Democrats & Liberals Archives

Want Real Envy, Palin Fans? I'll Show You Envy.

I got your envy right here. Republicans have taken something that’s absolutely normal for a President, and turned into some kind of intelligence test that real Presidents shouldn’t need. The irony is, one of their latest digs at him has him speaking in defense of a Black Harvard professor, without a Teleprompter in sight.

And does he sound any different? Not really, but that's not the dig they're paying attention to, so they don't notice it. The truth is, politicians, the Presidents especially, have been using the device since Eisenhower's time.

That includes Reagan, too. Bush, Clinton, Carter, Nixon, Kennedy- they all used it. And why not? You prefer to look your politicians in the eye, not look at the top of their heads.

The President's critics have called attention to it time and again. And why? Because they wish to make it look like a crutch for an otherwise stupid and tongue-tied man. They want him to be the empty suit. They want him to be the man who can do nothing but make pretty speeches, and those only while he reads them.

He has to be Bush, in other words. He has to be equally bad as the last President, so the question that a candidate like Sarah Palin brings up doesn't come up.

Rick Santorum attacks Obama for using one, but as Michael Gerson commented:

His Super Tuesday victory speech, delivered in Steubenville, Ohio, did not make use of a teleprompter -- or any other form of rhetorical discipline. It was a 20-minute ramble of lame jokes, patriotic platitudes and half-developed campaign themes. On the evidence of these remarks, Santorum's guiding philosophy is "free enterprise" and "free people" held together by free association. He vaguely honored Ronald Reagan for saying inspiring words, without bothering to contribute any of his own. He praised the "greatest generation" without crafting a single phrase that captured their accomplishments.

That night was, perhaps, the high-water mark of Santorum's presidential campaign -- the culmination of nine months of effort and sacrifice. But the moment found him, quite literally, speechless. The world will not long remember, or even briefly recall, the Steubenville address.

Presidents have employed speechwriters literally since the days of Washington. Having a prepared speech, or projecting it on a pane of glass so you're not greeting the audience with the top of your head as you read your speech notes has only become a sin when it became necessary to take Barack Obama's superior speaking skills, and make it a liability. But does it really serve our purpose as a nation to do that?

Gerson later makes an interesting argument:

Santorum's case for extemporaneousness depends on a questionable premise. He assumes that authenticity is identical to spontaneity. By this standard, the most authentic political communication would come after rousing a candidate from bed in the middle of the night, turning him around three times and asking him to share the deepest convictions of his heart. This elevation of instinct and impulse is deeply unconservative -- akin to arguing that the only authentic love is free love. Conservatives generally assert that discipline and preparation reveal authentic commitments, not discredit them.

The argument's always struck me as a little silly. Sure, you want a candidate who can speak off the cuff, and I've seen Obama do so enough to know that he doesn't need the teleprompter at all times to sound intelligent. He regularly gets complimented as the smartest guy in the room by military and civilian personnel who get his input.

Why shouldn't Obama put his best words forward? Why should he dispense with the same modern speaking aid that Reagan and Kennedy were both perfectly fine with? Why should people not admire his gifts, even as they take a critical eye to what he says?

Republicans are truly jealous. That's why they pushed Sarah Palin, at least some of them. They were jealous of the appeal that Democrats had, with a woman and a black man at the top of the ticket. They were jealous of the energy he brought to the game, the spirit he gave to the Democrats across the board.

Losing that election hasn't quenched that envy. The Tea Party and Glenn Beck didn't inflate their crowd totals for the sake of abstract digit glee. They did it because the preceding year had one mention after another of how many people were attending Obama rallies. The Tea Party was meant to be a response to Obama's movement of the previous year, and while there's no denying it's success in the 2010 election, there is quite a bit you could say about it's lack of success thereafter. The Tea Party Congress has worked fewer days, passed far fewer bills, and reduced Congress's popularity even further with antics that had the world once again looking at our government with pity. With only the House of Representatives, and no willingness to compromise, their most successful tactics were hostage taking tactics that proved to be no more popular this time around than Newt Gingrich's tactics in 1995.

They covet the Presidency, just as they did back then. Unfortunately, they've squeezed the life out of their own party trying to force it, in the aftermath of 2006 and 2008, to move even further right. The consequences of that is this self-destructive vacillation that has Republicans shifting between supporting Mitt Romney, who everybody knows is a moderate in red-meat conservative's clothing, and folks like Santorum and Gingrich, who don't have to pretend to be such, but also don't quite fit into those centrist suits they'd have to wear to fit the general election dress code. They can kid themselves that being that conservative won't hurt their chances, but for folks who feel they have their fingers on the pulse, they've been saying a lot of things- the lot of them- that have left people feeling that they're not quite as close to the mainstream as they would like to believe. Heck, their current Romney alternative has said plenty of things regarding women's issue that have raised eyebrows.

Romney hasn't been much better, and he lacks the charisma that gives Obama quite an advantage.

So, out come the teleprompter comments, from folks like Santorum and others. Out come the accusations of being empty suits, of being a radical. Anything to get people to ignore the President's nice-guy, forthright, charismatic personality. Anything to ignore the fact that Obama can extemporize on issues effectively, and make speeches and presentations to voters that confirm to them his qualifications to hold the office.

They can't hold their own against a careful, articulate, intelligent, charismatic politician like Barack Obama, so guess what they're asking you to do? They're asking you to join them in twisting around being well-spoken, being good at getting points across into something bad, to follow their sour grapes lead to disregard the obvious skills and talents of Barack Obama, which they don't have.

At the same time, they want you to help them elect folks who in previous elections would have been gone by Super Tuesday. It's the mark of the envious, those truly jealous of the power that others have that they angrily demand that other people overlook their shortcomings, believing it unfair that they be judged on what they see. They supposed themselves superior, or the warriors of the better cause, and can't understand why those they have such contempt for would be able to win.

Santorum's contempt for Obama, like those of many Republicans, has become a crippling case of contrarianism, as he, rather than follow his own logic, instead acts as Obama's mirror image on issues. But opposition to consistent logic doesn't necessarily yield logical consistency from those doing the opposing. An argument isn't just a series of claims, it's a series of appeals to reality that need the facts on their side the be genuinely sound and valid.

Palin's fans, in other columns, have accused me of being envious of her. I find that amusing where I don't find it offensive. The simple truth is, I don't envy Sarah Palin or any Republican at this point. They don't possess the qualities I admire or wished I possessed. Instead, nowadays, they seem to be especially lacking in the kind of leadership qualities I really want. Why should I admire, much less be jealous of folks like them? They don't seem to be intellectually strong, or charismatically persuasive. They don't seem particularly clever, relying almost strictly on a psychotic level of paranoia they encourage through a relentless flood of propaganda. I don't see people being dazzled by brilliance, I see them befuddled by bull****. And I see the morale just seeping more and more out of the party as they are confronted with the kind of sub-par candidates relying on such politics invites into the fray.

So, long story short, I see a political movement reaching the end of its unnaturally extended life. Why should I admire the leaders of a political movement on life support? Palin, Santorum, Romney, and their behavior are all symptoms of a problem within a party that can no longer maintain the fiction of being both a strongly conservative and broadly popular party, and which now finds itself torn in two trying to follow both courses at the same time.

My party can be bother more confidently liberal, and broader in its appeal at the same time without tearing itself apart in the process. Why do I need to envy parties, political figures and candidates who can't do that, who are well into the process of defeating themselves, one way or another?

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at March 14, 2012 1:17 AM
Comments
Comment #338175

Personnelly Stephen I don’t care about who uses or don’t use a teleprompter. There are more pressing issues in this country then pidily issues of teleprompters. But you must envy Palin because your always bringing her up she’s a commentater for Fox she’s out of politics except for helping certain candidates. She’s not running for any political office so why bring her up. Either you envy her or your affraid of her.

Posted by: KAP at March 14, 2012 4:19 PM
Comment #338177

KAP-
Or I find her a useful example for how deranged Republican politics has become. Why be so quick to come to her defense? What is there for me to envy or fear about her?

I keep on trying to tell you guys, I think your system is pathological. I think your software and hardware is reaching the end of its operational life, and it needs to be replaced. You’re running Windows 98 in a Windows 7 world.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 14, 2012 4:49 PM
Comment #338178

Stephen, your the one who brings her up as far as I’m concerned she irrelevant, she’s not running for any office, she’s just a comentator for Fox. Either you have the hots for her or your affraid of her which is it. Personnelly I could care less about her she means nothing to me. By the way I wouldn’t vote for her if she was running for office.

Posted by: KAP at March 14, 2012 5:09 PM
Comment #338182


While Palin was an abysmal failure as a politician, even by Republican standards, she has proven herself to be a formidable opportunists, and since Fox is an important propaganda outlet for the right, Palin is still a viable target for the left.

The left used to get a lot of smiles out of George Bush’s ability to read a teleprompter at a 6Th grade level. I consider Bush’s great improvement in that area, during his last 4 and a half years, as his fourth greatest achievement.

Posted by: jlw at March 14, 2012 6:33 PM
Comment #338185

Stephen

I deliver prepared remarks whenever I have to get them right. I don’t expect presidents to be able to handle all the minute detail of their portfolios. In fact, I think it is bad when they try, cf the failure of Jimmy Carter.

The problem with President Obama is that he is always scripted, even when he is “unscripted”. So nothing Obama says is spontaneous; everything has been tested with focus groups and opinion research. That means that President Obama never has the right to claim that anything he says is off the cuff. Sometimes Democrats try to dismiss criticism of the president by claiming he was just talking informally. This is never true.

Posted by: C&J at March 14, 2012 6:54 PM
Comment #338187

Jack,

“The problem with President Obama is that he is always scripted, even when he is “unscripted”.”

I have done enough corporate events to understand what and why the teleprompter is used for.

I have heard the “producer” countless times through the headset deride the speaker for going off the “prompter”.

There are two reasons for this;

1)Staying on the prompter keeps the speaker “on message”. Very often when the speaker goes out on their own they begin to ramble, and this leads to the second point.

2)Staying on the prompter keeps the speaker on time.
I am sorry to say this but we Americans have a really short attention span. Those of us that don’t watch News-Hour have been trained to take our information in short sips rather than huge gulps. We prefer to know all of the headlines, and don’t seem to want any of the little details.

“So nothing Obama says is spontaneous; everything has been tested with focus groups and opinion research.”

Focus groups and opinion research have been around for decades. Politicians have been telling us what we want to hear for centuries.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 14, 2012 8:06 PM
Comment #338188

C&J,

What you are criticizing Obama for seems to be preparation and discipline. The fact that, even in informal exchanges, he maintains discipline and message is a fault?

Posted by: Rich at March 14, 2012 8:28 PM
Comment #338194

Rich & Rocky

I don’t object to President Obama being prepared and scripted.

But I do point out that means that he is completely responsible for everything he says. We have had exchanges on this blog where I have been castigated for picking on a detail of an Obama statement. But when you have tested each word, others need to pay attention to each word.

It is a good idea not to let him get off script, or he comes up with the clinging to God and guns statements.

I would also say that when Reagan was president, he was criticized for being an actor and delivering lines written for him by others. Reagan in fact had a clearly defined core of values that you can find in is own handwriting from way back. But if people believed it was wrong for Reagan, why is it okay for Obama to “play-act”?

Posted by: C&J at March 14, 2012 10:10 PM
Comment #338201

C&J-
There’s having standard responses- i.e., talking points, and then there’s just recycling slogans. I’ve seen Obama go off script enough to know he can handle it, that he can handle questions he hadn’t planned on.

That, in fact, was part of the charm of the guy that got me to become a supporter. Where other folks sounded like mixtapes of political jargon, Obama was and is able to express points in more common language and more conversational tone. He’s able to discuss issues like you or I would discuss them. That’s a valuable and underrated skill.

As for being focused grouped and everything? I doubt any candidate lacks for them, but there’s something you can’t get from a focus group, and I think Obama’s got it.

Obama gets the teleprompter thrown at him because folks want to make him seem like he’s not competent if he doesn’t have a prompter in front of him, that he has to be fed his lines, and that’s far from the truth.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 15, 2012 1:32 AM
Comment #338212

Stephen,

“…that he has to be fed his lines…”

I am probably stating the obvious here, but it is virtually impossible to “feed” somebody lines with a teleprompter.

That isn’t how it works.

The best prompter operator I ever worked with had a typing speed of 157 words per minute. She would load the prepared speech ahead of the speaker and merely scrolled the text at a comfortable speed for the speaker to read. That also doesn’t mean that speaker always relies entirely on the prompter, thus the word “prompt”.

Anecdotally, there was an event that I worked several years running. The president of the institute that put on the event was not a very good speaker, yet every year he gave the opening speech, and every year he rehearsed that speech on the stage when the crew could have been programming the rest of the show.
Every year the speech was the same except for the age of his children, and the year of school they were in.
There were video screens through out the venue so that the audience could see the speaker better. This gentleman was so nervous giving this speech that his eyes never left the teleprompter, and the words he spoke had all the life of a sock.

My point is that a teleprompter is a tool, and that’s all it is. It is there to help the speaker keep his place.

Very few people are capable of giving a speech without having notes in front of them and even fewer can infuse personality into a speech they are merely reading.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 15, 2012 8:37 AM
Comment #338216

“You’re running Windows 98 in a Windows 7 world.”

Windows 98 was more reliable. Windows 7 is error prone and bug ridden.

The same is true with Obama.

Maranatha

Posted by: Tom Humes at March 15, 2012 11:40 AM
Comment #338219

tom humes-
Maybe on an ancient, fourteen year old computer, if you still have that running. But today’s computers run too much RAM and too much Hard Drive for that thing, and I doubt Win98 plays well with the multiprocessor cores today’s computers have. I mean, computers have gone from PCI to PCI express on the cards, from IDE/ATA on the hard drives to SATA, from SDRAM on the RAM to DDR RAM. And I don’t think Win98 handles 64 bit processing well.

I remember the last machine I had which depended on Win98 was a single processor 800mhz, computer which could play DVDs, but only record CDs. It had 128 MBs of RAM, and a video card that could barely handle Neverwinter Nights. I upgraded to XP, and though that was a bit of a performance hit, I didn’t regret it.

My latest computer comes with a Terabyte of Hard drive space, 8GBs of RAM, and a quad core 64 bit processor. I don’t think Win 98 could even deal with that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 15, 2012 2:10 PM
Comment #338222

Good grief; Tom Humes gives an example of the inadequacies of Obama and SD now dazzles us with his brilliant knowledge of the history of computers. It appears SD doesn’t have the ability to comprehend an allegory. But SD did make one valid point…it was the use of the word “RAM”. RAM is what Obama and the left has done to the American people. Ram HC, ram regulations, ram EPA, ram illegal’s, ram voter fraud, ram taxes, ram higher gas prices….you get the point.

I believe in Nov 2012, the American voter is going to do some ramming of their own.

Posted by: Frank at March 15, 2012 2:47 PM
Comment #338229


Frank, I believe you are right. The Republican candidates have been speaking and the majority isn’t liking what they are hearing. Some of that stuff plays well in many red states, but not the blue and purple ones. Some of it doesn’t play all that well in the red states.

The Republicans are about down to their last hope, the economy, and it’s not cooperating nearly as much as they would like. Actually, the economy is doing the exact opposite of what Republicans have been saying that Obama would cause it to do.

The damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t strategy is wearing thin.

Hang in there, Iran may still cooperate, but the hard liner Ahmadinejad in on the ropes. The Iranian economy has tanked and the Iranian people are not happy at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Iranians start coming around, especially with the hard line conservatives loosing favor.

Posted by: jlw at March 15, 2012 5:05 PM
Comment #338232

Frank-
The funny thing is, I understand what he meant just fine. I just had a different experience of Windows 98. You can’t really run professional software, and the newer technology can barely run on it, if at all. It doesn’t take advantage of multiple processors or the newer processing functions like hyperthreadin. It can only run SATA drives in an emulation mode, and then only run four disk drives.

I think he’s wrong about Obama, too. I think he doesn’t understand the situation out there, and neither do those people in the clown car. They’re all running on the old software of right-wing politics, the stuff even Eisenhower and Buckley thought was buggy, but now it’s expected to save the country.

I get your point. Your point seems to be that any reversal of years of your ramming policies down our throat is an evil thing.

Take voter fraud. What voter fraud? The statistics alone demonstrate that while registration fraud happens on occasion, its vanishingly rare when somebody actually shows up and votes as somebody they’re not.

To solve that nonexistent problem, the Republicans have vote-caged, targeted organizations that get out the vote, written up voter ID laws so draconian the courts are striking them down as we speak. The cure is worse, far worse than the disease in damaging the meaning and capability for people to get their votes counted. And why did this happen?

Supposedly, the pretext was what happened in Florida in 2000. But what happened there? Well, you had a poorly engineered ballot that introduce a lot of human error into the vote, making the true count uncertain.

So, in other words, your solution’s not even dealing with the right problem, much less one that truly is a big problem.

As for illegals, I saw many, many more illegals coming over after Bush took over, than when Clinton was in office. It used to be that I could go out there and get mowing jobs when I was a teenager. That ended pretty quickly after Bush took office, and that was when the problem truly began to escalate.

As for everything else? We tried things your way. We tried letting those people police themselves, tried letting the market discourage pollution and all that. It hasn’t worked like it was promised to. So we’re going to try something new, despite the protests of the people whose party failed to get things right themselves, and have no right to complain as people see alternatives to get what they want.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 15, 2012 6:35 PM
Comment #338234

SD wrote; “So we’re going to try something new…”

Really, the dems have tried big spending for decades…hardly anything new. The pinhead obama merely represents the biggest, maddest, and most unfruitfull spending of them all.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 15, 2012 7:53 PM
Comment #338235

Royal

Right. The Obama plan should be called “That 70s show” since that is where the ideas come from.

Posted by: C&J at March 15, 2012 8:07 PM
Comment #338236

Once again SD offers his feelings and personal beliefs with no facts:

“Take voter fraud. What voter fraud?” Stephen Daugherty

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/how-rare-is-voter-fraud.php

http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html

“To solve that nonexistent problem, the Republicans have vote-caged, targeted organizations that get out the vote, written up voter ID laws so draconian the courts are striking them down as we speak.” Stephen Daugherty

Yes Stephen, like ACORN listed above.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/State_by_State_Voter_ID_Laws

Look how many states require voter ID’s. All of these states passed voter ID laws by public vote or by elected officials. Yet Stephen has a problem with this. Perhaps he would rather have people who are not qualified vote in liberal democrats? We know he supports a corrupt DOJ leader who should resign. Perhaps Stephen Daugherty could tell us of one single state who reversed their voter ID laws, and I am not talking about the ones Holder has managed to tie up in court?

“As for illegals, I saw many, many more illegals coming over after Bush took over, than when Clinton was in office.” Stephen Daugherty

Excuse me SD, but did I mention who was president when the illegals crossed the border? No, I didn’t. But we have an illegal problem. Some estimates show 20 million illegals in America. That is 6%+ of the population. Could 20 million sway an election? Why yes they could, and that is exactly what Stephen Daugherty and the rest of the anti-American socialist want. So what do you do? Why claim racism, voter rights being violated, but it doesn’t matter that they are illegal, does it Stephen?

http://www.desertinvasion.us/data/invasion_numbers.html#howMany Illegals

Tell me Stephen, is there anything about America that makes you proud, that you would be willing to fight for, or is there any part of the Constitution that you would not be willing to trash? Everyone else paid the price so your lazy ass could sit in front of a computer screen and spew your anti-American rhetoric. You didn’t have to pay anything, did you? It was all handed to you. My old man always said, “If you have to work and pay for your things, you will appreciate them”. But Stephen, you are part of an ungrateful generation of those who have had their heads filled with mush at liberal colleges by liberal professors. So just keep spouting your defense of a man who is trying to destroy the nation.

Posted by: Frank at March 15, 2012 8:36 PM
Comment #338237


Royal, the Republican party put Obama in the Whitehouse and they seem determined to keep him there.

The people are starting to show concern about tax breaks for the wealthy and Republicans respond by proposing another round of tax breaks for the wealthy.

The people rejected the privatize or eliminate entitlement programs and Republicans respond with another attempt to bribe the baby boomers into going along. The Republicans individual liberty rants are falling mostly on deaf ears. Trying to argue that those who by most assessments are the freest people on earth that they are not free doesn’t work very well for the right or the left.

Then there is the Republican deregulation policy which the people are now experiencing first hand. If we would only let the Republicans do more deregulation they promise a real depression next time.

It is the Republican party that is stuck in a rut when it comes to policy. Most of their policies have been rejected by the majority and the Republicans seem incapable of creating new ones. So they resort to voter suppression and attacking and alienating constituency groups, while their own constituents are demanding a none of the above box on the Republican primary ballots.

Posted by: jlw at March 15, 2012 8:43 PM
Comment #338260

Frank-
The Bush Administration made this a priority, after claiming that tens of thousands of people were illegally voting in an organized fashion.

They came up well short of their claims. the Bush DOJ, hardly biased against going after such people, managed 86 convictions out of 120 people charged in five years of their policy. Put another way, 17 people convicted, on average, per year, from 24.

In the meantime, far more people have lost their ability to vote, thanks to your overzealous and often cynically emplaced restrictions. So if not that many people are losing the vote thanks to convictable fraud, but plenty are losing the vote thanks to overbearing policy on the part of the right wing. You can talk about the integrity of the system, but what your people are really trying to do is discriminate against voters who form possible or likely Democratic Party constituencies. I can’t put it more bluntly than that.

I’d say the problem that Republicans have with hispanics have little to do with illegal immigrants, and everything to do with the legal immigrants and natural born citizens who feel that your party has made them a punching bag for those wishing to exploit post-9/11 anxieties about undocumented individuals entering the country. I’d say you’re just about to have the same problem with Women as well, now that reproductive services and the right to medical privacy have become targets of the right in earnest.

As for your last paragraph? In my philosophy, it is both the right and the duty of a citizen to keep themselves and others informed of current events, of what’s going on in the seats of their government, and to give feedback by the vote and other means to correct that government when it strays from what in their informed judgment is the good of the public.

I believe I’m doing what I’m supposed to be doing. I love my country, and if you’ve taken my words at face value for a second, you’d realize I’ve never expressed an ounce of hatred for it. I’ve dissented to your positions, but you’ve elevated your platform to the level of apocalyptic necessity, convinced yourself that there are no alternatives, and then turned around and interpreted my dissent as knowing, malicious hatred for my country.

I want what’s best for my country. You don’t agree with that. Fine. That’s inevitable in this country, and I’m at peace with the fact, though I don’t always like it. So what’s going to happen, is that our viewpoints, and those of millions of others are going to compete, and our system, our wonderful, beautiful system is going to give us the opportunity to hash that out peacefully and on a correctable basis. That last part is crucial, because the feedbacks, between people and each other, people and politicians, between what we think is right, and what is actually true are always complex, and always ongoing.

That I’m not perpetually saying nice things about our foreign policy, that I don’t share your opinion about the constitution and its interpretation, that I don’t agree with how you would set the balance between freedoms and obligations in this country, or how government should intervene in the economy, is no reason for you to cook up this notion that I hate my country, or want to mooch off of it, taking what I don’t deserve. That’s just what people like you say, in order to make yourselves look like the good guys, and us like the villains.

