the chance. We are fortunate that these loonies always remain on the margins and never wield any power of their own.”

Warped, if you really believe these things, you are not a liberal, you are a conservative; but I don’t believe you hold to these truths.

Let’s go through this again:

“From the Preamble of the SPA:
We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.
We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources,meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.”

1.They are against capitalism, or in other words corporations are the enemy (and need to be taxed).

2.They base their arguments on race baiting, with the goal of dividing a nation using race.

3.They support environmental laws that infringe on the citizenry (including taxing).

4.Their goal is the re-distribution of wealth (through taxing and entitlement programs).

Here are just 4 of the many things that are part of their platform; could you tell me which of these 4 are not in the liberal democrat platform? The word Socialist and Liberal Democrat are synonymous…

“My ideology is the polar opposite of what is preached by these loonies, who would enslave us all if given the chance.”

And you see no difference between enslavement by these loonies and enslavement by liberals like SD who believe the Constitution is an evolving document?


Posted by: Mike at May 18, 2011 10:06 AM
Comment #323351

WR

What you just said you believe are opposite what you say in your postings. Let me clear up something for your young mind. Socialists, Communists, Lenisists, Marxists, Progressives, et al, are all totalitarians. They may choose a different route to get to where they are going but they all arrive at the same point.

The Socialist Party of America cited in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus.

Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

This is one update even though 2009. And some are not there anymore, but there could be additions.

Mike
thanks for the good followup

Posted by: tom humes at May 18, 2011 10:09 AM
Comment #323352

Further on Progressive/Socialist Caucus.

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is lockstep with the Progressive Caucus. It helps financially, and sponsors the CPC in many areas.

A hand full of groups or publications that actively support the DSA/CPC are:

Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)
The Nation magazine
Progressive Democrats of America (PDA)

There are more.

Here is an interesting link to help you non-believers.

http://www.thepartyofknow.com/2011/04/15/new-zealcongressional-progressive-caucus-socialists-propose-alternative-%E2%80%9Cpeople%E2%80%99s-budget%E2%80%9D/

Posted by: tom humes at May 18, 2011 10:28 AM
Comment #323354

Thanks for the info Tom.

Just watching Karl Rove on FOX news and he brought up a good question:

Of the 1300 obamacare waivers given out; why do 50% of them represent union companies and only 11.5% represent non-union companies?

Were’nt the unions supportive of obamacare? Hmmm???

Posted by: Mike at May 18, 2011 10:37 AM
Comment #323355

Stephen

We all like 1999. Cut government spending to the same % of GDP that it was in 1999. Tax to cover that, but not more. Agreed?

Posted by: C&J at May 18, 2011 10:39 AM
Comment #323356

TH,

ocialists, Communists, Lenisists, Marxists, Progressives, et al, are all totalitarians. They may choose a different route to get to where they are going but they all arrive at the same point.

I’m not a progressive; I don’t have that much affinity for the labor movement or schemes to aid the poor. While progressives do indeed sometimes preach dangerous ideas, they are not totalitarians because they understand the limitations of what government can and can’t do. The other ideologies certainly are totalitarian, just like the conservative ideologies of Fascism & Nazism.


I don’t need you to list the Progressive Caucus and falsely claim they are socialist. Outside of the propaganda of socialist organizations and the right-wing media, where is there any evidence these people identify as socialists?

Mike,

if you really believe these things, you are not a liberal, you are a conservative

Throughout my experience, conservatives have done nothing but increase the power of institutions bent on taking away my liberty. Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were all conservative Presidents, but they all increased the size of government. Conservatives want to criminalize a woman’s right to her own body. Conservatives want to regulate what one does in one’s own bedroom with one’s own consensual lover. Conservatives want to prop up our obsolete fossil fuel industry with subsidy after subsidy, robbing me of my ability as a consumer to choose the right product for myself on a free market. Conservatives continue the subsidy paradigm by allowing market distortions to persist including externalized costs, private monopolies and information asymmetries. Only liberalism lets me have a chance to run my own life without Big Brother telling me what to do.

They are against capitalism, or in other words corporations are the enemy (and need to be taxed).
Liberalism supports capitalism, but liberals are against concentrating power in the hands of the few; otherwise, those corporations have the power to act as a de facto government and infringe on our liberties.
They base their arguments on race baiting, with the goal of dividing a nation using race.
I don’t know how you translate opposition to race-based discrimination into race-baiting.
They support environmental laws that infringe on the citizenry
Liberalism is about doing whatever one wants to do so long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights. Environmentally damaging actions certainly fall under this category. I have a right not to have my air, water and soil to not be polluted by my neighbor. I should not have to live the consequences of my neighbor’s poor decisions.
Their goal is the re-distribution of wealth (through taxing and entitlement programs).
I don’t support redistribution of wealth. I freely admit that our entitlement programs need serious reform. I’ve paid FICA taxes since my first summer job in 2005; I won’t be retiring until the 2050s, I doubt I’ll see any of my money at that time unless we change our entire notion of what an entitlement program is. Posted by: Warped Reality at May 18, 2011 11:04 AM
Comment #323357
We all like 1999. Cut government spending to the same % of GDP that it was in 1999. Tax to cover that, but not more. Agreed?

Today’s taxes are at Truman’s level, so we can’t even afford Clinton’s spending.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 18, 2011 11:07 AM
Comment #323358

TH,

Show me something that isn’t from socialist/communist propaganda that shows that the Progressive Caucus members consider themselves a part of a nationwide socialist organization.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 18, 2011 11:08 AM
Comment #323360

C&J-
I believe that we should formulate the government that meets our needs as a people, and then pay for that.

The proposal you talk about?

It’s sort of like Murder She Wrote. The premise of a weekly murder mystery seems intuitive, works as a television series. But if this kind of thing occured in the real world, the town she lives in would be on the news.

The GDP idea has a certain charm, I don’t deny that. But if you really think about it, that GDP ratio deals with two or three relative factors even before you get into the economic and social effects that set the GDP where it is.

There are ideas that are appealing in this regard because of their elegance, because things have been boiled down to an effective solution. Then there are things that are attractive to us because the ideas appeal to a certain sense of expedience. For you, it’s that simple, just go back to 1999. For me, I’m looking at the wars we’re fighting, the DoD we’re supporting, the challenges of the economy and everything, and it just seems to me that 1999’s ration isn’t that relevant to setting the budget and the taxes to support it according to our needs.

tom humes-
There is no socialist caucus.

conservativethinker-
You don’t get it. My priority is having things work. I expressed the concern that it shouldn’t be self-destructive to our capitalist system to let a bank fail.

What is your position, that the failure of the five big banks that dominated our economy wouldn’t have sent us into a depression? If so, your optimism and naivete on this matter far outstrips mine.

But you know, I don’t really like bailing out the banks, making the taxpayers pay for those greedy bastards’ mistakes. So, keeping my preference for a functional economy in mind, I would regulate the Bank’s behavior, and split up the banks if I could, so as to avoid a too-big to fail situation in the future.

That’s a consistent viewpoint there. What’s more, it has the virtue of not putting our nation’s economy in jeopardy. Stable banks that can fail without taking down the system allow competition to get carried out without the losers taking down the system with it.

I don’t want to say to most of this paranoid fever dream of a comment. It just seems to be cobbled together from all the years of propaganda about what those scary Democrats would do if they got power. It reads like a prose panic attack. Lighten up, fellow, I’m not that interested in controlling your life or taking all your money away.

Communism and socialism will never be dead as long as there are socialist liberals like yourself trying to make a difference. Let’s see now, was it socialism and communism that made America great? Why no, it was CAPITALISM. That’s right Mr. Daugherty, I said it and let me repeat, it as CAPITALISM that made America great. Silly boy, and you ask why do conservatives get so uptight about capitalism. I know what your party stands for; every time obamba and his people open their mouths, we know what they stand for…

Oh dear, how devastating this argument is…

Seriously, it’s dead. And like you’ve ignored me saying a hundred times, I’m a capitalist. But my capitalism has a moral component to it. Put plainly, I want the bias to be towards people being honest with each other, with their clients, and with their investors.

I want people to get a fair day’s pay for a good day’s work, and I want people to be able to get together to fight for that. And then I want those people to use that money in a free market where they decide what to buy, and what they’re willing to pay for it.

And I’d just as soon that the products they pay for are safe as they can reasonably be, that the prescription and over the counter drugs they get be pure, safe, and effective

I want investors to be able to trust their broker, not wonder whether he’s going to screw them to make money themselves.

Overall, my sense is that money should be earned, success should be earned.

You think to shame me, but I don’t have to play along with that BS. I know what I believe and I say what I believe. I don’t have the filter most people do on that.

You believe in Capitalism. Okay, unlike you, I’m not trying to say you don’t. But the version you believe in simply doesn’t work. People cheat the system, build up economy wrecking levels of leverage and deception in it.

I’ve seen what people do when they get the chance. Fierce competition will always drive people towards expedience, unless that sense of expedience is held in check by laws that require people to be honest and responsible.

I do not believe in limitless freedom, or unrestrained government power. I believe in a society that runs best when people are free to make mistakes, but not free to endanger other people with those mistakes without check or balance.

But I guess that’s kind of boring to argue against, even pointless. So, Democrats have to become Bond villains, so Republicans can play James Bond.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 18, 2011 12:18 PM
Comment #323361

Personally, I shudder at the thought that such a moment could possibly arise. If such people every grow enough to reach a critical mass that could threaten our liberty we will already be too far along the road to tyranny. It’s fine when there are only a few fools to point and laugh at; it’s dangerous when the fools have enough people to point and laugh at you.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 17, 2011 08:33

Well said WR, I agree completely. And this is what concerns conservatives. We want to stop such growth now, while the socialist/communists are weak, not strong.

If one studies WWII it is simple to understand what inaction can lead to. Winston Churchill was virtually the only world figure calling for stopping the German rearmament. Most of the world ignored their military buildup in direct violation of the terms of surrender after WWI.

Recall the great effort by FDR to send aid to Great Britain as he recognized the threat of Hitler and his allies. He had a really difficult job in awakening the American people to the threat and it took Pearl Harbor to actually jolt most Americans into action.

Imagine the lives and fortunes spent to defeat the Axis powers once they had been allowed so foolishly to amass great military strength.

The old adage…”An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is as true today as it ever was. We wish to prevent the rise of socialism and communism in this country.

Those who didn’t live thru WWII or the Cold War may not realize how dangerous it is to ignore early warning signs of impending doom. Every time socialism/communism rears its ugly head in this country it must be soundly rejected by an alert population. It is our duty, each and every one of us, to protect and defend our country against all such “isms” that have proven fatal.

I have no doubt that most liberals and most democrats and most Americans reject socialism and communism. But, some just don’t react quickly enough when these dangers appear. One can not get so wrapped up in politics that their attention is diverted from real danger that exists. If we bankrupt America, what will emerge? Socialism, communism, or democracy? I don’t believe for one moment that if we fail that what emerges will be a new democratic republic. Do you?

How will we explain to our children and grandchildren that we lost the greatest and best experiment in government in the history of the world because we weren’t paying attention? Our constitution demands the freedom of individuals. And yet, it is not a suicide pact. Our founders demand that we speak up and resist tyranny and repressive politics where ever we find it. From their graves they call us to action to defend and nurture what they began.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 18, 2011 12:27 PM
Comment #323362

mike-
The GM operation in China is mainly run by the Chinese. And so are many of the factories that make Wal-Mart products. Would you be equally shocked or offended if one of them were named as a sponsor?

You love globalization, apparently, yet hate its children. You’re married to free trade, but fail to recognize that free trade is what gets you a mainly Chinese company in China making cars for the Chinese from American designs.

I am not getting bent out of shape over it, because what I see is nothing out of the expected for an essentially Chinese company. Besides, If you can’t see the contradiction in terms that this respresents, the way this obviously makes China’s brand of communism communism in name only, then I can’t help you. I mean, think about it: Lenin would be rolling in his mausoleum to have anything but a state sponsor for his propaganda. Having Chinese capitalist pigs sponsoring rose-colored nostalgia about the 1917 revolution just buries the needle on irony.

The very existence of both the market and the company itself tells you that whatever symbolic tripe they’re pushing on television, their real economy owes more to Adam Smith than Karl Marx.

And then, when I offer proof that socialism is not dead and that in 2010, 70 members of the House belong to the Socialist Party, you try to split hairs of the wording of Socialist Party or Socialist Caucus.

That’s the closest I could find on the list.

Go out and actually find an official socialist caucus. Find just one actual website. Try. You won’t find much. Like I said, if one was founded, it would draw attention as dead horses (particularly the ones your side beats) draws flies.

Next you will be trying to tell me China has freedom of speech, freedom of religion, no political prisoners incarcerated, a dollar in every pocket, and a chicken in every pot. Only a socialist liberal could paint a communism with such rosy colors.

Nope, I’d tell you they have no real freedom of speech or religion, plenty of political prisoners, plenty of poverty, and not everybody’s sharing in the prosperity.

I think China’s government is fairly authoritarian, cruel and undemocratic. I just don’t think its all that communist anymore.

I’d tell you that, if you asked, but you’re too busy telling me what my opinion must be, to actually find out what my opinion is from the source.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 18, 2011 1:08 PM
Comment #323363

Hey! I scanned the caucus members and found my congressman! Shout out! =)

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at May 18, 2011 1:28 PM
Comment #323364

Royal Flush-
If we take that point of view, then wer’e going to be pounding your butts over this as a means to avoid fascism, or some other Right-Wing version of a government out of control of its people.

Personally, I think we ought to be dealing with problems at they come. The extremists get traction mainly when the system gets so dysfunctional people feel like they have to be more agressive about their politics.

So, if we take care of business, we’ll have less to worry about from fringes of the right or the left.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 18, 2011 1:39 PM
Comment #323365

Spinny Liberal-
Tell me, when’s your next post?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 18, 2011 1:46 PM
Comment #323366

@SD - I’m not sure yet. I’ve been juggling some ideas though. =)

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at May 18, 2011 1:49 PM
Comment #323367

I understand your view SD. Ignore the early symptoms until the disease has manifested itself. Meanwhile, promote the edges of socialism in the false belief that the fire won’t spread. You remind me of the great statesmen of the 30’s who, right up to the end, believed Hitler could be satisfied and war avoided.

It was convenient to placate Hitler and didn’t require any effort or sacrifice to stop him from his plans. Those mentally disordered politicians just couldn’t face reality any more than many of our leaders today.

We are drowning in debt, have major unions aligning themselves with those who would destroy our nation, have a president and political party that sees nothing wrong in forcing Americans to purchase whatever they are pedaling, and more of our freedoms slipping through our fingers every year.

SD simply wants to take care of business and confront potential catastrophes only when they become front page news. From his comments, taking care of business is code word for spending more money we must borrow or print. It means doling out ever more benefits for his interest group liberals.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 18, 2011 1:57 PM
Comment #323369

Warped Reality said:

“While progressives do indeed sometimes preach dangerous ideas, they are not totalitarians because they understand the limitations of what government can and can’t do.”

