Democrats & Liberals Archives

Whoever Wins Tomorrow, the GOP Still Loses.

It’s not easy being a Democrat. You get ups and downs. But it’s good to be a Democrat, because you actually recognize that the ups and downs can be related to something you did. The fantasy of Republicans is that after everything is said and done, if something’s wrong, it has to be the liberal media, Democrats and Liberals, or somebody else or something else that caused it. But why has it become like this? Rick Perlstein offers an answer.

To buy into what folks call conservatism these days (That is, Conservatism without respect for institutions, without respect for rational means of determining policy, or careful weighing of evidence, etc), you have to buy into a multilayered fantasy world. Does that mean you're stupid? No, and I think that's a distinction people should make, because the world is full of dangerously seductive ideas.

Among them: the notion that you're not wrong, you don't have to be uncertain, that your gut feelings never lie to you, that somebody else is responsible for your problems.

So, the GOP plays to two things, all at once: your fears, and your fantasies.

In the fantasies, nobody has to get their ox gored in order to bring order back into markets that seem so confusing and corrupt. All you have to do is let people do what they want, and the system itself will sort it out. No having to risk holding somebody back who might do good business, or the bureaucratic nightmare we imagine an excess of this would provide.

Which Republicans constantly play on. Have any of you wondered why, after years of it being a relatively minor political term in America, socialist has become such a buzzword? I think it's mainly being used because it's an acceptable alternative to the word communist, which reflects an old and defeated force in the world. They talk Socialism, which does go on in Europe, they talk about how it's ruining their countries, making them into Greece. They don't mention that one of the reasons why Greece is in the position it is in is it's poor taxing structure. Same thing with California, where a proposition passed some time ago makes it impossible to raise taxes without a two thirds majority, even as other propositions come across with new spending.

Republican fiscal policy is a case study in multiple personality disorder. One personality decries the failure of a government, preferably run by Democrats in some fashion, to balance the budget. Then another personality says that the solution to our fiscal problem is to deliberately refuse to collect as much revenue as we did before. The idea is, and this really hasn't happened yet, is that there will be a bonanza of growth that was held back, that will suddenly return, and bring with it equal or greater revenues, and greater growth.

This has been attempted several times in my life, and it generally doesn't work, if for no other reason than the tax cuts are concentrated at the top, where people already save money more, because they can't find uses for it all. And no, in the real world, those people are as apt to cut jobs to make a profit as create them, if not more so.

But it keeps on getting brought back. Why? Because people want to believe it could be that easy. Just give this guy more money, and you'll prosper more. It doesn't even cost you much upfront, does it? Ah, but if you want FEMA, if you want all kinds of enforcement mechanisms that protect you from bad loans, bad products, deceptive investments, so on an so forth, there is a price, because that's what they want to cut to pay for all this, if they decide to pay for it when it turns out the tax cuts only bring deficits.

The hue and cry is, :"We can't afford this!" Well, maybe we could have and were before your smart people came in and started giving people back the money we were actually spending on things with.

It's a critical deception, one where programs and agencies we would rather not do without become fat to be trimmed, but only after we've put the government on a starvation diet. Not to make light of it, but Republican budgeting is to fiscal sanity what Anorexia is to healthy eating.

The truth is, the Republicans are trying to return a kind of government to America that you would reject if you saw it fully, a kind of pre-modern, laissez faire order that America evolved out of, because of all the pain it caused. You hear about the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, you hear about the 1929 crash, and the castles of air that brokers created back then, what happened when the banks weren't bailed out, but went under with much of their depositor's money, so on and so forth. You hear about Standard Oil and other monopolies, how prices for things rose as businesses got more and more of the market.

And some folks want that sort of thing back. Why? Because it benefits them.

Yes, Virginia, there are those kinds of jackasses running around in real life, people who are willing to do what it takes to make their own lives better at your expense, whether you're a fellow true believer or an antagonist. The market is not benevolent, nor is it evil. It is a reflection of our own standards, our own attitudes, our own ability to stand up for ourselves. Some things will regulate well on their own in the market. People can look out for themselves. But as folks who have lost money in their pensions and 401Ks can tell you, in some cases you are not so able to fight the encroachment of other's interests on your own. In some cases, you can be doing everything right, but somebody pulls some sort of scam, and ends up making out like a bandit while you're left in the ashes. And they make a fortune, despite their malicious behavior towards others.

People are making money in the market doing bad things, to put it plainly. They make money running food processing facilities that pass on foodborne illnesses. They mix up medicines in pharmaceutical companies that they've been too cheap or contemptuous of standards to keep clean, so a number of people are dying of Meningitis they could get no other way. Some folks are getting heart attacks and strokes because somebody pushed the passage of a drug that wasn't as safe as it should have been. Others are relegated to life carrying around an oxygen supply, simply because they took a diet pill combination that was supposedly safe.