But the truth of the matter is, the real world is much more complex.

My generation was brought up, essentially, on Reagan and Bush era optimism and patriotism. We really believe in this country. But we have ideals, and we have memories not just of better times in our childhood, but the gradual worsening of the middle class’s condition. We’ve seen the adults take up the right wing positions, and put them to the test, and we’ve seen them not only fail in Reagan’s time, but now in our own.

You talk like we’re just wastes, like we were always going to be ungrateful wretches. But the truth is, you had us, and you lost us, because your party took a sharp right turn into extremism, incompetence and ignorance.

You can stop blaming liberal professors. I went to Baylor, and had professors who were open about Christian faith and their values before the class. And I had little problem with them having those values. If I have little patience for your brand of conservatism, it’s because I’ve experience a much more intellectually well-founded, a much friendlier brand of it, with people who were willing to intelligently discuss things with a person who remained a rather strong liberal even through all those years of education at such a conservative institution.

Your problem is, you assume you will win by being hostile, and unwilling to listen to anybody else but your party faithful. You strangled your own appeal to everybody else but your base, and it’s been catching up to you for the last six years.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 15, 2012 10:40 PM
Comment #338262

“In the meantime, far more people have lost their ability to vote, thanks to your overzealous and often cynically emplaced restrictions. So if not that many people are losing the vote thanks to convictable fraud, but plenty are losing the vote thanks to overbearing policy on the part of the right wing.”

You complain that there is not much evidence of voter fraud, pointing to only 86 convictions.

How many convictions have been made among those have made people love their voter. Voter intimidation is a crime too.

Of course, Obama’s DOJ wouldn’t prosecute those Black Panthers who stood outside and threatened people.

It is not onerous for a person to produce an id to vote. Those that don’t have such ids are easily provided with them. We defend the rights of people to vote when we defend the vote from fraud.

We make it extraordinarily easy to vote in this country. The charges of widespread suppression are never substantiated.

We have to be vigilant against fraud. We have had this sway elections in the past. There is no reason to think nobody would do it in the present or the future.

Do you lock your door when you leave your house? Have you often been robbed? Do you think that if you didn’t lock your door a few times that you would be robbed? Probably not, but due diligence requires reasonable precautions. And if we took away all the locks, there would indeed be more crime. A simple precaution like asking for an ID is like locking your door when you leave for the day.

Posted by: C&J at March 15, 2012 11:04 PM
Comment #338278

Do we have an illegal alien problem, yes? Is the left supportive of illegals entering the country, yes. Would they like to capitalize on elections by allowing illegals to vote, yes? This very concept of illegals voting in America is a violation of the Constitution. In fact everything Obama and his administration have done is a violation of the Constitution and Stephen Daugherty supports everything Obama does; therefore Stephen Daugherty is supportive of trashing the Constitution. It’s a simple matter of logic.

We show ID to get in a hospital, Doctor’s office, bank account, state license bureau, buy tobacco and alcohol, cash a check, and yet Stephen Daugherty is against showing an ID to prove citizenship when voting. There is only one of two reasons (in Stephen’s case three) for not wanting someone to show an ID: to create a racist incident, to allow illegals to vote for democrats, and in Stephen’s case to protect and defend Obama. Stephen Daugherty is the typical “water boy” for Obama. He would defend Obama at all costs for all things. It’s not about Constitution, it’s not about right or wrong, it’s only about defending a socialist liberal president. It is frankly sickening.

If Stephen was concerned about people’s rights, he would be concerned that Holder dropped the case on the black panthers; but he’s not. Why? Because it is an Obama man (Holder) and he supports everything Obama does.

Stephen, I am not hostile toward anyone; but I do recognized blind lemming ignorance. I know what your generation is like. I have a son your age who has worked 18 hours a day for years to build a business that employs better than 20 people. They make good union wages and my son makes a good living; in spite of the liberal left who has tried to block him at every turn with taxes and regulations. So I know firsthand what the liberal Democratic Party is all about. They are no friend to people who create jobs and they are no supporters of the Constitution. My son and millions of other small business owners are building America, while your breed is doing their best to destroy America. Obama is an apologist for the success of America and your kind is too, and it’s because you can’t think for yourselves. You can only parrot what you hear. Like I said Stephen, you and your liberal friends (including Obama) can sit behind your computer screens and spout your liberal socialist agenda for America because someone else paid the price to give you that right. You have done nothing to make America. The left are leeches and parasites on the successful people of America. Tell me one thing the left has done or proposed that does not involve the taxing of working Americans or the redistribution of wealth? Not one thing. In fact every great liberal social program that the left loves to hold up as success for America is nothing more than taxing those who will work to give to those who will not.

When you and your leftist friends have done something besides complain about America; when you have created jobs and wealth, then you can come and tell us of your great plans. Obama never did anything for America; he was a leech community organizer, stealing from those who create to give to the slugs of society and he was a politician. This is exactly why we have the problems we have today. Defend him all you want, but I will tell you America is fed up. They will vote this fall and they will send this idiot back to his corrupt Chicago, where he belongs.

Posted by: Frank at March 16, 2012 9:51 AM
Comment #338284

C&J-
The decision not to prosecute a Criminal case was the Bush Administration’s, not the Obama Administrations, and they decided not to because nobody came up to claim that they had been intimidated. You can’t prosecute voter intimidation all that well, if nobody is going to go on the witness stand and say they were intimidated.

Even so, the Obama Administration pursued strong civil sanctions against them.

The charges of widespread voter fraud are what have never been substantiated. Those crimes simply are not occurring the way you think they are. We shouldn’t be keeping ourselves vigilant against a nonexistent problem, especially if it creates an all too real difficulty for voters seeking to express their constitutional right.

Frank-

Do we have an illegal alien problem, yes? Is the left supportive of illegals entering the country, yes. Would they like to capitalize on elections by allowing illegals to vote, yes? This very concept of illegals voting in America is a violation of the Constitution. In fact everything Obama and his administration have done is a violation of the Constitution and Stephen Daugherty supports everything Obama does; therefore Stephen Daugherty is supportive of trashing the Constitution. It’s a simple matter of logic.

There’s nothing simple about your logic. Should I count out to you how many of your conclusions either depend on assertions you haven’t proved, which you simply take for granted, or the ones where you haven’t even begun to prove that Obama could benefit in such a way as to make a difference in his election victory?

I mean, let me break this down: California went overwhelmingly to Obama, but Democrats have done well there since 1992, and even during the days of Bush, he never once got California. Given that this has been the case long before illegal aliens were a problem, saying that Obama only got California based on an influx of illegals is a questionable notion at best Obama didn’t need any new flood of illegal immigrants to win California.

So what’s left over, in terms of Border States, and those in the Southwest? 5 electoral votes in Nevada, 9 in Colorado, and 5 more in New Mexico.

19 electoral votes. Take that from Obama’s column, put it in McCain’s, and guess what? Obama still wins by a margin of 154 electoral votes. Take Florida away, and he still wins by 98 electoral votes.

Most of the states Obama won were clustered up north, in the Northeast and Midwest. He did himself some favors by winning additional states further south, like Virginia and North Carolina, but most of his gains were far from where illegal immigration would logically have the most profound impact.

I get this all the time: arguments that feel compelling, but that break down when you look closer at the claims.

Obama has little to gain in the Presidential race, by tipping the balance one way or another. If he concentrates his efforts in the states he won before, and wins them again, he can easily absorb losses in most states. Since these states aren’t altogether rich in Congressional seats, either, and those are decided more periodically, he also gains little in the way of Congressional support by any theoretical drive to GOTV with illegal aliens. Also, given that the population concentrations of actual hispanic citizens is relatively high, he can more easily win by appealing to legal citizens than by some cockamamie vote fraud scheme which would have the potential to backfire on him something fierce.

You want to talk logic, logic isn’t just a sequence of things you believe leading to a point, it’s a set of facts which taken taken together in a structured argument prove a conclusion, especially one which doesn’t seem immediately obvious or intuitive otherwise. I can prove pretty well that Obama has little to gain from such hijinks, and in fact has been deporting people faster than his predecessor.

Why should I believe you when you can’t even make a decent case that Obama or any other candidate would depend on the very area where most illegal immigration is occuring? You haven’t even bothered to make the case that such an influx would make the crucial difference.

Instead, we just get you on a tirade against us, as personal matters. That’s how you’ve learned to argue, while people like me have developed our skills, competing on uneven ground, with a media that doesn’t care to give us the help the Republicans and the Tea Party get from theirs.

But there’s a plus side to that: we’re tougher than you, at this point, and more resilient. Your side won several times, and guess what? It wasn’t the end of the world. Now your side faces losses, and they don’t know what to do with themselves besides gut whatever moderation was left in their party.

Your party’s spread itself damn thin, trying to stretch old positions made irrelevant, discredited or unpopular by time to fit a new society, and getting angry and forcing it when that doesn’t work.

You can talk about Sending Obama back to Chicago, but who’s going to do it, the radicals that would scare off people in the general election, or the guy most Republicans seem intent on not voting for themselves?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 16, 2012 1:33 PM
Comment #338285

So does CA have a voter ID law?

You seem to miss the point Stephen, or you failed to read the links. MN was one of the most corrupt voter fraud states in the Union. It is not as much presidential fraud as it is state. How many hundred votes did Al Franken win by in MN?

“Why should I believe you when you can’t even make a decent case that Obama or any other candidate would depend on the very area where most illegal immigration is occuring? You haven’t even bothered to make the case that such an influx would make the crucial difference.”

The mindset of a liberal is to destroy freedom one step at a time. First you have illegal immigrants, and the “Oh God” their children are born in America, they must be citizens; hen we hear again “Oh God” we can’t send the illegal parents back to Mexico, that wouldn’t be fair on the kids. “Oh God”, think of the children, of whom liberals couldn’t give a rat’s ass for, but they make good political talking points. 20 million illegals in the country and again the liberals say, “Oh God”, they’re working in the country (illegally) and paying SS (on a fictitious SS number) and they’re paying taxes (again on a fictitious number), heck Stephen illegals are even filing federal tax forms and getting money back for child credit. The US paid out millions to illegals for child credits last year alone. Back to the point; since they are doing all this (even though its illegal) the democrats cry “Oh God” they need the right to vote, because they’re paying taxes. Then some logical minded Republican says we need voter ID, and again the liberal democrats cry “Oh God” you’re trying to deny the right of illegals to vote in American politics. Sounds stupid don’t it; but that’s the mind of a liberal.

“Instead, we just get you on a tirade against us, as personal matters. That’s how you’ve learned to argue, while people like me have developed our skills, competing on uneven ground, with a media that doesn’t care to give us the help the Republicans and the Tea Party get from theirs.”

Stephen, you are one sick person. Since when do the media help conservatives?

http://www.westernjournalism.com/top-50-examples-liberal-media-bias/

I’ll even give you this Gallop poll to let you know your views are in the minority …again:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149624/Majority-Continue-Distrust-Media-Perceive-Bias.aspx

What skills, it doesn’t take much skill to repeat the daily talking points of the WH and democrat congress. That is called “Parroting”, which you are good at. Uneven ground; if by that you mean 20% of liberals trying to make th other 80% of Americans into a socialist state, then I guess it is uneven ground.


“But there’s a plus side to that: we’re tougher than you, at this point, and more resilient. Your side won several times, and guess what? It wasn’t the end of the world. Now your side faces losses, and they don’t know what to do with themselves besides gut whatever moderation was left in their party.”

Oh yes Stephen, your side is really tough; a bunch of panty waist girly men. Most of the liberal women on WB have more go-nads than the liberal men.

Posted by: Frank at March 16, 2012 2:19 PM
Comment #338286

Frank-
Look, you’re arguing both voter fraud, and the included notion of illegal alien voter fraud, from ignorance. Nobody’s catching them do this, catching them actually making votes more than once, or cathcing them voting once when they’re in ineligible.

Logic is a means of testing conclusions for soundness and validity. Soundness means the facts are on its side. You can have a perfectly good argument, but the facts might not be on your side. For example, voter fraud subverts Democracy, so we should guard against it. Citizens only should be able to vote in an election. Your problem is that while those concerns are valid, there’s little evidence that the measures previously employed failed to prevent those problems.

But your logic is lacking in its inference, too.

Consider: In the 2008 election, Obama won California by more than three million votes, with nearly a quarter of the voters as his margin. It wasn’t even close, about eight million to five. The Democrats won California in the previous elections by about 1.2 to 1.5 million votes each time, since 1992. So why would Obama organize to commit voter fraud in a state no one in their right mind would consider a swing-state? What’s the incentive? It was never going to be close there. So, courting illegal aliens and their votes? There’s not enough in it for him, even today. He’s not going to lose California, He’s not likely to get Texas, and the rest of the states are not on fire with electoral votes. The South has been reliably Republican, the North reliably Democratic.

You’re basically running along the lines of ready, fire, aim, when it comes to your arguments. You already are convinced that they’re overrunning us like it’s fricking Normandy. You’re already convinced Obama cheated to win. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were convinced he was foreign or a Muslim, at this point. You’re convinced of so many damn things. But so much of what you assume seems built on what somebody else told you, and what you did not bother to check out for yourself.

Do you really believe that California was going to go for McCain? If so, why? Do you have any polling that would indicate the three million vote win was a shocking discrepancy? No. What you got is the conviction that Obama is some evil mastermind, that Democrats are all crooks, and that somehow, magically, they can manage to defraud the country on millions of votes with no one revealing the massive conspiracy necessary for that to occur.

You’re living in a Hollywood Fantasy, a fairy tale meant to cover for the fact tha that your party’s on its decline.

The bias you really need to resolve is your own. It’s keeping you from realizing that the Stephen you think you’re getting the better of is just your own strawman. The real Stephen, the one who can argue these things from basic facts (like California going reliably Democratic since 1992 by at least 1.2 Million) is kicking your butt.

Can you do anything else but change the subject, and hope to distract people at this point?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 16, 2012 3:37 PM
Comment #338287


The largest block of support for illegal immigration is the business community. The largest illegal immigrant support system is the Catholic Church.

Frank, the political party that allowed the illegal immigrants to flood across our borders is the same political party that now says it wants to drive them out of the country. George Bush and the Republican party welcomed the illegal immigrants with open arms. Bush got more than 60% of the Latino vote.

In 2008, Obama got more than 90% of the black vote and nearly 70% of the Latino vote. Since the Republican party doesn’t care about the majority of these constituencies, it only makes good political sense to suppress these voters and prevent as many as possible from exercising their right to vote.

In the past, the Republican party was in good standing with the Latino community and could usually count on their support. In this election, Republicans could have gained much of that support back, but now it looks as if they will loose even more support from Latinos.

The illegal immigration issue highlights how strange the Republican conservative coalition is. The wealthy faction supports illegal immigration and Romney, but Romney had to be the toughest anti illegal immigrant campaigner in an attempt to placate the wing nut side of the party.

During the Bush Administration, the Republican argument was that the illegal immigrants were necessary because Americans would not do many of the jobs that the illegals were doing. Some proclaimed American workers to lazy to do these jobs.

Apparently now that the Republican policies have done serious damage to the American workers, those workers are no longer to lazy and more than willing to do the jobs the illegals are doing.

Posted by: jlw at March 16, 2012 3:42 PM
Comment #338290

Stephen, I know how you love to get the last word, but I can go on for days. You still don’t get the picture do you; I never said anything about CA, you did, and I never said anything about electing Obama, you did. But what I did say was that MN is a one stae example where only a few votes made the difference for Al Franken. Franken beat Colemen by 312 votes. Now let’s add to this:

“Minnesota Majority, a group that advocated for an overhaul of Minnesota’s voter registration and voter identification laws during this year’s legislative session, released a report Thursday that asserts that Minnesota had the highest number of voter fraud conviction stemming from the 2008 election. Progressive groups countered that the proposed laws that would have prevented felons from voting in Minnesota were not supported by the group.

“As far as we can tell, this is the largest number of voter fraud convictions arising from a single election in the past 75 years,” said Minnesota Majority president Jeff Davis, “Prosecutions are still underway and so there will likely be even more convictions.”

Minnesota Majority says that there have been 113 convictions due to felons voting in the 2008 elections. Their statistics come out of the 2.9 million Minnesota voters who voted in 2008, or about 0.004 percent of the 2008 voting population.

The group said that its findings show the need to eliminate same-day registration.

“The problem rests largely on our current Election Day registration system,” said Davis. “Most of the fraudulent votes cast in 2008 could have been prevented by using the normal registration and verification processes. But since the Election Day registration process does not include eligibility verifications, it simply leaves the door open to these kinds of abuses.”

http://minnesotaindependent.com/89855/voter-id-group-says-minnesota-had-highest-voter-fraud-in-nation-in-2008

Now the question is SD, would the results of such a close election been different if they had had voter ID verification prior to the election? Sorry I ha dto print it out for you; you were not reading the links.

If Democrats are willing to commit voter fraud in one state, they would do it in all. But Stephen, if I were a democrat, I would cry foul on the voter ID too.

By the way, 16 states now have vter picture ID and many more coming, and the Obama team has protested every one to no avail.

Posted by: Frank at March 16, 2012 4:51 PM
Comment #338292

And the Catholic Church is Largely DEMOCRAT jlw.

Posted by: KAP at March 16, 2012 5:26 PM
Comment #338294

Speaking of that teleprompter

President Obama fakes a quote from a former president. Presumably he knew he was saying the wrong thing, since he prepares these things carefully. Or else, his fact checkers were pretty incompetent. The problem when you are always scripted it that you cannot claim to misspeak.

Posted by: C&J at March 16, 2012 7:28 PM
Comment #338295

C&J-
Well, Obama was wrong, but the GOP doesn’t necessarily get in the clear.

The attribution of the original quote was Ulyssses S. Grant, and he’s not on Mount Rushmore either, so the point probably still stands.

By the way, you say he “fakes a quote”. I’m sorry, but do you have real evidence he actually knew different, and wasn’t merely misinformed? You can accurately say he was inaccurate, but people can be inaccurate without being dishonest.

This is a bit of trivia, to be honest. If you have limited time to review each speech, do you factcheck the jokes or the major talking points?

You know the fact of the matter is, I remember that what everybody said about Bush’s meetings were that everything was pre-arranged. You gave the report, Bush nodded and everything,and you covered your ass. Obama, impresses most who talk about him in the media. They talk about him asking questions, about him being the smartest man in the room.

I think you want Obama to be as handled as Bush was, and unfortunately, you’re not going to be able to send Obama out in the wilderness with Bush’s sins cast onto him.

Frank-
You never said anything about California, but if you look at a map of the Southern United States, and the totals for the electoral college in each state, then you’ll find that the border states, beyond Texas and California, which happen to be number and number two in illegal aliens, don’t really have the electoral votes to sway an election.

As for your new article? Take a look at the numbers. Your greatest number, in a state with millions of voters is 113. I am willing to bet that any policy you institute to counteract that problem will disenfranchise thousands of people in the process. They may not be the voters you like, but if they are qualified voters, they don’t need to lose their franchise on that account.

The cure should not be worse than the disease. The rights of innocent, blameless voters should not be trampled to prevent exceptionally rare fraud.

Or put another way, given your closing argument, I think your Party’s intent is to bias election results so any potential close calls fall in your favor, removing voters who would tend to be consistuents of Democrats.

Given that voter fraud causes such little harm, and is so rare, there is no justification to deprive tens of thousands of their ability to vote to deal with the problem. Beside, the real problem in 2000 was that the ballot design tended to create problems for voters, with Butterfly ballots causing misvotes through misalignments, and punch-card ballots causing trouble with the little pieces of paper remaining attached to the ballot. Voter fraud just wasn’t that kind of factor.

You want to yell that it’s all about keeping fraudulent voters away from the polls, but most of the people you’re actually preventing from voting have nothing about them that should actually stop them from voting. You just don’t like who’d they vote for, and that should never be a reason, in a real democracy, to keep somebody from voting. That’s the tactics of an Iranian Mullah who has no faith in the will of his own people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 16, 2012 8:06 PM
Comment #338296

Stephen, you accuse me of making blanket statements with no facts, and the you come out with this:

“Given that voter fraud causes such little harm, and is so rare, there is no justification to deprive tens of thousands of their ability to vote to deal with the problem.”

Do you want to offer some proof of this statement or are we just throwing crap at the wall again? You are telling me that multible thousands or even millions of Americans are being deprived of voting in the 16 states that have voter picture ID and other states that require a simple ID? Sorry Stephen, but I don’t except that one.

“Or put another way, given your closing argument, I think your Party’s intent is to bias election results so any potential close calls fall in your favor, removing voters who would tend to be consistuents of Democrats.”

Well Stephen, it’s your right think anything you want, but I will tell you what I think; I think the Democratic Party, led by a core group of socialist liberals, are willing to do anything to divide the country and gain power. And by the way, I never mentioned the electorial college, you did. Your not capable of understanding this topic, are you?

Every topic brought up by you or any other liberal on WB is simply the latest talking point of Obama and is used for the purpose of changing the subject.

Posted by: Frank at March 16, 2012 8:34 PM
Comment #338307

2012 Newest coach coupons on sale at professional coach outlet coupons online store. This cheap coach outlet coupon is definitely of high cost but they are very cost effective. They realized the benefits of leather and its characteristics and gave birth to the first coach outlet over fifty years ago. This is small and handy that can be hold along your wrist or kept within your large discount coach outlet online.

Posted by: coach coupons at March 16, 2012 8:50 PM
Comment #338310

There is no use of those vans shoes which is not fitted according to your foot though have good looks and are at affordable prices. Cheap vans shoes are our basic need so it is necessary that it provide comfort to your foot. Whenever you go for buying vans shoes sale don’t judge the quality of shoes with its price.

Posted by: vans shoes at March 16, 2012 8:51 PM
Comment #338348

Frank-
Look, if your numbers are extrapolated out to the rest of the American population, We’re talking about eleven thousand people nationwide. The last election had a hundred and thirty one million voters. So, roughly one in ten thousand votes would be cast fraudulently at best.

You don’t think that voter ID laws won’t effect enough seniors, students, and additional otherwise qualified voters to disenfranchise eleven thousand voters in the entire country?

See, this is your problem. You keep on launching back into these emotional appeals, but ten seconds with a calculator can tell you that your cure is worse than the disease.

You can save your overwrought language for somebody who cares. I know enough about the electoral college to know your notion that Obama might find it useful to flood the border states with illegals is groundless. He’s going to get California, barring some political disaster, he’s going to lose Texas, barring some political miracle, and the states inbetween them lack for the electoral votes to sway the election that far in one direction or another.

Unfortunately, you’ve got your head in the cloud of the conservative media bias and the conspiracy theories that the mindset is mired in. One reason I don’t like conspiracy theories, outside the setting of a work of fiction, is the plain fact that many of them are implausible on the facts, and are often created in abyssmal ignorance of the real situation.

How many people actually know what the electoral votes are on the border, or how lacking in population many of the states of the West are? Even I had to look it up, and I base my argument on that.

Many people also work from the misconception that the Presidency is decided by a popular vote, so they think that pumping up the margins of victory somewhere, or some other garbage will sway the election. The trick is, once they win the state, the votes are just PR icing on the state cake. If you look at Reagan, he won a far greater proportion of states and electoral votes than he won actual popular votes. I don’t think that was accidental, I think that was their strategy. 50%+1.

