Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Sins I Cannot Forgive

At some point, this has to stop. What are these people elected to do, sacrifice America’s future until their own is assured? America doesn’t need leadership when Republicans are done winning their victories over the Democrats.

I'm not terribly sophisticated when it comes to what I expect out of government. I want success, long term and short term for my country. I want an economy that works, I want its fiscal house in order. I want the public good to come first, not the policy goals of some lobbyists who merely want their own specific interest catered to.

When it comes down to it, my ideas of what's ideal in politics is decidedly dull and average. This is what aggravates me about morons telling me that I'm a socialist. I'm not! They say I'm wanting to destroy the economy. Wrong! They say I want to strangle the business owners with red tape. I just have to shake my head.

It's like the movie Michael Clayton. I'm going to reveal a spoiler here: somewhere in the course of the movie, they try and blow up the title character, a fixer. And he says, at the end, "I'm not the guy you blow up, I'm the guy you pay off" Well, I'm not quite so morally suspect as him, but the sentiment I would express would be similar, like my anger.

"I'm not the guy you stonewall and try to destroy, I'm the guy you reach out to compromise with!"

People like me represent a wasted opportunity for the right, an opportunity that could have at least kept a back and forth centrist equilibrium going between the two parties. They could have been reasonable about policy, reasonable about fiscal matters, reasonable about the wars and their undertaking. They could have done things practically during the economic crisis, and kept this country from sliding into the depths it did economically.

But no. Republicans have gotten greedy. They're not content to share power. They're not content to have their precious vision of political perfection adulterated. And so, for the last decade, they've been a deadweight on the proper function of government. Either they're insisting on taking policies that have clearly failed to their absurd conclusion, or they're working to drag down any policies Democrats have come up with as an alternative.

I'm not all the sophisticated when it comes to what I want. I'd be willing to live with periods of Republican rule, if I thought they gave a crap about governing properly. But they're not, so I'm not.

It took me years of their horrifying failures to take care of problems to convince me of this, years of seeing a won war spiral out of control, an economy burn itself out then collapse in a mass of stupid decisions, ten years of wholly unnecessary deficits with Republicans giving themselves a pass on their spending, and so on and so forth, to come to this conclusion.

The last few years haven't helped either. I've seen my country suffer so much harm, but instead of helping to take care of that, Republicans instead have chosen to hobble the Democrats, and then blame them for being so wrong. The neverending fusillade of negative commentary just floors me with its intensity and its reckless disregard for the truth. Are they thinking that they can make the Democrat's rule all seem like a long national nightmare, and that when they takeover, things can go back to normal? Is this the way things are going to be done?

It's nuts to reward this kind of politics, and I don't care for arguments that these tactics will inevitably be rewarded. Whatever the politics are of the people running our government, the functioning of our nation should come first, ahead of politics!

The Republicans may preach their love of this country, but it seems like their love of this country compares to real love the way a wife-beater compares to a good husband. Again and again, we see contempt for the well-being of the country, most recently in attempts to make new budget turf-wars out of disaster money requests, but most profoundly in the recent Debt crisis, a crisis made entirely out of one party's unwillingness to perform a basic duty of this government without turning into hostage drama.

The Republicans succeeded in making Obama look unpopular and weak on that one, right? That's such a great damn victory, considering that it earned this country's its first downgrade, not to mention sinking the Republican's own popularity with it. I mean, haven't the Republicans heard of Pyrrhic victories? Haven't they learned that there are some ways to win that just aren't worth it?

I don't see a healthy party when I look at the Republicans even if they can pull of some pretty significant political victories. Look at the polls, and you see a very unpopular party. If they're winning, it's simply because they're effective at being venomous and tearing down the other side. But as 2006 and 2008 demonstrated, that only works for so long. 2010 gave them the gift of two branches run by the other party, shielding them from the negative reaction towards the policies and circumstances of the last two years.

But Republicans are responsible now, for at least one half of one of the branch, and their role has arguably been one that has been nothing but negative. They didn't win the American people over to their cuts or their shutdown of the government, and at the end, few people were cheering on their hostage taking of the debt limit. They've seen literally nothing good come out of this Congress.

For better or worse, Democrats can at least say they did things, made laws that help people. Republicans can only say they took this nation on an ordeal, and delivered them policy that nobody can say they were pleased with.

What can Republicans say they have done that has pleased anybody? What positive legacy are they running on? Like amphetamine or cocaine addicts, the Republicans have adopted the belief that if they keep on hyping themselves up, that they'll be able to keep this up forever. My sense is NO. No, they are going to crash at some point. The Tea Party shows a fracturing in the party, as much as it shows renewed energy, and the energy comes entirely from the notion of defeating the current Democrats in power. What future does that have?

Well, my guess is not much. If they succeed, they get to see just how unpopular continuing or aggravating the status quo is. They also would likely use their success to do even more damage to the center-holding ability of the GOP by pushing even more true conservatives out. If they fail, then the Tea Party becomes the scapegoat, and in the process of being run out, takes energy of the GOP with it.

Republicans will not escape the consequences of their actions, long term, because they'll never truly drop those policies, never truly give up on those attitudes that got them into trouble. The fact that Rick Perry has become more and more popular so quickly is indicative of how little progress the party has made. It's the political equivalent of marrying your mother or father, really, despite your protests that you are so much different than they are.

The logic that had Republicans pick George Bush in 2000 and 2004 still operates, and like any other process of its kind, it will yield similar answers when asked similar questions. Republicans will seek out the brash, bold, Jesus-loving, tax and socialism hating honey-tongue, because that's what gets their blood pumping. They'll seek the people who bash Democrats relentlessly, and run on opposition to his policies.

But don't tell me nobody's going to look at that man, and not remember why they sought out Barack Obama in the first place. Ah, but Obama has his own negatives now, doesn't he? Well, unfortunately, Republicans have doubled down on their own negatives as well. They're losing a race to the bottom, with poll numbers worse than Obama's!

That's what mystifies me. Why don't you people see you're burning yourselves up while you're hurting us? In a strictly cold-blooded strategic sense, the best you can do if your people don't have their own positives is make things more uncertain. There's no dynamic, no sense that Republicans are a better alternative.

Republicans were content to use their newfound power to push a wishlist of things important to them, but despite their criticism about Obama having no jobs plan (what was the Stimulus, chopped liver?) in their eight months in office, their first third of their Congress's term, it is they who have done nothing. Not merely nothing in the sense of trying to pass something and failing, they've literally failed to offer a truly jobs related agenda.

It's somewhat symbolic that Boehner and company postponed Obama's address to the joint houses of Congress in order to protect their precious pre-primary debate. It shows the utter contempt they have for the President and his authority. It shows how willing they are to tear down the institutions of this country when they're not in their hands, how much of a double standard they have.

But most of all, it's a nice and symbolic way of demonstrating how much contempt they have for getting the actual business of Government done, much less the business of bringing back jobs. After complaining for months about the President not offering a policy to create jobs, after campaigning against the Democrats and him on the subject, instead of welcoming the President's suggestions and debating them afterwards, Republicans have chosen to hold their debate and have used their power to delay any real plans on jobs.

They've had so much time to do something, but still all they want to do is talk the issue to death.

So much that this country needs, and all they want to do is talk, and push policies that are all talk. The sin I will not forgive the Republicans for is their unwillingness to abandon their fantasies to deal with the reality of where their policies and ideas have gotten us.

This country can't heal until the GOP finally hits rock bottom and stays there, because every time it gets back in power, something worse happens. I've had all the screw-ups from them I can stomach. Let some third party swallow them up, and get a right wing in America that's accountable and sensible again. I don't care. Just as long as the Republicans and right wingers out there get shocked into living in the real world again, rather than continuing to dwell in their fever-dream alternate reality.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2011 10:25 AM
Comments
Comment #328464

Stephen, you complain about Republicans and yet fail to see the very things you accuse Republicans of, are the very things Democrats are guilty of! Example: you accuse Republicans of being greedy and not willing to share power:

“But no. Republicans have gotten greedy. They’re not content to share power. They’re not content to have their precious vision of political perfection adulterated.”

And yet you have no problem with the Democrats ramming Obama down the throats of the American people. Of which, by the way, a clear majority of Americans have called for its repeal ever since it was passed. Despite the Congressional votes against “Cap and Trade”, “Card Check”, “Illegal Obamnesty” and more; Obama has continued to push his agenda by executive order.

There are at least 29 times when you used a personal pronoun to describe yourself. What is happening in DC is not about you; it’s about America. No one really cares if your feelings are hurt or how upset you are.

Pertaining to you being a socialist: you keep trying to convince us you are not a socialists and yet you believe in government run corporations, you believe in government run banks, you want to shut down all production of fossil fuels in favor of “Green Energy” (which cannot continue without taxpayer funds) (the latest failure in CA is an example), you are in favor of using the socialist mantra of class warfare (the haves against the have nots, rich against poor), you are in favor of tax and spend, and let’s not forget you are in favor of wealth re-distribution. In my book, this is the classic identity of a socialist.

You continue to have nothing to say unless it includes Bush bashing.

“It’s somewhat symbolic that Boehner and company postponed Obama’s address to the joint houses of Congress in order to protect their precious pre-primary debate. It shows the utter contempt they have for the President and his authority. It shows how willing they are to tear down the institutions of this country when they’re not in their hands, how much of a double standard they have.”

And in your one-sided liberal mindset, you have no problem with the fact that the debate was scheduled a year ago, and that Obama announced his useless speech during the GOP debate. Do you not see Obama’s utter contempt for the debate? What does it matter; Obama has no plan to help America. It will be the same old speech that has been repeated for the past 3 years. There will be nothing new. How many people do you think will be watching this idiot, when they have the ability to watch the opening NFL game? I suggest not many.

Even James Carville thought Obama was an idiot for planning a campaign speech during the GOP debate.

“This country can’t heal until the GOP finally hits rock bottom and stays there, because every time it gets back in power, something worse happens. I’ve had all the screw-ups from them I can stomach. Let some third party swallow them up, and get a right wing in America that’s accountable and sensible again. I don’t care. Just as long as the Republicans and right wingers out there get shocked into living in the real world again, rather than continuing to dwell in their fever-dream alternate reality.”

Your post boils down this last statement. It is liberals who have lost touch with reality. The liberal agenda is failing; democrats are losing, Obama is dropping like a rock in the polls, and you are in a sense conceding a big loss in 2012. So you begin your talking points of “when the Republicans are in control again”. There will be no third party unless it is a split in the Democratic Party. The conservative movement is growing and you are losing.

Posted by: Mike at September 1, 2011 1:34 PM
Comment #328465

Stephen, good post.

You wrote:

The fact that Rick Perry has become more and more popular so quickly is indicative of how little progress the party has made.

I think Perry is popular amongst Republicans and Teapublicans only because they don’t know very much about him. When they start learning that he’s a liar and an opportunist, and that he talks out of both sides of his mouth, all that quick and easy popularity may rapidly disappear.

Now, like every the other rightwing candidate, Perry is saying he’s all about “small government” and he’s willing to go farther than most by claiming that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are “unconstitutional.” Yet Perry had nothing but praise for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and boasted of the huge amounts of money he got from the federal government to fund them in Texas. He even wanted health insurance that would cover Mexicans and Americans alike in his state and praised the Texas DREAM Act. He also praised NAFTA and spoke against taking protectionist stances toward Mexico.

Not a single one of Perry’s previous stances is now popular on the right, but he’s obviously willing to say anything in order to get elected.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 1, 2011 2:17 PM
Comment #328466

Very well said, Mike

Obama has done nothing, zilch, nada, zero for the American public. He has enriched his cronies (pay raise=big, ss=0). He threatened to not deliver ss checks and military pay checks. Now that is doing something for the American people? He has appointed people to his administration who have Big, Bigger, and Biggest government as their mantra. He has issued EO’s that skirt legislation or lack of legislation from congress. He has continually apologized to the world for what America stands for. Shame on him big time for that. Why do people still want to come in droves to this country? Because we are the bastion of freedom on this planet. Why does he practice secrecy when he promised to be the most transparent?

Stephen, history has shown where the left, whether they are communists, socialists, or whatever totalitarian bent they have, have always said they were not, until the day came for the, without a doubt totalitarians, were in control totally. Then those who said they never were, are now all of a sudden part of the team all along. You are a socialist in your writings. Obama is a socialist and a muslim by his own admission verbally. Was Obama lying when he said that? Is he really a tea party believer? You and I know the answer to that question is without a doubt, NO!

The political parties today are one and the same. They are going down the highway with one party driving on the left and the other party driving on the right and both heading to the same destination. This has been show over and over and over again. It is piecemeal destruction of the country. The direct evidence is look at the organizations each and every member of this administration belongs to and search out their mission statement. Do likewise with congress. And if possible with judges. You will find an overwhelming number of people who have a mission agenda that does not include the betterment of this great nation. It is the other direction.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at September 1, 2011 2:31 PM
Comment #328467

Adrienne

On this one time, I agree with you. I will leave it there, thank you.

Posted by: tom humes at September 1, 2011 2:33 PM
Comment #328468

Mike-

Stephen, you complain about Republicans and yet fail to see the very things you accuse Republicans of, are the very things Democrats are guilty of!

The eternal refrain of those who cannot wipe away all evidence of their own offenses.

The Republicans are always willing to cite polls, after they’ve launch coordinated months long rhetorical assaults. But cite polls to them about how awfully the Debt Ceiling or Government shutdown showdowns are going, and they’ll say polls are for the little people.

There are at least 29 times when you used a personal pronoun to describe yourself. What is happening in DC is not about you; it’s about America. No one really cares if your feelings are hurt or how upset you are.

Wow, 29 times? You cared enough to count?

This is my personal opinion. I’m explaining my thinking, making my feelings clear. Do I care what others think? No, not in terms of the decision whether to post or not.

But more to the point, I think a lot of people have similar concerns to mine, similar sensibilities. Many folks weren’t concerned that Obama get everything he wanted, but they did want somebody to do something. Obama did something, a lot of somethings early on. Because of his policies, TARP is basically paid back, more jobs were saved or created than Bush ever created, and an entire industry and all the commerce that depended on it remain open for business.

I think people could appreciate that, if you can get through the red-baiting clowd of perpetual Republican contempt. But more to the point, if Republicans do win, which is a possibility, they win to do what? After all the targets for contempt are defeated, what then?

I honestly don’t think Republicans would know what to do. Unlike the Democrats, they have no real idea of governing. That’s what you get when the very idea of effective government action is held in contempt.

Pertaining to you being a socialist…

I’m not. Flat fact. As for Class warfare, I hear of more of it from Republicans, both in their rhetoric and in their actions, than I hear it from Democrats. Anything that could help the poor or middle class to get ahead or even survive is fair game, while the profits and the tax avoidance of the rich and corporate America are held sacrosanct.

If Republicans weren’t committing class warfare, tell me why they’re not more evenhanded. Why don’t we be more mature about this, and both admit that there will always be some conflict between the interests of the wealthy, the interests of big business, and the interests of the Democrats.

Then you can admit that Republicans seem to fall on the side of those who don’t actually need so much of that help, who are wealthy and prosperous already, while Democrats, though not as much as they use to, settle on the other side.

I’m very comfortable sitting there, but not because I’m a socialist. I sit there because I believe capitalism shared is easier to defend, and much better for the economy, than capitalism where the rich and powerful hoard everything. America’s problem right now isn’t that big business and big earners don’t have any money. They have plenty, literally more than they can or will spend.

America’s problem right now is that the circulation of wealth to the poor and middle class has becomes sclerotic, so businesses do poorly. Business that do poorly don’t hire or give raises to people to spend. Without that spending, other businesses don’t do well.

If you think it’s best to simply let that vicious cycle play out, while the economy forces year after years worth of huge deficits, you’re entitled to that opinion, but I feel obligated to tell you you’re wrong.

The solution will mostly be in the markets, in the end, but in my mind it does not have to be solely there, nor can it not begin in government spending. You may call me a socialist for that reason, but I don’t see you decrying all the policies that effectively subsidize and give corporate welfar to much of big business, so I don’t see why your double standard should be given credibility.

You continue to have nothing to say unless it includes Bush bashing.

So, what should I do, conveniently ignore the decisions on his watch, by his people that got us into a decade’s worth of deficit spending? The fact that he enabled and maintained many of the policies that killed our economy, despite warnings to the opposite? The fact that he got us into two wars with no notion of paying for them?

Should I do your work for you by inhibiting myself, despite the fact that my arguments are based on the reality of those policies?

Screw that. Like Truman said when somebody said “Giv’Em Hell Harry”, “No, I’ll give them the truth and they’ll think it’s hell!” The truth about Bush is hell for the Republican Party, so people like you try to silence people like me when we bring it up.

I’m not going to shut up for this cowardly form of Republican Political Correctness. No, Chairman Mao, I am not going to help you cover up the failures of your last President! You will have to face them for as long as their nasty repercussions move through our nation’s history.

You’re screwed. Get used to it.

And in your one-sided liberal mindset, you have no problem with the fact that the debate was scheduled a year ago, and that Obama announced his useless speech during the GOP debate.

Yeah, the President of the United States needs to schedule his addresses to Congress around your Obama-Bashing contests. Right. You know, nobody else, not even in the darkest of political hours ever refused that to a President.

Oh, by the way, the game comes after the President. Not bad as a lead-in.

Also, the President comes after the Republican debate. They get to show just how petty they are, and Americans get to see just what the House said no to the President on a joint address for the first time over.

You know, your people have done an amazing job of squandering your own popularity and reputation for us. I have to congratulate you. If your party was smarter, they might figure out a way to look good, but often in government that means doing something for the average person, and Republicans are phobic about that these days. Oh well.

As for James Carville? I seem to recall that guy’s last horse coming second to Obama, so I’d be careful about that.

Your post boils down this last statement. It is liberals who have lost touch with reality. The liberal agenda is failing; democrats are losing, Obama is dropping like a rock in the polls, and you are in a sense conceding a big loss in 2012. So you begin your talking points of “when the Republicans are in control again”. There will be no third party unless it is a split in the Democratic Party. The conservative movement is growing and you are losing.

No, at this point, everybody’s losing. People are just beginning to realize what Grover Norquist was saying when he talked about Republican Bipartisanship being date rape. Unfortunately, they’re getting to be the victims. Unfortunately, Your people are successful in making Obama look weak, unable to keep your people from holding the country hostage.

Obama’s got problems, but the Republicans have worse. In my view, though, it’s not so important in the long run who hits rockbottom first, but who is ready and willing to get back up afterwards, and change Washington for the better.

The Republicans want to keep things in their current dysfunctional state until they get what they want. Democrats would rather they be able to change things for the better. Republicans win easier, but their victories keep them unpopular, even as their rivals sink in popularity, too. Democrats will have the harder victory, but they have room to improve, and a populace not only willing to let them do it, but willing.

My fear is more for the damage this country will endure because Republicans have refused to let this nation go.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2011 2:52 PM
Comment #328469

This kind of Political black eye is ridiculously easy to avoid.

But Republicans don’t avoid it. They want to be seen as the party that pisses all over convention, social norms. Ah, but they don’t want to lose popularity for it, so they come up with excuses for their idiocy.

And the excuses become gospel, so the deviancy gets defined down, and standards with it. This kind of malice should be below the Republican Party. It would be below most people, why not them? Why do Republicans get a double standard when it comes to personal decency?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2011 2:58 PM
Comment #328471

tom humes-
Obama has done things in his Presidency that by themselves would be marked as the highwater point. But against a party whose last President and last majority have specialized in creating low points, there’s not much he can do to really shine, in my opinion.

Republicans want to destroy the hopes of the American people, so they can return their leadership to the fore, despite all their ****-ups. So that means Obama has to look… well, like Bush.

And you need us to be just as radical as you. You need us to be as far to the left as you are to the right, even when it’s not so. Why? Because your people need to justify policy and opposition that would otherwise seem, at face value, immoderate and unsupportable.

So much of this, even your supposed even-handedness, can be traced back to this notion of neutralizing political advantages through floods of BS Rhetoric.

This country will be a lot better off when they finally wake up from the Right’s fever dream. I’m going to fight to make sure that is sooner rather than later.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2011 3:05 PM
Comment #328472

SD wrote; “It’s somewhat symbolic that Boehner and company postponed Obama’s address to the joint houses of Congress in order to protect their precious pre-primary debate. It shows the utter contempt they have for the President and his authority.”

and,

“Republicans have chosen to hold their debate and have used their power to delay any real plans on jobs.”

I don’t understand SD’s use of the word “symbolic” in this context. Boehner and company and myself included don’t have contempt for the president or his authority, just his socialist policies.

The Rep debate has been scheduled for a long period of time. To expect the house to accommodate the president, when the president knew of the debate, is primary evidence of a flawed mind or serious mental disorder by obama and/or his handlers.

The president himself is the one who has delayed revealing his “jobs” plan, announcing that he had one, but then postponing any details until after his vacation. He did the very same thing a year ago. And, I suspect, his new “jobs” plan will have the same foul odor as his first one. There is no reason for obama to be in any rush to proclaim the same tired old dem/lib solution of more spending, more regulation, and more special interest politics.

I agree with Mike’s comments above regarding SD’s commentary being very socialistic.

All the whining from SD centers on the declining fortunes of dems and libs and the ascendancy of the reps and cons.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 1, 2011 3:11 PM
Comment #328473

SD

Once again you condescendingly say, “your people”. You are not getting under my skin my any reason. Just stop saying “your people” when I have explained that to you time and time again. That is a false accusation.

If you persist, you will get the short end of the stick and you read that any way you want.

Posted by: tom humes at September 1, 2011 3:13 PM
Comment #328474

So basically, Republicans representing their voters instead of letting liberals go crazy, is the sin you cannot forgive?

You force another government mandate onto the people and you expect them to sit back and do nothing because you think it is what is best for them?

Perhaps you should listen, attempt to understand and respect differing views, instead of labeling all who disagree with liberal policy as racist rednecks out to destroy the Obama.

Posted by: kctim at September 1, 2011 3:21 PM
Comment #328475

Stephen,

The way I interpet your comments, you are saying that my way is best but the Republicans are convincing the people that we are wrong. Democrats are doing the right things, but the Republicans are convincing the public that they are right. Democrats might lose in 2012, but it is only because the Republicans are telling the people we are weak and the people are believing it. I’m not a socialist, but you might convince people that I am.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Don’t you have faith in your fellow Americans? Don’t you trust democracy?

Posted by: tdobson at September 1, 2011 3:41 PM
Comment #328476

tom humes,
Stephen has been referencing “your people” long before you joined the posters on here. Get your egotistical arrogance back in stride and find, once again, another way to attack people here.

Posted by: jane doe at September 1, 2011 4:47 PM
Comment #328477

YOU People is OK, I like to say “You Folks”

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 1, 2011 5:26 PM
Comment #328478

Adrienne said:

“Now, like every the other rightwing candidate, Perry is saying he’s all about “small government”

This is an interesting statement, considering Perry has been elected 3 times as Governor, and has a near perfect record on Texas finances, job creation, and companies moving to Texas. The left has a hard time understanding, it is corporations who create the jobs; you can’t call them the enemy and at the same time ask them to spend capital and create jobs. Obama has shown himself to be the enemy of corporations and yet threatens them if they won’t hire more workers. By the way, concerning your proof (your link); why do you guys on the left continue to find the most left leaning liberal sites to prove your points. These liberal sites are simply re-stating the left’s talking points?

“Not a single one of Perry’s previous stances is now popular on the right, but he’s obviously willing to say anything in order to get elected.”

Posted by: Adrienne at September 1, 2011 2:17 PM

Perhaps you could enlighten us on what promises Obama made that he has lived up to? And let’s not say HC, because first the American people did not want it and second, it will be declared unconstitutional by the SC. Or perhaps you think it is only Republican politicians who say whatever it takes to win?

Stephen said:

“The Republicans are always willing to cite polls, after they’ve launch coordinated months long rhetorical assaults. But cite polls to them about how awfully the Debt Ceiling or Government shutdown showdowns are going, and they’ll say polls are for the little people.”

So Stephen, you are saying polls don’t mean a thing to Democrats? You are saying a 39-41% approval poll for Obama, doesn’t affect him one way or the other? If the polls don’t affect him, why is he giving a speech every other day, defending his actions?

The reason for the count of personal pronouns is because it is all about you. You say your concern is for America, but your speech say it is all about you and your anger. You bounce all over the place. Try to stick to a single subject; if you do, then you would not have to write an essay. The reams of material you write simply show how much anger you have pent up inside over not getting your way.

TARP was wasted, QE1 and QE2 were wasted; they did absolutely nothing for the economy. But they did bail out union pensions, waste money on green jobs (which never appeared), and bailed out failing democrat controlled states.

Then you make this foolish statement:

“I honestly don’t think Republicans would know what to do. Unlike the Democrats, they have no real idea of governing. That’s what you get when the very idea of effective government action is held in contempt.”

Evidently you live in the mystical little world where everything turns out rosy. Perhaps you could provide some proof that Democrats have ideas that work? The job numbers continue to fall, GDP continues to fall, unemployment has remained the same for well over 2 years, companies continue to move out of the country, the national debt continues to rise, and Obama continues to spend money borrowed from China. Is this your idea of “real ideas”?

Whether the Republicans know what to do or not does not matter. The American people believe they know more than Obama. The 2010 election proved this and the 2012 election will back it up.

As per you being a socialist: all we have is your political stand to prove that. “Thou dost protest too much”; you are continually trying to tell everyone on WB that you are not a socialist, but your comments and political stand tell a different story. I certainly believe you are a socialist. The only difference between you and Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont is that Bernie is not ashamed of what he is and is more than willing to proclaim himself a socialist.

“Yeah, the President of the United States needs to schedule his addresses to Congress around your Obama-Bashing contests. Right. You know, nobody else, not even in the darkest of political hours ever refused that to a President.”

If the president had something new to say, I would agree; but his speech on the economy will be like the other 9 or 10. He will simply ask Congress for another stimulus and talk, talk, talk.

“As for James Carville? I seem to recall that guy’s last horse coming second to Obama, so I’d be careful about that.”

Is this how you felt about Carville when he was defending Bill Clinton? As has been said before, the liberals have a history of eating the own offspring. Carville is about as liberal as any human being could be, and now you trash him because he speaks the truth.

“The Republicans want to keep things in their current dysfunctional state until they get what they want. Democrats would rather they be able to change things for the better. Republicans win easier, but their victories keep them unpopular, even as their rivals sink in popularity, too. Democrats will have the harder victory, but they have room to improve, and a populace not only willing to let them do it, but willing.
My fear is more for the damage this country will endure because Republicans have refused to let this nation go.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2011 2:52 PM

No Stephen, your fear is that the left will lose power. You can say we are “Screwed” all you want, but you and I both know the Democrats are in for a very big defeat next year.

“So basically, Republicans representing their voters instead of letting liberals go crazy, is the sin you cannot forgive?

Posted by: kctim at September 1, 2011 3:21 PM

You are correct kctim; in the 2010 election, those who followed Obama’s socialist plans paid the price, and yet the voters elected those who promised to stop Obama from doing any more damage to the country. Perhaps SD could explain this? SD does not believe in polls that show the American voters anger at liberals, and therefore does not believe constituents should be able to tell their politicians what to do. But, I would bet he doesn’t have a problem with Obama calling on Americans to contact their reps and advising them to vote with Obama.

“YOU People is OK, I like to say “You Folks”

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 1, 2011 5:26 PM

I like to say “You Socialists”, and then we have no problem understanding who we are talking about:)

Posted by: Mike at September 1, 2011 7:10 PM
Comment #328479

Right on Mike…give em hell.