This creates waste. This creates a degradation of trust between people, and especially between the average person and business. This, I will submit, creates a sense of quality in decline, and overall America in decline. When the systems we depend upon are corrupted, when those who need to be kept in check are allowed to run amok, Americans lose faith in the system, in their society as a whole.

That, ironically enough, makes it that much easier to sell people, even intelligent people, on doing more of the same letting more of the same occur. Blame big government for being a screw-up, rather than small government forces for crippling enforcement. Blame overspending for budget deficits, rather than correctly observing that the loss in revenue is a greater factor in the unbalancing of the budget than growth in spending, or that if you both spend more and tax less, simple mathematics will give you a deficit.

Yes, in a sense, this can go on forever. But how much longer? Simple demographics are depriving Republicans of the people who were once dependable believers. Thing about a lie, is that it's often more important that you understand the mindset of the person you're lying to, than getting your story straight. But if you're not the target of a lie, if you are looking at things from an angle that allows you to see the two-by-fours propping up the plywood front, things look pretty artificial.

I will not claim certainty as to who wins the election and the Presidency. That is something that has to unfold on its own. But as time has gone on, those outside the GOP have grown increasingly skeptical, even scared of what they've seen inside it, even as the BS that the GOP is pushing has gotten more and more frighteningly persuasive to those within, despite how outlandish things have gotten.

Republicans, who once wedged people away from Democrats, now seem better able to wedge Demographics away from themselves, with the ironic result that the very cock-and-bull stories that have let them lock down huge parts of the electorate, also lock down other parts, like women voters, blacks, and hispanics against them.

And Romney has done a good job of wedging auto voters against himself, too, with not only his initial position of letting the Auto industry collapse, but also with his current attempts to turn those industry voters against Obama.

It's become a vicious cycle on the right, and one that's heading for a series of reckonings, a series of reality checks. Even if Mitt Romney wins, he has to deal with the blasted wreckage his party left in the path of the economy, in their attempt to further their ambitions both for the White House and their agenda as a whole. He has to deal with the sequester, or with angry voters as he cuts Medicare and/or Medicaid. Promising Vouchercare is one thing, but what happens when he attempts to implement it? So on and so forth. The problem is, no matter how much Romney tries to deceive voters, reality will again and again intrude on his messaging just as it did on President Bush's.

And that is a critical concept: reality floods around lies like water floods around barriers. No person is intelligent or observant enough to surround themselves with enough lies to avoid trouble. Reality will force choices, and will force consequences for those choices, and Romney and the Republicans will still be judged on that.

Republicans couldn't prevent that judgment from landing on them in 2006 and 2008. What gives them immunity in 2014, or 2016? All the SuperPAC ads and propaganda has only gotten so far in convincing people to support Romney and the Republicans, and in fact has gotten to the point where people find political advertising in general to be intrusive, an ordeal. There is a limit to how much of this crap people can actually tolerate, and also to how long it can compete against a reality that gainsays it.

Sooner or later, reality sinks in.

I'd rather it sink in sooner, because while our system allows for correction, history and its consequences cannot be unwritten. We can forget the Iraq war and its lessons, as we forgot the lessons of Vietnam, but we cannot erase the consequences of fighting those wars, or failing to finish them quickly and successfully from the realities that came afterwards. Johnson and Nixon's mistakes became Bush's, and the debts and cultural divides that came of trying to keep the unpopular wars going, the failed strategies in play, cannot be undone.

We can't undo Reagan's failure to balance the budget with tax cuts, nor Bush's. We can't undo the consequences of Republican hubris on so many levels. We can't unwaste the time spent doing things the wrong way.

And Republicans can't unwaste the opportunity to create conservative governance that actually works. For the benefit of having voters that are loyal even when they take to calling themselves independent, Republicans have created a system so rife with conformity and true believes in the dogma that they lack the flexibility to try different things, or to compromise principles to deal with realities that aren't as conservative as they've been idealized to be.

You can't avoid the credibility collapse that comes with bad policy. Reality will flood around the rationalizations and the lies.

If your tax policy doesn't balance the budget, eventually pressure will come, as it has, to return to the old paradigm of taxing those who earn more to a greater degree. If that is what actually works, then you'll be fighting that indefinitely. Once, Reagan could raise taxes to face that reality. Could Romney? I don't think so. The GOP is not stronger for the ability to reject its reality and substitute its own, it's weaker, because the internal reality is determinative of nothing but their own choices.

Outlawing abortion won't likely end it. Denying contraception and equal pay for equal work will not win Republicans voters.

Undoing regulations on Wall Street won't keep Wall Street from leading us right back into another crash, and either we will bailout Wall Street again, or collapse as a world economic power into another depression. How often does this farce have to be replayed, before the Republican Party's worst fears about becoming a regional party come true?