Progressives never understand the limitations of government; how can you make this statement with a straight face? There is no limit to intrusiveness of progressives into the lives of Americans. Europe has been controlled by progressives for decades and you can’t fart in Europe without first getting a permit.

Tell me WR; who passes laws on what we can eat, drink, smoke, what we can drive, where we can live, whether we can own a gun or not, what can be taught in the schools, who is and who is not eligible to vote, who is and who is not citizens of America, where we can drill, how much we should pay in taxes, who those tax dollars should go to, what we should purchase and what we should not purchase, why we should not be able to buy HC insurance across state lines, if we have or have not the right to fly Old Glory, if we can own property or not, and the list goes on. These are laws the democrats have passed or want to pass all over the country, and you have the nerve to say progressives know the limitations of Government. I don’t think so…

You claim not to be a progressive or a socialist and yet you defend the very ideals of progressivism/socialism.

“Throughout my experience, conservatives have done nothing but increase the power of institutions bent on taking away my liberty. Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were all conservative Presidents, but they all increased the size of government. Conservatives want to criminalize a woman’s right to her own body. Conservatives want to regulate what one does in one’s own bedroom with one’s own consensual lover. Conservatives want to prop up our obsolete fossil fuel industry with subsidy after subsidy, robbing me of my ability as a consumer to choose the right product for myself on a free market. Conservatives continue the subsidy paradigm by allowing market distortions to persist including externalized costs, private monopolies and information asymmetries. Only liberalism lets me have a chance to run my own life without Big Brother telling me what to do.”

I guess you mean by your “experience”, the 18 or so years your daddy paid for everything and the 3-4 years you spent in a liberal MA college? Now that’s what I call life experience… You accuse republicans of taking away your liberty by:

1.Trying to put a stop to murdering babies; tell me WR, how many abortions are the result of rape or incest (the left’s favorite argument) and how many are simply used as a means of birth control?

2.Conservatives don’t give a crap about what goes on your bedroom. Liberal queers can fudge pack all they want, just don’t try to force us to recognize it as anything other than sexual perversion and deviancy. The left is not happy with just porking each other, they want conservatives to recognize it as a legitimate relationship, they want to feel free to force pastors to marry them like they were normal, and they want to be able to freely adopt children in order to practice their deviance on children behind closed doors.

3.When will you guys ever understand, we use fossil fuel because that is all we have and until the market decides it is easier and cheaper to produce an alternate fuel, we will continue to use fossil fuels. We have hundreds of years of fossil fuels, but the left hates fossil fuel so in their pea brains, they want to block all research and acquisition of the fuels. Obama told the coal miners of KY, PA, WV, OH and other states, “IF WE CAN PUT A MAN ON THE MOON, WE CAN DEVELOP CLEAN COAL”. It was a lie; he never had any intentions of developing clean coal. He would rather see us run out of fuel, run out of electricity, and see thousands put out of work. I drive a diesel truck, and no matter how much I would like, it won’t leave the driveway unless I have diesel in the tank. I can hang a solar panel on the roof, add more batteries, and even plug it into my breaker panel, but it still won’t go anywhere without diesel in the tank. And guess what Warped; I am just one of 300 million in the US with the same problem.

“Liberalism supports capitalism, but liberals are against concentrating power in the hands of the few; otherwise, those corporations have the power to act as a de facto government and infringe on our liberties.”

Liberalism is the enemy of capitalism, and the only one liberalism wants empower is government.

“I don’t know how you translate opposition to race-based discrimination into race-baiting.”

Race baiting is using race to divide people; in case you haven’t noticed, if anyone opposes or criticizes Obama, they are labeled a racist. If you will look again at the pictures taken at the union/communist rally in LA, you will see comments about racism. How you ever heard a conservative use race as a means to get a vote? Even Hillary used race against Obama in the primary. Liberals don’t mind who they call a racist, they will even eat their own offspring.

“Liberalism is about doing whatever one wants to do so long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights. Environmentally damaging actions certainly fall under this category. I have a right not to have my air, water and soil to not be polluted by my neighbor. I should not have to live the consequences of my neighbor’s poor decisions.”

Liberals make up 20% of the American voters and yet liberalism has not problem infringing on the rights of the other 80%. Liberals base their views of GW and the environment on their own theories.

“I don’t support redistribution of wealth. I freely admit that our entitlement programs need serious reform. I’ve paid FICA taxes since my first summer job in 2005; I won’t be retiring until the 2050s, I doubt I’ll see any of my money at that time unless we change our entire notion of what an entitlement program is.Posted by: Warped Reality at May 18, 2011 11:04 AM”

I’ll tell you what Warped, let me give you a little homework assignment (even though you have finals); name me one program that liberals have introduced and voted for and passed that DOES NOT lead to the re-distribution of wealth or infringe on the rights of others?

Posted by: Mike at May 18, 2011 2:04 PM
Comment #323370

Right on Mike.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 18, 2011 2:13 PM
Comment #323371

“I’d tell you that, if you asked, but you’re too busy telling me what my opinion must be, to actually find out what my opinion is from the source.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 18, 2011 01:08 PM

And your too busy telling me what I believe:

“You love globalization, apparently, yet hate its children. You’re married to free trade, but fail to recognize that free trade is what gets you a mainly Chinese company in China making cars for the Chinese from American designs.”

FYI, I have never supported globaliozation of any kind. I never supported NAFTA (that your boy signed) nor any of the other trade agreements. I guess I would be considered an isolationist, and I certainly would not have our troops in the middle-east. I would simply blasted our enemies out of existance and then dared the next dictator to come after us.

Posted by: Mike at May 18, 2011 2:16 PM
Comment #323372

How long has the unions and communist party been protesting in Europe? England, France, Germany, Greece, Spain; have all been suffering from violent protests by union and communist groups. Are we saying this cannot happen in America? The same groups, individuals, and money that have supported uprisings in Europe are also supporting the same things in America. Need I say George Soros and his money? Oh no, that is fear mongering and conspiratorial theories; ok, tell that to the Europeans…

But WR and SD think these things are fringe and could never happen here…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 18, 2011 2:26 PM
Comment #323373

Royal Flush-

I understand your view SD. Ignore the early symptoms until the disease has manifested itself. Meanwhile, promote the edges of socialism in the false belief that the fire won’t spread. You remind me of the great statesmen of the 30’s who, right up to the end, believed Hitler could be satisfied and war avoided.

Oh, I see. So we must oppose liberalism because it might become communism somewhere down the line, thanks to forces conveniently off stage and out of sight (and therefore not open to verification).

I believe the best way to head off socialism is to make capitalism fair enough that people only have themselves to blame when they don’t succeed. Then people have limited motivation to try to force things with the heavy hand of socialism.

But of course, telling you that might be a waste of time. You’ve got your pre-programmed, pre-arranged arguments about what we’re supposed to be already queued up and ready to go.

That doesn’t change the truth, though. I am what I say I am. There’s no proof of the massive conspiracy you talk about, that as oppose to the more than evident proof of Hitlers’ expansionist ambitions in Europe (The Anschluss already in place by that time) I’m not resisting anything, I’m just not buying into the argument of those who haven’t bothered to push out any provable arguments yet!

Mike-
I’m not sure arguing with you will make much of a difference. You’re making up your own facts as you go along, mostly to badmouth Democrats and their constituents.

If you actually read half of what you write, you’d see it’s just the general sort of thing people flail around about when they’re just trying to blacken somebody’s name. Few real people are actually trying to do one, much less all of those things. This seems to be more about venting your frustrations at not getting things your way in terms of government than anything else.

But since this is most of what you’re really thinking about in politics, you’re not taking a break and just thinking for a second about what this country really needs, and how we’re going to get it. It’s all platforms and positions, all pre-packaged stuff that at the end of the day contradicts itself.

You seem to be an economic libertarian, but then you talk about how trade agreements with China and the rest screw us arounds, so it seems its all just a conditional sort of libertarianism, which is to say not much of libertarianism at all.

When you decide what you’re for based on what people are against, you’re like a man on a bucking bronco. You’re not leading the horse, the Democrats, they are. They are the once who can come up with new ideas, and you just end up adapting to them. That’s why Gingrich is in such trouble. The mandate was originally supposed to be the GOP’s answer to Democrats looking for Single Payer, or some system like that. But since then, things have changed, and the Democrats have advanced that idea, so your people are caught having to oppose something you once supported.

Cap and Trade was a Republican idea, but since Democrats started to like it, Republicans have to fight them on it, so instead of it being a market-based alternative to directly imposed limits, it becomes just another socialist idea.

You cannot build a coherent philosophy based on the hatred of another philosophy. Only when you sit down and consider options and ideas, and ask yourself whether they can or have worked, can you confront reality with a good, workable system. Otherwise the disorganization of the system produces inconsisent results.

I guess I would be considered an isolationist, and I certainly would not have our troops in the middle-east. I would simply blasted our enemies out of existance and then dared the next dictator to come after us.

It wasn’t a dictator who killed three thousand Americans.

And as for being an isolationist? Good heavens. You got your friends talking about Munich, yet you forget that isolationism is part of the system that had us pointedly ignoring, and staying out of things in Europe.

America should serve its interest, not base its policy on kneejerk responses to its threats.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 18, 2011 3:01 PM
Comment #323375

Mike & other conservatives,

You’ll get my response on Thursday night.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 18, 2011 3:26 PM
Comment #323377

mike-

Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture.

What does that mean?

Dan Gainor, the Director of the Business & Media Institute, has been named The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow for the Media Research Center (MRC) in Alexandria, Va. Mr. Gainor is a veteran editor with two decades of experience in print and online media. He has served as an editor at several newspapers including The Washington Times and The Baltimore News-American. Mr. Gainor also has extensive experience in online publishing, holding the position of managing editor for CQ.com, the website of Congressional Quarterly, and executive editor for ChangeWave, published by Phillips International.

Through the generous support of Boone Pickens, this fellowship will further the impact of the Business & Media Institute and protect the free market values that Mr. Pickens holds dear. Mr. Pickens, an MRC trustee and respected business leader, said that “to encourage a journalistic culture that promotes economic liberty” is his goal. In addition, Mr. Pickens’ $1.5 million Challenge grant will take the Business & Media Institute to the next level, which is to reach out to journalists covering American business and to promote free enterprise at the national level across a spectrum of media: print, radio, television, and the internet. The MRC is extremely grateful to Mr. Pickens and encouraged by his commitment and confidence in the MRC and the Business & Media Institute.

The MRC launched the Business & Media Institute (formerly the Free Market Project) in 1992 to combat media bias against America’s free enterprise system and to defend the business community and the culture of entrepreneurship. The Business & Media Institute began its work by assembling a blue-ribbon Advisory Committee comprised of distinguished economic scholars. More recently, the BMI launched a number of studies exposing the anti-business agenda of environmental extremists, documenting exactly how the media are distorting tax issues, and proving how journalists are ignoring tort reform while promoting lawsuit excesses against the business community.

What’s the Media Research Center?

You can include The Cybercast News Service, The Parents Television Council, and Newsbusters under their umbrella.
And who funds this?

The MRC has received financial support from several foundations, including the Bradley, Scaife, Olin, Castle Rock, Carthage and JM foundations.[3] It also receives funding from ExxonMobil.[4]

Oh, this is going to be rich. Let me go over the funding groups your people use.


Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 18, 2011 5:33 PM
Comment #323378

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation was a nice surprise, in terms of what I wanted to see. Let’s explore some of their grants and other money giving.

Who have been recipients? Freedomworks (that nice grassroots organization), Americans for Prosperity, The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, The Federalist Society, The David Horowitz Freedom Center, The Heartland institute, The CATO institute, The Project for a New American Century, and MEMRI. The individuals, as listed on Wikipedia, include Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Jack Kemp, William J. Bennett, Robert H. Bork, Antonin Scalia, Marvin Olasky, and David Brock (I know you might find the last one confusing, but remember he once worked for the Republicans.

What about the Scaife Foundation? Until very recently, they were very active on the right. To wit:

Although Scaife has dedicated vast sums of money to influencing the way the public thinks, he prefers to operate behind the scenes, granting few interviews. When former Wall Street Journal reporter Karen Rothmyer attempted to interview him in 1981, he responded by calling her a “****ing Communist ****” and telling her to “get out of here.” Between 1985 and 2001, the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation donated $15,860,000 to the Heritage Foundation; $7,333,000 to the Institute for Policy Analysis; $6,995,500 to the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace; $6,693,000 to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS); $4,411,000 to the American Enterprise Institute; $2,575,000 to the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research; $1,855,000 to the George C. Marshall Institute; $1,808,000 to the Hudson Institute; and $1,697,000 to the Cato Institute. For the years 1985-2001, the Scaife Family Foundation donated $702,640 to the Heritage Foundation; $590,000 to the American Enterprise Institute; $275,000 to the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University; $200,000 to the CSIS; and $175,000 to the New Citizenship Project, Inc., alone.

Scaife is particularly notable for his pursuit of Clinton in the media.

What about the Olin Foundation?

Well, here again, we see the big names: Heritage, AEI, The Manhattan Institution, and The Project for a New American Century (for those wondering, simply think Neocon).

Next comment for the others.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 18, 2011 5:53 PM
Comment #323379

What’s Castle Rock?

Well, that’s the Coors family outfit. Sourcewatch lists Defenders of Property Rights,the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute,the Promise Keepers and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation as recipients of their money.

The web only grows larger the wider you look

Well, I have to go somewhere now, but let me leave you with this thought: how much of this did you know about? How much of your information comes from the very organizations these people created. You bash liberals over George Soros’s efforts, over his use of his money to further his goals, but just look at what I dug up from that guy whose editorial you offered as being proof of Soros’ sinister activities!

I think the Republicans underestimate just how much they’ve been snowed over during the last few decades, how much the things they see and here, the things they want to see and hear have been influenced.

And how much, in terms of their own interests, they’ve lost as a result. If you want to know why Republicans and even Democrats push the policies they do nowadays, a lot of your answers are to be found there.

Worst of all, though, this isn’t a conspiracy theory, this is operational fact.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 18, 2011 6:05 PM
Comment #323380
name me one program that liberals have introduced and voted for and passed that DOES NOT lead to the re-distribution of wealth or infringe on the rights of others?

Mike can you name a program the repubs/conservatives have introduced, voted for and passed that did not lead to the redistribution of wealth or infringe upon the rights of others, just out of curiosity?

Posted by: j2t2 at May 18, 2011 7:07 PM
Comment #323381

j2t2-
He won’t be able to. For all the Libertarian-style rhetoric, Mike’s got a problem: there are things he wants to stop, too. He wants control of government.

He just won’t acknowledge that wanting that power means wanting the power to deny other people what they believe is their right, while delivering to others what they believe is their right.

Government is mediation. Government is choosing who wins or loses, and he will pick losers as well as winners.

What he needs to realize is that this system was set up by the founders so that nobody could permanently and absolutely deny the right to help determine that to anybody. We can’t all be winners, much less anybody be the winner all the time.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 18, 2011 8:02 PM
Comment #323382

“I would simply blasted our enemies out of existance and then dared the next dictator to come after us.”