I hear all this gibberish coming from the left that Rick Perry isn’t terribly bright. Well, while obama was smoking pot, “finding” himself, and being mentored by the socialist hate America bunch, Rick was flying jet fighters. To graduate from the Air Force flight school is not easy, and it takes a cool head and a certain amount of courage to fly those planes. I doubt obama even knows how to put gas in a car.

obama is a whimpy social worker capable of cleaning toilets and buying groceries. This guy is disgusting. His entire campaign consists of bragging about himself and trashing others…what a loser. I understand why SD and other libs are so glum…they have a proven pinhead for a leader.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 1, 2011 8:10 PM
Comment #328480

Royal Flush,
Perry flew tactical C-130’s, prop planes. You’re thinking of Bush. He flew fighters for the National Guard.

Is Perry bright? Bright enough, I’d say. But let’s not get carried away. He graduated from Texas A&M with a 2.5 GPA. In his own words, ” I would have not lasted at Texas Tech or the University of Texas. I would have hit the fraternity scene and lasted about one semester.”

Mike,
Enticing companies to move from one state to another does not result in job creation on a national level. It amounts to zero jobs created. Less, actually, since Texas pays a lower minimum wage than some states. This results in less money flowing into the economy, and therefore less demand, and therefore less spending, and therefore companies stay in cash since consumers cannot afford the company’s products and services.

The strategy no longer works very well, anyway. When TX recently tried to lure light bulb manufacturers to their state, the manufacturers said ‘why bother relocating to Texas? If all we wanted was lower costs, we’d move to China.’

Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2011 8:22 PM
Comment #328481

Royal, as veteran who spent some time at the Pensacola Naval Air Station, I can say that pilots are far from stupid. I will say the military flight training schools are very tough. And the training for jet fighters is the cream of the crop. The left has continually underestimated the intelligence of the right. Name me one conservative, whether politician or judicial candidate who has not been attacked by the left as being less than intelligent. And yet they proclaimed “Bubba” Clinton as intelligent, but not smart enough to keep his pecker in his pants. Al Gore is also hailed as intelligent, and yet he is a perfect candidate for the 60’s song, “They’re coming to take you away”. And here we have Obama, who has no school records, yet hailed as the most intelligent “Clean” black man Biden has ever met. He needs to show us some of that intelligence and stop hiding it. The problem is the absolute arrogance of the left; they believe they are smart and every conservative is ignorant. All one has to do is listen to them; they have such condescension for everyone who claims to be a conservative. Al Gore thinks anyone who disagrees with his beliefs about GW is nothing more than a racist. Al Gore is a good example of the liberal mindset.

“obama is a whimpy social worker capable of cleaning toilets and buying groceries. This guy is disgusting. His entire campaign consists of bragging about himself and trashing others…what a loser. I understand why SD and other libs are so glum…they have a proven pinhead for a leader.”
Posted by: Royal Flush at September 1, 2011 8:10 PM

You are exactly correct RF. I might add buying groceries with food stamps, by his own admission. The closer we get to the 2012 elections, the more radical the left will become. We can expect more and more hate speech from democrat politicians, including Osama, and more and more vitriol from the socialists on WB. They are like the old adversary Satan, he knows he will ultimately lose, but it doesn’t stop him from creating as much chaos as he can. The left’s “Rules for Radicals” by Alynsky is to create as much chaos as possible.

“Andre Carson, Democrat from Indiana, he is the Congressional Black Caucus chief vote-counter. He is also, I believe, the second Muslim to serve in Congress, Keith Ellison from Minnesota being the first. And Mr. Carson, member of the Congressional Black Caucus from Indiana, says that Tea Partiers on Capitol Hill would like to see — this is from The Politico, by the way — Mr. Andre Carson said that Tea Partiers on Capitol Hill would like to see African-Americans hanging from trees. He accuses the movement of wishing for a return to the Jim Crow era. We have audio sound bites in case you doubt me, in case you think I’m making this up. This is the new civility of the Democrat Party. This is August 22nd. So basically nine days ago, it’s taken that long for this to surface. Nine days ago in Miami during a Congressional Black Caucus town hall, the whip, Congressional Black Caucus whip Andre Carson, Democrat, Indiana spoke.”

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_083111/content/01125107.guest.html

Posted by: Mike at September 1, 2011 8:44 PM
Comment #328482

“Mike,

Enticing companies to move from one state to another does not result in job creation on a national level. It amounts to zero jobs created. Less, actually, since Texas pays a lower minimum wage than some states. This results in less money flowing into the economy, and therefore less demand, and therefore less spending, and therefore companies stay in cash since consumers cannot afford the company’s products and services.

The strategy no longer works very well, anyway. When TX recently tried to lure light bulb manufacturers to their state, the manufacturers said ‘why bother relocating to Texas? If all we wanted was lower costs, we’d move to China.”

Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2011 8:22 PM

Yes, and it also means less income for democrat controlled states, doesn’t it?

Are you talking about the lightbulbs that the liberal socialists want to ban?

Posted by: Mike at September 1, 2011 8:49 PM
Comment #328483

“considering Perry has been elected 3 times as Governor, and has a near perfect record on Texas finances,”

Please! Texas has a huge deficit, one of the largest in the nation per capita. It is giving California a run for its money on the deficit sweepstakes.

“TARP was wasted”

TARP saved the entire financial sector from complete collapse. It has cost considerably less than originally projected. It wasn’t even an Obama administration program. It was proposed by Bush and passed by a Democratic Congress. You remember Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury on hands and knees asking Pelosi to pass the bill immediately.

“QE1 and QE2 were wasted; they did absolutely nothing for the economy.”

QE1 was a Federal Reserve program to assist the banking sector with illiquid toxic assets. The Federal Reserve essentially purchased the toxic assets from the banks on favorable terms to assist them with capital requirements impaired by the plunge in market value of those assets. The Fed has made a profit on the transactions.

QE2 was a Federal Reserve program to boost asset prices by purchasing existing Treasury bonds from the private sector to induce the holders to seek more risky assets in the equity and commodity markets rather than the safe haven of treasuries. In other words, it swapped cash for highly liquid bonds. The main criticism is that it pushed money from bonds into equities, as planned, but it created cost inflation in the commodity markets.

None of the programs that you have criticized did anything like you suggested, i.e., bail out unions, green jobs, or prop up Democratically controlled states.

What you are apparently referring to is the stimulus program. Considering that Texas is a Republican controlled state and used the stimulus funds to manage a deficit in state revenue, your allegations have no merit. In fact, they appear to be a product of only your fantasy and not the reality of what actually happened. Name one state that didn’t use the stimulus funds? Name one Republican controlled state that was discriminated against in allocation of stimulus funds?

Posted by: Rich at September 1, 2011 9:05 PM
Comment #328484

“And here we have Obama, who has no school records,..”

Mike,

Again, with the implication that Obama is some affirmative action baby without a real track record of academic achievement and is hiding his academic mediocrity.

That might fly with the exception that there is clear public record of his academic achievement. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. It is on his diploma which is public record. That means he graduated in the top 10% of his class. He, also, was not only on Harvard Law Review, a competitive appointment based on academic achievement in the first year and writing ability, but he was chosen as the Editor. He was the top student at Harvard Law School, the most prestigious law school in the nation.

Posted by: Rich at September 1, 2011 9:19 PM
Comment #328485

Rich, thank you for the correction, it was Stimulus that bailed out union pensions, waste money on green jobs (which never appeared), and bailed out failing democrat controlled states.

Pertaining to the toxic assets; if the democrats had not forced banks to make bad loans to those who could not afford them, or face lengthy investigations, there would nerver have been bad assets. It doesn’t make any difference, QE1 and 2 were a waste of taxpayer’s money and all would have been corrected by now through the courts if left alone. The same with GM and Chrysler. But no, that couldn’t happen; Obama had to get his hands on the funds and control companies. Because he is a socialist and SD supports socialism.

Posted by: Mike at September 1, 2011 9:25 PM
Comment #328486

Royal Flush-

I don’t understand SD’s use of the word “symbolic” in this context.

Then let me explain: symbolic means one thing representing something else. The Republican’s refusal of a Presidential request for an address before a joint session is literally unprecedented, a real slap in the face of the Presidency itself by that measure. You wouldn’t have tolerated such a gesture from Pelosi.

I don’t care how long your debate has been scheduled for. This is the Leader of the Free World, The President.

As for socialism? Like Inigo Montoya said, I do not think this words means what you think it does. I don’t advocate nationalizing businesses. I’m comforted with limited use of entitlements, balancing the budget, scrapping unnecessary programs and regulations. I don’t have the gas pedal jammed on one particular policy direction, the way you do.

But what am I saying? You’re just using it as a lazy, button-pushing allegation to avoid having to discuss the NEED for greater regulation.

I mean, what is it, is the 2008 crisis not a big enough slap upside the head? Is it not a big enough signal to you that what was wrong before FDR took power was wrong before Obama did? Essentially, your people allowed folks to run the stock market the way people now run the OTC derivatives market, with the same effect: a whole bunch of false wealth disappeared all at once as a ****load of the schemes that depended on some bubble unravelled.

The parallels are plain as day, but no, all regulation is bad, because you say it brings uncertainty.

Well, pardon me, but the uncertainty that caused this whole mess stemmed from the fact that nobody could tell what mortgage securities were worth, due to the convoluted and opaque nature of the market.

Oh, and if you want uncertainty, your little stunt with the debt ceiling created a ****load of that. Funny how roiling the economy with uncertainty is alright if it serves the interests of the Tea Party or Wall Street banks.

tom humes-
“Your People” is not condescending. It’s necessary, because mysteriously enough, a bunch of people who talk just like the Republicans I see on television seem to hate the party’s guts and get offended when I call them Republicans. So, when I have to talk about them in their common political cause, well, “Your people” is loose enough to cover it all properly.

kctim-
Wrong. Republicans failing to meet the practical needs of our country, and then doubling down on such policies with their politics is the unforgivable sin.

I want the stupidity and its defense to stop.

tdobson-
Sour grapes? No, Sour grapes would be me calling the American people a bunch of idiots when I lose, despite the fact I was trying to convince them to follow me before. The reference is to a fox who lost a bunch of grapes to some other creature, and then just said, “Well, they were probably sour anyways.” to save face.

As for faith in Democracy? I have stuck with my political blogging through thick and thin, victory and defeat. I have always maintained the hope that people can be persuaded to see things my way, and write my posts so that more than just Democrats can get something out of it- something I do mainly because I believe that simply preaching to the choir is not enough, and more is possible.

If I had no faith that this country could right its course, I wouldn’t be writing here. I am always appealing to people, in the hopes they make their political decisions differently.

I don’t have to become a apologist for every decision Americans make in elections in order to have faith in Democracy, to believe that such opinions and votes are the right of the American people, regardless of whether I agree with them.

Republicans weren’t so faithful, as I recall it, when Obama was elected. They immediately alleged that ACORN fixed the vote. Republicans across the country have made voting more and more difficult, requiring more and more hurdles to confront a voter fraud problem that is practically non-existent. Tell me, what faith in Democracy do attempts to deliberately cut into Democratic Party Demographics demonstrate. What part of “let the chips fall where they may does that represent?”

You equate me agreeing with the decision that people made in 2010 as the defining quality of trusting the American people to govern themselves. I believe that letting people register to vote who have the right to it, and then letting them vote as they shall is a better approximation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2011 9:46 PM
Comment #328487

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify what my beliefs are, since so many have taken the opportunity to muddle the matter up with their own inaccurate cariactures.

Looking at the results in 2010, I would say to the American people, if we could personify them in one individual, “Look you were wrong. You expected them to get to work to give you jobs, and all they did was turn America into a laughingstock again.”

Then I would say “Thank God you can correct that mistake. Let me tell you why correcting it with the Democrats is a good idea, and let’s see if you agree.”

To me, the glory of a democracy is not that the people are infallible. Far from it. It’s that democracy is correctable. It’s that nobody has to perpetually put up with the bull**** of any side, if people decide they don’t want to.

What makes a democracy correctable, however, is also what makes it derangeable as well. It’s a strange loop, to use Douglas Hofstadter’s marvellous concept, a hierarchical system that can reach back from the lower levels and rearrange the top levels. It’s marvellously chaotic, and in the turbulent mix of correction and error, we see a nation organize itself in all kinds of wonderful and horrible ways.

And I would have it no other way. All other forms of government, in my view, are limited in their correctability. Things may go especially right when they go right when one man or one group controls things, but when they go wrong, the correction can be disruptive and destructive.

If the Republicans lose the House in 2012, like I think they will, it will be the third time it’s changed hands in the last decade. If Obama falls like the right-wingers wanted him to, it will be the third administration of the decade. If the Senate changes hands, it will be the third time such a change occurs.

And how many people are dead, for all that? Few Americans have died in violence related to internal politics in the last decade. Look at all the other places in the world where that’s not true, where it took violence or the near collapse of civil society to bring change, for better or worse. Simply put, we have peaceful revolutions all the time, and that is great.

I have faith that America can, not necessarily will, evolve towards a better government, and adapt towards the kind of government people need and/or want.

I would not dispense with elections, or discriminate against voters in order to win an election. The system is meant to put everybody to the test. Then reality puts the decision of the voters to the test, and so on and so forth. It’s all complicated, but I think dealing with the real world problem of getting three hundred million people to agree on something would be complicated no matter what.

Democracy just faces it, and by facing it, removes the kinds of complications that grow like a cancer when governments are not willing to admit how bad things are working.

The process can be painful, though, pitiful, sometimes humiliating. It can especially be so when one party is trying to stave off any change that doesn’t meet it’s ideological tests.

The question my article poses, after a fashion, is how painful we want the current correction to be, and how I think the Republicans are drawing this all out at everybody’s expense, their own included. Personally, just speaking in terms of cold political strategy, I think Republicans should have let things cool down and the Democrats clean up. They should have let the anxiety and despair drain out of the system, and America get back to good economic health.

They should have matched what policies they pushed with which ones worked, and chunked the ones that didn’t work. Instead, though, they decided to take a party that was limping, splint the leg, and then feed the patient a handful of amphetamines, telling it to go out and fight again. And Republicans and conservatives fought like beserkers.

But what was wrong with the party before, remains wrong now, and in many ways is worse now for the increasing strain between Republican policies and policy realities. More hype of Republican ideas won’t change the fact that Republicans failed to complete two wars, that markets failed to police themselves as promised, and won’t likely do so if allowed this time either, and that cutting taxes failed to create either jobs or a fiscal rebound making economic surge. Instead it brought deficits we thought were done back into the fiscal picture.

It’s time to modify the theories of conservatism to fit the facts. It’s really safer for us all that way.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2011 11:17 PM
Comment #328488

Your were great, SD. That is exactly what so many have said about your writings. Democracy is the Rule of Man. Socialism is the Rule of Man. A republic is the Rule of Law. Your Rule of Man is what people have been trying to tell you, but you are in denial, and still admit it above.

Now where do people get denied the right to vote? Did the persons you want to bring up follow the law? Did they have proof that they were who they claimed to be? Tell me more. States from time to time have run into difficulties with those who want to vote or vote more than once. So, they pass legislation to tighten up the approach. For instance. A picture ID is required in some states, because there was a problem of people showing up to vote who were not the names on the register. I have worked the polls and had that happen on some rare occasions. They got to vote a provisional ballot and when the investigation was done there was a determination of what the problem was. And if the person was eligible, his vote counted. If he was ineligible, his vote was not counted. Simple. There are responsibilities that go with registering to vote and people must keep up the info in the data base. Most people have no problem with that.

Posted by: tom humes at September 2, 2011 3:04 AM
Comment #328489

Mike:

This is an interesting statement, considering Perry has been elected 3 times as Governor, and has a near perfect record on Texas finances, job creation, and companies moving to Texas. The left has a hard time understanding, it is corporations who create the jobs; you can’t call them the enemy and at the same time ask them to spend capital and create jobs.

WRONG. You know nothing, and you’re just repeating GOP talking points with this BS. Perry’s record as governor is actually very poor, and he’s been using Stimulus Money to keep the state of Texas afloat. The fact of the matter is, under Rick Perry, government jobs grew TWICE as much as private sector jobs.

CNN Money:
Texas’s [Rick Perry’s] love/hate relationship with Washington’s money

Houston Chronicle:
Texas reaped $4.6 billion from federal stimulus

Wall Street Journal:
Public Sector Added to Texas Job Boom. Schools Staffed Up as Population Jumped; Now, Cuts Loom.

By the way, concerning your proof (your link); why do you guys on the left continue to find the most left leaning liberal sites to prove your points. These liberal sites are simply re-stating the left’s talking points?

By the way, why do so many of you conservatives always make complete fools of yourselves by whining and whinging endlessly about our links? It really comes off as embarrassingly stupid and ridiculous when our links provide highlighted RED links so one can very easily FACT CHECK the article in question. For instance, my link provided a direct link to GOVERNOR PERRY’S WEBSITE, and THE ENTIRE SPEECH in question. Duh!

Perhaps you could enlighten us on what promises Obama made that he has lived up to?

I’ve made it very clear in this blog that as a progressive Obama has been a massive disappointment to me. This is because I’m an honest person whose allegiance will always remain with my political beliefs, ethics and principles, not with a single person or party — most especially when they aren’t representing progressive views. You righties tend to be far less honest than people like myself. Indeed, you’re always so damn busy attacking Obama and the Left in a dishonest, illogical, overwrought, and mindlessly broad and sweeping sense that you never even bother to find out the true facts, not just about politicians on the left, but about your own politicians and political candidates on the right. Instead you just repeat their talking points verbatim — even when they’re nothing but really obvious LIES. Case in point: it’s very clear that you don’t know squat about Rick Perry’s record in Texas.

this is the classic identity of a socialist.

Hilarious! You also don’t know squat about what socialism is. Maybe you should go to the library and crack open a few books in order to inform yourself about what that word actually means, rather than keep endlessly repeating this gobsmackingly dumbass Rightwing Smear.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 2, 2011 3:12 AM
Comment #328492

Stephen

You never forgive Republican for anything, whether or not they are guilty.

Re the downgrade - the downgrade happened because the cuts were not sufficient. We have too much Debt.

Obama did this. He correctly determined we had economic problems and prescribed the wrong solution. Maybe you shoudl not forgive his arrogance.

Posted by: C&J at September 2, 2011 6:23 AM
Comment #328494

C&J the downgrade was a tea party caused downgrade. It was intentional and it was cheered by many teabaggers.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 2, 2011 8:18 AM
Comment #328495

Adrienne,

“You also don’t know squat about what socialism is.”

Mike doesn’t know the meaning of the word because he has been spoon-fed the definition du jour by Rush Limbaugh. The definition is what Limbaugh says it is.

What I find curious is that the Limbaugh definition also fits the agenda that was put forth and “rammed down” the public’s throat by Bush and the conservatives when they held power, but they were conservatives so that was OK.

Now do you wonder why the National Enquirer has remained so popular?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 2, 2011 8:39 AM
Comment #328496

tom humes-
If we use the textbook definition, people talking about Democracy are talking about a system where all things are decided by a council of the citizens with majorities carrying the day.

If we use the common understanding of the average American as our guide, then the word is commonly, if in a technically incorrect way, applied our Democratic Republic. It’s a distinction you would have to explain to the average person if you were to tell them they were in error by calling our government a Democracy.

I think what people mean here is more important than what you would insist they mean. I have, in the past, praised our constitutional form of government, and the rule of law, but you overlook this support, and instead base your claims on abstract semantic hairsplitting.

Plenty of people get denied the chance to vote. They get tossed off the rolls on false grounds, they get required to show ID when they may not have a driver’s license, or the requirements to gain such ID are onerous.

There is very little evidence, even in times where Republicans were investigating things trying to look for cases to exploit, that people are, systematically or spontaneously, committing voter fraud. Voter registration fraud is more common, but those registrations don’t typically vote.

The requirements that Republicans piling on people, whereever possible, reflect a cynical, and sadly all too common attempt to further the party’s interests by reducing the rolls of Democratic Party voters.

The Republicans are using a nonexistent problem as a pretext to take care of one that does exist, but which they should not be hijacking the law to take care of: their shrinking margins in elections.

C&J-
I forgive for political and policy sins when I see repentance. You guys don’t repent.

Take this Debt Ceiling thing here. The clearest and most prominent reason given for the S&P downgrade was the political uncertainty of the next debt ceiling increase.

You failed to mention that. So far, I haven’t heard much out of the Republicans saying that holding the debt ceiling hostage was a mistake, and that it won’t be done again. Without repentance, without the assurance that this error would not be repeated, how can I forgive Republicans for this? How can I not hold it against them, when the threat of it is still real?

Republicans have shown little to no give on taxes, so what’s to forgive there? Republicans still talk bombastically about military adventures, even as they carp at Obama’s decisions there. Again, no repentance. Wall Street Regulations are still anathema to them, so no repentance there. When the oil well blew out in the Gulf and gushed oil for months, Republicans of all types at many levels of government got in the way of any reform or any attempt to have producers doing deepwater drillling in the gulf review their safety procedures and the quality of the wells

No repentance. How can I forgive the policy errors of a Republican Party that doesn’t consider most of its decisions for the past decade to be true errors? One of the biggest drivers of debt for that decade was Bush’s tax cuts. During the time of those tax cuts, which were supposed to be deficit neutral according to Republican claims, the deficits skyrocketed and this country’s debt with them.

What’s more, there was no real productivity increase, and outside the housing market, much of the economy remained stagnant, if not declining. The jobs numbers for Bush, even before the recession, were the worst of any President since they started recording them in Truman’s time. There are at least ten other Presidents, including Carter, Ford, and Bush 41 who created more jobs per year in office.

Well, look at the candidates, your alternative to Obama, what they’re saying. Their solutions to the problem are essentiall the same we’ve seen from Republicans all along. More tax cuts. Making the tax cuts Bush created permanent. More deregulation (or, lets be honest, industry-friendly regulation).

I mean, I don’t hear the kind of change in the GOP that indicates that they realized they did any kind of wrong. Even though most economists say the budget won’t be balanced without revenues, they reject raising taxes. Even though most economists say now is a poor time to institute austerity measures, and results in Ireland, Spain, England and Greece indicate their failure in curbing debt increases, Republicans go ahead with it anyway.

Simply asked, why won’t your people look at what’s gone wrong, or listen to anybody else? And as long as they stubbornly resist any kind of accountability or correction of their policies, theories, or behavior, why should people risk the good fortunes of this country by electing them? I mean, if we leave your people in the majority, we may literally risk a default on the national debt. That was S&P’s fear.

As for Obama’s solution? In your leader’s eight years in office, he created just three million jobs. according to reliable estimates, Obama saved or created about that many jobs. Then, he went and saved millions of jobs in the auto industry, which has subsequently become one of the industrial leaders in creating new jobs.

Obama’s problem is that his plan was designed to handle a recession that took a 3.8% rate drop in GDP in the fourth quarter of 2008, when the drop was really an annualized 8.9% Obama succeeded in stimulating the economy, but the economy needed more stimulus than he gave it. Unfortunately, the Republicans never have given him a chance to deal with the underestimation of our economic problems. They’re too busy trying to insiste on the policies that already failed.

Can you understand how frustrated I am with a Republican Party that, despite one of the biggest market and fiscal failures in US history, thinks it’s got room to lecture the rest of us on what the right course is?

By the way, your people have had an excellent opportunity to prove themselves right, and they have done so by instituting job and spending cuts across the board in state and local governments.

Isn’t it funny how our economy has stalled since the Republicans got back some of their power, how good jobs numbers on the private side have been weighed down by job losses on the public side? How greater uncertainty has accompanied the Republican’s cutting of spending, rather than the jubilant increase of confidence they predicted?

By what standards are we to believe that your side is better about the economy? You create unnecessary chaos with your fiscal hostage taking. You maintain or aggravate many budget shortfalls and deficits through tax cuts. Your lack of regulations has been clearly cited as a causative factor in the economic meltdown, and your side is still protective of the ability of Wall Street to play exotic games with money, and engage in the predatory lending that got us here in the first place.

Why are your people better for the economy? You have your theory, but what evidence speaks to that theory’s validity?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 2, 2011 9:55 AM
Comment #328497

SD

“Wrong. Republicans failing to meet the practical needs of our country, and then doubling down on such policies with their politics is the unforgivable sin.

I want the stupidity and its defense to stop”

In a representative Republic, isn’t representing those who elected you, THE most ‘practical need?’

And if you are being honest and really just want what is best for the country, why are you so dead set on the far-left being the only ones who define our ‘practical needs?’ For some of us, what the government does not infringe upon is more important than what government gives us. That is belief, not politics, and when we elect a representative to represent those views, we expect that rep to do that. It is no different than electing a rep who promises to give you more freebies, in that once they are in office, you expect them to give you what they promised.

Face it Stephen, you are upset because the right won’t disregard their voters, role over and give the Obama EVERYTHING he wants because the left actually believes it is they, not the individuals themselves, who know what is best for EVERYBODY.

You are wrong.

Posted by: kctim at September 2, 2011 9:58 AM
Comment #328498

Adrienne and Rocky Marks:

“Definition of SOCIALISM

1. Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2. A system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3. A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done”

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

Well you tell me:

1. Auto and banking takeover.

2. Redistribution of wealth.

3. Bypassing the Congress and trying to rule by executive order.

4. Creation of a government run HC system, against the will of the American people, and in the process gaining government control of 17% of the economy.

5. Using taxpayer money in the form of stimulus to bail out union pensions and failing democratic states.

6. Using “Fast and Furious” as an excuse to violate 2nd amendment rights through backdoor regulations.

7. Shutting down oil and coal production, closing 8% of our electricity production through EPA regulations.

8. Using the NLRB to shut down a new Boeing plant for the purpose of protecting unions.

In fact it appears Obama’s goal is to destroy the American economy, not fix it. But I must ask; how does it feel to represent a minority of socialists in the country and watch your plans and aspirations crumble? Have you seen the latest economics results for August; 9.1% unemployment, 0% job growth, and some even saying we are now already in a double dip recession. In fact the WH came out with their own numbers this week and declaring that unemployment will stay at 9% + for 2012. After 3 years, and 4 1/2 trillion dollars spent, nothing but continued blame of Bush. The left have to be some of the most sick SOB’s I have ever seen. And while there is a growing discord among democrats concerning Obama’s agenda, the lefty liberal socialists on WB continue to defend him.

Posted by: Mike at September 2, 2011 12:30 PM
Comment #328501

It may be time for a moderate Democrat to challenge obama for the nomination. I believe the Dem party is facing a crushing defeat in November 2012. There is much to admire in the Democrat party, past and present.

The Republicans need an active and viable Democrat party just as the Dems need the Reps. They are counterweights to each other and keep government from lurching to violently from side to side. There is some truth in what SD and others write about Republican excesses. No party is right every time and all the time.

We need two viable political parties as good ideas in governance can and do come from both.

I am a conservative and that doesn’t mean that I agree with all that the Republican party does or says. Many times Republican led administrations and congresses have engaged in policies that most conservatives disagree with. I have, at times, supported Democrat positions.

I believe that the democrat party has lost its moderate middle ground and has become captive to the progressive wing led by obama and others. The Republican party does have some crazy right-wingers as well who hurt our conservative principles.

I believe in moderation in politics, neither too bold or too timid, and always in allegiance with our constitutional guidelines. Many times the candidate I vote for believes things that are opposed to my views. As voters we must weigh everything a candidate says, does, and believes and then, choose those who are most aligned with our views.

Sadly, I can find little with which to agree in candidate obama as well as some of the Republicans now battling for the nomination. I want to whole package but know that I must settle for less.

Democrat voters, some of them, are facing a real dilemma if obama becomes their nominee. I am not talking about the liberals or progressives, but the moderate democrats. I believe there are millions of moderate democrats who are very, very uncomfortable with obama, reid, and pelosi.

There were millions of Republicans who were uncomfortable with George Bush’s policies in his second term.

