Rush Limbaugh and His Delusions of Reference
You don’t have to be crazy to be delusional. Rush thinks Bane is the villain of the new Batman film because of some liberal conspiracy against Romney. This, of course, isn’t even remotely right. But really, why is Rush saying stupid things like this in the first place?
Because it plays into a conservative media bias he does want to create.
People who think that Liberal Media bias is at all prevalent, or the biggest problem we face ought to take a look around.
Bane's a comic book character, one who featured almost twenty years ago in a story arc where he basically takes the Caped Crusader out of commission. He's already been in a Batman film. I don't blame you if you don't recall it, as it was 1997's Batman and Robin, which many would just as soon forget.
Nolan's Cape Crusader's last adventure had him battling the Joker, and going to rather extreme lengths to do so, a narrative that could be interpreted, as you care to, to either show the pitfalls or the advantages of going beyond the rule of law in confronting extreme threats to society.
But is this Bane who's Gotham's self-proclaimed reckoning a rich, snooty, upperclass twit? Nope. It's Bruce Wayne who represents one of the richer individuals in all this. He's the good guy. Notably, you have Catwoman in this picture confronting him with rhetoric that is uncomfortably close to Occupy Wall Street, and Bane reportedly rabble rousing among the disaffected, neglected lower classes in order to strike at Gotham's heart.
But here's where the simplistic narrative again takes a twist: how did things get so bad that people wanted to rise up?
I think at the end of the day, people looking for political propaganda are going to find that at the core, this film's true villain is a manipulator who simply takes whatever side he needs to fulfill his plot to destroy Gotham and defeat Batman. The rich give him the opportunity to make things worse by themselves piling on the misery, while the poor jump too soon at an opportunistic leader who's just pushing their buttons for their own purposes.
Yeah, and before you say Obama's the only one who could fit that category, what exactly was the narrative from John Boehner (jobs, jobs, jobs), and what exactly is Romney promising? Yeah, I thought so.
Storytelling is recursive, which is to say you can redefine it as you like by fitting it into another story, or fitting your own interpretation into it. Since perception of the story is as much about how you process it, and with what knowledge and understanding, though there may be a right answer to what the author really intended, you might just convince yourself of something else, and be perfectly content with the story you frame.
For my part, I'm not too sensitive to these things. An author has to beat me over the head with a political connection in order to alert me to a political context. The unsubtlety of the class tension in Selena Kyle's comments to Bruce in the trailer is an example.
I'm content to bathe in multiple points of view in my entertainment, so long as the writers and directors earn it. Let me give you an example: Wizard's First Rule, by Terry Goodkind. When i first read it, I had little knowledge of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Hell, the most I knew of Ayn Rand was seeing books with Art Deco covers. Since then, I've encountered much more than that of Ayn Rand's philosophy, and it doesn't hold up too solidly.
Re-reading his books now is a strange experience, now that I know better. Some parts jump out, seem more propagandistic. Folks would have to be seriously dumb to buy into some parts of what the bad guys put out.
But that doesn't mean all the principles he espouses are necessarily senseless or wrong. The title rule might seem a little elitist, boiling down to "people are stupid", but the elaboration does make sense to me. People can be misled based on poor, limited information, they can be misled by confirmation biases. Other themes include the value of pushing ahead, past tradition, seeking out the truth for yourself (as a matter of fact, it's kind of hit hard on the nose, as the hero is a "Seeker of Truth", and holds the "Sword of Truth", and the female lead is a Confessor whose power boils down to making people so in love with her, they'll tell her the absolute truth as far as they know it.)
It's not too terribly beyond a liberals imagination to think of leaders who talk about doing the people's work, while they're really just selfish, even psychopathic autocrats, nor do I like Communism much.
So, it's not as if, hit by what's in the book, I'm altogether stunned into remorse about everything I believe, because much of what he sells to an audience, as a story teller, is not all that radical. I think most people who think their beliefs are all especially relevatory are in for a shock, if they're really paying attention: people in general hold more values in common with the people they count as rivals and adversaries than they really think. Which is not to say all arguments or differences are necessarily solveable by this means, because obviously people have different ideas about how to do things right, and a number of subjects on which they are in strong disagreement.
I grew up reading Dean Koontz, as another example, and I never thought to examine his books for a political subtext. I had to learn from a separate source what his politics were before I started to see something more in his distrust of bureaucracy and everything else. Personally speaking, being a liberal, and a proponent of stronger regulation and whatever doesn't give me rose-colored glasses about what government or its programs can degenerate to. Nor does my more law and order perspective on things blind me to the fact that authority can be abused.
His books often take aim at academic radicals, deconstructionists, post-modernists and bioethicists who consider letting people die if they're not perfect eugenic specimens, and confronted with much of that, I can only shrug and say, I never thought much of those people myself! I don't think most liberals do, either. I mean, if you really think about it, the villains are typically such despicable creatures, and some of the characters such twits and degenerates, that almost nobody would object to the comeuppance they typically get, or the harshness of the portrayal.
I don't really find my politics coming into play until something like an exchange in The Taking, where some brainless journalists ask whether an obviously unnatural oceanic event is a result of global warming, and an obviously Contrarian mouthpiece, rather than saying something like "This is nothing like what any theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change would predict" which would actually be accurate, instead goes into a one-sided critique of climate change ripped out of the pages of so-called skeptics. Cue my head-desking.
I had a similar head-desking experience with Tom Clancy and Rainbow Six (The Novel), and The Bear and the Dragon. The first book mentioned had these sort of radical environmentalists as the villains, trying to set off a set of devices to infect everybody with the Ebola Virus, or some variant. What got on my nerves, beyond the repetition of the threat from the last book, is that just about every single person gave the identical motivating speech about exterminating the human race so the world could get back down to nature.
The next book doesn't get any better. I mean, really, do you need Jack Ryan to start talking like Rush Limbaugh, pushing a rather gross fact about Mao Tse-Tong repetitively in the story?
The tricky thing about writing is that you inevitably want to write what you believe, and even if you consciously try not to, it will seep through into your material. We're all biased. We feel, not just think about the things we say, we express, and we take an awful lot of things for granted.
What Rush Limbaugh takes for granted is that he's got a nice selection of buttons to push. But why does he have them? Because he and others have been pushing such buttons with people for years, and priming them to believe certain things.
Among them, are that Liberals are these radically different, sociopathically communistic, terrorist sympathizing, near-alien sort of people who just want to see America go down in flames. Or more seriously, he's been priming them to believe that the Media is especially liberal in its inclinations, that it's out to get conservative leaders, out to trash conservative causes, etc. He sells liberals as being dramatically different in their values, he sells them much the way Dean Koontz writes his villains.
But like a Dean Koontz villain, his picture of Democrats and liberals is fairly inapplicable to the average Democrat or Liberal, not even really sympathetic to most of them.
By getting people to essentially agree that other sources are untrustworthy, he can funnel listeners into distrusting and rejecting other sources. The side effect, though, is that he lives in his own little world. It's like that head-desking effect with those passages from that book, only amplified and intensified a hundredfold. This isn't merely a passage in a story where I otherwise enjoy and sympathize with the characters. It isn't even like the Tom Clancy books, where I can ignore the scuzzy elements and skip to the technothriller stuff.
With Limbaugh, it's this viciously defamatory narrative all the time, looping back on itself, its main function being to warp the sensibilities of conservatives into greater and greater disdain for liberals and their policies- from his perspective to strengthen and purify conservatism, I guess you could say.
The trouble is, as with his reading of the Dark Knight Rises, he's seeing the story entirely through the lens of these other references, or at least presenting it that way. Like Romney voters can't understand why people might want to see more than just the Tax Returns he's providing, Rush can't understand why anything coming from what he thinks of as the Liberal media might be neutral, or even favorable to this side. He can't even recognize that there might be some value in playing on the themes himself, making common ground with those not sunk entirely in the world of his Right Wing Media.
As such, his prospects for widening agreement with others by those means are dim at best.
Personally, I look at the media today, and wonder where the imbalance remains. One of the best-selling works of recent times is a book with "vegetarian" vampires who kill animals instead of people, and wait until after marriage for sex. More than that, you see whole shelves worth of material aimed at Christians, aimed at conservatives. The bestseller lists have registered quite a few books by the likes of Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and others. If there was an imbalance, it's been redressed, and then some.
Even in the news programs, the Sunday Talk Shows are stacked with their people. They have a whole news network explicitly to themselves, and a plethora of websites that only give right wing points of view all the time.
Democrats? Well, I would be lying if I said that Democrats and Liberals don't have their outlets, their authors, their newschannel catering to their taste. I would be lying if I said we didn't have our points of view expressed, if I said we didn't have tons of dedicated sites all there for just us Democrats. We have to fight sometimes to get our message across, but many of our points of view have become cultural defaults. I can't say we're utterly out of luck.
The thing I would be quick to point out, though, is that there's a lot of tension on both sides about who dominates the voices out there, especially since Citizens United let just a few handfuls of millionaires fund their own superPACs to shout above the rest of us. The thing I see happening with the GOP and its conservative bedfellows out there, is that they are getting positively enraged that their political bias isn't the only one out there.
Which would lead me to my final point, or rather my final plea: you don't want this. To put it in classical, even cliched terms, you need people out there to say that the emperor has no clothes when he doesn't.
Rush Limbaugh is out there naked on the matter of Christopher Nolan's movie, because his point of view on the world is so damn politicized that he hears this coincidentally similar name, "Bane", and he thinks its a conspiracy, rather than a coincidence. I mean, They began work on the sequel in 2008, solidifying the story in 2010. Were they really aiming for Romney that early, when mere political chance would have made the character's name absolutely meaningless? Who would it have been if Santorum, Perry, or some other Clown Car Passenger had won?
I encounter this issue sometimes with stories. You don't necessarily ask yourself where the Joker got all these barrels of gasoline, or how he got the bombs on the boats while you're watching the movie, but of course, once you're out of the story, you might begin to see the plot holes.
But Limbaugh? Limbaugh or his audience can't distance themselves enough out of the story they're relying upon to figure out whether their ideas are plausible, whether their allegations pass simple tests. Romney can't distance himself away from his own concerns about Opposition research to realize that the very act of not releasing his tax returns tells people that he has something to hide. He can say that everything he did was legal, but in this day and age, there's a lot people look at and see is legal that they might not have a great deal of liking for, that they might see as figuratively, if not legally criminal.Unjust, if you will.
One of the main reason we have a democratic republic with constitutional protections on free expression is so that even if the great masses of people out there get caught up in a phony, manipulative narrative, people will have the ability to get out of that. They'll have other news sources that will tell them what others won't. They'll have other political movements that can carry them forward when the one that has dominated for decades collapses under its own weight, whether you're talking about the right or the left. There will be other people pushing out information independent of politics that can help us judge for ourselves what the best course is on a more objective basis.
We have to choose to keep ourselves stuck in Rush Limbaugh's orbit of political paranoia. And that is a choice we can just as easily unmake. Americans need to leave folks like him behind, do more of their thinking for themselves. If you're not figuring out the story for yourself, you're wasting your own God-given intelligence and balance of perspective. Even the smartest people in the world can believe stupid and crazy things if they let themselves get caught up in the wrong story.
It's time to walk out of Rush Limbaugh's neverending conspiracy thriller out into the real world.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at July 19, 2012 3:37 PMSD, your comments remind me of cartoons featuring Goofy talking to Mickey. Goofy just can’t convince Mickey that he should not like being a mouse. You are a great resource for comic book buffs, but you fail miserably in convincing us that we should all be libs like you.
Your take on Limbaugh reads like jealousy. Don’t you just wish some lib/Marxist had such a radio audience. I suspect you are just as jealous of Fox News as you are of Rush.
Posted by: Royal Flush at July 19, 2012 8:07 PMBoring…laundry list of liberal hack points on Limbaugh. Too much reading and no one cares.
Sorry SD, try again.
Posted by: Billinflorida at July 19, 2012 8:07 PMStephen
Rush must fill many hours with words. He says lots of dumb things, just as liberal commentators do. Did you ever listen much to Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann or (now senator) Al Franken?
There are obvious biases in most TV and movies. If you see a Christian guy who seems really good in the first scene, you can bet he will be that bad guy by the end, especially if he has a southern accent.
On the other hand in any modern movie, the skanky black woman who accuses the clean cut guys of rape will always be vindicated. Imagine a movie made based on the real facts of the Duke lacrosse case, where a weird black woman falsely accused clean cut white guys, who were dishonestly persecuted by a DA pandering to liberal sensibilities all the while mendacious academic leaders jumped to PC conclusions and oppressed the poor white guys. You may imagine it, but it will never be made.
You mention Tom Clancy. When they made the movie of the Sum of All Fears, Arab terrorists were replaced with some kind of vaguely Nazi crooks.
Posted by: C&J at July 19, 2012 8:35 PMWhat’s out there that can admonition me how to lose weight? No amount what I did, I just could not assume to lose weight and accumulate it off. I didn’t like the way getting ample fabricated me attending or feel. I saw added humans that were thin, but why couldn’t I be like them?What was so altered about me? What was the botheration I had with dieting? Did I accept a apathetic metabolism? Was there something amiss with my throid? Over and over I anticipation what was out there that could admonition me lose weight?
Posted by: To lose weight, what can you do? at July 19, 2012 8:53 PMStephen, you really need to get out more. You are obsessed with Rush Limbaugh. Your whole post is based on what every liberal MSM outlet has been talking about for a couple of days.
And you, Stephen, make the same mistake as “Paul Farhi for the Washington Post who on July 17 claimed that Rush Limbaugh said that the super villain in the new Batman movie is a “liberal attack on Romney.”
This is Rush’s response today and I have to agree:
“So I’m in the library last night, and I’m doing what I always do. I’m doing show prep. And I get a text message from Kathryn who’s in with the dogs in the kitchen. She says, “Are you in this Batman movie and you didn’t tell me? Is this Batman movie about you?” I said, “What now?” She says, “I can’t go anywhere without reading about you and this Batman movie.” And I finally, in that moment, folks, I finally figured out what’s going on. I outed them. Forget the creator. I don’t care that the creator created the character Bane in the Batman movie back in the ’90s. It doesn’t matter. The Democrats clearly were going to try to link this villain to Mitt Romney. And I outed ‘em. They’ve even got a couple Democrats admitting they were gonna, Chris Leheinous and Jon Stewart. And they’re still trying to do it.
You know, independently of the producers and the actors and all the people associated with the movie, they saw it, they were gonna try to make the linkage, and now I’m out there basically accusing them of that, so they’ve got their backs up. They’re acting like I’m some sort of conspiracy creep. But I outed ‘em. I have shined the light of truth, as it were.”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/07/19/i_outed_the_democrats_on_batman_plans
Stephen, why don’t you move on to something intelligent and throw away your comic books. Royal has your number.
C&J, I read most of Clancy’s books and was totally disappointed with the movie “Sum of all Fears”; it was Hollywood caving to PC.
Royal Flush-
He was wrong. He could have done a little research, and a little logical deduction, and concluded it was just a research, but instead, he either went out their half-cocked on some liberal media conspiracy theory, or he knowingly cooked up this BS to hornswaggle conservatives like you.
I’m trying to crank open the windows to get some air into the stale, stagnant state of political thought that people like you seem to be dedicated to keeping this country in. Envy? I don’t want to be like him, I want to defeat him, best him in every way! Logically, that’s easy. But getting you people to admit anything’s wrong with this sort of rhetorical psychosis? Another matter entirely.
So, I’m not really aiming for that, or even for other Democrats, who I know probably already know this stuff, or think Rush is a dumbass. I’m aiming to expose him to the politically uncommitted and open minded folks out there, to get them to realize that there is no advantage to following what somebody like him says. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, already, but unlike some entertainers who allow their audience to wake up from the dream, Limbaugh’s audience is pushed to believe that this BS is REAL.
I want to expose Rush for the fantasist he is. Me, I admit readily I’ve written fiction. But I don’t expect people to believe that the figments of my imagination are real.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2012 12:25 AMI was reading the comic back in 1993 when the Bane storyline was introduced, watching it unfold week by week (it spread across the entire Batman comic line at the time). As I have never taken Rush seriously, it’s hard for me to get worked up about his inanity.
However, the news outlets are being very careful this morning after the shooting. CNN has mentioned several times that for this movie dressing up is not ‘unusual’, and then mention that many people were dressed up as Batman and ‘the villain’. They won’t mention the villain by name, which is probably a good idea, I don’t think either party wants to have their mudslinging be tied up into this event in any way…
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 20, 2012 9:05 AMRhinehold; the question is, why won’t they mention the name of the villain?
Stephen Daugherty said:
“I’m trying to crank open the windows to get some air into the stale, stagnant state of political thought that people like you seem to be dedicated to keeping this country in. Envy? I don’t want to be like him, I want to defeat him, best him in every way! Logically, that’s easy.”
Stephen, when you say “people like you”, who exactly are you talking about? Do yo maen anyone who doesn’t think like you?
You want to defeat him? It sounds as if you are saying, “you hope Rush fails”. But seriously Stephen, I dont think you would make a pimple on Rush’s backside. He is a national talk show host with millions of followers and you are a blogger on WB; who can’t even get liberals to agree with some of your points. LOL, good luck with taking down Rush Limbaugh. I believe Royal Flush is correct, you seem to be infatuated with Limbaugh. Why would anyone waste so much time in thought and typing, just to blast a radio talk show entertainer? I can’t stand some of the news people/commedians on MSNBC; they are radical liberals with a radical liberal message; but I ignore them. I don’t care what they say, because they are saying it to a fringe; on the other hand you seem to be obsessed with Limbaugh.
“I’m aiming to expose him to the politically uncommitted and open minded folks out there, to get them to realize that there is no advantage to following what somebody like him says.”
Stephen, do you really believe there are open minded and uncommitted folks out here? I don’t think so; I believe the American people are evenly divided and have been ever since the Deomcrats lost control of the Congress two years into Clinton’s presidency. After 40 years, the left lost control, and it has been a free for all ever since.
But what you could be afraid of is that Rush Limbaugh might cause Democrats to actually think for themselves and no longer be mind numb robots.
Lastly, I will say, I am glad our 1st Ammendment rights aren’t in the hands of Stephen Daugherty.
Posted by: TomT at July 20, 2012 9:47 AMWell Stephen you have struck a nerve with the talk radio conservatives I see. Of course your right, Rush and his ilk live for the extremist conspiracy theories and he is searching for any and all because his followers will believe anything. He and they have proven that over the years.
The conservative movement leaders need this kind of wing nut conspiracy theory to keep the conservative movement followers busy. Just think if they stopped long enough to realize the BS they are being fed. If they stopped the conspiracy rantings long enough to realize the reason they are being fed this gibberish.
Talk radio conservatives are just like the German people of the late ‘20’s and early 30’s. They believe anything they hear from the movement leaders.
Give the movement leaders credit for silencing the media, for making them a bit afraid to say “Bane”. The lies told long enough about the MSM have worked to silence the MSM, to make them ineffective. The Conservative movement leaders are laughing and the meekness of the corporate media, as they should.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 20, 2012 12:20 PMC&J-
Well, let me start from the top: When you deal with real people, you have to deal with possible defamation and false light suits. It’s no simple thing to line up the rights for a real world story, but also no simple thing to balance the characters so there aren’t grounds for a lawsuit.
The thing to keep in mind when it comes to racial and gender issues in movies and television is that folks are trying hard to avoid stereotypes. There more than enough good, decent law abiding white people in any given American production on average to balance out the ones that act like scumbags, and as the majority, we enjoy a certain psychological advantage.
The thing to keep in mind is that whatever they wake up in a story, they have to put to bed, one way or another, and they have to do it, often enough, on a tight schedule.
And what is it that you’re selling? Perhaps that men have had a hard time of it since women were liberated? Or that White people are especially put upon in this day and age?
As far as the prosecutors go, whatever and whoever they were trying to impress, I doubt they made many friends on the left doing it. We don’t like people to be falsely accused, not to mention be embarrassed as supporters by the falsity of the claim. We want the truth.
It’s just foolish propaganda to suggest that the vast majority of us enjoy watching injustice unfold. You’d make far fewer mistakes about us if you started from the assumption that we exercise just as much conscience as those who call themselves conservatives do.
As far as why the Christian so often gets shown to have feet of clay? That’s simple. The higher the expectations on a character, the bigger the splat they make when they fall from grace. People pay to see two things when they watch a race: folks who can narrowly avoid being wiped out, and those who do get wiped out. Without that tension, you don’t get the kind of melodrama or drama people desire.
It’s not peculiar to our age, or even to non-Christian sources. Pride goeth before the fall, says the bible. You see many illustrious figures at their best and at their worst, from David to the Pharisees, to even some of St. Paul’s contemporaries. Long story short, people like to see, and by their nature want to see those who hold themselves up high either live up to their exalted position, or be laid low for failing to do so.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2012 12:49 PM“Talk radio conservatives are just like the German people of the late ‘20’s and early 30’s. They believe anything they hear from the movement leaders.”
J2t2 and Stephen Daugherty are horse’s asses; what an ignorant statement. They accuse conservative radio of conspiracy theories and what is their proof; their own conspiracy theories.
But here is the left talk liberal TV in action:
“It did not take very long for opportunists to try and twist the tragedy in Colorado to match their own beliefs.
ABC news has already found someone to place blame on the Tea Party, Brian Ross from Good Morning America:
“There is a Jim Holmes of Aurora, CO, uh Paige, on the Colorado Tea Party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last summer. We don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes, but it is Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.”
George Stephanopoulos and Brian Williams of ABC were the first to make the statement that the shooter (Jim Holmes) in Aurora, Colorado; was a Tea Party member. Now this is real reporter investigation! The left could only hope that this guy was a TP member or a member of the NRA. I guess it never occured to these liberal hacks that more than one person could have the same name.
The left is all fired up, blaming Rush Limbaugh for the shootings in Colorado.
http://www.z100.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=104668&article=10284170
Oh, let the spin begin: I can’t wait to hear SD and rest of the libs defend ABC announcers and attack Limbaugh.
Stephen, you and you cohorts have absolutely no credibility anymore. Just talking mouthpieces for the liberal news and Obama.
Limbaugh is a symptom of a disease. People want to be lied to so they can confirm their fears. If people want something, someone out there will give it to them. If you listen to this, to borrow a phrase, bloviating ignoramus as a source of factual information, you are a fool. If you find him entertaining then you have a bizarre sense of humor. Keith Olbermann is the closest thing the left has to someone like this - mostly his issue, other than being a jerk, is false outrage over a something taken out of context. I don’t like KO, but even his level of nonsense doesn’t rise to the blatant disregard for the facts that Limbaugh has.
The right tries to make the moral equivalency argument but that doesn’t hold up. The right has far more people in this racket and they are far more extreme.
Posted by: tcsned at July 20, 2012 12:58 PMThis tragic event in Colorado will become another platform from which the left can launch gun control once again. My feelings, had there been in this movie theater, red blooded, blue collar, CCW carrying men, like those in PA who “cling to guns and religion”, this murderer would have met a swift end and possibly saved lives.
I am reminded of the 2 black thugs who entered a coffee shop in FL, just a few days ago, with a ball bat and a gun, terrorizing the occupants. A 71 year old man with a CCW opened fire on them, shooting one in the ass. He was a hero. But I bet the MSM didn’t spend much time on that one.
Posted by: TomT at July 20, 2012 1:01 PMTomT - I’m sure it will, it always does dredge up the gun control arguments. Just as some on the left will go overboard, the NRA will also likely hold a rally in that town to make their misinformed views on the second amendment known too. Then Nancy Grace will be getting in people’s faces. Either way, the families of the victims will not be allowed to grieve in peace so others can get on their soap box. Saw plenty of that BS here when the 4/16 shootings happened, I’m sure it’ll happen here too.
It should be a time for the idiots on both sides to shut up.
Posted by: tcsned at July 20, 2012 2:16 PMBillinflorida-
They jumped the gun, and that’s what people do nowadays. It’s what Rush did, in fact!
The real victims died and were wounded in that theatre.
Don’t be so damn cynical as to try and make conservatives out to be victims over this. Those reporters have been duly embarrassed over that, even on DailyKOS. You get crap wrong, you should be called on it.
As for your last statement? If you weren’t so busy boasting about being right, and putting down other folks as wrong, you might be able to offer something approaching an argument. Until then, nobody really has to take you seriously. I don’t.