What enemies are you talking about, Mike? How would you have “simply blasted them out of existence?

“The same groups, individuals, and money that have supported uprisings in Europe are also supporting the same things in America. Need I say George Soros and his money? Oh no, that is fear mongering and conspiratorial theories; ok, tell that to the Europeans…”

CT,

The uprisings in Europe that were supported by George Soros were the anti-communist peoples’ movements that took down the many of the communist regimes, e.g., Poland. Also, the post communist democratic revolutions against dictatorial successors to those communist regimes, e.g., Orange Revolution, Rose Revolution, etc.

Quite frankly, the Europeans, particularly where the Soros money has been active (Eastern Europe) are quite satisfied with the democratic support for regime change funded by George Soros. If you doubt that, then you have little understanding of the progression from communist dictatorships through strong man successors to a fledgling form of true democracy in the former Eastern Bloc nations.

Posted by: Rich at May 18, 2011 8:30 PM
Comment #323383

Warped & Stephen

Spend the same % of GDP that we did in 1999. Tax up to support that level, not less, not more.

In hard times, we would expect to run a deficit. In good times, we would expect to run a surplus. In average times, the budget would just balance.

So how to figure this out? Take the spending from 1999. Adjust for inflation and population growth. Spend that much and design tax rates that will pay for that spending in normal times.

Posted by: C&J at May 18, 2011 9:08 PM
Comment #323384

C&J-
The Goal is arbitrary, and any number of arrangements, some less efficient or effective than others, can result in the same numerical outcome.

I think it is as important to focus on the effect of what we spend, as much as the amount of what we spend. Efficiency isn’t mere cheapness, it’s optimized effectiveness of spending.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 18, 2011 9:30 PM
Comment #323385

C&J How do we pay off the debt accrued between ‘99 and now without burdening our children and grandchildren for 50 years if we were to follow this plan you suggest?

One can see why a flat tax sounds so good to those that benefited so much from the Bush years.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 18, 2011 10:27 PM
Comment #323386

SD

I said there is a socialist caucus and I stand by it by the citation given. Pull your skull out of the dark orifices of whatever.

Warped Reality
Those groups I mentioned are lockstep and hand in hand together. The old duck syndrome. Or if you go to the local church in your area and participate actively in their programs for 20 years but do not join that church, for all intents and purposes you are a believer in that churches tenets. If you go to the local socialist, progressive, or other associated club and actively participate in just one of them, yet knowing that those other groups are interlaced with the one you choose, and they financially and physically support the one you choose, then the kinship between those groups is so close that you can’t tell the difference between them all. Case in point look at the CPUSA platform in 2008 and look at the DNC platform for the same period and you will find an astonishing similarity.
Now do you want me to show you where the forest and the trees are? Not on your life.

Posted by: tom humes at May 18, 2011 11:07 PM
Comment #323387

tom humes-
The major US Congress caucuses all have websites. You can find the progressive caucus’ website, but there’s no socialist one. The list of members is almost exactly the same, though, which is kind of funky. That’s a hell of a coincidence, isn’t it?

But if you’re conditioned to always accept the words of certain pundits, to believe in a deep dark conspiracy that’s always hidden (making all obvious facts suspect), it becomes easy to believe such things.

But you’re wrong on this. What you have here is the far right’s fantasy of what Democrats are doing, not the reality. I keep on pushing you on the plausibility question, because from where I’ve been sitting these last twenty years, Democrats have been more likely to run away from the left than turn to it.

Your party has been fairly successful in demonizing the left, but it seems it hasn’t been successful in perceiving its own success. Instead, you seem to think that the deep, dark conspiracy is as widespread and dangerous as ever.

That’s the problem with conspiracy theories. They’re like the sports car of conclusions to jump to, with powerful emotional engines, but absolutely no brakes.

I resist conspiracy theories on my own side, because not having those brakes means we’re getting into territory where rather than confront our opponents with solid evidence, and evidence backed beliefs, we’re battering them with nutso BS. Even as a cold-blooded exercise in politics, I think that’s a bad idea, because it easily becomes an ongoing collapse in credibility. But more importantly, there’s plenty real to bash our opponents over, stuff that doesn’t go away when you actually look at the facts.

Most importantly, there are real problems out there, so we don’t need to be distracted by problems that are actually figments of folk’s imagination.

The stuff I started my entry here about is a good example. You have your people saying we’re broke, that we’re bankrupt. Except, like many families out there, though we have large debts hanging over our heads, we’re still able to pay our creditors. By definition, we’re not broke, not bankrupt. It’s not a situation we need to remain in, anymore than any family needs to remain heavily indebted.

However, the consequences of not paying for the government we just ordered will be severe indeed. America’s government, in good times and bad, has never defaulted. In fact, some would argue that it’s a constitutional duty not to do so. But some are so wrapped up in near term questions of deficits, and proving they’re tough on fiscal matters, that they’re willing to pull a stunt like that, in order to impress their followers.

To me, that is just the kind of things that gets me angry at the Republicans. If they just passed the debt limit cleanly, nobody’d lose any sleep. But they have to play chicken with the economic ruin of my country.

My loyalties, though you may question them, are to the good fortune of this country. I want the best for it, and this goes in almost the complete opposite direction. Your side is pulling some dangerous stunts in order to vindicate policies that so far have only made the problem worse.

Now you don’t have to be secret fascists or even bad-intentioned for this to be a problem for me. My problem is ultimately with the results of Republican policy. I have no other agenda than the good of my country. If you understood that, it would be easier to have a real conversation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 19, 2011 7:56 AM
Comment #323388

SD

“Your party….” When the hell are you going to learn?

Why are we continually going left if “your party” is running from the left. You have some socialists in your party and that indicates going to the left. You have people in “your party” who adopt leftist principles quite heavily and that means going to the left. And all you want to do is hand me a platter of BS that says you are running from the left. You talk about raising the debt. When are you going to learn you cannot continue raising the debt. You have to stop spending. You need to cut a whole lot of agencies out of the budget. Are you going to tell your children how you put the noose around their neck by spending more and more and making them pay for it?

I’ll tell you how I can understand you better, and that is give me a list of the 5 most admired people in the federal government that you admire. That will tell me a whole lot. This parroting that you want what is best for the country while taking my taxes to pay for a debt and for programs that are not necessary is snake oil.

Posted by: tom humes at May 19, 2011 8:19 AM
Comment #323389

SD, thanks for all the copying and pasting, but I was already aware that many groups work together on both the conservative and the liberal side. The difference is that George Soros is a socialist/communist and uses his money to bring down economies and nations, simply for the purpose of making more money and destroying governments. Is there a singular money giver on the right who is willing to donate billions and work to accomplish the goals of Soros? The answer is no… So in the left’s favorite words, you are comparing apples and oranges.

So, your comments don’t really prove anything against conservatives.

Posted by: Mike at May 19, 2011 10:16 AM
Comment #323390

I forgot to add on the last post; SD continues to defend anti-American men like Soros.

But to continue:

It’s a shame Obumer isn’t as concerned about America’s economy as he is our enemies? He’s the candy man; he just travels the world and hands out America’s wealth like it was candy. What a joke; and SD thinks we should elect him again. Sorry SD, we can’t afford him…

“WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama will announce this week a new aid plan for the Middle East and North Africa that U.S. officials say will be far bolder than previous American economic assistance to the region.

Mr. Obama will outline the plan, which could include debt cancellation and a reprogramming of financial aid the U.S. already provides to countries like Egypt, in a speech he is scheduled to deliver Thursday at the State Department….

After the meeting, Mr. Obama said the U.S. will provide Jordan with hundreds of millions of dollars through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the government institution that finances and insures private business to promote economic growth. The result, according to the U.S., will be roughly $1 billion for economic activity in Jordan. The president also pledged 50,000 metric tons of wheat.

“All of this will help to stabilize the cost of living and day-to-day situation of Jordanians and will provide a foundation so that these economic reforms can move forward and long-term development can take place,” Mr. Obama said.

The president’s goal, officials said, is to give a financial boost to the political change sweeping the Mideast and North Africa, where dashed economic aspirations have fed unrest. “

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281504576329692899835726.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

I’m wondering how many millions of metric tons of wheat America is in the process of losing in the Mississippi farm land basin? We will give these towel heads our food, so our people can go hungry or pay inflated prices, and they in turn can inflate the price of oil to us. Perhaps it is the goal of Obama to drive up the cost of wheat, while at the same time driving up te cost of fuel.

Posted by: Mike at May 19, 2011 10:36 AM
Comment #323391

tom humes-
First, let me say this: I agree with many of my parties positions, so at least when you say “your party”, you’re not simply addressing somebody who says all the same things as that party, but then claims to be independent.

I mean, if you look at all those foundations above, you’ll realize a disturbing fact: that though you might think yourself free when you read a conservative website for yourself, you’ll find that many of them are supported by the same institutions that support the Republican Party, that provide it with its talking points.

The phrase “incestuous amplification” comes to mind. It’s a technique that exploits people’s social instincts. If all your friends agree with something, you have a certain level of peer-pressure driving you to agree. If a whole bunch of sources say something, something so widely reported surely must be true, right?

But if you have a system where one group of people are feeding a whole bunch of others their opinion altogether, you can get smoke where there isn’t fire.

As for the fiscal situation?

Look, I’d just say that your side of the political fence uses more raw emotion than real number crunching to set its fiscal policy, and the result is often a deficit, which they then blame on us. We also get hit for not running the fiscal policy like Republicans, for being willing to tax as we spend, and not just spend like Republicans do.

I’m for a fiscal policy where numbers are in agreement, where the direction of our deficit is downwards. I don’t really like it anymore than you do, especially since it gets held against the efforts of my party politically. (What, you didn’t think we know that big budget deficits get used in that manner?)

I just think that trying to balance the budget on the back of a weak economy is stupidity. Recessions always cause deficits, and this one was the worst in decades, so it’s effect on the budget is suitably grim.

We can deal with our budget a lot better if the economy’s not dragging it down. It’s an investment, like a poorly performing company issuing bonds so they can revamp their business. It’s not the best option, but we’re pretty much out of ideal options anyway. We might as well try to fix the problem in an order where each contributes to the solution of the other, rather than one where the success of one becomes the bane of the other.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 19, 2011 11:15 AM
Comment #323392
“The difference is that George Soros is a socialist/communist and uses his money to bring down economies and nations.”

Mike,

If George Soros is a communist, then why did he put his money and effort toward bringing down the communist regimes in the Eastern Bloc, particularly in Poland? Were the Rose Revolution (Georgia), the Orange Revolution (Ukraine) and the Velvet Revolution (Czechoslovakia) anti-democratic communist movements? No, they were not and resulted in the emergence of decidedly democratic institutions in those former Soviet Bloc countries.

In summary, according to the right, Soros is a communist who works to overthrow communist and totalitarian regimes and promotes liberal democratic institutions for the purpose of establishing a communist/socialist system in those countries. Now, that’s some logical reasoning.

Posted by: Rich at May 19, 2011 11:17 AM
Comment #323393

Mike-

SD, thanks for all the copying and pasting, but I was already aware that many groups work together on both the conservative and the liberal side. The difference is that George Soros is a socialist/communist and uses his money to bring down economies and nations, simply for the purpose of making more money and destroying governments.

And who tells you this? Who attacks one of the prominent philantropists who backs the Democrats against the Republicans?

Soros was and is staunchly anti-communist. But he’s also opposed to laissez faire economics because he believes that system to be based on a pseudoscientific certainty about the shape of the market, rather than skeptical inquiry.

He doesn’t fit in your box, so you think he’s trash. You think in these rigid opposites.

As for your second post?

In 2008, America’s output of wheat was 68 million metric tons. You’re claiming that Obama is starving us by giving the folks in the middle east seven hundredths of a percentage point of that amount. Even if our harvest was cut in half, it’d still be just over a tenth of a percentage point. And besides, don’t American farmers get paid for that wheat?

Your bias clearly clouds your analysis.

The disruption to the market from the Mississippi floods is great, but ask yourself a question here: the results of a flood on the lower Mississippie of this kind will be at the very least a devastating disaster in New Orleans. Putting whatever political biases you might have aside, you should at least acknowledge the fact that New Orleans is the main port on the Gulf coast for much of our crops. Seeing that city inundated will help nobody, and lower nobody’s prices.

A worst case scenario, though, gets really bad. With that, the failure to release water through the floodgates means that the floodgates themselves become vulnerable. Now as per the purpose of those floodgates, which was keeping the Atchafalaya river from capturing the Mississippi, the consequences of not opening them would be the permanent loss of river traffic on the current Mississippi river course from Baton Rouge to New Orleans.

Or, in otherwords, the permanent rise in wheat prices as we have to find otherways to transport our sixty something metric tons of wheat to the rest of the world. Which will make unrest in starving parts of the country worse, which will make food prices higher here.

But hey, you’re saying Obama’s just aiming to do some conspiratorial BS, so none of this matters!

This is the problem with the Conspiracy theory mindset. It’s just so incredibly dense to the problems and the situations of the real world, and often so ignorant of the real issues. There’s a world beyond politics, I just wish many on the right would realize this.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 19, 2011 12:24 PM
Comment #323394
Case in point look at the CPUSA platform in 2008 and look at the DNC platform for the same period and you will find an astonishing similarity.

When I first read this I thought it was typical far right misinformation half truth or outright lie as these things usually are. However upon researching it a bit it seems the platforms were similar in 2008.


The confusion here seems to be which political party has shifted its platform and which direction the platform has been shifted. The Dems platform hasn’t really shifted much the past decade or two but the CPUSA platform certainly has. The CPUSA of today is evidently not the CPUSA of the Gus Hall years.It seems the CPUSA has been moving more towards the middle of the political spectrum rather than the dems moving towards the left of the spectrum.

It seems the changes at the CPUSA has been due to Sam Webb the current party leader.

“Sam Webb’s public positions have been critical of the current United States government institutions and class structure, but relatively uncritical of the principles of American government (such as democracy and checks and balances), which is consistent with the current platform of the CPUSA. Webb is a staunch proponent of social democracy.[3] He has been widely criticized for these views, which are held by many Marxists to be revisionist.”

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

Doesn’t mean all you far righties who still lose sleep over communism will be able to sleep at night however as there are many more fringe parties out there that have the political views you attribute to the Dems and others. But then there are also many extremist parties on the right side of the spectrum.

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

Posted by: j2t2 at May 19, 2011 12:28 PM
Comment #323395

Rich,

It appears as if you are debating air. There is nothing of substance to his arguments, and the facts only get brushed aside when they get in his way.

Soros has done much to further the cause of democracy in Eastern Europe, but because he supports democratic causes in America, he is accused of being the “enemy” of those that aren’t interested in being swayed by the truth.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 19, 2011 12:32 PM
Comment #323396

Anybody who wants to “transform” society should cause the listeners to raise the red flag of alert. It makes no difference whether it is Obama or Soros or Dummy Dingbat. The operative word is transform and then the question is asked what is being transformed by who and how much and another red flag should be raised. Society does not need transformed. Some people’s hearts need transformed.

j2t2
The CPUSA is not moving to the center. Both parties are moving to the left. That makes the CPUSA appear to be more center. Myopia is static.