Well, we no longer have George Bush running for office so we Republicans and Conservatives are able to pick a new leader. The democrats, at this time, are stuck with obama. It’s time for a moderate democrat to challenge obama and give Democrats a candidate with fresh, bold, and appealing alternatives.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 2, 2011 2:48 PM
Comment #328509

SD

“Plenty of people get denied the chance to vote. They get tossed off the rolls on false grounds, they get required to show ID when they may not have a driver’s license, or the requirements to gain such ID are onerous.”

You state that as a fact. Now backup it up. Document it. Don’t just shoot fish in the barrel. Straw man up. Straw man down.

If we use the textbook definition, people talking about Democracy are talking about a system where all things are decided by a council of the citizens with majorities carrying the day.

“If we use the common understanding of the average American as our guide, then the word is commonly, if in a technically incorrect way, applied our Democratic Republic. It’s a distinction you would have to explain to the average person if you were to tell them they were in error by calling our government a Democracy.”

If.., but it is not if. If is want you want. If is make believe. Democracy is a word that has been brainwashed into peoples head all the way from the WH to the poor house.

“As for Obama’s solution? In your leader’s eight years in office, he created just three million jobs. according to reliable estimates, Obama saved or created about that many jobs. Then, he went and saved millions of jobs in the auto industry, which has subsequently become one of the industrial leaders in creating new jobs.”

JMC

“Isn’t it funny how our economy has stalled since the Republicans got back some of their power, how good jobs numbers on the private side have been weighed down by job losses on the public side? How greater uncertainty has accompanied the Republican’s cutting of spending, rather than the jubilant increase of confidence they predicted?”

And it is the republicans fault for the lack of jobs? You sure know how to stretch something into nothing. And the zero jobs figure was inherited by Obama.

Posted by: tom humes at September 2, 2011 4:08 PM
Comment #328512

Royal, I agree with you completely. I was not happy with some of the things Bush and republicans did. I certainly had no use for McCain. The difference between conservatives and liberals is that we are willing to voice our oposition, even though SD and others on WB want to lump us all as “you guys”. The results of the 2010 election prove that conservatives are willing to buck the Republican establishment and vote conservative. On the other hand, liberals continue to try to defend Obama even though he is losing popularity in his own party. The speech he gives next week will be a make or break for his future. If he does the same old thing and calls for more stimulus and spending and higher taxes, he is done. The American people are not stupid, and we no longer rely on the liberal MSM for info. We are wise to the political games and talking points; the same ones liberals on WB are still spouting.

Posted by: Mike at September 2, 2011 4:16 PM
Comment #328521

kctim-
A very ideological answer, I see.

I think we see the crux of our political system in America at this moment. Is representing the interests of your voters the most important thing?

We can, I would say, define interests in terms of a political agenda, and say that the representative should adhere to that strictly.

Or, we could define it in terms that start at the basic interests of any voter, and go upwards. Neither Obama or I have to define everybody’s interests for them. Their circumstances would do that automatically. A fair amount of people need jobs, employment, and the economy would be running better if people had them.

If your politically defined representation on interests gets in the way of the needs-based definition, in that case, then the politics are making that representative more useless for the voters than they otherwise might be if they were more flexible about looking at interests, or more pragmatically oriented to begin with.

I’m not upset that the Right won’t disregard their voters. I’m upset that they have disregarded them, in many ways. Really, voters might be no more impressed than I am. If I recall correctly most republicans ran on jobs. To date, Republican policies have saved or created few jobs, but directly killed many, and will kill more as budget cuts are enacted.

Not everybody is as ideologically rigid or conservative as you, so what they want might be more centered around effect and results than they are around politics.

So, I think it’s most important that leaders govern well and serve the underlying interests of the country first, and serve their constituents within the bounds of what is in the general interest.

Mike-
Sigh. You got your hammer out and you’re trying to bash me into that pigeon hole. Unfortunately, you don’t even have your facts straight.

1) There were no bank takeovers, or nationalization of car companies, period. The big banks were bailed out, and the Car companies steered through structured bankruptcies, but at this point, all are private concerns.

But you know what, that is inconvenient to your ability to call hims a socialist. So, you’re going to make stuff up.

2) Without further explanation, your second item is so vague as to be true of nearly every country on earth. Nearly every government on the face of this planet redistributes wealth. It’s just one of your buttons you like to push.

3) The President has the right, within current law, to carry out this nation’s laws as he sees fit. Unless he’s breaking a law, or failing to carry one out, that’s his business. That may tick you off, but that’s checks and balances for you. If Republicans can endlessly filibuster, and the House majority block any liberal legislation, Obama can carry out the laws in a liberal way they don’t like.

4) Government-run? The Mandate requires people to buy private insurance. Now some might object to that, and some might prefer a single-payer system like Medicare, but the fact remains that what passed under the Affordable Care Act no more put the US Government in charge of the Healthcare Syatem than Obama’s actions made Ford, General Motors or Chrysler departments of the US government.

Again, you’re making stuff up to make Obama a socialist.

5) Yet one of the biggest beneficiaries of the stimulus money is Texas, a red state if there ever was one. Interesting how that works, and how the current darling of the right used that money to make up his state’s shortfalls for a session. Interesting how the Texas Miracles depended so much on government.

You really think passing on these poorly founded talking points constitutes a substantive answer to what I’ve said?

6) Nice conspiracy theory. Irony is, though, your people are excoriating the Feds for letting guns walk. Unfortunately, you’re not willing to do much to make straw-buying truly illegal, citing your paranoid concerns about second amendment abridgment. Seriously, either you want guns kept out of the hands of criminals, or you don’t.

7) Shutting down? That’s not what the statistics say. Oil and coal flowed through the economy much like before. Maybe Obama is going to tell people to shut down some forty-year old power plant that’s shut down more than half the time, but past behavior from the power companies indicates that there will not be any real reduction in power.

Only a reduction in pollution.

8) Let me straighten you out on something, buddy: there are laws in this country that protect unions whether you like it or not. They may not have been so faithfully carried out up to this point, but that has changed. There’s no point in denying that Obama is Union-friendly.

So, when Boeing tells it’s people it’s moving production to South Carolina, and the word among the executives is that it’s about labor related work stoppages, then quite plainly, the law is being broken, and the government needs to put its foot down.

As for your last part? Well, sir, here’s the thing: we were doing better for a while. Then the Republicans had this brilliant jobs program that they put into play, where they cut state and local jobs in government by the hundreds of thousands, cut funding to many contractors and aid recipients, and then turned around, threatened a destablizing government shutdown and then held the debt ceiling hostage.

And to ransom that debt ceiling, Democrats were forced to agree with substantial cuts, and so far the reaction on Wall Street and in the business community to those cuts have been negative.

So you know what, you’re right, Bush alone is no longer to blame. Now you have a whole new bunch of Republicans who can be held accountable for their appallingly stupid and impractical economic policy. You folks made sure that Obama wasn’t the only game in town anymore, that the Democrats were not the only people with a majority in Congress.

And you know what? Your people were elected to create jobs. Obama, given the chance, saved or created three million jobs by estimates, with his Stimulus plan. That’s what most economists say. His work on the Auto industry’s behalf saved millions of jobs right there.

The Republicans? so far, they only have hundreds of thousands of job losses to their names, and their Texas miracle was backstopped by creating more government jobs.

You can complain about lefty liberal socialists, but we’ve kicked your butts where it matters. Our policies are better for capitalism then yours are, even if some business leaders prefer otherwise.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 2, 2011 7:26 PM
Comment #328522

“I forgive for political and policy sins when I see repentance. You guys don’t repent.”

So we are now hearing from the Lord God. You may try to understand that conservatives believe as strongly that their ideas are for the common good as you believe in yours.
I believe you are misguided. But I forgive you since you know not what you do.

Re the downgrade – the S&P said that the downgrade came because the cuts promised were not sufficient. The sound and fury caused by the (I agree) somewhat childish fight between Obama and the Congress didn’t have any practical effect on the rating.

Re the situation in Greece, Spain etc. – their problem is NOT that tax rates are too low. Their problem is like ours, just worse, they spend too much.

Re Obama saving or creating jobs – There are fewer jobs today than when Obama took office. He is doing hell of a job, isn’t he? He claims that he saved or created millions of jobs. I heard of a man who claimed to have been picked up by space aliens.People claim lots of things. Bottom line is that unemployment is significantly worse today than it was when Obama took over.Everything is just noise.

You ask if I can understand how frustrated you are. Actually, I cannot. I don’t have that kind of personality. I notice people that do and I feel sorry for them. I regret that you feel so frustrated, but I don’t think that any external conditions can really help with that.

Re former socialist glories. Socialism is an old-fashioned bad ideology. I never call you guys socialists and I wish you would stop referring to yourselves in that way.

I thought Clinton did a decent job and have said so many times. The problem is that liberal Dems reject Clinton’s methods. They are unenthusiastic about his welfare reform, trade policies and they don’t embrace what he said about the era of big government being over.

So if you want to claim that you “kicked butt” are you talking about Clinton policies? Do you really like them?

Posted by: C&J at September 2, 2011 7:51 PM
Comment #328523

The Republicans? so far, they only have hundreds of thousands of job losses to their names…

You can complain about lefty liberal socialists, but we’ve kicked your butts where it matters.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 2, 2011

MY, MY…such hyperbole. I am astonished. Why is the lack of job creation the fault of Reps? We have a dem president and a dem controlled senate.

I find it interesting that SD can switch horses without dismounting.

Now of course, I am sure that SD can conjure up more “saved” and “created” jobs that were lost because the Reps stood firm on spending. Those jobs are a joke. Every American knows that creating jobs that cost taxpayers over $250 grand each to create are boondoggles.

obama will be center stage come Thursday evening and once again pull his magic wand out of his butt and pronounce that he will “create” more jobs out of thin air…with more tax payer dollars. He will speak of saving public service jobs knowing full well that it merely helps his special interest groups and the average American won’t get a penny’s worth of financial relief.

He will tell us that this time, unlike the last time, these really are shovel ready projects. Who gives a shit if they are shovel ready or not, they are meaningless, useful only for a few favored unions and obama’s cronies.

obama has “fooled us once” and shame on him. Fooling us twice…”shame on us”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 2, 2011 8:07 PM
Comment #328524

C&J-
The first concern they expressed in their explanation was the political situation, that is the debt-ceiling stand-off. Do I need to go back and dig up the press release to jog your memory?

They even went back and explained that the language and behavior of particular people about raising the debt ceiling contributed to that judgment.

Re Obama saving or creating jobs – There are fewer jobs today than when Obama took office. He is doing hell of a job, isn’t he?

Bush ended his time in office with an 8.9% annualized drop in GDP, and all the epic Job-killing recessionary failures that come with that. You seem to expect Obama to have taken a Stimulus meant to deal with a 3.8% drop, what he knew about at the time, and somehow magically resolve an 8.9% drop with that.

That, with your entire party draggin on him like the biggest two year old in the world. That’s my frustration. You folks criticize him for performance you are deliberately trying to sabotage. You want him basically to go back and try to vindicate Bush’s and Reagan’s policies once again for you, despite their previous failures, or you won’t let him do anything! You pushed your abuse of the Senate rules to the limit, and now have made a policy desert of the House of Representatives by making it so uncooperative that the President cannot even set a date for an address to a joint session of Congress, without having John Boehner renege on it because Rush Limbaugh pulled a hissy fit.

Yeah, we’ve kicked your butts. I mean, if between two different administrations, the main difference is a President and his fiscal policy, and Clinton brings in 20 million jobs while your fellow only brings in 3 million, then yes, we kick your butt. If Barack Obama can save or create more jobs in the midst of the worst recession in decades, with an uncooperative Republican minority sabotaging things with filibusters, blocking many of his appointments, an underpowered stimulus, and the creative use of finance-sector bailout money and structured bankrupcies, then yes, he’s kicked your butt.

Since the Republicans have taken over, we’ve seen public layoffs skyrocket, we’ve seen a wholly unnecessary set of destabilizing factors introduced into the economy, and we’ve seen the Republicans insisting on tightening the government’s belt in a time when more generosity would be better for growth. Your job creation policiies seem to have stalled the economy instead of moving it forward.

Royal Flush-
Go read that constitution you consider yourself such an expert on. It requires that both houses of Congress agree on things to pass legislation. That’s not a creative interpret from some activist liberal judge, that’s the basic fricking text.

Now you tell me, what the hell are we supposed to pass when your side won’t even honor an agreement on a joint address to Congress on account of some idiot pundit? In Congressional matters, it takes two to tango, and the Republicans are content to sit on the sidelines with their arms crossed.

Now of course, I am sure that SD can conjure up more “saved” and “created” jobs that were lost because the Reps stood firm on spending.

I don’t have to. The economist are doing that right now, and they can translate the loss of spending directly into reductions in employment.

What, you think the jobs just magically maintain themselves? Hmmm? Employing people, surprisingly enough, costs money! You may think the jobs are a joke, but then, your public sector cuts are much of the reason for slowed employment increases. Now that isn’t hyperbole, that’s math! That’s jobs we’ve created in America, minus the ones you’re cutting.

Simple as that.

Everybody knows that if you pay somebody, they can pay somebody else, purchase goods and services, pass on the money they’ve gotten to others. I don’t have to make up some complex theory to explain why funding jobs helps unemployment numbers recover and move back to more moderate ranges.

YOU have to explain to me, and everybody else how killing jobs directly and cutting spending that creates and maintains jobs somehow fixes that problem. You have to tell me why all the immediate dragged-down numbers on job creation, and the projected high unemployment numbers don’t somehow trace back to your people and their agenda of freezing spending and killing government jobs.

You can disparage what we did, but we have the numbers to show that at least jobs were created under us, and the economy improved because of what we did.

You? You have your perpetual blame of the liberals and nothing else to show for a decade of incompetence and corruption. Even when you were creating jobs, your party was doing so more anemically than anybody had done since before Harry Truman took your party to task for being a bunch of do-nothings.

Obama’s not the one trying to pull the wool over America’s eyes. It’s the Republican Party, the deliberate job killers with a discredited economic theory they can’t abandon for political reasons.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 2, 2011 9:03 PM
Comment #328527

Stephen


Generally economies improve after they go down. Even a dead cat bounces. Presumably if Obama policies worked, they would be working by now. We might not expect him to recover all the losses from previous times (as Reagan did. Obama is no Ronald Reagan) but we would expect that it would not get worse in the third year after his stimulus.


Obama’s folks clearly expected to get credit for a recovery. Unfortunately, their policies weakened and may have worsened it.

Think of it like this. The economy was in winter. It bottomed out just as Obama took office. In the normal course of events, spring would come and Obama could take credit for the longer days and greater warmth. The strange thing is that instead of continuing the recovery, it got worse.

I cannot say if Obama is at fault for making it worse, but clearly his policies did not make anything better.

Now I am quite certain that an 8.9% annual drop is BS. You did not think this through. An 8.9% drop over 8 years would result in an economy less than half the size of 2001.

But let’s assume you are right (for fun) think of the pent up demand. Think of how robustly the U.S. economy grew during the Reagan years or after WWII. You have your argument exactly wrong. If it really was that bad under Bush, good policies should have meant quick growth. It didn’t work like that.

You have a real problem with seeing things in black and white. I have said that Clinton did a good job - with the help of the Republicans who controlled congress. Which of Clinton’s policies resemble those of Obama? They are the same party, but very different ideologies.

Clinton promoted trade. Government shrunk under Clinton. Welfare was reformed. Clinton after 1994 followed a pro-business policy. Obama is no Ronald Reagan; he is also no Bill Clinton.

Obama, BTW, so far as created negative net jobs. There are fewer jobs now than the day he was elected. What jobs did he save or create when there are fewer than before.

And you can try to blame Republicans, although it is interesting that you give them no credit during Clinton and don’t hold Democrats to any standard at all. But unemployment was higher BEFORE they took office.

Posted by: C&J at September 2, 2011 10:23 PM
Comment #328530

C&J, your first mistake is believing SD can think logically. He can’t; his sole goal in life is to defend the liberal politicians. He cannt see beyond Obama is right and it’s Bushes fault.

Poor SD, he’s in for a real shocker in the 2012 election cycle. But I am sure he will blame Bush for Obama being sent packing back to Chicago.

Posted by: Mike at September 2, 2011 11:02 PM
Comment #328531

Mike-
And I’m sure you’ll blame ACORN if he’s re-elected.

Goodnight, y’all.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 3, 2011 12:16 AM
Comment #328539

Mike,

I will agree that you are capable of looking up the word “Socialism”, but from the comments you added to your post it seems painfully obvious you don’t appear capable of grasping what the word actually means. You guys from the right throw the word Socialist around just as you threw the word traitor around after September 11th, and your misuse of the word cheapens the actual meaning.


“Poor SD, he’s in for a real shocker in the 2012 election cycle.”

Really, and what “shining light” are you guys from the right putting out there to defeat Obama?

Limbaugh and his ilk have made it their overt mission to convince the voters that Obama’s goal is to ruin the American economy.
If the stock market is any indicator of the economy, the Dow Jones was at 10,600 when Clinton left office, it was around 8,000 when Bush left office, and it closed at 11,240 yesterday 9/2.

You claim Obama’s health care program is socialism. Was it socialism when Nixon suggested it?
Obama was handed a pile of manure and was expected to imediately make ice cream out of it, and the fact that Obama has attempted to compromise has been taken by the right as a sign of weakness.

Look, I am not necessarily an Obama supporter, but as an independent voter, the right isn’t offering me anything but rhetoric and hyperbole as the alternative.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 3, 2011 9:33 AM
Comment #328544

RM, you support Obama’s takeover of the HC system (and quit talking about the American’s choice, the goal has always been a single payer gov run HC system), you support the Fed takeover of the anking system, takeover of corporations, dividing the voters into classes (class warfare), higher taxes, redistribution of wealth, a nanny state of gov regulations in every aspect of our lives, the use of executive orders and czars to bypass Congress; and then you have the audacity to say you are not necessarily an Obama supporter. To this I say BS. It don’t take rocket science to see where Obama and his liberal cronies stand with the American people. And he is now running scared. Why else would he cancel the latest EPA plans to shut down 8% of our power grid? You guys live in a fantasy world. Blame it on Bush or the Republicans; but Obama’s own financial advisers are fighting over this one. Job creation - zip, consumer confidence - zip, on food stamps - up, unemployment - remains high, confidence in Obama - down, confidence in the future - zip. Like I said, it don’t take rocket science.

Posted by: Mike at September 3, 2011 10:46 AM
Comment #328551

C&J-

Generally economies improve after they go down. Even a dead cat bounces.

Look, you must think I have a bad memory for the statistics on Reagan. With Reagan, things got bad and stayed bad for a lot longer, with a lot less severe of an injury to the economy. Dead cat bounces don’t last, but Obama’s recovery was still going on right up until March of this year. Reagan, by contrast, had 7.4% unemployment when he signed his tax cuts into law in August 1981, and didn’t get back to that number until May 1984.

As for as an 8.9% annual drop? I didn’t say that. I said Annualized. Meaning that if that same rate was kept up over the entire year, the GDP would have dropped by 8.9%.

You need to be clear on this distinction, or otherwise you’re going to offer a whole lot of lousy rebuttals. The first thing to understand is that the 8.9% drop was for one quarter, Which is a hell of a steep fall. The fact that it was followed up by a 6.7% annualized drop in the next quarter tells you why the jobs were lost, and just how bad the damage was.

But you’re ignoring that, as if Obama could get back in a time machine and rewrite history in order to prevent those jobs from being lost, or those estimates for how bad the economy got hit from being inaccurate at the time. He couldn’t. The problem is, the Republicans and conservative Democrats aided by the Republican’s filibuster made it impossible to offer a second stimulus, to deal with the actual damage in depth.

It’s cheap rhetorical trick. It’s a shallow understanding of how the government and the economy works.

There is no pent-up demand, just pent-up supply, or pent-up potential supply that nobody can afford. Obama cannot create Demand without doing the kind of spending that Republicans have explicitly refused to allow him to do. The irony is, by putting the budget deficit first, Republicans are essentially putting the cart before the horse. Our fiscal situation, like with Reagan and Bush, probably won’t recover until the economy’s growing robustly again.

You have your myths about how good Reagan did his jobs, I can show people the reality. The reality is, Reagan had an easy way out of his situation. Obama does not, and you’re holding Obama responsible for a situation he didn’t create, and couldn’t escape.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 3, 2011 1:22 PM
Comment #328552

Mike,

“RM, you support Obama’s takeover of the HC system (and quit talking about the American’s choice, the goal has always been a single payer gov run HC system), you support the Fed takeover of the anking system, takeover of corporations, dividing the voters into classes (class warfare), higher taxes, redistribution of wealth, a nanny state of gov regulations in every aspect of our lives, the use of executive orders and czars to bypass Congress; and then you have the audacity to say you are not necessarily an Obama supporter.”

And speaking of audacity… You don’t have a clue what I believe, and what or who I support.

You seem to be spreading the bull**** awful thick for someone that doesn’t understand what Socialism really is.

Typical of a Limbaugh adherent.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 3, 2011 1:42 PM
Comment #328553

C&J,

“Even a dead cat bounces.”

Yeah, but only once.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 3, 2011 1:45 PM
Comment #328554

Stephen wrote:

It’s the Republican Party, the deliberate job killers with a discredited economic theory they can’t abandon for political reasons.

Rocky wrote:

You guys from the right throw the word Socialist around just as you threw the word traitor around after September 11th, and your misuse of the word cheapens the actual meaning.


Let’s face the facts here guys. We’re attempting to debate with people who are not at all interested in dealing in facts or logic. This is why the right is still trying to claim that trickle-down economics is an effective economic theory rather than a completely illogical theory that has proven time and time again over the past thirty-plus years to have been a blatant failure.
It’s why these people on the right illogically and endlessly use the word “socialism” to refer to anything that has demonstrably helped (or could help) or aided people of the working class or the poor.
It’s the same illogical thinking that fights against people joining unions to secure better wages — indeed, that fights against the entire concept that Americans deserve to earn living wages — even denying the idea that a minimum wage is even necessary. Meanwhile, and at the very same time these people also fight against Planned Parenthood, and fight tooth and nail against any kind of public assistance for poor families, the disabled and the elderly. It’s the same illogic that claims that billion/millionaires and corporations (which are now “people”) are “taxed enough already” when many are in fact avoiding paying taxes entirely, or are paying at a far lower tax rate than all of the middle class and poor people standing on the right who so vociferously and obnoxiously rush defend them.
It’s the same illogic that claims it’s a fine idea for America to renege on paying it’s debts. It’s the same illogic that rails and screams against a Stimulus (that actually needed to be much larger than it was to have revived our economy) even though it’s the only reason we didn’t slide directly into a Great Depression.
It’s the same illogic that makes heros out of people like Rick Perry for being “small government” when in reality his state been the second largest beneficiary of federal stimulus money and it’s the only reason his state was able to stay afloat at all.
It’s the same illogic that claims that rightwing patriotism is the only valid kind, and fetishizes the Declaration, the Constitution and Bill of Rights even though many have never actually read or understood them, and even they fight tooth and nail to undo everything those foundational documents laid out as the basis for good government in America.

Honestly, I could go on and on here! But I’ll stop now.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 3, 2011 1:52 PM
Comment #328556

C&J:

“Even a dead cat bounces.”

Rocky:

“Yeah, but only once.”

Not if the cat were purposely run down by a truck.

Think of the dead run-over cat as the American economy. Now think of the Truck Driver as Wall Street Banksters. Cop needs to follow that truck, make it pull over, and incarcerate the driver(s). Problem is, we don’t have a single cop who is willing to do so.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 3, 2011 2:15 PM
Comment #328565

I am a proud TP supporting conservative and if I were a socialist, I would be proud to acknowledge it. But it seems the socialist on the left want to talk the talk, but not walk the walk. Come on girly-boys and girls, you can do it, just say “I’m a socialist and proud of it”. Don’t just push the socialist agenda…claim it…

Posted by: Mike at September 3, 2011 5:21 PM
Comment #328568

Mike, it wasn’t long ago that many objected to be called liberal. Now, they have no problem with that. Just give it a little more time and the socialists will claim the label proudly.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 3, 2011 7:05 PM
Comment #328569

Mike, it wasn’t long ago that many objected to be called liberal. Now, they have no problem with that. Just give it a little more time and the socialists will claim the label proudly.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 3, 2011 7:06 PM
Comment #328571

Mike, Royal Flush-
Folks like you call people who are liberals and progressive socialist because you can’t really argue your economic plan on the merits. You talk about our rhetoric as class warfare, but if you really told people that you believed in giving tax breaks to the rich rather than the Middle Class or poor because you thought the rich were inherently wiser and smarter, you wouldn’t get so far, would you?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 3, 2011 7:19 PM
Comment #328574

Stephen, we call liberals socialists because that’s what they are…But I’m really disappointed in you because you finsih your comment with the same old liberal socialist rhetoric of ” the rich and poor and taxes”. Don’t you guys ever get tired of saying the same things? I believe we live in the United States of America, but liberals believe we live in the Divided States of America.

Posted by: Mike at September 3, 2011 7:39 PM
Comment #328576

Okay Teabaggers,
If Liberals/Progressives are now going to be called Socialists (at least on the radically illogical right), then what are actual Socialists now going to be called? Since you’re obviously insisting on being totally childish and obnoxious, are people who really subscribe to Socialist theory going to get a brand new name too?

Hey wait, this is really all just a silly game of moving the political terms around, right?! So… now Socialists will be called Libertarians. And Republicans can be called Anarchists. And Libertarians can be called Republicans. And Teabaggers will be Liberal/Progressive!

Hahaha! That’s what this is really all about isn’t it?! You’ve been jealous and dying to take over the terms Liberal and Progressive for yourselves!!!

Hmm, I think you might have to make up a chart in order to try to keep all of this straight though…

Posted by: Adrienne at September 3, 2011 8:44 PM
Comment #328578

Mike-
Sir, I don’t think you’d know a socialist if they came to your house and nationalized it.

Look, what you’re saying, effectively, is that if I want a rich person to pay a few percentage points more on the top brackets of their income, that this is tantamount to confiscating their wealth and giving it all to the people.

You’re saying that if we bailout the banks, but leave them under their management, that they’re now arms of the national government. You’re saying that if we guide them through a taxpayer loan-based bankruptcy that leaves them private companies at the end of the process, then that’s just like the government owns them.

You’ve said that the Affordable care act, which sets up no new government healthcare service at all, and which mandates that people buy a private product from private companies, is Government run healthcare.

Bush spends the better part of a Decade deficits spending to fund a tax cut, and you still support this tax cut despite the fact that it’s still not paid for, and yet you come down on the rest of us for having Keynesian attitudes. Little hint here, unpaid-for tax cuts are considered a Keynesian stimulus. A very inefficient Keynesian stimulus, but still part of that category, at the end of the day.

Like I said: you call us Socialists because you can’t argue with our decisions properly on the merits. You can’t get people to object to our decisions simply by explaining them well.

You have to call us names. You have to throw exaggerated and false claims at us, about what our decisions have been. You have to call things Socialism and fiscally irresponsible, Get people scared abotu the debt.

Ultimately, you call me a socialist, because it’s your way to call me a communist and elicit the same fear, without looking hokey and old fashioned in the post Soviet Union world.

Goodnight, mike. I’m a capitalist, and so is Obama. Your problem is that you can’t win an election without skewing people’s perceptions about your opponent.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 3, 2011 10:03 PM
Comment #328583

The left has this argument that is Marxist through and through. Tell a lie. Tell it big enough. Tell it often enough and soon people will believe it.

Posted by: tom humes at September 4, 2011 10:18 AM
Comment #328584

tom humes,

“The left has this argument that is Marxist through and through. Tell a lie. Tell it big enough. Tell it often enough and soon people will believe it.”