I don't fault Republicans for pursuing what is best, but they must realize that our idealized systems in our heads can very easily prove wrong, even if our general principles are sound and valid. It is elaboration in a movie or a book's scenes that spells the difference between a scene that works well, and one that draws unintentional laughter or saddened head-shaking. So it is elaboration in our plans and our words, in how we write policy, and how we observe the consequences, that spells the difference between policies that work, and policies that don't.

Republicans need a reality-based political system. If Mitt Romney loses, after all the effort Republicans put into defying the forces that handed them defeat in 2006 and 2008, it might be the opportunity for people to break with the doddering, senile movement that no longer works well for the health of the GOP. If he wins, then Republicans will be faced with the same problems, the same outrage from the public they got hit with before, and Democrats will once again take the advantage.

One way or another Republicans have to face that it's not enough to win an election, or keep people loyal. Policy must work, and people must stay loyal because they can depend upon your party to do good things. You can, with strained effort, win elections you don't deserve to win on the merits, win elections without being straight with people, but there consequences both to telling lies and living lies, and whether Mitt Romney wins tomorrow or loses, Republicans will have to deal with them.

I'd say we should stop encouraging those who won't be straight with us. The reckoning should come sooner, rather than later, the reform of the Republican Party or its marginalization faster, so America can get back to work, and get back to having a government that functions like the Children of the Enlightenment who founded it wanted it to function: based on reason and reality, not credulity and and overwhelming irrational appeals.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at November 5, 2012 6:46 AM
Comments
Comment #356451

“It’s not easy being a Democrat. You get ups and downs. But it’s good to be a Democrat, because you actually recognize that the ups and downs can be related to something you did.”

Are these sentences actually yours, or did you steal them from a sixth grader?

Is your piece meant to get a rise out of Republicans or just give your neck nuzzling buddies here a chance to tell you how right-on you are?

It is total tripe, Stephen. Just mindless words reproduced here to simply fill up space and boost your delusional image of self as a heralded intellectual.

Excuse the brutal honesty…you are neither heralded, nor intellecutual. You are boring, and you are predictable, and you don’t know what “succint” means.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 5, 2012 9:27 AM
Comment #356452

“It’s not easy being a Democrat. You get ups and downs. But it’s good to be a Democrat, because you actually recognize that the ups and downs can be related to something you did.”

Are these sentences actually yours, or did you steal them from a sixth grader?

Is your piece meant to get a rise out of Republicans or just give your neck nuzzling buddies here a chance to tell you how right-on you are?

It is total tripe, Stephen. Just mindless words reproduced here to simply fill up space and boost your delusional image of self as a heralded intellectual.

Excuse the brutal honesty…you are neither heralded, nor intellecutual. You are boring, and you are predictable, and you don’t know what “succinct” means.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 5, 2012 9:28 AM
Comment #356453

I thought we were deleting all of John Johnson’s comments.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 5, 2012 10:25 AM
Comment #356456

Stephen, Why don’t you just put it simpley, I don’t like Republicans or their policie instead of writing a book saying the same thing because in all your essays that’s all it boils down to. I can tell you simply I don’t like democrats and their policies, I used to but not now since they went to liberal.

Posted by: KAP at November 5, 2012 10:43 AM
Comment #356457

I guess since I am signed up as an WB editor now, I can stick around a little longer without having my words censored or blocked.

I’m here to save you from yourselves. This is the mission I have undertaken knowing that I have a very tough task at hand.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 5, 2012 10:50 AM
Comment #356458

Stephen - well said.

JJ, RF, C&J,Frank et al; Stephen and others have shown you the light of knowledge. There are no more excuses for ignoring the truths that have been laid out. You have not answered with valid counter-arguments. It is time to put differences aside, rise above the fracus and vote for Obama. You will be glad you did when you are at the gates of St. Peter.

Posted by: Schwamp at November 5, 2012 10:52 AM
Comment #356459

John Johnson: “…I can stick around a little longer without having my words censored or blocked.”

Well, if you think folks are censoring you somehow then I don’t see how being and editor can stop that.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 5, 2012 11:20 AM
Comment #356460

Stephen, nothing but more boring partisan opinion devoid of facts. Yawn.

Your people have spent the last 4 years blaming Bush, blaming the so-called 1%, blaming racism, blaming the founders, and you say it is people on the right who believe “that somebody else is responsible for your problems.”
Your people are lying to people about being put back in chains, back to working crops, that they will no longer have Medicare and Social Security. That paying for their own contraception means that they will be denied contraception. That spending isn’t the problem, what you label as greedy people, are the problem. That people on the right desire no government at all, rather than the limited government our founders intended.
But it’s the GOP who plays on fears, and fantasies.