Posted by: tom humes at May 19, 2011 1:46 PM
Comment #323399

tom humes-
We are facing the fiscal and financial legacy of two wars whose conclusions will be at best muddled. We are facing the economic legacy of our worse economic downturn in real GDP terms since the great depression. We’re facing environmental disasters, whether you believe it or not, on a world-wide scale.

We need to change what we’re doing, because what we’re doing right now isn’t working. In fact, it’s working against us.

If, for example, people have to remain compliantly under the heel of a dictator in order for us to enjoy comfort and economic prosperity, then our problem is more than just that its abstractly unjust. Our problem is that we will become connected with that injustice, as our friends make their enemies fanatics. Mubarak’s police state was the birthplace of much of al-Qaeda.

Even if things aren’t that bad politically, we still have to deal with the fact that those people are going to want more money, better working conditions, or whatever.

Our policy should not depend on these kinds of unsustainable situations, especially when their ultimate effect is to motivate people to take up a negative view of our country. There are some folks we can’t help making enemies out of, and I’d just as soon keep my list of adversaries restricted to them as much as I can.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 19, 2011 3:25 PM
Comment #323400


With Soros and others like him, it is revealed that even the wealthy are not a homogeneous group determined to impose laissez faire capitalism on the world. Therefore, Soros side are considered the enemy of those who promote that brand of capitalism and their conservative supporters.

To far right conservatives, even moderate capitalists, like moderate Republicans are socialists or communists.

Posted by: jlw at May 19, 2011 3:38 PM
Comment #323401
The CPUSA is not moving to the center. Both parties are moving to the left. That makes the CPUSA appear to be more center. Myopia is static.

Tom going from a hardliner like Hall to Webb is not moving to the left by any stretch. It is the need of the far right conservative movement leaders to keep you guys living in fear. Wake up and smell the coffee, even the commies are moving towards the right.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 19, 2011 4:53 PM
Comment #323402

Today is a historic day; Obama managed to stab, in the back, the only ally we have in the Middle-East. There is so much that could be said about the repercussions of what took place today. But I must boil it all down to this: Obama is supporting Muslims and is very hostile to Israel. I believe we know where his allegiance is…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 19, 2011 4:54 PM
Comment #323403

Conservativethinker-
I think it boils down to your measuring hostility by the support of an unsustainable system that perpetuates hostilities against Israel.

Good intentioned people must be constrained just as much as anybody else. Otherwise, why do they say good intentions pave the road to hell?

We become blinded to anything else but the fight and the conflict, and start seeing everything in terms of fairy-tale style good versus evil.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 19, 2011 5:49 PM
Comment #323404

3 exams in one day and I’m burned out, so I won’t be able to respond to those comments for a while.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 19, 2011 5:55 PM
Comment #323405

CT,

What are you talking about? From what I can gather, Obama was pretty middle of the road on his Middle East speech and consistent with US policy for decades. A continuation of US policy that there should be a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, sanctions on Syria for human rights violations, support for NATO efforts to dispose Gadaffi, debt forgiveness for states that have moved to more democratic political institutions, continued criticism of Iran, etc. The only glaring omission was the absence of any real statements on Saudi Arabia.

If Obama’s support of a two state solution for the Israel-Palestinian conflict is a stab in the back of our only ally in the Middle East, then he joins a long line of US presidents supporting the same concept in principal.

Posted by: Rich at May 19, 2011 6:02 PM
Comment #323406

Rich

Pulling back to the pre-1967 borders is not supporting a 2-state settlement. It is suicide for Israel. Obama just put another nail into the coffin of the Jewish-American relationship. That is not what past admins supported.

Posted by: tom humes at May 19, 2011 6:43 PM
Comment #323407

The Luck of the Draw…

Every time I make coffee I use more potable water just rinsing the coffee maker innards, than folks in Sub-Saharan Africa, or the Gobi region in Manchuria do in an entire day.

I worked hard most of my life, even as a child. I grew up in a poor household, yet have managed to retire with a modicum of income, and it keeps my wife and I reasonably comfortable. I have health problems that most aging folks have, but nothing serious enough to cause undo concern.

Every morning when I make coffee, I look to the water I take for granted, and realize just how lucky I’ve been.

First and foremost, I was lucky enough to be born in the America of mid twentieth century. Any time before that and I would not have been able to accomplish anything near what I’ve been able to accomplish. Any time after that and my future would not be nearly as secure.

Secondly, I was born to a pair of good people who instilled certain intellectual and moral guidance principles, that it made becoming me easier.

Thirdly, I was able to attend a wonderful school for all twelve of my growing years. It was a school that local residents took pride in and nurtured and supported. The teachers were some of the best available, and they mostly took great pride in teaching children. The folks in the town took interest in each other and helped raise each other’s children…at least to a degree.

Fourth, I was physically and mentally prepared when I joined the Marine Corps, and was able to make a career out of an American military organization.

Fifth, I was able to meet, at random, a wonderful woman, who was willing and able to help me along my military career and later to take advantage of other opportunities as they were presented.

I could have been born in one of those areas of the world that does not supply enough potable water for me to rinse my coffee maker every morning. I could have been born in a time or a place that work for children was not just available, but necessary for family survival.

I could have been born to parents who abused me, neglected me, or deserted me, and who imparted not form of intellectual or moral guidance.

My schooling could have been from only the ‘school of hard knocks’, and provided by folks who cared not one whit about my education or even my survival.

I might have been born physically impaired or mentally incapable of reasonable/rational thought.

It would have been possible for me to have been born homosexual, or another way that I’d never been placed in contact with the woman who helped me to become who I am.

My point is that I had absolutely NO choice in any of these matters. Every one of them was presented to me by luck of the draw.

The rags to riches stories like that of Horatio Alger are just that…stories. Anyone who tells you that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Sam Walton, or any of those considered successful today, got there by hard work and diligent effort are leaving out the parts that really matter. None of those people would have been able to accomplish what they have without the luck of being born where they were born, to the parents they were born to, the demographics of the area they grew up in, the skill-sets they inherited, the personalities they developed, the healthy mind and bodies they grew into, etc. For all of that, like me, they had to depend on luck…being at the right place…taking advantage of the right things…grasping the right straws at the right time.

I am NOT denigrating hard work and diligence, nor am I saying anything against free market, democracy or capitalism. After all, I and my family have depended on hard work, diligence, free market, democracy AND capitalism for the comforts we live with and the opportunities we’ve been able to take advantage of. And I certainly don’t hold it against America that I was fortunate enough to be born here.

No…it is that some seem to live in the rarified atmosphere of superiority. They think that just because they are successful Americans it somehow transfers to America always being right, righteous and above the huddled masses. For example; they might deduce that because I use more water rinsing out my coffee maker than desert dwellers use in a day, I’m somehow better than desert dwellers. Another example; they might think that ghetto dwellers, who live from day to day on the largess of government social programs, are inferior to ‘normal’, hard working Americans. Of course they forget the part of the equation that placed them being born of their own parents, growing up the way they did and with the intelligence and skills nature provided THEM, but failed to provide the ghetto dweller. Some might even think that helping such lowly born folks actually perpetuates the need for helping such lowly born folks. They might think that such aid tends to create slovenly users who will never seek anything other than more help, and who pass that want on to generations of spawn.

I say that even if true, we as Americans who have had the benefits those others never had or even dreamed of, should continue to help unto eternity if necessary. Those selfsame citizens who spent a couple of decades wailing about so-called Welfare Queens, were proven to be wrong in their suppositions. Ghetto women NEVER bore children just to increase their welfare checks. But, instead of stepping back and looking at the big picture…looking at the ramifications and consequences of NOT providing such help…looking at the moral delinquencies of abandoning our own…looking at the contagious diseases that are spread in squalor conditions…looking at a mirror instead of at the life that surrounds them, are wrong about society, about social issues and wrong about their own position in the cosmos.

For those who say, “Yes, but it should not be the job of the taxpayer or the government to do this work, it should be up to family, neighbors, churches and communities to do it through charity and volunteering.” I say, you are right, it SHOULD be, but a swift glance at history will show YOU that it was not being done.

After all…there, but for fate, go you or I. Fate (luck) placed US in a position to take advantage of the results of hard work and diligence. But it did not place ALL of us there.

Posted by: Marysdude at May 19, 2011 7:11 PM
Comment #323408

Marysdude seems to proclaim predestination. To believe that life is merely luck denies almost all of written history.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 19, 2011 7:34 PM
Comment #323409

“That is not what past admins supported.”

Tom Humes,

Nonsense! The 1967 borders, with adjustments mutually negotiated, has been the basic policy of the past two administrations. This is what GW Bush had to say about the matter: “Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.” G.W. Bush May 26, 2005.


Posted by: Rich at May 19, 2011 7:41 PM
Comment #323410

Marysdude said:

“After all…there, but for fate, go you or I. Fate (luck) placed US in a position to take advantage of the results of hard work and diligence. But it did not place ALL of us there.”

Actually, the saying goes back to the 16th century and is a derivation of a statement accredited to John Bradford:

“There but for the Grace of God, go I:

Meaning

I too, like someone seen to have suffered misfortune, might have suffered a similar fate, but for God’s mercy.

Origin

In recent times, this proverbial saying is often used without the literal belief in the Christian God’s control of all things and is used by believers and nonbelievers alike. It is frequently suggested to have been coined in a more pious and devout era. The story that is widely circulated is that the phrase was first spoken by the English evangelical preacher and martyr, John Bradford (circa 1510–1555). He is said to have uttered the variant of the expression - “There but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford”, when seeing criminals being led to the scaffold. He didn’t enjoy that grace for long, however. He was burned at the stake in 1555, although, by all accounts he remained sanguine about his fate and is said to have suggested to a fellow victim that “We shall have a merry supper with the Lord this night”.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/there-but-for-the-grace-of-god.html

I, like you Marysdude, am pleased that God saw fit to allow me to be born in this great country. I also came from very humble beginnings and manage, with the grace of God, to live through 4 years in the military and to spend 36 years working and now enjoy a modest income, and living in the hills of Kentucky.

I am also thank full that my parents wanted me, unlike the millions of babies whose lives are snuffed out by abortion, before they can ever experience breathing free air.

But I am also sure you have seen, as well as I, the changes that have taken place in America, as some would try to take away our God given rights.

Thanks for your comments, who says people of different political persuasions cannot agree.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 19, 2011 7:47 PM
Comment #323411

I listened to Dear Leader’s Middle East speech today and was astounded by either his woeful lack of knowledge about this part of the world, or his audacity in offering the Arab world our collusion in the destruction of Israel.

The plan that he (or his minions) and Hillary cooked up is rotten to the core and absolutely dispecible.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 19, 2011 7:51 PM
Comment #323412

Rich said to Tom Humes:

“Nonsense! The 1967 borders, with adjustments mutually negotiated, has been the basic policy of the past two administrations. This is what GW Bush had to say about the matter: “Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.” G.W. Bush May 26, 2005.”

Rich, in 2004 America made a commitment with Israel to never require Israel to go back to the 1967 borders. If you will remember, it was the Muslim countries who invaded Israel in 1967 and in 6 days Israel pushed them back and claimed these buffer zones. The disgusting thing about what our jackass of a president did was to give up a final negotiating point when he opened his mouth. The Palestinians will never negotiate with Israel now, because Israel has nothing to negotiate with; Obama took care of that. I’m beginning to understand why the left thinks Mexico has the right to the Southwest America; it is because they attacked us and we pushed them back and took the land, which we should have given back after the war. It is the same thing Israel is being asked to do. Either Obama is purposely supporting the Muslims over our ally, or he is completely ignorant when it comes to negotiating. I pick the first…

“Reacting to Obama’s speech, Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a full withdrawal from the West Bank, saying the 1967 lines were “indefensible” and would leave major Jewish settlements outside Israel. Netanyahu rejects any pullout from east Jerusalem.
Netanyahu heads to the White House on Friday and said he would seek clarifications.
Behind the rhetoric, though, was the possibility of finding common ground. Obama said he would support agreed-upon territorial swaps between the Israel and the Palestinians, leaving the door open for Israel to retain major West Bank settlements, where the vast majority of its nearly 300,000 Jewish settlers live.
Netanyahu said he would urge Obama to endorse a 2004 American commitment, made by then President George W. Bush, to Israel. In a letter at the time, Bush said a full withdrawal to the 1967 lines was “unrealistic” and a future peace agreement would have to recognize “new realities on the ground.”
Israelis have interpreted Bush’s commitment as U.S. support for retaining the major settlement blocs. Earlier this week, Netanyahu said Israel would have to retain the blocs as part of any future peace agreement.”


Israel’s Netanyahu: 1967 borders can’t be defended - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_18096998?source=rss#ixzz1MqXBY9jI

We find this support for the rights of Israel goes back to President Reagan, who echoed the same sentiments.
In an address delivered on September 1, 1982 President Ronald Reagan said:

“In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again… So the United States will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and we will not support annexation or permanent control by Israel. There is, however, another way to peace. The final status of these lands must, of course, be reached through the give-and-take of negotiations; but it is the firm view of the United States that self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan offers the best chance for a durable, just and lasting peace. It is the United States’ position that - in return for peace - the withdrawal provision of Resolution 242 applies to all fronts, including the West Bank and Gaza. When the border is negotiated between Jordan and Israel, our view on the extent to which Israel should be asked to give up territory will be heavily affected by the extent of true peace and normalization and the security arrangements offered in return. Finally, we remain convinced that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but its final status should be decided through negotiations.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Resolution_242

UN Resolution 242 wanted the lands to be returned to the previous Muslim nations, but with certain conditions being met and the Muslims have never been willing to meet these conditions, therefore Israel has never considered giving these buffer zones back.

Obama has screwed this one real good. He has managed to alienate our only ally in the Middle East, and has promised everything including the kitchen sink to the Muslims. And even after giving them money and food, they will still be our enemy. Israel understands that these people only understand force. The one with the biggest gun wins… When you have one group that will settle for nothing less than annihilation of the enemy, it’s hard to negotiate.

I can’t wait to hear more defenses from the left, explaining why Obama screwed the Jews. I guess all the chatter from the left comparing conservatives to Nazi’s is misplaced; it appears it is the left who are Anti-Semetic.

If you guys, on the left, ask me real nice, I would be glad to tell you what part the current events have to do with Biblical Prophecy. I can tell you who is involved and what they plan to do.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 19, 2011 8:32 PM
Comment #323413

CT,

The Bush statement was in 2005, not in 2004. It affirmed US policy that the 1967 borders with modifications are the foundation of a two state solution. The Israelis stone walled Bush on the settlements issue, effectively thwarting the road map to peace. But the Israelis are not totally at fault. The Palestinians share equal blame for this impasse. They want it all back (right of return) and have rejected very reasonable compromises (Camp David Summit 2000). The Israeli concerns about defense of their borders and sovereignty are certainly reasonable considering the actions and rhetoric of Hamas.

In my opinion, the only practical way for a solution is through international action which recognizes a two state solution roughly configured around the 1967 borders and guarantees security between the parties. That would require an international force to secure the borders and enforce the agreement. Not likely.