Pot meet kettle.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 4, 2011 10:19 AM
Comment #328591

Here’s a must-read article:
Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult

Posted by: Adrienne at September 4, 2011 11:36 AM
Comment #328603

SD writes; “You’ve said that the Affordable care act, which sets up no new government healthcare service at all, and which mandates that people buy a private product from private companies, is Government run healthcare.”

Ooooops…SD just let the cat out of the bag. Let’s see, government demands that people buy a product and this isn’t some form of socialism or communism? What other products will the federal government, in the future, require us to purchase?

The Supreme Court has spoken on this issue as yet. However, I believe they will find that such a broad interpretation of the commerce clause will be unconstitutional.

The courts have sided with the conservative meaning of the 2nd amendment and the private ownership of weapons is hardly even a liberal issue any longer. It’s been settled.

Next, I expect that the tenth amendment will undergo the same kind of scrutiny and the constitutional meaning will be reinstated. When that happens, much of the liberal legislation, in violation of this amendment will fall. We pray for that day.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 4, 2011 2:21 PM
Comment #328604

The mere fact that there are people in this world like SD that believe their own drivel make me terrified.

On another note - it’s interesting to see that the loony left’s new mantra for debate is centered around class warfare rhetoric (greedy, rich, corporation…blah blah blah ad nauseam). The fact of the matter is that redistribution of wealth is ANATHEMA to everything that this country holds dear.

I have so much contempt for your way of thinking. It actually makes me physically sick to my stomach.

-b0mbay

Posted by: b0mbay at September 4, 2011 2:52 PM
Comment #328607
I am a proud TP supporting conservative and if I were a socialist,

But Mike like many teabaggers your rhetoric is that of an authoritarian fascist so were we to assume you mean what you say will you be so proud calling yourself an authoritarian fascist? I mean conservative is bad enough but that is a misconception as most conservatives are actually followers of those that back Limbaugh,Beck and the other known propagandist for the fascist authoritarians.

Your inability to discuss the issues with facts on such a regular basis indicate you are a follower of the talk radio conservatives. Your use of conservative mythology as a substitute for facts and reason tells us you are being duped by these guys you imitate.

Teabaggers are known by the actions of their leaders. They are deceived into believing they are just a bunch of grass roots activists. Despite all the evidence to the contrary they vehemently deny they are merely pawns of the aristocracy and corporate interests. Dupes, they are being used for the fascist takeover of this country by the Chamber of Commerce backed authoritarians that do not believe the Country is best run as a republic. The same people that prefer to have a CEO as dictator.

Your obvious inability to realize you are being duped by the propaganda of the extremist far right in this country saddens me. It is not you and others like you that mistake the propaganda and mythology of these well financed “conservatives” that are not well intentioned. We understand that. We understand your love of country and your sense of duty to the people of this country. It is you and other like you however that are being duped into perpetrating the falsehoods that have resulted in significant damage to the country we both love.

I challenge you to stop writing the nonsense you hear from the movement leaders and to think for yourself. I challenge you to write facts and use reason for the next several comments in lieu of the myths you have perpetrated here.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2011 3:28 PM
Comment #328609

That’s a lot of challenges j2t2. While you were trashing Mike’s conservative views, and throwing around the fascist label, you failed to present any argument for your position.

Progressivism is the next step towards socialism. Conservatism is aligned with our founders thoughts and writings. You may call our founders Fascist’s, but that doesn’t make it true.

Yesterday there were a couple articles in the NY Times regarding how upset the environmental crowd is with obama. Today, I find as many articles in the same newspaper writing about how upset the unions are with obama.

That is two of obama’s major constituent groups that have declared they will not work nearly so hard, or donate as much money, to his reelection as they did in his election.

Obama still has the special interest group that depends upon government handouts directly, and the government employees, however, they are becoming disenchanted with obama’s promises and no delivery.

I suspect the Hispanics are a little pleased with obama’s efforts to reduce deportation and by executive order, allowing some illegals to remain in this country to suck a little more milk from the government teat.

I would never have believed that obama could fall so far so fast with the groups that were primary in his election effort.

By election day 2012, obama may only have enough votes to carry a few more states than carter did against Reagan. The best bet for democrats is to find a moderate who will challenge obama in the primaries. The right candidate could win over many independents and perhaps regain the interest groups that obama is losing. Even if the moderate lost the election, it could go a long way to enhance the parties image. With obama, they got a real loser who will most likely take the senate leadership down with him.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 4, 2011 5:08 PM
Comment #328611

Royal, I suggested that to Stephen a while back that the Democrats should start to look for someone to challenge Obama. Wouldn’t it be a slap if Hillary decided to run?

Posted by: KAP at September 4, 2011 5:32 PM
Comment #328614

j2t2, as RF said, a lot of talk and no substance.

I agree with you Royal on the fall of Obama. I would like to be a fly on the wall of the Oval office when he has a cabinet meeting, and there are no Republicans in the room. It’s probably a free for all, blaming each other; considering no one wants to take responsibility for anything.

I would figure the cabinet meetings are nothing less than pure chaos. Not one person knows anything about the economy. The left loves to talk about the big business and who they are beholding to, but it is clear that Obama has tried and failed to please all of his factional supporters. That’s the problem with telling everyone what they want to hear.

Have you noticed the (all of a sudden) outrage from the left at being labled socialists. It is the topic of more than one post. I say if the shoe fits, wear it. These clowns have been pushing their socialist doctrine for years, and now, all of a sudden they don’t want to be labled, go figure.

I find it halarious and Laughing my butt off at their outrage. Kind of makes me think we have struck a nerve.

Yes Royal, some are calling for Hillary to run, of course none on WB. They are to busy defending Obama and advising the right who to run against Obama; but I believe you are right, he will not only loose the presidency, but also cause the loss of the Senate.

Posted by: Mike at September 4, 2011 5:57 PM
Comment #328615
That’s a lot of challenges j2t2. While you were trashing Mike’s conservative views, and throwing around the fascist label, you failed to present any argument for your position.

Royal, Just trying to relate to Mike in a style he is use to. Judging by Mike’s comments facts would just get in the way.

Progressivism is the next step towards socialism. Conservatism is aligned with our founders thoughts and writings. You may call our founders Fascist’s, but that doesn’t make it true.

What nonsense Royal, the founding fathers would look at conservatism as it is practiced today and laugh at you for this foolish comparison. After all conservatism is just one step to the left of fascism, and with the way the teapubs are heading it is a very small step if a step at all.

Now I realize that some of the founding fathers settled for the black man being counted as 3/5th a person and only landed Gentry or the aristocracy could vote. I also realize that many conservatives want to return to these golden years. But this comparison shows the flaws in conservative thought today.

We as a people have evolved, we have changed, as have the times and technology we live with. All of us want the freedom to effect our future, and the future of our children. We do not want to be bound to the 18th century mindset that considered slavery and the lack of voting rights to be acceptable and to be in the best interest of the nation. Conservatism was responsible for these flaws in the Constitution Royal, it has been a stench on the nation since the beginning.


Conservatives today have been led down the road of corporatism or as I like to call it fascism, Royal. They have been manipulated by the fierce rhetoric of the conservative propaganda machine this past 30+ years. Just recently I linked to an article that told of the decades long plan put into use by the Chamber of Commerce to manipulate the government of “we the people”. This is in complete agreement with the conservative agenda today. It is also the wheels of fascism turning the country into the united corporation of America.

Rattle on all you want about Obama Royal I don’t really care. He has let many groups down. What I find most distasteful is his appeasement of the fascist teabags ruining the country today. The reality however is he will be the lesser of two evils come election day. The economic terrorist we call the tea party caucus will bully the sensible repubs into capitulation and we will end up with no real choice to vote Obama out, IMHO.

As far as the Senate, good luck with that. I would hope that those that suffered the delusion that the tea party candidates were able to govern in 2010 will snap out of this delusional state and vote the incumbents out. Further I would like to see both the repubs, the teabags and the dems in a minority in Congress this next election, both in the Senate and in the HOR. Of course this won’t happen but it would be nice to see elected officials not already bought before they get into office. IMHO there isn’t a nickel’s difference between the 2 major parties as it is the election process that is, tainted by conservatism I might add, the real problem.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2011 6:13 PM
Comment #328617

Mike, I suspect the dems will try very hard to influence the Republican nomination process as they did the last time. They were all in favor of McCain until he was nominated and then they beat that poor fool to death. I think McCain slept through the entire campaign. The only reason he did as well as he did was the selection of his running mate.

I was reading a piece that indicates that even MoveON is Moving on against the anointed one. Go Figure. But then, it is the nature of rats to abandon the sinking ship.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 4, 2011 6:22 PM
Comment #328618
j2t2, as RF said, a lot of talk and no substance.

Just like your posts Mike. Which of course was my intent. It seems to me facts have a way of confusing conservatives judging by your comments.

Have you noticed the (all of a sudden) outrage from the left at being labled socialists. It is the topic of more than one post. I say if the shoe fits, wear it. These clowns have been pushing their socialist doctrine for years, and now, all of a sudden they don’t want to be labled, go figure.

Why do you suppose that is Mike? It is because the conservative propagandist use this term incorrectly and with wrong intentions. Look at how easily you have been deceived by them. Many of us on the left were quiet years ago when Limbaugh and others of his ilk defamed the term liberal.

“Name calling: This techniques consists of attaching a negative label to a person or a thing. People engage in this type of behavior when they are trying to avoid supporting their own opinion with facts. Rather than explain what they believe in, they prefer to try to tear their opponent down.”

http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/as/404.htm


I find it halarious and Laughing my butt off at their outrage. Kind of makes me think we have struck a nerve.

You sort of prove my point Mike with this comment. You find it hilarious because you believe we are outraged by your name calling. Because of the lack of critical thinking skills many on the right also think this is funny. Yet they have not figured out that they feel the need to use propaganda techniques because they cannot defend their positions otherwise. This is because they have fell for the propaganda spewed by talk radio conservatives themselves. Not only does this do them a disservice it does a disservice to the rest of the Country. It causes the level of conversation on important issues to be controlled by the movement leaders these conservatives so blindly follow. Many of these victims of propaganda actually end up falling for more and more misinformation, half truths and outright lies, until it becomes the norm, Mike. Which IMHO is where you are at now. As time goes on those that fall for this type of mindless nonsense will elect a Hitler into power. Ask the German people of the ‘20’s and 30’s.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2011 6:36 PM
Comment #328619

j2t2 writes; “I also realize that many conservatives want to return to these golden years (of slavery). But this comparison shows the flaws in conservative thought today.”

You should study a little more American History in my opinion. There would be no Republic today if the matter of slavery had to be settled back when our founding documents were written. To ascribe such wishes to any mainstream American political party or national movement is despicable.

For decades liberals have fought to diminish the meaning of the second amendment and have now given up. Soon, the tenth amendment will be tested as well. When the smoke from that battle clears, and the Supreme Court rules that what our founders wrote, they meant. Many of the liberal excesses in our federal government will be abolished. States will return to their constitutional standing.

Voters will not buy ever more federal spending thru more debt and printing of more money. Our dollar has had its value eroded beyond all belief. Can anyone imagine our founders approving $15 trillion in debt for our country and tens of trillions more in debt for unfunded entitlements? Is there a fool reading this who would say differently?

j2t2, the founders were conservatives regardless of the blather you write to the contrary. It is a singular practice of communism and tyranny to wish to rewrite history.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 4, 2011 6:44 PM
Comment #328620
I was reading a piece that indicates that even MoveON is Moving on against the anointed one. Go Figure. But then, it is the nature of rats to abandon the sinking ship.

Royal why is it that when an organization such as Move On “moves on” it is a rat deserting a sinking ship. Yet when Conservatives turned against McCain it wasn’t rats deserting a sinking ship?

It seems to me that according to many WB conservatives Move On is a far left organization, and Obama is a far left president. Yet MoveOn is moving on. My thought is perhaps the conservatives on WB are wrong about one or the other, but in their hatred for Obama they have judged incorrectly, what say you?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2011 6:46 PM
Comment #328621

j2t2, I wondered how long it would be before you brought up fascism, 20-30’s Germany, and Hitler. You are so predictable. And yes, I find it halarious that the left would be so outraged at being called socialist after pushing the agenda for years.

Royal, j2t2 loves to inject Limbaugh’s or Beck’s name, while hoping for a response and although I hardly ever listen to either one Limbaugh does have some good points. One of them is to run Hillary against Obama in the primary. Obama, at this point, is unelectible. I heard one news commentator talking about how bad Obama’s approval was and he also spoke that the congressional approval was worse. That is true, but the congressional national approval doesn’t affect their elections, only local approval. But presidential approval affects everyone’s elections. If a voter votes Republican or Democrat for president, chances are they will vote R or D down the line. For the voters to be against Obama and a vote being cast for a Rep, it would stand to reason they will vote R down the list. Another point; thee are only 2 Republican Senate seats in jeprody, but there are 9 dems. Democrats have much more to lose in the Senate.

Posted by: Mike at September 4, 2011 7:02 PM
Comment #328622

j2t2

“What nonsense Royal, the founding fathers would look at conservatism as it is practiced today and laugh at you for this foolish comparison. After all conservatism is just one step to the left of fascism, and with the way the teapubs are heading it is a very small step if a step at all.”

And the founding fathers would be crying as to what the left has done to this country.

You sure like that word fascism. It must give you good exercise on the keyboard. You use it very freely to describe anything to the right of your far left view. That is shown time and again. Fascism is more totalitarian than conservative. Heavens knows where you get your marching orders from.

Posted by: tom humes at September 4, 2011 7:02 PM
Comment #328623

j2t2 asks…”what say you.”

McCain was NOT a conservative. He did not walk, talk, think, or act like one.

Conservatives did vote for McCain. There were only two choices you know. Conservatives understand the duty to vote and did vote.

MoveOn is a liberal (I will use that word to be generous) organization. Obama is a liberal (am I wrong) as well. It is a liberal organization deserting a liberal president. Conservatives did not abandon a conservative, just another useless Republican pretending to be something they are not.

I used the word RATS for MoveON because that is what I consider them to be. They are foul creatures that feed off the work and sweat of others, spread disease, and scare defenseless children.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 4, 2011 7:05 PM
Comment #328624
You should study a little more American History in my opinion. There would be no Republic today if the matter of slavery had to be settled back when our founding documents were written. To ascribe such wishes to any mainstream American political party or national movement is despicable.

Perhaps I should study more Royal but I do know enough to know that it was the conservative landed Gentry of the South that held the Constitution hostage over slavery. The 3/5th person was a concession to them to get the Constitution passed.

Royal the conservatives of today actively work to suppress the vote in black districts and amongst the poor. If the shoe fits….

Can anyone imagine our founders approving $15 trillion in debt for our country and tens of trillions more in debt for unfunded entitlements? Is there a fool reading this who would say differently?

Can anyone imagine our founding fathers approving the Patriot Act or even a standing army? Can anyone realize that comparisons between 200 years ago and now requires much speculation when one considers health care costs today and health care costs 200 + years ago? Did our founding fathers not say:
“We have always a right to correct ancient errors and to establish what is more conformable to reason and convenience.” — Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1801. FE 8:82

j2t2, the founders were conservatives regardless of the blather you write to the contrary. It is a singular practice of communism and tyranny to wish to rewrite history.

To a man Royal? Yet you think I blather on. Face it the founding fathers were a mixture of political types. We can see the conservative contribution to the constitution as we have been discussing Royal, I agree. But what conservative would say somehting like this today-

“And accordingly it is now exhibiting an example of the truth of the maxim that virtue & interest are inseparable. It ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of it’s people, but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe. I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. Present me respectfully to Mrs. Logan and accept yourself my friendly and respectful salutations.”

Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2011 7:07 PM
Comment #328625
You sure like that word fascism. It must give you good exercise on the keyboard. You use it very freely to describe anything to the right of your far left view. That is shown time and again. Fascism is more totalitarian than conservative. Heavens knows where you get your marching orders from.

I like fascism about as much as conservatives like the word socialist Tom. I use it to describe the conservative movement. Judging by the tea bags Tom conservatism is more totalitarian than fascism today. I don’t get my marching orders from a conservative movement leader that’s for sure Tom, can you say the same?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2011 7:13 PM
Comment #328626

j2t2, my friend, I have played the quoting game many times with many opponents. The personal papers of our founders are very interesting and give us insight into their thinking. However, their personal papers and utterances are not part of the constitution. Due consideration is given to their thinking when issues come before our Supreme Court. That is certainly appropriate. However, the Court never takes the passage from one letter from one founder to decide cases.

I don’t care to play the game again with you today. Perhaps tomorrow.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 4, 2011 7:20 PM
Comment #328628
McCain was NOT a conservative. He did not walk, talk, think, or act like one.

“The latest release of the ACU’s ratings are for 2006. Those ratings indicate:

(1) that John McCain has had a lifetime conservative record of 82.3 percent,
(2) that his record was more conservative than any Democrat in the Senate, including Barack Obama who had a lifetime conservative record of only 8 percent and Hillary Clinton who had a lifetime conservative rating of only 9 percent, and
(3) that while 37 Republican Senators in 2006 had more conservative records, 16 Republican Senators in 2006 had less conservative records. This means that John McCain had a more conservative voting record than 62 of the 100 members of the U.S. Senate.”

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/02/john-mccain-is-a-conservative-deal-with-it/

Like a rat…

Conservatives did vote for McCain. There were only two choices you know. Conservatives understand the duty to vote and did vote.

but but but he wasn’t a conservative Royal. AT least according to you.

MoveOn is a liberal (I will use that word to be generous) organization. Obama is a liberal (am I wrong) as well. It is a liberal organization deserting a liberal president. Conservatives did not abandon a conservative, just another useless Republican pretending to be something they are not.

Oh So he isn’t a conservative after all. And the conservatives actually didn’t abandon a conservative by not voting or in this case both voting and not voting for him? Get your story straight Royal this sounds like a comedy routine fit for the Jon Stewart.

I used the word RATS for MoveON because that is what I consider them to be. They are foul creatures that feed off the work and sweat of others, spread disease, and scare defenseless children.

But the conservatives did the same to McCain and it was ok? Seems to me the hatred and name calling you are displaying is hypocritical.

http://front.moveon.org/3-charts-to-email-to-your-right-wing-brother-in-law/

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2011 7:34 PM
Comment #328632

However, the Court never takes the passage from one letter from one founder to decide cases.

Rightfully so but these papers do give us insight into the people we consider to be the founding fathers. Some were conservative some were better than that, much better. After all Royal we are not asking the SCOTUS to step in on the issue. Just trying to figure out why someone would think it was only conservative founding fathers that signed the constitution.


I wonder how the founding fathers would react to the conservative SCOTUS and their decisions on corporate personhood and the United v. SEC case?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2011 7:49 PM
Comment #328633

j2t2,

If these conservatives loved this country they wouldn’t be trying to tear it apart. They’d at least make an attempt to be more tolerant of views other than their own and they would refrain from using all of this eliminationist, authoritarian, totalitarian, fascist style rhetoric.

There comes a point when one can no longer give a pass to people who are duped when everything that comes out of their mouths is so intolerant, dangerous and plain old crazy. I’ve reached that point with the people of the unhinged radical right.

Look at what so many of these idiots are doing all over this blog. This is not debate. Remember when there used to be real debates and discussions in this blog? I do. But now, well all it’s become is a perpetual rightwing slagfest. It just seems so pointless replying to all these enormous piles of worthless sh*t that continually litter up this place.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 4, 2011 7:54 PM
Comment #328635
j2t2, I wondered how long it would be before you brought up fascism, 20-30’s Germany, and Hitler. You are so predictable. And yes, I find it halarious that the left would be so outraged at being called socialist after pushing the agenda for years.

Yes good non response Mike. AT least think about why it is you cannot make factual comments and feel the need to spread the half truths misinformation and outright lies of the conservative movement.


Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2011 7:59 PM
Comment #328639

Adrienne, you sound tired. I know, defending liberalism is difficult work. Take a break. When she writes of “real debates and discussions” I wonder what she is referring to.

Back in the good old days that Adrienne recalls fondly, was it just liberals debating how much the government should spend? What new regulations or hand outs would be nice for the folks? How can we destroy using fossil fuel for energy and find joy in walking behind the mule in the field or walking to work to perform hard unmechanized labor? How can we force those who have “earned” too much to share with those who refuse to work or get an education and apply themselves? How can we destroy this fantasy of individual responsibility and re-educate the masses to demand more from others?

j2t2 doesn’t respond well to questions, but prefers to write around them. That’s OK, I don’t have to respond either.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 4, 2011 8:10 PM
Comment #328640

Adrienne, you sound tired. I know, defending liberalism is difficult work. Take a break. When she writes of “real debates and discussions” I wonder what she is referring to.

Back in the good old days that Adrienne recalls fondly, was it just liberals debating how much the government should spend? What new regulations or hand outs would be nice for the folks? How can we destroy using fossil fuel for energy and find joy in walking behind the mule in the field or walking to work to perform hard unmechanized labor? How can we force those who have “earned” too much to share with those who refuse to work or get an education and apply themselves? How can we destroy this fantasy of individual responsibility and re-educate the masses to demand more from others?

j2t2 doesn’t respond well to questions, but prefers to write around them. That’s OK, I don’t have to respond either.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 4, 2011 8:10 PM
Comment #328642

RF,
Not tired. Fed up. Disgusted. Angry with utter stupidity and over the top rudeness trying to be passed off as debate by people on the right. People who think they’re being oh so clever, not realizing how idiotic and verbally abusive they actually come off.

When she writes of “real debates and discussions” I wonder what she is referring to.

I meant that there were people who came here who really did try to debate and discuss the issues, rather than merely try to be as insulting and dismissive as they could possibly be toward anyone who didn’t share their political philosophy.

That’s how it is here now. And that sucks.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 4, 2011 8:47 PM
Comment #328645
j2t2 doesn’t respond well to questions, but prefers to write around them. That’s OK, I don’t have to respond either.

Royal this cheap shot is below you. Just look at the comments above and try to defend this nonsense. I respond to questions just fine, much much more than many of your conservative colleagues here on WB. Where is you scorn for them?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2011 10:10 PM
Comment #328646
Adrienne, you sound tired. I know, defending liberalism is difficult work.

Not really Royal the problem is defending one’s self from the falsehoods that serve for intelligent debate from those on the right. Just take a look at Mike’s comments on this thread. Totally lacking in factual input. No critical thinking skills demonstrated what so ever. Just misinformation half truth and outright lies. The lack of facts when arguing the merits of one case is what is so disappointing here Royal, you guys need to step up to the plate with some facts and some reality based information.

When she writes of “real debates and discussions” I wonder what she is referring to.

The problem as I see it is the lack of factual information on Faux and other far right media outlets. It is talking point after talking point and once you guys are queried beyond the shallowness of the right wing talking point it is not possible for you to respond factually or intelligently, which in turn causes you guys to turn to insults and misinformation. Insist that the right wing news media stops the propaganda and turns to fact and reality based news and opinion. Stop listening to the conservative movement leaders and think for yourself.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2011 10:23 PM
Comment #328647

“When she writes of “real debates and discussions” I wonder what she is referring to.”

“I meant that there were people who came here who really did try to debate and discuss the issues, rather than merely try to be as insulting and dismissive as they could possibly be toward anyone who didn’t share their political philosophy.

That’s how it is here now. And that sucks.”

Posted by: Adrienne at September 4, 2011 8:47 PM

Actually it was back when only liberals were on WB and they spent the day congratulating each other on how intelligent their comments were. Of course I doubt that Adrienne would have been in that conversation. Then of course, you always had David Remer who just deleted any remarks he didn’t like or occasionally booted conservatives off WB for being offensive (haha, kind of like Adrienne’s comments above).

It looks like Adrienne and j2t2 are both on the verge of a meltdown. We can assume things will get worse as we approach the 2012 elections. Might I suggest a Prozac licking block in your front yards.

Posted by: Mike at September 4, 2011 10:31 PM
Comment #328648

RF,

Have a look at the archives over in the red column. Hell, look in the archives of any of these columns. There were plenty of conservative voices capable of of a civilized debate without the insults, flaming, and general snarkiness that has come to be the norm on this site.

Alex, Eric, Chops, Dawn, Joebagadonuts, Lee, Sicilian Eagle…the list goes on and on. I didn’t necessarily agree with these folks, but this is a debate site, and the debate has become far too circular.

David Remmer, despite his perceived faults ran a tight site. He kept the riff raff and spam to a minimum (unlike other political sites), and didn’t, as you folks constantly like to claim, kick people off simply because they disagreed with his politics.
I, for one, even though I ran afoul of the rules more than once, was sorry to see him go.

Lately you guys on the right claim everybody that is not in lockstep with your narrow view of how things are supposed to be are out to destroy the country, and you pigeon hole anyone even a millimeter to your left as socialist, Marxist, or worse.
Mike claims to not listen to Limbaugh, yet he uses Limbaugh quotes verbatim. I do listen to Limbaugh on a semi-regular basis. I find that if you can wade through his babbling bull****, he is sometimes entertaining.

And that’s the greater point. Limbaugh is an entertainer. He gets paid well to create controversy. His dittoheads just don’t seem to get that, and I am quite sure he laughs all the way to the bank.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 4, 2011 10:43 PM
Comment #328649

Adrienne, greetings from the other side of the SAF !

There are a few of us left here who do remember those days. Even a few who have become more disgusted come back once in a while to see if maybe things have changed.
Some can say what they feel they must against DRR, but he did far better at keeping the abusive discourse more toned down.
This is little more now than an out of control group of juvenile and stupid bullies intent on perpetuating their hate and fear-mongering.

Posted by: jane doe at September 4, 2011 10:44 PM
Comment #328651

Sorry Rocky, looks like our minds were going in the same direction…….

Posted by: jane doe at September 4, 2011 10:48 PM
Comment #328652

Jane,

No worries I was having trouble posting or it would have been up 20 minutes ago.

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 4, 2011 10:51 PM
Comment #328653

I find the language from conservatives to be simply disgusting and I’m glad we don’t have to put up with any hate speech from those on the left. Someone has to be the adult in the room.

Posted by: TomT at September 4, 2011 11:05 PM
Comment #328661
It looks like Adrienne and j2t2 are both on the verge of a meltdown. We can assume things will get worse as we approach the 2012 elections. Might I suggest a Prozac licking block in your front yards.

Mike, once again nothing factual in your comment. Before you count your chickens in the ‘12 race you would be wise to look at the repub candidates. Pick wisely or Obama will have the 2nd term that the extremist on the right have been deliberately putting the Country at risk over.

Go ahead and get a Perry/Bachmann or equally extremist ticket and see who needs the Prozac in ‘13. Because the sad fact is that without an intelligent choice, which at this point the repubs seem unable to offer, the voters will keep the known evil in office as opposed to electing the unknown evil. Let your delusions be your guide and we will both be laughing after election day. Mine won’t be due to some delusional vision though.

BTW Mike,the only reason it appears to you that we are melting down is your overindulgence in the kool aid. The delusions and rationalizations brought on by the kool aid are many the realizations are few. Trust me there is no meltdown here. It is in your mind.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 5, 2011 10:22 AM
Comment #328663

Mike,

“…only liberals were on WB and they spent the day congratulating each other on how intelligent their comments were…”

Kinda like the lovefest you’ve been having with Royal Flush?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 5, 2011 10:59 AM
Comment #328664

Several comments above referred to those they oppose as the extreme right. Since they oppose their position, it is safe to claim that those comments I refer to come from the extreme left. So from now on I think it would be wise for me to refer to those who commented as such as the ELW. Personally I prefer the word totalitarian. Because it is all encompassing of the liberal, left, progressive, marxist, maoist, etc. position. All of those just mentioned have slight variations of the main theme of totalitarianism.

So to my conservative friends here, I encourage the use of the phrase of extreme left wing (ELW). That should cover the bases and it should define those in that camp a bit better.