TomT-
I am fully aware that I’m not some rich celebrity like Rush Limbaugh. But this isn’t Great Britain, and Rush Limbaugh is neither nobility, nor royalty. I am an American, and he holds no higher citizenship in this country than I do.
I do comment on Limbaugh from time to time. Apparently, paying any attention to him is obsession in your book. What does that make his listeners, then?
Seriously, though, My last article concerning him was in March. I’ve published over 500. Few of them concern Limbaugh. The facts speak for themselves, if you let them.
As for who’s out there? I’ll let people decide for themselves. They’re not sworn under penalty of death to maintain consistent party loyalty, after all.
As for the rest? Nobody could have kept people from dying in that theatre. I know the movies show bullets knocking people over like bowling pins, but nobody was going to be able to take their own assault rifle in. They weren’t going to get the first shot, or even figure out what was going on until the first people died. At best they would have hand guns, and they would be facing somebody better armed, in the dark, wearing body armor. they would have to get their own weapon out, in the midst of a panicked crowd, and not get trampled themselves.
This kind of ambush isn’t preventable. Guns don’t equal the perfect ability to exclude yourself from harm.
I find it interesting that you have to talk about the thugs being black. I don’t find fault with the guy who shot them, but this was broad daylight, not this kind of suprise attack in a movie theatre. And no, the national media won’t spend much time on what amounts to a local crime story, just as you don’t hear about burglary strings in Atlanta, or whatever.
You want the story to be trumpeting your values over and over again, paying attention to certain things, coming to certain conclusions. The real world has a difference of opinion with all of us, and it isn’t some conspiracy to make Republicans feel bad about themselves, or hide the truth. It’s simply a world that doesn’t revolve around any of our particular philosophies.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2012 2:17 PM260 people killed in Chicago.
Where is the “expert journalism” on this one?
SD
You too are an entertainer. Some day you will graduate to stand up comedy. Until then don’t quit your day job.
Maranatha
Posted by: tom humes at July 20, 2012 2:25 PMJ2t2 and Stephen Daugherty are horse’s asses; what an ignorant statement. They accuse conservative radio of conspiracy theories and what is their proof; their own conspiracy theories.
First of all Billinfla I made the comment you claim to be ignorant not Stephen, so I would think that makes you and me horses asses not Stephen wouldn’t it? Me, only because you say so, You, because you attempt to wrongly include Stephen with my remarks. Isn’t that what horses asses do?
Secondly Rush is telling us the Batman movie is a conspiracy dreamed up by the Obama team. And lastly I have not claimed talk radio conservatives to be victims of a conspiracy I have said they “are just like the German people of the late ‘20’s and early 30’s. They believe anything they hear from the movement leaders.”. Just like your fellow TRC’s here on WB posting Limbaughs weak response to his embarrassing comments regarding the Batman movie, as if it had a smidgeon of truth.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 20, 2012 2:36 PM260 people killed in Chicago.
Where is the “expert journalism” on this one?
Do you live in Chicago?
Posted by: c. moneybags at July 20, 2012 3:01 PMI am a Cubs, Bears, and Blackhawks fan.
What difference does it make if I live in Chicago or one of the suburbs or even Rockford?
Maranatha
Talk radio conservatives are just like the German people of the late ‘20’s and early 30’s. They believe anything they hear from the movement leaders.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 20, 2012 12
Really? I would like to see your research on the German people of the late 20’s and 30’s and your research of today’s conservatives. Can you back up your comment with any facts?
Perhaps you are not aware that conservatives follow principles…not people. I can recall a day when many dems were conservatives and I voted for some of them.
An email I received today from a friend summed up the difference between our political philosophy quite well.
Conservatives sign the front of a check while lib/Marxists sign the back of the check.
Posted by: Royal Flush at July 20, 2012 5:03 PM“Billinflorida-
They jumped the gun, and that’s what people do nowadays. It’s what Rush did, in fact!
The real victims died and were wounded in that theatre.
Don’t be so damn cynical as to try and make conservatives out to be victims over this. Those reporters have been duly embarrassed over that, even on DailyKOS. You get crap wrong, you should be called on it.
As for your last statement? If you weren’t so busy boasting about being right, and putting down other folks as wrong, you might be able to offer something approaching an argument. Until then, nobody really has to take you seriously. I don’t.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2012 2:17 PM
So Stephen, why aren’t you upset at these exaggerating, lying liberal reporters (and I use the term reporters loosely)? “They jumped the gun”, what does that mean?
This is what you said to Royal:
“Royal Flush-
He was wrong. He could have done a little research, and a little logical deduction, and concluded it was just a research, but instead, he either went out their half-cocked on some liberal media conspiracy theory, or he knowingly cooked up this BS to hornswaggle conservatives like you.”
So, did the reporters on ABC, and the liberal bloggers who blamed the Colorado killings on Rush, go off half-cocked on some conspiracy theory and were they knowingly cooking up BS to hornswaggle liberals like you?
Stephen, here are some of the adjectives you used on Limbaugh:
“Dumbass, fantasist, Rush Limbaugh’s orbit of political paranoia, viciously defamatory narrative all the time, delusional”
And you comments about the liberal press; “they jumped the gun”.
Like I have said before Stephen, you have no credibility. You are so outraged and critical of conservatives; but you give liberals a pass. Double standards…
Then you have the gall to make this concluding statement:
“Until then, nobody really has to take you seriously. I don’t.”
Tell me Stephen, when are we supposed to take you seriously? I certainly don’t.
TomT:
My feelings, had there been in this movie theater, red blooded, blue collar, CCW carrying men, like those in PA who “cling to guns and religion”, this murderer would have met a swift end and possibly saved lives
What idiocy. The guy was wearing full SWAT gear all over his body - helmet, gas mask, neck guard, vest, groin and legs. He immediately detonated two smoke/pepper bombs before he began shooting the 4 different weapons he brought with him — all of which shot multiple rounds of ammunition rapidly. Nobody could see or breathe in that theater, let alone shoot at him.
As for the shooter, there’s a possibility that he might be a Limbaugh fan, since it’s now reported that he made racist comments to two people in a bar recently.
Posted by: Adrienne at July 20, 2012 5:23 PM“I find it interesting that you have to talk about the thugs being black. I don’t find fault with the guy who shot them, but this was broad daylight, not this kind of suprise attack in a movie theatre. And no, the national media won’t spend much time on what amounts to a local crime story, just as you don’t hear about burglary strings in Atlanta, or whatever.”
I mentioned they were black simply because I saw the video and, they were black; I called them thugs because they were bashing the computers with the ball bat and terrorizing the people in the coffee shot: hence, they were thugs. Do you have a problem with what I saw and said?
Re/your comment that the media won’t spend much time on a “local crime story”; this is a completely false statement. Have you ever heard of Travon Martin/George Zimmerman? If I remember correctly, you even posted on this case. Wasn’t this a local crime story; in fact it was in the same state of Florida. You won’t say this Stephen, but it won’t be mentioned by the liberal MSM, because it was about a private citizen who had a CCW and saved people’s lives.
“You want the story to be trumpeting your values over and over again, paying attention to certain things, coming to certain conclusions. The real world has a difference of opinion with all of us, and it isn’t some conspiracy to make Republicans feel bad about themselves, or hide the truth. It’s simply a world that doesn’t revolve around any of our particular philosophies.”
Stephen, you are completely unfair with your remarks. Everything you just said is the very reason Zimmerman was found guilty in the arena of public opinion because your side trumpeted your own values over and over. Aren’t you able to see this?
Adrienne, I read your link and fail to find any reference to Limbaugh. I don’t understand your “racist” remark either. Are you well? Perhaps you should see your doctor.
Posted by: Royal Flush at July 20, 2012 5:32 PMAdrienne, I read your link and fail to find any reference to Limbaugh.
There isn’t a reference. I said there’s only a possibility that the shooter might be a Limbaugh fan.
I don’t understand your “racist” remark either.
Limbaugh is a racist. Many of Limbaugh’s fans are racists. The shooter recently made a racist remark to a person in a bar about rap music.
We don’t much about this nut yet, and his remark doesn’t automatically mean there is a connection — but the possibility is there.
“TomT:
My feelings, had there been in this movie theater, red blooded, blue collar, CCW carrying men, like those in PA who “cling to guns and religion”, this murderer would have met a swift end and possibly saved lives”
What idiocy. The guy was wearing full SWAT gear all over his body - helmet, gas mask, neck guard, vest, groin and legs.”
Adrienne, ever hear of a head shot? If I were pulling a weapon, I wouldn’t plan on shooting him in the balls.
Since you are woman and evidently unfamiliar with military training, have been in combat situations, and have probably never gone through CCW training, I wouldn’t expect you to understand.
“As for the shooter, there’s a possibility that he might be a Limbaugh fan, since it’s now reported that he made racist comments to two people in a bar recently.”
Sorry Adrienne, but you’re going to have to present more facts than “a possibility that he might be a Limbaugh fan”; give us some proof. “It’s now reported that he made racist comments to two people in a bar recently.” It was also reported that he was a recent member of the TP, and that turned out to be bullshit. Now you want us to believe another “it is reported”?
Shooter also said to be religious:
James Holmes, Colorado Shooter, Described as ‘Normal’ Christian Boy Amid Mental Health Investigation
James Eagan Holmes has been described as a shy and well-mannered young man by a neighbor, who claims the Colorado shooting suspect was heavily involved in his local Presbyterian church.Posted by: Adrienne at July 20, 2012 6:04 PM
I love the way the left complains that conservatives are conspiracy theorist and yet we hear statements like “Talk radio conservatives are just like the German people of the late ‘20’s and early 30’s. They believe anything they hear from the movement leaders.” from j2, and “As for the shooter, there’s a possibility that he might be a Limbaugh fan, since it’s now reported that he made racist comments to two people in a bar recently.” From Adrienne.
These are called innuendos and they require no proof because they are implied accusations.
SD writes; “I’m aiming to expose him (Limbaugh) to the politically uncommitted and open minded folks out there, to get them to realize that there is no advantage to following what somebody like him says.”
Does SD actually believe that anyone on WB is “politically uncommitted”? Can you name one person?
Will anyone on WB fess up that their political philosophy has changed by reading anything SD has written?
I don’t write comments expecting to change anyone’s deeply held political beliefs. I come to WB first of all for the entertainment value. I enjoy political discussions but don’t ever expect to change anyone from lib to cons.
Does SD believe there is a huge, non participating, audience out there reading our every word just waiting to be influenced as to how to vote? I hope not as that could be a sign of dementia.
I read and write on WB for another reason as well. There is some good research being done by some that is very interesting. I read political writings from many sources and I find it fascinating to see what filters thru to the pages of WB. It gives me some idea of what ordinary folks are thinking and what they consider important.
Posted by: Royal Flush at July 20, 2012 6:08 PM
Adrienne, ever hear of a head shot? If I were pulling a weapon, I wouldn’t plan on shooting him in the balls.
I’ll repeat : Full SWAT gear, head to toe. Threw 2 Smoke/Pepper bombs before firing a single shot. People couldn’t see or breathe.
Since you are woman and evidently unfamiliar with military training, have been in combat situations, and have probably never gone through CCW training, I wouldn’t expect you to understand.
You can shove that misogyny where the sun don’t shine, idiot.
Tom Humes-
I have to wonder when your people are going to run out of places to insult. I don’t recall much national talk about chicago politics during my generation until Barack Obama got nominated. Think that’s the reason? Well, Republicans were talking crap about Massachussetts in 2004, and I don’t hear crap about it now, so I guess it’s just the fact that your leaders and pundits need to vilify whoever’s in the way.
Royal Flush-
Self-serving garbage. Have you seen the poverty rates in the South, in the Appalachians among the red states? There are Republicans and Democrats on both sides of those checks. Democrats, though, are at least honest about the nature of the system, and don’t kid themselves when they’re on Medicare who’s footting the bill for their healthcare.
And you say, they don’t follow people, they follow principles? Again, self-serving. You couldn’t bust many Republicans and Conservatives off supporting Bush with a two by four in 2000 and 2004, despite all the things he promised and did. And really, which people immediately jumped to Limbaugh’s defense, when I submitted this entry? Huh?
Until you acknowledge that you’re not much better than the rest of us, you will never begin to face your political bad habits, or get good, honest accountability out of your politicians.
Billinflorida-
What does it mean? It means to jump out of the blocks ahead of the starting pistol.
Tell me, what did this mean:
“Good morning, shooters. Happy Friday! Weekend plans?”
Wait, I’ll tell you what it means: it’s one of the few times I feel even close to sorry for the NRA. That it was probably an automatic tweet sent out by computer is the only excuse.
As for the guys who “jumped the gun”, I think they’re getting it from all sides. Unlike you, I don’t feel it necessary to destroy people. I think they ought to wait for more information next time, and only associate the shooter with the Tea Party if there is firm evidence. That simple. I don’t have your kind of malice when it comes to this. And I hold conservatives like Rush Limbaugh to the same standard! So stuff your charges of hypocrisy, I’ve never expected anything more out of the Republicans than the truth, and when I accuse them of failing to attain it, I offer up the evidence that proves them wrong with my argument.
You? You just go into your usual spiel about how liberals are such morons.
(By the way, of your list, only one item is actually an adjective. The rest are noun phrases with adjectives at best, and at worst unambiguous nouns like dumbass and fantasist.)
TomT-
I don’t have a problem with you calling them thugs. I’m taking your word for the details of the incident. It just struck me as unnecessary to describe the race.
As far as the Zimmerman case? A man shot an unarmed teenager dead, and almost got away with it, despite serious evidence to the contrary. The kid was left for three days on the slab before his parents even knew what had happened to him.
There are other crime stories that make the headlines, and sometimes that can be a bit random. I think you’re just reaching out of paranoia to blame it on the media’s evil liberal plot to quash reports on gun heros.
As for whether Zimmerman was tried in the court of public opinion, what about Trayvon Martin. Why is it that all of a sudden, we see people marketing “hoodie” targets?
Both sides are competing in the public sphere, and I have no illusions about that. I would say, though, that I’m nostalgic for times in which journalists tried to balance things more, rather than clumsily try to avoid ticking off hypersensitive conservative guardians of bias.
The facts should establish the balance of the story. That’s my basic opinion. Of course I’m not perfect, being the subjective human being, but I don’t think of indulging my bias as a proper response to the bias of the other side. The real world doesn’t have to adopt my bias, any more than it has to adopt yours.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2012 6:11 PMThese are called innuendos and they require no proof because they are implied accusations.
Not innuendo. Curiosity. Speculation. Info gathering.
Not Accusation. Merely looking at the Possibilities.
I HATE RAP MUSIC Adrienne…does that make me a racist too? You may believe Limbaugh is a racist but that doesn’t make it true. Frankly, I suspect that the OWS folks are nasty Marxists. But, I can’t say for certain that it is true.
Posted by: Royal Flush at July 20, 2012 6:17 PMYou may believe Limbaugh is a racist but that doesn’t make it true.
It is true. Limbaughs can be labeled a racist due to the many racist remarks he has made.
Posted by: Adrienne at July 20, 2012 6:20 PMHow ignorant can some people be? I want everyone to pay close attention to the intellect of a liberal:
Royal said:
“Adrienne, I read your link and fail to find any reference to Limbaugh.”
To which Adrienne answered:
“There isn’t a reference. I said there’s only a possibility that the shooter might be a Limbaugh fan.”
Royal also said:
“I don’t understand your “racist” remark either.”
To which Adrienne answered:
“Limbaugh is a racist. Many of Limbaugh’s fans are racists. The shooter recently made a racist remark to a person in a bar about rap music.
We don’t much about this nut yet, and his remark doesn’t automatically mean there is a connection — but the possibility is there.”
Let’s analyze these comments: Adrienne, I can’t find any reference to Rush Limbaugh in your link (the link that Adrienne included with her statement that the killer listened to Rush), to which Adrienne said, “Oh it doesn’t mention Rush”. Adrienne, I don’t understand your racist remark, to which Adrienne said (based on a link that didn’t even mention Rush) that the shooter was also a racist (and based on what), why, it is based on the fact that the shooter listened to Rush (because Rush is a racist), even though Adrienne admitted her claim that he listened to Rush was false.
Am I understanding this logic correctly?
The fact is , Adrienne’s link said that the shooter was a liberal democrat:
“Bookworm, smart guy, really intelligent looking guy,” said Mitchell, 45. “The look on the picture that was on TV was the same look you got when you sat across from him. There wasn’t no evil look. I didn’t see it coming. Not that.”
He was a bookworm (geek), a smart guy and really intelligent looking (and we all know, only liberals are smart and intelligent looking (narcissist); so he must have been a liberal.
This is Adrienne’s proof he was a racist:
“He was talking trash because he liked rock music and country and he made a slightly racial comment about people listening to rap music,” she said.”
Question: what is a slightly racial comment? Inquiring minds want to know.
“It just struck me as unnecessary to describe the race.”
“I think they ought to wait for more information next time, and only associate the shooter with the Tea Party if there is firm evidence.”
SD really gets rankled when he is called a hypocrite. The above two quotes were written by SD in the same post above. Does anyone not see the hypocrisy here? In one case SD finds the race of a criminal unimportant. In the other case, membership in a political party by a criminal is important.
Let us suppose for just a moment that the shooter is identified as a member of the TEA party. What possible difference could that make concerning the crime? Does SD have any evidence that the TEA party breeds murderous criminals?
Posted by: Royal Flush at July 20, 2012 6:33 PMHow ignorant can some people be? I want everyone to pay close attention to the intellect of a liberal:
Royal said:
“Adrienne, I read your link and fail to find any reference to Limbaugh.”
To which Adrienne answered:
“There isn’t a reference. I said there’s only a possibility that the shooter might be a Limbaugh fan.”
Royal also said:
“I don’t understand your “racist” remark either.”
To which Adrienne answered:
“Limbaugh is a racist. Many of Limbaugh’s fans are racists. The shooter recently made a racist remark to a person in a bar about rap music.
We don’t much about this nut yet, and his remark doesn’t automatically mean there is a connection — but the possibility is there.”
Let’s analyze these comments: Adrienne, I can’t find any reference to Rush Limbaugh in your link (the link that Adrienne included with her statement that the killer listened to Rush), to which Adrienne said, “Oh it doesn’t mention Rush”. Adrienne, I don’t understand your racist remark, to which Adrienne said (based on a link that didn’t even mention Rush) that the shooter was also a racist (and based on what), why, it is based on the fact that the shooter listened to Rush (because Rush is a racist), even though Adrienne admitted her claim that he listened to Rush was false.
Am I understanding this logic correctly?
The fact is , Adrienne’s link said that the shooter was a liberal democrat:
“Bookworm, smart guy, really intelligent looking guy,” said Mitchell, 45. “The look on the picture that was on TV was the same look you got when you sat across from him. There wasn’t no evil look. I didn’t see it coming. Not that.”
He was a bookworm (geek), a smart guy and really intelligent looking (and we all know, only liberals are smart and intelligent looking (narcissist); so he must have been a liberal.
This is Adrienne’s proof he was a racist:
“He was talking trash because he liked rock music and country and he made a slightly racial comment about people listening to rap music,” she said.”
Question: what is a slightly racial comment? Inquiring minds want to know.
Why when we have a tragedy do our liberal friends always need to make silly innuendos.
The guy could have been a Limbaugh fan; he could have been an Obama accolade. Nobody has any reason to believe much of anything, except he is probably a nut. This should not be an occasion for any political comment and only defective human beings would make this an opportunity.
Posted by: C&J at July 20, 2012 6:40 PMRoyal said:
“Will anyone on WB fess up that their political philosophy has changed by reading anything SD has written?”
Yes, I will, Stephen has almost convinced me to become a liberal. I figure it will only take a few more essays full of bullshit to convince me. Keep up the good work SD.
Posted by: Billinflorida at July 20, 2012 6:43 PMI don’t have the answer to your question C&J, but I do recall obama jumping to conclusions about possible criminal actions in the past. Perhaps it’s just a game of follow the leader.
Posted by: Royal Flush at July 20, 2012 6:47 PMThis is sad: three members of the military died in the shooting.
Posted by: Adrienne at July 20, 2012 6:54 PMAm I understanding this logic correctly?
You don’t think logically, so why bother to try to understand? You have also claimed that I said things that I didn’t say. But what else is new, eh?
I’m just looking up what people who met or knew this guy are saying about him. So far it appears that this guy was a shy, quiet loner type, graduated at the top of his class, recently dropped out of medical school where he was studying neuroscience for his Phd, that he couldn’t find a job, and that he was very active in his church. He also recently made a racist comment, and not long after went out in full tactical gear and shot up 71 people at a movie which Rush Limbaugh (who also makes racist remarks) has been talking a lot about over the past few days.
So, there is the possibility that he was listening to Rush’s remarks. Or maybe he didn’t. But even though this may make some people uncomfortable, the possibility is there.
Posted by: Adrienne at July 20, 2012 7:12 PM“It just struck me as unnecessary to describe the race.”
“I think they ought to wait for more information next time, and only associate the shooter with the Tea Party if there is firm evidence.”
SD really gets rankled when he is called a hypocrite. The above two quotes were written by SD in the same post above. Does anyone not s“It just struck me as unnecessary to describe the race.”
“I think they ought to wait for more information next time, and only associate the shooter with the Tea Party if there is firm evidence.”
SD really gets rankled when he is called a hypocrite. The above two quotes were written by SD in the same post above. Does anyone not see the hypocrisy here? In one case SD finds the race of a criminal unimportant. In the other case, membership in a political party by a criminal is important.
Let us suppose for just a moment that the shooter is identified as a member of the TEA party. What possible difference could that make concerning the crime? Does SD have any evidence that the TEA party breeds murderous criminals?
Posted by: Royal Flush at July 20, 2012 6:33 PM
You are exactly right Royal. Stephen has been presented with the facts that his comments abouyt Rush and the comments of the MSM are the same, but he can’t help himself, he trashes Limbaugh and defends the press.
He says it strikes him as unnecessary to speak of race; but in his hypocrisy, he had no problem talking race when it came to the Martin/Zimmerman case. He sits silently by while Adrienne shows her ignorance by claiming the Colorado shooter was racist, based on the fact that Rush is a racist and he did or didn’t listen to Rush.
Again in Stephen’s hypocrisy he makes statements that we should have a wait and see attitude about whether the shooter was a TP member; yet he has never had a wait and see attitude about any other conservative condemnation, i.e. Zimmerman was guilty before evidence was ever presented.
Stephen is a hypocrite; he is never logical and he never views both side equally. By both sides, I mean, what liberals do and what conservatives do.
Let’s take this stamen for example:
“The facts should establish the balance of the story. That’s my basic opinion. Of course I’m not perfect, being the subjective human being, but I don’t think of indulging my bias as a proper response to the bias of the other side. The real world doesn’t have to adopt my bias, any more than it has to adopt yours.”
Stephen, this comment is pure BS and you know it, and so does everyone else WB. You are never concerned about facts and your bias is in every word you write. There is a comment that fits you perfectly; “I am brilliant, and if you don’t believe me, just ask me”. You try to present yourself as some sort of open minded intelligential; but your just another liberal hack trying to argue Obama’s agenda as being right for the country.
ee the hypocrisy here? In one case SD finds the race of a criminal unimportant. In the other case, membership in a political party by a criminal is important.
Let us suppose for just a moment that the shooter is identified as a member of the TEA party. What possible difference could that make concerning the crime? Does SD have any evidence that the TEA party breeds murderous criminals?
Posted by: Royal Flush at July 20, 2012 6:33 PM
You are exactly right Royal. Stephen has been presented with the facts that his comments abouyt Rush and the comments of the MSM are the same, but he can’t help himself, he trashes Limbaugh and defends the press.
He says it strilkes him as unnessecary
Posted by: TomT at July 20, 2012 7:17 PMReally? I would like to see your research on the German people of the late 20’s and 30’s and your research of today’s conservatives. Can you back up your comment with any facts?
Do your own research Royal, and prove me wrong. I have made this comment many times and several different people here on WB have taken me to task on it. Simply put I believe the people of Germany during the 20’s and 30’s were for the most part decent people. The conservatives of today are for the most part decent people.
The people of Germany were victims of half truths misinformation and outright lies from their leaders. Conservatives of today are are also victims of misinformation half truths and outright lies from their leaders. It is really that simple Royal and to prove it- your own statement “Perhaps you are not aware that conservatives follow principles…not people.”.