Posted by: Rich at May 19, 2011 9:31 PM
Comment #323414

tom humes-
The practice of taking Palestinian lands and building settlements on them hasn’t made Israel anymore secure. It also helps turn the international community against Israel, which is hardly helpful to its security.

Besides, don’t you remember Israel surviving a concerted military attack by its enemies? How are the borders Israel successfully defended nails in its coffin?

Royal Flush-
Luck and ability. He didn’t say luck alone gave him what he got.

As for your criticism? The typical vague negativism of the right.

Conservativethinker-
The world’s changed since 1967. Anybody who moves on Israel’s going to get picked up on our spy satellites. They’re going to get the same treatment Qadhafi’s troops are getting now from the air, with the added bonus of having to fight Israeli troops as well. Israel’s not going to lose a war to keep its territory. If they kicked everybody’s ass in 1967, do you think they’ve somehow weakened since then, in skill or in firepower? Have we, their allies, weakened in our airpower or sigint capability?

Israel needs to know it has a firm ally in that, Obama said nothing to indicate otherwise. It does not need to be coddled by those who enable behavior that only puts Israel in a more indefensible position.

I mean, what’s the end game here? Where does this game of brinksmanship lead? If you aren’t thinking about that, you’re not thinking in terms of responsible foreign policy.

If we’re talking responsible foreign policy here.

But as far as that biblical prophecy goes?

Me, I think all this junk about dates and sequences of events is all just humans vainly trying to believe that they’re any more knowledgeable about how things are going to turn out than anybody else.

My advice? Don’t neglect being good and righteous in the here and now, as if you’re going to have to wait a thousand years to see Christ. For all you know, it may just be that long. I think the folks that end up being right will be right the same way a broken clock is right twice a day. I don’t think we’re qualified to figure out God’s plans, at this level, so far in advance.

Most of what’s written in the bible about these things pertains to one subject: when the chips are down, when the pressure is on, do you hold true to your faith? Read Job. Read all the crap he went through. Was it the end of the world? No. Many people before had suffered as he did, and many more would suffer after that, including our Lord.

And what did God tell Job, when Job demanded and answer?

He basically tells him you can’t begin to understand what I plan or what I intend, mister, so you can’t begin to understand what the real purpose of what you went through was.

And what did Jesus say? “God will come like a thief in the night. Only he knows when he will do it. I don’t know, the angels don’t know.”

So on and so forth.

I think the main thing Jesus was trying to tell us was “Quit complicating things with all this BS. Do good as a rule, even to your enemies. Concentrate on what’s inside. Try and figure out what’s right instead of just going through the motions and living out a code that is just dead words. Don’t nurture hatred within you. Don’t nurture selfish excuses for feeding off of your bad impulses.”

My convinction is that Christs way is a universal, that even a person or being that is far from any direct knowledge of his work can aspire too.

We just have to let ourselves get close enough that the spark of his life can jump to us, and that we can recognize what we need to recognize within ourselves to do right by him.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 20, 2011 1:27 AM
Comment #323415

RF

“The plan that he (or his minions) and Hillary cooked up is rotten to the core and absolutely dispecible.”

i agree. his middle east policy is a disaster in the making. from his unwillingness to support mubarak to to his latest slap in the face to our strongest ally. he is creating a situation that will result in israel being wiped of the face of map. he is either intentionaly setting up a situation where islamic law will completely take over the middle east, or he is incredibly stupid. at this point i can’t be sure which it is, but i have my suspicions. november 2012 can’t come soon enough. let’s just hope the electorate is awake when it arrives.

Posted by: dbs at May 20, 2011 8:16 AM
Comment #323416

Rich said:

“The Bush statement was in 2005, not in 2004.”

Wrong, in a letter to Ariel Sharon on April 14, 2004; he reiterated American policy from Reagan until his presidency concerning support of Israel:

“The Palestinian Authority under its current leadership has taken no action to meet its responsibilities under the Roadmap. Terror has not ceased, reform of the Palestinian security services has not been undertaken, and real institutional reforms have not taken place. The State of Israel continues to pay the heavy cost of constant terror. Israel must preserve its capability to protect itself and deter its enemies, and we thus retain our right to defend ourselves against terrorism and to take actions against terrorist organizations.
Having reached the conclusion that, for the time being, there exists no Palestinian partner with whom to advance peacefully toward a settlement and since the current impasse is unhelpful to the achievement of our shared goals, I have decided to initiate a process of gradual disengagement with the hope of reducing friction between Israelis and Palestinians. The Disengagement Plan is designed to improve security for Israel and stabilize our political and economic situation. It will enable us to deploy our forces more effectively until such time that conditions in the Palestinian Authority allow for the full implementation of the Roadmap to resume. “

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Reference+Documents/Exchange+of+letters+Sharon-Bush+14-Apr-2004.htm

SD said;

“Conservativethinker-
The world’s changed since 1967. Anybody who moves on Israel’s going to get picked up on our spy satellites. They’re going to get the same treatment Qadhafi’s troops are getting now from the air, with the added bonus of having to fight Israeli troops as well. Israel’s not going to lose a war to keep its territory. If they kicked everybody’s ass in 1967, do you think they’ve somehow weakened since then, in skill or in firepower? Have we, their allies, weakened in our airpower or sigint capability?
Israel needs to know it has a firm ally in that, Obama said nothing to indicate otherwise. It does not need to be coddled by those who enable behavior that only puts Israel in a more indefensible position.”

Just like a liberal; to ask Israel to trust Obama to protect them, after Obama has just stabbed them in the back by throwing a previous agreement in the trash can. If I were Israel, I would never trust Obama. They have only one battle to fight and if Israel loses that, they lose all. Israel had a peace agreement with Egypt, and had given the Sinai back to Egypt years ago as a gesture of peace and now Egypt, under the new “Democratic” regime through it into the trash. It’s a shame you are not the one living in Israel and depending on a pro-Muslim American president to protect you. I doubt if you would be saying the same things.

Once again SD, you have shown your complete ignorance of the Bible. I love the way you liberal socialists on the left love to tell us the Bible is a make believe book, and then go on to explain to us what it really says. Why don’t you guys stick to what you do best (Tax and Spend), and leave Bible interpretation to those who have actually read, studied, and taught the Bible?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 20, 2011 9:33 AM
Comment #323417

dbs-
Yeah, he’s just acting like a complete cartoon villain, isn’t he? The kind of bad official you’d write about in a bad novel.

That should indicate something to you about the plausibility of your portrait of him.

Conservativethinker-
Most serious scholars of American policy towards Israel find very little exceptional about what America said, except that he stated it out loud.

As for the bible? I don’t believe it’s make-believe or literally true in every respect. I think the folks who wrote it believed what happen did happen, or at the very least meant something as a story to morally guide people.

I believe it divinely inspired. I believe that Jesus’ teachings are profound and deeper statements about human nature and God’s nature than most realize.

You can call me the names, but I have a name no man can decide for me, and if keep the faith, that name will be written in the book of the elect.

So, it doesn’t matter what you say about my ignorance. You are ignorant of what I know, so what can you truly say about my ignorance?

I will speak what I feel inspired to speak, thank you very much. I will not leave the teaching to those who believe that they alone know what is wise and good. People will have a chance to choose who to listen to.

My sensibility is pretty simple: God is just waiting there to forgive us, but we got to admit to ourselves when we’ve screwed up, that we’ve screwed up, and that we will screw up. We have to admit that there is nothing we ourselves can do, by ourselves, to remedy this fallibility.

I don’t believe a merciful God abandons those who are not of our own religion. I believe he asks the same thing of them as he does of us, and if they fulfill that, if they follow his way, even without knowing fully what they’re doing, then he will welcome them as he would us. And if they don’t? He will reject them as he will reject us.

The importance of the Christian Church, in my opinion, is to make this less accidental, by first gathering followers who are regularly taught the word, and secondly, by distribute his message, so that even if people don’t go to church, or hold with our religious beliefs, they’ll know of Christ’s teachings and be able to follow them in part.

He’s not going to leave even the staunchest atheist without some measure of His grace. He will do everything to save every one of us that he can. I know this, I have faith in this, and I want other people to have faith in this. I want people to know that what he talks about isn’t some naive dream about how people could behave towards one another, but a very realistic idea of how people should behave towards one another if they don’t want to tear each other’s lives apart, if they want to be at peace with themselves, their neighbor, and the world.

You call me your names, you slander what I believe in as something its not, then tell me you are more qualified than I am to speak of what’s in the bible.

Has it occurred to you that more is expected out of both of us than this?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 20, 2011 11:34 AM
Comment #323418

I would ask a simple question about Israel and the Palestinians…which side has repeatedly offered and given concessions for peace and which side recognizes the others right to exist? When has Israel ever struck a preemptive attack on its neighbor in modern history?

If one believes in God, it is logical that one should believe in God’s biblical promises to his chosen people. If one believes that Jesus is the son of God, it is logical that one should believe His words on who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said that He, and He alone, was the way to the Kingdom.

As for Dear Leader’s flawed plan for peace, he didn’t address the two most important issues that, without being resolved, could never lead to peace. Those two being, the right of return of Palestinians to Israel, and the control of Jerusalem.

It would be interesting to ask Watchblog readers and writers who they believe desires peace without the destruction of the other.

I will vote for Israel. YOU???

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 20, 2011 12:12 PM
Comment #323419

Stephen, As far as Obama’s comments yesterday about Israel, were stupid to say the least. He IMO has just turned his back on the one true ally we have in the region. Also he forgets how this country grew, we did fight Mexico and took Texas, Ca., Az, and N.M. and a few other states from other countries. You think maybe we should give Texas back to Mexico? As far as your comment on God’s mercy, Jesus did say that ” He woul rather you be hot or cold because if you are lukewarm He will spew you out of his mouth.” That means He don’t want a half way Christian, He want all or nothing period.

Posted by: KAP at May 20, 2011 12:19 PM
Comment #323420

stephen

“That should indicate something to you about the plausibility of your portrait of him.”


this might.


http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/05/06/seiu-drops-mask-goes-full-commie/

look at the pictures, and watch the videos. especially the one of obama speaking to the seiu in 2008.

ya stephen i’m just making this stuff up LOL!!!!

Posted by: dbs at May 20, 2011 12:25 PM
Comment #323421


Stephen, yes, things have changed and the 1967 border issue has less to do with security these days, and more to do with the number of Jews that have laid claim to the occupied lands.

IMO, Obama’s speech was rehashed bland. There was virtually nothing in the speech that could distinguish Obama’s Middle East policy from other administrations. This is especially true of the Israeli Palestinian situation.

I think Bush included the occupied lands in his peace initiative because he had to at least pretend he was interested in a peace settlement, while supporting the hard line conservative Israelis. Like here in America, American conservatives like to believe that nearly all Israelis are firmly in support of the conservative Israelis positions on the peace process.

The only real change in policy for this Administration is in handling the Bush Phenomenon, brought on by the encouragement of democratic government and rule of law. A phenomenon that conservatives seem to be scared to death of after initiating it.

Posted by: jlw at May 20, 2011 12:33 PM
Comment #323422

It would be interesting to ask Watchblog readers and writers who they believe desires peace without the destruction of the other.

Neither.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at May 20, 2011 12:45 PM
Comment #323423

Royal Flush-
I known Conservativethinker and you probably think I’m ignorant of the bible, but God has, at various time, had Israel occupied or subjugated to foreign powers, or the Jews themselves dispersed the four corners of the globe.

By your logic, this would indicate that he had forsaken that promise in the past. I wouldn’t put it past God to teach his people another lesson in humility, what with all the lesson’s he’s taught before.

I’d say don’t put the Lord your God to the test. Don’t jump off the Temple roof and expect him to catch you.

As for Jesus alone being the way to the Kingdom? Nothing I said contradicts that. His teachings are essential to salvation.

I vote for Israel. I just don’t support the self-destructive policies that provoke and then expect peace.

KAP-
Funny, the Anti-Defamation League took a different view. The Right Wing has made complete agreement with a far-right government’s goal in Israel the necessary condition of supporting that nation’s continued existence and security.

As for what God wants, he doesn’t want people uncommitted. It’s not purism he’s looking for, it’s loyalty.

You folks had better consider that there is more than one way to be lukewarm.

dbs-
You’re more interested in dark socialists conspiracies and the politics of resisting that than you are in creating a goverment that works.

One reason why Jesus tells us to do these things that break adversarial thinking in terms of one’s rivals, is that such rivalries distort one’s moral and practical judgment in life. We can justify a lot in the name of fighting our adversaries. Republicans can justify doing things that put capitalism at risk to save capitalism from the bad old socialists.

You need to step back from an attachment to proving our marxist bonafides, and take a look at what a great service your dysfunctional economy is doing for those who want to claim that Capitalism is a screwed up, elitist system that benefits nobody else but those at the top.

Then you will understand that a little constraint, a stitch in time, can save nine later. One regulation, properly placed, can stem the outrage that creates a dozen others later, when people are less patient and accomodating.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 20, 2011 12:59 PM
Comment #323424

That’s what I said Stephen, COMMITTED relationship. Not a wishy washy liberal relationship.
Stephen, It was a stupid statement that Obama said for Israel to go back to the 1967 borders. All sides in the middle east must want to have peace but we know it aint going to happen under Obama’s watch or the next presidents watch or the one after that. The fight has been going on since Isaac and Ishmael.

Posted by: KAP at May 20, 2011 2:13 PM
Comment #323425

Israel’s Netanyahu handed Dear Leader a terrific blow today by simply telling the truth about Israel and it’s avowed enemies. Dear Leader can now slink back to the Oval Office and await Netanyahu’s speech before congress next week. I expect Netanyahu will receive a very warm welcome from congress as opposed to his unusually cool reception by this administration.

It is crystal clear from the presidents flawed speech on Israel’s borders that he and our state department are incapable of any meaningful diplomacy.

It is difficult to understand why obama would place his tarnished reputation for diplomacy on such a flawed plan. Can anyone point me to a diplomatic victory for obama? His actions so far in the Middle East have been dismal.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 20, 2011 5:07 PM
Comment #323426

I think every president after 1967 thinks Israel ought to go back to the pre 67 borders R.F. Bush hinted at it in Jan. 2008 in his visit to Jerusalem, but I don’t think any have been as vocal about it as Obama was. But I do agree Netanyahu did spank Obama.

Posted by: KAP at May 20, 2011 5:21 PM
Comment #323427

KAP-

That’s what I said Stephen, COMMITTED relationship. Not a wishy washy liberal relationship.

When I was up at Baylor, thankfully, I rarely heard stuff like that. They understood that it’s ten times more difficult to convince people who you’ve just ticked off.

Why is it stupid to go back to 1967 borders as a starting point for the negotiation? Or are you just repeating what Benjamin Netanyahu said? Bush said things that are fairly similar. The reason this is getting such a raging controversy built around it is not what was said, it was who said it. Any policy position Obama takes, right, left, or center, will be opposed for the sake of politics.