So, in California, where he practically couldn’t lose if he was a decent Democrat, Obama would gain no more electoral votes winning by a million than he would by winning by three. he could win by a single vote, and he’d still get as many electoral votes.

And the States inbetween? Piling up the totals their, hell, even winning all of them, would net him no more than a few handfuls of electoral votes.

But that isn’t what the complaint is about, is it? You probably want to appeal to the idea that getting people to improperly vote in the cities and other places of the North and the East might do the trick. But you know what? You can’t even demonstrate a substantial enough presence of fraud to say that Obama cheated his way to victory! Most of the states he won in, he won by hundreds of thousands of votes, if not millions. There were a few close ones, but overall, there was no ACORN conspiracy that would have been capable of pulling that off.

Of course, that doesn’t stop the people who were livid about his victory from the get-go from being in denial about it. If he’s cheated his way to victory, you don’t have to acknowledge it, do you? You can pretend its all a fraud, and the only reason we oppose you is sheer political cynicism. But the truth of the matter is, you don’t have the numbers to support your conspiracy theories. I bet you that if you take all the electoral votes that Obama won by close contest, he would still win.

But of course, you’re not interested in testing your opinion, you’re interested in shoving it down my throat.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 16, 2012 9:40 PM
Comment #338350

Stephen

The term “fake quote” comes from Factcheck.org.

It is interesting how much slack you cut President Obama. We know that it was on his teleprompter and that he probably didn’t know what he was talking about.

It sort of makes a difference who said it, BTW. I suppose the Obama folks used Rutherford B Hayes because it fit better in their talk. Truth makes little difference.

Most presidents are not on Rushmore. Obama’s was kind of a silly statement at its base, don’t you agree?

Posted by: C&J at March 16, 2012 10:21 PM
Comment #338469

C&J-
The article says Obama’s fake quote. The quote is fake. The question is, and nowhere does this say this, did Obama just go through all of the trouble of deliberately making up a quote for Rutherford B. Hayes.

Nope. So, saying Obama fakes the quote implies something false.

As for saying he’s not on Mount Rushmore? Sigh. It’s a joke, son, as Foghorn Leghorn used to say. You’re taking it way too seriously, and being silly yourself in the process.

You’re nitpicking. You’re looking for things to crap on him about.

Recently, while playing my current favorite game, I started getting killed a lot by this guy who just charged right through, shooting down this part of the level. At first, he was doing a lot of damage, and I was getting frustrated, but then I realized something.

He was running down the same path over and over again, and because of that, you could almost expect him to pop up in the same place. By the time I quit for the night, I was killing him far more often than the other way around.

Republicans do nothing but criticize the President these days, and about everything they can. I doubt there are very many people out there who are shocked or particularly persuaded anymore. It’s become a liability for your party, as well, because in the impasses Obama has, yours side seems to be the one that nobody can get to be the adults in the room.

Try something new, if you can get away with it. The world punishes those who get too predictable.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2012 1:21 AM
Comment #338587


C&J, is that the same misquote that Reagan apparently knew was wrong?

Kap, Catholics are swing voters. In 2010, Republicans were the beneficiaries. I will assume that you agree about the Bush Administration and the Republicans on illegal immigration.

Posted by: jlw at March 17, 2012 2:20 AM
Comment #338636

jlw

We agreed that President Obama uses the teleprompter so that he can control all his words. So that means he controlled that mistake.

Re Reagan - Reagan was a great storyteller. He made lots of little errors like that. At the time and even now, Democrats criticized him for that. So Obama is like Reagan, but w/o the charm and the leadership?

Stephen

Unlike President Obama, I don’t have a staff of editors and speechwriters to vet my stuff and I don’t have a teleprompter. I wrote the words in the order I did. They mean essentially the same thing. If you cut Obama so much slack on his fake quote, you certainly have no right to criticize me for putting words in an order that you interpret as being wrong.

So you are nitpicking me in ways that you think we should not do with him.

Re Republicans criticizing the president - read back to what you wrote about Bush. Talk about the same path.

Posted by: C&J at March 17, 2012 8:32 AM
Comment #338637

jlw lets say all the recent past presidents and present are to blame about the illegal immigration situation.

Posted by: KAP at March 17, 2012 8:33 AM
Comment #338641

C&J-
I hear, day in and day out the same old ****. I’m sick and tired of the negativity and uncooperativeness of the right. I was watching a news report, and even the lady who wrote speeches for the Republicans thought that Santorum was incoherent.

How many Republicans speak off the cuff in order to avoid the dreaded Teleprompter, and now sound like morons for it?

Like the bible says, judge not, lest ye be judged. Well, the Republican have been doing a lot of judgment on Obama, and because of that, there are ten thousand things, ten thousand policies that Republicans can no longer pursue. Having been so aggressive in pursuing Obama, they’ve painted themselves into a corner on how they can behave, and what policies they can suggest, while Obama is free to be himself, to push policies that fit with his views.

If Republicans based their point of view on what science could prove true, on what has been shown to be practicable, on a truly consistent philosophy not built off the need to say black whenever Democrats say white, they could behave more like normal human beings, and less like caricatures. They could save their energy, their credibility, their power for the things that are worth it, instead of burning it all trying to force policies on an unwilling public, trying to defeat Obama through withering, unceasing hatred.

Your party’s chased a vision of purity to its limits, and it’s tearing the party apart now.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2012 10:06 AM
Comment #338642

So Stephen, what percent of fraudulent votes do you consider to be ok? You are worried about the disenfranchised voters who have to show a voter ID, and yet you have no problem with the legal voters who are disenfranchised by fraudulent votes. Eleven thousand fraudulent votes disenfranchises eleven thousand legitimate voters. So you have no problem with legitimate votes being disenfranchised?

Furthermore, voter ID laws have been passed in many states and have been upheld by the courts. Texas voter ID laws will also be upheld. You are the one who recently said laws are passed by the majority are the law. These states passed laws and the way I figure; the left can continue to whine and cry about “it’s not fair”, or you can change the state governments to liberal democrat and reverse the laws. How’s that going for you SD? It seems to me that liberals lose more state governments and governorships every election.

These voter ID laws are being passed and you can cry all you want, but this is what the American voter wants. Let’s put it this way; the American people have no trust in liberal democrats. You are liars, you have lying political leaders, and a lying president. Get over it. The laws are passed and legal and your response is nothing more than sour grapes. You accuse me of

“You don’t think that voter ID laws won’t effect enough seniors, students, and additional otherwise qualified voters to disenfranchise eleven thousand voters in the entire country?” Stephen Daugherty

I asked you to give me a case of voter disenfranchisement, but you are silent. Simply generalizations. This is nothing more than a smokescreen from the left. SD, give us the numbers of Americans who have not been allowed to vote?

So, if I understand you correctly, you don’t think we should have an electoral college? You don’t think Reagan really won the election? Tell me Stephen, what part of the Constitution and American law do you actually agree with? Sounds to me like you believe we should live in a country where Obama (bless his merciful name) should be allowed to make the laws up as he goes. Do you also think we should just coronate him King of America and be done with it?

Posted by: Frank at March 17, 2012 10:22 AM
Comment #338644

Frank-
The right to vote should take priority. That is a basic right in our Republic. It’s the right that allows us to correct the course of our Republic directly.

Your rhetoric seems to shout from the rooftops that this is a serious problem, and you allege, based on the criminal behavior of some people registering voters, that you have a massive problem on your hands. Actual vote fraud, though, is rare. Even your own source says this, giving a number that is four thousandths of one percent.

I don’t need a baseball bat to swat a fly when a flyswatter will do, and will break far fewer things in my house.

In Texas alone, there are over 600,000 people who lack an ID. If even one percent of those people were to want to vote, but be unable to find state ID to do it with, that would be 6,000, or over half of all the voter fraud throughout the nation, that we could extrapolate from Minnesota’s record numbers.

That’s just in Texas! You can be a rude son of a ***** about it, but the numbers should be telling you something here: your response is out of proportion to your problem! It’s going to disenfranchise far more people than it will ever save from dilution of the vote.

But you don’t care, because you’ve set an zero tolerance standard. Too bad you don’t have the same standard for allowing people to keep their franchise.

So, if I understand you correctly, you don’t think we should have an electoral college? You don’t think Reagan really won the election? Tell me Stephen, what part of the Constitution and American law do you actually agree with? Sounds to me like you believe we should live in a country where Obama (bless his merciful name) should be allowed to make the laws up as he goes. Do you also think we should just coronate him King of America and be done with it?

I wasn’t even talking about whether we should have an electoral college or not. I don’t much care. I do think Reagan won the election both times, both by the invalid popular vote measure, and by the valid electoral college results.

I spoke about the electoral college, and the basic facts about how the votes in that body are distributed to the boarder states to poke holes in your conspiracy theory about Obama wanting to let in all those illegals in order to win elections. The states with the biggest problems, California and Texas, both have stalwartly gone to the Democrats and Republicans for some time now, and nobody could import people fast enough to change that in time for this election. The other states simply don’t have the electoral votes to matter in all but a close election, and Obama’s last election was more of a landslide than any election since the Elder Bush’s in 1988.

As for the rest? It’s like arguing with a teenager, pumped up on their own adrenalin. Everything leads up to ridiculous exaggerations. No, I don’t want him crowned king. At this point, I’d settle for a majority in the Senate counting for something, in terms of allowing the officials Obama appointed, as is his constitutional right, to take up their jobs in government. I’d settle for things functioning as we have a right to see them function. Funny how Bush wins 2004 by 100,000 votes and he has a mandate, but Obama wins by 10,000,000, and he’s got to run everything by the Senate GOP Minority.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2012 11:17 AM
Comment #338645

Stephen

I am using your logic and often your words. If you find them shallow and sour, it is not my fault.

You quote the Bible about being judged. This is exactly right. You can other did that during the Bush time and now we are able to give it back to you.

I wrote a whole post on the other side “attacking” Obama on gas prices using his own words and those of leading Democrats. I am just not that smart (or that hateful). I cannot make up attacks of the quality practiced by my liberal friends.

Posted by: C&J at March 17, 2012 11:19 AM
Comment #338646

C&J-
My logic, my words? Perhaps some of my words, but the logic is absent. You’re saying to yourself, the Democrats did this to us, so we do it right back. You don’t consider whether that antagonism, that reprisal actually does anything productive.

I can also quote the bible about doing good to those who evil to you, forgiving those who trespass against you, letting go of animosity, rather than nursing grudges forever.

I went after Bush because I saw serious problems with his policies, and I disliked the fact that for political reasons, many of these problems were not resolved. I didn’t need to get back at Bush for the things that were done to Clinton. Long story short, I was more concerned with policy than high school style feuds.

You can demean yourself by getting back at Obama, on undeserved points, simply to give Democrats a taste of what Republicans felt under Bush, or you can recognize that your party has wasted a golden opportunity to reconnect with the rest of the country, and put that animosity to rest.

Your choice. But me? I remember being more concerned about what was happening with Katrina, or whether our soldiers had armor on their vehicles, than whether Bush had received the same scorn Clinton did.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2012 11:41 AM
Comment #338653

We as conservatives go after Obama’s policies because we see serious problems with them and we dislike the fact for political reasons many of the problems weren’t resolved. We are more concerned with policiy then high school feudes also Stephen. You see the road goes 2 ways we can go round and around with argueing but that dosen’t resolve anything.

Posted by: KAP at March 17, 2012 3:43 PM
Comment #338655

Stephen

“I went after Bush because I saw serious problems with his policies, and I disliked the fact that for political reasons, many of these problems were not resolved.”

As we do with Obama. Stephen, you just lack empathy. You cannot put yourself in the place of others. Obama to us is not the man he is to you. I don’t think he is evil, but I think that many of his policies are seriously misguided.

The reason I use your own words it to try to show you that you have to look at both sides and see yourself as others might.

Re “getting back at Obama” I think it would be better for our country if he does not win a second term. I don’t happen to believe that presidents control the economy, as liberals do. But I understand that I need to speak their language.

Re reconnecting with the country - which party did better in the elections of 2010 and what are the chances that Republicans will hold BOTH the House and the Senate after the election of 2012? Republicans HAVE connected with the country. That is what winning elections indicates. Those are the only polls that really matter.

Re Katrina and armour for our troops - you just don’t understand that you were doing the same thing then to Bush as you say people are doing to Obama. Was Katrina mismanaged any more than the Gulf oil spill? The only difference was that nature hit harder in Karina. Obama screwed the pouch on the Gulf. Troops armour is a harder subject. When you add armour you sacrifice mobility and speed. Sometimes armour saves you life; sometimes the ability to move quickly keeps you out of trouble in the first place. I won’t try to explain it again to you. Think about it while you are carrying a 60lb rock.

KAP

He won’t understand. I explain it to him as a kind of good deed.

Posted by: C&J at March 17, 2012 4:14 PM
Comment #338656

Stephen, your comments and links is nothing more than supposition and innuendo:

“If even one percent”

“I wasn’t even talking about whether we should have an electoral college or not. I don’t much care. I do think Reagan won the election both times, both by the invalid popular vote measure, and by the valid electoral college results.”

Stephen, it’s kind of hard to follow what you ARE talking about. You keep jumping off subject. It is your goal to throw as much crap out as you can: and I guess for the purpose of impressing us with your vast knowledge of “EVERYTHING”.

With all your responses and vast knowledge and links to sites that are against voter ID’s and Republican redistricting in their own states, you have still failed to show me one person who was not allowed to vote through disenfranchisement. It seems like you would be able to come up with at least ONE name. So I will take it as you don’t have one and the idea of states enacting their own voter ID laws just goes against your socialist liberal ideas for America.

I have to say to C&J; they have much more patience than I do when dealing with SD. But I would like to hear the conversations that take place between C and J in private. I’m sure the conversation goes much like the private email conversations between me and some other conservatives on WB. Yes Stephen, your lack of… let’s say… ability to understand the Constitution has been a subject many times. Of all the liberals on WB, I must say you are the most faithful to carry the water bucket for Obama and his cronies. Let’s take this statement to C&J as an example:

“I went after Bush because I saw serious problems with his policies, and I disliked the fact that for political reasons, many of these problems were not resolved. I didn’t need to get back at Bush for the things that were done to Clinton. Long story short, I was more concerned with policy than high school style feuds.”

You went after Bush because you saw serious problems with his policies; yet you have a real problem with understanding why conservatives would have a problem with Obama’s policies. You just can’t comprehend that ANYONE in America would not fall at the feet of Obama and worship him, can you Stephen? Guess what Stephen, we are not concerned with HS feuds either; but we do have a problem with the man in the WH who is leading this country to destruction. Your problem Stephen is that you don’t think anyone should have the right to their own opinion, if it doesn’t agree with yours. Commonly called elitism, double standard, or arrogance.

KAP, my biggest problem with Obama is that he is a habitual liar. If he open his mouth, he’s lying.

Posted by: Frank at March 17, 2012 4:26 PM
Comment #338658

Voter ID is simple. To my knowledge the states that have pix ID and the person who does not have a pix ID can get one for nothing. He can also do a provisional ballot which can be done in every state.

Now the argument exists that poor people cannot get a pix ID. That is bogus. Poor people are the ones on food stamps, health assistance, and other benefits that require a pix ID.

Now what is the beef about pix ID? People need to show it for a miriad of reasons.

Now for voter fraud. SD’s numbers are not a gross aggregate of numbers taken from all 50 states. They are local gatherings of numbers.

CO, CT, FL(3), IN, MI(2), MO(4), MN, NC, NM(3), NV(2), OH(3), PA(4), TX, VA, WA, WI(2).

These are the states, (and probably more), that have had voter fraud since 2004. I could care less about the numbers SD proclaims and are not even probable.

Now when voter fraud occurs, then my vote is cancelled out by the voter who casts a vote and has no business doing so. I am discriminated against for my vote not counting.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 17, 2012 7:18 PM
Comment #338659

Frank,C&J, and Tom Humes If Republicans take both Houses and presidency this Nov. I’ll bet Stephen crys foul.

Posted by: KAP at March 17, 2012 7:30 PM
Comment #338660

He will formulate a complaint of voter fraud wnd the post will be 5,000 words.

Posted by: tom humes at March 17, 2012 7:33 PM
Comment #338663

KAP and tom humes; I had a good laugh at your comments.

Let me tell you what will happen if the dems lose in Nov: We won’t hear from SD for about 2-3 weeks (due to depression) and when (after spending some time at the Prozac licking block) he gets back on WB he will be warning of the liberal come back in 2014. He will begin an attack on the new Republican president based on the talking points of the dailykos and huffpost. When the economy starts to recover and jobs are created, he will give the credit to Obama’s stimulus and bailouts. He will give credit of the new oil production to Obama. In fact, I predict SD will still be kissing Obama’s ass in 10 years.

Posted by: Frank at March 17, 2012 8:51 PM
Comment #338664

And it won’t be confuse with kicking his ass for ten years.

It is so funny to watch SD and others repeat the mantra, talking points, etc. of Jay Carney and company.

Hut, two, Hut, two, Hut, two, Left, Right, Left, Right.

It was so sad to put the word Right in there, but I had to.

Posted by: tom humes at March 17, 2012 9:21 PM
Comment #338666

TH, the reason there are not many liberal vets is because they have trouble with the marching part; left-left-left-left, gimme your left.

Posted by: Frank at March 17, 2012 9:34 PM
Comment #338667

Frank-
My Grandfather was many things you would worship. A former energy executive, an investor, a man who pulled himself up by his bootstraps, and reached Captain in three years in WWII in the signal corps of the 82nd Airborne.

He’d tell you that you and all your people are nuts. He can’t tell you himself now, He’s gone to his reward, just this past month. I just love how much you think you know about liberals, about me. Why don’t you go and look through my hundreds of entries, and see exactly how long it took me to post again after 2004 and 2010. Why don’t you read through the thousands of comments just like yours that I’ve had to put up with.

Then you might realize that I don’t get less stubborn when the small minds and divines of the GOP start lobbing their character attacks my way, and I have a bad tendency to outlast my competitors each and every time.

I don’t think I’m in for a disappointment this year. Republicans can push their SuperPAC driven political machine as long as they want to. So far, it’s just managed to keep their nominating contest undecided for months to come. But also, I’d say this: the supporters of the Republican Party are emotionally exhausted.

You can’t ride on people’s fears and hatreds for that long and not tire poeple out, or burn out other potential supporters, where desperate politics aren’t dividing them away.

The Republican party has become a shadow of the Democrats. They need to be more than that. They need to have a life of their own. But to do that, they will have to depart from the movement as it currently stands, because it doesn’t seem to have any tolerance for moderation or for agreement where conservative principles are not in conflict with Democratic Party policies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2012 10:28 PM
Comment #338668

tom humes-
Put my words through a word count, if you want. It’s a nice bit of trivia. Also trivial, in statistical terms, is the incidence of voter fraud. It just doesn’t happen all that much. Not so trivial is the ill effect of those rules on voters, who ought to be assured of their rights in light of, not in spite of such rules. The cure is worse than the disease. Common sense tells us we need and deserve better.

C&J-
I lack synchrony, more than empathy.

Republicans have neither, unfortunately. Look at the birth control controversy. Look at Santorum’s gaffe relating to English as the official language in Puerto Rico.

Look at the cavalcade of Romney’s gaffes. Look at Gingrich’s beautiful suggestion that we let our kids become part time janitors.

People like you, who have more common sense in your little fingers than they have in their whole bodies should be the ones in control. But you wanted votes too badly, too quickly, so you let the Jokers take over your party. 2010 was an overreach of epic proportions. Republicans should have realized their luck, and made deals with the President and the Senate to improve the lot of the nation, but they were too concerned about winning this year, winning this campaign by utterly starving him of any achievements.

They did a better job starving themselves, unfortunately. What major policy can you name that they did, that won’t make many Americans recoil in horror?

You needed and deserved better people. I was hoping the last Presidential election would draw them out, would encourage the Republicans to mellow out and start working with everybody, but I underestimated their unwillingness to admit defeat. Your party needs to reorganize, cleanse itself of the loonies, and once again reach for the center.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2012 10:40 PM
Comment #338669

Stephen

Feel free to go on the attack. It is your style. My point is that you seem unable to believe than anyone can disagree with you side who is not stupid or immoral.

I have reasonable confidence in Romney. I say reasonable because I think we need to qualify support for any politician.

Perhaps you are familiar with French King Henry IV. He said that “Paris is worth a mass”, meaning that you make compromises, even some serious ones, in order to be in a position to do greater good. I don’t like it that Republican moderates need to bow to the more extreme groups to get the nomination. Democrats need to do that on their flanks too, BTW.

We know that when they govern, presidents must move more toward the middle. I don’t think that either President Romney nor President Obama will wreck our country in the next four years, but I do think there is an important choice.

Romney is basically a moderate who believes in the power of the free market and in incentives to achieve the progress we all want. I agree with that method.

Obama is basically a moderate who believes in the power of government and regulation to achieve the progress we all want. I suspect you agree with this method.

Neither candidate wants to destroy the government nor the private market. It is a matter of emphasis.

Romney says that he wants a government that is limited and effective. I believe that a government must be limited in order to be effective.

I don’t recall Obama ever talking directly on this, but his words and actions indicate that he believes government should be significantly involved in more aspects of our lives.

My ideal situation is one where citizens don’t have to think about government very much, where laws are clear and consistent, but not very intrusive.

For me the key to success is a government that creates conditions by which the people prosper, but does not try to manage prosperity. This means consistent rules of law, stable regulations and a reliance on free market principles.

It seems to me that Obama supporters want government to work harder to “establish fairness” and to manage our lives.

As I have written above and elsewhere, it is a matter of degree. Obama is not a socialist and Republicans don’t want to get rid of all government. We agree on 95% of our priorities, but that 5% is really important.

Politics is always a zero sum game at best. It is a game we need to play, but one we should avoid whenever possible. That is also my core belief that probably differs from yours. I think it is rarely a good thing when people actively use the political system to redress their claims. Government should be a disinterested party, setting the rules and then not playing a very active role.

I have written more than most will read. But I believe that if you start with my premises, you almost need to support Republicans, not because they are perfect but because they are better than the alternative.

All politicians are dangerous as are all business people, as is any concentration of power.

As George Washington said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” We need government, as we need fire, but we need to be careful with both.

Posted by: C&J at March 17, 2012 11:23 PM
Comment #338670

How about Obama’s gaffe on the Marine corpse (as in dead body) and he even repeated himself.

I thought that was a terrible slap in the face to all Marines.

Posted by: tom humes at March 18, 2012 12:08 AM
Comment #338672

There are several points I wish to make,so I will attempt to keep this fairly short. I wish!

liberal Democratic Party is all about. They are no friend to people who create jobs and they are no supporters of the Constitution.

I forget to identify the author who had the nerve to write this point. Frankly it could have been almost any of you. Let me please put your mind at ease. First and for most!!!

I SUPPORT OUR CONSTITUTION ONE HUNDRED PERCENT!!!!!. I do not appreciate the incitations that have been made stating I (or any liberal) do not Support our country. I allow you to have your opinions without calling you a traitor, and I EXPECT YOU TO ALLOW ME TO DO THE SAME!!!

Secondly: I am, and have always been a friend of business. I have always attempted to purchase locally and purchase American made goods.


C&J:

Right. The Obama plan should be called “That 70s show” since that is where the ideas come from.