Your leaders have you believing this no doubt, but in fact you and other movement followers here on WB are following “principals” not “principles” as you would have us believe.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 20, 2012 7:18 PMI’m just looking up what people who met or knew this guy are saying about him. So far it appears that this guy was a shy, quiet loner type, graduated at the top of his class, recently dropped out of medical school where he was studying neuroscience for his Phd, that he couldn’t find a job, and that he was very active in his church. He also recently made a racist comment, and not long after went out in full tactical gear and shot up 71 people at a movie which Rush Limbaugh (who also makes racist remarks) has been talking a lot about over the past few days.
So, there is the possibility that he was listening to Rush’s remarks. Or maybe he didn’t. But even though this may make some people uncomfortable, the possibility is there.
Posted by: Adrienne at July 20, 2012 7:12 PM
Isn’t this what the right was saying about Obama’s connections, and acquaintances, and yet the right was condemned for referring to the people Obama surrounded himself with?
“Shooter also said to be religious:
James Holmes, Colorado Shooter, Described as ‘Normal’ Christian Boy Amid Mental Health Investigation
James Eagan Holmes has been described as a shy and well-mannered young man by a neighbor, who claims the Colorado shooting suspect was heavily involved in his local Presbyterian church.”
Posted by: Adrienne at July 20, 2012 6:04 PM
Well Adrienne, at least we know he wasn’t an evangelical; since the Presbyterian Church is not considered to be evangelical.
Posted by: Billinflorida at July 20, 2012 7:30 PMj2t2
I am one of the people who has tried to explain history to you.
Suffice to say that what you say about conservatives can as easily be said about liberals. I.e most liberals are decent people who are victims of lies and half truths from their leaders. These are some of the things that are true about people in general.
The thing to recall about the Nazis is they were extreme in their commitment to government control over most aspects of life; they did not permit a free market and they centralized power in the capital of the country. Does that sound like conservatives in America?
Adrienne
It is possible that the man was reading your comments on Watchblog. It may make you uncomfortable, but it is possible. Almost anything is possible. Intelligent people usually wait until they have some evidence before jumping to conclusions. You recall the old saying that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to start talking and remove all doubt. (you may now respond with “back at you” or the usual vulgarities)
People are dead. We know almost nothing certain about the man who did it. We have no idea about his motives.
I think I understand why you hate Limbaugh so much. He is a lot like you in jumping to unjustified conclusions. You don’t like the competition.
Posted by: C&J at July 20, 2012 7:46 PMIsn’t this what the right was saying about Obama’s connections, and acquaintances, and yet the right was condemned for referring to the people Obama surrounded himself with?
The difference being, these radio shock jocks have established a history of setting terribly unstable people off on these gun sprees. To give an example: Remember this incident?
Billinflorida-
There are plenty of Conservative Geeks. I knew a kid in junior high who was a complete Trekkie. We had arguments on which series’ opening score was better, The Next Generation with its Jerry Goldsmith open, or Dennis McCarthy’s theme for Deep Space Nine.
Smart and intelligent? I went to Baylor, the place was full of smart Conservatives, so there.
As for Narcissists? Look at Rush Limbaugh. Who the hell needs a golden microphone. Seriously, though, why do you keep arguing that Conservatives can’t have various flaws?
As for anybody being converted or whatever by my rhetoric? I have no idea. But I never rested my credibility on the notion that I have an audience of millions and income to match, did I?
You tell me how many people you’ve converted by being as belligerent and concentrated on ad hominem attacks. If we’re comparing tactics, why don’t we see those people you’ve converted through nasty attacks on Democrats and Liberals.
Goood luuuuuuck. :-)
TomT-
Well, I said the race isn’t relevant because it isn’t material to the situation. White, asian, hispanic, I’d still say the guy was right to put a cap in their ass.
Which is to say, the facts establish the balance of the story. People were terrorizing the business in question, somebody pulls out a gun on them, shoots them. Good cause to believe they felt threatened, and folks probably didn’t think they could get past the criminals in question.
Race didn’t enter into that, shouldn’t enter into that. A thug is a thug is a thug.
And no, it’s not BS to say the facts should dictate the balance of the story. That’s how you avoid bias.
But you don’t seem interested in doing that. You seem interested in slapping a label on me, and what I do. I mean, I more or less said I can be wrong, or that my biases can lead me astray, but at the very least, I can admit fallibility.
You? You’re actingly like you’re a judge in some cockamamie courtroom drama, that you can render a verdict of guilty, and thereby get the authority to speak for all of Watchblog’s readers.
Begging your pardon, who died and made you, or Billinflorida the spokespeople for the site? You’re just trying to win an argument on the cheap, regardless of whether I’m right on the facts or not.
As for defending the press? I said they were dumb to make the mistake, that they should have waited on better information! I mean, it’s not me taking a flame thrower to the liberal media, but it’s surely not a defense of their mistake. There really isn’t one, and just about everybody I’ve heard from, liberal or otherwise, says the same thing.
They screwed up, and it should be a black eye for them. Their sin was jumping to a conclusion. who the hell cares why? The point isn’t to kiss the ass of the conservative movement, it’s to report the factually correct information to the people out there. And no, I’m not talking about some political standard of fact like you’re thinking of. I’m thinking of something ridiculously basic.
As far as the Tea Party goes, the main strikes against it are the calls members have made for extralegal remedies. In fact, I retitled a couple of my blogs “First Amendment Remedies” as a response to Sharron Angle’s imfamous comment.
When folks are so quick to suggest that violence is the answer, that guns are the appropriate means by which to resolve things, if the election doesn’t go their way, yes, they have less benefit of the doubt when it comes to political violence.
But what did I say? Don’t read what you think I mean, just read the literal worlds: I basically said that unless there is firm evidence to make the connection, it shouldn’t be made.
I don’t care to falsely accuse folks of anything. Even if I would jump at the chance to discredit the Tea Party, it would never be to my benefit to do so on false or flimsy evidence. That would only reflect the discredit back on me, and I don’t want that. I’m competitive-minded enough that I don’t want to give any of you free penalty kicks at my goal. I want to make it genuinely difficult on substantive grounds for you to win.
As for “brilliance”?
I don’t believe in doing anything half-assed. I’m also not very concerned with emotional approaches to arguing things, because it’s been my observation that next to nobody is forced to concede things by somebody they expect to be insulting and deriding them insulting and deriding them. It doesn’t work.
I put a lot of time and effort into something that doesn’t profit me much, or promise me glorious levels of attention. But if somebody’s going to see it, if it’s going to reflect on who I am as a political debater, I’m not going to do anything less than what I’m capable of. If I can think of an workable response to use against your arguments, I will. When I compete, I don’t pull punches.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2012 8:24 PM“Merely looking at the Possibilities.”
The possibilities exist that SD, Adrienne, j2t2, richlib, jeff, rich, and so on are the direct cause of this rampage.
They are in disagreement with gun owners and CCW people. They therefore have limited the ability of CCW people to be ready for this kind of massacre.
SD
I know you are a slow learner, but cut the crap. “Your people” is a slap in the face and you know it. I am not riled or angry, just disgusted that you cannot be civil enough to acknowledge that your reference does not fit me. I just consider it the lack of something sensible to say and that you have to say something to feel important and knowledgeable.
Well you are not knowledgeable and you are not important, no matter how many blogs you want to participate in. You just can’t cut the mustard, but you can cut the mouse terd and you demonstrate that on a daily basis over and over again. I am not here to insult you, because you are too arrogant and self centered.
Maranatha
Posted by: tom humes at July 20, 2012 8:42 PM
Shooter not cooperating, from well-to-do family, described as smart with a “swagger.”
Also:
Colo. Shooting Suspect Avoided Gun Reporting Requirement
The thing to recall about the Nazis is they were extreme in their commitment to government control over most aspects of life;
C&J, Conservatives have went on a nation building spree in foreign countries the past decade, does that count or do they have to do it here as well. Because it seems to me conservatives had the PATRIOT Act in place soon after their takeover of Congress and the White House. Not to mention the recent attacks on women’s bodies. The thing to understand is talking about small government is one thing but when conservatives were in total control did they decrease the size of government? Of course not. But trust them they want to do that now, whilst out of power, but trust the talk not what they did right?.
This is exactly what I refer to when I say “misinformation half truths and outright lies” C&J. Just like the people of Germany back then, conservatives of today believe the smaller government stuff despite all evidence to the contrary. They keep voting the same conservatives into power with the same results.
they did not permit a free market and they centralized power in the capital of the country. Does that sound like conservatives in America?
Conservatives have refused to stop subsidies for oil companies amongst others C&J how “free market” is that? The conservative version of the “free market” led to a major crisis just 4 short years ago C&J, yet they don’t believe it was their principles that caused it, go figure. Conservatives have spent the last 3 plus years with one goal in mind according to Senate leaders, get Obama out of office, so they can continue to destroy the country from within. Which is what they did the past decade.
So lets summarize, military build up and expansion based upon conservative falsehoods check. Enabling Act… er umm Patriot Act, check. Financial crisis, check. So we are getting there yet the talk radio conservatives of today are clueless. Vilification of opponents, check. Vilification of minority religious group. check. Voter Suppression, check…. the list just keeps getting longer doesn’t it C&J.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 20, 2012 9:48 PMtom humes-
You’re insulting. What else is new?
Republicans will not discuss changing things, even when it becomes clear that the policies don’t work. Confronted with the situation with gun laws letting strawbuyers get away with giving the cartels their guns, their solution is to scapegoat the agency and the administration in charge of enforcing these mediocre gun laws.
Confronted with an economy almost ruined by allowing Wall Street to get away with murder, conservatives won’t admit things went wrong, but will doubled down against any regulation, any change of policy, calling those who resist socialists.
Confronted with good evidence that the war isn’t going like they promised, they’ll bash the dissenters as unpatriotic terrorist sympathizers.
The business of the conservative movement is no longer to come up with new ideas, but instead to hang bitterly onto the old ones.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2012 10:16 PMSD
“You just can’t cut the mustard, but you can cut the mouse terd and you demonstrate that on a daily basis over and over again.”
You just confirmed this with your latest misinformation.
Posted by: tom humes at July 20, 2012 10:46 PMC&J, good point and one the should be addressed. Yes liberals by and large are decent people. The difference, in a nutshell, is this-Conservatives are much more dangerous. Sheer numbers alone dictate conservatives can control the vote. Liberals according to conservatives estimates are only 20% of the voters. Conservatives are more willing to let the ends justify the means on issues important to them. We ended up with a lower credit rating as a result of conservative dogma just this past year. Conservatives such as Grover Norquist have bribed our elected representatives demanded pledges from them that take priority over the business of the people. The conservative propaganda machine of which Limbaugh is a major player has twisted and played with the minds of these gullible conservative followers for so long they just can’t see it. Liberal propaganda outlets are almost non existent now that the media is corporate controlled. And we all know the listening audience is so small as to be non existent as well, so the likelihood of liberals being “brainwashed” by the propaganda is much smaller.
Of course this is just the tip of the iceberg but it is why conservatives and the fascism that passes for conservatism these days are more of a threat to this country than Osama Bin Laden ever was.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 20, 2012 11:16 PMj2t2
The Nazis never promised small government. They promised and delivered revolutionary socialism.
If you believe as I do that government should be smaller and more effective with less interference in our lives, we should agree to oppose all those policies that would expand its reach. Perhaps conservatives in power have failed to achieve this. I was unaware that shrinking the size and scope of government was even a goal among liberals.
Your parallels are fatuous as long as you ignore the central fact. Nazism like it communist cousin is totalitarian. That means the state monopolizes all decision making. It leaves no room for free markets. Unless you want liberals to go back to the original meaning of the term and advocate less government, you are still out of luck.
As for a few other things. “Vilification of opponents, check. Vilification of minority religious group.” this is certainly a liberal trait often exhibited right here on Watchblog. Did you fail to notice the virulent attacks on Mormonism?
The totalitarian Nazi and communist movements existed in a particular place and time. I cannot explain it to you, since it would require a lot more study than I think you would be willing to do. Those systems will not come back in the forms they did. Conditions just are not the same.
Despite their penchant for government growth, I don’t think liberals are going in that totalitarian direction and I don’t think conservatives ever were.
Totalitarianism requires very strong and centralized government. It cannot exist otherwise. We should guard against the kinds of concentrations of government power that would enable such evil systems. In fact, this is precisely why the founding fathers decentralized power and made the Federal government inefficient.
The Nazis never promised small government. They promised and delivered revolutionary socialism.
No, this is Wrong. I know you’re always claiming this, but it’s completely incorrect. Nazism is in fact Fascism, combined with strong elements of Racism and Unyielding Nationalism and Corporatism.
So, rather than Revolutionary Socialism, it was actually Revolutionary Fascism.
Socialism is based upon the idea of an economy that is to be owned and controlled equally by all the people. It also in theory believes in no borders, preferring to consider itself international.
Fascism is an economy where business is owned privately by wealthy individuals, but who ultimately must answer to a dictator. The Nazi’s called what they were doing National “Socialism”, but it was always a misnomer.
It was National Fascism.
Adrienne
The Nazis called themselves socialism. They used the means of government within the bounds of the technology availalbe at the time to control virtually all economic and social activities.
Fascism, Nazism and communism are all heresies of the same totalitarian collectivist mind set. As will all heretics, they hate each other even more than they hate non-believers, but they share common practices and the basic ideal of making the power of the state supreme. They also all believe in doing so using revolutionary methods that sweep aside previous practices and institutions.
In this all these collectivist ideas are very different from the pluralist democracies we support.
You may define socialism as a system where the economy is owned and controlled by everyone equally, but that has not been the practice because state control and coercion has been employed.
If you reach back to older practices, those employed in primitive communities and religious order, you may find some of what you are looking for. The problem with this has always been spreading this over a large area and administering it. The principle weakness is always in information. Information does not pass efficiently. We often overlook how much information is included in prices of products. This is the part that totalitarians almost always get wrong, which explains the efficiency of Soviet bakeries, among other things.
The fatal flaw, and here I mean the one that actually gets people killed in large numbers, is the revolutionary aspect and the idea of class structures. Ordinary socialism can be mostly harmless; when it is tied to the idea of class or race struggle, it gets deadly.
For many years, the Swedes ran a heavily socialized system that was fairly benign. The most important reason is that they had a small and homogenous country and they completely dispensed with the revolution idea. Most industries remained in private hands and they maintained their monarchy. They also had/have low corporate income taxes and lots of rich people. The world’s richest man, by some counts, is the Swede Ingvar Feodor Kamprad, founder of IKEA.
Anyway, Sweden is the closest anybody can come to a socialist country that worked and it is not really all that socialist, as I mentioned above.
There are no examples of successful revolutionary socialist systems and plenty of really bloody ones. Mao is the world’s leading killer, followed by Stalin and then Hitler. All called themselves revolutionary socialists and all deployed the power of the state in an attempt to rapidly change “revolutionize” their societies.
Posted by: C&J at July 21, 2012 8:51 AMtom humes-
Misinformation? The only actually walked weapons, that is weapons they knew about, were deliberately tracking, and let go, were let go by your informant, your so-called whistleblower.
The rest? The way both state and federal law has it, there’s no solid database to rely on, so people could track the weapons purchases, and so by the time they’ve reconstructed what that one person has done, the guns have gone, and the prosecutors would normally not even bother to file charges, making an arrest very unlikely.
Misinformation? Look to Darrel Issa and others like him for that.
You want to talk about not cutting the mustard, well any moron or troll can bash somebody by saying it. I can show people that saying it is all you’re able to do.
C&J-
The Nazis were virulently anti-marxist, even blaming the Reichstag fire on the communists. I know folks get mislead by the “socialist” part of the name, but like “Democratic” or “Republic”, it doesn’t always get attached to things in a way our dictionary or colloquial definition would be consistent with. I mean, is the government of China Republican because it calls itself a People’s Republic? Was East Germany a Democracy or a true Republic because it call itself the German Democratic Republic?
The Nazis were not Marxists, so the critique is just so much misleading political propaganda. Yes, they did big things in terms of public works, established social benefits for its citizens. But we did the same thing in our country, and our government wasn’t marxist, either. The real marxists, in fact, hated what was happening in our country, because they knew things would go no further.
I think you need to sit down and figure out whether it’s worth it to continue this wordplay, or whether the Republicans will wake up and realize that their leaders are not capable of promoting the cause for the long term.
I understand that conservatives don’t want to become liberals, but what I would say is that conservatism has become so rigidly defined, so tied to a fixed set of policies, that it’s become incapable of adapting either to the failure or the unpopularity of those policies. Rush, and folks like him, as enforcers of the dogma, are particularly responsible for this.
I would say this, it hasn’t necessarily been any successful liberalization of my party that’s allowed us to become more powerful. I think much of the Democratic Party is as stuck in the past as the Republican Party is, with Democrats making concessions they ought not to have made, Conservative Democrats resisting some of the change folks want. If Democrats had operated with a more solid caucus, we could have avoided the mandate, gotten more stimulus out there, in general pushed the party policy better.
But why then, do the Democrats still win? Because Republicans are unwilling to abandon policies and special interests that have proven harmful to their credibility. Democrats may not be splendidly better, but their ideology allows them another option, wherever they lie on the party’s political spectrum. Republicans are also unwilling to acknowledge the damage that taking a hardline position on things like the debt ceiling, or on Obama has done to them. They are quite willing to endure the controversies and please their base, even as they alienate moderates, moderates they try to bring back through fear tactics, and attempts at the same seductive promises of a laissez faire economic paradise that they once pushed.
No party can survive merely on its hardliners, and on hardline policy. Sooner or later, if you choose that base every time, if you become dependent on choosing it, you will lose touch with everybody else.
A party must be willing to interact with and compromise with other political elements, within and without, in order to be capable of maintaining influence and the constitutional exercise of power. Those that aren’t? For them, a Democratic, Representative, and Constitutional Republic like ours is a source of endless fear. For hardliners, moderation in the service of their politics is no virtue, extremism in its defense no vice, and they are constantly faced with a country that doesn’t care to believe as extremely as they do.
But for people like me? Even faced with Tea Partiers and the potential return of the GOP as the majority and the occupants of the White House, I’m not scared that things will forever remain that way, if we don’t win this next election. I’m concerned that policy will continue to deteriorate, but I don’t believe that in the next two major elections, the 2014 mid-terms or the 2016 presidential race, that we can’t retake what was lost.
I’m not sitting here, talking about how great the constitution is, but turning around and trying to deprive people of their right to vote, to answer a putative threat to our Democracy more unlikely than getting struck by lightning.
The Republicans worry more and more about people’s willingness and enthusiasm to support them. The Tea Party is a symptom of that. Before 2006, they didn’t need a Tea Party. After the previous two elections to 2010, they just couldn’t sell the GOP on its own brand.
The conservatives out there need to realize that their leaders have taken them down a blind alley, and that they need to rethink what conservative policy means, what they’re really after out there.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 21, 2012 9:20 AMC&J, good points on socialism in comment #349012
Re/your previous comment:
“The totalitarian Nazi and communist movements existed in a particular place and time. I cannot explain it to you, since it would require a lot more study than I think you would be willing to do. Those systems will not come back in the forms they did. Conditions just are not the same.”
The comment made by Rahm Emanuel, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before”, is the foundation belief of any group that wants to establish a socialist/fascist/communist movement.
You are correct about the conditions; it requires a perfect storm situation. The German people were a very patriotic people; they had a great love for the motherland. Germany had suffered a humiliating loss in WWI, the events following the war restricted their ability to build the country back militarily, and Germany suffered from a very damaging inflation. So the country was ripe for “Change” and Hitler, through a series of events, managed to capture the public’s outrage at the rest of Europe and blame it for Germany’s conditions. As Hitler increased in power, he got rid of any opposition, and the rest is history. It might also be noted that radio and the printed press was the only means of communication. Once the state had control of these means of communications; the message the German people were hearing was controlled. We also find that Hitler managed to convince the German people that it was the Jews (the rich people) who were causing all the problems.
Then, if you look at the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, you find very similar situations:
“It was the November 1917 revolution in which the Bolsheviks, an extremist faction within the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (later renamed the Russian Communist Party), seized control of the government, ushering in the Soviet age. The event is also known as the October Revolution since by the old Russian calendar (in use until 1918), the government takeover happened on October 25.
The Bolshevik Revolution was the culmination of a series of events in 1917. In March, with Russia still in the midst of World War I (1914-18), the country faced hardship. Shortages of food and fuel made conditions miserable. The people had lost faith in the war effort and were loathe to support it by sending any more young men into battle. In the Russian capital of Petrograd (which had been known as St. Petersburg until 1914), workers went on strike and rioting broke out. In the chaos (called the March Revolution), Tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918) ordered the legislative body, the Duma, to disband; instead, the representatives set up a provisional government. Having lost all political influence, Nicholas abdicated the throne on March 15. He and his family were imprisoned and are believed to have been killed in July of the following year.
Hearing of Nicholas’s abdication, longtime political exile Vladimir Lenin (1870- 1924) returned from Europe to Petrograd, where he led the Bolsheviks in rallying the Russian people with calls for peace, land reform, and worker empowerment; their slogan was “Land, Peace, and Bread.” The Bolsheviks grew in numbers and became increasingly radical, in spite of efforts by the provisional government headed by revolutionary Alexander Kerensky (1881-1970) to curb the Bolsheviks’ influence. The only socialist member of the first provisional government, Kerensky’s government proved ineffective and failed to meet the demands of the people. He also failed to end the country’s involvement in World War I, which the Bolsheviks viewed as an imperialistic war.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/what-was-the-bolshevik-revolution#ixzz21GTZlJhL
So we find in Russia the same crisis situations; shortages of food and fuel, inflation, and the aristocracy and the rich, made to be and hated, as the reason for all of the country’s woes. Again the only means of communication was basically the printed word, and whoever controlled the printed word, controlled the message.
We could look at Spain and Italy during the same time frame and find similar reasons for dictatorial takeovers. In fact, we see that the socialist directions in America, by people like FDR, were done at a time when the only media was sympathetic to a socialist agenda.
Re/why it could not happen as easily today? We have a multitude of abilities to communicate today. Twenty to thirty years ago, we were dependent upon the big 3 medias in TV and the printed press. As cable and the internet became available, the big 3 and the printed press began to be seen as corrupt and in the pocket of the left. The reason Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck , and a myriad of other conservative cable and radio talk show hosts are so hated is because they have out produced the old media, and they present an alternative message. If I was part of the party that had controlled the message for the past 70 years, I would hate and fear the new media too. At what time in history would a comment like “I voted for something, before I voted against it”, by a liberal ever have been heard by all Americans, or when would Anthony Weiner’s or Clinton’s indiscretions have ever been seen or heard by all Americans? JFK was a whoremonger, yet it never reached the voters by a controlled press. There has been a majority of Americans who want the repeal of Obamacare ever since the Democrats passed it, and why; because the American people have gained a knowledge of some of the things in the bill, by an alternative media. What are the left’s complaints about Obamacare, the stimulus, or any other shady deal Obama has implemented; their complaint is that the American people are being told too much. And to that I say, thank you alternative media; if it was not for alternative media we would be no better off today than in the 1930’s.
The prophet said of Israel and it applies to any time in history, “My people perish for lack of knowledge”.
SD
You are still tracking mis-information. You have no knowledge about fast and furious. You elicit mis-information and expect people to soak and suck it up. That is why you are not convincing anybody.
Your knowledge of history concerning totalitarianism is like wise. It is not about opinion. History is at work here and for you to deny history, is foolhardy.
You are still cutting the mouse terd.
Maranatha
Posted by: tom humes at July 21, 2012 10:26 AMStephen, you are incorrect about the Tea Party. You claim the Republican Party organized the Tea Party as a means to gain support. This could not be further from the truth. The Tea Party was started as a protest against the establishment Republican Party. This can be seen in the State primary battles where the establishment has run candidates against the TP candidates. If you will notice, TP members refer to themselves as conservatives and not Republicans. I do not believe you understand the outrage that conservatives have toward the established Republican Party. You want to lump the two groups together and they are not.
What is the goal of the TP? To bring the Republican Party back to conservative ideals. Now, you and the left may not like that, but it doesn’t matter because you are not part of our party. We will be the first to say there was great failure in the Republican Party over the past few years. The purpose of the grassroots movement, known as the TP is to retake control of the Republican Party.