As for peace? Nothing is a given in human behavior, and nothing is permanent. For too long, people have narrowed their options where Israel is concerned far too soon to deal with each other in good faith.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 20, 2011 5:22 PM
Comment #323428

SD writes; “The reason this is getting such a raging controversy built around it is not what was said, it was who said it.”

That comment is pure unadulterated bull crap. No previous president has suggested anything like this. Keep spinning as it is fun to set you straight.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 20, 2011 6:03 PM
Comment #323429

“The Bush statement was in 2005, not in 2004.”

Wrong, in a letter to Ariel Sharon on April 14, 2004; he reiterated American policy from Reagan until his presidency concerning support of Israel”

CT,

Do you think that I was making up the Bush quote from 2005? Let me repeat it: ““Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work.”

That is not significantly different than what Obama said more explicitly. The 1949 Armistice line, also referred to as the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed swaps of land would be the appropriate demarcation for a two state solution.

This is a lot of fury about nothing.

Posted by: Rich at May 20, 2011 6:40 PM
Comment #323430

You can hope so Rich.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 20, 2011 7:22 PM
Comment #323431

Well Stephen you do have a knack of ticking people off. But you do need a COMMITTED relationship not a wishy washy one. Why go back to the 1967 borders, why not go back to when the 12 tribes of Israel occupied the region? Why does the President want to give back what Israel fought for in the 6 day war? How about giving Texas back to Mexico or California back? We fought and took the lands from them. We don’t negotiate with terrorists groups like Hamas, why do you think Israel should?

Posted by: KAP at May 20, 2011 7:25 PM
Comment #323432

Royal Flush,

The Obama position can be summarized as “committing the United States to support a Palestinian state “based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,” in exchange for recognition of “Israel as a Jewish state” and a “non-militarized” status for Palestine.” David Ignatius, Washington Post, May 19, 2011.

Even conservative critics of Obama’s foreign policy, such as Charles Kruathammer, recognize that it has been the basic operating principal of US policy for more than a decade. He had this to say about the Obama policy statement: “True, that idea has been the working premise for negotiations since 2000.” Washington Post, May 19, 2011.

Posted by: Rich at May 20, 2011 7:28 PM
Comment #323433

Kap wrote; “Well Stephen you do have a knack of ticking people off.”

Some folks are just more talented. It’s just “not fair”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 20, 2011 7:30 PM
Comment #323434

Stephen, you and I and others have had this conversation many times. You are not logical; you say:

“As for the bible? I don’t believe it’s make-believe or literally true in every respect. I think the folks who wrote it believed what happen did happen, or at the very least meant something as a story to morally guide people.”

So what is it Stephen, is it make believe or literal? This statement sounds like a liberal politician; “I believe it, but I don’t believe it”.

I believe it divinely inspired. I believe that Jesus’ teachings are profound and deeper statements about human nature and God’s nature than most realize.”

I believe it “divinely inspired”, but I don’t believe it is literal. If it’s divinely inspired, how can it not be true? Stephen you make absolutely no sense at all.

“I don’t believe a merciful God abandons those who are not of our own religion. I believe he asks the same thing of them as he does of us, and if they fulfill that, if they follow his way, even without knowing fully what they’re doing, then he will welcome them as he would us. And if they don’t? He will reject them as he will reject us.”

This statement goes completely against everything Jesus taught in His divinely inspired Word, of which you don’t believe, because even though the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God (according to you), it’s not really believable. Stephen, you give me a headache trying to figure out what you believe.

Therefore I have no option but to call your statements ignorant; because they don’t make any sense. Then you go on to say:

“I will speak what I feel inspired to speak, thank you very much.”

Answer me Stephen, are your words divinely inspired, or just inspired? Do your words carry the same weight as God’s words? They must do, because even though God’s words are divinely inspired, they carry no more weight than yours, according to you. Because even though God’s words are divinely inspired, they are wrong, according to you…

Royal Flush said:

“If one believes in God, it is logical that one should believe in God’s biblical promises to his chosen people. If one believes that Jesus is the son of God, it is logical that one should believe His words on who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said that He, and He alone, was the way to the Kingdom.”

Yes RF, it seems pretty straight forward and simple. Jesus said, Joh 14:6, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” This seems pretty simple, but even here Mr. Daugherty has to interject his own opinion into that of Christ’s. If the truth be known, Mr. Daugherty probably believes the Bible is a living document in the same sense as he believes the Constitution is a living document, and constantly evolving. Mr. Daugherty believes he is an expert when it comes to everything. There is a verse in the Bible that comes to mind when I read the things that Mr. Daugherty says, 2Ti 3:7 “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”


dbs, very good link; but Stephen does not believe Socialism or Communism are real factors in America. He believes they are just isolated fringe groups who are really vanishing before our very eyes, LOL.

Stephen’s further statements:

“Royal Flush-
I known Conservativethinker and you probably think I’m ignorant of the bible, but God has, at various time, had Israel occupied or subjugated to foreign powers, or the Jews themselves dispersed the four corners of the globe.”

Yes, and as for the second part; are you now justifying another occupation of Israel. It won’t happen again big boy, no matter how much you support our Pro-Muslim president.

Netanyahu’s spanking of Obama today shows Obama’s ignorance of the world. He is in over his head. He has been told so many times by the MSM that he is the messiah, that he believes all he has to do is speak his will into existence.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 20, 2011 7:43 PM
Comment #323435

“Why does the President want to give back what Israel fought for in the 6 day war?”

KAP,

Israel has previously agreed in principal to pull back to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed changes in those lines in recognition of the “realities on the ground.” That has been the basic starting point of negotiations for quite some time. The problem is the issue of security. Israel is reluctant to agree to the settlement when Palestinians refuse to give up their claim for a “right of return,” refuse to recognize Israe and persist in acts of terrorism against Israeli citizens.


Posted by: Rich at May 20, 2011 7:54 PM
Comment #323436

Conservativethinker is correct on all counts. I pray that all will come to Christ in humility and accept His offer of salvation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 20, 2011 7:58 PM
Comment #323437

“Royal Flush,
The Obama position can be summarized as “committing the United States to support a Palestinian state “based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,” in exchange for recognition of “Israel as a Jewish state” and a “non-militarized” status for Palestine.” David Ignatius, Washington Post, May 19, 2011.
Even conservative critics of Obama’s foreign policy, such as Charles Kruathammer, recognize that it has been the basic operating principal of US policy for more than a decade. He had this to say about the Obama policy statement: “True, that idea has been the working premise for negotiations since 2000.” Washington Post, May 19, 2011.
Posted by: Rich at May 20, 2011 07:28 PM”

Well Rich, let’s see what Krauthhammer really said:

“What Obama did today is something that no American president has ever done, which is to endorse the return to the 1967 lines which as you said would reduce Israel to a country with a waist eight miles wide,” Krauthammer said. “Now, the reason this is odd is because you’d expect it to be at least in return for something. But the Palestinians in the two-and-a-half years of this administration have not offered them anything as a concession to Israelis. [Palestinian Authority President] Mahmoud Abbas has boycotted the negotiation and then a few weeks ago, he joined in government with Hamas, dedicated to extermination of Israel. In return for all of those and the Israel gestures, Obama makes the biggest concession of the entire Arab-Israeli negotiations in 50 years.”
Krauthammer explained that the problem with this proposal is that it negates prior agreements Israel had made with the U.S. government.
“And second it’s an issue of trust,” he continued. “Whenever Israel negotiates, there’s an asymmetry. It gives away a tangible asset — land in return for promises which are ephemeral. America looks at that and says, ‘Look, we understand and thus we will balance the risk by giving us American assurances that will help you because of the asymmetry in negotiations.’ In 2000 and before, Israel was preparing withdrawal from Gaza and it got explicit written promises from the U.S. government that it would not ask Israel return to the ‘67 lines and it would support Israel holding on to the close-in settlement as a new reality on the ground. But what Obama did today is tear up that agreement. If Israel cannot rely on the assurances of the United States, which is a way to balance the risks it takes and it cannot negotiate it – it has to wonder how much it can trust this American president.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/19/krauthammer-obama-speech-shows-he-has-sympathies-everywhere-except-israel/#ixzz1MwKboIqV

By the way Rich; America’s policy of supporting Israel concerning the 1967, 6 day war, goes all the way back to Lyndon Johnson. Obama has thrown out the words of every president since 1948 in the trash. What an ass…

Posted by: Mike at May 20, 2011 7:59 PM
Comment #323438

Conservativethinker [now there’s an oxymoron] Bush as reported by the NYT.JERUSALEM — As he left for Kuwait, President Bush promised on Friday to return in May for Israel’s 60th anniversary, a visit that could serve as additional pressure on both Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a peace treaty by the end of his term.

Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Steven Erlanger on President Bush’s Trip to the Middle East
Enlarge This Image

Hasan Jamali/Associated Press
Protesters, some with placards, burned makeshift American and Israeli flags in Bahrain, where Mr. Bush will be Saturday.
Mr. Bush made it clear to the two sides that he would be involved to the extent they proved serious about making peace, and that the United States could not want a settlement more than they did. And he did his best to shore up both leaders, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, who are politically weak.

At a dinner with Mr. Olmert and senior members of his fractious coalition on Thursday night, Mr. Bush urged the coalition members to get behind Mr. Olmert, despite their political differences, and to work to advance peace, saying the current situation was not sustainable, one attendee said. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the dinner was private.

Mr. Olmert, whose popularity is low, faces another challenge on Jan. 30, with the expected release of the final report of the state-appointed Winograd Commission into the handling of the war in Lebanon in 2006. Mr. Olmert has said he will not resign no matter what the report says.

“There’s a good chance for peace, and I want to help you,” Mr. Bush told Mr. Olmert on Friday before getting on a plane. But there are few Israelis or Palestinians who second Mr. Bush’s assertion that a peace treaty will be signed this year.

The Hamas prime minister in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, attacked Mr. Bush on Friday for giving Israel “all the required pledges to solidify its occupation and to wipe out basic Palestinian rights and sacred issues, while he gave Palestinians more illusions and slogans.”

In particular, Mr. Haniya vowed that Palestinians would never give up what they considered their right to return, with their descendants, to their original homes in what is now the state of Israel.

The idea of a Palestinian state as the sole homeland for Palestinian refugees is “totally unacceptable to us and can in no way commit our people and the next generations,” Mr. Haniya said. “The problem of Palestine will remain alive.”

Hamas is opposed to Mr. Abbas’s talks with Israel and rejects any territorial compromise that allows Israel to retain any land beyond its pre-1967 boundaries. Hamas’s charter calls for Israel to be expunged, but Mr. Haniya and some others in Hamas have said they could accept a long-term truce with an Israel that pulls back from all its territorial gains made in the 1967 war.

While Mr. Abbas was a polite host, other reactions showed discontent. Ali Jarbawi, a political scientist at Birzeit University in the West Bank, said of Mr. Bush: “He is adopting the Israeli position regarding a settlement: no return to the ’67 borders, no return for refugees, no return of all East Jerusalem. Actually, these are the conditions of Israel. It will be extremely difficult for any Palestinian leader to accept all three.”

For Mr. Bush, Friday was an emotional day of tourism at sights special to Jews and Christians. He visited Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust museum, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. At least twice, Mr. Bush had tears in his eyes, said Avner Shalev, the chairman of the museum.

At one point Mr. Bush stopped before aerial photos of the Auschwitz death camp taken by American planes during World War II, and asked Ms. Rice why the American military did not bomb the camp. “We should have bombed it,” he told her, Mr. Shalev told reporters later.

Ms. Rice, asked by reporters on the plane to Kuwait about the comment, said they had been discussing the reasons the wartime allies had not bombed railway lines to Auschwitz. Calls to the museum and its representatives, made as the Jewish Sabbath began, were not answered.

Posted by: Jeff at May 20, 2011 7:59 PM
Comment #323439

You are correct Royal, but something that was never negotiable was Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 20, 2011 8:01 PM
Comment #323440

That is something for Israel and the Palestinians to figure out Rich, Not Obama. As I said there will probably be NO PEACE in that region during this presidents term or the next or the one after that. It has been going on for thousands of years the fight between Israel and Islam.

Posted by: KAP at May 20, 2011 8:02 PM
Comment #323441

jeff, other than your snide remark about my same, I have absolutly no idea what your extended quote was about.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 20, 2011 8:58 PM
Comment #323442

Royal Flush-
Well, if Obama’s saying similar things to what Republicans said before, then we can conclude it’s personal and political animus.

Look, this was the starting point for nearly every peace plan, for the singular reason that what the Occupied Territories really are, are pieces of Jordan and Egypt that Israel took over in the wake of the early war. That’s what makes them Occupied.

And so, dealing with that, trading from that has been our policy since the beginning for the peace process. After all, it’s the whole point of the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict.

KAP-
You’ve only questioned my faith, among other things. I don’t know why you’re mad at me. I merely questioned the politics of bashing a guy for policy your people already promoted. The 1967 borders represent the borders pre-occupied territory.

Look, America doesn’t need more of this BS, nor does Israel. decades of conflict, even centuries, doesn’t justify letting the situation get worse.

Conservativethinker-

So what is it Stephen, is it make believe or literal? This statement sounds like a liberal politician; “I believe it, but I don’t believe it”.

You look at history with any great care, and what you will discover is history has never been an exact science, and the further back you go, the more inexact it becomes.

And when you’re talking word of mouth? Just look at what happens to the stories of major figures of the past. I don’t know if you noticed this, but people weren’t exactly scientific in those times. Nor were many literate.

The bible is demonstrably a document of many different times and places in the Middle East. The storytelling mixes both provable history, and impossible to prove (or disprove) miracles and supernatural occurences

Now, what I could do, faced with all this, is say that I believe nothing except that which can be scientifically proven. No soul, no God, no Divine Jesus.

What I’ve chosen to believe is that the means to distinguish fact from fiction, fable from history is largely beyond my means, and that being the case, I will make the leap of faith and believe that even if what is literally recounted never happened, the story itself carries with it the sparks of divine wisdom, buried within the works of the hand of man. As with all things touched by man’s hands, it’s an imperfect representation of what God wanted to tell us, but I think He understood that, and has allowed for it.

To claim that the bible is literal and perfect proof of things is dangerous, because it puts a matter of faith to an inappropriate test.

Let’s take an example: the Red Sea Split. Some say this must have happened, and that we should look for that evidence, because of what the bible says.

But what happens when a person looking for such prove makes a claim that gets factually disproved? Then those who were inspired by that fact face a problematic choice: either reject factual counterevidence based on faith, and incur the scorn that brings, or reject the faith based on the disproven fact.

Me? If it did happen, then hallelujah, God is great. If it didn’t happen, I’m not going to reject Exodus, or that section as being worthless. I’ll understand that people passed on this story for centuries in good faith. I’ll look at as a legend that this people preserved because it told that people about where they came from, and how they started their extraordinary relationship with God.

For me, this is the simple way to believe, to believe like a child. I don’t believe I’m being lied to with the bible, or that it’s not true on any level. I believe its truth transcends mere matters of proof and disproof, and that there’s a reality beyond this one that God’s trying to tell us about.