Posted by: tom humes at September 5, 2011 11:29 AM
Comment #328669

Tom it seems to me we are defining the different positions on the right not grouping them all together, as is the case with Mike and other extremist that cannot tell the difference between totalitarian and liberal. I know that when you are caught up in just trying to spread propaganda, as the extremist here are trying to do, it is hard to differentiate between different political positions. As we have plenty of differences of opinion here on WB one would think it would be a good place to seek this understanding. Perhaps if you were to try harder to differentiate and spend less time in trying to propagandize it would come to you.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 5, 2011 1:10 PM
Comment #328671

Stop listening to the conservative movement leaders and think for yourself.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2011

Actually j2t2, I have been a conservative all my life…going on 71 years now. I can tell you, without crossing my fingers, that I have voted for both democrats and republicans. There was a time when there were moderate and conservative democrats and moderate and liberal Republicans.

I was a republican party member for a brief time, never was a democrat party member although voted for democrats and now am simply an independent. I have consistently written that I am a conservative who will vote for the political candidate that most closely matches my beliefs.

I read political articles of all political persuasions, left, right, moderate and extreme. I sometimes listen to Rush and Michael Savage on the radio right. I would listen to the radio left but none is available in my area.

I am a regular reader of MoveON and other liberal websites. I receive obama’s emails nearly every day.

Taking information from many and diverse political sources does keep me informed. I can’t tell you…precisely…why I am a conservative. For me, conservatism most closely mirrors what our founders wrote and believed. Since I give them credit for establishing the best political system yet devised by the mind of man, I am going to follow their words and thoughts and apply them, as best I can, to the America of today.

There have been democrat and republican excesses in government, no denying that. Part of the brilliance of our founders creation is the ability to cope with, and overcome these excesses by always returning to the original intent of this constitutionally based Republic. We have a solid foundation under us, and, while the house needs repairs now and then, it is stable and rests upon firm underpinnings.

The nations house can weather storms with just minor damage. What concerns me most, is when the foundation itself is attacked. Frankly, I see much of the liberal and progressive efforts today as attacking the foundation of our liberty and individual freedom.

I see conservatism as a bulwark against foundational rot and destruction. Unless the storm is sudden, violent, and overwhelming, the house will stand. However, a slow erosion will do the same damage over time, and if left untreated, the house will eventually fall.

America is awakening to the liberal and progressive threat that has been slowly eroding our most cherished values and individual rights. We can not wait for others to do our job, it must be done now, by us.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 5, 2011 1:41 PM
Comment #328672

Manure is manure. It makes no difference whether it is from a cow, horse, elephant, mouse, skunk, human; it is still manure. As I just showed it comes in different sizes and if you know farming and wildlife it comes in different consistencies and colors. But it is still manure.

BTW—God gives me my marching orders and my wife tries to be tolerant of them.

Posted by: tom humes at September 5, 2011 1:47 PM
Comment #328673
Actually j2t2, I have been a conservative all my life…going on 71 years now.

So you adopted a political position in infancy and have held to it all these years Royal? What does that tell you ;)

I see conservatism as a bulwark against foundational rot and destruction. Unless the storm is sudden, violent, and overwhelming, the house will stand. However, a slow erosion will do the same damage over time, and if left untreated, the house will eventually fall.

But conservatives are the ones rotting the foundation Royal. They have since the late 1800’s. The house was repaired in the 1900’s only to have the conservatives move in once again and start chipping away at the foundation.

America is awakening to the liberal and progressive threat that has been slowly eroding our most cherished values and individual rights. We can not wait for others to do our job, it must be done now, by us.

What threat is that Royal? The country has, according to conservatives, been a right wing country since the days of Reagan. It is the liberals and progressives that make up only 20% of the voting public according to conservatives yet once again it is the liberal and progressive threat that is destroying the country? Do you see the fallacy in conservative logic here Royal? You can’t have it both ways Royal.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 5, 2011 2:01 PM
Comment #328675
Manure is manure….

Tom I thought Royals comments, while a bit hard to believe, were much more than manure, why are you saying such a thing? Did God make you say this?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 5, 2011 2:05 PM
Comment #328677

j2t2 writes; “It is the liberals and progressives that make up only 20% of the voting public according to conservatives yet once again it is the liberal and progressive threat that is destroying the country.”

That a minority can cause great damage is not unique. Most Americans just wish to live, work, love and get along with one another in peace. In doing so, they sometimes will concede minor skirmishes to avoid a war.

Twenty percent, with some major control of the levers of power, can be very destructive. And, one must not forget that it is human nature to desire something for nothing. Many Americans, although not liberals themselves, have made a deal with liberalism. You make promises to me, and deliver benefits worth more than my cost, and I will vote for you.

It takes many years before the piper must be paid for liberal (Republican and Democrat) excess. That bill is now coming due and Americans don’t like the deal they made very well now.

There simply isn’t enough money to pay for all the benefits so liberals are looking for new benefactors. The wealthy and big business are targets. Since it is the liberal belief, and a political necessity for them, that the current benefits, and added benefits, must continue, new money must be found.

More Americans are discovering that liberalism is fake, and dependent upon ever increasing government intrusion in their own lives. If liberalism is successful in confiscating the remaining wealth of others it can extend its lifespan a few years. And then, it must begin feeding upon those who were formerly beneficiaries. At that point, liberalism is finished.

We conservative merely wish to hasten the death of liberalism to spare the country ever more pain. The 2010 election was a rude awakening for liberalism and a forerunner of what will come in 2012.

Let me ask you a question j2t2. No one will argue that obama is a liberal. He is running for reelection. Is obama becoming more liberal or more conservative in his quest for reelection? Which political philosophy is he promoting most to keep his job? What reelection strategy does he believe will attract the most voters? Is more government spending and more government benefits the prevailing mood of the voters?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 5, 2011 2:37 PM
Comment #328682
Twenty percent, with some major control of the levers of power, can be very destructive.

Yes they can but then that assumes they have major control, or as we call it now money, of the levers of power Royal. It is the corporations you refer to not the liberals.

While you have made several interesting comments worthy of debate I unfortunately must run for now, grill duty is calling. I will try to respond later today or perhaps a post in the red column is needed. Have a good labor day, Royal.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 5, 2011 4:00 PM
Comment #328683

Have a great grilling day, take a rest, have family fun and stay safe.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 5, 2011 4:05 PM
Comment #328684

j2t2

No God did tell me to say that. It was dictated to me by the liberal majority.

Posted by: tom humes at September 5, 2011 4:28 PM
Comment #328689

At the risk of once again being accused of a love fest with Royal, I will say, I once again agree with him:

“That a minority can cause great damage is not unique.”

It is the democratic party that has been hyjacked by this 20% of socialist liberals. Royal, I was once a registered democrat and a staunch union supporter; but unlike j2t2, I have gained some life experience. The last democrat president I voted for was Jimmy Carter. As I watched his policies bring America to her knees, I voted for Reagan, became a conservative and never looked back.

j2t2 shows his absolute ignorance of American history by accusing conservatives of being the downfall of America. If that were tha case, we would still be serving the British Crown. You see j2t2, the foundation building blocks of America are the same foundation blocks of conservativism. And by the way j2t2, this next one will explode your head; but the foundation building blocks of America and Conservativism, are the same Judeo/Christian building blocks.

Posted by: Mike at September 5, 2011 5:43 PM
Comment #328690

tom humes-
So what are you saying? That there is no economic trouble, that you’ve magically wished it away? That four and a half million jobs were lost in anticipation of Obama’s policies, before he even got into office?

Look, the solution to economists sometimes being wrong is not to run headlong into error.

We are performing far below optimal. We do not need to be indulging your fantasies of it being a healthy thing to let the economy wallow in it’s current squalor.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 5, 2011 5:44 PM
Comment #328691

The Republican Problem is that they see only one point of equilibrium, and believe that by helping the economy any, we simply create an imbalance.

The problem is that there’s no one point of equilibrium. We can get into any number of persistent situations, either where the economy overheats as it did before 2008, or where it under performs, as it has since then.

I wonder what the word count is on Republican Propaganda here, which concludes in its own magnificence that their political party is triumphing in the Public’s view.

No, it isn’t. The best Republicans have have done is manuever them and us into a stalemate. Look at the polls for Republicans. The general rule is, however low Obama’s numbers might be on a subject, the GOP’s numbers are lower. That’s even on the economy.

If the Republicans win, they’re just one popular Democrat or one policy disaster on their part away from long term disaster.

You can disparage what others do, but if the strength of your own beliefs will not avail you, you are just waiting for the inevitable. Now somebody said that the Democrats have been hijacked by their liberal wing. I doubt that. No, the real problem is that the Conservative wing on the Republicans is 69% of its total, and they’ve run themselves into a dead end ideology that they will not change even in the face of the worst disasters this country has suffered in decades.

If Republicans don’t watch out, a Conservative wing will be all that’s left of the party, soon enough.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 5, 2011 5:59 PM
Comment #328697

Stephen said:

“The general rule is, however low Obama’s numbers might be on a subject, the GOP’s numbers are lower. That’s even on the economy.”

Do you have the links to prove this, or are they just a guess-ta-ment?

“If the Republicans win, they’re just one popular Democrat or one policy disaster on their part away from long term disaster.”

Do you mean like the democrats in 2010? I believe it would be fair to say that all politicians are only one election away from being removed.

“No, the real problem is that the Conservative wing on the Republicans is 69% of its total, and they’ve run themselves into a dead end ideology that they will not change even in the face of the worst disasters this country has suffered in decades.

If Republicans don’t watch out, a Conservative wing will be all that’s left of the party, soon enough.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 5, 2011 5:59 PM

Well Stephen, let’s analyze the real numbers: by your numbers 69% of Republicans are conservative, and there are other polls that show the same number of Republicans supporting the TP. Below are some polls of how many are affiliated with what party:

Partisan Trends: 33.5% of Americans are Republicans, 33.5% Unaffiliated, 33.0% Democrats

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends

These numbers are backed up by other polls:

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2009/05/independents_outnumber_democra.html

And we have these numbers showing the percentage of independents and how they lean, from the same poll:
• 48% lean Republican

• 35% lean Democrat

• 16% neither

So we see almost have 50% of independents supporting the TP and this poll supports this same data:

“Survey: Four in 10 Tea Party members are Democrats or Independents”

“Four in 10 Tea Party members are either Democrats or Independents, according to a new national survey.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/independents-rally-tea-party

Conclusion:
33.5% of Americans are Republicans, 33.5% Unaffiliated, 33.0% Democrats

Which means 2/3 of voters are Democrat or Independents:

Four in ten, or 40% of Dems and Inds, or 26.4% of the 66% support the TP:

If 69% of Republicans support the TP, then 23.1% of the 33.5 % support the TP:

If we add this up, we find 49.6 % of Republican, Democrat, and Independent voters support the TP.

Stephen, that means almost half of the American voters support the Tea Party conservative agenda. Now who do you think has to worry next year?

I hope my math is correct:)


Posted by: Mike at September 5, 2011 8:23 PM
Comment #328698

SD

Guessing and putting that together to answer another persons writing just don’t cut it. You can insert anything you want on anyones writing but it does not prove a single thing except you just have to say something whether it be right or wrong. It makes you feel superior and important. Go for it. That all that is left for the elw.

Posted by: tom humes at September 5, 2011 8:36 PM
Comment #328703

Mike-
I have a good memory for things I’ve recently read, so I heard about polls like this.

I think you’re going to see a lot of polls like this, especially as the candidates on the right open up their big mouths.

Republicans have achieved a corrosive stalemate, not a victory. Nobody’s coming out looking good. They assume that’s not a problem since it engenders hate for government, but they fail to realize that at some point people are going to start wondering if the government they really hate is a product of Liberal overreach, or Republican.

Oh, nice little trick using polls from a year and a half ago(April 2010). I can summon up surveys from 2010, too! This one is from July of 2010. Eight out of ten Tea Partiers, according to that one, are Republican, sixty percent of them conservative Republican.

They have been losing support. And why not? The Tea Partiers have put this country through an ordeal we’re not better off for. The possibility exists that Obama may be suffering a loss in popularity because they think he can’t stand up to your people.

I think Republicans are typically alright as long as they’re all talk about their ideas. Their problem is that sometimes bull*****ing about an idea is more popular than the outcome of actually carrying out the idea. Republicans in the past didn’t fail to attack social security so strongly, or to cut spending when they cut taxes just because they were ideologically impure, but because of that very reality

You can get what you want, and what people asked you for, but at the end of the day, its how well they live with the results of that which matter.

That’s democracy for you. People get what they want from their government, and good and hard, so they learn, very often, to soften what they ask for.

But today’s Republicans? The wall is already bloody, but they’re committed to beating their heads against it. Shouldn’t Republicans have become more popular by now, with all they’ve been doing to please those people you claim are friendly with the Tea Party?

tom humes-
Playing the victim will get you no sympathy. I take the approach I do, with as little pity as I do, because I believe that the fair thing to do is resolve disputes based on the facts, and the BLS offers such facts. I don’t want to screw around bumping chests with you like a third-base coach arguing with an umpire.

I want to settle things, and settle them based on the truth. I don’t insert those facts to make me superior, but my arguments instead. I want them to be as good and truthful as possible.

If that means agreeing with somebody, or finding some other course of argument, that’s what has to happen.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 5, 2011 11:33 PM
Comment #328707

Well Stephen, I guess we will just have to wait until next year and see how people are going to vote. I didn’t give you one source of polls, as you did me; I gave you multiple polls that all said basically the same thing. You chide me for giving you poll results from 1 ½ years ago and yet the polls you quote are from the same time. Your links to polls regarding the attitude toward Obama and all congressional Republicans and this has nothing to do with your original comment:

“No, the real problem is that the Conservative wing on the Republicans is 69% of its total, and they’ve run themselves into a dead end ideology that they will not change even in the face of the worst disasters this country has suffered in decades.

If Republicans don’t watch out, a Conservative wing will be all that’s left of the party, soon enough.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 5, 2011 5:59 PM

So you have changed the topic in the middle of the discussion. I know the polls for the Congress are way down, but no one knows if the people being polled are Republican or Democrat. Congressional polls are generic and look at the voters overall view of Congress. On the other hand, you stated that 69% of Republicans are running into a dead end policy. I simply used the real numbers (the most recent I could find was 1 ½ years ago) and showed that almost 50% of the American people support TP conservative ideals. If we add to that the most recent polls showing Obama’s approval rating at 38-42% (depending on which poll) and Obama’s latest disapproval of 2/3’s of American voters on his handling of the economy. You quote polls when it is convenient for you to do so, as you did with the 69% of republicans, but you dismiss polls which show Obama in a bad light. Stephen, you are not consistent; as Boehner said of dealing with Obama, discussing a topic with you is like dealing with jello. I have listened to yours and other liberals on WB claim the TP is failing and of non-effect, but this is a false statement. The TP is alive and well, and as time goes on and the economy gets worse, it will gain even more supporters. Remember, the liberals always attack the thing they fear most. This is why liberals spend so much time trying to put down the TP and TP Republican candidates. It’s a real shame Stephen; you try to present yourself as this intellectual who is capable of debating the points, but you are nothing more than a liberal hack, blinded by your own socialist ideology. You can never be a serious debater unless you are capable of recognizing your own party’s faults, and you can’t. On the other hand, I do not know of one Conservative on WB that hasn’t voiced their disapproval of Bush or other republicans and their policies, at one time or another.

Posted by: Mike at September 6, 2011 8:56 AM
Comment #328710

Mike,

“I was once a registered democrat and a staunch union supporter; but unlike j2t2, I have gained some life experience.”

So, Mike, do you understand that unions only represent a total of about 12% of American workers? Do you understand that only about 7% of private sector jobs are filled by union workers?
These are the people that build the buildings and clean the toilets of those buildings. The people that serve the food and wash the dishes in big cities. Nurses that provide your health care, and teachers that babysit your children. People that build the sets, and provide the labor for the shows and concerts you might attend.
Most of the people represented by unions in America are just regular folks just trying to make a living.

These are the people that you look down on as having “no life experience”.


Royal Flush,

“…progressivism is the next step towards socialism…”

I googled this phrase and imagine my surprise when the first article that appeared was a series of essays on “American Progressivism” by R.J. Pestritto on Glen Beck’s website. After reading his essays I would ask you several questions;

Should we go back to the time of the robber barons when there actually was a caste system in America?

Should we repeal the Sherman Anti-trust Act?

Should we repeal the Pure Food and Drug Act?

Should we repeal the 19th Amendment?


These are but a few of the changes were wrought through progressivism in America.
I have read here on these pages where the conservative agenda mirrors that of the founding fathers. I wonder whose opinion that came from because I surely don’t see it.

I would submit that the founders of this country were less hide-bound and much less parochial than you folks on the right would have us believe.
These were the intellectuals of their time, and I find it curious that men like Beck, and Pestritto try so hard to downplay intellectualism, and as a point of fact, point to intellectuals as part of the problem, rather than being a part of the solution.

It’s not 1776 any more, hell it isn’t even 1976 anymore.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 6, 2011 9:44 AM
Comment #328714
That a minority can cause great damage is not unique.
If you are looking at terrorism I would agree. If you are talking about programs that have passed with a majority vote I would disagree Royal. Think about the past decade and what has caused the damage to our economy Royal. We can go with the standard conservative myth that a government program that had it’s inception in the Carter era was the driving force behind the financial meltdown, but we both know that is mythology, biased conservative mythology. We can discuss the budget deficit and blame Obama for all the problems but once again this is mythology to keep the movement followers in line and not thinking about the real issues. While it has worked well we both know it is not the case. The deficit was built up during the first part of the century under conservative rule. Yet we are told that it is the liberals doing all of this. It is the liberals in the repub party that only claim to be conservatives. The same ones that earn high scores from conservative grading groups when voting on laws in the Congress. Unfortunately the conservatives accept this excuse as legitimate from the movement leaders. http://front.moveon.org/3-charts-to-email-to-your-right-wing-brother-in-law/

Most Americans just wish to live, work, love and get along with one another in peace. In doing so, they sometimes will concede minor skirmishes to avoid a war.

Whether they be liberals, conservatives, progressives or centrist Royal?

But a movement like the conservative movement wouldn’t concede points would they Royal. I say points because minor points seldom are the cause of great damage or by their nature they would not be minor. Obama has been considered to be weak by both sides for conceding points. The tea party brought the credit rating of the country down a notch because they didn’t want to concede that the time to deal with the budget is during budget negotiations. Or at least it was the past 70 some times the debt ceiling was raised.

And, one must not forget that it is human nature to desire something for nothing. Many Americans, although not liberals themselves, have made a deal with liberalism. You make promises to me, and deliver benefits worth more than my cost, and I will vote for you.
Seems to me it was the conservatives that have been doing the deal making this past 12 years Royal. I’ll cut your taxes start a war or two and fun the deficit up if you will keep us in office. I’ll pay for your prescriptions if you’ll vote for me. That is conservatism as practiced Royal not as told to movement followers. Yet these movement followers turn a blind eye to it for a decade and attribute the subsequent debt to liberalism. Wolves in sheep’s clothing leading those that don’t think for themselves down the road singing happy songs and incorrectly blaming the liberals for the woes of the world.
It takes many years before the piper must be paid for liberal (Republican and Democrat) excess. That bill is now coming due and Americans don’t like the deal they made very well now.

This inability to face the reality of who has done what Royal, is it a required trait to be considered a conservative? Is it also a conservative trait to deliberately use the creation of debt as the means to get rid of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? The starve the beast strategy has left the country mired in economic woes at the same time as the baby boomers are moving through the SS and Medicare systems. The largest group to do so and as they were coming to that age we cut SS taxes for the rich. We started a war and cut taxes at the same time. This was the conservatives not the liberals Royal. It is time to face the facts. Conservatism as practiced by conservatives has led the country to the edge.

There simply isn’t enough money to pay for all the benefits so liberals are looking for new benefactors. The wealthy and big business are targets. Since it is the liberal belief, and a political necessity for them, that the current benefits, and added benefits, must continue, new money must be found.

The problem is we are unable and have been unable to solve the problem as other nations have because of conservatives, Royal. The desire to destroy these benefits has caused this problem Royal. This is the goal of the starve the beast strategy. Rather than destroy these systems and leave the people of America at the mercy of big business I hope liberal leaders can actually bring the costs of health care down as they are so much higher than health care costs in the rest of the industrialized world Royal.

More Americans are discovering that liberalism is fake, and dependent upon ever increasing government intrusion in their own lives. If liberalism is successful in confiscating the remaining wealth of others it can extend its lifespan a few years. And then, it must begin feeding upon those who were formerly beneficiaries. At that point, liberalism is finished.

You sound like Karl Marx on capitalism Royal. By the time liberalism is defeated by the forces of tyranny the corporations will be the government. To hear you say it, all the intrusions into the freedoms of the American people have been due to liberalism. But that is usually the case isn’t it? This inability to see the flaws in conservatism and its supporters is leading us down the wrong road Royal. The problem seems to be the lack of respect many conservatives have for the rights of others IMHO Royal. Just us, they chant, Just us, as liberals chant justice justice.

We conservative merely wish to hasten the death of liberalism to spare the country ever more pain.

Yeah I know Royal, The ideology of the gilded age and the suppression of those not in the aristocracy is conservatism. It seems to me conservatives have the unique ability to believe that it was liberalism that has caused the country so much pain yet it has been the same conservatives and their policies that have inflicted the pain upon the country.

The 2010 election was a rude awakening for liberalism and a forerunner of what will come in 2012.

It seems the conservatives are fooling themselves IMHO Royal. People are fed up with Congress more so than the President. The kill’em all assault demonstrated by the tea party caucus this past year on the political system may blow up in your faces Royal. It does seem that if the election was held today based upon the projections of you, Mike and other conservatives you guys would be in 100% control of the SCOTUS, The Congress and the Administrative branch of the Federal Government, can you handle that? The last time it didn’t work so well for you guys as reality sank in with the politicians. Your politicians embarrassed themselves showed conservatism to be the fraud it is, the failed ideology of the super rich. They set the country up for failure, do you really want that again?

As for myself I would prefer to play the game instead of conceding at this point. Lets just let the people vote instead of calling the election now.

Let me ask you a question j2t2. No one will argue that obama is a liberal. He is running for reelection. Is obama becoming more liberal or more conservative in his quest for reelection?

Yes he is becoming more liberal and more conservative as campaign season rolls around. Hopefully he will realize his attempts to do the will of the people by working with both sides of the aisle is foolish. Hopefully the American people will realize the same. As you have stated the goal of the conservative movement is to destroy liberalism and the policies and laws attributed to liberalism through the years. The American people support many of the programs, and rightfully so, of the liberals/progressives etc. Education is the key for Obama and the Dems. They must overcome the propaganda machine of the far right as it is powerful as Hitler’s ever was.

Which political philosophy is he promoting most to keep his job? What reelection strategy does he believe will attract the most voters?

Neither philosophy, Royal. He is not promoting either, to much of a centrist at this point for that. Of course he has to pay the price for this with those to the left of center that elected him in ‘08.


Is more government spending and more government benefits the prevailing mood of the voters?

Only if we want to get people working Royal. Tax cuts were a failure as we have lost jobs since 2003. As far as increasing benefits I am not sure of what you are saying. It was the repubs that last increased Medicare costs without funding the costs with the “reform” of ‘03. The “reform” where the government cannot negotiate with the drug companies.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 6, 2011 10:57 AM
Comment #328716

j2t2

No God did tell me to say that. It was dictated to me by the liberal majority.

Tom this seems to be yet another example of you not being able to use critical thinking skills to make your own decision. I would suggest less time listening to conservative movement propaganda and cutting back on the kool aid. Those voices you are hearing, I am willing to bet, are not those of the “liberal majority”. ;)

Posted by: j2t2 at September 6, 2011 11:17 AM
Comment #328724

I asked…”Is more government spending and more government benefits the prevailing mood of the voters?”

j2t2 responded with…”Only if we want to get people working Royal.”

The following quote is from Business Investor Daily which I linked to in the Republican column today. Is this the kind of stimulus spending you are referring to j2t2? Are jobs costing $2 million each appealing to voting taxpayers?


“During the 2008 campaign, candidate Barack Obama said he would create 5 million well-paying “green” jobs within 10 years.

Politico has reported that “he’s spent considerable time since entering the White House trying to make that happen.”

Indeed he has, though there has been no payoff. Yet he refuses give up on his quixotic quest. Last week Obama toured to much fanfare a Johnson Controls plant in Michigan where $300 million in conservation grants produced 150 jobs — at a cost of $2 million per position.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 6, 2011 1:41 PM
Comment #328735

Royal Flush-
The grant pays for the building of the factory, the purchase of the equipment, as well as the hiring of the workers.

You do realize that the purchase of the equipment and the building of the factory produces business elsewhere, right?

If this is how the right looks at the Stimulus, it’s no wonder they think it’s a failure, and equally no wonder that they’ve got things so wrong.

Mike-
Polls are snapshots, so it helps to keep current.

As of last month, John Boehner’s disapproval numbers were at 57%. Congress’s approval ratings are hitting record lows, with mere 14% approval and the Republicans in Congress are more underwater in the polls than Obama is.

I didn’t say that the Tea Party was of no effect. Far from it, it’s effect is obvious and far reaching. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is following it just the same way they followed Bush, without question, without real thought as to whether Americans really wanted that strong a brew of hardline politics.

And guess what? The Tea Party’s numbers are crap.

When asked about their opinion of the Tea party movement, The numbers broke down to 20% favorable, 40% unfavorable, 18% undecided, 21 Percent saying they hadn’t heard enough.

When asked about influence, 43% said they had too much, 17% said they had too little- less than a third, and only a quarter said they had the right amount

When asked whether they were tea party supporters, only 18% said they considered themselves to be such, with 73% flatly saying no.

The Republicans are following another bad of leaders with terrible numbers. Now you can perhaps win, if you throw enough crap Obama’s way, but your own numbers don’t seem to show that Obama is either poorly liked, or more strongly resented than the Republicans. The mud slides downhill, so Obama can better exploit your unpopularity, in the end, than you can his. The same poll says that 63% support a tax hike on the rich, that the Republicans compromised too little on the debt ceiling negotiations (by 52%), that more thought Republicans were responsible for the difficulties over the debt ceiling (47% to 29%), that the negotations made us look wars (71% to 22%, not even close), and that the controversy was mostly about the political advantage of those involved (82% to 14%) Increases in Tax Revenue beat out cuts in spending by 50% to 44%

As for what the priority should be for government policy? 62% to 29%, creating jobs over cutting spending.

Oh, by the way, despite your heroic efforts to Bash those who blame the deficit on Bush, 44% blame it on him, nearly three times the number (15%) who blame it on Obama, or Congress.

Here’s the problem: you’re caught in your own feedback loop. You take Obama’s numbers, which your party has made a special mission to sink, and you make yourself believe that all your negativity and obstruction hasn’t brought it on, but instead a shift to your ideology.

Unfortunately for you, it’s simply not true. The frustration with Obama doesn’t seem to be with him changing the policies from what they’re supposed to be, but rather, him failing to change those policies.

In other words, people are going to be asking him to take you on, on their behalf.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 6, 2011 3:41 PM
Comment #328736

Rocky:

These are but a few of the changes were wrought through progressivism in America.

Thanks for standing up, Rocky.

Progressivism is all about We the People. Specifically, it is about struggling for social improvement for the poor and middle classes (which in turn, actually helps the wealthy as well, despite all their denials) and for protecting all our economic, and health and safety interests against the profits of big business, and for protecting, preserving and cleaning up our natural environment.
To do these things, we have always had to fight tooth and nail against the privileged wealthy in this nation. Because these people have never voluntarily given We the People anything, nor do they like giving up the ability to oppress and take advantage of us, or to despoil our environment on behalf of their profits wherever they thought they could get away with it. Progressives know we will never stop having to fight in order to move this country forward in every single one of those ways.