Posted by: Frank at July 21, 2012 10:32 AMTo most females, they love famous designer products, especially designer handbags. They love the unique design, high quality, perfect as well as the craft. But most normal people cannot afford the designer handbags, so the wholesale cheap knock off designer handbags online start to play an important role in the market.
If you have bag sense, you possibly possess a Prada within of your bag collection. That suggests you recognize just how excellent a Prada is. numerous of us are new to Prada, but how about every solo one of us reveal about why Prada is amid possibly probably the most effective bag labels you’ll really buy? Wholesale Prada handbags online profit is fit for just about every solo occasion. It’s really a one-stop store for bags. Pursuing you acquire in to some Prada shop, you’ll obtain a daily bag, your evening clutch, along collectively with your holiday add-ons all in one place. That produces it even very much a whole lot more trendy - which you can possess a distinctive Prada bag for just about every solo occasion.
Nowadays, more and more people start to pay attention on another brand that is Miu Miu, a branch brand of Prada. The design of Miu Miu is much more suitable for young females, and it is very famous among young ladies recently, especially the cheap Miu Miu handbags on sale online.
Stephen
The Nazis were anti-Marxist in the same way different sects of the same religion are against each other. During the wars of religion in Europe, various Christian groups were more willing to work with non-believers than with their co-religious enemies.
Nazis and communists talked different talk but they behaved in very similar ways. Each had a theory of strict government control; each ran concentration camps and Gulags where they imprisoned and killed large numbers of their citizens on the basis of their status, rather than their behaviors; each glorified the leadership and centralized power. Nazis tended to divide society into favored groups based on race. Communist and fascists tended to divide society into favored and hated groups based on class, which as far as they were concerned was as immutable as race.
Watch what they do, not what they say. Strip away the marching, music and uniforms and what you have is big government destroying alternative centers of power in society, business and the economy. In all cases of the rise of communist/Nazi/fascist, the leaders promise justice for people who have been long oppressed by rich groups and/or foreigners and/or domestic groups that are like foreigners. They promise the masses that they will get their fair share and that those who have oppressed them will be punished.
Re depriving people of the right to vote – can you give some real examples of real people? On the other hand, there have been convictions of voter fraud. I have just finished reading a great book re Lyndon Johnson, “Passage to Power”. They casually stuffed ballot boxed in many counties back in those days. It was not that long ago. We have to guard against its return.
Re power in general - we have to guard against tyranny by preventing the creation of to tools a tyrant can use to oppress us. The best way to do this is to decentralize and dilute power. We should be vigilant against anyone who promises that government will give us too much. What we need from government is stable conditions that allow the people to get things for themselves.
Posted by: C&J at July 21, 2012 11:22 AMOne of the more notable items of history is that there were a number of people in the west that helped finance the totalitarian movements all over the world. If it were not for the financing from the west, the totalitarian movements probably would not have occured.
There were globalist bankers and financiers that bankrolled the movements. They were in our government and in high places of influence.
I will leave it there with the note that C&J gave that it would take History 505 to relate to anybody the subject matter.
Maranatha
Posted by: tom humes at July 21, 2012 12:30 PMSeveral years ago, I watched the movie, “Enemy at the Gates”. It is about the Russian sniper Vassili Zaitsev who served in Stalingrad. I know there is a museum in Stalingrad with an exhibit dedicated to Zaitsev, but other than that I don’t know how close to reality the movie is. But, there is a part in the movie where his best friend and Political officer became jealous and in his death, he says of the communist movement in Russia, paraphrasing, “we tried to build a nation where all are equal, everyone is happy, and yet people (talking of himself) are still jealous and still want what others have”. The moral of the story is no matter how much we try to balance all things out, there will still be poor and rich, and as “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The left has such lofty goals of making the world a utopia of no hunger, a perfect environment, no racism; but the implementation of their agenda becomes a curse upon the rest of society. Rights are infringed upon, one class of people are on the dole of the government, at the cost of taxing those who are willing to work. I heard a story of the pilgrims, when they came to the new world, who gathered all things together for all to use. The result was some worked and some didn’t. The land that was given to them to work, created a group of people who refused to work the land; some because they were lazy and others because their attitude was “why should we work, just to see our product taken away and given to those who won’t work”. The project was a failure, and as the people were allowed to work and make a profit on the labors of their own hands (capitalism)…success ensued.
A further note.
All the ISM’s that abound are convoluted by elements in history that have an axe to grind and are going to twist and turn the mission statement of the ism.
That is why I prefer to use totalitarianism as a phrase that includes many of the ism’s in one form or another. That includes, but is not exclusive to, Marxism, Leninism, Socialism, Fascism, Maoism, Communism, Nazism, National Socialism, Progressivism, and more.
Each of those and many more ism’s similar to totalitarianism, aim to a larger government and a more controlling government. It is usually done to the citizens of a particular political location with the idea that we are not capable of doing for ourselves what needs to be done. We are too poor or stupid to achieve what needs to be achieved for the betterment of our own families.
There will be those who will write long essays saying nothing and whining about how wrong I am. They are guilty of not seeing the forest for the trees.
Maranatha
Posted by: tom humes at July 21, 2012 12:47 PMStephen, good reply.
Sorry Jack, I see you’re still insisting as you always do, but you’re still wrong.
tom humes:
That is why I prefer to use totalitarianism as a phrase that includes many of the ism’s in one form or another. That includes, but is not exclusive to, Marxism, Leninism, Socialism, Fascism, Maoism, Communism, Nazism, National Socialism, Progressivism, and more.Each of those and many more ism’s similar to totalitarianism, aim to a larger government and a more controlling government.
LOL! Conservatism happens to be an ism too. And Conservatives aim is to implement a oligarchic totalitarian society. They like to call it “smaller government” but anyone with a brain in their head knows that what they really mean is imposing poverty and economic slavery on the vast majority of Americans, with all the power and money in the hands of a wealthy overlord class.
As for this massacre….
I find myself wondering how on earth an unemployed guy could purchase of a whole bunch of guns (including semi-automatic assault rifles), and 6000 rounds of ammunition in stores and online, and extra large-capacity clips, and who-knows-what other gun related items, as well as all the chemicals and wires this madman bought in order to create his sophisticatedly booby-trapped apartment, yet this didn’t raise the notice of anyone.
We have tiny children and frail old people wearing diapers who are being blocked from flying on airplanes, or being roughly man-handled and barked at because the TSA suspects they might well be Al Qaeda operatives, and yet this guy’s arsenal and apartment are merely examples of our Second Amendment rights and “American Freedom”?
You’d think that many purchases of such potentially deadly and destructive items over a two month window of time would have raised at least a few Fatherland Security flags somewhere…
These days, Americans can’t even buy a damn bottle of cold medicine without being entered into a national database in case we’re trying to make methamphetamine, and we’re told we must sign official forms in order to buy a single can spray paint just in case we might end up being graffiti artists or taggers — yet we’re all free to buy the means to create mass murder on a grand scale whenever we want without this alerting anyone at all???
Adrienne, if you have a complaint about the TSA; tell it to your messiah Obama.
Regarding the Colorado shooter’s idiotic ties the TP and Rush per Adrienne; I see a pattern here:
“For the past two years, Democrat officials, liberal activists, and journalists have jumped to libelous conclusions about individual shooting sprees committed by mentally unstable loners with incoherent delusions all over the ideological map. The White House now pledges to swear off “pointing fingers or assigning blame.” Alas, the Obama administration’s political and media foot soldiers have proven themselves incapable of such restraint.
In April 2009, a disgruntled, unemployed loser shot and killed three Pittsburgh police officers in a horrifying bloodbath. The gunman, Richard Poplawski, was a dropout from the Marines who threw a food tray at a drill instructor and had beaten his girlfriend. Was this deranged shooter who pulled the trigger to blame? Nope. Despite evidence that Poplawski’s homicidal, racist tendencies manifested themselves years before Obama took office, lefty publications asserted that the real culprits of the spree were the “heated, apocalyptic rhetoric of the anti-Obama forces” (according to mainstream liberal Atlantic Monthly pundit Andrew Sullivan), along with Fox News and Glenn Beck (according to mainstream liberal journalist Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly online).
That same month, a sick, evil man named Jiverly Voong ambushed an immigration center in Binghamton, New York. Recently fired from his job, Voong murdered 13 people, critically wounded four others, and then committed suicide. The instant psychologists of the Left knew nothing about the disgruntled man of Vietnamese descent of undetermined political affiliation. But within hours of the shooting, liberal mega-website Huffington Post commenters had overwhelmingly convicted GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, the National Rifle Association, Fox News, Lou Dobbs, and yours truly. Liberal radio host Alan Colmes pointed his finger at the “huge anti–immigrant backlash in this country” – never mind that tens of millions of legal immigrants and naturalized citizens have coped with hardship, overcome racism, and embraced assimilation without going bloody bonkers.
In June 2009, a depraved, elderly anti-Semite named James von Brunn gunned down a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in D.C. Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent and lefty Center for American Progress think-tank fellow Matthew Yglesias immediately invoked the Obama administration’s report on right-wing extremism, leading to a wider chorus of condemnations against the Tea Party, talk radio, and the entire GOP. The truth? Von Brunn was an unstable, equal-opportunity hater and 9/11 Truther conspiracy loon who bashed Jews and Christians, George W. Bush and Fox News, and had also threatened the conservative Weekly Standard magazine.
In late August 2009, as lawmakers faced citizen revolts at health care town halls nationwide, the Colorado Democratic Party decried a window-smashing vandalism attack at its Denver headquarters. The state party chair, Pat Waak, singled out Tea Party activists and blamed “people opposed to health care” for the attack. The perpetrator, Maurice Schwenkler, turned out to be a far Left transgender activist/single-payer anarchist who had worked for a labor union-tied political committee and canvassed for a Democrat candidate.
In September 2009, Bill Sparkman, a federal U.S. Census worker, was found dead in a secluded rural Kentucky cemetery with the word “Fed” scrawled on his chest with a rope around his neck. The Atlantic Monthly’s Andrew Sullivan rushed to indict “Southern populist terrorism, whipped up by the GOP and its Fox and talk radio cohorts” in an online magazine post titled “No Suicide,” which decried the “Kentucky lynching.” Liberal author Richard Benjamin blamed “anti-government” bile. New York magazine fingered conservative talk radio giant Rush Limbaugh, “conservative media personalities, websites, and even members of Congress.” So, who killed Bill Sparkman? Bill Sparkman. He killed himself and deliberately manufactured a hate crime hoax as part of an insurance scam to benefit his surviving son.
In February 2010, ticking time-bomb professor Amy Bishop gunned down three of her colleagues at University of Alabama-Huntsville and suicide pilot Joseph Andrew Stack flew a stolen small plane into an Austin, Texas, office complex that contained an Internal Revenue Service office. Mainstream journalists from Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart to Time magazine reporter Hilary Hylton leaped forward to tie the crimes to Tea Party rhetoric. Never mind that Bishop was an Obama-worshiping academic with a lifelong history of violence or that Stack was another Bush-hater outraged about everything from George W. Bush to the American medical system to the evils of capitalism to the city of Austin, the Catholic Church, and airlines.
In May 2010, liberal New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to preemptively pin the Times Square bombing attempt on “someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something.” The culprit was unrepentant Muslim jihadist Faisal Shahzad.
In August 2010, Democrat supporters of Missouri Rep. Russ Carnahan blamed a “firebombing” at the congressman’s St. Louis office on Tea Party suspects. The real perpetrator? Disgruntled progressive activist Chris Powers, enraged over a paycheck dispute.
President Obama wisely counseled the nation this week at the Tucson massacre memorial that “Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.” But as the progressive Left’s smear-stained recent history shows, criminalizing conservatism is a hard habit to break.”
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/07/20/blame-righty-impulse-blows-up-in-media-faces-again/
Adrienne
My description of Nazis and communists is historically accurate. I know that both sides used to claim that they were polar opposites, but their behaviors and methods were similar. I met people who spent time in concentration camps run by communists and Nazis (Poles got to visit both). Their friends and relatives died just as fast in each.
Can you describe the major differences in application of communism and Nazism? If you were an enemy of the state in Germany in 1939 how would your life have been different if you were an enemy of the state in the Soviet Union at the same time, besides, of course, that they would have been using different justifications to killing or torturing you. Recall that both killed tens of millions of civilians.
Re the shooters - as Bill points out, Obama has been in charge of the Federal government for nearly three years. We indeed should look into lapses during those times, such as the “fast and furious” scandal. But we should not blame the Obama folks for this particular act of violence.
I did’t say this nut had ties to Rush or the Tea Party. I said only that the possibility existed, considering the fact that this nut committed the largest mass shooting that has ever occurred in America following two days of Rush harping on about that film being a “liberal attack” on Mitt Romney.
And that possibility still exists. Because we don’t yet know what made this nut choose that particular movie to unleash his carefully planned bloodbath.
I know it makes the right uncomfortable, but it happens to be a fact that other mentally disturbed people HAVE gone on gun sprees after listening to the daily ranting they hear out of the mouths of professional rightwing outrage purveyors on radio and television.
As for your link. LOL! Malkin. She’s yet another perfect example of the spittle-flecked twits who make a career being one of those professional rightwing outrage-performers.
Posted by: Adrienne at July 21, 2012 4:10 PMCan you describe the major differences in application of communism and Nazism?
I did in my previous post. Go back and read what I wrote.
Re the shooters - as Bill points out, Obama has been in charge of the Federal government for nearly three years.
I think it’s perfectly clear that both of the major political parties suck when it comes to Security Theater, and they are both pretty much on the exact same page.
Posted by: Adrienne at July 21, 2012 4:19 PMAdrienne
Are you referring to comment #349011 where you assert that they are different because they say so?
If you have not made a comment I cannot find, you did not describe any practical differences.
Posted by: C&J at July 21, 2012 4:33 PMOne hateful broad.
Malkin? Yeah — but I’m sure she’s pleased making so much money off of all that hate.
Posted by: Adrienne at July 21, 2012 4:41 PMyou did not describe any practical differences.
I did, and so did j2t2, and Stephen — but you obviously disagree and have always insisted you’re right. We disagree and think you’re wrong.
Posted by: Adrienne at July 21, 2012 4:47 PMAdrienne
What are the PRACTICAL differences for the people living under the system? None of you explained any.
As I said, I met and talked to many victims of communism and Nazism and I met and talked to people who were victims of both. Their stories are very consistent.
The Nazis were revolutionary socialists in that they believed in revolution and government collectivist control of enterprises. In this they were the same as the communists and the fascists and unlike people who believe in pluralism, gradual change and free markets.
Generations of chanting American radicals have failed to understand this. And we had generations of communist infiltration into radial and “peace” movements in the West.
You may keep your definitions. It is a historical thing today. Both communism and Nazism are effectively dead.
But we must all agree that communism, fascism and communism as practiced in the middle of the 20th century, were horrible and murderous systems that we should hope never to see their likes again.
Posted by: C&J at July 21, 2012 6:46 PMFrank-
You do perish for lack of knowledge. Those scandals in 2006 blindsided you, as did so many of the failures of the right, because your conservative media is essentially a media arm of your party, propagandists looking to push the party towards success, rather than an independent journalistic enterprise that simply reports on the facts.
Those people are hated because they are hateful, because they defend the powerful against accountability from the powerless. They come to the rescue of oil companies while their mistakes pollute our waters and their business warms our planet. They come to the rescue of politicians whose deeds would rightfuly get them kicked out of office or worse.
Long story short, they aren’t heroes. They are the press agents of the elite, of the high level screwups who don’t want to be held accountable.
Meanwhile, they are fed too much BS about what’s real. I mean, when your people report death panels, FEMA concentration camps, Obama trying to take away guns that’s not too much information, that’s too much fantasy and paranoia falsely crowding out the truth.
You tell me, if the truth is what matters here, then why can’t Romney release his income tax records from the last ten years? He says it’s to protect him against all the falsehoods that his enemies could cook up. But Obama’s done this, and his enemies are far more zealous, far more willing to deny any exculpatory evidence.
If Romney’s not done wrong, his defense is in the truth of those tax documents just as much as his weakness is there. Getting out the whole story would help him. Keeping it partial only to stir up the imagination of those he fears.
I remember Enemy at the Gates. Movies are a specialty of mine, but this one particularly stands out because its one of the few movies that focuses on the Russian Side of the war, something I found rather interesting, given the emphasis on the other side.
I’d say this would be my point: the problem is not strive for greater equality, or to help the poor, or any of that. It’s thinking that you can give power, without reservation or threat of withdrawal to those who promise great things, and not expect power to corrupt them in the absence of accountability.
As for the success of capitalism, I read through a Salon interview, where the director basically says that he had to shoot the movie in East Germany of all places, because modern Russia at that point was so corrupt.
So, capitalism can be corrupted, too.
And you would know what I would say: the corruption of power is isomorphic. Or put another way, it maps the same to almost any political philosophy you could think of.
You think people just glommed on to progressivism because it seemed neat and sparkly at the time? People made the modern world the way it was because of what they saw happening in their own lives. Workers forced to operate in squalor, pollution and wastefulness with natural resources scarring and defacing the countryside. Their own savings burned up in bank runs and stock market crashes.
What you don’t appreciate is that YOUR vision and your trust in your politicians can be every bit as naive and unjustified as the Russian faith in their leaders.
Success doesn’t simply ensue with any system. Running a country is more complicated than any one group’s political philosophy will allow for.
Billinflorida-
I count about eight.
You know, the thing is, if you talk about second amendment remedies, about violence being possible if things don’t go right, then people might take you at your word, not just figure that you’re just spitballing.
I’ve heard the theories before, and seen the results, which is why I’m always saying to hold off on strong conclusions and linkages until the evidence tells ust they’re supportable.
Your problem is that the Tea Party is just one nut away from being linked to somebody who truly is Tea Party. And the reason why the OFA doesn’t get this treatment, but the Tea Party does, is the OFA is not full of people brandishing weapons and promising things will get hairy if things don’t go their way.
Ultimately, if’s the Tea Party’s fault people think of them as angry and potentially violent. Your movement starts with people with popping veins shouting at town halls, has candidates talking about second amendment remedies, and brandishing guns at rallies talking about how it may be necessary to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots.
The irony is you’ve done most of the reputation destroying damage to yourselves, with no help from us! The things you have said and done are genuinely alarming in their own right. So, really, folks are just waiting for the ticking time bomb of the Tea Party to go off.
Tom humes-
What, so brilliant in your takedown, you can’t discuss details? Let me predict what might be your next response “Oh, Stephen, if I said anything, you’d twist it!”
So what? You can always untwist in rebuttal. You have the courage of your convictions. If you truly have me at a loss here, disprove what I’ve said. You say I have no knowledge, then test that knowledge.
The key points here, where a test of fact would be useful, is whether Nazis were belligerent towards communists, and whether the situation with the guns was actually a case of walking the guns, that is, knowing right then and there where the guns were, and what they were, and deliberately letting them go as part of an operation.
Can you argue something real here that successfully challenges either point?
That’s what strikes me. It’s always the same sort of claim, but you never make the counterargument to earn it.
To all:
I just came back from seeing The Dark Night Rises. I loved it, and would recommend it to anybody, on any side of the aisle Bane comes across as pompous, and talks a lot about doing things for the common man, but from what I could see in the movie, most people were just scared crapless by the fellow.
There’s a lot of marvellous writting done here, tying things back and forth within the story and back to the previous two movies
But what I didn’t see was Bane acting like any kind of Wall Street Tycoon. I think we can safely say that any resemblance between Bane the villain, and Bain the Capital is completely linguistic, a false friend I think being the term for it. Although some businesses and people put out of work could be forgiven for thinking of Bain as their personal bane. :-)
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 21, 2012 7:36 PMSD
You offer tons of opinion. You often claim opinion as truth. That is where you fail. Opinion is just that. Truth is truth and you far too often mix the two. You can have your opinion. And who cares what it might be. Truth is truth and it cannot be claimed as anything but the truth. We all offer opinion. Just don’t try to give me that crap that you know all the truth when your part of the %1 club.
Maranatha
Stephen
Obama released only seven years. We all know what the Obama folks want to do. They want to show that Romney is rich and play the class warfare card. Kerry never released his wife’s returns (and that was where all the money was)
Romney filed his taxes legally and there is no indication of any deception.
Personally, I think he should release them. We already know Romney is rich and the Obama folks would not be able to push that any harder with the returns after the first few days.
But there is the privacy angle. Obama never released is transcripts.
Posted by: C&J at July 21, 2012 8:29 PM“Frank-
You do perish for lack of knowledge. Those scandals in 2006 blindsided you, as did so many of the failures of the right, because your conservative media is essentially a media arm of your party, propagandists looking to push the party towards success, rather than an independent journalistic enterprise that simply reports on the facts.” Stephen Daugherty
Stephen, I know you would like to return to the days of NBC, ABC, and CBS, evening news. Where the American people would be ignorant of what is going on in the world. Your claim that conservative media is any different than liberal media is an ignorant statement. You are upset that conservative media is conservative and yet you have no problem with liberal media being liberal. Stephen, I don’t think you are capable of having an open mind. Let me give you a web site to research:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/top-50-examples-liberal-media-bias/
Tell me Stephen, are you outraged at the liberal bias in the MSM; or is your outrage only for conservatives?
“Those people are hated because they are hateful, because they defend the powerful against accountability from the powerless.”
Are you incapable of seeing the hatred in reporting on the left?
“Meanwhile, they are fed too much BS about what’s real. I mean, when your people report death panels, FEMA concentration camps, Obama trying to take away guns that’s not too much information, that’s too much fantasy and paranoia falsely crowding out the truth”
Stephen, I gave you 50 examples of liberal BS, fantasy, and paranoia in the link I provided; but in all honesty, I don’t think you have enough sense to see that your side does the very thing you accuse the right of.
“You tell me, if the truth is what matters here, then why can’t Romney release his income tax records from the last ten years?”
You’re beating a dead horse Stephen. What does the law require to be released? If he released 10 years, the left would call for 15; if he released 15, the left would ask for 20 years. It’s a never ending game with your side. It’s childishness. Why don’t Obama release his college records, why doesn’t he release papers he wrote in college?
“It’s thinking that you can give power, without reservation or threat of withdrawal to those who promise great things, and not expect power to corrupt them in the absence of accountability.”
This is an interesting point Stephen, do you really believe it, or are you just spouting words? Do you have a problem with Obama’s use of czars, blatantly disobeying Federal Judges, by executive decision throwing a by-partisan Welfare law out the window, or the many other power grabs he has made? Accountability, yes there will be accountability in a little over 100 days.
“What you don’t appreciate is that YOUR vision and your trust in your politicians can be every bit as naive and unjustified as the Russian faith in their leaders.”
Did I say I trusted “your” politicians? Stephen, do you just fantasize things. Go back and read comment #349016 and tell me where I said anything about trusting politicians. I did say that the TP was formed because of distrust in the establishment republican’s.
Stephen, if you going to debate, the least you could do is tell the truth.
Adrienne, the information that Michelle Malkin presented was facts and who cares who wrote it? You lefties can’t help yourselves can you; you make ignorant statements and when the facts are provided, you attack the presenter of the facts. Instead of attacking Malkin, why don’t you tell us why you have continued the lies that have been going on for the past two years? Ever since the Tea Party came into existence, the left has laid the blame of every radical killing on the TP. There is a pattern here.
Stephen said:
“Ultimately, if’s the Tea Party’s fault people think of them as angry and potentially violent. Your movement starts with people with popping veins shouting at town halls, has candidates talking about second amendment remedies, and brandishing guns at rallies talking about how it may be necessary to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots.
The irony is you’ve done most of the reputation destroying damage to yourselves, with no help from us! The things you have said and done are genuinely alarming in their own right. So, really, folks are just waiting for the ticking time bomb of the Tea Party to go off.”
Tell you what Stephen, why don’t you give us an example of the Tea Party getting violent? Your as much of a conspiracy laden idiot as Adrienne. But, I bet I or others on WB can give many examples of the OWS protestors becoming violent. These two paragraphs are complete bullshit straight from the mouth of the bullshit in chief.
By the way Stephen, since you and Adrienne operate of conjecture; it has been determined the shooter in Colorado was a registered Democrat, that all he did was play video games, and he was a loner introvert, who hid behind his computer screen. Kind of sounds like Stephen Daugherty, doesn’t it?
tom humes-
Yes, truth is truth. It’s understanding the whole complicated mess that’s the challenging part, and I don’t think anybody’s got the whole thing licked.