I don’t believe God abandons anybody. I believe His commandments are His way, what He means when He says nobody comes to the father but through him. To me, it seems the only fair way to do it. Otherwise, billions are consigned to hell by mere accident of birth. I feel God’s mercy and God’s compassion were greater than that. For me, the distinguishing question is whether God truly is a loving, compassionate, merciful God.

If he’s not, by my logic, there’s no point in worshipping him. If he’s really committed to throwing all but the most pious and most righteous into the pit of hell, then everything Jesus says about mercy is a fraud.

I don’t believe that. I really do believe that He set out to save people, and that He’s not playing favorites. He’s trying to help everybody, shower His grace everywhere.

I believe what He wants of us is for us to love and trust Him. Do we have to call him Yahweh? Can he be known by another name to people? If he can get people to love him, that fulfill the first commandment. Then he said “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”

If a person fulfills those commandments, I don’t think God’s going to toss him in the pit. I can’t believe that. I can’t believe he would reject the return of love for love, nor let down those who did for others what they wanted done for themselves.

If you find that counter to Jesus’ teachings, then all I have to say is that we understand them differently. I will seek to evangelize in God’s name because the Teachings of Christ offer the straightest, quickest path I know of. I will take what people already know of God, and help them improve that. I will show people the respect I would desire, even if they did not say yes to me.

If you want to revile me for what I say, that is your choice. I wish you would understand the hurt and the anger you cause. I wish you could perceive the wind you sow, so you wouldn’t reap the whirlwind of anger against you.

I wish I didn’t feel so much anger. I often have to tamp it down before I write. Fact of the matter is, much of what you say seems to be designed to anger, offend, and provoke people. Now Jesus said that his word would bring anger, conflict and offense, but he also instructed his people not to be contentious and crass. When his followers wanted to shut somebody up who was preaching in his name, though not one of his disciples, he didn’t say, go beat that man up and silence him. No, he said “If he’s not against me, he’s for me.”

Sometimes just saying something you think is innocuous, benign and true is enough to get people mad. But he told people to make peace with one another, to not let dispute linger overnight, to not act pettily and vengefully towards their enemies.

What do you think he was saying? How does warning them that their words and religious faith might bring the sword square with all his exhortations to make peace and reconcile with people?

I think it’s simple: Christianity itself will always be controversial for one reason or another. Those of us who are of this religion will never see a day without doubters and even (as the Gospel writers must of experienced) political oppression. The very act of being a Christian puts you in the path of such controversy and conflict, even against your own family.

At the same time, there’s a difference between the conflict caused by a moral stand you make, and one you delilberately provoke for other reasons.

I think you are often unnecessarily nasty with people you’re dealing with, and that this is not consistent with your religion. In ordinary terms, it’s not our job to go out there and be God’s avengers. There is nothing he cannot do ten times better in every sense of the term than we ever could.

You need to realize that the people you’re beating up on are Gods’s children, too, and He’s seeing what you’re doing. That you’re doing it, seemingly, in his name, doesn’t necessarily make things any better.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 20, 2011 10:51 PM
Comment #323443
dbs, very good link; but Stephen does not believe Socialism or Communism are real factors in America. He believes they are just isolated fringe groups who are really vanishing before our very eyes, LOL.

Seriously Con LOL! like what Stephen says is not true? At the height of conservative fear mongering the communist party didn’t amount to 3% of the voting public. Now they are not half of that. In fact the nut case Keyes who ran for president in ‘08 received twice the votes of the socialist and communist candidates combined but then he received less than 48,000 votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2008

Posted by: j2t2 at May 20, 2011 11:14 PM
Comment #323444

Stephen, I am not questioning your faith, you may believe anyway you want, I just don’t agree with your thinking, and I’m not mad at you, but you do have a way to tick people off. As far as Israel, IMO it is best Obama stays out of their business because he is doing a good job of pissing them off and I don’t think we want to piss off the only true ally we have in the middle east. As far as peace in the area, not in your life time. The only way there will be peace is if Israel kills off their enemys and vice versa or Christ returns. Believing anything else is fantacy.

Posted by: KAP at May 20, 2011 11:36 PM
Comment #323445

“As far as Israel, IMO it is best Obama stays out of their business because he is doing a good job of pissing them off.”

KAP,

Did it ever occur to you that Israel is doing a good job at pissing the US off? The Israelis have been intransigent about halting the settlements and ceasing to populate the areas under dispute. They say one thing but have done another on the settlement issue. We have provided Israel trillions of dollars of aide. Perhaps a little direct talk about some cooperation on issues important to US policy is due.

This is not a new issue. In 1992, President G.H. Bush called for a freeze on Jewish settlements in the occupied territories — in exchange for $10 billion in American loan guarantees. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/24/world/shamir-is-accusing-the-us-of-trying-to-rearrange-israel-s-borders.html. In 2008, President G.W. Bush had this to say about the settlements: “I will talk about Israeli settlement expansion, about how that is, that can be, you know, an impediment to success,” he said. “The unauthorized outposts for example need to be dismantled, like the Israelis said they would do.” http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/03/us-palestinians-israel-bush-idUSN0324019320080103.

Posted by: Rich at May 21, 2011 6:19 AM
Comment #323446

j2t2

so are you saying the seiu is a fringe group? they are definitely communist sympathizers at the very least. it’s good to know the president has such close ties to them. nothing to worry about though.


conservativethinker


“Stephen does not believe Socialism or Communism are real factors in America. He believes they are just isolated fringe groups who are really vanishing before our very eyes, LOL.”


do you remember the 1980s sci fi movie “they live”? maybe he just needs to put on the special glasses so he can see them. LOL!!!

Posted by: dbs at May 21, 2011 9:23 AM
Comment #323447

Rich, It would be the same if Israel told us how to place our borders. We stole land and fought other countries to build the U.S. as it is today. Would you have us give back all that we fought for? If the answer is no then how can you tell Israel to give back what they fought for? I’m sure Israel can handle themselves in the middle east, and as I said there will be NO PEACE in the region until either Israel is gone or their enemies are gone or Christ returns.

Posted by: KAP at May 21, 2011 10:58 AM
Comment #323448

dbs-

so are you saying the seiu is a fringe group? they are definitely communist sympathizers at the very least. it’s good to know the president has such close ties to them. nothing to worry about though.

This President had the opportunity to nationalize two or three major industries. He did not. He could have started every deal he wrought from the extreme economic left, and early on, the ideological consensus was that capitalism was on the ropes.

I find it funny that an accused socialist hires Fed Bankers and Wall Street brokers to run his administration. Where’s his fire-breathing communists?

Oh, you say, he’s just hiding so he can further his plans. Muhahaha!

If he’s a closet communist, he’s so far in he’s talking to Aslan.

As for SEIU? I’m not going to deny what is plainly obvious: a California Union Chapter has socialist leanings. I think it’s a bad idea to associate with them, but that’s their decision.

But if Communists were so strong, then why did 2010 happen? If the president is such a wonderful proponent of theirs, why does he constantly get attacked from the left for not living up to their ideals?

Obama is moderate. The question is, are you? Are you in any place to judge the true extremity or political alignment of the politicians on the left? I mean, if Newt Gingrich says that the Medicare voucher plan is right-wing social enegineering, and suddenly becomes a has-been in the political running, why are we to trust the right’s assessment of what is communist or socialist?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 21, 2011 11:04 AM
Comment #323449

dbs-
Oh yes, and I have seen They Live. Seems like I remember it being a satire on consumer culture, where the moneyed elite are all rapacious aliens, with the billboards and TVs sending subliminal messages that cause us to consume recklessly and obey the authorities.

Have you seen any of John Carpenters other work, by any chance? I don’t think he’s a fan of the right wing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 21, 2011 11:16 AM
Comment #323450

stephen

“Obama is moderate.”

bull$#!t. 100% pure un adulterated bull$#!t.

“The question is, are you?”

i’ve never claimed to be a moderate.


“If he’s a closet communist, he’s so far in he’s talking to Aslan.”

apparently that closet has no door.

http://www.commieblaster.com/socialist_czars/index.html


“As for SEIU? I’m not going to deny what is plainly obvious: a California Union Chapter has socialist leanings. I think it’s a bad idea to associate with them, but that’s their decision.”

“socialist leaning” that’s like being kind of pregnant. it would appear from your statements you are either naive of the facts, or you’re ok with them and just refuse to admit it.

Posted by: dbs at May 21, 2011 1:05 PM
Comment #323451

http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1103PSIEOAVD/PPSIM521/PR

Posted by: dbs at May 21, 2011 1:21 PM
Comment #323452

Too all

SD is Scottish. He is kilting the issue. He is at his best when he talks in circles. It is true, but not true. That is his symantical approach. He is trying to get attachment to anything and everything that comes along.

Let us forget the socialist, communist, leftist, et al labels and just go with the philosophy of totalitarian construct. That is what Obama is. He is for total government over every facit of living. He has proven that. Of course, he has to move in steps to do that. That is why he does things the way he does. His henchmen know full well the game plan as well as far too many in congress.

Since SD believes only part of the Bible and I don’t know which part, he will disagree with me that the Bible fortells of these situations. BTW, if only part of the Bible is true then the whole Bible is a lie to those who advocate that falsehood.

The events with Israel are also foretold in the scriptures. So nothing is shocking to me concerning present day events and Israel and the False Prophet from SF who doesn’t even believe in his own prophecy.

Posted by: tom humes at May 21, 2011 1:51 PM
Comment #323453

You have to forgive T.H he talks in circles sorta like a circle jerk and he’s dead center of the circle.

Posted by: Jeff at May 21, 2011 2:18 PM
Comment #323454

dbs; you are asking SD to do the impossible. He CANNOT bring himself to say the SEIU leadership is communist and communist sympathizers. He cannot bring himself to even chide Obama for his dealings with Israel. He cannot bring himself to claim the Bible is the Inspired Word of God. Tom Humes is correct, SD talks in circles. He is what someone mentioned earlier, lukewarm and neither hot nor cold. I am a conservative and when I hear a Republican talk like a democrat, I call him a RINO. I have no problem making a stand and I don’t care who or what party a politician belongs to, if he is wrong, I will say he is wrong. SD cannot bring himself to do this. It is not in his nature; he will defend a liberal politician to the end. It is disturbing to see someone who claims to be a debater of politics, and who is always calling for republicans to work together with democrats (through compromise), and yet SD does not understand the word compromise. If Obama said the oceans were pink, SD would be defending him and try to PROVE the oceans were pink. To prove my point; can anyone on WB remember when SD ever condemned Obama for being anything but not liberal enough?

If only SD was as intelligent as he thinks he is; he would be a combination Pope and President of the US. He already places his own words as being inspired and more truthful than God’s.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 21, 2011 2:31 PM
Comment #323455

Sometimes I wonder if SD and Jeff are one in the same.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 21, 2011 2:33 PM
Comment #323456

Ever since Mutt died Jeff isn’t the same.

Has he ever said a single word about Socialist Bernie Sanders who is with the democrats lockstep. In a parade he would be the one with a yellow stripe down his back. Oops, the one with the yellow stripe walking on the left side of row one.

Posted by: tom humes at May 21, 2011 3:03 PM
Comment #323457

“Rich, It would be the same if Israel told us how to place our borders.”

KAP,

Granted. Israel is free to make their own decisions. We, as President H.W. Bush did in 1992, are also free to condition our annual billions of dollars in assistance on serious consideration and respect for our interests in accomplishing a resolution of the conflict.

Posted by: Rich at May 21, 2011 5:26 PM
Comment #323458

Rich, Like I said they could probably handle themselves quite well on their own. Then when we need their help in the region they can tell us to KISS IT WHERE THE SUN DON’T SHINE. Obama would rather kiss up to the Palistinians anyway. Now Obama is going to Europe to try and drum up support in the middle east. He better hope they don’t remember his speech on throwing Israel under the bus because Europe might be next.

Posted by: KAP at May 21, 2011 5:44 PM
Comment #323459

Rich

If Mexico were to lob bombs at us daily how would you look at that situation?

Well, Israel has bombs thrown at them daily by the terrorists. One anti-tank bomb hit a school bus and killed a 16 year old boy. There are a myriad of other events occuring because of those bombs. The only thing in your mind is that the settlements have had construction of housing going on. Wow!! What a contrast. Israel tries to provide housing while the terrorists lob bombs. What is there to negotiate? The terrorists have already said that eradicating Israel is the goal. So, again I ask what is there to negotiate?

Posted by: tom humes at May 21, 2011 5:51 PM
Comment #323460

dbs-
You know, I can point to instances where Obama could have taken a much more extreme course in either direction, and instead took a middle path.

So, no, it’s not crap. Obama pushed GM and Chrysler through structured bankruptcies rather than nationalize them or let them fail. A man further to the left would have done the first, one to the right, the second.

President Obama talks about spending reductions, something that would absolutely get him keelhauled on the far left. But he’s not proposing the steep cuts the Republicans are.

Obama could have put in place more leftward economists, perhaps even have put Elizabeth Warren in as Secretary of the Treasury. Instead, he pick Geithner, an old Wall Street hand, and brings Rubin and Summers in as economic advisers. They aren’t far right folks like some on the right would want, but they’re not exactly the darlings of the left.

That’s what makes your fearmongering so ironic.

tom humes-
There are any number of opportunities he could have taken to grasp for power that he didn’t, so your notion makes absolutely no sense, even if you strip it of its ideological leanings. It comes across as the desperate negativism of those who simply don’t want to believe that their ideology didn’t prevail in the presidential election.

Let me tell you: sometimes **** happens. But in a Democracy, you may sometimes be down, but you’re never out. The only way you can ever really be shut out, is if you decide to shut yourself out, either by taking a viewpoint that’s so alienating people won’t take your side, or by just not participating.

As for the Scriptures? It would seem to me that your approach would make the bible very easy to invalidate. Why would God create such a fragile work, a work a single mistranslation would make false?

People have been predicting the end of the world for centuries, and apparently, the accuracy of such claims seem to be low. People have set date after date after date. Folks are setting a date for today, as a matter of fact, for the Rapture.

I think the best way to anticipate judgment day is by simply being prepared inside. God will take care of and arrange what is outside, and it will not happen a day sooner than he wants it to.

As for false prophets? I don’t claim to be one, to start with, so how can I be false. What’s with you? You think Jesus said, be hateful to those who don’t share your faith? The man who talked with Samaritans, with the woman at the well? The man who said, “If he’s not against me, he he is for me?”

And really, am I saying, “Go and sin because it doesn’t mean a damn thing anyways?”

No. I’m actually quite traditional in many ways. There’s not a tatoo or a piercing anywhere on me. I’ve never put tint in my hair, got it cut in a mohawk or anything like that. I was happy that Baylor didn’t let alchohol on campus, and I never joined a fraternity or anything. I wanted nothing to do with the Frat culture.

I’m conservative, you could say, in the old fashion sense of the word. I’m for careful study of issues, for not changing things radically unless the circumstances call for it. If some of the folks who called themselves conservatives listened for a while to what people actually believed, instead of accusing people of believing things they don’t, they might have found that out a long time ago.