“Have any of you wondered why, after years of it being a relatively minor political term in America, socialist has become such a buzzword?”

We don’t have to wonder why, Stephen. It is very clear that modern liberalsism promotes an economic and political theory that advocates the “collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
It is a “buzzword” only because it is what you and your people are promoting. It is effective because of the history and culture created by our Constitution.

Posted by: kctim at November 5, 2012 11:29 AM
Comment #356461

No one is censoring me, nor have they blocked anything I have ever sent. Stephen just threatened me one time, and I got a kick out of it. You OK now? The thought of my words not getting through seems to have upset you somewhat. It’s going to be OK.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 5, 2012 12:13 PM
Comment #356462

John Johnson:

So you’re saying you purposefully lied when you said Stephen deleted your comment? I can’t wait to see your next act.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 5, 2012 12:19 PM
Comment #356463

No, it was a glitch. I hit post, but for some reason it did not go through. I thought he had removed my post when I sent my comments about last submission not showing up. When I found out that I was wrong, I just decided to not retract what I had stated since by this time you had gotten involved and were acting like the Watchblog Chief of Police.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 5, 2012 12:43 PM
Comment #356464

John Johnson:

So then it’s my fault you lied and then didn’t admit you were wrong? My bad. I hope becoming an author here makes you less of a whiner than you’ve been lately.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 5, 2012 12:51 PM
Comment #356466

John Johnson-
Look, the succinct version of this is that Republicans have gotten into a very unhealthy, vicious cycle of lying to others and themselves about how their policies, and the policies of others are working. This might represented the pinnacle, the purest version of conservatism for some, but unfortunately, it’s a hothouse flower of a policy paradigm that isn’t being reinforced by real world results.

Instead, your side has to essentially lie its ass off, mythologize policy and ignore real world results in order to continue supporting doing things this way.

When’s the last time a Conservative policy worked as designed? And would you be willing to admit it was working, if a Democrat implemented it?

I wouldn’t call current conservative culture a cult, or a mental disease. What it is, has been a gradual corruption of people’s use of reason, with the key components being the exploitation of trust, of (yes) race and ethnic differences, of economic anxieties, and the targeting incitement of antagonism against one’s opponents and against non-co-opted information sources in order to make the Republican Party the authority that most voters listen to, one way or another.

It’s a mental feedback loop, one that I think most people could break, given the right circumstances, but which is reinforced by people’s resistance to being gainsayed by those they oppose. The “Liberal” media isn’t really that liberal, but claiming it is both gets people to ignore facts coming from the MSM, and keeps them a captive audience to the GOP’s propaganda arms.

And as those propaganda arms escalate things, going past O’Reilly, past Hannity, past even Limbaugh to full tilt Glenn Beck divorcing from reality?

Well, people are carried with them. I doubt most people really wanted to say or believe things that were that nuts to begin with, but as one lie follows another, and there’s nothing to check the facts, the world portrayed by the propaganda seems to become the truth.

Unfortunately, it’s not, and because it’s not, you don’t get positive results, you get disasters. Just think, there were some jackasses in Congress who actually wanted America to default on its loans!

I mean, let’s take that and unpack it: Greece’s problem is that at some point, it might just end up unable to pay its debts. It’ll default. But the answer of some of these Tea Partiers is to skip the gradual process of getting in over our head with debt payments, which we’re not, with our Treasury bond yields so low (we’re considered safe, where Greece is a big risk), and just instantly make America a credit risk!

It makes no sense, and is in fact counterproductive. But you’d have to buy into a whole bunch of theory these people have been taught not to buy into, and unfortunately, I think some of their theory is coming out of the heads of some pretty nutty people.

Ultimately, there are some good things about conservative principles, but if they are expressed in ignorance, or through faulty logic and policy, if Republicans don’t appreciate the distance between what they idealize and what’s true, their good intentions will count for nothing.

Adam Ducker-
He asked, I never complied. I don’t like to censor, and I don’t think it reflects well on anybody. I did remind him once that he was a guest here, and that he will and should not be taken seriously anytime he arrogantly asks one of us to “sit in the corner” or go away.

KAP-
If that’s what you want think, be my guest, but you pay the price for your lack of nuance on your view of my politics. I’m not a perfectly liberal liberal. I’ve got my conservative streaks. But the thing you should understand is, I am a functionalist and a pragmatist at heart. I will not simply go along to get along, when I feel the policy doesn’t making any fricking sense.

We don’t need political litmus tests being the ultimate determinant of policy. That policy has to be a working adaptation to the real world that makes things better, not worse. That is the simple problem I have with most Republican policy. It’s failed. There are conservative policies which might work, bring them forward. But Republicans have to unhook from the GOP dream machine, and face how things work in reality.

kctim-
Would I break your heart if I told you that your interpretation of the constitution doesn’t really do it for me? You don’t know real conservatism. You know this dreamed up version that happens to lock with what government we had for most of the Cold War. I mean, points for irony, but I don’t think communists beat communists. I think we had a version of capitalism going that was fairer to more, and which let the working class and middle class Americans aspire to greater.