I’m of the mindset that people must earn whatever claim they make on the truth.
C&J-
I’m sick to death of hearing “class warfare”. You wouldn’t have to address the issue so considerably if the markets hadn’t crashed, with the average folks of America taking most of the flack from the implosion.
Class Warfare is one of the GOP’s many counterparts to political correctness. Oh, you can’t speak ill of how people got their money, or suggest that the average person can become the victim of the policies and the practices of the rich and powerful. It’s all just envy and laziness, and wait…
Is that elitism sneaking in there somewhere? That any complaint is truly based upon the notion that the person in question doesn’t want to have to earn their fair share, just take it from their betters?
If I were you, I would stop stereotyping the motivations of people before you miss the opportunity to understand what kind of trouble the conservative movement is in. If people are vulnerable to these arguments, it’s because folks have quit giving the rich and powerful the benefit of the doubt, or at least the apathy of the untroubled.
We want to know what Romney was up to because his kind of economic activity seems very much a part of what lead our economy to this weakened state. I know the myth is that Bain was taking weakened businesses and making better ones out of them, but it seems to me that with all the leveraging and payoffs they were doing, Romney’s folks were basically using the companies as piggy banks and getting out when the getting was good. Whether people kept their jobs or not doesn’t seem to have been a big concern to him.
If we’re going to avail ourselves of his business experience, we ought to know what he’s good at, not just that he made money. Al Capone made money, so did IBM providing Hitler the technology to undertake the logistical calculation to exterminate the Jews. Profit need not take place for moral or logical reasons, anymore than anything else need be done.
I think you gain nothing by keeping things concealed. The Obama campaign can attack him on what he won’t tell us just as easy as they can get him on what he does tell us.
As for college transcripts, that’s what diplomas are for. Obama graduated near the top of his class, and was elected president of the Harvard Law review. If you’re not making kneejerk assumptions of why he got those honors, they should speak for themselves
The GOP’s developed a bad habit of asking questions they could easily answer if they were willing to take information at face value. If we take the information that Romney’s offered so far at face value… well, it doesn’t look good for him.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 21, 2012 11:04 PMThe Nazis never promised small government. They promised and delivered revolutionary socialism.
Nonsensical revisionism such as this blurb, C&J, is why I didn’t take to your history lessons. The fact is Hitler and his bunch were far right wing extremist. You can deny that and tell us it was “revolutionary socialism” and the TRC’s on WB will back you. But that doesn’t make it true. The point I am making is these TRC’s have been led to believe this by movement leaders. They cannot fathom the thought that a far right wing extremist could be responsible for the horrors they were responsible for. They cannot fathom the dark side of right wing extremism because they have had conservatism sugar coated by Limbaugh and a score of other propagandist for so long TRC’s like Tom, Frank and Billinfla are akin to lobsters in water being brought to a boil. The slow steady move to the far right by conservatives just doesn’t register with them.
If you believe as I do that government should be smaller and more effective with less interference in our lives, we should agree to oppose all those policies that would expand its reach. Perhaps conservatives in power have failed to achieve this. I was unaware that shrinking the size and scope of government was even a goal among liberals.
C&J you tell me on one hand conservatives cannot be far right extremist such as Nazi’s or fascist because they are for “small government”. Yet on the other hand conservatives have only enlarged government. Despite this fact TRC’s still believe conservatives are about “small government” because Rush and others tell them so. They have been misled by movement leaders yet staunchly refuse to accept this fact. They blame others instead. They cannot accept the truth, just like the German people of the ‘30’s fell for the propaganda despite facts to the contrary.
Your parallels are fatuous as long as you ignore the central fact. Nazism like it communist cousin is totalitarian.
Nazism’s cousin is Fascism not communism, this right wing myth is propaganda C&J. The fact that many conservatives still adhere to this falsehood is just one more bit that proves my point C&J. No myth to large no lie to small is a core conservative principle evidently.
The totalitarian Nazi and communist movements existed in a particular place and time. I cannot explain it to you, since it would require a lot more study than I think you would be willing to do. Those systems will not come back in the forms they did. Conditions just are not the same.
My point exactly C&J. You are diverting the discussion with theoretical nonsense telling us conservatives are not Nazi’s. Yet you were the one who threw out the strawman “conservatives are Nazi’s” not me. My point is simply conservatives in this country today are akin to the German people of the ‘30’s. The German people fell for an “ism” that took them down. They did it out of patriotism, desperation and a variety of other reasons. Conservatives today blindly follow the conservative movement propaganda out of patriotism and other reasons despite actions by conservative movement leaders that should be a red flag to these guys.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 21, 2012 11:42 PMj2t2
Conservatism in the U.S. is different than it is in continental Europe. In continental Europe you can identify conservatism with more government. In the U.S. conservatism is identified with conserving the free market and less government. The word conservative is used very loosely. We generally referred to communists in Russia as conservative in the 1990s. They wanted to keep - conserve the previous system.
Conservatives in the U.S. generally identify with small government and decentralized institutions. This is incompatible with Nazism, which requires big government and centralization. Recall the Nazi mantra - “ein volk ein reich ein führer” They never said limited government, decentralized power and free markets.
“You are diverting the discussion with theoretical nonsense telling us conservatives are not Nazi’s.” that is what you provoked. You are disingenuous if you hide behind the technicality. If you want to say clearly that you do not believe Americans conservatives are like Nazis, I am glad you recognize that.
“blindly follow the conservative movement propaganda” I know lots of conservatives and I am one myself. I do not blindly follow anything. All the things I write to you are based on careful thought and often an amount of personal experience that is well beyond what most people have.
I have personally known people who were victims of Nazis and communists. I used to speak Polish and German and spent twelve years in Europe. I talked to survivors of these evil regimes. One of my portfolios was the effects of Nazis and communists on Eastern Europe. This is how I arrived at the ideas I am telling you about. There is not blind propaganda, just study and experience.
The idea the communists and Nazis represent opposite extremes is childish and old fashioned. Sure they each said that the other was the enemy, but they shared methods and mind sets. The Soviet Union made a concerted effort to emphasize the differences. If you are looking for blind propaganda, you have found it there.
The idea that I am blindly following propaganda is really silly. I have tried to explain history to you on many occasions. Since you don’t understand the nuance, you call it propaganda.
BTW - I don’t know what a “TRC” is. I suppose the term means something to you. The only thing I could find that was related was Teen Republic Committee. I don’t know about the others, but I have not been a teen for a long time and I am not on any such committee.
Posted by: C&J at July 22, 2012 12:50 AMC&J-
My sense is that the way power tends to be abused is isomorphic. The pattern maps the same on just about any system allowed to run amok.
The reason Communism and Nazism were so horrible had little to do with the originial intentions of either movement, and more to do with what one political faction can do when it gets it’s hand on unconstrained power. And no, going for “smaller” government doesn’t immunize you, because in a Democracy, you have to wield power to get it smaller, and often against what people might want. To justify such extreme shifts, you then have to do what the Republicans have done, and basically deafen themselves to outside appeals and criticism, and do their best to roadblock any change from their policy. Only then can you get your dream.
But of course, it’s often not what people imagined, so it becomes even more necessary to live the political lie. The wise realize that no policy effort will ever work perfectly or be one hundred percent fulfilled. The value is in exercising enough influence, and find the way to get the results, even if the means aren’t what you wanted to employ in the first place. Human beings do not know all ends, so if you don’t practice some political humility, you will eventually land yourself on the the wrong side of the the corrupting influence of power and its pursuit.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2012 8:50 AMC&J-
P.S., TRC = The Red Column.
Conservatives in the U.S. generally identify with small government and decentralized institutions.
Yes and with bright sunny days and ice cream as well. But in action conservatives have burdened the government with war debt and authoritarian Patriot act legislation. They have colluded with corporations to force the government to spend billions of dollars on prescription drugs and invading other countries amongst many other actions that would cause anyone to see their real agenda. This is a prime example of the propaganda from extremist conservatives such as Limbaugh and his followqers the Talk Radio Conservative I refer to as TRC’s.
“You are diverting the discussion with theoretical nonsense telling us conservatives are not Nazi’s.” that is what you provoked. You are disingenuous if you hide behind the technicality. If you want to say clearly that you do not believe Americans conservatives are like Nazis, I am glad you recognize that.Posted by: j2t2 at July 22, 2012 10:11 AMAs I have said many times in the past, including this thread, Conservatives are not necessarily Nazi’s. Some may be as they continue to move to the extremist right wing of the political spectrum. They are like the German people of the ‘30’s in that they have willingly been deceived by their leaders on many occasions over a lengthy time period. These TRC’s, IMHO,
“blindly follow the conservative movement propaganda” I know lots of conservatives and I am one myself. I do not blindly follow anything. All the things I write to you are based on careful thought and often an amount of personal experience that is well beyond what most people have.You may also note C&J, had you bothered to read some of my previous comments in this thread, that I did not include you in with these TRC’s. Although your writings seem to indicate a shift towards extremist conservative thought lately I still group you in with other conservatives such as David Frum.
The idea the communists and Nazis represent opposite extremes is childish and old fashioned. Sure they each said that the other was the enemy, but they shared methods and mind sets.So one word C&J “Leningrad”, do friend treat friends like that? This bit of revisionism you are trying to sell is what is childish IMHO. Nazi’s are closer to Fascist than Commies no matter how you slice up the political spectrum. In fact conservatives more closely represent corporate fascism than anything else.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4113.htm
But we are still off on a tangent. The issue here is many conservatives have shifted farther and farther to the right over the years as propagandist such a Limbaugh foul the airwaves with extremist propaganda. They buy what he sells no matter how wrong he is. They are like the people of Germany in the ‘30’s in that they are forming movements that are based upon misinformation half truths and outright lies. This is dangerous to our country.
Stephen
The road to hell is paved with good intentions and no man is a villein in his own mind. Those two platitudes are important when thinking about politics and systems.
You have to judge programs by their results under real world conditions. IMO, Nazi and communist theories are badly flawed, i.e. I would not want the world to resemble the outcomes they favor even if they worked. But such systems inevitably produce death and destruction on massive scales in the world, so they are even worse. Some things are just unworkable.
RE smaller government - smaller government doesn’t immunize you against all tyranny, but for a tyranny to take hold it first needs to expand the scope and power of government. What immunizes against tyranny is the dispersal of power, so that no individual holds too much, no government holds too much, no firms holds too much etc.
RE nothing working perfectly - we cannot predict the future, which is why we need systems that are diverse with lots of slack. The more we centralize, the fewer options we enjoy and the slower are our adaptions to changes.
J2t2
Nazis and communists are not friends. They killed each other with vigor and enthusiasm - just as heretics of the same region did so in the past. But they are more alike than different in their methods and basic outlook.
RE growing government - as I wrote on many occasions, Bush grew government, which was a bad thing. Obama is growing it more from that bigger base. We should all want to trim it.
RE not including me - I am flattered that you make an exception. People often say something like that to me. They say that I am the “good conservative.” It is sort of like how people would say to their black friends that they were not like the others.
My ideas are definitely conservative and when you talk about the “TRC” generally speaking TRC c’est moi. I think I write 90% of the posting these days.
Posted by: C&J at July 22, 2012 10:39 AMj2t2
RE TRC - sorry. I was responding to Stephen who said TRC was “The red column.
RE not including me - I am flattered that you make an exception. People often say something like that to me. They say that I am the “good conservative.” It is sort of like how people would say to their black friends that they were not like the others.
C&J, I didn’t say “good” conservative. I just put you in the “not as delusional” group that believe whatever comes from the mouths of Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage, and a host of others that are extremist right wingers. The problem of course is you refer to yourself as not partaking of the extremist conservative delusion that is infecting the country but in doing so you protect those that do partake in the extremist conservative delusion that is infecting the country.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 22, 2012 11:38 AMj2t2
There are always more extreme and more moderate voices. The more strident voices are not always wrong in their general directions. Just as President Obama attacks “the rich” for not paying their fair share and knows that he is wrong in details, so are those on the right who call him a socialist.
I don’t enjoy Hannity, Beck et al. The service they provide is that they call attention to liberal fallacies that might otherwise not be mentioned in the MSM. A good example are all those Holder outrages, calling a simple ID requirement a poll tax, for example. The other thing that was ignored or explained away was President Obama’s Friday the 13th Gaffe. IMO, those remarks go to the center of the Obama-world view.
Posted by: C&J at July 22, 2012 12:18 PMC&J-
The problem is so rare, you probably have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than having somebody vote fraudulently. The GOP should know this, after all, we argue these things from the statistics of Federal prosecutions under Bush. It’s a low reward, high risk crime.
In the meantime, it’s theoretically a simple matter to get these IDs, but folks who lack drivers licenses, or are out of state students often lack transportation or free time to get that ID, and that is the ONLY reason that they won’t be able to vote, even if they registered to vote.
Is it somehow coincidence that many of these demographics are expected to break in the Democrats’ favor? I know you’ll say, we must confront this problem at all costs, but isn’t it pointless to distort the electorate worse trying to counter fraud than the fraud could be demonstrated to do?
Poll Taxes were instituted in order to distort the electorate in the favor of the literate and the well-off, a side effect being that most people denied their right were black or hispanic. It was meant to be indirect, and was justified with gobbledygook about preventing folks from voting who weren’t smart enough or productive enough to be worth allowing to vote.
But the effect was that people were disenfranchised, and that was wrong. The Republicans are abusing their power to tilt the elections in their favor.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2012 1:37 PMStephen
There is even a smaller chance of a legitimate voter being denied the right to vote. There have been no convictions for voter suppression in the way you worry, except a few Democrats who do things like slash tires etc.
On the other hand, in Texas they have had more than 50 voter fraud convictions, including a woman who voted in place of her dead mother, a political operative who cast ballots for two people, and a city councilmember who registered foreign nationals to vote.
In Minnesota 113 individuals who voted illegally in the 2008 election have been convicted of the crime.
Convictions are hard to get and we have to assume that many crimes go undetected. Elections are sometimes decided by very small margins. Every vote that is cast illegal disenfranchises a honest voter.
BTW - the only real example of voter intimidation in 2008 was that couple of Black Panthers who Holder refused to prosecute. He prefers to lie about poll taxes. The man is dishonest.
Here is a picture of what voter intimidation looks like link text
Posted by: C&J at July 22, 2012 2:30 PM“If we’re going to avail ourselves of his business experience, we ought to know what he’s good at, not just that he made money. Al Capone made money, so did IBM providing Hitler the technology to undertake the logistical calculation to exterminate the Jews. Profit need not take place for moral or logical reasons, anymore than anything else need be done.”
Again, the left’s strategy of making innuendos and casting aspersions against Romney, simply because he is rich. This is the tactic of Adrienne; to suggest or imply something as being true, but then saying, “I didn’t say it was true”. You mention Al Capone (a gangster) and IBM (a corporation) and imply that Romney is the same.
“I think you gain nothing by keeping things concealed. The Obama campaign can attack him on what he won’t tell us just as easy as they can get him on what he does tell us.”
Obama will attack Romney on everything and anything, simply because Obama cannot run on his 3 ½ year record.
“As for college transcripts, that’s what diplomas are for. Obama graduated near the top of his class, and was elected president of the Harvard Law review. If you’re not making kneejerk assumptions of why he got those honors, they should speak for themselves”
You are a real trip Stephen, college transcripts and written papers are not the same thing as a diploma. I have heard the left talk about Obama’s time on the Harvard Law Review, and it doesn’t mean crap to anyone except the left. You speak of kneejerk reactions and yet kneejerk reactions are exactly what the left does in everything. The latest kneejerk reaction is Democrats calling for stricter gun control because of the Colorado shooting. How long will it be before Obama brings up gun control? Oh, that’s right, the left says Obama has never been for gun control, that he believes in the 2nd Amendment rights.
“The GOP’s developed a bad habit of asking questions they could easily answer if they were willing to take information at face value. If we take the information that Romney’s offered so far at face value… well, it doesn’t look good for him.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 21, 2012 11:04 PM
Who cares if you take it for face value? Stephen, take a look at the polls; Obama has spent millions attacking Romney for being rich and what has it got him? Nothing, absolutely nothing; he is still in the same place in the polls. Nobody cares about Romney’s income except the radical fringe on the left. This is just another attempt for Obama to change the subject of the discussion.
Re/voter ID; again playing to the black/nispanic voter black. Yes Stephen, class warfare.
C&J-
Let’s start from how many people actually voted in the Minnesota elections in 2008: 2,910,369. 113 people out of all those people. That’s an incidence of about 39 per million, or 4 per hundred thousand.
If we rough that out to the number of voters who voted in the last election estimated to be 122,842,626, you get the mind-blowing number of 4791 votes stolen nationwide.
This is what you’re willing to keep not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of people from voting to prevent. If you don’t intend harm, it’s an incompetent policy, if you did, it’s outrageous.
There’s nothing more to be said. Even if the number is ten times worse in reality, you’re still keeping far more legitimate voters from casting their ballots than you’d ever prevent from committing voter fraud.
Frank-
I’m sorry I was so politically incorrect as to imply that Romney could have made his money by means people might find distasteful. Let’s just not have any character discussions at all. No, just kidding. Let’s have a character discussion. Let’s find out what this Presidential candidate was earning his money from all these years.
After all, that is supposed to be what his primary virtue is, another businessman President (the previous one worked out sooo well.)
As far as the College Diplomas and honors go, the whole point of one of those is to present proof of the academic achievement. If you want to challenge that, where’s your evidence that a discrepancy even exists? I mean, really, your folks are challenging his birth certificate, despite the fact that two copies of it exist. There’s questioning when there’s grounds for doubt, and then there’s questioning which begins on the slightest pretext, and never ends.
You want to accuse people of things, where’s your proof?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2012 6:28 PMSD
Your numbers are just a figment of your wild imagination on the voter fraud. You use a state numbers and then make it a national set of numbers. The numbers you use are bogus. You know it and everybody here knows it. You call that some kind of responsible retort? The number of people voting twice has been documented many times over. The number of people voting twice has never been shown, mainly because of the lack of prosecution of those guilty of such behavior. And yes, they are guilty. The only way to have a set of voting records that are tried and true is to be able to show the face of those voting and the recording of those who have voted only one time. The various states have shown the ability to get a photo ID at little or no cost. The number of times the persons involved must show a photo ID is vastly more occasion that voting.
Your argument is null and void.
Maranatha
Posted by: tom humes at July 22, 2012 8:25 PMThere are always more extreme and more moderate voices.
Yes C&J there are always extreme voices. In the last 20 years the voices are growing more extreme on the right side of the aisle. As the propaganda from the conservative extremist has taken effect the growing number of listeners are the issue C&J. They are what I refer to as the people of Germany in the ‘30’s. They hear voices, but the problem is they believe the voices telling them what to do.
Do you think Reagan Goldwater and other conservatives of the past would want to return to the days when only free white men that were landowners could vote? I don’t. But today we find Conservatives in many states trying to return to those days. Conservatives if your story is to be believed tell us that because 4,000 people committed voter fraud across the country last years we must stop 400,000 of the other side from voting in this election. Voting!, C&J, Voting. The same voting that we stayed in Iraq to ensure. You conservatives were so excited over the purple thumbs as you told us it justified us invading Iraq. Yet now you seek to take away these same rights from American citizens. That is Corporate Fascist Authoritarianism at it’s worst. Conservatives should be denouncing their leaders in these states for these vile acts of extremism. But instead they defend them. Then they try to tell us they are for liberty. what a joke. What would Reagan do were you to put forth the “simple ID” nonsense? This type of extremism proves my point.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 22, 2012 9:15 PM“As far as the College Diplomas and honors go, the whole point of one of those is to present proof of the academic achievement. If you want to challenge that, where’s your evidence that a discrepancy even exists?”
Here you go again Stephen, seems you can’t make a conversation without double standards. Aren’t you capable of seeing the error of your ways? You ask where is the evidence that a discrepancy exists; and I can just as easily ask you the same question. Where is your evidence that a discrepancy exists with Romney’s tax records? He has given what the law requires and you say there is more; in other words a fishing expedition. Where is your evidence Stephen?
“I mean, really, your folks are challenging his birth certificate, despite the fact that two copies of it exist.”
Who are “your folks” Stephen? Are you talking about the African-American community? I don’t remember blacks calling for his birth certificate. I belong to the Tea Party, but I don’t remember the Tea Party asking for Obama’s birth certificate. Stephen, you’re going to have to be a little more specific.
“There’s questioning when there’s grounds for doubt, and then there’s questioning which begins on the slightest pretext, and never ends.
You want to accuse people of things, where’s your proof?”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2012 6:28 PM
Stephen, you don’t even have the evidence of a slightest pretext. Again, Stephen, I ask you for your proof? You accuse “you’re folks” of a lot of things, and yet you have no proof; in fact, I don’t even think you can explain who “you’re folks” are.
I must add C&J I now understand what conservatives mean when they say small government. The proof is in the restriction of voting rights. A government ran by a few elites, voted in by the elites themselves will make for the small government you guys speak of so often.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 22, 2012 9:51 PMFrank,
“…but I don’t remember the Tea Party asking for Obama’s birth certificate.”
Except here in Arizona they did, and the local savant, Sheriff Joe, sent some of his posse off to Hawaii to investigate.
Rocky
RM, do you have a link to prove your claim, or are you just like Stephen Daugherty who makes things up?
Posted by: Frank at July 22, 2012 10:44 PMStephen
“This is what you’re willing to keep not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of people from voting to prevent.”
There is no indication that ANY legitimate voter will be prevented from voting. None, nada, zip, nothing. We have real cases of convictions for fraud and no cases of disenfranchisement, except for that one that Holder refused to prosecute when the thugs stood outside the polls with sticks.
J2t2
Have you not seen Keith Olbermann or Ed Schultz or Al Franken? These guys are not only extreme but not even funny.
RE Voting - nobody, nobody has been prevented from voting. There is almost nothing that you can do in life that is easier than voting. Anybody who doesn’t vote, doesn’t really want to vote. Nobody is prevented. They are helped.
In 2004, I volunteered to drive people to the polls to vote. I had a van in those days and I did so through the local Republican Party. They told me that I should just pick up anybody who called and never ask them for whom they would vote or try to influence them in any way. In other words, I was told to help Democrats, Republicans or others equally. One of the local newspapers interviewed me and that is what I told them. It was in print. I may well have driven Democrats to the polls. I really have no way of knowing. That is a strange way to suppress the vote.
The only real threats that anybody documented were those black panthers that Holder thought were just some harmless guys having fun.
RE smaller government - I mean just that. Government that sticks to its core functions and does them well.
You criticize Bush for growing government. Let’s shrink it down to the size it was in 1999. After that we can talk about further reforms up or down.
Posted by: C&J at July 22, 2012 11:00 PMFrank,
“RM, do you have a link to prove your claim, or are you just like Stephen Daugherty who makes things up?”
As if you hadn’t heard this;
“Sheriff Arpaio says he launched the investigation into Obama’s birth certificate at the request of 250-members of the Surprise Tea Party.”
“Last week, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett told leaders of the Surprise Tea Party that he would not put the name of Barack H. Obama on the ballot, for electing Presidential electors, unless Hawaiian officials satisfied him that Obama has a valid Hawaiian birth certificate.”
You want more?
Rocky
Have you not seen Keith Olbermann or Ed Schultz or Al Franken? These guys are not only extreme but not even funny.
Ed Schultz yes. But what do these guys have to do with the conservatives of today being the biggest threat to the nation? They are all liberals. As far as funny it depends on one’s sense of humor. If you like the insults and lies of those I mentioned then Franken and Schultz are probably to nuanced and truthful for you.
RE Voting - nobody, nobody has been prevented from voting. There is almost nothing that you can do in life that is easier than voting. Anybody who doesn’t vote, doesn’t really want to vote. Nobody is prevented. They are helped.
The laws will have an impact on the upcoming election C&J so technically you may be correct. But the real issue is why pass voter suppression laws with the aim of keeping minorities and poor people from voting? It pokes all kinds of holes into the conservative movement leaderships intentions yet the conservatives followers defend the actions of the conservative leadership without fail. If this is the kind of principles Royal spoke of it is easy to see why I compare the people of Germany in the ‘30’s with the conservative followers of today.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 22, 2012 11:25 PMWhile we are on this issue C&J I would ask you to remember this- Conservatives have a large amount of hatred for communism and socialism. On this we can agree. The problem is over time those that have such hatred seem to turn into the very thing they hate. So totalitarian or authoritarian systems whilst denied or objected to are real threats from those that have been hating for almost 40 years. Just something to think about.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 22, 2012 11:30 PMj2t2
The leftist weirdos like Schultz and Olbermann are very similar to the people on the right, except they are unable to achieve a decent sized audience.