This is why all these rightwing reactionaries love to idiotically call us socialists, even though they know damn well that progressive don’t ascribe to that economic/political theory. Their perennial problem seems to be that they despise social improvement and social equality of any kind. We might even say that through their stated viewpoints they are actually anti-social.
Well, they are at least until they get some sort of personal benefits for themselves and start enjoying the many social advances, opportunities and improvements progressives have always fought like hell to secure for everyone in this nation!

Indeed, there is a very long parallel history of worthless conservative regressives attacking and excoriating each and every one of our progressive struggles, who then turning right around and take full advantage once they get a taste of what our long and hard-won battles against the wealthy status quo has managed to provide them with. Then they seem to enjoy sucking greedily from those teets that had been previously denied to them.

Here’s a few more We the People-empowering progressive accomplishments:

1. The eight-hour workday and 40-hour workweek
2. Worker’s compensation for on-the-job accidents
3. Unemployment Insurance
4. Prohibitions against child labor and workplace exploitations
5. Federal Meat Inspection Act
6. The legal right of people to organize within labor unions and engage in collective bargaining for fair wages and benefits.
7. The constitutional right to vote, full legal equality, and the elimination of formal discrimination for women and minorities.
8. The graduated income and inheritance tax.
9. With the full support of T. Roosevelt, hundreds of millions of acres of protected wilderness areas, waterways, and national parks.
10. Direct elections of U.S. senators, direct primary elections of political candidates, and the initiative and referendum process in the states.
11. Civil service tests (replaced political patronage).
12. National supervision of banks (yes we once had this) and the creation of a flexible national currency.
13. Regulation of the securities industry (yes we once had this).
14. Federal insurance of bank deposits.
15. Bans on speculative banking practices (yes we once had this).
16. Refinancing and foreclosure protections for home and farm owners (yes we once had this).
17. National infrastructure including rural electrification, railways, airports, bridges and roads (also the Internet).
18. Social Security.
19. Minimum wage laws.
20. The GI Bill
And then there was the huge progressive window of opportunity that was the 1960’s!
21. Equal Pay Act
22. Community Mental Health Centers Act.
23. Clean Air Act. The Wilderness Act. The Land and Water Conservation Act. National Park Foundation Act. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, The National Trails System Act.
24. Economic Opportunity Act of 1964
25. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - outlawed job discrimination and the segregation of public accommodations and saw the appointment of federal voting examiners in areas that did not meet voter-participation requirements.
26. The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 - provided funds for urban public or private rail projects in the form of matching funds to cities and states. Model Cities Program for urban redevelopment. The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 and The Highway Beautification Act, and National Historic Preservation Act.
27. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 - assured minority registration and voting and suspended use of literacy or other voter-qualification tests that had kept African-Americans off voting lists and provided for federal court lawsuits to stop discriminatory poll taxes.
28. The Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 - abolished the national-origin quotas in immigration law.
29. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Initially $1 billion to help schools purchase materials and start special education programs to schools with a high concentration of low-income children, the Act went on to establish Head Start and Project Head Start preschool education for poor children.
30. The Freedom of Information Act.
31. The Public Broadcasting Act
32. The Manpower Development and Training Act of 1961 for vocational education. The Higher Education Act of 1965 created scholarships and low-interest loans for students, and established a National Teachers Corps to provide teachers to poverty stricken areas of the United States. Also began a transition from federally funded institutional assistance to individual student aid.
33. The Social Security Act of 1965 - authorized Medicare and provided federal funding for many of the medical costs of older Americans. In 1966 welfare recipients of all ages received medical care through the Medicaid program.
34. National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act - created both the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities.
35. Fair Packaging and Labeling Act - requires products identify manufacturer, address, clearly mark quantity and servings, and The Cigarette Labeling Act of 1965 - required warning labels.
36. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (both a direct result of Ralph Nader’s book Unsafe at Any Speed).
37. Child Safety Act of 1966 and Flammable Fabrics Act of 1967 - prohibited some dangerous chemicals from being used in consumer products.
38. Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 required further inspections on meat to pass federal standards. And Wholesome Poultry Products Act of 1968 required new forms of inspection om poultry to meet federal standards.
39. Bilingual Education Act of 1968 - federal aid to local school districts in assisting them to address the needs of children with limited English-speaking ability. (Unfortunately, this Act expired under Bush as I recall)
40. Truth-in-Lending Act of 1968 - required lenders and credit providers to disclose the full cost of finance charges in both dollars and annual percentage rates, on installment loan and sales.
41. Land Sales Disclosure Act of 1968 - provided safeguards against fraudulent practices in the sale of land.
42. Radiation Safety Act of 1968 - standards and recalls for defective electronic products.
43. Job Corps - help disadvantaged youths develop marketable skills. Upward Bound - assisted poor high school students entering college and legal services for the poor. Community Action Program - initiated local Community Action Agencies to help the poor people become self-sufficient.
44. Neighborhood Youth Corps - the first summer jobs established to give poor urban youths work experience and to encourage them to stay in school.
45. Peace Corp Act of 1961, and Volunteers in Service to America - the domestic version of the Peace Corps, which placed concerned citizens with community-based agencies to work towards empowerment of the poor.
46. The Food Stamp Act.
Moving on to the 70’s
47. Age Discrimination in Employment Act and The Vocational Rehabilitation Act - for people with disabilities.
48. The Federal Coal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977
49. Clean Water Act.
50. Ethics in Government Act - created mandatory, public disclosure of financial and employment history of public officials and their families, restrictions on lobbying efforts by public officials for a set period of time after leaving public office. And created the U.S. Office of Independent Counsel for the purpose of investigating government officials.

Well, there’s fifty achievements, so I’ll stop now even though I’m sure I missed plenty — and, I didn’t even begin to mention all the fights for freedom and equality that have been undertaken by the ACLU!

But on the conservative right? What do they have to show for their long and dismal history of constant, unwavering and slavish commitment to the status quo? Only a gaggle of rich people hoarding and ostentatiously flaunting their wealth, and robbing and discriminating against anyone outside of their own pampered and privileged social class.

It is Progressive struggles that has made this nation great through our efforts to fulfill this nations founding ideals and make real the idea that all Americans are ‘Created Equal’ and that each and every American is entitled to ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.’

Or, as j2t2 just said:

Just us, they chant, Just us, as liberals chant justice justice.

Eloquently said, my brotha! :^D

Posted by: Adrienne at September 6, 2011 4:55 PM
Comment #328745

“Mike-

Polls are snapshots, so it helps to keep current.

As of last month, John Boehner’s disapproval numbers were at 57%. Congress’s approval ratings are hitting record lows, with mere 14% approval and the Republicans in Congress are more underwater in the polls than Obama is.”

It doesn’t matter what Boehner’s numbers are, in fact it doesn’t matter what the numbers of aay Democrat or Republican Politian is; it is not a US popular vote that elects the House Reps or Senators. It is local districts and States. So the only numbers that matter to a Rep or Senator is his local polls. But a president is elected on a national level and nation polls matter to him. Furthermore Stephen, if Obama is unpopular, Democrats will stay home and whoever votes against Obama and fro a Republican will most likely vote a straight ticket.

Stephen, you make claims that polls don’t mean anything and you also say the TP does effect elections then you begin to quote more polls showing the TP is falling apart. Which is it?

Stephen, you know how you feel about Rasmussen Polls…I feel the same way about polls from the NYT, so my answer to your polls would be Ditto.

“Unfortunately for you, it’s simply not true. The frustration with Obama doesn’t seem to be with him changing the policies from what they’re supposed to be, but rather, him failing to change those policies.

In other words, people are going to be asking him to take you on, on their behalf.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 6, 2011 3:41 PM

The question is, are those on the left upset enough to stay home in Nov. 2012?

Adrienne, I like you list of 50 points. But since Stephen is not concerned about liberals plagiarizing themselves, I would ask, where are the quotations marks and where is your link. I’m sure you were not smart enough to come up with these points on your own.

Rocky Marks said earlier:

“Mike,
“I was once a registered democrat and a staunch union supporter; but unlike j2t2, I have gained some life experience.”
So, Mike, do you understand that unions only represent a total of about 12% of American workers? Do you understand that only about 7% of private sector jobs are filled by union workers?
These are the people that build the buildings and clean the toilets of those buildings. The people that serve the food and wash the dishes in big cities. Nurses that provide your health care, and teachers that babysit your children. People that build the sets, and provide the labor for the shows and concerts you might attend.
Most of the people represented by unions in America are just regular folks just trying to make a living.
These are the people that you look down on as having “no life experience”.

Yes Rocky, I understand the unions are a thing of the past and failing. And after Hoffa’s latest call for unions to go to war against the Tea Party and take the SOB’s out, I am sure unions will lose even more respect in America. I hate to be the one to tell you this RM, but there is a lot more people out there creating, building, and cleaning besides a few union workers. The unions had their day and they had a purpose, but that day is gone. Unions are nothing more than a financial pipeline for liberal democrats today and the sooner pubic workers and government employees are separated from these thug bosses, the better. Not all union employees are democrats; in fact some of them are TP supporters. So, in answer to your question, there are more people than I who have life experience, saw the light, and refuse to do what the thug bosses tell them. But, I will admit, the events taking place in State governments, in regard to contract bargaining, is a make or break for the unions. And I personally hope they are history.

Posted by: Mike at September 6, 2011 6:56 PM
Comment #328746

Adrienne writes; “Here’s a few more We the People-empowering progressive accomplishments.”

She then list 50 items going back to at least Teddy Roosevelt. What I find interesting in the list, is that each one is credited as a “progressive” accomplishment.

Please provide the names and political affiliation of the member(s) of congress introducing the legislation, the vote count by party affiliation, and the president who signed the legislation.

As Adrienne obviously spent hours and days doing the research on these accomplishments, I am sure she has the info I ask for in her notes. It would be difficult to believe that she is just taking someones word for all this without doing her own due diligence.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 6, 2011 7:08 PM
Comment #328755

Mike:

Adrienne, I like you list of 50 points. But since Stephen is not concerned about liberals plagiarizing themselves, I would ask, where are the quotations marks and where is your link. I’m sure you were not smart enough to come up with these points on your own.

I compiled those 50 progressive accomplishments many years ago and the basic facts that go along with them. That’s because I’ve been fighting with fascist Neanderthals on the right in internet blogs for years on end.
Btw, you don’t seem smart to me either.

RF:

She then list 50 items going back to at least Teddy Roosevelt. What I find interesting in the list, is that each one is credited as a “progressive” accomplishment.

Every last one of those things is indeed a Progressive accomplishment, but sadly it seems you’re not aware that there were once a few Progressive Republicans who fought for the people?
That must be shocking to you, huh? Learning that at one time the word Republican didn’t automatically mean an unwavering defense of the greedy plutocracy, or ramming evangelical christian morality down everyone’s throats, or fighting against Civil Rights for every American, or fighting the idea that our natural environment must be protected? But guess what? It’s true!

Please provide the names and political affiliation of the member(s) of congress introducing the legislation, the vote count by party affiliation, and the president who signed the legislation.

No. You see, I don’t really give a rats ass whether you and Mike like my list or not. So, YOU look all that up if you’re interested in those details you’ve just asked for. I had to look up all that stuff when I made my list years ago, and now it’s YOUR turn to make a little effort towards educating yourself.
Just to get you started, here’s a few hints: There is a search engine called Google. There is a website called Wikipedia. And when in doubt, there is always the Journalist’s Toolbox - here’s a page from the that site that I’ve personally found to be pretty handy.
Have fun!

Posted by: Adrienne at September 6, 2011 8:18 PM
Comment #328754

Adrienne wrote; “…all Americans are ‘Created Equal’ and that each and every American is entitled to ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

While not intentional I suppose, the use of the word “entitled” rather than the actual words in the Declaration of Independence which reads…”certain unalienable Rights” is revealing of how many liberals and progressives think.

The word “entitled” carries a totally different meaning than “unalienable Rights.” To be entitled to something by government implies that there is a government that grants it.

Unalienable Rights however, are not granted by government or by man, but by man’s creator. And as such, they can not be taken away by government or man.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 6, 2011 8:18 PM
Comment #328756

It is always interesting to read Adrienne’s response when she can’t just copy something and insert.

I have noticed that many people, when asked for non-existent verification, resort to nasty language.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 6, 2011 8:27 PM
Comment #328757

RF,
The use of the word ‘entitled’ was intentional. You say they are “unalienable Rights” and therefore cannot be taken away but that has actually not been the case. Hence, the need for Progressives who get out and fight like hell to secure all the rights that should be “unalienable.”

Posted by: Adrienne at September 6, 2011 8:29 PM
Comment #328758

It’s always interesting when you tell RF that you’re not beholden to provide information on demand. He has to try smear you — because you didn’t run around in circles gathering information he’s not even interested in. Because the whole point is to make you needlessly gather the info, just so he can tell you over and over how inadequate it is, and make you annoyed.
Indeed, since this is the game that many on the right play ALL THE TIME, it’s always fun to refuse.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 6, 2011 8:42 PM
Comment #328759

I feel sorry for the man who lives with Adrienne, she seems very bitter. I bet she belongs to NAG (National Alliance of Gals).

Posted by: Shocked at September 6, 2011 8:53 PM
Comment #328764

Shocked-
Well, unlike folks stuck in the fifties, I do not find a woman who speaks her mind (especially when she hasn’t been spoken too) offensive.

Royal Flush-
I’m going to make this quick. Look, you know who first instituted the 16th amendment, which makes today’s income taxes legal? Republicans.

You don’t have to be a Democrat to be a Progressive. Being a progressive means you believe in the ability of government to improve the quality of life of its people.

Right now, though, Democrats are the only people willing to entertain that idea. Republicans, on the other hand, seem dead set against letting things change for the better, because it’s an implicit critique on their judgment.

As for inalienable rights?

That view was in opposition to the notion of the divine right to rule. Under King George’s theory, whatever rights you were to have were granted by, and could be taken away by the king, and he could retain legitimacy because he was God’s chosen ruler.

Thomas Jefferson and others were challenging that notion. They were saying that God only conferred legitimacy on governments that guaranteed equality, and which maintained people’s rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. King George’s authority, according to their theory, relied on his acknowledgment and preservation of these rights.

Rebellion, he was saying, was the prerogative of those who were being unjustly denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They could deny you the fulfillment of these rights, but their doing so would free you from the obligations of respecting their authority over you and your lands. This is the only view that makes sense in the light of the litany of complaints Thomas Jefferson follows his famous words with, examples of people being denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I don’t know what saying “entitled” does to make Adrienne’s point invalid, I mean, isn’t entitlement to those rights part of them being inalienable? It would contradict that point to say that these rights are inalienable, but you’re not entitled to them!

Quit splitting hairs to come up with excuses to try and make her look bad.

Mike-
Well, who knows whether that general number means that Boehner does or doesn’t get re-elected. You’d need more local polling to get an idea about that.

But I wasn’t arguing his electability, I was arguing his popularity on the national scale, which is atrocious.

It’s more than a year out from the election, and I don’t think your people are done making fools of themselves.

Stephen, you make claims that polls don’t mean anything and you also say the TP does effect elections then you begin to quote more polls showing the TP is falling apart. Which is it?

False dilemma. First of all, as you would have probably noted last year, before the 2010 election, the government can lag behind the will of the people. So, the Tea Partiers can be thoroughly unpopular without losing their seats. They can also remain influential within the party.

Your problem is that their influence is eroding considerably outside of it. Your poll is a year and a half too old to show the effects of the debt ceiling fight, or the inaction of Congress, thanks to their unwillingness to compromise. Your poll deals with a political organization that people weren’t so familiar with before.

As for polls, there are house effects, and then there are house effects. Other polls have corroborated the NY Times’ polling. Would you be arguing bias if the results weren’t so starkly negative? I think not. Have the intellectual courage to accept bad results. I don’t go chewing out Gallup for its record lows on Obama.

As for Adrienne’s quotations, I’ve seen some of the sources, so here’s goes:

1) The Center for American Progress list constitutes a relatively small quotation, relative to the rest of the thirty-one page article.

2) Other sources? It’s worth relating that lists of public laws are information that’s in the public domain. I’m not really sure that’s copyrightable (you can quote government documents wholesale, after all, the government belongs to you.)

Republicans on this site don’t simply quote one page of bullet items, they often just dump the whole article in the comment. I know this because I’ve followed them up.

Adrienne-
Please find your sources, and cite them, either by link or by notation. Your information is good, and I’m pretty sure you’re on the right side of the law here, but do cite your sources, so as to give certain folks no opening to wrongly claim offense.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 6, 2011 9:59 PM
Comment #328773

Mike,

“Yes Rocky, I understand the unions are a thing of the past and failing. And after Hoffa’s latest call for unions to go to war against the Tea Party and take the SOB’s out, I am sure unions will lose even more respect in America.”

Certainly Americans are more intellectually capable than you seem to give them credit for. I hardly think that Hoffa’s hyperbole speaks for all union members across America.

As far as unions being a thing of the past, I am also sure that police, firemen, carpenters, nurses, teachers, plumbers, teachers, and other union members would beg to differ with your assessment.

Curiously, as union membership has declined (about 10% since the eighties), so have the wages of the middle class in America.

But, as you apparently believe, unions are a thing of the past, so those figures don’t mean much to you.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 6, 2011 11:29 PM
Comment #328775

Adrienne-

Please find your sources, and cite them, either by link or by notation. Your information is good, and I’m pretty sure you’re on the right side of the law here, but do cite your sources, so as to give certain folks no opening to wrongly claim offense.

Well, it’s really seems a shame, but I guess you’re going to have to take it down then (or maybe just wipe the list from that post). I made that 50 Accomplishments list over a period of a couple of days about, oh it’s got to be at least six or seven years ago — just so I could whip it out in defense of what Progressives have done for We The People of America whenever I saw the kind of smears and lies being piled up by rightwingers the way they have been here in this thread.
But at this late date there’s just no way I could ever give a complete list of the sources I used to compile them — it was too long ago, there were just too many.

This first time I have ever even been asked to defend that list — perhaps because in the past everyone was able to grasp that these are all real pieces of legislation that passed, and that only progressives would have ever been the ones who stepped up in order to fight for them.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2011 12:21 AM
Comment #328781

Adrienne-
Just enter list items as google search terms. I believe this is the document you’re looking for.

As for the rest? I used them as search terms and got several generic links worth of material. I don’t know whether they would be the original documents, but at least you won’t have to search all over hell’s half acre to find them.

Like I said, the main one you need to cite is that first document, the CAP report. The generic bills you describe and the descriptions, are not necessarily copyrighted, since they’re the product of government work, and any writings or material done by the government is the people’s property. If you feel that you likely used another source in the descriptions, simply rephrase whatever you’re concerned about.

Like I said before, I don’t think you’re in as much danger of running afoul of copyright laws as your Republican Counterparts, who sometime reprint whole articles from their favorite thinktank scholars wholesale.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 7, 2011 8:44 AM
Comment #328782

Adrienne,

Here is a start for you;

The Civil Rights act of 1964 was co-sponsored by Mike Mannsfield (D-MT), and Everett Dirksen (R-IL).

As a part of one article I read on Mannsfield there is a quote that I found particularly poignant, and it rings true especially today.

From wikipedia;

“During the economic crisis of 1971, Mansfield was not afraid to reach across the aisle to help the economy. He said:

“What we’re in is not a Republican recession or a Democratic recession; both parties had much to do with bringing us where we are today. But we’re facing a national situation which calls for the best which all of us can produce, because we know the results will be something which we will regret.”

Boy, those old guys really knew how to turn a phrase.


The Manpower Development Act of 1962 was a part of Kennedy’s push to change the fabric of America

From wikipedia;

“Amongst the legislation passed by Congress during the Kennedy administration, unemployment benefits were expanded, aid was provided to cities to improve housing and transportation, funds were allocated to continue the construction of a national highway system started under Eisenhower, a water pollution control act was passed to protect the country’s rivers and streams, and an agricultural act to raise farmers’ incomes was made law. A significant amount of anti-poverty legislation was passed by Congress, including increases in social security benefits and in the minimum wage, several housing bills, and aid to economically distressed areas. A few antirecession public works packages, together with a number of measures designed to assist farmers, were introduced. Major expansions and improvements were made in Social Security (including retirement at 62 for men), hospital construction, library services, family farm assistance and reclamation. Food stamps for low-income Americans were reintroduced, food distribution to the poor was increased, and there was an expansion in school milk and school lunch distribution. The most comprehensive farm legislation since 1938 was carried out, with expansions in rural electrification, soil conservation, crop insurance, farm credit, and marketing orders. In September 1961, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency was established as the focal point in government for the “planning, negotiation, and execution of international disarmament and arms control agreements.”

Kennedy was certainly progressive in his thinking and pushed Congress with his “New Frontier”.


Warren Atherton (R), and Ernest McFarland (D-AZ) were considered the fathers of the GI Bill.


Apparently, unlike today’s ideologues, Congress knew better back then how to work together for the “good of the country”.

Well, this is only three of your fifty, but it is a start. Hopefully this is something that others will take up and continue with.

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 7, 2011 8:49 AM
Comment #328784
Please provide the names and political affiliation of the member(s) of congress introducing the legislation, the vote count by party affiliation, and the president who signed the legislation.

Royal which of the 50 do you believe is not progressive? Which of these 50 do the conservatives here on WB want to claim as their own?

Please find your sources, and cite them, either by link or by notation. Your information is good, and I’m pretty sure you’re on the right side of the law here, but do cite your sources, so as to give certain folks no opening to wrongly claim offense.

Stephen is this appeasement just to satisfy the whims of the conservatives on WB? I say let them do their own research and prove her wrong. When was the last time any of us was asked to ” provide the names and political affiliation of the member(s) of congress introducing the legislation, the vote count by party affiliation, and the president who signed the legislation.”?

This is an good work Adrienne.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 7, 2011 10:08 AM
Comment #328789
Stephen is this appeasement just to satisfy the whims of the conservatives on WB?

No one should get a free pass when it comes to copyright or plagiarism issues. I don’t think Stephen is doubting the veracity of the list.

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 7, 2011 12:40 PM
Comment #328790

Stephen,

It seems likely to have been the Center for American Progress where I got the first part of my list — because obviously they’re so similar. Yet, that pdf is from a report that says it came out in 2010. I made my list prior to that date. Which could mean the report utilizes a list that had been drawn up by CPA previously???

And that’s just it. As I said in my last reply, it really is too long ago for me to recall exactly which sources I used when I was gathering that info — and since that is the case, you may still simply want to remove my post containing the list. I certainly wouldn’t be offended if you did. Back then, internet copyright wasn’t nearly as big an issue as it has become more recently. It now definitely is though, so I fully understand why this website, and every other, needs to tread carefully.

j2t2

Stephen is this appeasement just to satisfy the whims of the conservatives on WB? I say let them do their own research and prove her wrong. When was the last time any of us was asked to ” provide the names and political affiliation of the member(s) of congress introducing the legislation, the vote count by party affiliation, and the president who signed the legislation.”?

No, it’s okay. I totally get why Stephen has to be worried about copyright infringement, because websites can get into a whole world of trouble when they don’t police this kind thing carefully.
That being said, it’s kind of funny that RF is demanding information about political affiliation. The fact is, there have been Progressives on both sides of the American political aisle and my making that list wasn’t for the purposes of claiming otherwise. When I first made the list, and every time I have posted it anywhere since I did so to defend progressivism in America as a motivating factor for positive change and social improvement in an overall and very powerful sense.
And, the reason why I felt/feel the need to do that is because there are huge numbers of people in political blogs who have obviously been sold on the absurd idea that progressivism is something evil, socialist, and throughly anti-American. When in fact, progressive movement is as American as apple pie and has made this country great!

So, even though the list should probably come down, let me just say this about it — it is perfectly obvious that each and every program and piece of legislation on it was intended to produce real, measurable progress for We the People.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2011 12:54 PM
Comment #328791

Warped:

No one should get a free pass when it comes to copyright or plagiarism issues.

You’re right, copyright issues are important and can no longer get a pass without endangering websites. But I was not attempting to plagiarize through passing that info off as something I personally wrote. It is info I merely gathered and arranged into a list to show the ways that progressivism has moved this nation’s people forward.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2011 1:08 PM
Comment #328792
Apparently, unlike today’s ideologues, Congress knew better back then how to work together for the “good of the country”.

I couldn’t agree more, Rocky! It’s pretty amazing how the mindset between members of Congress has changed so drastically since the 1960’s. The past thirty years in politics has injected so much poison into our government that it really has transformed it entirely. Whenever you look back to how members on both sides of the aisle used to work together, (most especially in the years following the Second World War) it becomes so painfully clear that politicians in America used to have a far more positive philosophy motivating the process that has now been completely lost.


Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2011 2:02 PM
Comment #328793

adrienne


“I made that 50 Accomplishments list over a period of a couple of days about, oh it’s got to be at least six or seven years ago — just so I could whip it out in defense of what Progressives have done for We The People of America whenever I saw the kind of smears and lies being piled up by rightwingers the way they have been here in this thread.”


seems a shame to do all that work and not back each up with the reference used in order to lend credibility to the”the list”. anyone can make up a list, but without the research to accompanying it, it is just your list. not much of a comeback IMO. nanny nanny billygoat would be equally as effective.

Posted by: dbs at September 7, 2011 4:13 PM
Comment #328795

SD writes; “Quit splitting hairs to come up with excuses to try and make her look bad.”

No, I don’t believe I will. When someone does not understand the difference between a government “entitlement” and creator conferred “unalienable Rights” it is important to differentiate the two for others who may be lead astray by such confusion.

I would also point out that there is no way that I can make anyone look bad. Those who look bad, do so of their own volition. If one can not defend what they write, perhaps they should not write it.

SD writes; “I don’t know what saying “entitled” does to make Adrienne’s point invalid, I mean, isn’t entitlement to those rights part of them being inalienable.”

Apparently he doesn’t understand the important and vital difference between a government granted “entitlement” and creator conferred “unalienable Rights” either. If one is unable to grasp the significance between these two concepts, it is impossible to understand our founders beliefs and our founding documents establishing our Republic.

If government granted “entitlements” equate to “unalienable Rights”, there is nothing to prevent government rescinding those rights. It may be convenient, and perhaps even necessary, for liberals to promote such a misunderstanding.

In fact, that might make a good post for me to work on.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 7, 2011 5:05 PM
Comment #328799

dbs:

seems a shame to do all that work and not back each up with the reference used in order to lend credibility to the”the list”. anyone can make up a list, but without the research to accompanying it, it is just your list. not much of a comeback IMO. nanny nanny billygoat would be equally as effective.

Yeah, I should have, but I didn’t. Like I said, it’s no big deal if Stephen thinks it should be taken down. I mean, it’s not like doing so somehow suddenly erases the entire history of Progressive achievements in America.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2011 5:27 PM
Comment #328800

Royal Flush,

Please get real.

When Jefferson wrote these two sentences:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It is important to remember that he and many of the other founders owned an enormous number of slaves, and women had no rights at all. No one was concerned with their rights to “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” even though all Americans now feel entitled to state that such rights are unalienable.
The only reason we now view things from that perspective is because people who held progressive views fought hard to make this the current reality.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2011 5:44 PM
Comment #328801
unlike j2t2, I have gained some life experience. The last democrat president I voted for was Jimmy Carter. As I watched his policies bring America to her knees, I voted for Reagan, became a conservative and never looked back.

Life experience? Is that what it is called by conservatives Mike? If switching parties and voting for Reagan and every repub since is your definition of life experience then yep I am sure you have more that I. However what your calling life experience here is what I call swilling the kool aid Mike.

j2t2 shows his absolute ignorance of American history by accusing conservatives of being the downfall of America. If that were tha case, we would still be serving the British Crown. You see j2t2, the foundation building blocks of America are the same foundation blocks of conservativism.