And the Santorum show would be filmed in the ‘50ies!!!!

The Romney show might make it out of the early ‘60’ies.

So lets all go back to the good ‘old’ days, where mama could afford to stayed home with the kids, and only boys went to college, and we still had white and “colored” restrooms, water fountains, and restaurants. And of course black and white TVs. And no computers. Or cures for strep throat… And, and, and.

C&J

Is the left supportive of illegals entering the country, yes.

I know of no one who supports illegal aliens, or wants them to vote. However I haven’t heard a thing about what the Republicans plan to do about them. I can tell you this. I am currently driving many of the senior members of our church and community to the DMV so they can pay for ID’s just in case SC actually passes the stupid law. At the rate gas is going, I frankly don’t know how many more trips I can make.

C&J::

I have reasonable confidence in Romney. I say reasonable because I think we need to qualify support for any politician.

Reasonable Confidence!!!! You have got to be kidding!

That’s your endorsement for Romney? Please name one actual thing he has stated to give you reasonable confidence. Oh - I know He’s going to create jobs! Right! Now tell me HOW!!!! Heck, I am reasonably confidant that I could be a good president to! Why don’t you vote for ME?

KAP:

We as conservatives go after Obama’s policies because we see serious problems with them and we dislike the fact for political reasons many of the problems weren’t resolved. We are more concerned with policy

I just love this quote. KAP! You actually said something that makes a little sense. Congratulations! Now please tell me just one of the actual policies you agree with, and how it would work. anything. Even from Santorum (heaven forbid!) and if you should chose “Obama-care” please tell me what the Republicans will do to help the health care problems? Other, than of course, just letting people die.

KAP:

And the Catholic Church is Largely DEMOCRAT jlw.

Bet my 90 year old mother-in-law would be surprise3d to hear that she is mostly Democrat!!! She has never missed a vote and usually votes a straight ticket. Republican! Seems to me it’s that very denominational that is upset about the birth control and insurance situation… Or am I wrong here?


Frank:

In fact everything Obama and his administration have done is a violation of the Constitution

Frank, please give me one example of how Obama has violated the Constitution. (Hint: I majored in Constitutional Law)

Let’s see, he is ending the war with Iraq and bringing our troops home (I’m still somewhat puzzled as to why we were there (WMD?) (Yeah, right)and the Mission Accomplished Banner, behind Bush some years ago)
Not unconstitutional..

Let’s see bailouts - Not in the Constitution. Health care reform.. Hum… Not in the Constitution,,,requiring that insurance companies cover the health concerns of all citizens… also not unconstitutional, because most of the religious groups fusing about it receive federal aid. Using more technology instead of humans in war.. Not unconstitutional…
Shall I go on?


jlw:

The largest block of support for illegal immigration is the business community. The largest illegal immigrant support system is the Catholic Church.

I thought the business community was led by the republicans… you know the ones who don’t want it regulated in any way…or is that your point? If so, I apologize. Because in essence what you are saying is that it’s the Republicans who are encouraging illegals, by not regulating the businesses they work in. Right?


Posted by: Highlandangel1 at March 18, 2012 4:19 AM
Comment #338674

“So lets all go back to the good ‘old’ days, where mama could afford to stayed home with the kids, and only boys went to college, and we still had white and “colored” restrooms, water fountains, and restaurants. And of course black and white TVs. And no computers. Or cures for strep throat… And, and, and.”
I have heard some people wax nostalgic about the time when a single income supported the whole family. These people are usually Democrats who harken back to what Robert Reich called the “Almost golden age” that includes the 1950s and 1960s you mention. Have you ever heard any important leader advocate the things you mention above? You should not support in your rhetoric what you know in your heart is not true.
You argue that policies advocated by a politician are similar to policies attempted before and postulate that results now might be similar to those obtained in the past. But it is silly to indicated that all conditions of the past would return, including returning to old technologies and practices.
I look to the past for experience and to the future as to where I will live.
Experience indicates that government tends to overreach. We saw that in the middle of the 20th Century, a general consensus emerged that there were government solutions to most social and economic problems. That system crashed in the late 1960s and was manifest in the 1970s, which were generally hard times, not that different from those we are experiencing now.
Re “Is the left supportive of illegals entering the country, yes”

This is not something I wrote. I HAVE written that the problem of illegal immigration may have peaked for now, since birth rates in countries like Mexico have been dropping like a stone.
Speaking of IDs, it is not too much to ask. If you are getting these people IDs, you are doing them a favor anyway. You really cannot participate fully in society in general if you don’t have things like drivers license or state IDs.
Re supporting illegal immigration – I would support more legal immigration.

Re Romney – I don’t have much confidence in what politicians say they are going to do. I look to what they have done. Romney has achieved success in the private, non-profit and governmental sector. No other candidate has that depth of experience.

I also understand that no plan will survive reality. Obama’s didn’t and I don’t hold that against him. Things look different from the Oval Office than they did on the campaign trail. Romney’s principle of seeking a government that is smaller and more effective fits more with my belief about what works than Obama’s vision of a more active government.

Re “reasonable confidence”. I am moderate and realistic. I don’t have absolute confidence in any politician and I think the political process is fundamentally flawed. That is why I prefer to let people choose through free market mechanism rather than go to government fiat. Free market can produce a plurality of choices; government must make rules that apply equally to all.

BTW - I understand that my understatement is sometimes misinterpreted. I like to be able to deliver on my promises so I try not to promise too much. I want people to say about me “He promises less but delivers more.” I know this is old fashioned and it would not work in the political environment. I don’t expect my politicians to follow my pattern when on the campaign trail, although I would like to see it once they are elected.

Posted by: C&J at March 18, 2012 10:00 AM
Comment #338675

tom humes-
A mispronounced word? That’s your big gaffe?

You know, you can nitpick and hound Obama on every mistake, but your people still have to act themselves, and not one bad thing they have to say Obama will keep them from having to face real world challenges.

Or, put another way, not everybody who throws brickbats at other people for failing can do better. Republicans are no longer the men or the women in the Arena, they are just the critics, just the people who tell you why something can’t or shouldn’t be done. I would say, people are getting tired of having folks in charge who just get in the way of thing changing from how they have been.

C&J-
I have had my honesty, my patriotism, my right to use my gifts and my capabilities to argue my point to the best of my ability questioned. I can honestly say that I feel like I’m getting beaten up everytime I get into one of these discussions. There’s a point at which I just what to curse folks out, tell them to go **** themselves, so I take an alternative route.

I mainly focus on ideas. I don’t care whether you’re stupid or immoral. You’ve seen these folks trying to prove to me that I’m that way, how successful have they been? I’ve offered Frank a fact-based dissection of his charge and its underpinnings, and what does he do? He attacks me, he attacks my sources, disregarding them sight unseen as liberal talking points. Rather than have the discussion, he does everything he can to make sure the debate never begins. And you? You seem to be driven by the need to get back at the Democrats for what they said about Bush, what they called him. Does it ever occur to you that many of the problems people had with him were factually proveable?

Meanwhile with Obama, people push factually disproveable conspiracy theories, about the place of his birth, about his religion (meant to scare folks in and out of your party who aren’t so tolerant), about his attitudes toward race, etc.

What is a Democrat like me to think or do as folks push wacky notions like the Birth Certificate is a forgery? Or that Obama’s going to intern Republicans in concentration camps?

If your party had real complaints about the new healthcare law that people would like to hear, you shouldn’t or wouldn’t have talked about Death Panels, about a new entitlement that doesn’t exist, or about how it’s meant to take control of everybody’s lives. There no longer seems to be a cultural standard in the GOP of having to back such rhetoric with compelling, conclusive arguments and facts. Instead, people are encouraged to push things as far as possible beyond that, even into the realm of conspiracy theory.

And even folks like you are relying on these insipid talking points, despite the fact that Reagan and both Bushs were well-scripted leaders. I’ve got this leader here, who I’ve seen deal with interruptions, hecklers, live audiences, confrontational candidates, etc with grace and charm, yet, you want to allege that he’s some overhandled, in over his head amateur. And you know what? After three years and change of being in office, experience is not a problem.

It’s funny how so much of what the Right has a beef with Obama about is this unprovable stuff, or the stuff Republicans will never admit has been disproven. Propaganda has its place in politics, but the place isn’t the whole system. We have to keep reality, and the facts in the loop, otherwise we lose the correctability that keeps politics focused on doing good for the country, one way or another. It’s a nice dream for either of us to get everything we want out of an election or a Congress, but you and I are just single people among many, people who have to compromise with everybody else to get something done.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 18, 2012 10:12 AM
Comment #338676

Highlandangel1

Well hoop de doo!! You majored in Constitutional Law.

I majored in reading and understanding the Constitution.

There are so many times Obama has gone around the Constitlution. The so-called Health Care Reform is not Constitutional. He made appointments that were not Constitutional. And ad infinitem.

You support the Constitution 100%. That is good. Do you support the right to keep and bear arms without restriction?

Do you support the right to post the 10 commandments without restriction?

Do you support the 10th amendment?

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 18, 2012 10:16 AM
Comment #338677

Stepehen

I am not attacking you or calling you anything. I think that you believe that anyone who supports Republicans is either stupid or immoral. Am I wrong.

Here’s what I can say about liberals - most liberals are good people who make decisions based on their experience and values. Candidates who appeal to liberals generally have the best interests of their country in mind, although like all politics they have their own ambitions. While I often disagree with liberals, I understand that they make their choices based on logic and morality, as much as I do. Both sides have their shares of weirdos, crooks and dummies, but these do not define conservative/liberal.

Now I ask you. Can you write something like this, substituting conservative for liberal where appropriate WITHOUT adding caveats about the stupidity or cravenness of conservatives? Simple really, if you are really interested in ideas and not on attacking the people holding them.

Posted by: C&J at March 18, 2012 10:31 AM
Comment #338678

C&J

SD is maybe too young to have that mind changing attitude.

Let me explain.

When I was into my 30’s I thought I was right and the other person was wrong. I’m not sure how it changed me, but I took on the attitude that even if the other person said a single word that could cause me to think a bit different about something then I should listen. It grew on me and I took on the persona that it was my opinion whether I was right or wrong, and that is how I felt about any given subject.

SD may not be old enough to see and understand that principal.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 18, 2012 11:36 AM
Comment #338680

Re/Highlandangel1, Tom Humes has answered correctly.

Re/C&J’s political views and views of Obama: you are a moderate who is fast becoming a conservative, and I disagree about Obama. He is a socialist with a socialist agenda. He promised to fundamentally change America and his first 2 years shows of what he is capable. It was the Republican takeover of the House that stopped his socialist advance. If the Democrats were to again take control of the House along with Senate and controlling the presidency, we would cease to be a free republic. We would become no more than Europe or any other third world nation, facing civil unrest, shortages, and a collapse of society. Remember, Obama is a follower of Saul Alinsky.

“Alinsky wrote: “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

His “rules” derive from many successful campaigns where he sowed the seeds of class warfare with community organizing, getting people fighting power and privilege, whom he convinced people were the root of all their “problems”.”

The goal of Alinski was to overload the system; which Obama is trying his best to also do. His goal was to plant the seeds of class warfare, of which Obama and every liberal democrat is trying to do. The whole purpose of the left discussing voter ID laws is to plant the seeds of class warfare.

Re/ the left’s views of the Constitution:

“The apostate American Left of today holds the position that the Founding Fathers original intent for the Constitution was to be an “evolving” and “living” document to fit and conform to the hour and day which Americans are living in. America has devolved into a lawless, narcissistic, decadent, and immoral nation because of the ABANDONMENT of the ideals of our Founding Fathers. Therefore, the Left believes that the Constitution must also change due to the lawless practices of godlessness by many (including themselves), and the immoral decadence which exists must be accommodated by calling it “normal” and “constitutional.” It doesn’t matter how many people you can get to agree that 2 + 2 = 5, it is still wrong, no matter how many math scholars and college professors you can win to your side. Absolutes are absolutes. Truth is truth. Morality transcends the vain imaginations of godless man, and natural laws must always prevail as they are always relevant and absolute, like it or not.

“The Left believes that the Constitution must also change due to the lawless practices of godlessness by many (including themselves), and the immoral decadence which exists must be accommodated by calling it ‘normal’ and ‘constitutional.’”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2616978/posts

Re/Obama’s view of the Constitution:

“In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society,” and “to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

He also noted that the Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.” That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government — and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html

Re/Stephen Daugherty’s whining and crying about how unfair conservatives are to him:

If SD wants to use the daily talking points of Jay Carney as proof of his beliefs, then he must be prepared to face the consequences. Stephen Daugherty does not have the ability to comprehend that some people believe differently than he does. He believes everyone should read his words of wisdom and automatically say, “thank you Stephen for those pearls of wisdom”. Sorry, but it don’t work like that.

Re/anti-patriotism: the liberals have argued their case against America (as a colonial state, stealing the resources of the world), they have argued their case against the Constitution as answered above, they have argued their case against capitalism (as being evil), they have argued their case against the rich (as pertaining to Alinski’s plan to take want you don’t have), and they have argued their case of racism and class warfare (since they are the only ones to bring the subject up). Therefore one must conclude they hate America as the founding fathers designed it and are in favor of changing it into something it was never meant to be.

Posted by: Frank at March 18, 2012 1:38 PM
Comment #338684

SD

Heck no, it is not his “big gaffe”. It is a serious gaffe. One that every Marine in the country should take serious. And he repeated himself. If this gaffe is all it means to himself, then he should take the advice of how Judas took care of his own problem. Obama should revere the Marine Corp as an elite body of people that serve their country to the fullest, even tho he wants to put the health price tag on them in a punitive way. He should be taken out of town on a rail, un-greased.

SD, you are overstuffed, and a fat head, and puffed up and an elitist. You don’t know wisdom.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 18, 2012 3:01 PM
Comment #338686

Tom humes go back in the archives to 8/02/06 and see what Stephen wrote about Hadathia and the marines. There is another archived blog about the same time that has him and all the rest of the liberals crucifing them before they got their day in court.

Posted by: KAP at March 18, 2012 3:22 PM
Comment #338690

Wasn’t it democrat congressman John Murtha who made false charges against the marines? Oh yes, it was and he was even sued by one of the marines for slander. But heck, who needs proof, when we have liberal democrat’s talking points and SD jumped all over it.

It amazes me, the BS that SD loves to spread around: he claims to be a Christian but attacks Christians and denies the Bible; he claims to love the troops and yet attacks them when he can; he claims to be patriotic and yet trashes the Constitution and everything else America stands for; and he can’t understand why people won’t take him at his word. SD is as stable as water.

Posted by: Frank at March 18, 2012 4:33 PM
Comment #338691

tom humes:

Since the Constitution doesn’t actually mention ANYTHING about health-care, or it’s reform, I fail to see your point.

Now if you are referring to the mandate that all people must carry insurance, well, what the heck do you think Medicaid and Medicare are? I think I will wait until the Supreme Court decides before I can honestly agree or disagree about the health care issue. Just how were any of his appointments unconstitutional? What other issues would you care to name that YOU consider unconstitutional? Facts, baby, FACTS!

It’s rather interesting that NO ONE has mentioned a single one!. At least as of yet…nothing that will stand up to scrutiny.

Do you support the right to keep and bear arms without restriction?

Yes, I support the right to bare arms. I must admit that I don’t understand the idea of keeping assault weapons around one’s home. I know, they seem to be the ‘hunting’ weapons of choice these days. (for people - I doubt our forefathers had any notion about the development of assault weapons, and how deadly they can be. After all, they won the war with muskets!)

Do you support the right to post the 10 commandments without restriction?

No, Because the constitution squarely sets up the separation of church and state.

The First amendment states clearly

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Thank heavens. Or we might become as single minded as our enemies are…ie. Iran, Syria, even Nazi Germany, etc. and try to make everyone believe what we believe. Christian, Islamic atheistic, etc.

I don’t support teaching religious faith in public schools.IE. Prayer. I do support a minute of silence.

However, I do support teaching about many of the world’s religions, including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. - because that helps us to better understand our neighbors, and other countries.

And before you ask, Yes, I am a practicing Christian, and am very active in my church.

Do you support the 10th amendment?

Yes. Do you even know what the 10th amendment is?

States Rights.

So what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at March 18, 2012 4:35 PM
Comment #338694

KAP-
Instituting a mafia style code of silence, especially when you’re fighting a counterinsurgency-style war is not a good idea. The objective evidence, which nobody was truly disputing, was that something happened there, our soldiers were involved, and that it was deliberately covered up.

I support our soldiers. But that doesn’t always mean making things easier for them. The training these soldiers go through is hard and dangerous. But if I support them by saying, no, they shouldn’t have to go through this, well, guess what, they’ll be unprepared to go out into the field.

There needs to be a standard. There needs to be a moral bright line that you do not deliberately go after civilians to avenge your comrades, not even in a war like this, where civilians often help the insurgents, because all that’s going to do is help the insurgents vilify our soldiers.

And no, shutting up about it here won’t help. Friends will tell friends, the witnesses will speak to their media, and when the secret gets out here, you’ll be dealing with blowback here, as well.

That was the deal with Haditha. Whatever happened, a lot of the muddying of the waters was done by those investigating the matter in the first place. They thought they were helping, what they actually did was make it to where the innocent in those cases, the soldiers who might not have actually done anything, or whose offenses may have been light, never got the chance to clear their name, if the could clear it at all. We also lost the chance to demonstrate to our allies that those who commit atrocities against the people they’re supposed to protect will be brought to justice.

Long story short, your jingo-laden, best-intended attempts to help them probably didn’t help anything, and might have gotten additional Americans killed. War is never the best place to encourage soldiers to lose their moral clarity.

I don’t want to crucify anybody. I want to see fewer Americans home in body-bags because somebody killed somebody’s family or friends when they didn’t have to.

tom humes-
Quite trying to blow up a mountain into a molehill. He mispronounced the name.

As for what you called me? You know what? Insults like that are pointless. Who ever agrees when you call them a moron? “Why yes, I never realized it until now.”

I think you should think long and hard about how many people you really convince with those words.

As for majoring in Constitutional law? Let me put it this way: the Constitution’s purpose is not simply to backstop the arguments of folks unwilling to deal with the politics in a more nuanced way. It is a guide for the creation of law, and for its intepretation. The courts, Supreme Court highest of all, are the intepreters of that law. Unless you can get them to agree, those are just your opinions, and you shouldn’t expect anybody to agree to them as the premises of an argument without some serious justification on your part.

There’s always what people assume to be true, and assume to be meant, and what is really true, and really meant. Who are you that your opinions have such special status. Why must I accept your pre-emptive authority on this, much less HighlandAngel? If, indeed, you do expect such deference without any really training or appeal to authorities beyond yourself, then you are pushing an arrogant kind of argument. The rest of us should have the right to dismiss your opinion then, if you ask us merely to take your word for it.

C&J-
You’re wrong.

Remember the Deepwater Horizon? Common sense would tell you that when you have a disaster like that, reexamination of the events and policies leading up to it are necessary. If you’re in the middle of doing permitting with all kinds of other rigs doing the same thing, it becomes a problem.

Yet the Republicans insist that we go right back to do things, even as we do not know what went wrong. They insisted that there be no interruption in drilling. They lambasted the Obama Administration for arranging a 20 billion dollar fund to compensate victims of the spill, even apologizing to the leader of the company whose oil was spilling on American shorelines as they speak for a “shakedown”

No caution. Unapologetic support for the interests of the company offending over the people they offended. It’s got to be business as usual, no recognition that a change is needed from the government or from corporation in terms of such policies.

Why, objectively, should I say this is right.

Trust me, a decade ago, I would have been more willing to compromise, but these days, it’s either sticking with my point of view, or agreeing to talking points I know are wrong and/or irresponsible, and I don’t tend to make decisions about what is right or wrong to support based on the people involved. I’m primarily focused on the right or the wrong of the thing itself

So many of your policies strike me as wrongheaded on the merits, and I’ve been good about pointing out what those merits are. Typically response back has been something like, “You’re a socialist”, or “You’re a libtard”.

Why should I be patient with Republicans at this point? What give would they offer me?

Until the Republicans are willing to compromise on government, I can’t in good conscience compromise myself. You may consider our oppositions interchangeable, but I don’t. I see prudence, caution, and preparedness on one side, and wishful thinking, rashness, and a blindness to consequence on another. Even if the Democrats aren’t perfect, they’re better.

Frank-
Scary. If things were like you said, I wouldn’t be a liberal. That I am a liberal is the evidence you need to know that you’re wrong. Democrats like me were all too happy to just settle in, and get to work fixing the problems of the country. We didn’t want trouble.

And just to be sure, who was it who was angrily shouting people down and interrupting speakers in the middle of the Town Halls? Who was carrying guns around to intimidate the other side? Who was it this past year who attempted to ram the economy into the debt ceiling, and who were willing to cross that threshold to teach the country a lesson about debt.

The dirty little secret is that the Republicans took those “Rules for Radicals” and implemented them themselves. That’s the Tea Party for you!

Ah, but if FOXNews is telling you it’s okay…

As for the left’s view of the constitution? Nope. What you quoted was a Freeper’s notion of what a liberal’s view of the constitution. You might as well have asked Henry Ford about Jewish ritual law. Funny how that works. Most of your proofs of how terrible we are seem to come from people who are as far away from being liberals as possible.

The Obama quotation is an example of where you didn’t get all the facts. He in fact was saying that blacks shouldn’t have waited for the courts to fix everything, that they should have gone and constructed private sector organizations with that purpose. Ah, but when you get all your information from your friendly little neighborhood propagandists, of course major things like that will get left out.

As for the last part?

I will use whatever apt quotes, or verifiable facts I can muster to argue my points. Jay Carney… Well, I don’t think you can find many quotes from my entries with him at the other end.

But hey, it sounds good, doesn’t it!

See, that’s your problem. You say all these things that have all this emotional punch to them, but if you know the facts, if you even half-way know a real liberal, they’re just so much crazy and misled opinionation.

Now, as for whether I expect people to agree with me, or thank me? Get real! I’ve been paying attention to how people respond to me on this site and others, I don’t anticipate that much success, much less that much gratitude! I’m laughing as I write this, because it’s just so ****ed up of a picture of what I actually think.

I don’t expect much. I just want to get it out there, rather than be cursing about it to myself. If somebody reads it, follows up on it, I’m happy.

As for what I believe? I do believe things strongly, if I consider them to be right on the facts. I’m just wired that way. I don’t expect other people to be as confident, that’s why I write such long, detailed, and thorough posts.

But really, aren’t you the one who’s having the most trouble comprehending what other people think? Do you think everybody keeps disagreeing with your characterizations out of fear or knowledge that you’re right, or have you considered that maybe they’re just confident that they’re nothing like what you say?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 18, 2012 4:53 PM
Comment #338695

Highlandangel1

Obamacare uses the Interstate Commerce clause as its basis, as do many regulatory programs. It is different from other regulations, however, in that it creates an obligation based on simply being alive as opposed to others that do so based on behavior. I am not sure how much of a practical difference this makes. The courts will decide this. We laymen can argue this all we want, but it really is not a productive argument, since the issue will not be decided based on our opinions and it will be decided soon.

The separation of church and state is a more difficult issue. Clearly, the founding fathers did not mean to exclude religion from all aspects of public life, since they did not do it. George Washington took his oath of office using a Bible and public buildings had religious symbolism w/o much conflict until the 1960s. The Supreme Court in Washington features Moses, for example.