Re voting rules - nothing is aimed at minorities. Democrats assume that minorities are dumber or lazier than others and will not be able to achieve a task that is simpler than buying a hamburger at McDonalds. I have more confidence in the intelligence of the people.
There is almost nothing that you can do in life that is easier than voting.
It is Democrats who want to go back to their good old days when they could command votes as they needed to supply their machines.
As I said, I have just finished reading the latest bio of LBJ. The author, Robert Caro, talks about the old Democratic machines, where they would supply just the right number of votes. The votes would often come in with all the names signed in the same ink and in alphabetical order. What a coincidence that they people line up in alphabetical order and share the same pen. Of course, the Democratic machines did not discriminate against the dead. Cemeteries voted Democratic and - again the coincidence - with just the numbers needed to win. In fairness to the old ward bosses, they were moderate. They didn’t buy landslide votes, just enough to put them over the time - always.
This is the world you want back. That stuff about poll taxes is aimed at the credulous. It is amazing how much Democrats rely on the stupidity of strangers, sorry supporters.
Of course, you assume that large numbers of Democratic voters can’t drive, don’t work, don’t serve in the military or don’t attend classes. But despite having absolutely nothing to do all day (i.e no work, no classes, unable to drive), they cannot take the time get a free ID. Beyond that, you are telling us that they are semi-literate or illiterate. Does this describe the average Democratic voter? Maybe that is why they vote Democratic. No wonder they are so easily distracted by shiny objects.
I suppose that I do indeed assume that Republican voters are smarter than that and that Republicans have jobs, know how to drive or are in school. I guess that is what passes for “elite” these days.
Posted by: C&J at July 22, 2012 11:45 PMj2t2
Indeed, I hate totalitarianism. I don’t think anyone can deny that communism and Nazism were the great evils of the 20th century. This included all communists but not all socialists. Only revolutionary socialists are dangerous. Regular socialists are usually just misguided. However, I believe in redemption. I worked well with former communists. Hate the sin, not the sinner and when the bad behavior stops, I don’t hold a grudge.
When I was in Iraq, I had friends who I am pretty sure would have tried to kill me a few months before, maybe had tried. But they had stopped, so we didn’t bicker and argue about it. I asks what a person is now and what he might become, not what he used to be.
Posted by: C&J at July 22, 2012 11:54 PMtom humes-
C&J are going, “holy crap, look how many people were caught committing voting fraud here!”
My argument takes their number, divides it by total number of Minnesota voters, and gives us the proportion, which is 39 people out of a million, or about 4 people per every hundred thousand.
I admit my number is just an extrapolation, but not so C&J’s number. I put out that other number to demonstrate the harm, if we accept C&J at their word about what is a dire proportion of voter fraud, and we don’t enact laws to stop it.
The numbers of people likely to be kept from voting this November is likely to be hundreds of thousands, even millions greater than ten times the number of people who would be able to falsely vote if we simply did nothing. So, whose policy would do the most harm?
You claim that far more vote twice. Okay then! Give me the figure, like you failed to do in your comment. You claim my argument’s null and void, but once again, you don’t earn that claim, you simply make it, and expect me and others to believe it. Funny how that works. I can bash your arguments to pieces with actual facts that can be referenced and verified, and you simply offer some idea, and declare me wrong! I wish I could win arguments as easily as you think you do.
Produce numbers, evidence. Give us your source. Otherwise, quite trying to salvage an argument that’s gone down in flames.
Frank-
Where’s your evidence that a discrepancy exists, that there’s a real question of whether Obama earned his class rank or not. What else do you have other than the suspicion that he was given special treatment on account of his race?
As for Romney’s tax records, the facts concerning his foreign accounts are enough of a discrepancy. So is the fact that somehow he’s gotten millions of dollars into an IRA that you can only enter a few tens of thousand dollars a year into.
As for you saying the Tea Party hasn’t been asking for his birth certificate?
Are you ****ing kidding me? Don’t even bother any further argument on that, you’re not going to be honest with me on that count. I can google the words “tea party birth certificate” and get counterexamples in an instant. (I invite all readers to do so, rather than take my word for it.)
C&J-
There’s plenty of indication that it will keep legitimate voters from voting, folks who are registered to vote, who haven’t been removed for legitimate reasons, but lack an ID of some kind.
As for the New Black Panthers, your own administration dismissed that case, because they couldn’t find anybody to say that they had actually been intimidated. You can’t bust people for a crime when there aren’t victims coming forward to complain. The Obama Administration administered the civil penalty that they were entitled to administer.
I don’t criticize the Bush administration for “growing government”, I criticized them for balancing the national checkbook improperly. Your emphasis on “growing government ignores the role that tax cuts have played in increasing the deficit and the debt, and the fact that much of the debt comes from military spending it’s unlikely you would have avoided if you had the chance to redo it.
I don’t mind government the way you do, what I mind is folks not paying for it when they can so that some rich folks can get more money back on their taxes.
I don’t advocate some kneejerk adjustment of government’s size or influence. It should be responsive to our needs, not to some academic theory.
When people build a temple to an academic political theory, rather than attend to the needs of the nation, that’s when things go really wrong.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2012 8:57 AMRocky Marks, I just asked for proof of your claims. So thanks for including them. I believe it is supposed to be standard policy to include links.
Beyond that, what did Sherriff Arpaio do that was illegal? Are the Sherriff and Secretary of State not elected officials? If the people of Arizona don’t agree with the state officials, can’t they vote them out? Are you saying citizens of a state have no right to question what takes place in their own state?
“The laws will have an impact on the upcoming election C&J so technically you may be correct.” J2t2
J2t2, the state of Ohio has had voter ID laws for several years and there has never been a case of voter suppression.
“The leftist weirdos like Schultz and Olbermann are very similar to the people on the right, except they are unable to achieve a decent sized audience.” C&J
The reason for the failure of liberals to achieve an audience is, the liberal message is always negative for America; i.e. anti-pro-life, anti-gun rights, anti-capitalist, anti-business, anti-fossil fuel, anti-free speech, anti-American, etc. The message of the right is pro all the previous points. I know the left will say this is not true; but just listen to Alan Combs, Shultz, Olbermann, or Maddow; they are the most negative people who ever lived. It seems they are angry and upset all the time. Rush Limbaugh may hammer liberals, but he honestly has fun doing it.
Stephen Daugherty, you make the most ridiculous statements. You are oblivious of what the left does and yet you bring accusations against Republicans and conservatives and yet ignore the same thing is happening on your side.
I could give a rat’s ass whether Obama releases his papers and grade transcripts or not and I could care less if Debbie Wasserman Shultz releases her finances; but you will cry and moan about Romney’s finances and yet defend Obama and Shultz’s right not to release. Stephen, it is a dead issue; the only one concerned about Romney’s finances is you and Obama. It’s a rouge to change the subject. The American people don’t care about whether Romney is rich or not. Obama is rich, who cares. The American people want to know about jobs and the direction of the country, and the economy. You are blowing smoke, or puffing on loco weed. If Romney is violating the law by not releasing his finances, then I say fine, call for his tax returns; but if he has given what the law requires, get over it. There is one and only one reason for the left to call for more financial records; and that is to say Romney is rich. Who cares if he is rich, it simply means he was successful. The American people don’t care. Tell me something Stephen; would you rather vote for a person based upon his qualifications, or based upon his monetary value? You’re beating a dead horse.
You have failed to answer any questions I presented to you, but I will ask again; has Romney broken the law or is this a fishing expedition? You can review questions in previous comments, if you care to answer them.
Posted by: Frank at July 23, 2012 10:09 AMFrank,
“Beyond that, what did Sherriff Arpaio do that was illegal? Are the Sherriff and Secretary of State not elected officials? If the people of Arizona don’t agree with the state officials, can’t they vote them out? Are you saying citizens of a state have no right to question what takes place in their own state?
So Arpaio can draw the attention away from his gaffes (and there are many), and inattention to what is happening within his jurisdiction, which BTW is Maricopa county, not Arizona.
Despite the fact he wears the “America’s Sheriff” title, he is all bluster and bullshit.
The sheriff’s office took over criminal investigation in Surprise and El Mirage several years ago, and botched more than a few child molestation cases.
The timing of Arpaio’s birth certificate investigation couldn’t have been more fortuitous as it drew the attention away from the molestation debacle.
Ken Bennett, AZ AG, had the good sense to back away from this birther baloney, yet Arpaio “championed” on, and, of course, proudly announced that Obama’s birth certificate was fraudulent.
Surely we couldn’t expect anything less from Joe.
“…the state of Ohio has had voter ID laws for several years and there has never been a case of voter suppression.”
Curiously, there is no link, as is the “custom” here.
Rocky
SD
“You claim that far more vote twice. Okay then! Give me the figure, like you failed to do in your comment. You claim my argument’s null and void, but once again, you don’t earn that claim, you simply make it, and expect me and others to believe it. Funny how that works. I can bash your arguments to pieces with actual facts that can be referenced and verified, and you simply offer some idea, and declare me wrong! I wish I could win arguments as easily as you think you do.”
The reports are far ranging and crop up quite often. Since you want to be specific, the numbers are a large number of people who are not supposed to vote in fact do vote. So the “twice” numbers are only a reference to a general quantity and not specific. Your numbers are a farce. You multiply and divide and wow, look at the number SD came up with. He thinks he will run with that number and lo and behold it becomes a “fact”. Stephen, your pposition is a farce and bogus. You know that.
Thing must be scarce out there for “your people” to try and find some kind of smear, or mis-representation, or scare tactic, or any of the other left craziness that you have a skill in delivering. Your opinion is just that and you can enjoy that as much as you desire. But fact and truth escapes you.
Maranatha
Posted by: tom humes at July 23, 2012 1:39 PMYou can’t bust people for a crime when there aren’t victims coming forward to complain.
Ah, if only that were the case, most libertarians would be happy campers…
I don’t advocate some kneejerk adjustment of government’s size or influence. It should be responsive to our needs, not to some academic theory.
I’m going to show how much you don’t actually believe this, but before I start, I am stating quite clearly this is not how I feel…
Now that that is out of the way. Speaking just to what is ‘best’ for the country, wouldn’t slavery be perfect for the needs of the country? Low cost labor, needs of the economy met for manufacturing and other non-skilled labor. The cost of goods would be lower, people would be able to have better lives and the slaves would be taken care of by the people instead of being thrown out to the harsh reality of trying to make it on their own.
Now, we don’t allow slavery because of a ‘academic theory’ that people are the owners of their own bodies and we agree not to do that. But is it ‘best’ for the country strictly as you are trying to assert government should be?
Please, explain to me why SOME academic theories are OK as political theories and why others are not? How do you draw the line?
Rocky Marks; since I live in Ohio and have to show my ID every time I vote, I didn’t see much need to include a link, but I will provide the link, just for you:
http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx#oh
Tell me Rocky, do you believe the citizens of AZ have the right to choose their own County sheriffs or not? The same goes for their AG.
The child molestation cases are Democrat talking points. Tell me, why would a conservative sheriff fail to investigate a child molestation case? It is liberals who have no problem with homosexuals and pedophiles. Isn’t a sheriff’s investigation controlled by the prosecuting attorney or a grand jury?
I don’t believe Arpaio said that Obama was not an American citizen; I believe he was concerned that some of the information on the certificate was forged.
Stephen
“As for the New Black Panthers, your own administration dismissed that case, because they couldn’t find anybody to say that they had actually been intimidated” - Holder dismissed the charges after the Bush folks almost had the case ready. It was an example of Holder’s racism.
Re taxes - In 2006 we had record high revenues. If government had remained the same size as it was in 1999, we would have had a surplus. If we restored tax rates to what they were in 1999, we would today have a deficit. Spending is the problem.
Government used to be smaller and it did a better job of maintaining roads, enforcing laws etc. Getting bigger didn’t make it better. Maybe try something new.
Posted by: C&J at July 23, 2012 5:07 PMThe leftist weirdos like Schultz and Olbermann are very similar to the people on the right, except they are unable to achieve a decent sized audience.
Exactly C&J which is why conservatives remind me of the German people of the ‘30’s. The conservative propagandist are much superior to those on the left. When you think about it most if not all conservatives will tell you that if we lower taxes many jobs will be created. Yet taxes were lowered for a decade and didn’t result in jobs. Despite this obvious paradox conservatives repeat and repeat this mantra until they believe it.
The conservatives have been able to effectively use a bumpersticker slogan to deliver their propaganda to the followers of Limbaugh and other haters on radio. It is effective and has commanded large audiences, which once again proves my point.
Re voting rules - nothing is aimed at minorities. Democrats assume that minorities are dumber or lazier than others and will not be able to achieve a task that is simpler than buying a hamburger at McDonalds. I have more confidence in the intelligence of the people.Oh yeah, http://www.aclu.org/voter-suppression-america
It is Democrats who want to go back to their good old days when they could command votes as they needed to supply their machines.
Were their the slightest bit of truth to this lie C&J doncha suppose the Dems would have been the ones to initiate the laws in these states? In each and every instance it was conservatives that enacted laws to “protect the integrity of the voting system” and other such lies.
Your blatant attempt to divert the blame for these laws shows us conservatives and conservatism lack principles. Were these laws anything more than voter suppression laws conservatives would be claiming credit for them not pointing fingers at the other side. This type of deceit is typical conservative propaganda and only serves to prove my point. Conservative followers of today are exactly like the German people of the ‘30’s.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 23, 2012 7:13 PMJ2t2, the state of Ohio has had voter ID laws for several years and there has never been a case of voter suppression.
Frank an old paycheck would be sufficient ID under Ohio law. The Photo ID law is up in the air and many are protesting the voter suppression laws conservatives tried to pass before the 2012 election. So it seems to me your talking apples and oranges whilst trying to protect these scumbags who would prevent many people in Ohio from voting.
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/elections/Voters/FAQ/ID.aspx
Posted by: j2t2 at July 23, 2012 7:25 PMFrank,
“Tell me Rocky, do you believe the citizens of AZ have the right to choose their own County sheriffs or not? The same goes for their AG.”
Actually Bennett is the Secretary of State, and while he was appointed by Brewer when she became governor, he has since won an election to his position.
As I said before he showed good sense in not pursuing the birth certificate issue.
On the other hand, we have Sheriff Joe. Yes he is an elected official, and in fact is running for his 5th term in office.
He has also been known to investigate anyone with the temerity to run against him. His office has been sued multiple times at a cost to Maricopa county of over $60 million dollars.
“The child molestation cases are Democrat talking points.”
The child molestation cases are a fact. Look it up, there were dozens.
“It is liberals who have no problem with homosexuals and pedophiles.”
This statement is so patently absurd and blatantly bigoted as to defy reality. You apparently know squat about liberals, and lumping gays with pedophiles is just beyond the pale.
“Isn’t a sheriff’s investigation controlled by the prosecuting attorney or a grand jury?”
Nobody “controls” Sheriff Joe.
Rocky
j2t2
If you look at the chronology, Nazi propaganda was not very effective until they took power and possessed coercive power. And before that time it was persuasive often because they controlled the streets with violence. I know it annoys lefties no end, but there violence at conservative rallies is exceedingly rare and when we find it it is often leftists doing the attacking.
There simply are almost no parallels between modern conservative movements and the situation in Germany in the 1930s, not in the aims, the methods or the organizations.
You seem to believe that there are parallels because you think that conservatives are wrong. That’s it.
As for repression - the ACLU article engages in tautology. They claim repression in the fact that they states want to have voters identify themselves. Then they use as evidence that states want voters to identify themselves. They find no cases of actual repression. If they did, you know they would be all over that like flies on horseshit, which is the best metaphor I can come up with for ACLU.
Beyond that, the article you to the extent it proves anything reinforces what I told you - and you copied - about liberals assuming that their voters are stupider and lazier than average. The article more of less says that is the reason why the voters they want to protect will have trouble. You and the ACLU just think people are stupider than they are. I repeat that I have more confidence in the basic ability. It is probably true that most Democrats are dumber than I am, but not that much dumber.
Re the integrity of the system - Democrats controlled all the great ballot stuffing machines, from Tammany to Pendergast to Daily to those guys in Texas filling the boxes for Johnson. You seem to think you know so much about Germans of the 1930s, maybe you should learn about Americans of the past. Presumably this should be easier for you, since you can read English and as I recall have no capacity in German.
Joking aside, you really might want to Read the new Robert Caro book about Johnson and David McCullough’s book on Truman. Neither is specifically about the corruption, but they do show it in its Democratic glory.
In fact, throughout the history of these political machines, it was usually Republicans who were the reformers, as they are today.
Posted by: C&J at July 23, 2012 9:53 PMj2t2
“Frank an old paycheck would be sufficient ID under Ohio law” of course if the guy had a paycheck, it would indicate employment, which would tend to put him in a higher class of people than those supposedly unable to find the polling places or figure out how to get a free ID.
There is almost no transaction you can do that is easier than voting. Virtually any idiot can vote and many idiots do. I know I risk being “elitist” but if someone really cannot figure out the voting process, his vote is more or less random anyway. These are the kinds of guys who cannot read the names on the ballot and if they somehow figure it out by the shape of the words still manage to check the wrong box or push the wrong button. My guess is that such people might want to vote Democrat, but would end up with the same randomness of a monkey throwing darts.
Posted by: C&J at July 23, 2012 10:02 PMRocky Marks, you are certainly a dumb ass. I asked you if the residents of the County vote in their Sheriffs and the residence of the State vote in their AG, then you come back with this stupid ass statement:
“Actually Bennett is the Secretary of State, and while he was appointed by Brewer when she became governor, he has since won an election to his position.”
So, I was right, he was elected by the AZ residents.
Listen, if Arpaio is your Sheriff, then vote him out. If he’s not, then get over it. But don’t come on here with the same old liberal smear tactics that have been hashed and rehashed. Evidently someone in AZ likes Arpaio and Bennett.
“It is liberals who have no problem with homosexuals and pedophiles.”
This statement is so patently absurd and blatantly bigoted as to defy reality. You apparently know squat about liberals, and lumping gays with pedophiles is just beyond the pale.”
Is that true RM?
Re/Democrat Party support of pedophiles:
http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archives/8094/
“Editor, Manteca Bulletin,
NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, is a homosexual organization for older men to follow their fiendish desires to be with young boys sexually. This organization is criminal and should be dismantled with its members and organizers thrown in jail. Yet, NAMBLA has a working relationship with the Democrat party. President Obama appointed Kevin Jennings as the Safe School Czar. Jennings expressed his admiration and praise for Harry Hay, who is a long time advocate for NAMBLA and the legalization of sexual abuse of young boys by older men…
NAMBLA made headlines when a 10-year-old boy from Massachusetts named Jeffery Curry was abducted by two men who tried to force the boy to have sex with them. When the boy refused to consent to sex with the men, they murdered the boy forcing him to choke on a gasoline soaked rag. Then the men sexually assaulted the dead boy’s body. Curry’s parents sued NAMBLA since one of the killers said he was discouraged from following his fiendish desires until NAMBLA encouraged him. Curry’s lawyer explained how NAMBLA instructed perverts on how to lure children into sex, citing NAMBLA’s publication “The Rape-and Escape manual.” Its actual title is “The Survival Manual: The Man’s Guide to Staying Alive in a Man-Boy Sexual Relationships”. The American Civil Liberties Union, which receives a bulk of support from Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, defended NAMBLA against the parents of the murdered boy. Not one Democrat came out in opposition to the ACLU defense of NAMBLA. ..
In the 2001 San Francisco “Gay Pride” parade, Nancy Pelosi walked along side of the NAMBLA advocate, Harry Hay, who has stated “ If the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what 13-, 14-, and 15- year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.”
NAMBLA is a criminal organization of pedophiles preying on young boys. How can an organization like NAMBLA even exist? Why aren’t these men in jail? Who is protecting these boys or even girls from these pedophiles? Where is the national media? How safe are our school children with the hidden agenda of our Safe School Czar? Should the Democratic Party and its leaders walk with or praise and admire the leaders of NAMBLA? Should the Democratic Party give money to an organization that defends NAMBLA? These are just some of the disturbing questions that should be answered”
Coach fashion handbag is produced with some on one of probably the most effective means that give it awesome value. In the complete year, the colors, sizes and types are continually making the style using the individuals through the world. No subject what this brand name of bag that you simply choose, you will most certainly be gratified with their awesome comfort and fashion. Such a bag can broad range in price, but is really affordable using the standard person. You can come about throughout this sort of the handbag for just about any event plus they are good to please.
Posted by: Coach Fashion handbag is Waiting for You at July 24, 2012 4:09 AMBotanical Slimming Capsule
Since people are getting more and more anxious about their appearance including both female and male slimming diet capsule are becoming more and more popular among people. They want show their instant achievement they get. There are several ways to lose weight.
Being on a diet may be the most common one people choose. But you should know that only being on a diet is not effective enough if you want to Botanical Slimming Capsule in a long term. The real challenge is to lose weight fast and safe so you can be assured of being healthy and keeping those pounds off for weeks, months, and years after starting your very own weight loss regimen. Our own bodies make use of a lot of its energy changing whatever we put in it into energy. The most important thing to Botanical Slimming Capsule you need to keep in mind is asking your doctor about your losing weight plan. People who want to get weight loss success also want to get it fast and in an instant way. But still you need to consult your doctor on taking slimming capsules. The most important thing to Botanical Slimming Capsule you need to keep in mind is asking your doctor about your losing weight plan. But still you need to consult your doctor on taking slimming capsules.
C&J-
Don’t argue when the criminal case was dismissed, you have nowhere to go with it. Neither Holder nor Obama, much less that Perez appointee where in office when the decision was made.
As for voter intimidation, it’s been pointed out that the polling place in question was a heavily Democratic area. Were the New Black Panthers trying to throw the election to John McCain?
It’s just another fake controversy, which the GOP excels at creating.
Are you going to apologize to us now for falsely accusing Holder of dismissing this case, especially for alleging this was done on racist motivations?
As far as record high revenues go? Well, Clinton was doing that year after year, Bush’s revenues actually dropped far below what they were in 2000 for most of the first part of his administration, and then went back down after the Housing bubble which helped support those revenues collapsed. If you look at each Administration, it’s obvious that the average rate of increase of revenue under Bush was far smaller than the average rate under Clinton. Tax cuts do not create revenue growth.
As for government growth?
We had two humongous wars, and more than a doubling of the Defense Department budget. Yet you can’t find many Republicans willing to let the defense sequesters go through. It’s as if the huge military part of the growth of government doesn’t exist.
We also had your beloved tax cuts. But I can’t get you to admit that they are responsible for a great deal of that deficit and debt. Why not? I can show you the numbers, post tax cut, where the revenues fall to levels lower than 2000, and the fact that post 2006, the revenues fall again, meaning that by 2009, the revenues are just about even with where they were in 2000.
Even modest spending increases would have eventually expanded to create deficits, if revenues were not kept in line. Personally, and I think the research backs this, the most effective way to curb the frivolous desire for more government is to make people pay for it. But if we’re in some sort of crisis, and we want to get out fast, we should be willing to do what it takes to achieve that, and then attend to the balance when things are improved. The alternative is long terms stagnation, which helps nothing and nobody, least of all the fiscal situation. We’re borrowing more, in large part, because we’re behind the curve on the revenues we were supposed to be making. We won’t tax or grow our way out of this entirely, but none of the steps are easier if we let things remain this dysfunctional.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 24, 2012 9:12 AMFrank,
“Rocky Marks, you are certainly a dumb ass. I asked you if the residents of the County vote in their Sheriffs and the residence of the State vote in their AG, then you come back with this stupid ass statement…”
Did I answer your question Frank?
“But don’t come on here with the same old liberal smear tactics that have been hashed and rehashed. Evidently someone in AZ likes Arpaio and Bennett.”
What smear tactics?
Arpaio said that he believed the certificate was “fraudulent”. That was the exact word he used in the interview.
Now if he misspoke who am I to tell. Perhaps we could get the Prophet Limbaugh to explain it to us.
“Re/Democrat Party support of pedophiles:”
Isn’t just like the fringers to pigeonhole everyone.