As for appeals to fear? Fear is a valid emotion. Those who lack it take dumb risks. The question is, is the valid emotion based on valid objects of fear?

Or are we talking Death Panels, FEMA internment camps, Obama being a foreigner, etc? Americans should not have to fear a bunch of lies, like your side has fed us. That’s the difference.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 5, 2012 1:16 PM
Comment #356468

Stephen: “I did remind him once that he was a guest here, and that he will and should not be taken seriously anytime he arrogantly asks one of us to “sit in the corner” or go away.”

For some reason folks like Frank and John keep wanting to chase us out of our own threads with insults and name calling just because they disagree with us. It gets a bit embarrassing watching them try and bully site authors in the comment threads.

I think they see themselves like Mike and the robots on MST3K. They’re locked in and forced to read liberal world views on Watchblog at the risk of their own sanity. they cannot look away, they cannot unread what they’ve read. It’s a cruel, cruel world wide web.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 5, 2012 1:32 PM
Comment #356471

Stephen
Your lack of knowledge and respect for our Constitution does not “break my heart,” nor does it surprise me. You see, my “interpretation” of the Constitution requires one to only read the Constitution, whereas your interpretation requires change to it. So of course it doesn’t “do it for you.” If it did, you would not be a liberal.

I am a Constitutionalist, not a Conservative. But even so, I am aware of what real Conservatism is and, after what, 8 years now on WatchBlog with you, I am pretty aware of Stephens opinion of real Conservatism. Needless to say, your opinion of it is based on class warfare, fear mongering, outright lies by you and your people, and worst of all, your biased opinion.

“The question is, is the valid emotion based on valid objects of fear?”

This is one area where you have never been able to win Stephen. What you fear is always valid in your opinion, and what the right fears is always invalid. You always have an excuse ready to defend your side, and you always have an opinion to pass off as fact to condemn the other side.
Does it hurt your feelings if I say that is pretty chickensh*t?

“Or are we talking Death Panels, FEMA internment camps, Obama being a foreigner, etc? Americans should not have to fear a bunch of lies, like your side has fed us. That’s the difference.”

But your lies are perfectly a ok? Banning contraception? Making blacks slaves once again? Romney doesn’t pay any taxes? Give me a freakin break.
If you are going to use your holier than thou BS, at least have the smarts to only use it on other BSer’s.

Posted by: kctim at November 5, 2012 2:34 PM
Comment #356472

I don’t ever remember whining…and the name callers are on your side of the equation. Nasty, hateful name calling. Go back and check.

As for Stephen…you and the word “succinct” have never met.

In response to your last post…you just don’t get it. All the terrible, corrupt, boneheaded, irrational decisions you accuse the Republicans of are just as prevalent in Democrats. They all feed at the same trough, kid, but for some unknown reason, you just seem to be able to see only the red pigs fattening themselves up at our expense. For some reason, I can see all of them fighting for their share.

Hell yes the Republicans are guilty of sandbagging Dem legislation, buy Reid is just as guilty by not bringing up for vote Repub initiatives. Hell yes, Bush screw up bigtime by getting us into two wars and not catching the housing bust, but Obama has kept on spending money on the conflicts he was going to shut down, and he has pussyfooted around quickly implementing changes in the way Wall Street conducts business. He has also failed to make negotiating bills transparent, and lobbyists are crawling all over the White House that was supposed to be off limits to them. He lied. Neither Repubs or Dems are addressing illegal immigration or total tax reform because the Big’s don’t want either one and both parties want the Big’s money. Where is the immigration reform that O was going to immediately tackle after being elected?

You are blind to this stuff if it tarnishes the Dem’s image. There is no objectivity. None, zero, zilch. That’s what I rail against…and you, Ducker, Rocky, Rickil, Jane Doe and that woman who wants to grown corn in the sky like Jack’s bean stalk are oblivious to it. I’m here to open your blind eye. It’s a tough job, but I’m determined to help all of you.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 5, 2012 2:37 PM
Comment #356475

Just released NYU study of President Obama and Mitt Romney’s body language shows on a word by word basis what each candidate emphasizes. http://gesturecloud.org

be sure to click on the more info tab and read the information just so you have seen it.

Posted by: Nahidul Islam at November 5, 2012 3:22 PM
Comment #356478

kctim-
You are like a scribe or a pharisee. You measure the length of a cord, but you do not understand that the Constitution was meant to be the starting point for letting Americans decide things for themselves, putting initial constraints on what the Federal government could do, but also making clear it’s powers, and giving it the authority to carry things out. The Necessary and Proper clause might sometimes be abused, but it is evidence that people thought the Constitution’s literal interpretation might not be enough to justify everything that needed to be done to carry out the duties and obligations of the government.