The Constitution merely says that we should establish no religion and was a response to the Church of England. We have reinterpreted this since the 1960s, but we are not finished with this fight.

The 10th Amendment is an important expression of freedom, indicating that the Federal government should never be taken as the total answer. This is something that has made the U.S. exceptional in our history. In most other places things are technically illegal unless the law or custom makes them legal. In the U.S. it is opposite.

We have a similar difference in that we believe that a man is innocent until proven guilty. In most other countries, a man needs to prove his innocence. In practice this works out okay. The UK for example, is not oppressive despite this technical difference.

BTW - in most code law countries you do not have the right to legitimate self-defense. If you hurt or kill someone in order to protect your own life or that of others, you are still liable to the same legal punishment as if you had simply attacked him unprovoked. This goes to the rights of a citizen v that of a subject.

Posted by: C&J at March 18, 2012 5:01 PM
Comment #338697

Stephen You and every liberal on this blog had the Hadathia Marines guilty before they had a chance to defend themselves. You along with Murtha and Pelosi, with Murtha being the loudest mouth couldn’t wait to hang those Marines. You talk about supporting our soldiers yet your past actions says you don’t. You didn’t even appologize for being wrong about most of them. You talk about morals among our military yet you don’t even know what it is like being in combat or know what it is like to be in a war when you can’t diferentiate civilian from combatant. Try it some time Stephen your theories may just change.

Posted by: KAP at March 18, 2012 5:20 PM
Comment #338700


C&J, nice try on what should be verses what is. The fact is that both conservatives and liberals are constantly stereotyped by the opposition.

Are you saying that Tom Humes attitude that he is more knowledgeable of Constitutional intent than a Constitutional scholar is not typical of conservative anti-intellectual thought?

Are you saying that Franks opinion that engaging in class warfare is an exclusive right of the wealthy, is not held by most conservatives? Or that the promotion of immorality by Godless liberals is not a widely held belief of conservatives?

Highlanderangel1, I think the answer to your question is yes. The business community is most responsible for the open borders illegal immigration system. While both parties have been supportive of the program, the Republicans have to be considered the major enablers because they represent business interests in such an exclusive way that any restrictions on the free exercise of business is stereotyped as liberal, socialist, class warfare, etc.

The Republican constituency is so non-homogeneous that the party is constantly required to pander to their various constituency groups in order to get the political power necessary for the party to participate in it’s nearly exclusive representation of the business community, and especially the multi-national corporations and their wealthy owners. They do this, often to the exclusion of or against the will of their other constituency groups, making the rhetorical propaganda extremely important to the party, as well as it’s renewed efforts in vote suppression.

The Democrat party has been similarly engaged with business interests for more than two decades, but their constituency has finally recognized this and with the potential for revolt becoming more of a concern for the party, it is attempting to straddle the fence more evenly.

On pandering to the inequity issues:

Democrats were met with a brick wall of actions speak louder than words. Their still pandering and vaguely promising.

Republicans were laughed at or attacked by their own. They stopped pandering. The desire to pander is so great that sometimes politicians will pander an issue that they have already pandered as nonexistent.

Posted by: jlw at March 18, 2012 6:39 PM
Comment #338702

highlandangel1

The Constitution does not say “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. The establishment clause is a strawman. It is a false premise. We are to be able to practice our freedoms without restrictions.

It is good to say that the 10th amendment is about States Rights. Is that all you can say. It says that all rights not religated to the federal government are to be reserved to the states.

Health care is not to be dealth with by the federal government.

The first nine amendments are prohibitions against the federal government. Or in a simpler vein, you cant’ do that.

It makes no difference to me to who you practice your faith with nor how active you are in your church. It is none of my business. Christians come in a slew of colors and beliefs. To say one is a Christian means nothing to me. When one can practice Christianity openly and without shame it speaks to me a bit more clearly.

Back to the NCAA

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 18, 2012 7:01 PM
Comment #338706

jlw

I am saying that Obamacare may or may not be unconstitutional. Currently that is unknown. Legal scholars think that the courts will decide that some parts are not Constitutional.

Re Tom and a Constitutional scholar - if you find Tom debating a Constitutional scholar, please let us know. Here it looks like he was debating you & Highlanderangel1. You are not a Constitutional scholar, are you?

Re Frank - I suppose that the idea that liberals are “Godless” is held by as many conservatives as the idea that conservatives are “heartless” is held by liberals.

I really don’t know what you are talking about re class warfare. Classes in the U.S. are very fluid. It is difficult to see how class warfare would really work. There are attempts to make people mad at the rich. They tend to work during hard times and fall apart when things get better. I have inhabited all five of the income quintiles at various times during my working life. My “class identity” only has a five year shelf life, so I would have to fight with my younger and older selves.

Posted by: C&J at March 18, 2012 7:24 PM
Comment #338711

Class warfare is defined by Alinski as the haves and have-nots. It is expanded by liberals to mean black vs white, white vs minorities; union vs non-union, rich vs poor, conservative vs liberal, Christians vs non-Christian, and so forth. I would suggest just listening to the left.

Stephen Daugherty’s rebuttal:

“And just to be sure, who was it who was angrily shouting people down and interrupting speakers in the middle of the Town Halls? Who was carrying guns around to intimidate the other side? Who was it this past year who attempted to ram the economy into the debt ceiling, and who were willing to cross that threshold to teach the country a lesson about debt.”

Let’s look at this:

“Conservatives shouting down people and interrupting speakers; conservatives carrying guns; debate over the debt ceiling”…these were all the talking points of the liberal left. They were the most important thing in the news and then they became non-important. And just to be sure, who was it who was angrily shouting people down and interrupting speakers in the middle of the Town Halls? Who was carrying guns around to intimidate the other side? Who was it this past year who attempted to ram the economy into the debt ceiling, and who were willing to cross that threshold to teach the country a lesson about debt? Here we have SD once again trying to bring up the same old talking points of the liberals. You see Stephen, you can’t come up with anything original; everything is regurgitated liberal BS.

Did constituents have the right to demand answers from their representatives?

Do you believe the OWS protestors have the right to cause civil disobedience and damage private property?

How many conservatives were carrying guns? Did they have the right to carry? Was the MSM right to purposely hide the fact that the man carrying the AR-15 was a black man?

How do American voters feel about Obama leading us further and further into a debt crisis? Do Americans want to hold their politicians feet to the fire over spending?

See Stephen, you can insinuate all you want, but your comments are based on liberal talking points that have been dealt with time and time again and you still want to bring up the same old crap.

Posted by: Frank at March 18, 2012 8:23 PM
Comment #338713

I had a great weekend. Great weather all week in the 80’s. But it was nothing compared to reading SD as he always does, carve up the unprepared,uninformed same old people that screech and p*** and moan. Keep up the good work Stephen. Though to be honest, you really are not working that hard debating with this crew. FOUR MORE YEARS!

Posted by: Ray at March 18, 2012 8:48 PM
Comment #338714

Ray

We forgive your lack of understanding.

But will you rise to the challenge I gave Stephen?

Posted by: C&J at March 18, 2012 8:50 PM
Comment #338715

C&J-
The Affordable Care Act works, with its mandate, off the assumption that even those who will not pay for healthcare now, will use it in the future. Unsafe assumption? Probably not, given most people are not immortal, nor ageless. The Healthcare market is not like most markets, where you can decide not to buy forever and get away with it. People will fall ill, will break bones, get into accidents, develop cancer, heart disease, etc. So, you can’t simply count on a lack of demand to convince folks in the market that they can’t just drive up prices indefinitely, nor can you ensure that, if you require insurance companies to cover everybody, that everybody who abstains from getting coverage at first will successfully abstain for the forseeable future, only getting insured at the last moment, reaping all the benefits for none of the cost up front.

More later.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 18, 2012 9:06 PM
Comment #338718

C&J-
As far as the separation of Church and state goes, I think the separation was meant to extend to policy. The Framers regarded their union as fragile, and did not enjoy the thought of having to figure out whose doctrine would prevail. Even in that time, America was religiously diverse.

You simply take religion out of the equation. Religion is something private people enforce on themselves, according to their own conscience. Some panic when they see others not following their dictates, or when they see the apparent morality of the country on a decline, and they insist that religious principles be brought back into government.

But again, whose? What might be moral for one person might seem outrageous to another. Just look at the controversy over Mormons posthumously baptizing people into their ranks! Or look at the Seventh Day Adventists, and their beliefs. Everybody would have a viewpoint about whose religious doctrines would be imposed, and everybody would not only think the other person was wrong, but some would even take it into their heads that this wrongness needed certain interventions from the Government to correct.

The Framers wanted to take this temptation completely out of the hands of government. Europe is the way it is, religiously, because religion was often a tool of the elite and the powerful, and when one was rejected, the other was rejected with them.

Religion’s survived better here because religion didn’t rely, couldn’t rely on the good graces of the church, and people who actually went to church went of their own free will.

Minor inclusions of Christianity in the past are no good reason to muddy the divide now. The truth of the matter is, it shouldn’t be the job of government to be people’s moral compass. People should be their own moral compasses, guiding government, whether that’s in its extension of power, or in the withdrawal of that power.

We don’t need folks in Washington being given the opportunity to play God with our religions.

tom humes-
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

The establishment clause simply means government support for religion. Truth is, government support means you let government decide what’s worth supporting, and if your particular religion’s tenets aren’t identified with by the majority of either the public or the people in charge… well, then you’re out of luck. You can practice your religion openly. Whether you feel ashamed of it or not is your problem, and no government can solve that for you.

As for those Amendments being just against the Federal Government? The 14th Amendment makes it the State Government’s concern, too.

Frank-
Wow what a terrible argument. Your entire answer to my description of your side’s behavior was “these are all liberal talking points?” If they are, they are, but the real question is whether they’re false!

A question you never refute. No, you don’t try to claim that your people didn’t shout down folks in Town Halls, or carry around guns at rallies, or that your particular kind of Republican or Conservative were all right with letting America default on its debts.

No, you just say “liberal talking points”, “unoriginal”, or whatever. You don’t bother to deal with truth or falsity. You just wrap everything into this nice political package, and don’t even bother with the basic facts.

Do I care whether the guy in question was black? No. I care that a person was making political points about meeting what he saw as government tyranny with a gun in his hand, and the President not too far away. His race was immaterial.

As for the debt crisis, let me be blunt: our debt was selling at such low rates that people were basically paying us to park their money. We weren’t in the middle of a Debt crisis until your people decided to threaten not to pay.

As for insinuation? Insinuation is when you try and sneak the point in from the side. I’ve been rather open about what accusations or allegations I’ve made.

As for the last part? I bring up facts as long as they’re relevant. The truth doesn’t change, neither should what I say about it.

Try dealing with the facts, rather than relying on everybody to share your willingness to discount facts that come from sources you consider politically suspect or forbidden.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 18, 2012 11:51 PM
Comment #338735

Stephen Daugherty, on each of your regurgitated talking points, I asked the question “were they within their rights”?

These were nothing more than liberal attack points used by the liberal MSM back a few years ago, and here you are bringing up the same old shit.

Did these people have the right to question their representatives, (many of whom lost in 2010).

Do any citizens have the right to carry weapons (or more specifically, did this man have the right to have a weapon)? Or, was he breaking the law? And why did the MSM try to present him as a disgruntled red neck white man who was clinging to his guns? Because Stephen, that is exactly what they tried to make him into. Do you care that he was black? You say no, but I doubt that any of your comments at the time, accused the MSM of deception.

And lastly, do the American people have the right to question their government about spending, and more specifically (to make it simple for you) do they have the right to hold their representatives feet to the fire on spending?

Answer the 3 questions Stephen and you will find the answer to your use of old talking/gotcha points.

But I don’t think you are capable of answering them; your answers will either nullify your points, or your answer will paint you as the socialist you are, denying Americans their rights under the Constitution.

Posted by: Frank at March 19, 2012 9:03 AM
Comment #338737

Frank,

“Do any citizens have the right to carry weapons (or more specifically, did this man have the right to have a weapon)?”

IMHO, the question shouldn’t be whether he had the right to carry a gun, but why he felt the need to carry the gun with him.
It’s just bone stupid.

“Do you care that he was black?”

Frankly, I find it hard to determine a man’s skin color when he has his head up his a**.

“…do they have the right to hold their representatives feet to the fire on spending?”

When people are yelling, which was the case at these “meetings”, nobody is listening. What is the point of having a Townhall meeting if nothing gets accomplished?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 19, 2012 9:59 AM
Comment #338743

Frank-
Funny, but you seem to be just fine with puking Right-Wing Talking points here. You complain that I’m being autocratic here, but you seem to be trying to order me around on what I can and can’t say. No matter, I have the right to say what I want.

But having the right to say what I want, though, doesn’t make what I say right! That would be the basic point I’d send your way. Put simply, you can provoke a Debt Crisis, but you can’t make people think that was a wise idea, or prevent the natural, negative outcomes that might come from that.

Folks like you nowadays don’t take telling from anybody. You’re so confident that you’re right, that you don’t even begin to question what your actions or expressions look lik from the other side.

Yes! That’s your right! But again, having a right to do something doesn’t make it right. It doesn’t make the chill that runs down certain people’s backs when they hear that somebody brandishing a rifle near an arena where the President was speaking go away. It doesn’t make your party’s attacks on contraception or the women who advocate for it more palatable.

It doesn’t make it any wiser to threaten that Congress won’t let the treasury raise the money to pay off the debts of this country which are coming due.

The question is not whether my answers are talking points or not. The question is whether they’re right or not. That’s where you keep on changing the subject, keep on trying to make this about me being some political hack.

But I’m not some teenager who just thinks Obama walks on water. I’m an adult who’s been educated in logic, and I know an ad hominem argument. What you want me to concede here is the idea that I have no place in this debate!

**** that. If believed that was true, if I was that much of a simpering coward about my beliefs, I wouldn’t have spent eight years of my life arguing with folks like you.

I’ve answered your questions. You may not like the answers, but I’ve done it. Now answer the arguments I’ve put forward, and stick to the facts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 19, 2012 2:45 PM
Comment #338744


Restrictions on the RIGHT to bear arms?

Restrictions on the RIGHT to vote?

Unalienable RIGHTS?

Posted by: jlw at March 19, 2012 3:24 PM
Comment #338745

“Folks like you nowadays don’t take telling from anybody. Your so confident that your right, that you don’t even begin to question what your actions or expressions look like from the other side.” Sounds like the same thing you do Stephen. Most conservatives have been telling you the same thing but you don’t listen so why should we listen to you.

Posted by: KAP at March 19, 2012 4:00 PM
Comment #338747

“Folks like you nowadays don’t take telling from anybody. Your so confident that your right, that you don’t even begin to question what your actions or expressions look like from the other side.” Sounds like the same thing you do Stephen. Most conservatives have been telling you the same thing but you don’t listen so why should we listen to you.”

Posted by: KAP at March 19, 2012 4:00 PM

You are dead on KAP.

Stephen refused to answer any of the 3 questions because he don’t want to get caught making a entraping statement.

Rocky Marks, your comment is idiotic!!! Instead of making a stupid statement, why don’t you go back and read what was said. There were 3 questions and you combined 2 of them. The only thing I can figure is that you just want to be heard saying something.

Posted by: Frank at March 19, 2012 4:56 PM
Comment #338748

Frank,

Actually why didn’t you read my whole post.

Apparently you would rather be insulting than understanding of what I wrote.

Let me translate;

Yes, he had the “right” to carry the gun, but he was a moron for actually carrying it.
Just because you have the “right” to do something doesn’t mean that you should, and a gun amongst a crowd is an invitation for an incident.

I don’t care what color the man was, it doesn’t matter. He is still a moron for carrying a gun outside of a townhall meeting.

The “Townhall” meetings were a complete waste of time. Yelling in anger at an elected official is not a way to further a conversation, nor is it a way to get a point across, nor is it a way to solve a problem, as everything gets lost in the chaos that ensues.

Yelling is for children, and that is what the townhalls that were disrupted looked like.

A bunch of yelling children.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 19, 2012 5:23 PM
Comment #338749

KAP-
What I just love about modern conservative argument is that every argument seems to be about alleging that everybody else shares your flaws. Nothing about actually trying to redeem or transcend those flaws, just making sure the other side can’t say they’re any better.

Everybody has blind spots, but if we dismiss people for having blindspots, we end up unable to argue a damn thing between each other. Right? That is the absurd, logical conclusion of that line of thinking.

The question then is why we trust an argument.

What I’ve told him again and again, as he tries to dismiss my arguments essentially on the basis of them being the standard arguments of my party, is that what counts is whether the facts are right or wrong.

It’s sort of like he wants his arguments pre-approved, the bias towards conservatism and against liberalism agreed to before we even begin to talk about the substance of matters.

How do you avoid conservative blind spots if you have to agree to them in the first place to have the conversation? Frankly, I’d just as soon have an environment where everybody’s blind spots are challenged.

Frank-
You think you have me trapped. But I answered those three questions honestly. The replies I gave you, though, aren’t conducive to the kind of response you wish to give me, so you’re ignoring them.

All in all, what I’m asking you is whether you recognize that what might look one way to you, looks another way to others. What you might see as righteous anger, others might see as out of control rage. What some might see as a demonstration of the right to bear arms, and defiance of tyranny, others might see as disturbingly close to announcing an attention to wield political power at the end of a gun.

Y’all are so wrapped up in the values you assign to those actions, that you neither figure what people might think, or what effect it might have on their votes and political leanings. And that is how you alienate people, even as you’re trying to create a perfect, pure political powerhouse without divisions. You only get that by cleaving off or converting enough of the unbelievers to make it work.

If you’re not on the right side of social trends, you end up doing more cleaving than converting. But even if you convert people, you’ve got to be right about the policy. If you’re not, if the policy keeps on making nosedives into the turf, folks are going to lose morale and lose the rational basis for support, and that’s going to start cutting away people in the other direction, as has happened in the last decade. Cut away enough people, and you’re screwed. You might be able to panic people back into voting for you briefly, but if you turn right back into cluelessly divisive tactics, you might find yourself carving away supporters once again.

I basically answered your questions. As far as provoking the debt crisis goes, the public has a right to hold them accountable, has a right to demand that the house be put in order. But there are ways to put the house in order that work, and ways that don’t, and failing to raise the debt ceiling has objective consequences that are bad for everybody, and cause worse immediate problems for our credit than the status quo.

Like I said before, if the cure is worse than the disease, you need a better policy.

As far as the gun goes, and the yelling? They have the appparent right to do the first, and the actual right to do the second, but damn if you’re not sending different messages to most of the American public than you’re receiving yourself.

Fact is, with efficient communication, people leave things out that they expect other people to be able to fill in. Now that’s good if the other person can and indeed does fill it in. Not so good otherwise.

Well, you need to realize that when you send messages out like screaming people in a townhall, or some guy, black, white, teel, or mauve, brandishing guns at a counter rally near one the President is attending, not everybody’s going to get the message you do, because part of the missing part of the message is contained in your culture.

The more esoteric your culture is, the more of the message you think you’re sending that is in fact getting lost in the translation.

Your basic problem is that you don’t realize how much of this shortfall you’re ignorant of, or how ignorant you are about how really liberals think. You are too confident about your misconception, and damn if you don’t feel like actually justifying yourself to anybody else.

The disconnect is basically your fault. If you could surrender enough pride to actually reason with people instead of trying to browbeat them, you could get somewhere. Unfortunately, your great examples were attention getting blowhards who pump up controversy to get attention, but are otherwise poor at getting people to become sympathetic to their cause.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 19, 2012 6:15 PM
Comment #338751

What’s the matter Stephen, just like the last comment, you can’t take criticism of your policies or ideology. You think you and your party are the saviors of the USA. Over the years I have seen you write many, many times IF REPUBLICANS WOULD DO THIS, IF REPUBLICANS WOULD DO THAT, THEN THEY WOULD BE JUST LIKE ME. You can’t take someone disagreeing with you can you Stephen? The disconnect Stephen comes from It’s my way or the highway type politics your Messiah in the WH has been running and the boob majority leader you have in the Senate, thank God Pelosi is only minority leader in the house, then she probaly bought that position. Debate Stephen is when two or more persons having different opinions of a topic get to air their opinions. You, Stephen, can’t seem to take criticism very well of your ideology, that somehow hasn’t worked to well as of late, more and more people are not liking the way your great one is running this country.

Posted by: KAP at March 19, 2012 7:05 PM
Comment #338752

Stephen Daugherty, you are the one who brought up these talking points. If you don’t want to explainyour stand on them, that’s okay with me.

But I will ask you this question SD and it can also go to RM; did/do you have aproblem with the OWS protestors shouting, cursing, throwing bricks, deficating on cop cars, and destroying private property? Is it simply their right to express themselves through the 1st Amendment, or are they casting a bad light on Democrats?

Stephen, your statement could easily be applied to OWS:

“Well, you need to realize that when you send messages out like screaming people in a townhall, or some guy, black, white, teel, or mauve, brandishing guns at a counter rally near one the President is attending, not everybody’s going to get the message you do, because part of the missing part of the message is contained in your culture.

The more esoteric your culture is, the more of the message you think you’re sending that is in fact getting lost in the translation.

Your basic problem is that you don’t realize how much of this shortfall you’re ignorant of, or how ignorant you are about how really liberals think. You are too confident about your misconception, and damn if you don’t feel like actually justifying yourself to anybody else.

The disconnect is basically your fault. If you could surrender enough pride to actually reason with people instead of trying to browbeat them, you could get somewhere. Unfortunately, your great examples were attention getting blowhards who pump up controversy to get attention, but are otherwise poor at getting people to become sympathetic to their cause.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 19, 2012 6:15 PM

Any wishes to apologize for the actions of OWS Stephen?

Posted by: Frank at March 19, 2012 7:17 PM
Comment #338754

SD

“I’m an adult who’s been educated in logic,…”

Is it logic that we spend ourselves rich?

Is it logic that the various amendments say something other than what is printed?

Is it logic that Obama Care is even logical?

Your opening line is, yeah I got your logic right here, which is a paraphrase.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 19, 2012 7:53 PM
Comment #338755

KAP-
You are airing your opinion. Airing your opinion is not simply getting to state it without somebody gainsaying it.

As for stubbornness on my party’s part? I can site multiple examples where Obama invited your side to contribute, and multiple examples where your side told him to get lost. I know it doesn’t look that way from your point of view, but Obama shouldn’t have to concede every debate to be regarded by your side as cooperative.

Frank-
Amazing how much of my argument you have to copy in your response. Did I pick my words so well that you were at a loss for your own?

Look, mister, you may have isolated incidents of misbehavior by OWS participants, but you know, those people were media savvy enough to recognize that provoking responses from the cops and everybody else, beyond the civil disobedience, was a bad idea.

In some places, you saw cars get lit on fire, police violence met with further violence in return. You can talk about bricks being thrown at cops, but how much of that actually got on tape? How much of that reported behavior was just a pretext for some cops to bust some heads?

No, the images were of unresisting protestors being sprayed in the face with pepper spray, of veterans coming off of the street with skull fractures from being hit by beanbag rounds in the head.

The OWS movement understands that its under scrutiny, and they have their responses ready.