According to your source, Pelosi “walked with” Hay, so of course it has to be true.
Did she hold his hand or just walk down the street? Would walking down a different street be enough? How about a different city?
My wife and I have worked with, and around gays for nearly forty years. In all that time we have never met anyone that “supported” NAMBLA.
Not one person.
Harry Hay fought for gay rights in a time where anyone that was gay could be arrested, beat up, or even killed for merely being gay.
That is where any praise I, or anyone I know has for Hay ends.
I believe NAMBLA is abhorrent, though I do find the right’s fascination with it curious.
My biggest problem with the fringers on both sides of the aisle is your scorched earth policy of lumping everybody into groups. This “for me or against me” bullshit is absurd.
You guys on the right abhor the Republican label except when you want someone to be elected to political office. You are incapable of being elected otherwise, and once elected you distance yourselves from the mainstream party as quickly as possible because they just aren’t conservative enough.
You take great pleasure in bullying people that don’t believe in your very narrow view of how life should be, including people within your own party.
You don’t believe in bi-partisanship because it is a sign of weakness.
The vast majority of people in America aren’t liberal, or conservative, but somewhere in between.
Rocky
‘My biggest problem with the fringers on both sides of the aisle is your scorched earth policy of lumping everybody into groups. This “for me or against me” bullshit is absurd.”
Another “dumbass” statement: you sound like Stephen Daugherty. You accuse the Republican side of lumping everyone into groups and yet it is Obama and the left that groups people into black and white, rich and poor, union and non-union, gays and straights, married and single, corporate and non-corporate, young and old, men and women, those that have and those that don’t have, those that work and those that don’t work, those on welfare and those not on welfare, those that can vote and those that are not allowed to vote, in fact you name it and Obama has put a division in it. Obama is not the President of America; he is the president of groups in America. He is not running for re-election in America, he is running for re-election with groups in America.
“You guys on the right abhor the Republican label except when you want someone to be elected to political office. You are incapable of being elected otherwise, and once elected you distance yourselves from the mainstream party as quickly as possible because they just aren’t conservative enough.
You take great pleasure in bullying people that don’t believe in your very narrow view of how life should be, including people within your own party.”
This is untrue; who gained in the 2010 election? Was it conservative candidates or was it liberals? Give me an example of bullying? Since I have no idea what you are talking about.
“You don’t believe in bi-partisanship because it is a sign of weakness.”
Bi-partisanship to a liberal Democrat is doing what we want. Bi-partisanship never means actually working together; example, when was the last time Reid brought a budget to the floor of the Senate, how many of the House jobs bills have been brought to the floor of the Senate, or perhaps you could tell us how many of the House Obamacare repeal bills have been brought to the floor of the Senate? Reid has not allowed any of these bills to be brought up because he is trying to protect the Democratic Senators who are in swing districts. He is trying to PREVENT the bills form coming to the Senate floor because they would be discussed and debated in a bi-partisan way. There is only one group of people in DC who are not b-partisan, and that would be the Democrats.
“The vast majority of people in America aren’t liberal, or conservative, but somewhere in between.”
Rocky
Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 24, 2012 9:33 AM
No, the vast majority of people in America aren’t liberal: 20% liberal, 40% conservative, 40% moderate. You speak of “in between” as somehow voting liberal, I don’t think so and I dare you to show me proof of this insinuation.
If they did, you know they would be all over that like flies on horseshit, which is the best metaphor I can come up with for ACLU.
I didn’t figure you would liker the ACLU, The American Civil Liberties Union, as they seek to protect the rights of all of us not just the elite. Also remember the majority of these voter suppression laws recently passed will be in effect for the first time this next election cycle so the claim that no suppression has been found is kinda lame.
Beyond that, the article you to the extent it proves anything reinforces what I told you - and you copied - about liberals assuming that their voters are stupider and lazier than average.
Copying the quote doesn’t mean agreement with nor approval of it C&J. It was used as a reference for my remarks.
The article more of less says that is the reason why the voters they want to protect will have trouble. You and the ACLU just think people are stupider than they are. I repeat that I have more confidence in the basic ability. It is probably true that most Democrats are dumber than I am, but not that much dumber.
The resistance to voter suppression laws has nothing to do with who is more or less intelligent C&J. It has to do with ensuring all Americans can vote for the representation of their choice. People should not have to choose between any type of poll tax or their next meal in order to vote. Some cannot afford the stricter ID’s. They have already registered to vote. I get my ballot in the mail because I am registered to vote. It saves me the trouble of standing in long lines to vote. I do not have to show an ID. Why should anyone else. Voting should be easy.
The conservatives have chosen instead to complicate the voting process for political gain. They, speaking of tautology, claim their is a huge amount of voter fraud despite no evidence of this happening and then rush to pass restrictive laws designed to keep those they wish to oppress down. At least for now it is just those they can financially impact into submission. But sooner or later it will be based upon some type of testing or intelligence level then perhaps back to landed gentry only.
As for Truman and LBJ I find it kinda sad that you feel the need to look back 50 years for the evidence of voter fraud, and then only insinuate it is voter fraud, in order to justify the recent round of authoritarian laws conservatives have passed to keep those to the left of them from voting. Denying any of us the right to vote is denying all of us if this attempt by conservatives is successful.
There simply are almost no parallels between modern conservative movements and the situation in Germany in the 1930s, not in the aims, the methods or the organizations..
Nonsense C&J. You have pointed out several parallels as has Frank. You continue to twist turn and spin with revisionist history and irrelevant issues but you yourself have made my point several times as has Frank. The simple fact is the conservatives of today are ripe for picking. They have coalesced into a well trained group of movement followers. Just look at the falsehoods they believe. They have digested so much misinformation half truths and outright lies that they are incapable of discerning the truth. When told the truth they defend anything conservative with utterance’s of stupidity such as Franks comments on NAMBLA or some other lie.
Just because you claim the conservatives propaganda machine is better than Hitler/Goebbels propaganda machine doesn’t mean there isn’t a parallels between the German people of the time and Conservatives of today. In fact it kinda proves the power of the conservative movement leaders and the gullibility of today’s movement followers.
Look at the televised Tea Party gatherings of a few years ago and the “violence” thing you suggest as some kind of proof of something. The same thing could be said for a Lawrence Welk gathering C&J. Many in the crowd are just to old to physically perform violent acts. But that was then C&J a few years ago and the baggers have gotten younger and more worked up after swilling the conservative koolaid this past 3 years.
Not only are Tea Party events getting more violent but they are taking their violence to other peoples gatherings. Which of course is another parallel you have pointed out.
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/33792/rand-paul-tea-party-shoulder-blame-for-head-stomp-attack/
Posted by: j2t2 at July 24, 2012 6:08 PM
“Another “dumbass” statement: you sound like Stephen Daugherty. You accuse the Republican side of lumping everyone into groups and yet it is Obama and the left that groups people into black and white, rich and poor…”
Hey Frank, what part of “both sides of the aisle” do you not understand?
“Bi-partisanship to a liberal Democrat is doing what we want. Bi-partisanship never means actually working together…”
This is absolute crap Frank. Bi-partisanship works both ways. That’s what it means.
“No, the vast majority of people in America aren’t liberal: 20% liberal, 40% conservative, 40% moderate. You speak of “in between” as somehow voting liberal, I don’t think so and I dare you to show me proof of this insinuation.”
I didn’t say that the vast majority of people in America are liberals Frank. I said they were somewhere in the middle, that means somewhere between the right and the left.
Are you telling us that all “conservatives” are exactly like you, Frank?
If so, please, prove it.
Rocky
The problem with the GOP is that it has oversold a set of philosophies to its base. The saving grace, if it can be called that, is that those people continue to get their information from the same source, which is controlled by the GOP, for all intents and purpose, by means of faxed over talking points.
Is it an accident that all of a sudden all the folks on the right get the same idea and make the same rebuttal at the same time? No.
Synchronized in this way, Republicans don’t have to be accountable, because their voters won’t let them down, no matter how much the main party is loathed. They can always pump the same propaganda down the line, and their willingly captive audience, taught to fear and hate what they get from the mainstream media as actively corrosive to what they believe in, will buy it as a simple matter of trust.
This is why I don’t bother distinguishing. Essentially, I’m presented with no different an argument coming from the person who calls themselves an independent than I would get from a dedicated, registered member of the party. Conservatives don’t get creative except to come up with new rationalizations or new names to call their Democratic Targets.
The Republicans are bankrupt of ideas because they’ve spent so long borrowing off of the same thinker without really establishing whether these men were idealists or realists as far as things were concerned.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 24, 2012 11:17 PMSD
You just exhibited a classic case of elitism.
Nothing to add to that.
Maranatha
Posted by: tom humes at July 25, 2012 2:24 PMRe: Voter Suppression. This is pretty scary:
Voter ID law could bar 43 percent of Philly voters
20 percent of people in the state of Pennsylvannia may not be able to vote because of the recent (GOP) voter ID law, and 43 percent of residents in Philadelphia may not be able to. That’s one hell of a lot of voter disenfranchisement.
j2t2,
IBM was not the only American corporation that supported the Fascists. Many of the rightwing-millionaire American Plutocrats were very openly in love with Mussolini and Hitler. To IBM we can add Henry Ford, and William Randolph Hearst, and the DuPonts, and the Rockefellers, and Andrew Mellon, and General Electric, and General Motors, and Standard Oil (Exxon), and ITT, and and Allen Dulles (who eventually became the head of the CIA), and Charles Lindbergh, and Joseph Kennedy Sr. (that’s right, the patriarch of The Kennedy Family), and Prescott Bush (patriarch of The Bush Family), and many, many more.
The moneyed class both then and now, have always shared the same ruthless, morally bankrupt character, and have always disgustingly known just how they could best manipulate everyone below their own wealthy, insatiably greedy economic class with things like religion, and socially conservative issues, and patriotic nationalism. Indeed, usually they’ve employed all three in order to easily facilitate their ability to control and fleece the people out of most of the rewards of their labor.
Now, I really don’t enjoy having to be rude, but I’m afraid that Jack’s shameless dishonesty often forces me into that regrettable position. So I’ll state it plainly: Jack is being a liar in this thread. A shameless, clearly rotten and cynical liar. He knows damn well that both Mussolini and Hitler were Fascists, and that Fascism was a Rightwing Economic Movement, and that in order to sell it to the people in their nations they employed fanatical amounts of Social Conservatism, Racism, and Nationalism. In order to gain their power they cynically used the language of the Left in order to sell their strictly Rightwing Ideology to the gullible masses, and once they had seized power, immediately dropped the pretense and became totalitarian dictators.
And, let’s also be clear about this: the Fascists were not in any way, shape or form anti-capitalist. They were very much pro-capitalist, yet sought to control and dictate to that wealthy ownership class in numerous ways. Any capitalist who opposed their ideologies and dictatorship was soon driven out of business, while all those who went along and gave their support prospered enormously.
Thus, it is only an uneducated idiot or a lying cynic who would try to claim that Fascism was Leftwing, or Liberal, or Socialistic, or Communistic — despite the “Socialist” label they attempted to employ. The fact is, the Fascists only used the name in order to initially gain the support of the bourgeois merchant classes in Italy and Germany during a time when Liberal, Socialist and Communist ideas had been firmly taking hold and spreading amongst the people.
They absolutely needed and gained the strong support of this segment of the population in order to seize power. But once in power, they dropped all rhetoric and pretenses to social equity or justice entirely. What the Fascists did was organize capitalism in their nations by tying the interests of corporations to those of the State. They may have risen to power talking about “National Socialism” and the need to build a middle class, but once in power they championed the interests of the corporate upper classes — even as they ruled over them. The people within that upper class may not have liked being ruled over as they were, but all who wanted to stay in business stayed silent, knowing they stood to monetarily prosper enormously within that new authoritarian society.
As I said to Jack, National Socialism was always a misnomer that they used to compete with those ideologies. They were successful only because they added Racism and Nationalism to what was a blatant and clear-cut Rightwing, Conservative, Pro-Religious. Pro-Capitalist Totalitarian politcal movement.
That this is the case becomes starkly obvious and irrefutable the moment one reads the things these men were saying publicly at that time.
Mussolinit:
“If it is admitted that the nineteenth century has been the century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy, it does not follow that the twentieth must also be the century of Liberalism, Socialism and Democracy. Political doctrines pass; peoples remain. It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the “Right,” a Fascist century.”
Such a conception of life makes Fascism the complete opposite of that doctrine, the base of so-called scientific and Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history; according to which the history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production. That the changes in the economic field-new discoveries of raw materials, new methods of working them and the inventions of science-have their importance no one can deny; but that these factors are sufficient to explain the history of humanity excluding all others is an absurd delusion. Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if we deny the economic conception of history, according to which men are no more than puppets carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied-the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power.”
Excerpt from Nazi propaganda pamphlet:
…liberalism taught that all people were equal, that there were no value differences between the races, that external differences (e.g., body type, skin color) were unimportant. Each person, regardless of race, might be a hero or a coward, an idealist or a materialist, creative or useless to society, militarily able, scientifically able, artistically gifted. The environment and education were the important elements that made men good and valuable. If one provided the proper environment and freed people from their chains, the peoples would join together to develop their abilities in a unified humanity, and eternal peace would result. Therefore liberalism demanded equality for all, the same opportunities for everyone, in particular the Jews, equality and freedom in the economic sphere, etc.We Germans have seen where such doctrines lead. Liberalism tore down the structures that held races and peoples together, releasing the destructive drives. The result was economic chaos that led to millions of unemployed on the one side and the senseless luxury of economic jackals on the other. Liberalism destroyed the people’s economic foundations, allowing the triumph of subhumans. They won the leading role in the political parties, the economy, the sciences, arts and press, hollowing out the nation from inside. The equality of all citizens, regardless of race, led to the mixing of Europeans with Jews, Negro, Mongols and so on, resulting in the decay and decline of the Aryan race.
Oswald Spengler:
“I will list them: liberalism, democracy, socialism, free-masonry. The organism of the West has been weakened, debilitated by these ideologies. Well, there is in existence only one movement existing at the present time which has the courage possessing the power of a great nation to be fundamentally, openly, ferociously anti-liberal, anti- democratic, anti-Freemason: Fascism.”
Hitler:
“In November, 1918, Marxist organizations seized the executive power by means of a revolution. The monarchs were dethroned, the authorities of the Reich and of the States removed from office, and thereby a breach of the Constitution was committed. The success of the revolution in a material sense protected the guilty parties from the hands of the law. They sought to justify it morally by asserting that Germany or its Government bore the guilt for the outbreak of the War.This assertion was deliberately and actually untrue. In consequence, however, these untrue accusations in the interest of our former enemies led to the severest oppression of the entire German nation and to the breach of the assurances given to us in Wilson’s fourteen points, and so for Germany, that is to say the working classes of the German people, to a time of infinite misfortune….
The splitting up of the nation into groups with irreconcilable views, systematically brought about by the false doctrines of Marxism, means the destruction of the basis of a possible communal life…. It is only the creation of a real national community, rising above the interests and differences of rank and class, that can permanently remove the source of nourishment of these aberrations of the human mind. The establishment of such a solidarity of views in the German body corporate is all the more important, for it is only thereby that the possibility is provided of maintaining friendly relations with foreign Powers without regard to the tendencies or general principles by which they are dominated, for the elimination of communism in Germany is a purely domestic German affair.”
The advantages of a personal and political nature that might arise from compromising with atheistic organizations would not outweigh the consequences which would become apparent in the destruction of general moral basic values. The national Government regards the two Christian confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality. It will respect the agreements concluded between it and the federal States. Their rights are not to be infringed. But the Government hopes and expects that the work on the national and moral regeneration of our nation which it has made its task will, on the other hand, be treated with the same respect.”
“At the head of our program there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will - not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord.”
So to sum up:
Anyone who looks at the facts must know that what Jack is always claiming is completely and totally wrong. He will no doubt continue to claim he is right, however. And that likely has a lot to do with the uncomfortable fact that the Conservative Republican agenda DOES closely resemble the agenda of the Fascists, and they’d love to be able to distance themselves from that.
Adrienne, you’ll have to explain to me how being a minority makes it harder for someone to get a photo ID? Is it something in their genetic makeup that makes this happen?
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 25, 2012 4:37 PMRhinehold, uh, I didn’t say anything about minorities…?
Posted by: Adrienne at July 25, 2012 4:48 PMYour link did, did you not read it?
“the real reason Republicans are so anxious to pass the voter ID law is because the statute “is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania” because it disenfranchises two traditionally Democratic constituencies, the poor and ethnic minorities.”
Isn’t that the reason you are upset about this ‘voter disenfranchisement’, because you are afraid that this will cause minorities to not be able to vote for Obama?
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 25, 2012 5:00 PMBTW, I find it interesting that you are for showing your photo ID to purchase a gun and not for showing one to vote. Seems a bit strange to me…
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 25, 2012 5:01 PMUh-Oh, Caught Adrienne with her britches down. Rhinehold, now she will have to come back at you with some sort of insult.
Posted by: TomT at July 25, 2012 5:03 PMIsn’t that the reason you are upset about this ‘voter disenfranchisement’, because you are afraid that this will cause minorities to not be able to vote for Obama?
Yes, I’m upset that poor people and minorities are being disenfranchised — no matter who they decide to vote for. The fact that you chose to ignore the word “poor” and single out the word “minorities” makes you sound like a racist — which is disgusting.
BTW, I find it interesting that you are for showing your photo ID to purchase a gun and not for showing one to vote. Seems a bit strange to me…
I don’t think Americans who currently don’t have state ID cards should be completely banned from voting in the upcoming election, no. The state has imposed this requirement, yet many poor people don’t drive cars, and for whatever reason haven’t yet gotten the state ID they are now supposed to show in order to vote. Until everyone who is legally eligible to vote has a chance to get that required ID I fail to see why they couldn’t simply present some firm proof that they are who they say they are, and that they live in the district they’re attempting to vote in.
Such as providing some proof by presenting things like a Social Security card, or an Insurance card, or a credit card, or a credit card statement sent to their current address, or a bank card, or a bank statement sent to their current address, or a college ID, etc., etc.
Yes, I’m upset that poor people and minorities are being disenfranchised — no matter who they decide to vote for. The fact that you chose to ignore the word “poor” and single out the word “minorities” makes you sound like a racist — which is disgusting.
No, I asked a simple question which you continue to not answer. WHY is the law a disenfranchisement to minorities? I can understand the poor, which is why provisions need to be in place to prevent that disenfranchisement with giving the IDs out for free, etc. But how do we prevent the disenfranchisement of the minorities? We need to know how these laws disenfranchise them, all you have to do is explain that and you won’t be seen as a racist.
BTW, your attempt to deflect with ‘the race card’ away from your own racism is transparent and simply won’t work with me.
I fail to see why they couldn’t simply present some firm proof that they are who they say they are, and that they live in the district they’re attempting to vote in. Such as providing some proof by presenting things like a Social Security card, or an Insurance card, or a credit card, or a credit card statement sent to their current address, or a bank card, or a bank statement sent to their current address, or a college ID, etc., etc.
And I fail to see why they couldn’t take those same things down to one of many branches of the DMV to get a free state issued photo ID card and simply solve the issue.
Until everyone who is legally eligible to vote has a chance to get that required ID
Ok, how long do you think it should take? 1 year? 5 years? What is the date that would satisfy you?
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 25, 2012 8:08 PMNo, I asked a simple question which you continue to not answer. WHY is the law a disenfranchisement to minorities? I can understand the poor,
Don’t be an idiot — a large percentage of minority populations ARE the poor. Poor people often don’t drive cars, and many work shitty jobs with working hours that don’t allow them to get to the DMV during the time their doors are open.
And I fail to see why they couldn’t take those same things down to one of many branches of the DMV to get a free state issued photo ID card and simply solve the issue.
You only fail to see because you’ve probably always driven had a car at your disposal. But the fact is, it is often pretty difficult for people who don’t drive to get places they want to go — including to DMV offices. For instance, where I live there aren’t that many DMV offices, and they aren’t close by to public transportation routes — which means that those people who want a state ID would have to take a bus, and many would have to transfer and wait for other buses, and then when they get as close as they can to the DMV office they would have to walk pretty far to get there. And, then would need to make the same walk back and take the buses again on their return trip. Doing so would have to take a lot of time out of a day. It would be very hard on an older or disabled person. It would also be hard on many people in that situation who work and would need to ask for time off from work in order to take a day and do it. So you see, there are reasons why people might find it difficult.
Ok, how long do you think it should take? 1 year? 5 years? What is the date that would satisfy you?
I think if a state is going to make state ID’s a mandatory requirement for voting, then THEY are the one’s beholden to make getting state ID’s extraordinarily easy for everyone who needs one. Indeed, before they begin enforcing such a law, they should be the ones who MUST make sure that voters aren’t being disenfranchised due to their brand new ID laws. It doesn’t have to take long at all if states set up a service that can either provide free rides to people to and from the DMV, or brings the DMV into every neighborhood via a van or bus that is equipped to process ID information, and take the necessary photographs.
If an organization like the Red Cross is able to drive around collecting blood from people via vans all over the place, it stands to reason that the states and their DMV’s can do something similar in order to make sure that people aren’t being intentionally denied their ability to vote in America.
But let’s face the obvious facts here — disenfranchisement of the poor IS the intention of the Republican Party.
Posted by: Adrienne at July 25, 2012 9:46 PMNo, I asked a simple question which you continue to not answer. WHY is the law a disenfranchisement to minorities? I can understand the poor,Don’t be an idiot — a large percentage of minority populations ARE the poor. Poor people often don’t drive cars, and many work shitty jobs with working hours that don’t allow them to get to the DMV during the time their doors are open.
I’m not the one being an idiot here. If the issue was the disenfranchisement of the poor, then state that. But that isn’t what you said. You said the poor AND minorities. Now, again, explain to me how minorities are being disenfranchised. It’s a simple question that you should have at least thought about I would think…
So you see, there are reasons why people might find it difficult.
WOW, you know me so well, I’ve never been through tough times ever! Nope, born with a silver spoon in my mouth I was…
Now, to be serious, I’m sorry but what you explain does not seem like an excessive requirement to place on people who are going to do those same things to get to a polling booth and vote. Why not simply have the people who are concerned about this, most likely the volunteers who are looking to get these people able to vote, simply drive them to the DMV and take care of it? They are willing to drive them to the polls, shouldn’t another day be something you would be willing to do to help them?
Why do we only allow voting on one day? What happens if on that one day I am sick or my car breaks down and I can’t make it to vote, am I then disenfranchised? Shouldn’t we allow a month to vote instead of a day to ensure no disenfranchisement occurs?
Or, do we make reasonable requirements that everyone should be able to meet to ensure voting is done legally and properly?
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 25, 2012 9:56 PMNow, again, explain to me how minorities are being disenfranchised.
I’m not the one who has been making that distinction — personally I view this problem as one being related to being poor. However, minority populations and their organizations have been coming out and stating that these ID laws are disproportionally affecting their ability to vote — and, I’m assuming they must have a valid point. That these people/groups are making that claim is something which obviously bothers the crap out of you, but I don’t really have a problem with it, since I figure they have every right to speak about whatever issues they see affecting them as a group.
Whichever way we look at this though, it’s a fact that poor people don’t vote as often as wealthier Americans. There was a study done a while back that discovered huge voter disparities in the U.S. It was found that 86% of people with incomes above $75,000 have voted in presidential elections — as compared with only 52% of people who have incomes under $15,000. That being the case, it seems incredibly wrong for states to try to put even more obstacles in the path of poor voters. Yet this is what the GOP, the party dedicated to the interests of wealthy people, has been trying to do.
I’m sorry but what you explain does not seem like an excessive requirement to place on people who are going to do those same things to get to a polling booth and vote.
Nonsense. Polling places are usually right in the same neighborhoods where people live — usually at local schools or churches or community centers — while DMV offices are much fewer and farther between. Well, at least they all are where I live anyway.
Why not simply have the people who are concerned about this, most likely the volunteers who are looking to get these people able to vote, simply drive them to the DMV and take care of it? They are willing to drive them to the polls, shouldn’t another day be something you would be willing to do to help them?
As I already said, I think if the state wants to impose this on people it is their responsibility to organize this in a large scale way since it clearly seems to be a large scale problem. I mean, when 20% of voters are going to be disenfranchised in Pennsylvania it’s clearly a GIANT problem that’s going to need a more serious solution than simply hoping that some volunteers will show up so that so many people will continue to have the right to vote.