You don’t put a clause in like that if you’re satisfied that just by looking at each jot and tittle you can discern the ultimate and and sole meaning of the document.

Also, why also found a judiciary branch, if you believe laws can simply be literally interpreted, and thereby understood correctly by all?

Because the framers didn’t believe that.

Literalism is always problematic, because even literal readings are vulnerable to misinterpretations. You need underlying reality as your touchstone instead. What is truth does not change, while what is said about truth, even in the plainest and deadest of words can always be reinterpreted into something else.

It won’t change the objective reality, but whole different interpretations can be sprung just from a few different shades of meaning. Rather than tame the treacherous serpent that is language, your side merely gets close enough to get bitten even more.

I am not saying that we should disregard the constitution’s restrictions in making law, and you are a liar if you claim this is my position. What I do believe, though, is that we need to realize that there is wisdom beyond that constitutional page that helps us properly interpret what’s on that page for our time, and not all of it is found in the history books.

A law that is interpreted without regard to circumstance or necessity is one that has been misinterpeted for the situation in question, and your side has, for far too long, substituted the attempt to pre-emptively bar discussion with pronouncement from on high about what the Constitution really means, for actual, merit-based debate about its proper application.

It is a document that was written in adaptation to the problems of a young nation, and with an eye to avoiding some of the more serious problems that arose with other young republics and revolutionary movements. To only see what’s on the page is to spin the Constitution on an axis of abstraction, without the brakes of reality to make its interpretations workable.

As far as your charges, I would remind you that with abortion gone, would contraception be far behind? I mean, the GOP’s bill on the subject went far beyond just answering the Catholic Church’s objection, but would allow every employer the opportunity to act as moral censors for their employees healthcare coverage. That’s not fearmongering, that’s fact, and if you’re a woman who cares about your reproductive rights, even your own health, this SHOULD be a cause for concern.

And though making blacks slaves again is not on any mainstream agenda (I never said it was, why are you confused?) I do hear plenty of BS coming from right wing figures as to how blacks were better off under slavery, or how they were given everything, rather than being victims of the slave trade. I see my President’s face photoshopped into looking like a New Guinea Witch doctor, put on Obama Welfare Bucks with fried chicken, among other things, on them.

The image with Watermelons in fields in front of the White House is just textbook racism, literally! I wasn’t even aware of that stereotypes existence since college, and these racists who promoted it actually were old school enough to employ that!

As for Romney not paying any taxes? Well, that might not literally be true, but can you dispute he pays a lot less in proportion to his income than many of us out there do?

This despite the fact that he is capable of paying more taxes, without dimming the bright light of luxury in his life? What he saves on taxes, in many cases, could pay my salary for a year. Somehow, because he is this member of the economic elite, he gets to bear a lighter burden.

What kind of country is this, where we give the lightest burdens to those with the greatest power and wealth?

No functioning society can ask more of those who can afford less, and less of those who can afford more, and remain functioning for long. The load must be supported on those who can manage the weight, or the system will collapse.

I am not lying, and many of the words you cite as such aren’t mine, or aren’t even those of most real Democrats.

John Johnson-
Objectivity. How many of the things you claim come out of the poisoned well you claim not to drink from?

You are nowhere near objective. You talk about the bills that Reid won’t bring up, but many of those are poison pills, bills that are about as close to compromise as I am to Alpha Centauri. Republicans bitch and moan about the fact that their bills are not passed, after blocking eighty percent of our legislation on similar grounds. Except even the Catholic Church finds the social consequences of the Ryan Budget, one of those so-called jobs bills, to be too radical for them.

I mean, gutting the EPA, requiring that regulations not hurt corporate profits? This isn’t the Republicans offering Democrats attractive compromises and being rejected, this is the Republicans deliberately lying to people like you to create a false equivalence.

We do not have to rubberstamp bills to be bipartisan.

Where are the articles, by the way, that back your claims? If you’re going to insist on objectivity, where is the evidence that your views extend beyond merely your own opinion?

Objectivity is not perceiving both sides as equally bad. If they’re not, you’re not being objective, you’re just being artificially even-handed. Take Wall Street for example. Obama passed something. What’s the Republican’s response? Repeal it. Replace it with what? Who knows, they haven’t said, but their talk gives you the idea that they’ve got the old status quo in mind. Given the apologetics, for example, extended from Republicans to BP during the oil spill, the legislation is likely to be very business friendly, even if it naively assumes the best of those who just proved themselves lacking in credibility on the very subject.