Your people, on the other hand, reject the scrutiny, somehow believe that everybody should share your affection for your people and their policies. Look at the tone of what you write!

Me? I believe that since I’m not always good at being socially graceful, that I should seek a common ground, or an agreeable common standard to work from. In this case, if we’re going to talk about the effect of illegal immigrants on the vote, let’s talk about it in terms where the argument is proveable, not merely filled with emotional buzzwords meant to disable rational thought.

I believe that your people don’t quite feel that confident arguing in such terms, that those terms feel weak because they require you to be more flexible with conceding political points when they apparently conflict with reality. You can lose and argument if it’s about something factual, disproveable. If you only focus on who is making the argument in deciding its worthiness, you can avoid the possibility of failure, and just concentrate on pushing back politically.

If nobody but a true conservative can make true points, then there’s no way to lose. At least, that’s the theory.

The truth is, Republicans have only backed themselves into a corner where it’s difficult to conceded things when concession is necessary to maintain credibility. Nobody can truly make themselves invulnerable in politice or rhetoric. They can only encourage excessive bias, which becomes a blinding influence on both policy and politics.

I want my party to branch out, to gain influence, to keep itself aware of the reality of policy, as well as the concerns of people who the policy effects. No party makes perfect policy when it shields itself with thick walls of dogmatic belief, and the Republicans have shielded themselves heavily.

Or, put another way Republican thought and philosophy has become defensive in nature, a siege mentality overcoming the organization. The problem with that, ultimately, is that defensive sensibilities ultimately take all the give and the initiative out of the party. A party that is willing to engage, work with people, give and take can adapt to what people want. A party that is not, that wants to dictate terms will rely on the patience that people have for the policies, which the Republicans can’t say is high at this point.

Republicans don’t have to give up their principles. They just have to realize that their principles must be expressed through a democratic process that will put any group of people trying to dictate terms to the test. It’s better to be influential in part, than to have no influence because you have no patience for anything short of total control.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 19, 2012 8:31 PM
Comment #338767

SITE THEM THEN PROOF STEPHEN PROOF and please not Huff post, NYT, or W.P. We all know those are Obama’s cheer leaders.

Posted by: KAP at March 19, 2012 8:50 PM
Comment #338769

tom hume-
Is it logical that we get something for nothing? The government can support commerce through targeted spending. Not every proposal yields fruit, but that doesn’t mean none will.

There’s nothing logical, either, with your assertion that the constitutional principles are mere text. The people who wrote them up were dealing with matters beyond the page. To rob constitutional matters of their context is to rob them of their true meaning. So, too, is to sever human judgment from the process of interpretation. For example, it’s one thing to say you can’t abridge the freedom of speech. It’s yet another to deal with some idiot who’s shouting at his girlfriend on the street at two in the morning. How does that constitution, **** yeah! approach square with the concept of obscenity or indecency, as Rick Santorum is getting riled up about?

To you, it’s a matter of clarification and simplification. You believe that if you force a simple enough interpretation, nothing can be misinterpreted.

I’ve never seen things work that way. If anything, once you’ve reduced things to literalism, the capacity for loopholes grow enormously, because even literal words can be interpreted any number of ways.

As for the Affordable Care Act? It’s simple economics. If you want everybody covered, no matter how sick they become, then everybody has to contribute. Otherwise you encourage free riders. As for the very notion of healthcare reform, we cannot continue to pay more for worse results and have a healthy, prosperous economy. We need to get prices out of control so we don’t have one industry taking the money out of every other industry’s pocket. Explain to me the logic of doing otherwise.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 19, 2012 8:54 PM
Comment #338782

Stephen

Re Obamacare – your point about needing healthcare is beside the point. He courts will decide the valid.
I would also point out that it is not always the same how much people will use health care. My father went to the doctor when he got out of the Army-Air Corps in 1945 and never went back to a doctor at all until the day he died in 1996. He was conspicuously not a consumer of health care, disliked the medical profession, preferred to die and he did, but after he lived 78 years, smoking two packs of unfiltered cigarettes every day since he was a kid.
Re separation of church and state – for the founding fathers (I like the older term. Framers are people who work on the structure of houses) the separation had a very specific historical context and they clearly never intended to exclude religion, because they did not.

BTW – I didn’t notice that you took up that challenge to give conservatives the respect that I give you. This is what I wrote about liberals. I think that you need to agree that the same is true about conservatives, since you told me that you are interested in ideas not attacking people.

“Here’s what I can say about liberals - most liberals are good people who make decisions based on their experience and values. Candidates who appeal to liberals generally have the best interests of their country in mind, although like all politics they have their own ambitions. While I often disagree with liberals, I understand that they make their choices based on logic and morality, as much as I do. Both sides have their shares of weirdos, crooks and dummies, but these do not define conservative/liberal.”

Posted by: C&J at March 19, 2012 9:41 PM
Comment #338807

C&J-
My father’s in the hospital, and my family has a history of Heart disease on both sides. Right now, I could probably do without some insurance, since I’m relatively strong, but I have a feeling my luck won’t last forever.

I’ve experienced the financial effects both of absent healthcare, and healthcare that costs a pretty penny, and neither are pleasant. So, your logic runs into my personal experience. I’d also say that your Father probably is not typical of your average smoker. We shouldn’t be constructing a healthcare system for the exceptional cases.

As for the Separation of Church and State? I think even among the supporters of greater involvement of the church in state, you could get ten different answers as to what appropriate policy was. And if you think they wouldn’t be just as fierce among themselves as to what is right… Well, you’re underestimating them. In my opinion, the main reason for the separation is not that religion is evil, or that the state doesn’t benefit from spiritual guidance.

The main reasons, I would say, center around keeping the peace between believers of different sects and philosophies who would otherwise engage in the kind of vicious fights that are the province of sectarian divisions.

I don’t think that religious tensions are any less nowadays, or that it is any smarter of an idea to let religion become politicized. I would say one of the big reasons Europe has such trouble getting people into churches is that churches chained themselves to secular power structures and found themselves fallen into disfavor along with the people they relied on.

I would just say, do what the framers did, and save yourself the headache of trying to force God’s will through the contentious, conflicted hands of man’s government in a Democracy. At best you get a muddy, banal, generic state religion, at worst you get armed civil conflict over who has the right to set policy.

As far as respect, I can’t say I get much from your words these days. Try and realize that I don’t like to mess in the muddy waters of people’s emotions. It’s too subjective. I prefer to insist on symmetrical premises, on information that ought to look the same from both sides.

But if somebody comes after me like Frank does, I’m not going to hesitate to slam the door on him. I don’t like people who try to pull that “media bias/liberal talking points” on me, because it seems like a cheap way not to have the debate. Me, rather than just complain about conservative biases regarding issues, I try and demonstrate biases on a factual level.

For example, take the charge that Obama’s trying to get illegal aliens in a position where they can vote for him. Well, in the states they settle, are they actually all that capable of swaying an election his way? Turns out, no, they aren’t. They’re either going into big states whose numbers won’t sway too much from baseline (Texas will likely stay red, California blue), or into smaller states whose electoral votes are minor factors at best.

How could people not see this, making that argument? Well, because they never thought to have to prove it from first principles. I had to ask myself, what would be necessary for Obama to gain from this, and looking into that, I found out the lack of available electoral college votes in those states. If the election is close, it could make a difference, but he’d have to lose a lot of states first.

The point is, rather than test things based on my admittedly biased feelings about Obama, I took facts that were not reliant on those feelings and used them to bolster my point.

I mean, these days, I get these pat assumptions out of you, and what I’m saying is, “what are the first principle premises to the argument?”

I don’t want to fool around with challenges and stuff like that. I want to discuss policy on grounds that can actually put those policies to the test, and determine right or wrong beyond mere personal opinion.

KAP-
Which brings me to you. If you think my source is wrong, why don’t you look at the facts, and demonstrate the errors with your own sources? Why tell me to censor myself? If my facts are wrong, refute facts with facts, not this media bias BS.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 19, 2012 11:54 PM
Comment #338928

My Messiah? Are we getting a little angry here?

You call them Jobs bills, but they hardly deal with anything of the kind.

They cut into the length of unemployment benefits, they impede regulation, they gut environmental regulations. According to their Supply Side ideology, that qualifies, but if we’re comparing Obama’s direct aid to industries and folks who are out of work to get back to work, it’s obvious what’s really a jobs bill, and what’s a supply side policy bill by another name.

The problem is, Republicans don’t just want input, they want to dictate terms, despite their position.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2012 11:22 AM
Comment #338932

Stephen, “The problem is Democrats don’t just want input, they want to dictate terms, despite their position.” Come on Stephen we can go back and forth with this and never get nowhere. Both parties are Stuborn and don’t want to give in. At least I can admit that. But not letting things even go to the floor of the Senate for debate is a bit much. This is the child like attitudes we have in our elected officials on both side of the aisle and it needs to stop. You see Stephen I blame both sides for our problems not just Democrats and not just Republicans. When both side quit with their child like attitudes then maybe we can get things straight with this country. Until then I doubt it, much of the same ol crap is going to happen.

Posted by: KAP at March 20, 2012 12:08 PM
Comment #338933

Stephen Daugherty, I copy and paste so much of your argument for the purpose of showing how out of touch you are with reality. Take this statement for example:

“Look, mister, you may have isolated incidents of misbehavior by OWS participants, but you know, those people were media savvy enough to recognize that provoking responses from the cops and everybody else, beyond the civil disobedience, was a bad idea.”

Your are trying to imply that the OWS protest, which are always violent, are nothing more than isolated incidents. But you know that’s not true. If the Tea Party had done even a small percentage of what the OWS protest have done, Obama would have already called out the troops and declared martial law. Stephen, get out of your little liberal bubble and turn on the TV set and watch the news; you will see what the OWS is all about. Are the Democrat politicians, who supported OWS, still out there supporting them?

“In some places, you saw cars get lit on fire, police violence met with further violence in return. You can talk about bricks being thrown at cops, but how much of that actually got on tape? How much of that reported behavior was just a pretext for some cops to bust some heads?”

Stephen, do you know how ridiculous you sound? Stephen Daugherty, the great defender of the military and the police. A few months ago and you were defending the police and fireman of Wisconsin against destructive laws of Gov. Walker and now you are pulling the same old Obama game of blaming the police. Is there ever going to be a time in history when a liberal actually takes responsibility for his own actions and not blame someone else? I’ll answer that question, NO-NO-NO and a thousand times NO. It is always someone else’s fault.

“I want my party to branch out, to gain influence, to keep itself aware of the reality of policy, as well as the concerns of people who the policy effects.”

Yes, you want to branch out; and as Yukon Jake so eloquently stated in an earlier post, the goal of the Democratic Party is to get everyone on government subsidy at the taxpayers’ expense. Obama’s plan, you vote for us and the gravy just keeps flowing.

Then we conclude with these pears of wisdom:

“Republicans don’t have to give up their principles. They just have to realize that their principles must be expressed through a democratic process that will put any group of people trying to dictate terms to the test. It’s better to be influential in part, than to have no influence because you have no patience for anything short of total control.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 19, 2012 8:31 PM

Thank you Stephen for allowing us to keep our principles, but what you meant was we could keep them as long as they agreed with liberal principles. Let’s see, shall we go back to the polls: 20% liberal, 40% conservative, 40% moderate. So what you are saying is that 80% of America should bow to the wishes of the 20%? The last major election was in 2010 and I believe the American people spoke through the democratic process. So I guess we will have to wait and see if the majority of Americans have changed their minds and decided to become socialist.

I must also comment of Stephen’s comment to Tom Humes:

“As for the Affordable Care Act? It’s simple economics. If you want everybody covered, no matter how sick they become, then everybody has to contribute. Otherwise you encourage free riders. As for the very notion of healthcare reform, we cannot continue to pay more for worse results and have a healthy, prosperous economy. We need to get prices out of control so we don’t have one industry taking the money out of every other industry’s pocket. Explain to me the logic of doing otherwise.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 19, 2012 8:54 PM

Tell me Stephen, does the 50% of Americans who pay taxes encourage the 50% who pay no taxes to be free riders?

What is the problem with Tort reform and open state borders for the sale of insurance? Other than the fact that 90% of liberal politicians were once ambulance chasing lawyers.

Re/ Stephen’s messiah; yes he most certainly is. In fact I bet Stephen is like Chris Matthews and gets a tingle up his leg every time the bamster speaks.

“They cut into the length of unemployment benefits, they impede regulation, they gut environmental regulations.

Sounds good to me.

“According to their Supply Side ideology, that qualifies, but if we’re comparing Obama’s direct aid to industries and folks who are out of work to get back to work, it’s obvious what’s really a jobs bill, and what’s a supply side policy bill by another name.”

Are we talking about the money Obama gave to Solyndra, and all green companies; or about the money he used to bail out the unions and pension funds?

Posted by: Frank at March 20, 2012 12:10 PM
Comment #338968

KAP-
You say that, but I can show you three bills they should have known weren’t going to pass a divided Congress, with Democrats under political pressure to act like Democrats. Why don’t the wishes of Democratic Party Constituents fit into your concept of what’s actually a compromise?

I’m ****ing sick of this “both sides” rhetoric, when it’s basically clear that only one side has a vested interest in continued obstruction.

Frank-

Your are trying to imply that the OWS protest, which are always violent

Stop right there. Always? Where’s your footage of burning cars, of protestors bashing against riot shielded police?

That’s right. You don’t have that. You call the results violent, but how many police officers have gotten injured, as opposed to how many protestors?

But you know that’s not true. If the Tea Party had done even a small percentage of what the OWS protest have done, Obama would have already called out the troops and declared martial law.

And we have whose word for this? That’s right, we’re cruising on your passionate confidence in your own message. Go on.

Stephen, get out of your little liberal bubble and turn on the TV set and watch the news; you will see what the OWS is all about. Are the Democrat politicians, who supported OWS, still out there supporting them?

I’d listen to their rhetoric, look at the direction of their appeals. Who’s talking about the 99% against the 1%? What led to the sudden pivot on jobs and everything, from a season where debt reduction was the main priority?

The OWS is pretty much old news as this point (and yes, I saw the news. My homepage is CNN, and most blogs I visit on a regular basis are news-heavy in their focus) But they succeeded, for their part, with peacefully getting a message across.

Stephen, do you know how ridiculous you sound? Stephen Daugherty, the great defender of the military and the police. A few months ago and you were defending the police and fireman of Wisconsin against destructive laws of Gov. Walker and now you are pulling the same old Obama game of blaming the police. Is there ever going to be a time in history when a liberal actually takes responsibility for his own actions and not blame someone else? I’ll answer that question, NO-NO-NO and a thousand times NO. It is always someone else’s fault.

Not all the apples in the barrels are good apples. I believe that support for troops and support for police is on the whole a good thing, but that doesn’t mean I give them a pass on accountability. Put another way, what I’d say to them is that I will agree to give you the power and the authority to fight crime, to preserve the peace, but you got to understand that fighting crime and preserving the peace means that you respect civil liberties and not respond to things like protests with excessive force.

Thank you Stephen for allowing us to keep our principles, but what you meant was we could keep them as long as they agreed with liberal principles. Let’s see, shall we go back to the polls: 20% liberal, 40% conservative, 40% moderate. So what you are saying is that 80% of America should bow to the wishes of the 20%? The last major election was in 2010 and I believe the American people spoke through the democratic process. So I guess we will have to wait and see if the majority of Americans have changed their minds and decided to become socialist.

Ah, that old thing. There’s”>http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/Political-Ideology-Stable-Conservatives-Leading.aspx”>There’s a difference between self-identified conservatives being a plurality of Americans, and a majority. Add Moderates to liberals, and the fact stares you right in the face: 57% of Americans identify as something else than conservative.

You can run around with that 41%, saying you’re the biggest group, but then turn around and look at party identification numbers. There, Republicans represent the smallest group.

40% of Americans identify as independents. 31% as Democrats. 27% as Republicans. If you divide the independents up into the leaners, then you have 45% to 45% for both parties.

Funny how this all works. You have your nice, neat little talking point, which claims to sit your party, your movement on top. Only problem is, if you read the results right in the poll you depend upon, conservative self-identifiers are a minority, politically, in America, with most people by almost sixty percent favoring moderates and liberals, moderates most of all.

Not all conservatives are hard-right, or Republican. Demographics on Democrats show around a 20% reserve of conservatives in the party, with about 40% moderates and 40% liberals. Where many Republicans are crushed towards the ideological extremes, Democrats have far more relaxed party discipline, meaning we cover a broader range of ideological positions.

And if you look at party identification, the Republican party is weakest. it relies on conservative leaners to maintain its competitiveness, but even then, it is only competitive, it’s not dominant at this point.

You know the reason they tell you this, right? Because people are social animals. If you hear every day that your people are the most beloved, that Conservatism reigns supreme, then you won’t be so motivated to question the wisdom of policies or politics that has your party and your political movement on the shy side of being actually popular.

Tell me Stephen, does the 50% of Americans who pay taxes encourage the 50% who pay no taxes to be free riders?

What is the problem with Tort reform and open state borders for the sale of insurance? Other than the fact that 90% of liberal politicians were once ambulance chasing lawyers.

Re/ Stephen’s messiah; yes he most certainly is. In fact I bet Stephen is like Chris Matthews and gets a tingle up his leg every time the bamster speaks.

You’re telling me an awful lot about myself, aren’t you? Funny that I should be so ignorant about my own beliefs, especially when I write about them day after day after day. I mean, it’s not like I’ve left a record of my actual thoughts to dispel the notion that a propagandizing political enemy not unlike you could really know what they were talking about.

The first problem with tort reform? It provides perverse incentive for those who do wrong to continue doing wrong. If you cap damages, you encourage people to take unnecessary risks. As for cross-state insurance sales?

The basic problem is domicile. The main reason that insurance companies operate state by state is that Congress, in the wake of a supreme court decision, passed a law saying that the authority to regulate the insurance companies would rest with the individual states.

If you think through the legal logic, though, such a “reform” is a bad idea for you for two reasons.

First reason is universal: we will see insurance companies encourage a race to the bottom with states, just as credit card companies did in their case, and corporations in general did with Delaware.

Second reason is particular to you: you have to ask yourself how it is that the federal government has authority to decide how insurance will be sold. Well, that original court decision basically said, based on the old grounds provided for Medicare and other programs, that insurance was an example of interstate commerce.

Kind of kills your ACA is unconstitutional argument, doesn’t it?

As for the rest? Well, mister, you may love the direction that the House takes on matter, but that’s not the point. Do you really think, if Democrats wanted to maintain some kind of political integrity, that it would be a good idea for them to start agreeing to what are baldly Republican-pleasing legislative items? No.

It doesn’t work. You don’t get to dictate terms.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2012 2:06 PM
Comment #339024

Tom humes:

It is good to say that the 10th amendment is about States Rights. Is that all you can say. It says that all rights not religated to the federal government are to be reserved to the states.

Health care is not to be dealth with by the federal government.

So you admit that health care is a right? How interesting.

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at March 20, 2012 3:13 PM
Comment #339025

highlandangel1

Where did I say that health care is a right?

That is called misquoting and even adding to the text.

If anything it would be a right among the states, but not the federal government.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 20, 2012 3:18 PM
Comment #339091

Stephen

Re church and state – you are missing the point and missing your own point. The founding fathers wanted to keep church and state separate for some particular historical reasons important to them and less important to us today. If you want facts, you can study the subject. They did not intend to exclude religion. The evidence for this need not be parsed from their words, but can be seen in their actions and in the actions of American government officials for the next 170 years. The exclusion of religion was a product of the 1960s. You may think this is a good or a bad development, but you cannot look to the authorities of the founding fathers for it.

Your point re trying to force God is good, but you – again – miss your own point. Our problem now is that courts indeed are trying to set a strange standard, for example excluding religious organizations from activities that all others can partake and penalizing organizations, such as the Boy Scouts that have beliefs based on particular religious precepts.

Re my challenge - I knew you couldn’t take it up. You really do believe that conservatives are either stupid or evil, or some combination. You cannot conceive that people might disagree with you and still be good, intelligent and informed. It is a common liberal failing, especially among the young. When I was young, I was liberal too and I believed there was no other logical way to be.

Posted by: C&J at March 20, 2012 4:29 PM
Comment #339223

tom humes-
Why is Healthcare not part of interstate commerce?

I know you consider that an abused pretext for legislation, but the fact remains that interstate commerce remains a constitutionally valid area of enumerated authority for the federal government. Companies that administer healthcare don’t respect state borders, operating in multiple states.

If healthcare is interstate commerce, Congress has enumerated power over it. If Congress has enumerated power over it, the Federal government has the authority to regulate. If they do, the tenth amendment creates no restriction, since it only reserves the balance of those powers to the states if they aren’t given to the federal government.

As for your little dispute with highlandangel1?

Well, you start with an argument that argues that all rights not granted to the federal government by the constitution are reserved to the states.

Then you say, healthcare is not to be dealt with by the federal government.

Your wording states that the tenth amendment deals with rights. That’s where you went wrong.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You should have said powers. By saying rights, you basically logically snafued yourself, because the first premise is the backing for the argument that follows.

KAP-
Let me be blunt with you, since you don’t seem to understand me that well, purposefully or accidentally: I do not expect legislation to make it through Congress with no changes. I argued repeatedly for Democrats to accept some compromises, including provisions that were come up with by Republicans, if they would help speed the legislation through Congress.

I’m a pragmatist. I would fully expect that Senators and others from your party, if they were so inclined, would, in the process I describe, add their input. Of course, they couldn’t make it poison pills, but that ought to go without saying.

The problem here is that anything that Obama or the Democrats suggest, over the last few years, qualifies as a dealbreaker. I can show you the record filibusters, the blocked officials and everything, and how newsworthy the compromises are.

But you know what? Like a school-child, you repeat what I say right back to me, but with no premises to prove equal guilt, just the notion that if we’ve said no to anything you’ve put forward, that we’re just as obstructionist as you.

Truth is, debt ceiling deals and all, we’ve said yes to plenty more than it takes to be bipartisan.

The trouble is, unless we give away the whole shop, you don’t consider us as having properly compromised. You expect the compromise of the 90’s, when you were on your way up, and people liked the direction Republicans were going. The plain fact is, anybody following the Republican’s path these days on our side isn’t going to get another term in office.

We can compromise in my party, but you can’t expect us to give up everything. If you won’t pass anything Democrats can actually vote for, you won’t get anything passed. This isn’t a malfunction of the system, it’s how it’s supposed to work. I make my peace with that, why can’t you?

C&J-
They wanted to keep them seperate, because they didn’t want their society fracturing over whose church would be in charge. With folks on your side of the tennis court not exactly shy about blaming the decline on the country on a lack of religious principle, and claiming that good, American government can only be based on biblical principles, I don’t see how the potential has gone away.

Besides, you could argue the same way towards the Second Amendment, arguing that the historical reasons that everybody should be able to keep and bear arms have gone away. If ya’ll won’t buy that argument, I won’t buy the argument that the purposes for not letting sectarian influences legislate to their own advantage in Congress have gone away.

Fact is, folks still fight over religious differences in other countries, and controversies between secular and religious societies remain in countries even as advanced As France and Great Britain. Just look at the Headscarve issue, or the treatment of Arabs and Muslims in our country.