This isn’t history Mike it is fact. The civil war, the great depression and the current financial meltdown are all conservative failures. Look up Tories in your history books Mike.

BTW the building blocks of America are the same for all of us not the property of conservatives Mike. Where did you ever get such a selfish notion? If you actually believe that it was conservatism that … never mind it is just to laughable.


And by the way j2t2, this next one will explode your head; but the foundation building blocks of America and Conservativism, are the same Judeo/Christian building blocks.

Although I am not quit sure why you think my head would explode over this whatever it is you are trying to say Mike I don’t know. But if you are trying to claim the Christian’s and conservatives are the only Americans then you are wrong Mike. Absolutely and positively wrong. The founding fathers were much more of a mixed bunch than you gave them credit for, in fact it was the French that helped to secure victory for the patriots in the revolutionary war. Their were religious and non religious alike Mike. There were people of all stripes and colors fighting for freedom not just the landed Gentry as your revisionist history is telling us. The building blocks of this country are meant for all of us Mike which is the major difference between conservatism and liberalism. Your exclusionary view of the revolution and of the country today is just wrong Mike.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 7, 2011 5:52 PM
Comment #328802

It is info I merely gathered and arranged into a list to show the ways that progressivism has moved this nation’s people forward.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2011

When asking for the genesis of Adrienne’s list, I was not so much concerned about copyrights as I was for her blanket statement that these were exclusively “progressive” actions (She wrote, “Here’s a few more We the People-empowering progressive accomplishments:”) and the implication that they were resisted by a majority of those not calling themselves progressive.

To give “progressivism” sole credit for having initiated these 50 actions and the single driving force thru many differently composed congresses, and more than a handful of presidents, smacks of hyperbole. Did the progressive movement hold enough political power to accomplish the legislation listed by Adrienne on their own, or was there a consensus among our elected representatives, of all political persuasions, that these were the right thing to do at the time?

I believe that good ideas in governance can come from varied sources. There is no political fountain of all knowledge and good. I will not deny that progressives helped shape the public will on important issues in the past. That doesn’t make me a progressive in all things political.

Where progressive and conservative ideals coincide, I will support them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 7, 2011 6:07 PM
Comment #328804

Royal Flush,

“To give “progressivism” sole credit for having initiated these 50 actions and the single driving force thru many differently composed congresses, and more than a handful of presidents, smacks of hyperbole.”

And the above statement doesn’t?

“Conservatives” aparently forget that there were, God forbid, liberal Republicans in their party once. That you have summarily dismissed them as RINOs is your loss.
There was a time, as I mentioned before, that the two parties actually worked together for the good of the country.

I am sad to say that those times are long gone. It’s obvious from your comments that you don’t get this.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 7, 2011 6:16 PM
Comment #328807

Adrienne, you are treading on shaky ground when you attempt to parse the meaning of Jefferson’s words. Are you sure we should just throw our founding documents away based upon the slavery existing at the time? There are good, sound reasons why Jefferson could write those words without being hypocritical and why they still resonate with freedom loving people the world over today.


I do understand why some must believe that their creator conferred “unalienable Rights” are merely entitlements granted by government.

For some, it is objectionable to recognize a creator. Our founders had no problem with that. And others recognize that it is impossible to take away “unalienable Rights”, while quite simple to rescind a government entitlement.

One can be enslaved and still possess unalienable rights. Is that a mystery to you Adrienne?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 7, 2011 6:37 PM
Comment #328808

Rocky, I will just ignore your comment. It has no meaning.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 7, 2011 6:41 PM
Comment #328810

Adrienne-
I think the CAP report is the issue, since it’s private and copyrightable, and since it’s already been found, and you’ve acknowledged it was likely a source, this shouldn’t be a problem. It’s one page out of a 31 page PDF.

The rest is deriveable from any generic list of legislation. I never found anything identical, so we can assume this is your work.

Don’t worry too much about it. I’m not in any mood to appease Republicans for the sake of appeasing them. In the future, do cite and quote material as much as possible. Not only is this good for keeping out of trouble on Intellectual property issues, it’s good for keeping track of excellent sources of information.

I think the Republicans on the site are worse about it, to be frank. They repost whole articles, rather than linking and quoting. The way I typically find them out is by taking the first few lines and running it through Google. If it comes back and I see that their quoting is essentially wholesale, I give them my standard warning.

I think the general rule is, you should seek out material that makes a compelling point better than you can all by yourself. Personally, I much prefer material that only deals indirectly with politics, or which deals with it at a practical policy level, so we’re dealing less with ideology, which I feel to be endlessly rationalizeable and mutable, and more with the realities we need to address to govern well.

I also think in terms of spreading ideas beyond my immediate ideological territory. I feel there’s no use to politics if all we do is just reinforce our sides as they already are.

Well, that’s my advice on those counts. Sage old man of 31 years that I am.;-)

Royal Flush-
I don’t think that Adrienne means entitled the way you’re talking about entitlements, which seems to be your desperate bid at bringing your typical class warfare politics into a conversation where it doesn’t belong.

Entitled in the sense of her statement obviously means what What Websters has it as: “”[Furnished] with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something “

If a right is inalienable, surely it’s a right you are entitled to, since an inalienable right is one that you have proper grounds to claim, as a person in Jefferson’s model of things.

As for claims about progressivism? Progressivism is the philosophy that government should intervene on behalf of the average person, for the purpose of improving their lives, and that by doing so, government can bring progress to society. Some use it as a synonym for the further left portion of the Democratic Party, but I think it should be defined more broadly than that. It is the philosophy that government can help, not simply the notion that government always helps when it intervenes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 7, 2011 6:53 PM
Comment #328814

SD writes; “I don’t think that Adrienne means entitled the way you’re talking about entitlements, which seems to be your desperate bid at bringing your typical class warfare politics into a conversation where it doesn’t belong.”

Perhaps she doesn’t SD. But then, why not use the same words as found in the document rather than different words that might lead to wrong interpretation?

In Adrienne’s comment #328800 she still appears to be confused as she claims that only thru progressive action are we now “entitled” to our unalienable rights. She, and you, do not understand what an unalienable right is…that’s all. You must involve government in those rights or it won’t fit into your screwed up politics.

As for your comment that I bring this up as a “desperate bid” to wage class warfare…that’s just a wimpy comment that should be beneath your dignity. I write factually and you defend nonsense and error.

I want readers on WB to understand from where our “unalienable rights” emanate. And it sure as hell isn’t government or progressives, or liberals, or republicans, or democrats, or conservatives.

If one can’t understand this simple concept, then one is doomed to be denied the exercise of those rights.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 7, 2011 7:19 PM
Comment #328815

RF,

When asking for the genesis of Adrienne’s list, I was not so much concerned about copyrights as I was for her blanket statement that these were exclusively “progressive” actions (She wrote, “Here’s a few more We the People-empowering progressive accomplishments:”) and the implication that they were resisted by a majority of those not calling themselves progressive.

Yes, that is indeed the implication I am making — and they are progressive accomplishments because those actions were intended to create necessary changes within our society. There were many American politicians and citizens who fought against all the things on that list, and those who did cannot be labeled Progressive. Instead, they would have to be labeled Conservative since they were fighting against progress in various forms and advocating for the status quo not to undergo any changes.
I mentioned nothing about political party, and I wouldn’t. The word Progressive cannot be said to automatically designate party since progressive ideas and legislation has come from both sides of the political aisle at different times in our nations history.
And let me assure you, had I myself lived during either Lincoln’s era, or Teddy Roosevelt’s era, I would have without a doubt been a progressive who voted Republican. Well, had I been a man that is — since women didn’t win the right to vote until 1920!

To give “progressivism” sole credit for having initiated these 50 actions and the single driving force thru many differently composed congresses, and more than a handful of presidents, smacks of hyperbole.

Sorry if it bothers you RF, but all of those 50 actions are progressive. Because everyone of them constituted advancements and social improvements through governmental actions.
Btw, you know what totally smacked of hyperbole to me?
Your totally outrageous comment:

“Progressivism is the next step towards socialism.”

In fact, when I saw what Rocky had written to you in response to your making that truly incredible statement, it was exactly what prompted me to drag out my old, moth-eaten and sadly reference-less ‘50 Progressive Accomplishments’ list! :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2011 7:22 PM
Comment #328817

Your last comment interests me Adrienne. Can you tell me what issues progressives are working on today? Just a short list is OK.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 7, 2011 7:40 PM
Comment #328818

RF:

One can be enslaved and still possess unalienable rights. Is that a mystery to you Adrienne?

No mystery at all. But when one lives under a government daring to claim that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” when actually you’re enslaved or being denied equality or rights that are supposedly so “unalienable”, one must automatically become a progressive and struggle to give those lovely sounding words some actual sense of meaning.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2011 7:44 PM
Comment #328820

OK, since you bring it up, the civil war was a progressive war? Who were the progressive leaders of the time?

What does being created “equal” mean to a progressive? What is the role of government in ensuring equality.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 7, 2011 7:51 PM
Comment #328821
Can you tell me what issues progressives are working on today? Just a short list is OK.

Sure. As I said earlier of progressivism, it is about:

social improvement for the poor and middle classes (which in turn, actually helps the wealthy as well, despite all their denials) and for protecting all our economic, and health and safety interests against the profits of big business, and for protecting, preserving and cleaning up our natural environment.

With high unemployment and many our people slipping into poverty, jobs and programs to help people who are struggling are high on the list.
At a time when 52 million Americans can’t afford health care, that’s high on the list.
Gaining full civil and marriage rights for Gay and Lesbian folks is high on the list.
Keeping the right to join unions and collectively bargain for better wages is high on the list. (We fought hard for this once, and unfortunately it looks like we’re going to have to fight hard again because many are working to take it away.)
Protecting the environment from destruction is high on the list, along with finding solutions to our energy problems that are clean and sustainable.

There’s many other issues too, but there is the short list you asked for.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2011 8:12 PM
Comment #328824

I can see why homosexual marriages would be high on the list. NC is about to become the 32nd state to protect marriage as between one man and one woman.

Does forcing people to buy health insurance benefit everybody. Why do I have to buy the government plan when my insurance is ok for my situation? And I will be forced to buy the government plan. My company has already ginned up for that.

Why does HHS force the provision of birth control at no charge? The premium will increase for everybody so that a few can benefit. This will occur even tho some providers may object to providing Plan B or Ella or some of the other abortion producing drugs and that they may be harmful to the taker of the drugs.

Is it a Progressive’s idea to handle the “A Call to Compassion” the way it is being done? There will be a Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and Catholic but no Evangelical representative.

Is it a Progressive president who claims:

“We said working folks deserved a break, so within on month of me taking office, we signed into law the biggest middle-class tax cut in history, putting more money into your pockets.”

http://historymusings.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/full-text-september-5-2011-president-barack-obama-speech-jobs-plan-gm-plant-labor-day-picnic-detroit/


I am part of that group that the president was talking about. My taxes have doubled over that last two years. Wonder what he was talking about?

And for the union buffs here is one you should thoroughly enjoy.

Internatiolnal Bortherhood of Teamsters financial disclosure forms show the salary for JH,jr was $294,285. Poor working stiff that he is.

Posted by: tom humes at September 7, 2011 9:26 PM
Comment #328827

Royal Flush-

Perhaps she doesn’t SD. But then, why not use the same words as found in the document rather than different words that might lead to wrong interpretation?

People can misinterpret even the most precisely stated statement. They can wrap it in a misleading interpretation, or dig into the words and shade them in ways that they weren’t meant to be shaded. Language is recursive, so the capacity for distortion is incredible inm its scope.

It’s why I don’t buy the notion that literal meaning in religion or law are by necessity safeguards against distortion of meaning. Even if you insist on limiting interpretation to just the words at hand, you’ll end up with dozens of variations as to what people think it literally means.

The trick is, whether you’re applying a literal standard or not, you still have to interpret, draw meaning out of the symbols, and gather it all together into your imperfect mind to figure out what it means.

That’s why reality are so important. We’re literally capable of believing anything, wedging anything into what we read and hear. Logic is a tool of the mind, not the salvation of rationality. An insistence that conclusions are checked in some way against the way things really are is what saves us from nutty and stupid ideas.

Your problem is that your party simply doesn’t check it’s outlandish bull**** about what liberals believe against reality, and when we try to inform you of our real beliefs, you think we’re lying to you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 7, 2011 9:58 PM
Comment #328830
Internatiolnal Bortherhood of Teamsters financial disclosure forms show the salary for JH,jr was $294,285. Poor working stiff that he is.

Tom Although I wasn’t able to verify the veracity of your claim as the only sources are right wing media hacks, He is president of a 1.4 million member organization. Compare his meager $295k to what the CEO’s of much smaller companies make, it is peanuts. IMHO he deserves every penny for nothing else than the follow up comment he made yesterday

“However, Hoffa responded to the controversy by stating, “We didn’t start this war — the right wing did. My comments on Labor Day in Detroit echo the anger and frustration of American workers who are under attack by corporate-funded politicians who want to destroy the middle class. We’re tired of seeing good-paying jobs shipped overseas. This fight is about the economy, it’s about jobs and it’s about rebuilding America. As I said yesterday in Detroit, we all have to vote in order to take these anti-worker politicians out of office. We’re fighting back. That’s what Teamsters do — we stand up for what is right,” Hoffa said. “I will never apologize for standing up for my fellow Teamsters and all American workers.” [58]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_P._Hoffa

Posted by: j2t2 at September 7, 2011 10:22 PM
Comment #328834

RF,

I want readers on WB to understand from where our “unalienable rights” emanate. And it sure as hell isn’t government or progressives, or liberals, or republicans, or democrats, or conservatives.

If one can’t understand this simple concept, then one is doomed to be denied the exercise of those rights.

My personal belief is that the idea that we have unalienable rights is a Platonic Noble Lie that Jefferson masterfully invented. The Jeffersonian concept of Natural Rights is heavily influenced by the Lockean concept of a “Social Contract” between citizens and their political government. Locke’s Social Contract theory says that the people agree to abide by the king’s laws so long as the king agrees to abide by Nature’s laws: life, liberty & property. Jefferson made an important distinction when he replaced the Lockean right to property with the Jeffersonian right to the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson’s decision to place the origin of our rights with our Creator instead of some social contract was brilliant. Because this “noble lie” is held to be true among the populace, it has led to a much sturdier preservation of liberty in our society.

Adrienne,

And let me assure you, had I myself lived during either Lincoln’s era, or Teddy Roosevelt’s era, I would have without a doubt been a progressive who voted Republican. Well, had I been a man that is — since women didn’t win the right to vote until 1920!

Wyoming Women won the right to vote in 1869; slightly too late for Lincoln, but plenty of time before TR. By the early 20th century, nearly every Western US state as well as a couple of Eastern ones.

BTW, did you know that before 1807 NJ women could vote if they met the same property ownership requirements as men. However, it was very difficult for a woman to own any property; usually the only way for this to happen would be if her husband died without an heir, thereby granting the widow his property.

TH,

I am part of that group that the president was talking about. My taxes have doubled over that last two years.

You must have a serious addiction to tobacco and artificial tanning salons. Both income & payroll taxes have only been lowered by Obama & the Democrats.

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 7, 2011 11:36 PM
Comment #328835

RF:

OK, since you bring it up, the civil war was a progressive war?

Absolutely. It ended slavery.

Who were the progressive leaders of the time?

It began well before the Civil War with the Abolitionist Movement. Mennonite Quaker groups in Pennsylvania were the first to speak out, and Thomas Paine was the first to publish anything formally on the idea of emancipation. For many years the abolitionist movement was peaceful, but then came the Fugitive Slave Act and John Brown, who thought that people hunting down slaves that dared to run away called for violent insurrection. After freeing many slaves and killing a bunch of slaveowners, Brown willingly died for his cause. When he heard that his sentence was to be hung by the neck, he said:

“If it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments—I submit; so let it be done!”

On the day of his hanging he wrote this:

I John Brown am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty, land: will never be purged away; but with Blood. I had as I now think: vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed; it might be done.”

At the time (the year Brown was hung was 1859) there were few people on either side of the emancipation question who claimed to agree with what Brown said there, yet only a year later the first state seceded from the Union (South Carolina) and only two years later (1861) the Civil War began.
Lincoln naturally stands out as the progressive leader of the Civil War. And as we all know, he also died for the cause of emancipation too, because John Wilkes Booth was pro-confederate and rabidly anti-abolitionist. In fact, that guy was so anti-abolitionist that it is said he had traveled just to be present at John Brown’s hanging.

What does being created “equal” mean to a progressive?

Everything. But at the founding of this nation they were only stirring and noble-sounding words that didn’t actually reflect reality. Progressivism is exactly what always has been and is, needed to give those words meaning and turn them into reality. We’re not there yet — and who knows how long it will take? But progressives will never stop pushing forward against the regressive forces that always push back against all our efforts turn Jefferson’s wonderful idea for this country into actual substance.

And that is what is so maddening about the reactionary right and the way that so many of you love to hold your viewpoints up as the only true patriotic voices in America. The fact is, you don’t understand our patriotism. Ours on the left means we aren’t supposed to stop and rest on our laurels crowing about American greatness when in actuality, we still haven’t even come close to reaching what Jefferson laid out for us in the preamble of the Declaration!

What is the role of government in ensuring equality.

It’s important. Yet what role they play usually depends entirely on what issue of inequality is the focus.

Stephen wrote:

Your problem is that your party simply doesn’t check it’s outlandish bull**** about what liberals believe against reality, and when we try to inform you of our real beliefs, you think we’re lying to you.

Lol! Well said! It’s sad but true.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2011 12:02 AM
Comment #328839

WR

“You must have a serious addiction to tobacco and artificial tanning salons. Both income & payroll taxes have only been lowered by Obama & the Democrats.”

That is slanderous.

I have neither addiction.

Why do you have to make such a stinking, stupid statement?

If you want to throw down the gauntlet, pick another place, not here. On another platform I will take you on and give you a ten count.

Posted by: tom humes at September 8, 2011 4:00 AM
Comment #328841
Why do you have to make such a stinking, stupid statement?

The are the only taxes that have been substantially increased under Obama are taxes on cigarettes & a new tax on users of artificial tanning salons. When you mentioned that your taxes had doubled (which I think is an absurd claim), the only conclusion I drew was that the doubling in your taxes must’ve been related to the increased taxes on tobacco and artificial tans. I know of no other tax increases that have been implemented under the Obama administration. Here are two stories, one about the tax increases on tobacco and one about the new tax on artificial tans:

Republicans also opposed the manner in which SCHIP would be financed in 2009 and beyond — through a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco, bringing the tax for a pack of cigarettes to $1. SCHIP was largely financed through tobacco-tax revenues during its first decade. Although Democrats touted this increase as a way of achieving their “pay-as-you-go” pledge, they also argued that it would reduce children’s exposure to secondhand smoke and discourage young people from taking up smoking. Republicans called the increased cigarette levy regressive, asserting that it amounted to a tax on the poor.

It’s the first controversial element of the new health law to take effect: Starting Thursday, people who partake of indoor tanning services will pay a 10 percent tax to help underwrite the costs of the rest of the new law.

My apologies for the offense. Last night I wasn’t fully awake when I composed that comment and didn’t fully think through the impact of what I said. I merely intended to poke a little fun without thinking about how others may interpret what I wrote. This morning I clearly see that my words had dual meaning, one of which was quite offensive, but this wasn’t my intention. I’m sorry; I got blinded by my own ego instead of looking at how my words would be perceived by others.

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 8, 2011 7:58 AM
Comment #328844

WR
I do accept that.

Posted by: tom humes at September 8, 2011 11:22 AM
Comment #328853

Thanks to Adrienne for answering my questions about progressive thinking.

Perhaps I am a progressive conservative. Many of your goals are the same as mine concerning helping people lead better lives.

That government is necessary and useful is not denied by me. That government has defined boundaries as written in our founding documents can not be denied either.

The contentious issues almost always involve those very boundaries established by the Constitution. And, of course, that is why the have the Supreme Court.

I argue not with many progressive goals to improve the lot of our citizens as they coincide with my goals as well. It is not the goals of progressives that I object to in most cases, just the means they use to accomplish them.

Many times, the goals of progressives are pursued at the unwarranted expense and liberty of others. When that occurs, it is no longer progressive, but socialistic. At that juncture, our political ideologies clash.

Perhaps we can have a discussion some time about the abuse of government when employed to force social outcomes.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 8, 2011 1:48 PM
Comment #328866

RF:

Thanks to Adrienne for answering my questions about progressive thinking.

You’re welcome.

Perhaps I am a progressive conservative.

Judging from your comments in this blog, I find that extremely doubtful.

It is not the goals of progressives that I object to in most cases, just the means they use to accomplish them.

I realize this. I happen to object to most conservative goals because they cater to maintaining the status quo, and also object to the means they use to accomplish them — namely, making many people suffer and struggle.

Many times, the goals of progressives are pursued at the unwarranted expense and liberty of others.

Spoken like a true elitist.

When that occurs, it is no longer progressive, but socialistic.

No, that’s just the way that rightwingers like to put it. That word is always used as a smear, and in reality the vast majority of people on the right don’t truly understand what socialist theory actually calls for.

Perhaps we can have a discussion some time about the abuse of government when employed to force social outcomes.

Okay. Thank you for the discussion.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2011 3:35 PM
Comment #328876
Comment #328844

WR
I do accept that.
Posted by: tom humes at September 8, 2011 11:22 AM

Fair enough.

Now would you like to explain how you claimed that your taxes have doubled? As I said before, the only taxes that have been increased over the last two years are excise taxes on tobacco & artificial tans. Even Grover Norquist’s site struggles to name any other taxes that have gone into effect over the past two years that impact people making

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 8, 2011 4:21 PM
Comment #328877

Stephen,

You said regarding unalienable rights, “That view was in opposition to the notion of the divine right to rule. Under King George’s theory, whatever rights you were to have were granted by, and could be taken away by the king, and he could retain legitimacy because he was God’s chosen ruler.

Thomas Jefferson and others were challenging that notion. They were saying that God only conferred legitimacy on governments that guaranteed equality, and which maintained people’s rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. King George’s authority, according to their theory, relied on his acknowledgment and preservation of these rights.”

I believe that you have this wrong; slightly wrong, but in a way that makes a huge difference. Jefferson was stating that because man has these rights, he can rebel and choose to organize another form of government. Not that governments that guaranteed those rights are legitimate. In fact he and most framers assumed that governments (including our own) would attempt to intrude upon those unalienable rights which is why they specifically included the Bill of Rights as part of the constitution which precludes government intrusion against these rights.

More simply, the unalienable rights do not emanate from the government they preceed it and are the basis on which governments are formed.

Posted by: Rob at September 8, 2011 4:23 PM
Comment #328901

Royal Flush,

“Rocky, I will just ignore your comment. It has no meaning.”

Really?

I can assume then that you concede the point that there were actual liberals in the Republican party, and along with the moderates that once called themselves Republicans, were purged from the roles?

“Perhaps I am a progressive conservative.”

In reality this isn’t an oxymoron, however in past generations, progressive conservatives were willing to do whatever it took to work with the Democrats for the good of the country.

Frankly, I don’t see that in your comments. Nor do I see it from any conservative that now posts here.

From the Rude pundit;

“Republicans succeeded in wrecking the United States post-9/11 because, except for a brief moment in the last presidential election, they convinced Americans that unity was for losers, pansies, cheaters, and teat-suckers.”

Conservatives with their “my way or the highway” attitude aren’t interested in unifying anything, least of all Americans.

So Royal, feel free to not comment on this post either. I am quite sure it would be beneath you to do so.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 8, 2011 6:52 PM
Comment #328910

Rob-
I don’t think I was unclear on that, or in actual disagreement. After all, a crucial part of the quote centers around the alternative of alteration as well as abolition.

I would say the bill of rights goes a long way towards giving the American people the ability to alter government when it fails to live up to its duties.

And, as a matter of fact that would be the main point of what I wrote up above. If I seem angrier nowadays than I once was, it’s because of the continued failure of many to live up to addressing the needs of this country.

I think the way I put it to my brother the other day was that the needs of the American people were being put second to what were basically imaginary political requirements.

If there’s been a theme to what I oppose, it’s turning government to solving problems that aren’t real, or drumming up false problems to turn government away from problems that are real.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 8, 2011 9:15 PM
Comment #329085

TH,

Comment #328876

Comment #328844

WR
I do accept that.
Posted by: tom humes at September 8, 2011 11:22 AM

Fair enough.

Now would you like to explain how you claimed that your taxes have doubled? As I said before, the only taxes that have been increased over the last two years are excise taxes on tobacco & artificial tans. Even Grover Norquist’s site struggles to name any other taxes that have gone into effect over the past two years that impact people making
Posted by: Warped Reality at September 8, 2011 4:21 PM

80 hours have elapsed you have not responded. I’m still interested in your explanation of how your taxes doubled in the last two years.

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 11, 2011 11:44 PM
Comment #329209

After reliving the horrors of 9/11/01, the Republican tea party and the negative, petty, bickering of the GOP stands out in stark contrast.
You could sure tell when Boehner and Cantor and company were back in DC. The negative, immature behavior and comments commenced. It was such a nice couple of weeks.

Posted by: nancy at September 13, 2011 7:32 PM
Comment #329291

TH, Now it has been 150 hours. I now assume your previous statement was a fabrication.

nancy,
Welcome to Watchblog, I hope to hear your voice in future comments. I still think it is quite interesting that the same party that suggested that any variety of dissent in 2002-2003 implied treason is now presenting us with unprecedented behavior. Rep Golmert apparently stole the title of Obama’s Jobs bill; that sort of antic is not what being a Congressman is all about. Can you imagine Reagan or Bush having to deal with that kind of flak?

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 15, 2011 12:02 AM
Comment #329338
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The Sins I Cannot Forgive At some point, this has to stop. What are these people elected to do, sacrifice America’s future until their own is assured? America doesn’t need leadership when Republicans are done winning their victories over the Democrats.
Absolute nonsense.

Blind partisan loyalties prevent too many people from seeing that most (if not all) in Congress (and the voters that repeatedly reward most of them with perpetual re-election) are about equally responsible for the nation’s massive debt of nightmare proportions and other problems growing dangerously in number and severity. At least, theoretically, until that sort of delusional behavior finally becomes too painful.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I‘m not terribly sophisticated when it comes to what I expect out of government. I want success, long term and short term for my country. I want an economy that works, I want its fiscal house in order.
Really?

From previous discussions, you were unable to find any pork-barrel in several pork-laden BILLs coming out of Congress.

  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You say that the stimulus bill is full of pork.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you really look at the stimulus bill, you‘ll find much of it is about industries and infrastructure, and not merely in terms of shovel-ready projects.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n, I don’t see pork barrel there, little projects just meant to appeal to a base back home.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you want to discuss pork, discuss real pork, with real facts. Don’t just make the claim [of pork] (watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006452.html#276501).
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: So, proceeding from that, let’s consider another question: what constitutes wasteful spending? Unfortunately, that definition for some can be so vague and non-specific than even spending to good effect is slapped with the label of porkbarrel.

Do you also believe over half a billion dollars wasted on Solyndra, and $20 Billion on other similar nonsense is the solution?
Some estimates show that each job created cost tax payers $5 million per job!