You cannot celebrate the blocking of our legislation, and then ask why we didn’t legislate stronger stimuluses, stronger Wall Street Reform, and other stuff. The filibuster, by requiring every Democrat’s vote, even those of conservative members, meant that every bill that came through was markedly more conservative than it otherwise would have been.

If you want more reform, then hamstring the SOB’s that are getting in our way. Otherwise, they will keep on paralyzing this nation’s ability to change in the face of its challenges.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 5, 2012 3:59 PM
Comment #356479

I have called Stephen’s comments “dumbass comments” on several occasions. His post above is a good example why…they are dumbass comments. Nothing more than hashed and rehashed liberal talking points.

Example: “So, the GOP plays to two things, all at once: your fears, and your fantasies.”

But let’s come down to reality:

“Obama loses endorsement of nation’s first elected black governor…”

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/nov/04/wilder-chooses-not-endorse-president-ar-2335331/

“Wisconsin State Journal is latest of 33 newspapers to flip endorsement from Obama in ’08 to Romney for president”

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/194160/wisconsin-state-journal-endorses-romney-latest-paper-to-flip-from-obama-in-08/

“Obama Hit By Storm Backlash

By Dick Morris on November 3, 2012

Natural disasters usually follow the same political trajectory: First the incumbent experiences a bounce as he tours the impacted area, shows his concern, and pledges help to his beleaguered constituents. But then reality sets in and the shortages, delays, mishaps, deaths, and devastation becomes apparent and people turn against the incumbent.

George W. Bush had his Katrina.

And now Barack Obama has his Sandy.”

http://www.dickmorris.com/

“Here’s a video calling attention to how President Obama abandoned those who are recovering from Hurricane Sandy to go back on the campaign trail:”

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-sandy-victims-beg-help_660345.html

“Romney’s crowds are building—28,000 in Morrisville, Pa., last night; 30,000 in West Chester, Ohio, Friday It isn’t only a triumph of advance planning: People came, they got through security and waited for hours in the cold. His rallies look like rallies now, not enactments. In some new way he’s caught his stride. He looks happy and grateful. His closing speech has been positive, future-looking, sweetly patriotic. His closing ads are sharp—the one about what’s going on at the rallies is moving.

All the vibrations are right. A person who is helping him who is not a longtime Romneyite told me, yesterday: “I joined because I was anti Obama—I’m a patriot, I’ll join up But now I am pro-Romney.” Why? “I’ve spent time with him and I care about him and admire him. He’s a genuinely good man.” Looking at the crowds on TV, hearing them chant “Three more days” and “Two more days”—it feels like a lot of Republicans have gone from anti-Obama to pro-Romney.

Something old is roaring back. One of the Romney campaign’s surrogates, who appeared at a rally with him the other night, spoke of the intensity and joy of the crowd “I worked the rope line, people wouldn’t let go of my hand.” It startled him. A former political figure who’s been in Ohio told me this morning something is moving with evangelicals, other church-going Protestants and religious Catholics. He said what’s happening with them is quiet, unreported and spreading: They really want Romney now, they’ll go out and vote, the election has taken on a new importance to them.

There is no denying the Republicans have the passion now, the enthusiasm. The Democrats do not. Independents are breaking for Romney. And there’s the thing about the yard signs. In Florida a few weeks ago I saw Romney signs, not Obama ones. From Ohio I hear the same.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2012/11/05/monday-morning/

This is what is happening in America. The left thought the evangelicals would never vote for Obama because he was a Mormon. Hhahaha; the evangelicals have been supporting Romney and will vote for him. There are several out now who are not just calling for a Romney win, but a Romney blowout. I predict again, he will take over 300 electorial votes. Obama is finished. This bullshit that Stephen and the rest of these socialist are trying to spread on WB is a joke. Stephen wants to act like some intellect who has the inside scoop on what America wants. I can’t wait for tommorow…I can’t wait for the results…the media is going to be “shocked” and they will talk about the results as “unexpected”.

Posted by: Frank at November 5, 2012 4:02 PM
Comment #356480

Frank,
Hate to tell you this, but Rasmussen moved to calling it an even race, while Pew shows O +3 and PPP shows O +2. MOst other polls call it O +1 or even, and composites give it to O +1. Have fun. I kinow I will. It looks like Obama with at least 303 electoral votes. I’ll give FL to him as well, and call it 332.

Will you be posting under another name after this in to avoid the embarrassment and humiliation of making so many foolish comments in print? Just wondering.

Posted by: phx8 at November 5, 2012 4:09 PM
Comment #356481

I put over 400 miles in Ohio on a motorcycle with my riding buddies this weekend

We traveled in towns and countryside and I have said this before and I know it’s not scientific; but there are almost no Obama/Biden signs, but we saw thousands of Romney/Ryan signs. We traveled through some of the southeast Ohio coal country, that has always been Democrat in the past; but there were signs calling for the firing of Obama as a coal miner hater. It was crazy, but they hate Obama as president.