The exclusion of religion might be new, but so are the political and social forces that accompanied increase secularization and variety of religious beliefs in the aftermath of the sixties. So too are the development of new sects in the Twentieth Century. It wasn’t merely secularists who struck down things like school prayer, but also some religious groups who felt the imposition of the prayer by school officials violated their rights.

Overall, what I’d say is that you don’t really gain anything by trying to impose religion by law.

As for your challenge? I was never really clear on it, and I felt its grounds were rather silly. You’d be surprised how sympathetic I am to conservatives on some issues. But there’s another angle to it: simply put, I’m somewhat autistic. I don’t synchronize well with people, so I rely a lot on my own personal intuition and introspection on issues. If I’ve come to believe something, based on evidence, the strength of that belief has nothing to do with what I think of you! It’s got everything to do with the fact that an issue seems clear to me in that way.

It’s nothing personal, in other words, which is why I find your implications frustrating. I’m not stating what I state because I think anything about you, I’m doing it based on strong principles and the evidence that I’ve seen. That’s why I provide so much of my evidence, and lay out so much of my logic for people. I want people to understand the hows and the whys of how I came to different conclusions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2012 6:26 PM
Comment #339224

Stephen, Democrats can compromise????? I don’t expect democrats to give up everything I expect debate and compromise from both parties. What democrats have proposed is raising taxes which republicans are against even if it is just raising taxes on the wealthy which really wouldn’t make a hill of beans with our current debt. We need to look at all spending even entitlement spending and make cuts where needed, then and only then would I even be for modest tax hikes on all. We can’t go on with the rate of spending we are now engaged in. You when Bush was in the WH complained about the debt but now Obama has surpassed Bush in just over 3 years. We can’t keep going on that way Stephen something has to stop this maddness and it dosen’t look like your party is willing to do that.

Posted by: KAP at March 20, 2012 7:00 PM
Comment #339225

Even though I am retired, I would have to give up valuable golfing and fishing time to answer all of Stephen Daugherty’s idiotic statements. But I will attempt, at least for now, I have a tee time in 1 hour.

Stephen said to KAP:

“KAP-
You say that, but I can show you three bills they should have known weren’t going to pass a divided Congress, with Democrats under political pressure to act like Democrats. Why don’t the wishes of Democratic Party Constituents fit into your concept of what’s actually a compromise?
I’m ****ing sick of this “both sides” rhetoric, when it’s basically clear that only one side has a vested interest in continued obstruction.”

First off there is a difference between the wishes of the Democrats and the wishes of the socialist Democrats. Why do you think the Democratic Party has been losing members? And before you bring up the Republican Party losing members, I will admit they are; in fact I am one who told them, “when they can return to conservative values, then I will support them”, and so far they haven’t.

Secondly, the left didn’t seem to have a problem with ramming obamacare down our throats on a party line vote.

Thirdly, it’s a shame you have to result in implying the “F” word to stress how upset you are. Your comment simply denotes you lack of the ability to express yourself with the English language.

Re/OWS, I stand by my statements of their violence. The 99% and the 1% are nothing more than liberal talking points and you continue to use statements that nobody believes. Now if you had said 50% and 50% it would be more believable, but you don’t.

Re/ poll numbers; there you go again Stephen, fudging the numbers again.

Posted by: Frank at March 20, 2012 7:07 PM
Comment #339226

“Truth is, debt ceiling deals and all, we’ve said yes to plenty more than it takes to be bipartisan.”

Reid and Boehner both agreed on the last debt deal to give Obama everything he wanted and what did obama do? Why he came out in front of the American people and lied through his teeth and calling the Congress a do nothing Congress.

Re/ separation of church and state: Stephen Daugherty does not have the capability to understand this subject C&J. It’s a waste of your time talking with him on the subject.

Posted by: Frank at March 20, 2012 7:17 PM
Comment #339227

Stephen

Re separation of church and state. You really need to read up on the debates surrounding the framing of the Constitution. You are projecting anachronistic and your own ideas on it. You mention facts. You need more.

I am not actually arguing against you on this. I am merely trying to point out that there was a lot more than went into this than the simple idea that they didn’t want religious conflict. The amendment is written as it is because of the circumstances.

It is also clear from the subsequent behavior that they did not mean freedom of religion to mean freedom from religion. You notice that the Congress and the military have chaplains. Presidents since George Washington have taken oaths on the Bible and coins say “In God we trust” which appeared a couple generations after the Constitution which shows a consistency in thought.

Re “the challenge” let me make it really, really simple.

Write this - conservatives are generally as intelligent, moral, compassionate and patriotic as liberals.

You can continue to argue particulars. For example, you can maintain that conservatives are stingy because they as less likely want to “share” their money with the poor through taxes, as I will continue to maintain that liberals are stingy since they are less likely to want to share with the poor through charity.

Re logic - you understand that logic is a tool. It does not necessarily arrive at the “correct” conclusion and will not if the premises are wrong. Beyond that, in a very complex society, you will never be taking into account all the factors.

When you lay out the logic, it may or may not be flawed. We would have to do all the analytical crap that most of us studied but forgot. But we are often disagreeing about the premises and even more about the values on which they are based.

You probably remember what GK Chesterton said, “The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.”

Posted by: C&J at March 20, 2012 8:00 PM
Comment #339228

SD and dbs

You are correct. The key word is powers.

Posted by: tom humes at March 20, 2012 8:23 PM
Comment #339229

“What is the problem …..and open state borders for the sale of insurance? Other than the fact that 90% of liberal politicians were once ambulance chasing lawyers.”

Frank,

You simply don’t understand the issue regarding across state line sales of private health insurance contracts. The federal government could, under Supreme Court decisions, regulate individual health insurance contracts but has deferred that right to the states under the McCarran Ferguson Act. Under that Act, health insurance is regulated by the state of the insured. An insurance contract sold to a resident of a state must conform to the state’s requirements. In many states, that means that the insurer must offer the contract under conditions of community rating which spreads risk across the entire state population and other minimal requirements.

In order to provide for across state line sales of individual health insurance contracts, Republican federal proposals have always included a provision that the state of the insurer shall be deemed the state controlling the requirements and regulations of the contract. Thus, insurers will gravitate to the least regulated state and ones without community rating provisions in order to offer lower cost coverage to younger, healthier residents of other states.

It is also interesting to note that all conservative proposals for across state line sales recognize that older, sicker individuals will be priced out of the individual health insurance market. Thus, the caveat that “across state line” sales will require that states create “high risk” pools for the older and sicker residents priced out of the general individual health insurance market.

So, Frank, what you are asking for is low cost insurance for the young and healthy and high cost insurance for the old and sick.

It will be a race to the least regulated state for domicile of insurers. Somewhat like what happened in the credit card industry. Good for the young and health but devastating for the older, sick and the states which must pick up subsidies for the “high risk” pools. Great, let the states support the high risks and the insurance companies the young and low risk.

The conservative proposals, thus far, for across state line sales seem to ignore the benefit of spreading risk across a large age pool. We all age. We all eventually become sick. So, why shouldn’t the risk be spread across the entire spectrum of age? It makes no sense.

Posted by: Rich at March 20, 2012 8:48 PM
Comment #339230

KAP-
The point of Congress’s powers to take out debt is that you don’t always have time to get the money to handle crisis by revenues. Bush, though, took on all the debts he did with the country hardly in any kind of crisis, and then kept on doing it in the name of the economy.

I hardly recall many Republicans or conservative commentators saying this was bad during his time in office- there was no tea party movement harrying Bush. I wasn’t opposed to saving the banks, or any emergency measures meant to save the economy, though.

These are the times when we’re supposed to debt spend in order to head off deeper problems. If our infrastructure degrades, if our competitive edge is dulled, if unemployment takes it toll, or more small banks go under, etc, our economy suffers for it, and we have to recover from that too.

Note that when Bush was in power I never begrudged him paying out unemployment to people, or anything of that kind. I didn’t object in principle to the Medicare drug benefit, but I think they screwed up how they did it.

Long story short, I’ve been consistent on these matters. I wanted us to be more austere, or at least more fiscally responsible in times of relative plenty, and when things went to hell, I wanted my country to do what it had to do to recovery.

Frank-

First off there is a difference between the wishes of the Democrats and the wishes of the socialist Democrats.

First, are we talking self-identified socialists, or Frank-identified socialists? There seems to be a gap between those two! Second, it doesn’t matter what you or anybody else calls them, if enough of their constituents don’t like what they’re doing, they’ll lose the election. So they matter, even if you’ve pronounced on high to the contrary.

As for the Affordable Care Act?

I know you hold up the opposition and obstruction as something heroic, but it’s also a liability in a way you’re not considering: If conceding matters or including little gimmees doesn’t get you votes, why bother? If Republicans can’t be drawn from the nays to the yeas, there’s no point in holding discussions with them, unless its absolutely necessary.

Republicans could have had a greater hand in policy if they’d compromised while the Democrats were in power, and they could be moving more policy now if they were willing to shape it such that Democrats could vote for it. But you’re trying to starve this president of both bipartisan credentials and achievements, so you give nothing…

…and get nothing in return.

You expect people to let you walk all over them, but it ain’t going to happen. They’ll do what’s right for them. They have that freedom as Americans, whatever you think of their opinions.

As for your other accusation? What fudge polls? I reported them as they were. Is this just how you disparage poll numbers that reflect realities you don’t like, that throw cold water on your claims of Conservative supremacy over the political landscape?

As for the fifty/fifty claim, as opposed to the 99%/1% argument?

You can stand beside whatever counterfactual statements you want to make. That’s your business. Just don’t expect your balloons to go unpopped. Take that number of yours: It might be true for federal income taxes, but what about property taxes, sales taxes, Social Security and Medicare Taxes? No, these people aren’t lucky duckies who pay no taxes, they’re rather unlucky ducklings who pay a significant portion of their income in taxes, taxes they absorb much more difficultly than their richer counterparts.

Your class warfare myths here also suffer from the malady of being the result of your own policies. Your party basically set the tax rates we now charge those people.

As for me writing ****? I find it funny that you can claim I have an insufficient grasp of the English language, while elsewhere bashing me for being elitist, in love with the sound of my own key-taps, trying to impress people. Oh, I won’t ask you to make up your mind, your inconsistencies re entertaining to point out. I’m both fairly intelligent, and a product of a working class background, so I’m what you can call sophisticated as hell. I’ll talk about this later, I got things I got to do, too.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2012 9:04 PM
Comment #339251

You want your country to do what it has to, to recover. Well Stephen Obama has got us 5T more in debt and we’re still in the crapper. Housing market still not up to par, gas prices rising daily, food prices doing the same, unemployment still at 8%+ granted we are going into the seasonnell work months but that is just temporary. As far as unemployment 99 weeks is enough, if you can’t find work in that time frame something is wrong. I only had 26 weeks to find a job when unemployed and took what I had to to feed my family and psy bills. We can’t do this anymore, we cannot keep on trying to spend our way out of this mess it is only creating more of a mess.

Posted by: KAP at March 20, 2012 9:59 PM
Comment #339256

KAP-
The figures you see for unemployment are seasonally adjusted- that is, they account for the fluctuations of seasonal employment in their estimates.

As far as unemployment goes, yes, something is wrong: the economy fell off a cliff. Older workers who otherwise would have made way for younger aren’t retiring because their retirement got destroyed. thousands of companies went under through no fault of their own because of a credit freeze. The new jobs that do show up have multiple individuals interviewing for the same position. We haven’t had this kind of a crisis in decades, and there’s no quick fix like lowering interest rates.

What’s keeping this economy down is unemployment. Not a lack of cash on Employer’s hands (which is what tax cuts would solve, if they were solving anything) Not regulatory-driven layoffs (a few thousand workers at best), not the pushing out of private investment (private investors weren’t investing because their balance sheets had poured gasoline on themselves and lit a match)

Basically, despite the beliefs of many on top, you can’t run an economy like ours based solely on what those on top spend.

Growth is back, a car industry that was the stone the Republican builders rejected has become the cornerstone of our recovery. Jobs beget jobs.

Besides, have you thought what happens when people stop getting unemployment checks? Do they all suddenly get jobs, or do most become burdens to friends and relatives, and net zeros in terms of spending?

As for the debt? Part one comes from the pure fact that we had such an economic shock. It’s very rare to see fiscal situations get better when the economy’s not growing. Part two comes from the Bush Tax cuts. Part three comes from all the spending that the Medicare changes and wars, all unpaid for by taxes or offsets.

Republicans are trying to get Democrats to take the political heat on long term spending and revenue decisions they made, pure and simple. If you practice anything more than nominally balanced politics, you would look at the budgets, and realize that I’m right.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 21, 2012 11:33 AM
Comment #339257

SD

Volt, Solyndra, etc.

Item two. All republicans are not conservative. Bush was not a conservative.
Just like all democrats are not socialists. Danny Davis is a socialist.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 21, 2012 11:55 AM
Comment #339260

Yes Stephen I know what happens when unemployment runs out, You either take whatever job you can get or starve. When mine ran out I took whatever I got in the way of a job. By the way what budget? You democrats haven’t had a budget in 3 years and the ones Obama wanted even the congressional democrats voted against it.

Posted by: KAP at March 21, 2012 2:26 PM
Comment #339263


“Bush was not a conservative.” It depends on who you compare Bush with. Compared to Romney, Bush was indeed a conservative. Was Bush more conservative than the maverick McCain?

If Bush was not a conservative, then what does that say about a majority of the Republican politicians? When Bush declared the 2004 election a mandate to privatize Social Security, what did the Republicans in Congress do?

What does it say about the 40% who are conservative and who overwhelmingly voted for Bush twice?

What about Jeb Bush? Is he a conservative?

Although some conservatives would like to disown him, most Americans knows that Bush was a conservative.

Posted by: jlw at March 21, 2012 3:59 PM
Comment #339264

Compared to Chairman Mao, Joe Stalin, etc. one could call him a conservative. I am not in that camp.

That is a pretty evasive way of saying who is and who is not a conservative/socialist.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 21, 2012 4:54 PM
Comment #339272

tom humes-
It’s mighty strange how strongly I saw Republicans fight for somebody who wasn’t a conservative. You know, the problem is, Conservatives nowadays aren’t looking at what they’re actually doing beyond the next battle to save the country. They’re stuck in their own headspace, unable to see things through liberal eyes, or sometimes even through independent eyes.

I’m getting the impression that they are forsaking the same crossover voters that once made it possible for them to draw liberal and moderate voters over. Karl Rove kind of accelerated this by putting the president on a 50%+1 strategy, where any victory was okay, as long as they got that last voter. Unfortunately, as much freedom as this gives on ideology (you can run more conservative candidates) it also encourages Republicans to think in an insular fashion, rather than deal with the realities beyond politics, or the political attitudes of people beyond their party.

As for the Volt and Solyndra? I find it funny that the Republicans do their absolute best to savage the whole GM deal, to bash the greener direction in car making, and then they turn around and make big noise about how the market’s deciding against the volt, as if they had nothing to do with degrading the car’s reputation.

On Solyndra, you’re being duped.

Look into what David Vitter did, trying to get the same kind of guarantees

There were for it, very for it, before they were against it. Bush had it headlining HIS solar initiative, and most conservatives had no problem with Bush before he left office, and they had to face up to his legacy. And if the history of what happened with the GOP after their 2000 win tells you anything, they’d probably go right back to doing it after they’d buffaloed people into believing they changed.

See, the trick here is, they say things to please you, but then they have to please the rest of us, and despite your fantasies, most people have other ideas of what they want. Not every conservative is a die-hard purist, and only forty something percent of Americans, as opposed to three fifths of everybody else are conservative. So, inevitably, they either do well by the rest of us, or they get kicked out.

You are free to define conservatism however you want, but what you cannot define for yourself is other people’s attitudes, or whether people are telling the truth. Just ask Fred Upton

The reality is, this is mostly just about manipulating people against Obama, and giving folks like you red meat. You were never going to get everything you wanted, you were just going to be told what you wanted to hear so you would vote dependably. Nothing’s changed their, beyond the degree of hypocrisy and the height of their irresponsibility.

In the process, though, policy gets held hostage to people’s need to divide people.

That’s all your labeling’s about, really. You’re not merely trying to pin down what people actually are, you’re trying to push people out of the debate on your own terms, whether they’ve got their facts or policies straight or not.

KAP-
Speaking of which, Republicans are largely responsible for the lack of a budget, which you forget was their responsibility this last year as well. They have to govern, too, and they’re even worse at it than we are with the Republicans filibustering us. At the very least we were willing to do the work, but your people are more interested in using the critical functions of government for political BS, despite the harm it causes. Since budget bills must originate in the House, the finger’s pointing at them first.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 21, 2012 6:22 PM
Comment #339278

sd

“You are free to define conservatism however you want, but what you cannot define for yourself is other people’s attitudes, or whether people are telling the truth.”

You sound so self righteous. The truth. You think “your people” know the truth.

How about Danny Davis taking money from a CPUSA source?

You are still a socialist. You do not see it that way. But that is what you are.

When was the last time a politician told the truth? All 535 of them? The administration? The czars?

So you believe whatever lies, non-truths, half truths you want.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 21, 2012 7:18 PM
Comment #339283

I agree Stephen republicans should have submitted a budget but that dosen’t alter the fact that YOUR PEOPLE didnt submit one for over 900 days.

Posted by: KAP at March 21, 2012 7:56 PM
Comment #339292

Frank,

“But I will ask you this question SD and it can also go to RM; did/do you have aproblem with the OWS protestors shouting, cursing, throwing bricks, deficating on cop cars, and destroying private property?”

I have no problem with peaceful civil disobedience.

Personally I think your refusal to cite proof that the OWS protesters are “always” violent speaks volumes about your point of view.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 22, 2012 8:30 AM
Comment #339299

tom humes-
How positively humble of you, to tell me what I am. One Congressman shows up at a Communist Party luncheon, and suddenly, you can state that there’s a major socialist portion to the Democratic Party.

Right. I’m just telling you that slapping labels on everybody doesn’t make a difference in terms of what those labels mean for everybody else, or whether people truly fit those labels. What it does function to do, in the long term, is addict folks like you to trying to win arguments by making debate such a hostile experience that people quit trying to gainsay you. It doesn’t mean you’ve won the argument, though, it’s just taking place elsewhere, with people avoiding your input.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2012 11:26 AM
Comment #339315

“NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — The NYPD released surveillance video Wednesday night detailing some stinky business they say is linked to Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Police said that on evening of March 14, a number of Occupy demonstrators dragged large quantities of human urine and feces in containers to an open-air plaza before pouring the waste down a flight of stairs.

The incident occurred at the corner of Nassau and Cedar streets in Lower Manhattan.

Authorities said that that same night, about 20 minutes later, one of the suspects entered a Chase ATM vestibule on Water Street and poured human waste inside.

Police have released surveillance video of both incidents.

After a witness provided a license plate number of the van allegedly used to transport the waste, authorities apprehended 25-year-old Jordan Brooks Amos, of Philadelphia, two days after the incidents.

Police said Amos is the registered owner of the van. He was charged with criminal possession of a weapon after a stun gun was recovered inside his vehicle.”


http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/21/nypd-says-ows-dumped-feces-urine-in-atm-vestibule-and-down-stairs/

Why did he have a weapon? Was he arrested? And sho me a TP ralley that compares to this?

Posted by: Frank at March 22, 2012 2:58 PM
Comment #339323

Again, a few protestors do something, and you say “This is typical of the whole.” Those people who did that crap (no pun intended) are worse than disgusting, they’re stupid.

Of course, They would likely argue in return (and this would be no justification for what the protestors in question did, mind you) That by requiring a massive bailout to save their asses, the bankers did far worse.

Of course, two wrongs don’t make a right. What those morons did was filthy, and probably wasn’t cleaned up by one of those bankers. And what the bankers did was extraordinarily irresponsible, dangerous, and hurtful to the community, to the nation as a whole.

See how that works? Everybody’s responsible for their own actions. OWS protestors who didn’t pour the filth or agree to that course of action don’t have to be held responsible for what some twits did, and big, too big to fail banks that did not have to be bailed out (of which there are none I’m aware) don’t have to be held responsible for nearly destroying our economy!

And that means the Tea Partier following Rand Paul responsible for stomping on a restrained young woman’s head is responsible for her actions, the guy who chased down that kid in Florida and shot him is responsible for his actions, the guy who’s wasting taxpayer dollars down in Arizona investigating the President’s well-verified birth certificate, beating up on prisoners, and ignoring their civil rights is responsible for what he does…

And so on and so forth.

Ah, but you want to play games of “I’m not as bad as-“

Well, here’s the thing: The Tea Partiers out there had a few big rallies, and that was it. They weren’t protesting the status quo, so much as protesting it’s dissolution. They weren’t practicing civil disobedience, where the whole point of what you’re doing is to bring attention to something or protesting something by breaking the law. They didn’t have to. They have the system on their side, at least until it changes. The big interests weren’t threatened by their message, they were encouraging them from behind the scenes. The Koch Brothers, billionaire industrialists, and Exxon-Mobil were major backers of Americans for Prosperity, and Freedomworks was headed by none other than Washington insider Dick Armey.

Tea Partiers thought or pretended they were confronting the big special interests, when in actuality, they’re practically run by them, who use them as shock troops for a political strategy meant to stall any meaningful change. You’re not going to get arrested, or cast under official suspicion when you’re doing the bidding of the establishment.

Far from really change Congress and the states for the better, the Tea partiers have simply amplified the already present corruption and entrenched it.

The OWS Movement, on the whole, is about confronting that corruption, and that is part of why after a brief period of conservative resurgence, the energy has left the Right Wing, and gone to the left. People really do feel out there that they’ve been taken advantage of. The evidence is right in front of them. It is easier, after a few months of calm, for them to believe that the Banks are going to try and screw them whenever they get the chance, that Obama’s really trying to destroy democracy and capitalism.

There are some points you have to push hard to get people to buy, and some which come naturally. The notion that government needs to get back to the business of serving the public and not the corporate or financial sector’s interests is an incredibly easy one for the OWS to sell, and people will have that in mind long after the befouling deeds of a few dumb protestors has faded from memory. You think you’ve got time to oppose their message? It’s already too late. Their message got through, and all the arrogant belittling of them will do at this point is just leave the stink of political desperation all over you.

Or put another way, You didn’t necessarily need a clean-cut, bright, smiling handsome young man and woman with great speaking skills and charisma to deliver this message. The message was waiting to be delivered by somebody. People were listening for somebody to say something like this and confirm that their sentiments were valid. This has already happened, and the focus has already switched from what the tea party raged for the better part of two years to get people focused on. You were too busy feeling smugly superior to protestors you were told were caught crapping on Wall Street’s front lawn to notice that you lost the message war, or perhaps were never going to win it in the first place.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2012 6:03 PM
Comment #339328

SD

SD uses the classical blow it off approach. There is a ton of material on Danny Davis, and others. You would not believe it.

You used the same approach on Frank when he cited OWS wrong doing. Instead he turns on the anti-Tea Partiers. He further tells half-truths and distorts the reason of the Tea Party movement.

You have come very close to committing libel.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 22, 2012 8:22 PM
Comment #339329

tom humes-
Libel? Why don’t you take a good long look at the BS you and others have dealt my way. Heck, take a look at your entire style of political dialogue when it comes to liberals.

You practically do nothing but defame people like me on a regular basis, and now you’re getting touchy because I’ve said the organizations you idolize is in bed with the big businesses, rather than playing the heroes of the people they’re supposed to.