The define and destroy method of argument has its advantages, but understanding your opponent is not one of them. Not understanding your opponent, you also fail to grasp where they might agree with you on an issue, or where middle ground might be closer than you think.

Has he ever said a single word about Socialist Bernie Sanders who is with the democrats lockstep. In a parade he would be the one with a yellow stripe down his back. Oops, the one with the yellow stripe walking on the left side of row one.

If being a socialist was such a necessary part of being a Democrat, tom, tell me, why did Bernie run as a Socialist?

Your logic basically is that because Bernie is a socialist who caucuses with the Democrat, that this must mean all the Democrats are socialists, right?

But let’s say the Republican elected a Libertarian Senator, or say Rand Paul changed his party designation. Not implausible, right? If he got elected that way, or departed from the party, whose group would he be counted part of?

Would the Republicans mind having that extra vote to count towards having a majority? Would Rand Paul caucus instead with those whose viewpoint he absolutely despises?

It’s obvious Sander’s viewpoint is closer to that of the Democrats, just as it’s obvious that a Libertarian’s viewpoint is closer to a Republican’s, in many respects.

But by your logic, all Republicans would be libertarians.

Except that’s not true. They may share some ideological traits, but they aren’t sharing them all.

On a more personal note, when your mother said, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”, were you the one who ended up absolutely quiet?

Can you expound your politics calmly, without attacking people as traitors, without belittling folks? Are the merits of your beliefs strong enough to stand on their own two feet?

One reason I much prefer to use fact and reason as the foundation for my responses is the simple fact that I’m trying to prove that my political beliefs are just that good. I also do that for the singular reason that I want to contrast myself with the spittle-flecked bluster set.

Conservativethinker-
I can certainly say, based on the facts, that the leaders of the SEIU chapter have enough socialist sympathies to march in a May-Day Parade with the socialists and communists.

What I would say though, is that you have yet to earn any greater generalization than that.

You seem to want people to jump to the same conclusions as you with the same lack of support.

Oh, and for the record, this isn’t going around in circles. This is arguing things out the way you’re supposed to argue things out. Your problem is that you’ve got nothing left to argue from than character attacks. You’re playing these social dominance, slap-to-the-face sort of rhetorical games, and the problem is, you’ve run into somebody who doesn’t knuckle under with appropriate speed.

I have learned to be skeptical of Republican claims, because all to often, in the rush to fuel your sort of hasty conclusions, your people leave fact and relevant information behind that often undermines your claims. So, I calm myself, often enough, and go research your claims.

The way you would have it, it was just SEIU and the Communists. Actually, There were a number of groups.

May Day 2011 was unique because of the unity constructed between many different sectors of the workers’ movement. The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, the Full Rights for Immigrants Coalition, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights-Los Angeles, ANSWER Coalition, Multi-ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network , SEIU, LIUNA, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, COFEM and others all worked together for weeks to build the demonstration and make it a success. It was an equal partnership among all sponsoring organizations.

There those, and others.

Here’s what I don’t get: you expect to generalize from what happens in California? You’re always generalizing that California liberals are far to the left, that is, atypical, yet when it comes time to lump us in with the far left, there we go!

Here’s what I’d tell you: Democrats tell their far left no an awful lot. Republicans rarely tell the far right no. When a Democrat goes hippy-punching, starts talking about keeping things towards the center, some people grumble, but many see it as a political realism (why else did Obama consistently have an 80% approval rating among Democrats, despite some fairly hotly debated compromises?).

When a Republican starts telling off the far right, though, the egg-timer starts on their political career. Republicans can’t say no to their extremists without losing politically.

But of course, they’ll need the center to get any appreciable power.

In my opinion, that’s the tension that’s been tearing the Republicans apart. Your side can blather on about Democrats being tools of the socialists, but the reality is that the Republicans are the tools of the Tea Party, and its going to kill them in the coming election, because a lot of what the Tea Party has sought, has pursued, has soured people on the GOP.

So, if you want to play the association game, let me ask: of the two parties, which one is actually more likely to kill the economy with its fringe? With the whole Debt Ceiling thing, I’d argue it’s the Republicans. We both have our radicals. Your radicals right now are more dangerous than ours.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 21, 2011 5:58 PM
Comment #323461

This is a quote from Stephen Daugherty:

“People have been predicting the end of the world for centuries, and apparently, the accuracy of such claims seem to be low. People have set date after date after date. Folks are setting a date for today, as a matter of fact, for the Rapture.”

To me it sounds very much like this:

2Pe 3:3-4, “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”

The first are the inspired words of SD and the second are the inspired Words of God. Who should we believe?

“As for false prophets? I don’t claim to be one, to start with, so how can I be false.”

A false prophet is one who changes God’s Word. SD changes God’s Word to fit his own agenda. Therefore SD must be a false prophet.

“I’m conservative, you could say, in the old fashion sense of the word. I’m for careful study of issues, for not changing things radically unless the circumstances call for it.”

What BS!!! Obama has promised a radical change for America and he is doing his best to accomplish it in the past 2 ½ years, and still this wasn’t fast enough for Stephen Daugherty. I believe SD just likes to hear himself speak; because his words in no way match his actions.

“When a Republican starts telling off the far right, though, the egg-timer starts on their political career. Republicans can’t say no to their extremists without losing politically.
But of course, they’ll need the center to get any appreciable power.
In my opinion, that’s the tension that’s been tearing the Republicans apart. Your side can blather on about Democrats being tools of the socialists, but the reality is that the Republicans are the tools of the Tea Party, and its going to kill them in the coming election, because a lot of what the Tea Party has sought, has pursued, has soured people on the GOP.”

The only thing I can say to this “Blather” is, in your dreams SD. You only wish the Republicans had a problem.


“So, if you want to play the association game, let me ask: of the two parties, which one is actually more likely to kill the economy with its fringe?”

Since you ask the question Stephen, I will answer; it has always been liberal socialist democrat programs that have killed our economy.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 21, 2011 7:00 PM
Comment #323462

Conservativethinker-
I scoff at those who set dates when the good Lord himself said he didn’t know. Tell me, is that attitude biblically unsound? Go read through your gospels.

My attitude is, get right with God now, and God will take care of the advent of his judgment whenever he pleases.

A false prophet is one who changes God’s Word. SD changes God’s Word to fit his own agenda. Therefore SD must be a false prophet.

I could say I am a thirty-one year old Texan from Houston who has written on Watchblog for several years, and I’d get a fricking argument out of you. What am I, Brian from the manger next door? I’m not a prophet. I am a follower. But if I’m a bad one, it’s going to be God, not you, who figures it out, because he can see into my heart.

What BS!!! Obama has promised a radical change for America and he is doing his best to accomplish it in the past 2 ½ years, and still this wasn’t fast enough for Stephen Daugherty. I believe SD just likes to hear himself speak; because his words in no way match his actions.

I said “I’m for careful study of issues, for not changing things radically unless the circumstances call for it.

I don’t want radical change, unless somebody can justify it. Otherwise, I’m for incremental change, change that is done in a manageable, transparent, and non-disruptive way.

We were faced with some pretty serious crises, all getting dumped on the country all at once. So if you’re saying that wasn’t the time for drastic action, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I think inaction at that point would only make things worse.

In fact, I would say, inaction did make things worse. In 1998, Long Term Capital Management, a hedge fund, collapsed over a bad bet on the Russian Ruble. No, I’m not joking. And what’s not a joke either, is that this could have potentially devastated our economy the same way that the collapse of Lehman Brothers did devastate us.

But the Clinton Administration instead had the banks unwind LTCM, giving it a nice and orderly death.

The Bush Administration, wanting to demonstrate that it would let the free market decide things, allowed Lehman Brothers to go into freefall. That was the start of the crisis.

Then your people decided it was a good time to tell the banks that they’d suffer the same fate. Most of them would reconsider in the coming month, of course, as a run on the money markets started hinting at our economy being blasted back to the stone age, but at the time they thought the markets would just take the news in stride.

And now, you have people actually floating the idea that this country’s economy would not suffer for a sovereign default. This is the kind of stupidity I hate. This isn’t conservative. This is “The Democrats tell us the government must intervene, so we must say the opposite.”

What good is conservatism, when it saves nothing, when it precipitates the very crises it’s supposed to prevent?

The Republicans of today are deliberately putting this country at risk of a calamity which it has never allowed itself to be in before. Since the time of Washington and Alexander Hamilton, this country has paid its debts, and paid them on time. That’s why even with all the programs you despise on our budget, our nation’s credit remains the highest. Nobody expects this country to be anything but good on its word.

How conservative is it to tell your debtors that you’re not going to pay them back? I mean, your people already committed us to a budget that would require us to take out additional debt. What point is there to failing to authorize the treasury to raise the money to pay for what you’ve budgeted?

The Socialists neither have the power, nor the attitude necessary to put this country in danger of default. That’s what Republicans are going to do, in the name of fighting socialism, fighting deficit spending. Never mind if it’s generally agreed to be a disastrous course of action, the Republicans are willing to do it, just to prove how aggressive they are in their politics.

Your politics don’t mean **** if they bring misfortune on this country. I’m sick of people ****ing things up just to avoid having to make an inconvenient political concession or admission.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 21, 2011 9:09 PM
Comment #323463

Help me here someone; Steven Daughtery has been telling us he is a christian all through this post, so perhaps someone could explain what he means by all the *****. Is this part of his christian vocabulary?

Posted by: Mike at May 21, 2011 9:28 PM
Comment #323464

Mike

The Bible teaches that as a man speaketh so is he.

SD loves to add to what someone else has said and that is supposed to be the answer to the question. But by inserting his own thoughts and ideas he completely changes the original statement. He calls that research.

SD
“I said “I’m for careful study of issues, for not changing things radically unless the circumstances call for it.”

I don’t want radical change, unless somebody can justify it. Otherwise, I’m for incremental change, change that is done in a manageable, transparent, and non-disruptive way.”

How can you make a statement like that and support Obama and his henchmen? That is not logical nor of common sense at all. That is a two-faced statement. If you support Obama you support radical approaches to situations. That is not what you said above.

I asked above who your top five in WDC are that you admire most. No answer. Afraid of the results. Ho Hum.

And who has called who a traitor? Your imagination is running wild again. You are the only one who used traitor on this subject.

Posted by: tom humes at May 21, 2011 9:49 PM
Comment #323465

Mike-
You said earlier:

I’m wondering how many millions of metric tons of wheat America is in the process of losing in the Mississippi farm land basin? We will give these towel heads our food, so our people can go hungry or pay inflated prices, and they in turn can inflate the price of oil to us. Perhaps it is the goal of Obama to drive up the cost of wheat, while at the same time driving up te cost of fuel.

I’m a child of the PG/PG-13 generation, so I’m not that squeamish about cursewords. We both can get pretty excited about a subject. What I basically said was if your politics cause a big disaster, they’re not going to be worth much to anybody, and I expressed my heartfelt disdain for those who let things go to hell in order to avoid some sort of embarrassment or political misfortune.

This article will probably be helpful. I think we miss some perspective on what we’d today call adult content because of Victorian mores. Our cultures were a bit more, shall we say, “Earthy” before that.

There are different kind of things to be careful about when you speak. You and I both have something to learn, I guess.

tom humes-
I’m a fairly passionate person who grew up in a lower middle class household in Texas. That’s what my colorful language should tell you. What gives you the right to make broad sweeping characterizations about me from the fact that I occasionally write **** and ****?

How can you make a statement like that and support Obama and his henchmen? That is not logical nor of common sense at all. That is a two-faced statement. If you support Obama you support radical approaches to situations. That is not what you said above.

1) A rather loaded question. Obama and his henchmen. Why don’t I believe what you believe? Because I know and acknowledge alternatives of considerably greater radicality, and I do not accept your premise that not having done the things he did would be itself a moderate act.

2) Circular argument. You’re simply restating your conclusion.

3) As I do not consider Obama’s actions radical, there’s no duplicity in my stated opinion. It’s not as if I acknowledge somewhere else that they were all that radical, and then said something different there.

4) Again, your previous conclusion restated.

5) I am only inconsistent by your rather biased judgment of what should be consistent for me, a viewpoint that requires me to have conceded in my head to your many conclusions about Obama, but not admitted it. That’s a rather unlikely assumption to prove true, let me tell you.

I asked above who your top five in WDC are that you admire most. No answer. Afraid of the results. Ho Hum.

This would be a useless question to answer. If I told you who I admired, would that end the subject? No. I’m not always the best person to figure out where people are going with something, but I’m pretty damn sure you’d probably bash them if I answered honestly. I could probably answer your question if I wanted to put forward the effort, but I don’t care to play these petty games.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 21, 2011 10:38 PM
Comment #323466


Stephen, don’t worry about it. Mike used **** and **** himself.

Right wing Protestants have been the pain in America’s rear since the country was founded. Every few decades, they drag their chained God out as their unwilling ally, and protest the evil that has taken over the country. The End of Days has been a constant theme of theirs, throughout our history.

Occasionally, they garner enough support to effect changes. Then the people reject those changes and send them back into obscurity for a while.

History 201.

This time, they are trying to bring about change without the benefit of an accompanying Great Awakening. Without that mass support, the changes they want to implement have already been rejected by the people. Even their desire to ignite a holy war is being met with rejection.

“chide Obama for his dealings with Israel.” definition: chide Obama for disagreeing with the right wing Jews in Israel. The generals of the Israeli Defence forces have said that they would have no trouble defending Israel if it were to return to the 1967 borders.

Their motto is fundamentalist Christians and Zionists Vs the world and they mean it.

The rapture occurred this weekend and yet these guys are still here. What does that tell us?


Posted by: jlw at May 22, 2011 11:47 AM
Comment #323467

jlw

“The rapture occurred this weekend and yet these guys are still here. What does that tell us?”

Nothing. The rapture did not happen. The one saying such a thing is a crack pot doing the work of Satan and proclaiming to be a Christian. Can’t be.

Posted by: tom humes at May 22, 2011 4:46 PM
Comment #323468

tom humes-
I hope that guy meant well, but if he didn’t, God help him.

But really, this is what happens when people overthink things like religion. Because you don’t have that safeguard of needing to prove something according to independently verifiable information, a person can go quite a ways into error before something brings them to their senses, if ever.

This is why I think Jesus made such a point of telling his followers to express their faith through doing good for others, helping those less fortunate. The alternative is the kind of religious egotism that all too often represents devout religion to the nonreligious.

I personally think religion and Christianity get a bad rap. But it gets that because it’s claimed adherents earn it, so the reputation is hard to shake.

Unfair, to be sure, but does getting angry or huffy a out it really help? No.

Folks got to connect. Those aren’t the enemy out there. Those are the people God is telling you to reconcile with, to treat well. That is what will convince people to think better of you, if anything can.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 22, 2011 5:24 PM
Comment #330908

the most popular colors and style for you to choose and you can get what you like.we promise you good service and high quality. .UGG Fashion Boots jordan sneakers
Boots have the most endureing stage in the new jordan sneakerstop world.from super stars to ordinary girls,UGG Fashion Boots are

Posted by: fghj at October 22, 2011 4:27 AM
Post a comment