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I want the public good to come first, not the policy goals of some lobbyists who merely want their own specific interest catered to.
Then why repeatedly reward YOUR incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: When it comes down to it, my ideas of what’s ideal in politics is decidedly dull and average. This is what aggravates me about morons telling me that I‘m a socialist. I‘m not! They say I‘m wanting to destroy the economy. Wrong! They say I want to strangle the business owners with red tape. I just have to shake my head.
Doth protest too much?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: People like me represent a wasted opportunity for the right, an opportunity that could have at least kept a back and forth centrist equilibrium going between the two parties. They could have been reasonable about policy, reasonable about fiscal matters, reasonable about the wars and their undertaking. They could have done things practically during the economic crisis, and kept this country from sliding into the depths it did economically. But no. Republicans have gotten greedy. They’re not content to share power. They’re not content to have their precious vision of political perfection adulterated. And so, for the last decade, they’ve been a deadweight on the proper function of government. Either they’re insisting on taking policies that have clearly failed to their absurd conclusion, or they’re working to drag down any policies Democrats have come up with as an alternative.
And the OTHER party is not equally greedy?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I‘m not all the sophisticated when it comes to what I want. I‘d be willing to live with periods of Republican rule, if I thought they gave a crap about governing properly. But they’re not, so I‘m not.
And the OTHER party is better, to any degree that matters?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: It took me years of their horrifying failures to take care of problems to convince me of this, years of seeing a won war spiral out of control, an economy burn itself out then collapse in a mass of stupid decisions, ten years of wholly unnecessary deficits with Republicans giving themselves a pass on their spending, and so on and so forth, to come to this conclusion.
Well, it is the wrong conclusion, because it is tainted by blind partisan loyalties.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The last few years haven’t helped either. I‘ve seen my country suffer so much harm, but instead of helping to take care of that, Republicans instead have chosen to hobble the Democrats, and then blame them for being so wrong. The neverending fusillade of negative commentary just floors me with its intensity and its reckless disregard for the truth. Are they thinking that they can make the Democrat’s rule all seem like a long national nightmare, and that when they takeover, things can go back to normal? Is this the way things are going to be done?
Wallowing in the blind, circular, partisan warfare is not the solution.

Finally understanding the fact that B O T H political parties are too greedy, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt is part of the solution.
Finally understanding how so many people are tricked into blindly cheer-leading for either of the greedy, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt parties is part of the solution.
Finally understanding how no challengers to incumbents from the same party insures high re-election rates for incumbents is part of the solution.

However, if that logic does not work, then simply wait.
When the painful consequences of ignoring that simple logic and repeatedly rewarding incumbents with re-election finally becomes too painful, then it will perhaps make more sense?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s nuts to reward this kind of politics, and I don’t care for arguments that these tactics will inevitably be rewarded. Whatever the politics are of the people running our government, the functioning of our nation should come first, ahead of politics!
Yet, too many people choose to do that very thing, over and over and over, wallow in the blind, destructive, circular partisan warfare, and repeatedly reward THEIR incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election.

Why?
Because they do not want the candidate in the OTHER party to win.
And since neither party offers non-incumbent challengers, guess who wins most of the time?
The incumbents!
Duh!?!

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The Republicans may preach …
Funny how some people do the very thing they accuse others of, eh?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: … their love of this country, but it seems like their love of this country compares to real love the way a wife-beater compares to a good husband. Again and again, we see contempt for the well-being of the country, most recently in attempts to make new budget turf-wars out of disaster money requests, but most profoundly in the recent Debt crisis, a crisis made entirely out of one party’s unwillingness to perform a basic duty of this government without turning into hostage drama.
Such an apparent and deep hatred of Republicans (or Democrats) is exactly what the incumbent politicians want. They love to fuel the partisan warfare, and shamelessly do it all the time. Don’t you see that BOTH sides are about equally guilty of it?

Such rabid, non-stop, prolific Republican bashing is looks pretty damn ridiculous.
Likewise for those that fuel and wallow in the Democrat bashing, and fueling the blind, circular partisan warfare.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The Republicans succeeded in making Obama look unpopular and weak on that one, right?
Right. It is ALL the Republicans’ fault, eh?

A $14.5 Trillion federal debt of nightmare proportions, and rampant irresponsible spending with no-end-in-sight had nothing to do with it, eh?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: That’s such a great damn victory, considering that it earned this country’s its first downgrade, not to mention sinking the Republican’s own popularity with it.
Nonsense. Have you forgotten that blind partisan loyalties is the prevailing influence?

There is no pain yet from the downgrade. Most Americans don’t give a damn about the S&P rating downgrade. Many don’t even understand it, nor have a clue what it means.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I mean, haven’t the Republicans heard of Pyrrhic victories? Haven’t they learned that there are some ways to win that just aren’t worth it?
More nonsense. BOTH parties just take turns being the IN-PARTY and the OUT-PARTY.

The IN-PARTY gets to abuse power for a while, and the OUT-PARTY does all it can to sabotage the IN-PARTY’s goals.
And then they trade places, and the cycle starts all over, but incumbent politicians still enjoy very high re-election rates.
Cha-Ching!!!

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t see a healthy party when I look at the Republicans even if they can pull of some pretty significant political victories.
And the OTHER party is better?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Look at the polls, and you see a very unpopular party. If they’re winning, it’s simply because they’re effective at being venomous and tearing down the other side.
And the OTHER party is better?

At least, for very long?
Again, have not you noticed that BOTH parties just take turns being the IN-PARTY and the OUT-PARTY?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: But as 2006 and 2008 demonstrated, that only works for so long. 2010 gave them the gift of two branches run by the other party, shielding them from the negative reaction towards the policies and circumstances of the last two years. But Republicans are responsible now, for at least one half of one of the branch, and their role has arguably been one that has been nothing but negative. They didn’t win the American people over to their cuts or their shutdown of the government, and at the end, few people were cheering on their hostage taking of the debt limit. They’ve seen literally nothing good come out of this Congress.
OOOooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh….you want those terrible Republicans to suffer terribly, don’t you?

Well, there are blind, partisan voters in BOTH parties (Democrats and Republicans) from both ends of the spectrum … both hoping to sway 51% of the voters … just enough to win another turn at being the IN-PARTY for a while.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: For better or worse, Democrats can at least say they did things, made laws that help people.
Do you really believe that nonsense?

Do you have any idea how ridiculously naive that sounds (not to mention, blindly partisan)?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Republicans can only say they took this nation on an ordeal, and delivered them policy that nobody can say they were pleased with.
Really?

So, what has changed since S&P’s downgrade by one measely notch from AAA to AA+ ?
In my opinion, the other ratings agencies should be considering downgrades too, with so much debt, and no plans to stop the rampant spending, creating new money from thin air, rising inflation, etc.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What can Republicans say they have done that has pleased anybody?
Republicans!!! Republicans!!! Republicans!!! Republicans!!!

And what has the OTHER party done?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What positive legacy are they running on? Like amphetamine or cocaine addicts, the Republicans have adopted the belief that if they keep on hyping themselves up, that they’ll be able to keep this up forever. My sense is NO. No, they are going to crash at some point. The Tea Party shows a fracturing in the party, as much as it shows renewed energy, and the energy comes entirely from the notion of defeating the current Democrats in power. What future does that have?
More rabid fueling the partisan warfare …
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Well, my guess is not much. If they succeed, they get to see just how unpopular continuing or aggravating the status quo is. They also would likely use their success to do even more damage to the center-holding ability of the GOP by pushing even more true conservatives out. If they fail, then the Tea Party becomes the scapegoat, and in the process of being run out, takes energy of the GOP with it.
Maybe. So what?

All the OUT-PARTY has to do is wait a few years, enough of the voters will forget (or never knew of) the past, and they will become the IN-PARTY again.

Why?
Because they do not want the candidate in the OTHER party to win.
And since neither party offers non-incumbent challengers, guess who wins most of the time?
The incumbents!
Duh!?!

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Republicans will not escape the consequences of their actions, long term, because they’ll never truly drop those policies, never truly give up on those attitudes that got them into trouble. The fact that Rick Perry has become more and more popular so quickly is indicative of how little progress the party has made. It’s the political equivalent of marrying your mother or father, really, despite your protests that you are so much different than they are.
Obviously, some people have got it really bad.

So bad, they can’t see the truth.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: But don’t tell me nobody’s going to look at that man, and not remember why they sought out Barack Obama in the first place. Ah, but Obama has his own negatives now, doesn’t he? Well, unfortunately, Republicans have doubled down on their own negatives as well. They’re losing a race to the bottom, with poll numbers worse than Obama’s!
To the bottom?

Then why cheerlead for either party?

How many years and decades (if ever) before you realize that your party (for the most part) does not give a damn about you, or anyone else.
They only care about holding onto power, and that takes a lot of money in a country where government is FOR-SALE (as evidenced by 99.7% of all 220 million eligible U.S. voters are vastly out-spent by a tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: That’s what mystifies me. Why don’t you people see you’re burning yourselves up while you’re hurting us?
You will most likely continue to be mystified as long as you look through partisan blinders.

BOTH of the two main parties are quite simply FOR-SALE.
Most of their campaign contributions come from a tiny percentage of the voters (i.e. the wealthiest voters).
As long as government is FOR-SALE, it is unlikely to change any time soon … perhaps not until it becomes too painful.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: In a strictly cold-blooded strategic sense, the best you can do if your people don’t have their own positives is make things more uncertain. There’s no dynamic, no sense that Republicans are a better alternative. Republicans were content to use their newfound power to push a wishlist of things important to them, but despite their criticism about Obama having no jobs plan (what was the Stimulus, chopped liver?) in their eight months in office, their first third of their Congress’s term, it is they who have done nothing. Not merely nothing in the sense of trying to pass something and failing, they’ve literally failed to offer a truly jobs related agenda.
Republicans!!! Republicans!!! Republicans!!! Republicans!!!

And you have the nerve to ever accuse anyone else of repetition ?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s somewhat symbolic that Boehner and company postponed Obama’s address to the joint houses of Congress in order to protect their precious pre-primary debate. It shows the utter contempt they have for the President and his authority. It shows how willing they are to tear down the institutions of this country when they’re not in their hands, how much of a double standard they have.
HHMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … that’s an interesting interpretation … consistent with an obvious disdain for anything Republican, eh?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: But most of all, it’s a nice and symbolic way of demonstrating how much contempt they have for getting the actual business of Government done, much less the business of bringing back jobs. After complaining for months about the President not offering a policy to create jobs, after campaigning against the Democrats and him on the subject, instead of welcoming the President’s suggestions and debating them afterwards, Republicans have chosen to hold their debate and have used their power to delay any real plans on jobs.
Nonsense.

First of all, the federal government can not create jobs.
Attempts to do so are almost always a dismal failure.
There will undoubtedly be more news in the future about billions of dollars wasted by the federal government trying to pick winners and losers, and doing a very bad job of it (as usual).
We can’t all work for the government.
We can’t all do each others’ laundry.
It simply does not work.
We have to produce something of value, and government is not very good at that.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: They’ve had so much time to do something, but still all they want to do is talk the issue to death.
They?

Yes, BOTH Democrat and Republican incumbent politicians. What’s new?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: So much that this country needs, and all they want to do is talk, and push policies that are all talk. The sin I will not forgive the Republicans for is their unwillingness to abandon their fantasies to deal with the reality of where their policies and ideas have gotten us.
But what ever you do, don’t place any significant share of that blame on your beloved Democrat party, eh?

Do you realize that sort of rabid wallowing in the blind, circular, partisan warfare fuels the same of equal ferocity in the OTHER party.
It is a lose-lose game.
So why foolishly continue to play it?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: This country can’t heal until the GOP finally hits rock bottom and stays there, because every time it gets back in power, something worse happens.
What’s new?

Again, have not you noticed that BOTH parties just take turns being the IN-PARTY and the OUT-PARTY?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I‘ve had all the screw-ups from them I can stomach. Let some third party swallow them up, and get a right wing in America that’s accountable and sensible again. I don’t care. Just as long as the Republicans and right wingers out there get shocked into living in the real world again, rather than continuing to dwell in their fever-dream alternate reality.
Again, have not you noticed that BOTH parties just take turns being the IN-PARTY and the OUT-PARTY?

The right-wing extremists are not going away any more than the left-wing extremists … at least, not until the painful consequences of BOTH finally become too painful.

The only thing more convincing and effective than EITHER IN-PARTY or OUT-PARTY is pain and misery.

  • QUESTION: When does the lunacy, greed, government FOR-SALE, and corruption finally end?
  • ANSWER: When it finally becomes too painful.

Until then, keep on pulling the party lever, wallowing in the blind, circular partisan warfare, doing the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result.
Wait and see where repeatedly rewarding irresponsible, greedy, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election gets you and others who do the same.
The one consolation is that the people that who that, will reap what they sow.
The blindly partisan people will most likely only stop such behavior when it finally becomes too painful, and they finally realize that the single, biggest, core problem with their government is that it is quite simply FOR-SALE (as evidenced by 99.7% of all 220 million eligible U.S. voters are vastly out-spent by a tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more)!

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 15, 2011 10:23 PM
Comment #329407
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The Sins I Cannot Forgive At some point, this has to stop. What are these people elected to do, sacrifice America’s future until their own is assured? America doesn’t need leadership when Republicans are done winning their victories over the Democrats.
Absolute nonsense.

Blind partisan loyalties prevent too many people from seeing that most (if not all) in Congress (and the voters that repeatedly reward most of them with perpetual re-election) are about equally responsible for the nation’s massive debt of nightmare proportions and other problems growing dangerously in number and severity. At least, theoretically, until that sort of delusional behavior finally becomes too painful.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I‘m not terribly sophisticated when it comes to what I expect out of government. I want success, long term and short term for my country. I want an economy that works, I want its fiscal house in order.
Really?

From previous discussions, you were unable to find any pork-barrel in several pork-laden BILLs coming out of Congress.

  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You say that the stimulus bill is full of pork.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you really look at the stimulus bill, you‘ll find much of it is about industries and infrastructure, and not merely in terms of shovel-ready projects.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n, I don’t see pork barrel there, little projects just meant to appeal to a base back home.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you want to discuss pork, discuss real pork, with real facts. Don’t just make the claim [of pork] (watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006452.html#276501).
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: So, proceeding from that, let’s consider another question: what constitutes wasteful spending? Unfortunately, that definition for some can be so vague and non-specific than even spending to good effect is slapped with the label of porkbarrel.

Do you also believe over half a billion dollars wasted on Solyndra, and $20 Billion on other similar nonsense is the solution?
Some estimates show that each job created cost tax payers $5 million per job!

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I want the public good to come first, not the policy goals of some lobbyists who merely want their own specific interest catered to.
Then why repeatedly reward incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: When it comes down to it, my ideas of what’s ideal in politics is decidedly dull and average. This is what aggravates me about morons telling me that I‘m a socialist. I‘m not! They say I‘m wanting to destroy the economy. Wrong! They say I want to strangle the business owners with red tape. I just have to shake my head.
Doth protest too much?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: People like me represent a wasted opportunity for the right, an opportunity that could have at least kept a back and forth centrist equilibrium going between the two parties. They could have been reasonable about policy, reasonable about fiscal matters, reasonable about the wars and their undertaking. They could have done things practically during the economic crisis, and kept this country from sliding into the depths it did economically. But no. Republicans have gotten greedy. They’re not content to share power. They’re not content to have their precious vision of political perfection adulterated. And so, for the last decade, they’ve been a deadweight on the proper function of government. Either they’re insisting on taking policies that have clearly failed to their absurd conclusion, or they’re working to drag down any policies Democrats have come up with as an alternative.
And the OTHER party is not equally greedy?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I‘m not all the sophisticated when it comes to what I want. I‘d be willing to live with periods of Republican rule, if I thought they gave a crap about governing properly. But they’re not, so I‘m not.
And the OTHER party is better, to any degree that matters?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: It took me years of their horrifying failures to take care of problems to convince me of this, years of seeing a won war spiral out of control, an economy burn itself out then collapse in a mass of stupid decisions, ten years of wholly unnecessary deficits with Republicans giving themselves a pass on their spending, and so on and so forth, to come to this conclusion.
Well, it is the wrong conclusion, because it is tainted by blind partisan loyalties.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The last few years haven’t helped either. I‘ve seen my country suffer so much harm, but instead of helping to take care of that, Republicans instead have chosen to hobble the Democrats, and then blame them for being so wrong. The neverending fusillade of negative commentary just floors me with its intensity and its reckless disregard for the truth. Are they thinking that they can make the Democrat’s rule all seem like a long national nightmare, and that when they takeover, things can go back to normal? Is this the way things are going to be done?
Wallowing in the blind, circular, partisan warfare is not the solution.

Finally understanding the fact that B O T H political parties are too greedy, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt is part of the solution.
Finally understanding how so many people are tricked into blindly cheer-leading for either of the greedy, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt parties is part of the solution.
Finally understanding how no challengers to incumbents from the same party insures high re-election rates for incumbents is part of the solution.

However, if that logic does not work, then simply wait.
When the painful consequences of ignoring that simple logic and repeatedly rewarding incumbents with re-election finally becomes too painful, then it will perhaps make more sense?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s nuts to reward this kind of politics, and I don’t care for arguments that these tactics will inevitably be rewarded. Whatever the politics are of the people running our government, the functioning of our nation should come first, ahead of politics!
Yet, too many people choose to do that very thing, over and over and over, wallow in the blind, destructive, circular partisan warfare, and repeatedly reward THEIR incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election.

Why?
Because they do not want the candidate in the OTHER party to win.
And since neither party offers non-incumbent challengers, guess who wins most of the time?
The incumbents!
Duh!?!

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The Republicans may preach …
Funny how some people do the very thing they accuse others of, eh?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: … their love of this country, but it seems like their love of this country compares to real love the way a wife-beater compares to a good husband. Again and again, we see contempt for the well-being of the country, most recently in attempts to make new budget turf-wars out of disaster money requests, but most profoundly in the recent Debt crisis, a crisis made entirely out of one party’s unwillingness to perform a basic duty of this government without turning into hostage drama.
Such an apparent and deep hatred of Republicans (or Democrats) is exactly what the incumbent politicians want. They love to fuel the partisan warfare, and shamelessly do it all the time. Don’t you see that BOTH sides are about equally guilty of it?

Such rabid, non-stop, prolific Republican bashing is looks pretty damn ridiculous.
Likewise for those that fuel and wallow in the Democrat bashing, and fueling the blind, circular partisan warfare.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The Republicans succeeded in making Obama look unpopular and weak on that one, right?
Right. It is ALL the Republicans’ fault, eh?

A $14.5 Trillion federal debt of nightmare proportions, and rampant irresponsible spending with no-end-in-sight had nothing to do with it, eh?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: That’s such a great damn victory, considering that it earned this country’s its first downgrade, not to mention sinking the Republican’s own popularity with it.
Nonsense. Have you forgotten that blind partisan loyalties is the prevailing influence?

There is no pain yet from the downgrade. Most Americans don’t give a damn about the S&P rating downgrade. Many don’t even understand it, nor have a clue what it means.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I mean, haven’t the Republicans heard of Pyrrhic victories? Haven’t they learned that there are some ways to win that just aren’t worth it?
More nonsense. BOTH parties just take turns being the IN-PARTY and the OUT-PARTY.

The IN-PARTY gets to abuse power for a while, and the OUT-PARTY does all it can to sabotage the IN-PARTY’s goals.
And then they trade places, and the cycle starts all over, but incumbent politicians still enjoy very high re-election rates.
Cha-Ching!!!

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t see a healthy party when I look at the Republicans even if they can pull of some pretty significant political victories.
And the OTHER party is better?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Look at the polls, and you see a very unpopular party. If they’re winning, it’s simply because they’re effective at being venomous and tearing down the other side.
And the OTHER party is better?

At least, for very long?
Again, have not you noticed that BOTH parties just take turns being the IN-PARTY and the OUT-PARTY?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: But as 2006 and 2008 demonstrated, that only works for so long. 2010 gave them the gift of two branches run by the other party, shielding them from the negative reaction towards the policies and circumstances of the last two years. But Republicans are responsible now, for at least one half of one of the branch, and their role has arguably been one that has been nothing but negative. They didn’t win the American people over to their cuts or their shutdown of the government, and at the end, few people were cheering on their hostage taking of the debt limit. They’ve seen literally nothing good come out of this Congress.
OOOooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh… let’s punish those terrible Republicans to suffer terribly, eh?

Well, there are blind, partisan voters in BOTH parties (Democrats and Republicans) from both ends of the spectrum … both hoping to sway 51% of the voters … just enough to win another turn at being the IN-PARTY for a while.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: For better or worse, Democrats can at least say they did things, made laws that help people.
Do you really believe that nonsense?

Do you have any idea how ridiculously naive that comment is (not to mention, blindly partisan)?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Republicans can only say they took this nation on an ordeal, and delivered them policy that nobody can say they were pleased with.
Really?

So, what has changed since S&P’s downgrade by one measely notch from AAA to AA+ ?
In my opinion, the other ratings agencies should be considering downgrades too, with so much debt, and no plans to stop the rampant spending, creating new money from thin air, rising inflation, etc.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What can Republicans say they have done that has pleased anybody?
Republicans!!! Republicans!!! Republicans!!! Republicans!!!

And what has the OTHER party done?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What positive legacy are they running on? Like amphetamine or cocaine addicts, the Republicans have adopted the belief that if they keep on hyping themselves up, that they’ll be able to keep this up forever. My sense is NO. No, they are going to crash at some point. The Tea Party shows a fracturing in the party, as much as it shows renewed energy, and the energy comes entirely from the notion of defeating the current Democrats in power. What future does that have?
More rabid fueling the partisan warfare …
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Well, my guess is not much. If they succeed, they get to see just how unpopular continuing or aggravating the status quo is. They also would likely use their success to do even more damage to the center-holding ability of the GOP by pushing even more true conservatives out. If they fail, then the Tea Party becomes the scapegoat, and in the process of being run out, takes energy of the GOP with it.
Maybe.

So what?
All the OUT-PARTY has to do is wait a few years, enough of the voters will forget (or never knew of) the past, and they will become the IN-PARTY again.

Why?
Because they do not want the candidate in the OTHER party to win.
And since neither party offers non-incumbent challengers, guess who wins most of the time?
The incumbents!
Duh!?!

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Republicans will not escape the consequences of their actions, long term, because they’ll never truly drop those policies, never truly give up on those attitudes that got them into trouble. The fact that Rick Perry has become more and more popular so quickly is indicative of how little progress the party has made. It’s the political equivalent of marrying your mother or father, really, despite your protests that you are so much different than they are.
Obviously, some people have got it really bad.

So bad, they can’t see the truth.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: But don’t tell me nobody’s going to look at that man, and not remember why they sought out Barack Obama in the first place. Ah, but Obama has his own negatives now, doesn’t he? Well, unfortunately, Republicans have doubled down on their own negatives as well. They’re losing a race to the bottom, with poll numbers worse than Obama’s!
To the bottom?

Then why cheerlead for either party?

How many years and decades (if ever) before you realize that your party (for the most part) does not give a damn about you, or anyone else.
They only care about holding onto power, and that takes a lot of money in a country where government is FOR-SALE (as evidenced by 99.7% of all 220 million eligible U.S. voters are vastly out-spent by a tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: That’s what mystifies me. Why don’t you people see you’re burning yourselves up while you’re hurting us?
You will most likely continue to be mystified as long as you look through partisan blinders.

BOTH of the two main parties are quite simply FOR-SALE.
Most of their campaign contributions come from a tiny percentage of the voters (i.e. the wealthiest voters).
As long as government is FOR-SALE, it is unlikely to change any time soon … perhaps not until it becomes too painful.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: In a strictly cold-blooded strategic sense, the best you can do if your people don’t have their own positives is make things more uncertain. There’s no dynamic, no sense that Republicans are a better alternative. Republicans were content to use their newfound power to push a wishlist of things important to them, but despite their criticism about Obama having no jobs plan (what was the Stimulus, chopped liver?) in their eight months in office, their first third of their Congress’s term, it is they who have done nothing. Not merely nothing in the sense of trying to pass something and failing, they’ve literally failed to offer a truly jobs related agenda.
Republicans!!! Republicans!!! Republicans!!! Republicans!!!

And you accuse others of repetition ?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s somewhat symbolic that Boehner and company postponed Obama’s address to the joint houses of Congress in order to protect their precious pre-primary debate. It shows the utter contempt they have for the President and his authority. It shows how willing they are to tear down the institutions of this country when they’re not in their hands, how much of a double standard they have.
HHMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … that’s an interesting interpretation … consistent with an obvious disdain for anything Republican, eh?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: But most of all, it’s a nice and symbolic way of demonstrating how much contempt they have for getting the actual business of Government done, much less the business of bringing back jobs. After complaining for months about the President not offering a policy to create jobs, after campaigning against the Democrats and him on the subject, instead of welcoming the President’s suggestions and debating them afterwards, Republicans have chosen to hold their debate and have used their power to delay any real plans on jobs.
Nonsense.

First of all, the federal government can not create jobs (other than those needed to operate the government, which is already extremely bloated, fraudulent, inefficient, and wasteful).
The federal government could help create an environment for higher employment, but it appears to be doing just about everything possible to prevent that.
Unfortunately, wealth can not be created by merely creating more money out of thin air.
Attempts to do so are almost always a dismal failure.
There will undoubtedly be more news in the future about billions of dollars wasted by the federal government trying to pick winners and losers, and doing a very bad job of it (as usual).
We can’t all work for the government.
We can’t all do each others’ laundry.
It simply does not work.
We have to produce something of value, and government is not very good at that.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: They’ve had so much time to do something, but still all they want to do is talk the issue to death.
They?

Yes, BOTH Democrat and Republican incumbent politicians. What’s new?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: So much that this country needs, and all they want to do is talk, and push policies that are all talk. The sin I will not forgive the Republicans for is their unwillingness to abandon their fantasies to deal with the reality of where their policies and ideas have gotten us.
But what ever you do, don’t place any significant share of that blame on your beloved Democrat party, eh?

The rabid wallowing in the blind, circular, partisan warfare only fuels more of the same with equal ferocity from the OTHER party.
It is a lose-lose game.
So why foolishly continue to play it?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: This country can’t heal until the GOP finally hits rock bottom and stays there, because every time it gets back in power, something worse happens.
What’s new?

Again, have not you noticed that BOTH parties just take turns being the IN-PARTY and the OUT-PARTY?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I‘ve had all the screw-ups from them I can stomach. Let some third party swallow them up, and get a right wing in America that’s accountable and sensible again. I don’t care. Just as long as the Republicans and right wingers out there get shocked into living in the real world again, rather than continuing to dwell in their fever-dream alternate reality.
Again, have not you noticed that BOTH parties just take turns being the IN-PARTY and the OUT-PARTY?

The right-wing extremists are not going away any more than the left-wing extremists … at least, not until the painful consequences of BOTH finally become too painful.

The only thing more convincing and effective than EITHER IN-PARTY or OUT-PARTY is pain and misery.

  • QUESTION: When does the lunacy, greed, government FOR-SALE, and corruption finally end?
  • ANSWER: When it finally becomes too painful.

Until then, keep on pulling the party lever, wallowing in the blind, circular partisan warfare, doing the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result.
Wait and see where repeatedly rewarding irresponsible, greedy, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election gets you and others who do the same.
The one consolation is that the people that who that, will reap what they sow.
The blindly partisan people will most likely only stop such behavior when it finally becomes too painful, and they finally realize that the single, biggest, core problem with their government is that it is quite simply FOR-SALE (as evidenced by 99.7% of all 220 million eligible U.S. voters are vastly out-spent by a tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more)!

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 17, 2011 3:40 PM
Comment #330872

Supra shoes care your personalties
Supra shoes,devoted to revealing personaltiessupra tk society,keep its high reputation in the pop world.many peopleTK Society are fans of supra shoes,including children.as we all know,children are usually eager to find their personalties and attract attention.just as we once dreamed that we were the center of the world,that is just vanity for children but
supra muska skytop we should give children guidance.and supra shoes can help your

Posted by: cvfgh at October 22, 2011 3:57 AM
Post a comment