Why do we only allow voting on one day?
I don’t know, but that seems pretty stupid to me, too. In fact, a week would give almost everybody, no matter what their work schedule happens to be, the chance to vote.
What happens if on that one day I am sick or my car breaks down and I can’t make it to vote, am I then disenfranchised?
This is why a lot of people choose to vote absentee ballot instead of voting in person.
Shouldn’t we allow a month to vote instead of a day to ensure no disenfranchisement occurs?
A month seems a bit long to me, but who knows? I suppose it is possible if we gave people that much time to cast their vote it would really increase the turnout for every election.
Posted by: Adrienne at July 26, 2012 12:21 AMI’m assuming they must have a valid point.
Why do you make that assumption? If they said that the moon was made of cheese, you wouldn’t question it?
YOU are the one that said minorities. I’m just trying to find out why you think that minorities are somehow different than non-minorities when it comes to voting. People on both sides of the aisle say lots of things, but if you just accept what the left says and poo-poo anything that the right says, your opinion is worth spit.
That these people/groups are making that claim is something which obviously bothers the crap out of you
Because it is a racist view. And being a part of the group that they are supposedly speaking for, yes it irks me when they try to bring race into the equation. It demeans and diminishes the entire group to suggest, for a second, that there is something about being a minority that makes one less capable than a white person.
It should bother you too. But obviously it doesn’t…
Whichever way we look at this though, it’s a fact that poor people don’t vote as often as wealthier Americans.
And why do you think this is? It appears you are trying to say that they are being prevented from voting, but in reality it is because they can’t be bothered, just as they can’t be bothered to rise out of poverty. They want to, but they aren’t willing to do what it takes and what everyone else has to do. It’s not easy, no one is going to hand success to you. It’s that same mindset that keeps them from voting, not spending an hour or two of their lives going to the DMV to get a free state issued photo ID.
Is voting important to them or not. If not, then they won’t be bothered to get to the polls or fulfill the SIMPLE requirement of proving they are who they are when they cast their vote.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 26, 2012 12:34 AMWhy do you make that assumption?
Oh I guess because my link had to do with the city of Philiadelphia and how 43 percent of people in that city might not be able to vote in the next election due to the voter ID law. And because Philadelphia is a city to where more black folks live than white folks. So yeah, I’m going to assume those people know just what they’re talking about.
YOU are the one that said minorities I’m just trying to find out why you think that minorities are somehow different than non-minorities when it comes to voting.
Holy crap — you’re completely NUTS! It is YOU who first brought up the word minority, and you have now harped INCESSANTLY upon it because clearly YOU have a giant f*cking problem with minorities.
Now you can piss off because I’m done with you!
It is YOU who first brought up the word minority
No, you linked to an article that made that comments and when called upon it you agreed that it was true. If you can’t back it up, that’s fine, just admit it and move on.
clearly YOU have a giant f*cking problem with minorities.
So, I have a problem with myself? Interesting…
You do realize I am part minority, right? I mean, I just mentioned it a few comments previous…
What I do have a problem with are people like yourself passing off their ingrained racism as ‘caring’, feeling that somehow just because someone is of a different color they need help because they can’t make it on their own. It demeans minorities. I don’t need anyone’s help to be just as good or successful as a white person, but according to YOU I am not capable of such a thing without YOUR help. Your ‘superiority’ is dripping from your comments…
That you are incapable of understanding that is your problem, not mine.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 26, 2012 1:35 AMRhinehold, you just live to make people on the left angry don’t you? Clearly you hate all of us and are therefore are always trying to accuse us and label us in the worst possible ways. Well, not only have I come to think you have more than a couple of screws loose, but I’m totally sick of your habitual troll-baiting and constant nitpicking — so from now on you can go f*ck yourself.
No, I live here to have intelligent discussions about political issues and try to poke holes in hypocrisy, racism and the authoritarian agendas of the left and right in America.
Unfortunately, that is hard to do with people who can’t accept that they may have been wrong at some point OR who admit that they don’t ‘question’ things that others from their own side of things say, as you have admitted to here.
It is not ‘nitpicking’ to point out flaws in logic, holes in thinking and blatant hypocrisy.
And, as always, I am impressed deeply with the class that you display when you don’t get your way of trying to bully someone with race baiting, insults and emotional drama.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 26, 2012 2:10 AMRhinehold-
It’s pretty simple. They’re poorer. All the extra hoops, the documentation, the travel time puts an extraordinary burden on them to vote. If you get to work by public transportation, if you are disabled or rely on others to transport you to a job, if you’re a student out of state who lives much of the year in that place, and thus would otherwise be eligible, these measures are aimed at slowing you down or stopping you.
Why should those two items even be in the same sentence?
Democrats like me, despite the slanderous allegations, just want those people who have a legal right to vote under our constitution to be able to do it, and when we complain about a poll tax, we are complaining about what the poll tax itself was, an intentionally roundabout attempt by political parties to warp the electorate by removing certain classes of voters.
And if what that Republican says is true, that’s the main reason behind this crackdown on voting rights. Illegals don’t vote. They don’t show up around polling places hoping to get themselves outed. It’s a pretext, and emotional gut punch of a button push (to mix metaphors) meant to keep people from asking a simple question: is it solving a major problem (no.) and is it disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of otherwise non-disqualified voters? (yes.)
You want rationality to rule, than you cannot support this. If you support voter ID laws which target folks who are otherwise legally qualified to vote, then you are the hypocrite, and you are the person who supports a political effort built not on reasoning with people, but disenfranchising them on cynical grounds. Americans should choose the leaders they elect, not the the leaders choose the people who they will allow to vote.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 26, 2012 8:47 AMDon’t worry Stephen, you’re on the left and therefore likely to be considered “a racist” by Rhinehold, too. Or something else horrible — whatever he can think up to find fault and attack you with.
Meanwhile, he’s remained completely silent on Mitt Romney’s racist dog-whistle of a remark:
‘Anglo-Saxon’ comment hangs over Romney in Britain
In fact, that was a multipurpose racist comment! Certain to have gone over really, really well with the Scots, Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Manx and Breton’s and anyone with a Norman family history!
As for the voter ID issue, perhaps it’s all based on projection. The GOP keeps accusing the left of “rampant voter fraud” but maybe it’s because that’s what some of their own have been doing for years:
Republican candidate quits after companion caught voting while dead
Now, I really don’t enjoy having to be rude, but I’m afraid that Jack’s shameless dishonesty often forces me into that regrettable position. So I’ll state it plainly:
You are right Adrienne, of course, but for C&J it really isn’t about what C&J knows to be true it is what he can convince his fellow conservatives the “truth” is. If many of these movement followers stopped to consider how they are being misled the conservative movement would lose much steam. Conservative movement leaders must keep them baffled and C&J helps with the revisionist history and the maneuvering away from the topic. The conservative followers are kinda like the cult that, as you pointed out a while back, believes everyone else is lying to them. So C&J simply needs to obfuscate the issue and it works to keep the followers in line. For proof just read the comments of Frank and the others in this thread. They actually believe the Nazi’s were leftist because they were told to believe it. And after all “socialist” is in the title what more do they need.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 26, 2012 1:14 PMAdrienne, you’ll have to explain to me how being a minority makes it harder for someone to get a photo ID? Is it something in their genetic makeup that makes this happen?
Rhinehold you Statist you ;) Shouldn’t the question be why should conservatives in government set up laws targeting minorities and the poor at the voting booth? Or perhaps, why should any individual be forced to get their picture taken by the government to exercise their constitutional right to vote.
Isn’t that the reason you are upset about this ‘voter disenfranchisement’, because you are afraid that this will cause minorities to not be able to vote for Obama?
Oops I guess it should Rhinehold you Authoritarian you :) Are you really excusing those conservative lawmakers that wrote and passed this legislation? The same people that specifically aimed the legislation at the poor and minorities? Why are you not asking them why they believe this law will disenfranchise the poor and minorities. Why are you not asking them why it is they assume these voters will vote for Obama?
It’s pretty simple. They’re poorer.
So, minorities are poorer than non-minorities, why is that? What is making them poorer than non-minorities? There are a couple of possibilities but it’s hard to debate or discuss when you can’t explain the reasons behind it.
Democrats like me, despite the slanderous allegations, just want those people who have a legal right to vote under our constitution to be able to do it, and when we complain about a poll tax, we are complaining about what the poll tax itself was, an intentionally roundabout attempt by political parties to warp the electorate by removing certain classes of voters.
And a Libertarian, like me, despite the slanderous allegations, want the same thing. But that doesn’t mean we need to reject any and all laws that are put in place to insure that the person voting is who they say they are. We have laws in many states and federally that you cannot get government assistance without a state issued ID. We can’t travel without a state-issued ID. We can’t buy a firearm without a state-issued ID. If the barrier to getting one is simply that you show up and have it given to you after showing a SSN, birth certificate, nationalization papers, etc, then it doesn’t amount to a poll tax. I agree we need to be viligant to ensure that it doesn’t amount to the same thing. But that is not the same thing as opposing all voter ID laws.
Remember I am against any requirement to have to carry ID on you at all times (papers please) but when engaging in actions such as obtaining government assistance, purchasing a firearm and voting, I see no reason to prevent ensuring that the person doing the action is the person they say they are. Especially when the law states that there is only one vote per person AND they have to pull the lever themselves. Without a picture ID it is simply easier to defraud voting. And we wouldn’t be able to catch it, since we don’t have that mechanism in place, so having dead people voting (which has happened in the past) is still a possibility. One which it makes logical sense to ensure isn’t happening.
You’ll find no love from me for Republicans who want to limit our rights just as there is none for Democrats who want the same. But being able to vote without showing a picture ID is simply not a ‘right’.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 26, 2012 4:15 PMDon’t worry Stephen, you’re on the left and therefore likely to be considered “a racist” by Rhinehold, too. Or something else horrible — whatever he can think up to find fault and attack you with.
Interestingly enough, the only one who has called anyone a racist is you. I mentioned that the statement was inheritely racist by it’s nature, that there is an inherit racism in suggesting that people are someone would have it harder to get a state issued picture ID simply because of the color of their skin, but you can believe whatever you want despite all of the evidence to the contrary because it seems anyone who disagrees with you for any reason (even with facts on their side) are your sworn mortal enemy who you will defame and call names with some sort of glee…
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 26, 2012 4:19 PMBTW, my main goal here, Adrienne, is to get people on the left to simply stop making comments that are damaging to the psychie of the minorities that they SAY they are wanting to help. If the issue is that the people being disenfranchised are poor, then say that. It’s something that can be debated, is a real concern AND something that people have control over.
When you add in the ‘and minorities’ part, you throw out the notion that simply because someone is of a different color, or sexual orientation, things that they cannot control, it makes them less capable of participating in the system based on THAT criteria. Say that enough, as the left has done for decades btw (and one of the main reasons I had to leave the Democratic party), and you start getting people to believe it. They give up without trying hard because they are told it is because of something that they can’t control that they are not succeeding. That’s pure BS, anyone in this country can be successful if they are willing to be.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 26, 2012 4:22 PMShouldn’t the question be why should conservatives in government set up laws targeting minorities and the poor at the voting booth? Or perhaps, why should any individual be forced to get their picture taken by the government to exercise their constitutional right to vote.
First, they should not. But the question I am raising is how does this law ‘target’ minorities? I can see how it could target poor people, if it was done wrong, but how can it target minorities? The suggests not only a racist view on the Republican side of things (which in some cases is valid) but also suggests that the Democrat side of things ALSO believes it to be true. Otherwise it would be a moot point, wouldn’t it?
Second, I’m not sure that I see a ‘constitutional right to vote’, can you explain that one to me? Yes, if you give the right to vote to some, you have to give it to all. But that is a different thing, isn’t it? That’s equal treatment under the law, not a right to vote. I believe that everyone should be allowed to vote, but I don’t see how proving you are who you claim to be when casting that vote is ‘disenfranchising’, provided there is no extra cost to the individual in question (ie, a poll tax).
Are you really excusing those conservative lawmakers that wrote and passed this legislation?
Where did I excuse anyone of anything?
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 26, 2012 4:27 PMThe “right to vote” is explicitly stated in the US Constitution in the above referenced amendments but only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the “right to vote” is perhaps better understood, in layman’s terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the “right to vote” for other reasons.Posted by: Rhinehold at July 26, 2012 5:02 PM
Justice Department probes Pennsylvania voter ID law
Pennsylvania Governor Can’t Recall Requirements Of Voter ID Law He Signed
Posted by: Adrienne at July 26, 2012 5:03 PMRhinehold This go around of voting laws were designed to make voting more complicated and harder to do. The intent is to keep many people from voting because conservative leaders believe that the less people that vote the better the chances they have of winning. So they have intentionally set out to deceive us into believing we need to protect ourselves from the rampant voter fraud that in fact doesn’t exist. While you protect this deception with I find them offensive and a threat to Americans.
Convincing conservative movement followers was easy, to easy, to get to go along. It seems libertarians, if you are any indication, also believe these restrictions are necessary. (As a side note your defense of this sad attempt to rig elections strengthens my opinion that libertarians are all corporate shrills.) However I do not and it seems many others do not as well.
Here is a rather interesting bit that outlines the history and identifies the culprits of this attack on the American people. So instead of tearing down the strawman argument you present “to get people on the left to simply stop making comments that are damaging to the psychie of the minorities that they SAY they are wanting to help.” I would rather call attention to the conservative plan to violate the ability of many citizens to vote.
j2t2,
You are apparently read into the conversation what you want to read. My thought though is do I try to explain it to you in another way so you might understand or do I just let it go I don’t believe for an instant that you have ever had any positive view of Libertarians…
Here’s a good article about how Libertarians view voter ID laws:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/09/voter-id-regulations-real-problem-wrong
Some 30 states now require some form of ID in order to vote. There’s not a whole lot of evidence that fraud at the polling place is a significant issue, at least not to a degree to justify a state law. The number is not zero, though. There have been a few real cases of voter impersonation. There’s a huge logistics flaw, though, in that that a concerted widespread attempt at voter impersonation will often be found out when the real voter attempts to cast his or her ballot, which is exactly what happened in Fort Worth in May:Hazel Woodard James, 40, is accused of arranging for her son — who was not a registered voter — to vote on behalf of his father. The incident reportedly came to light when the father showed up later in the day to vote in the same precinct, 1211, for which James is now running to be chairwoman.
Prosecutor David Lobingier said the indictment is the first case of election fraud in recent memory in Tarrant County.
“We want to ensure that our vote is sacred,” he said. “We don’t want people voting who are not entitled to vote. It should be sacrosanct.”
Vote fraud is obviously very much a real thing. However, the fraud that needs to be addressed is happening long before votes are actually cast. The real fraud takes place in the registration process, it’s a bipartisan affair, and arguably voter ID has nothing to do with the problem and won’t fix it.
So no, Libertarians do not see voter IDs as ‘needed’, while they do think that better protections are put in place in the registration part of the process (as evidenced by both parties being guilty of voter registration fraud in many cases over the past decade).
However, that doesn’t mean that voter ID laws are inherently WRONG either. As we now know, there are 30 states with such laws already on the books. IF the law is written properly, it can be implemented in a way that does not disenfranchise any more than requiring registration, or limiting when registration stops before elections, etc. All of these are ‘limits’ that are in place to prevent fraud, voter ID is just another, if it is not in essence a poll tax.
Of course, I have not argued that the voter ID law is necessary nor that I think they can’t be used as a backdoor poll tax (I even stated this already), you just read that in to what is being said. MY point was trying to end the assertion that people are making that simply by being a member of a minority, getting a valid ID is a ‘disenfranchisement’. Poor, yes. Black? NO. Latino? NO.
Does that makes sense to you now? Or did I just waste my time?
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 26, 2012 7:11 PMMore if you like…
http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/12/what-to-do-about-zombies-at-the-polls
But to me, voter ID is putting the burden on the citizen for terrible management of voter rolls by the government. It’s forcing individuals to have to pay — either with money or with time or with both — for government bureaucracy’s inability to collect, collate and manage information efficiently to remove people from the voter rolls when they don’t belong there. (But of course, attempts to do so also become ridiculously politicized. It’s apparently racist just to make sure the people on the rolls are legitimate voters.)Voter ID laws are like DUI checkpoints: It’s government expressing both its power and its laziness. It’s not tackling the underlying problem and instead creating more burdens for its citizens to express their rights. A quick check online shows fake IDs available for around $135. Assuming a party or candidate wishing to engage in fraud isn’t able to get the costs down through other means, it may be too pricy to attempt to game the system for a general election. But for a smaller primary or municipal election, getting fake IDs into the hands of these fake voters will not be as much of a problem.
Here’s a thought exercise: Why the hell do we even still have polling locations anyway? Do we really even need them anymore?
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/indiana-voter-id-law-struck-down/
Requiring ID at polling stations would have a marginal effect on vote fraud because it makes it harder to impersonate a voter or manufacture a vote-qualified identity. But the risk of in-person voter fraud is very low compared to absentee ballot fraud, which the Indiana law did not touch. The Indiana voter ID law was tantamount to caulking windows to keep out the cold but leaving the front door open. Because of the disproportionate effect on different classes of voters, the court struck it down.Posted by: Rhinehold at July 26, 2012 7:21 PM
he’s remained completely silent on Mitt Romney’s racist dog-whistle of a remark
That is probably because I like to wait until actual factual things are said before commenting, like this comment that a) was never said by Romney and b) was most likely never really said at all.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/312331/phony-saxony-cacophony
What I find very interesting is the fact that The Telegraph is hardline CONSERVATIVE newspaper in the U.K. — but they’ve refused to retract, even though it might have been better for Romney.
And let’s be clear: that was an adviser that had been sent in advance of Mitt’s trip to spread his messages. Mitt may now have to try to run away from what the campaign said, but it’s more than clear that it IS exactly what they said.
It’s pretty obvious that Team Romney mistakenly thought they could get away with blowing a loud dog whistle across the Pond during an interview with one of the most conservative of British rags, and believed they could make that fly under the national radar of the American media.
But they completely miscalculated the character of the British public along with the political reality as it stands in the UK — and it became a giant disaster for them. They had absolutely no idea about the more heightened awareness the average UK citizen has regarding racism. They had no clue that the Right in the UK isn’t nearly as batshit insane and racist and loathsome the way the Right is in America.
I think it’s hilarious that Romney’s forward-team basically hand-delivered the UK a reason to hate and despise him, and view him as a joke — before he’d even landed! And it was just the beginning of the complete trainwreck that has been Mitt’s London Trip.
What’s even funnier is that it was Team Romney’s clear intention to give every opportunity to the GOP mouthpiece, Fox “News”, to carry that pathetic, batshit crazy, racist message as loudly and clearly as they could for the Teabaggers and KKK and other such brain-dead white supremacists without it coming to the attention everywhere.
That’s because The Telegraph decided they couldn’t and wouldn’t stupidly play along with such a bizarre amount of racism being stripped bare for all of their UK readership, or the rest of the world to see. Unbeknownst to Mitt Romney (and completely unlike in our nation), the political Right in the UK still actually possesses a bit of conscience about that kind of blatantly despicable, racist crap! Or at the very least, they too feel self-consciousness about what is be acceptable to decent people, and what will not be.
ENORMOUS loss for Mitt Romney — to make himself into such an easily loathed and reviled laughingstock in advance of his big “foreign policy tour”! Now, they’ve got some surrogates on the right claiming Americans Don’t Care About Foreign Press!
Just so funny!
Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2012 1:49 PMAnd let’s be clear: that was an adviser that had been sent in advance of Mitt’s trip to spread his messages.
Interesting, who was this adviser then? Seems that you seem to know who it was, give the name. Shouldn’t be that difficult, right?
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 27, 2012 2:22 PMNot sure why you just reposted the same original story, there is still no name, we don’t know who the ‘adviser’ was. I despise ‘unnamed sources’ and assigning the statement of an adviser to Romney despite his insistence that is not how he feels is pretty dirty.
“Today, the race for the highest office in our land was diminished to a sad level when the Vice President of the United States used an anonymous and false quote from a foreign newspaper to prop up their flailing campaign. The President’s own press secretary has repeatedly discredited anonymous sources, yet his political advisors saw fit to advance a falsehood,” said Romney spokesman Ryan Williams in a statement. “We have more faith in American voters, and know they will see this latest desperate ploy for what it is.”
And, as I pointed out, the Telegraph is not exactly known for journalistic integrity, having to retract stories before.
the British press has a reputation for sometimes being not quite… reliable sources when it comes to eye-catching quotes from anonymous sources. The Telegraph is a little better than the others, but… Matt Lewis recalls the Telegraph retracting a story about Michelle Obama spending $50,000 on Agent Provocateur lingerie back in February. So if something sounds a little too good to be true in the British press… there’s a good chance it is.
The problem is that you don’t wait for things to be factchecked or not or even if there is a simple explanation for whatever tripe is brought out, anything that sounds good, you run with, even when they are later shown to be incorrect you still stand by them, but then excoriate anyone on the right who does the same thing.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 27, 2012 2:57 PMLooks like some idiots don’t read.
The advisers spoke on the condition of anonymity because Mr Romney’s campaign requested that they not criticise the President to foreign media. After another adviser criticised Mr Obama in a German magazine last month, the President sharply instructed them that “America’s political differences end at the water’s edge”.Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2012 5:09 PM
Former FL GOP chair says ‘right-wing crazies’ want to suppress black vote
Former Florida Republican Party Chair Jim Greer testified in a lawsuit filed against his former party that “whack-a-do, right-wing crazies” wanted to suppress the black vote through Voter ID and tactics like current state Gov. Rick Scott’s efforts to purge voter rolls, according to reporting in the the Tampa Bay Times on Thursday.Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2012 5:13 PM“I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting. It had been one of those days,” he testified in the 630-page affidavit that spans two days of deposition about a fundraising meeting with party general counsel Jason Gonzalez, political consultant Jim Rimes and Eric Eikenberg, Crist’s chief of staff. Rimes denies the discussion concerned voter suppression to the Times, and Eikenberg did nto return the paper’s phone calls.
Greer claimed that the 2010 criminal fraud charges filed against him and other Republicans were part of internal party power scheming designed to push out him and former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, among others.
Apparently the only idiot is the one who can’t comprehend what they read.
Because the source is ANONYMOUS, we can’t determine if the person was a high ranking adviser, or a mail room intern that no one listens to. Lots of people can claim to be ‘an adviser’, that doesn’t mean they are. And because they are anonymous, we can’t determine anything about it.
When Obama is attacked by ‘anonymous sources’, I defend it because of the same reasons. And the White House has lashed out against ‘anonymous sources’ as well. But it doesn’t stop them from using this anonymous source for partisan political purposes, and THEN assigning this source’s views as the candidate’s views even though he has publicly stated they aren’t his views.
It’s the same shit you complain about from the right, Adrienne, you have successfully become just as bad as they are. Congratulations.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 27, 2012 5:35 PMThe advisers spoke on the condition of anonymity because Mr Romney’s campaign requestedPosted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2012 5:44 PM
IRRELEVANT
It doesn’t matter of GOD requested that they remain anonymous, because they are there is no way to know WHO said what and determine if that person has a reasonable knowledge of what Romney thinks. It could have been JOJO the Intern who made the statement, it doesn’t mean anything without knowing that information.
But hey, since you are ok with anonymous sources, I’ll remember that the next time one says something about Obama and you complain…
http://www.yourblackworld.com/2011/09/27/anonymous-sources-claim-obama-tried-to-save-troy-davis/
http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/02/obama-will-pivot-to-the-drug-war-in-seco
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/opinion/22pubed.html?_r=1
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 28, 2012 2:20 AMseo , | ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ar,ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ! ! ! seo fuck http://google.com.br | http://google.com.br http://google.com.br ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | , , , , http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php , , - ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, seo fuck ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | , , , , , ,seo fuck ,
seo , | ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ar,ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ! ! ! seo fuck http://google.com.br | http://google.com.br http://google.com.br ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | , , , , http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php , , - ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, seo fuck ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | , , , , , ,seo fuck ,
seo , | ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ar,ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ! ! ! seo fuck http://google.com.br | http://google.com.br http://google.com.br ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | , , , , http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php , , - ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, seo fuck ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | , , , , , ,seo fuck ,
Posted by: seobrazil at April 27, 2013 4:40 PMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation. Please report abuse and inappropriate behavior to editor@watchblog.com.