And for you, that’s libel. Well, guess what: the truth is a defense against libel. Your Tea Party Revolution was built on the deep pockets of superPACs and establishment Republican/Conservative thinktanks. And why not? People weren’t going to give Republicans power after the Bush Administration and the Economic collapse unless something came along to reconnect it to populist values that were running strong in that period. Cue the Tea Party, ready to take the party back to the majority.

Ah, but it didn’t work as planned. The Tea Party supporters took people seriously when they said this time it would be different. It was all just Washington politics.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2012 9:11 PM
Comment #339384

SD

“And that means the Tea Partier following Rand Paul responsible for stomping on a restrained young woman’s head is responsible for her actions, the guy who chased down that kid in Florida and shot him is responsible for his actions, the guy who’s wasting taxpayer dollars down in Arizona investigating the President’s well-verified birth certificate, beating up on prisoners, and ignoring their civil rights is responsible for what he does…”

So wrong.

You say well-verified bc. You cannot produce a “well-verified bc”. What a spin. Your quote above is terribly out of sync. The kid in FL you don’t have the facts on yet but you want to hang someone. It sure gets tiresome to listen to a socialist spew his garbage.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 23, 2012 3:15 AM
Comment #339398

“And that means the Tea Partier following Rand Paul responsible for stomping on a restrained young woman’s head is responsible for her actions, the guy who chased down that kid in Florida and shot him is responsible for his actions, the guy who’s wasting taxpayer dollars down in Arizona investigating the President’s well-verified birth certificate, beating up on prisoners, and ignoring their civil rights is responsible for what he does…

The Koch Brothers, billionaire industrialists, and Exxon-Mobil were major backers of Americans for Prosperity, and Freedomworks was headed by none other than Washington insider Dick Armey…”

Stephen Daugherty, you are one disgusting human being. You come on here and once again parrot the same old liberal talking points and try to make them sound like truth. Perhaps you could provide some truth for this liberal’s socialist rant. You are no better than the camera whore Al Sharpton who shows up in Florida and is trying to make some kind of race issue out of the killing. Again, you guys on the left love to say how much you support the police (as in Wisconsin), but once again you pull the Obama trick of blaming the police for what took place in FL. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. Stephen, you are a liberal piece of work. A few days ago, socialist/liberal Bob Beckle made the same claims against the Koch as you have made and it is very possible that he will be facing a liable law suit.

I will tell you who is involved in OWS and with a MSM that has done their best to protect Obama, and unlike you, I will provide the links:

http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/355477/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/11/dont-hear-george-soros-ties-30-major-news-organizations/

Posted by: Frank at March 23, 2012 10:45 AM
Comment #339403

SD

Patrick Gaspard is the executive director of the DNC. He was lead activist for the Working Families Party. They are a socialist group. The WFP and Acorn started a coalition the socialist New Party. The WFP works with the Democratic Socialists of America who became the Progressive Caucus. The CPUSA ordered its members to fully support the WFP. Tim Kaine also supports Patrick Gaspard.

Marxist Carl Davidson affirmed that Obama participated in The New Party. Danny Davis is also a member of the New Party. He also serves in Congress on the Homeland Security Committee. The NP was originated by the Democratic Socialists of America, Acorn and WFP.

Barack Obama won a State Senate seat and was a NP member.

Danny Davis received the Chris Hani and Rudy Lozano Social Justice Award. Chris Hani was the leader of the South African Communist Party.

The People’s World is the backer of this award.

So does “your people” support these two whatever one can call them honestly and certainly not pro-USA? Does the leadership go in the tank with Communists? Are the Communists and DNC that close that one cannot define the separation? And Obama is a socialist per his NP membership.
How does “your people” respond to this type of lack of leadership?

Maranatha


Posted by: tom humes at March 23, 2012 12:58 PM
Comment #339405

I wish someone could tell me what Obama and his administration has done to better the country. When it comes to the Justice Department sueing states over voter ID, illegal aliens, or any other problem that concerns the American people; Obama says it’s not right or proper for him to get involved. Today, at a press conference, Obama refused to answer questions about the high price of gas, yet he was able to once again stick his nose in the Florida killing. Could it be that he is concerned about this killing simply because Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson are trying to turn it into a race issue? It turns out that Zimmerman is an hispanic and accused of killing a black. Now we have Obama sticking his nose into a race issue that involves blacks and hispanics. This is another of his stupid moves; he will undoudtedly alienate blacks or hispanics, but I say “go for it”.

Inflation is high (just ask those that buy groceries), but Obama says it’s not…

Gas is high, but Obama says he’s doing all he can (which nobody believes, except for SD and the boys)…

Unemployment is high, but Obama says he is creating jobs and the economy is getting better (SD and the rest of Obama’s cronies are parroting Obama’s words)…

Obama says oil production is up under his administration, thanks to the permits issued by Bush in his closing days in office (of course SD and the boys are all over this)…

Two year aniversary of Obamacare and Obama has mysteriously failed to even mention it, and SD and the boys are all over this telling us how good it is for America (of course there is still between 50-60% who want it repealed)…

Obama is dropping in the polls, we are finding out just how incompitent he really is (but SD and the boys are denying this)…

Obamacare is headed to the SCOTUS in a few days and the crowning jewel of Obama is about to be shot down.

Posted by: Frank at March 23, 2012 1:34 PM
Comment #339411

Frank

“Fast & Furious” has now become a bad bone for Obama. There are people inside DOJ who have leaked docs to show how Holder and Co. have lied, lied, lied, and not told the truth.

This is another one of those agenda items to have our guns taken from us with the threat of having persons arrested for nothing more than owning a gun and holding them indefinently. Marshal Law is on the horizon, unless we remove Socialist Obama from the WH.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 23, 2012 2:38 PM
Comment #339414


Well, Santorum says the country would be better off with Obama than Romney. That is something a Republican candidate should not admit even if it is obviously true.

Romney will capitulate, oops I mean compromise. Best to nominate a no compromise, oops I mean a no capitulation candidate.

If not for Romney’s ringers, Santorum could get the nomination.

Gingrich wants to be in Romney’s cabinet, Secretary of the Department of Gingrich Book Sales, but he would settle for the Ambassadorship to Tiffany’s.

Posted by: jlw at March 23, 2012 3:28 PM
Comment #339419

Tom Humes; yes I believe the old poop is going to hit the fan over the next few months.

Posted by: Frank at March 23, 2012 8:53 PM
Comment #339457

Jeez!

Such anger! Obviously this one struck home!
Frank, I can not believe you wrote:

Stephen Daugherty, you are one disgusting human being.

That you must stoop to insults shows your true colors. When one must insult another, it is usually because they have lost the battle. Their confidence in their beliefs has been shaken. Sadly, that tactic says more about WHO you are than anything you could write. Sorry.

I was on this blog years ago,and stopped coming because instead of actually giving facts, the bloggers resorted to name calling, personal attacks, bending the facts, and in general ignoring the basis rules of debate.

Frank and KAP, you are perilously close losing your crediablity.  

The entire idea of this blog is to give one’s opion on the facts - not ton attack anyone personally from disagreeing with you.

We are STILL a nation that allows for disagreement. In other words, I may firmly disagree with what you say, but I will vigorously defend you right to say it.

Can you say the same?

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at March 24, 2012 3:32 PM
Comment #339465

Highlandingle1, so if you know how WB works, why did you return?

Re/ facts: SD does not deal with facts or logic, but he does deal with emotion.

Re/ true colors; if t shoe fits, wear it.

Posted by: Frank at March 24, 2012 7:33 PM
Comment #339494

tom humes-
Spin is taking facts that cannot rationally mean much else and opening people’s minds up to erroneous possibilities. So, where’s your conclusive evidence that it’s forged? Where’s the forger? Where is the whistleblower in the Hawaii records department telling folks that he was pressured into substituting or putting in place the fake?

And how long have they been at it? You could establish this, once you’ve found it to be a forgery by tracing back documents which required proof of birth to be created. There are a whole set of facts you could bring into play to verify one side of this or another.

But you’re not doing that. Nobody on the right who is still pushing birtherism is doing that. The whole thing revolves around discrediting the otherwise pristine evidence that Obama is a citizen, legally binding evidence by the standards of the state of Hawaii.

You’re the one spinning here, trying to take what most people would call definitive, conclusive evidence of birth in the United States, in fact what most people would accept as standard evidence, and put it in question. You don’t even have to prove anything, merely raise doubts.

As for this?

The kid in FL you don’t have the facts on yet but you want to hang someone. It sure gets tiresome to listen to a socialist spew his garbage.

And it gets tiresome to come to this site day after day and be insulted by people who otherwise don’t successfully argue their point. I’m a capitalist, just not a believer in the ineffable nature of stockbrokers and CEOs. It seems, nowadays, that pretty much you have to take everything the people who just ruined this economy say at face value in order to avoid be called a Socialist. Unfortunately for you, all the browbeating in the world cannot keep people from losing their faith in those business leaders, and changing their votes accordingly.

As far as your theories on Obama’s political loyalties go, they seem like the strung-together, single-sourced information that for some reason all the Republican and Democratic Party Opposition researchers seemed to unaccountably overlook in the last election.

If it were so obvious, as you say, it would have come out then, with surely well- motivated political operatives seeking the strongest kind of attack possible.

Frank-
I’m a disgusting human being? Well, that’s unusual, coming from you, insults and degradation. I’m shocked you’re not trying to argue things by logic and evidence. Shocked.

I mean, is that really your only available strategy, to call me names? I’ve outlasted many a commenter who decided to take that course of action, and part of it is, I don’t feel it necessary to discredit you as a person (you may be a wonderful fellow when you’re not in front of a computer screen responding to a liberal) I just go straight for you idea.

Take this, “innocent until proven guilty” part. Was that going through Zimmerman’s mind when he followed a black kid in a hoody? Is it going through your mind whenever you talk about Solyndra, where no wrongdoing on the President’s part is proven at all, much less in the confines of a court of law.

Additionally, though, that’s a legal standard. The rest of us are not obligated to remain undecided as to whether we think something untoward has happened.

There’s a reason we pay police officers to guard our streets, rather than rely on roving, self-appointed neighborhood watchmen. He was told to stop pursuit, and if he had, then most likely no crime would have been committed, and the young man would be alive. It is one thing to take out a weapon and shoot somebody that’s coming after you. It’s another thing to pull that same gun after having pursued somebody, putting them in fear of their life, justifying their efforts at self defense. One question you ought to ask is whether the stand your ground law applied, in practical terms, to the victim in this shooting.

As far as Soros goes, I doubt you know much about him beyond the conspiracy theories. He’s a capitalist, a guy who participated in the opening of Eastern European markets. He was staunchly opposed to the authoritarian governments of the Soviet Sphere, and was better known before then on that account. He turned against the Bush Administration because of the secretive and closed nature of the government there, which he found alarmingly similar to the totalitarian governments of the regimes he long opposed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2012 9:27 PM
Comment #339497

SD

You spin and spiin and spin. You would not accept the facts and truth for any reason.

Your pathetic approach is beyond reason. There have been officials who have proven the Obama crap.

Some officials of the DNC are outright communists, socialists, etc. The proof is not single sourced. For your information those kind of things I find 5 separate sources to verify.

Soros is a socialist. You can wrap the fish up any way you want it but it still stinks.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 24, 2012 9:49 PM
Comment #339500

Frank-
I find it funny that you think it wasn’t already a race issue. An unarmed black kid, carrying only a thing of tea and some skittles, gets blown away by an self-evidently overzealous vigilante, who describes him as suspicious.

You really think that scenario wasn’t going to bring race into the matter?

As for Obama’s involvement, I don’t know if you can tell, but all he’s done is empathize with the obvious victim here, and promised a full investigation. You can claim he’s trashed the other side in the case, but the other side’s own actions have brought that upon him.

I don’t think hispanics are going to take up your sense of blacks vs. hispanics here. I barely heard anybody mention it until this point.

As far as inflation goes, core inflation remains low. Where prices increase, we have an energy policy and a commodities policy to thank for that, neither of which you’re in any hurry to change in a way that discourages speculators.

As for Obama in the polls, none of the polls show your steep decline. Wishful thinking does not translate in to poll results, unfortunately for you. In fact, Obama’s improved steadily, since he started acknowledging the bad faith in which the Republican Congress members have dealt. He’s up from his lowest numbers in nearly all polls. (sometimes a poll gets things wrong. 95% certainty is still 1 in 20 wrong, and plenty of other polls have him doing much better.

I deal in facts and logic, but you can’t acknowledge that without having to argue your case in an arena where you are poorly prepared. When’s the last post you wrote which actually acknowledged any factual matter that I’ve brought up, or which did so without making some remark at my expense? Your argument seems to be interchangeable with that of any crass pundit who gets by playing to an audience of like minded conservatives, and moderates and liberals looking for somebody to shout at.

Unfortunately, it’s not going to intimidate me in the least, only demonstrate to me that character assassination is all you expect to have to put forward. I’m going to ask more of you, and I already have.

A cursory look at Obama’s polling shows that it’s pretty stable at a level above it’s lowest points. Some polls say differently, but some polls always do, and they have a word for those: outliers. We know that the two polls you hope to cite as evidence of decline are such because nearly every other poll not only shows Obama doing better, but being above water with regards to his approval ratings. Even Fox.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2012 10:06 PM
Comment #339535

SD

As usual you have jumped to conclusions instead of letting the facts sort themselves out.

1. An eyewitness has said that Mr. Zimmerman was on the ground yelling help me and Mr. Martin was on top of him beating him.

2. The pix of Mr. Martin gives the appearance of a 13 year old or there abouts.

3. Mr. Zimmerman was 5’8” and obese.

4. Mr. Martin was 6’3” and 170# and 17 yrs old.

5. There was blood splatter on Mr. Zimmerman’s face.

There are more facts about this case that need to be examined.

So before leaping to conclusion don’t go making a weiner out of yourself.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 25, 2012 12:15 PM
Comment #339542

About the Occupy Wall Street protests, well, seems to me we had a few incidents with the Tea Party group too. It’s what I call my chewing gum theory: one kid sticks gum under the desk, and everyone gets punished. No more chewing gum in class. One stupid act, and everyone gets painted with the same brush.

Obama promised to bring home the troops. He is doing that. People voted for him because he said he would do that. He is.

Now, about the economy and Obama.

Our economy was doing pretty well, until a certain Republican took office. This man involved us in a war we didn’t have to fight, ran up the deficient, and couldn’t even figure out when the blooming war was over. He added to the already massive governmental agencies,and managed to pass a law that virtually infringes on all citizens right. It took years for our economy to bust, it can not be “fixed” in less that 3! Jeez. Use your noggins!

By the time Obama came to power, a lot of damage had already been done - especially to the economy. Now, you folks don’t even want to give him the same amount of time to try to stabilize our economy, let alone improve it?

As for the jobs crisis, why don’t the Republicans come up with a plan, pass it and make it work, instead of constantly throwing blocks up to try to stop the only one actually trying to do something about it?

I am sick to death of hearing how badly the Democrats are doing in Washington.
What about what the Republicans AREN’T doing? What have they actually done? What is their solution? Where is their plan of action? Why haven’t they tried to do something?? ANYTHING?

I believe it is because it is easier to stand back and criticize instead of actually doing something useful.

Our economy is, like it or not, doing much better after only 3 years than it has since 2004. It was during Bush’s administration that the banks and money lenders went crazy, in particular by financing loans they knew could not be repaid. Please put the blame where it belongs, and try to think for yourselves!

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at March 25, 2012 2:11 PM
Comment #339543

Frank wrote:

Highlandingle1, so if you know how WB works, why did you return?

Re/ facts: SD does not deal with facts or logic, but he does deal with emotion.

Re/ true colors; if t shoe fits, wear it.

I returned in hopes that the judgmental, non factual, name - calling hypocrites had gone their merry ways. I was hoping to find intellectual, straight forward, non personal critical debaters, not children.

I was obviously wrong. Who knows though, maybe you and the others like you might learn how to stand up on your own feet without attacking the opposing party personally, so I’ll probably hang around a little longer.

Frank,
You in particular amaze me with your debating style. You don’t have one. As soon as you feel threatened, you automatically start name calling. If you were to produce a link, or two, supporting your opinion, it might make others pay attention to you. Instead, you, huff and puff and try to blow down the brick house our government is standing on, and substitute your own agenda.

Try shooting down the message sometime,instead of the messenger.

As you wrote:

Re/ true colors; if t shoe fits, wear it.

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at March 25, 2012 2:31 PM
Comment #339544

tom humes-
I’ll concede Martin’s physical advantages if you’ll concede that Martin had no previous history of violence, was followed by the man who was supposed to scared enough of him to shoot him, and only got into an altercation with him after that pursuit.

If somebody kept following you, despite being warned off, what do you think you would do? Long story short, he starts this whole thing the aggressor. You don’t follow a person to defend yourself. If they’re going away, hell, if the police are telling you to back off, they aren’t a threat to you anyways. He followed in a car, by the way.

So, you tell me: even if in the end he really was legitimately in fear of his life, he only ended up in that position because he basically stalked the kid. Even if you’re arguing that Trayvon provoked the shooting with an attempted beating, wouldn’t it be accurate to say that Zimmerman provoked the beating by following the young man? A young man who couldn’t have necessarily have known why he was being followed by a stranger?

I took some courses on self-defense, and we were explicitly warned that we had to use our judgment on to when to use force, because the law would not always be on our side, and that the best way to really defend ourselves would be to do our best to avoid having to use the techniques they had us practice. He taught us about being aware of our situation, about not presenting ourselves as inviting targets, about not trapping ourselves into bad situtions.

He would have most certainly advised against following somebody you think is trouble. At the very least, if Trayvon hadn’t been innocent, he might have gotten himself shot before he could even bring out his weapon, were that the case. Being that Trayvon was innocent, it’s reasonable to argue that he had no idea why anybody would be following him like Zimmerman was, and that this was a provocation for Trayvon to act to defend himself. Or, put another way, Zimmerman may have had that broken nose coming. Finally, it would be important to not that much of the time, the law favors that like force be met with like force. Typically, if somebody comes after you with a knife, and they get stabbed in the struggle, that’s more advisable than you socking them in the jaw and then stabbing them in the gut afterwards to finish them off.

Or, put another way, your right to self-defense ends when the other person is no longer capable of or willing to attack you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2012 2:41 PM
Comment #339552

SD

You are mixing fiction and immagination with fact.

Mr. Zimmerman was a Block Watch person.

He had no knowledge of whether Mr. Martin had a past record.

The rest of your speculation is just that. Speculation and guess work for being a detective with no info.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 25, 2012 3:47 PM
Comment #339563

tom humes-
Tell me where I’m wrong. Tell me where I diverged, because there’s not much to argue there with you, if all you have to offer is “you’re mixing fact with imagination.”

Seriously, what business does the man have following him? He’s the neighborhood watch, not a police officer. He should have left things to the police, but he didn’t, and boy is dead now because of that.

The fact that boy has no record makes it worse, because it means that Zimmerman sucked at the job he was supposed to do.

Just argue the facts, thank you very much, quit trying to play the referees.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2012 6:49 PM
Comment #339564
He had no knowledge of whether Mr. Martin had a past record.

And Mr. Martin had no knowledge of whether Mr. Zimmerman was a block watch or a criminal.

The fact is that Mr. Zimmerman admitted to the police dispatcher that he was pursuing Mr. Martin. This fact puts a big dent in his claim that he was acting out of self-defense.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 25, 2012 6:51 PM
Comment #339574

WR

You are looking at smoke and mirrors.

Enough has been said about facts.

Your suppositions are just that.

SD

“Playing the referees”? Oh, well say whatever you want to say, whether it makes sense or not.


Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 25, 2012 8:15 PM
Comment #339601

tom humes-
Oh mighty declarer of political truths, declare to me, why should I take your statements at face value? You haven’t even successfully disputed the facts we’ve presented. When I talk about playing the referees, this is the kind of behavior I’m referring to. You’re trying to feed your political bias into other people, without so much as justifying what you claim.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2012 10:52 PM
Comment #339615

SD

“why should I take your statements at face value? You haven’t even successfully disputed the facts we’ve presented.”

I have made my presentation without fear and trembling. If you are not wise enought and able to read and comprehend then so be it.

Why do you always have to make something a political thing?
I have only stated the facts as known, so go take a dump with your political crap.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at March 26, 2012 12:27 PM
Comment #339676

tom humes-
You’ve made your presentation without fear and trembling? Good for you.

Meanwhile, I obviously don’t agree with everything you say. How arrogant is it to expect that I would just up and agree with you just because. Just because I can read and comprehend, doesn’t mean you’ve done the homework that would force me to agree with you.

As for making something a political thing? Very often, I try to reduce questions of policy down to practical realities, and determine the politics from there. But if I do make certain things political… well, hell, just where on God’s green Earth are you posting this accusation? You’re bringing coals to West Virginia, ice to Alaska. You’ve stated the facts that you believe, and offered a political opinion. Fine. But before you start berating me for not falling down and worshipping your political inclinations, I’ve seen neither hide nor hair of a decent argument for why I’m wrong. It’s just authoritative statements

I’m a skeptic, and not a right-wing skeptic at that, so if you think you’re just going to be able to browbeat me into agreement, you’re mistaken. I try to base my opinions by facts as solid and objective as possible. I don’t like to bullied or insulted into a change of mind.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2012 5:05 PM
Comment #339725

Like Weiner

Posted by: tom numes at March 28, 2012 10:44 AM
Comment #353798

is a French leather and luxury Longchamp Pliage Cuir goods company. It was founded Sac Louis Pas Cher by Jean Cassegrain in 1948, and the Sac Louis Vuitton Prix plc Louis Vuitton Pas Cher Sac employed individual craftsmen dispersed in every nook the Loire valley countryside to Lancel Boutique create Louis Vuitton Pas Cher leather coverings for pipes and other products geared Longchamp Opening Online toward smokers. By 1955, it had expanded to include small Longchamp Outlet leather goods, chance its primary factory in Segre. Sooner than the 1970s, opened its maiden boutiques in Hong Kong Longchamp Pliage Pas Cher and Japan, and became known as a service to its lightweight globe-trotting trips goods.

Posted by: Sac Lancel 2012 at September 28, 2012 9:15 PM
Comment #354302

When images first surfaced online, this upcoming colorway of the Reveal Jordan Retro 4 was linked to the Magasin Chaussures Renewed York Knicks. It’s mild to sympathize why, with Magasin Chaussures En Ligne the distinguished NY downhearted and orange Air Jordans Sale Chaussures Pas Cher colors and Michael Jordan’s history with the Knicks organization. However, newer revelations affiliation Air Jordan Australia this pair to the Cleveland Air Jordan Shoes Cavaliers, victims of MJ’s playoff game-winner in 1989. On his Jordan Shoes Sale feet for the Cheap Air Jordan famous conjecture was the Current Jordan 4, which explains the practicable HWC core carried by this particular release. The shoe sports a felonious nubuck characters upper class with Hoary Duke accenting on the wing panels, inner lining, grate panel underlay and heel tab. Orange Blaze works the Air Jordan Sale filigree tabs and Jumpman branding on the tongue and heel.

Posted by: Sac Vuitton 2012 at October 9, 2012 8:59 PM
Post a comment