Posted by: TomT at November 5, 2012 4:10 PM
Comment #356483

phx8, I will be glad to post under the same name; but I suggest you just keep drinking the skewd poll coolaid. Then tommorow night you can say, along with the press, “unexpected” and “shocking”. I guess tomorrow we will know who is embarrassed, humiliated, and foolish; but I stand by my predictions.

I think the American people are fed up with this lying SOB in the WH. If I am correct, it will mean you guys on the left have lived in the socialist bubble just a little too long.

Posted by: Frank at November 5, 2012 4:21 PM
Comment #356487

Stephen

“Among them: the notion that you’re not wrong, you don’t have to be uncertain, that your gut feelings never lie to you, that somebody else is responsible for your problems.” I spend most of my writing time on this blog trying to explain uncertainty to you guys. You just don’t get it.

The reason I believe in the market is that I understand that nobody can really plan far ahead because of uncertainty and limited information. You are the guys who think you know everything.

Why don’t we do this, we are almost at the end. There is no particular reason to be acrimonious for the next few months at least.

If your man wins, I will call it good. I know that you are not as generous as I am, but at least you may not be too partisan for a couple days.

Posted by: C&J at November 5, 2012 4:36 PM
Comment #356492

In the Senate, the Democrats are defending 21 seats, the GOP only 10, yet the polling composites show the Democrats with a gain of +2. That is remarkable.

The House remains a huge question mark. Currently it stands at 240 - 190 for the GOP. A 25 seat gain for the Democrats seems unlikely, but it could be very close to going over to the Dems.

Posted by: phx8 at November 5, 2012 5:19 PM
Comment #356493

Frank-
You must truly consider me a dumbass to bring those arguments to bear.

It’s not even been a week since Sandy, and many parts of New York and New Jersey that were without various services are now back online. Yes, there will still be delays and frustrations, but delays and frustrations are not enough by themselves to make a Katrina.

Isn’t it funny how conservatives like yourself talk about Liberals and Democrats repeating your mistakes, by way of trying to drag them down?

We’ll see what happens tomorrow.

But let me tell you something: for the past couple years, your people have fought furiously to restrict voting among groups, times and places that favor Democrats. You tell me: is this the behavior of a confident majority?

The extremity of the rhetoric tells us that the people behind that rhetoric are getting more and more convinced that they cannot make a calm, rational appeal to voters, and keep them enthusiastic.

You can see it in the pattern of things Romney refuses to talk about, and the lies he refuses to back down from.

These are not people who think that the support of their movement comes naturally to people. These are people who have, for the past few years, expended great effort, for comparatively small gains. Obama now stands a better than eighty-five percent chance of winning the Presidency.

And it’s Obama who’s more likely to pick up three hundred votes.

As for your socialist BS, why don’t you break out that old trusty word “commie”, or “pinko”? Since you would rather red-bait than respond to a real problem of reliability in our markets, you might as well show your bigotry towards me in its full archaic, misled glory.

As for this intellectual stuff?

What I would tell you is that I’m often focused on where people are most dissatisfied. If the hijinks in Washington was what people wanted, they’d be giving Congress Higher marks, and they did, if you noticed, during the Lame Duck session of 2010. Why?

Because folks got crap done. 2010 might back an argument that people are agnostic on who gets it done, just as long as it gets done. But your people have spent the past several years not only failing to get things done, but being an active hindrance to anybody else, and the numbers reflect a profound reaction against that.

And what are your intellectual arguments? Is there as single neutral source there? Your arguments all seem to be that Republicans are excited and motivated. But the real question is not only who shows up, but what the proportions are between your side and mine. If all your people show up, and all mine do, too, but my side has grown? You’re screwed. The polls indicate, even with the unreliable likely voter screens, that Obama is ahead, and if they are underestimating turn out, it won’t be pretty.

We’ll see what happens. But do me a favor: this time, don’t ascribe a loss, if it happens, to ACORN, to Sandy, or some other scapegoat. Don’t claim fraud. Just accept, for once, that your side alienated too many, and gained the support of too few.

Oh, and tell me what this fine citizen is telling voters. If you don’t know who he is, you should.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 5, 2012 5:28 PM
Comment #356494

Phx8: “It looks like Obama with at least 303 electoral votes. I’ll give FL to him as well, and call it 332.”

I’m going a simple route still, hanging my hopes on MI, WI, OH, PA. Obama’s at 50% or near 50% in all four states now, and ahead by 3% or more in the RCP average. Toss Nevada in there and Romney’s goose is cooked. But if OH takes too long to count there’s always Iowa, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Virginia that Obama could win instead. Cue the Mr. T line from Rocky III: My prediction for the GOP? Pain.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 5, 2012 5:33 PM
Comment #356495

Mr. Daugherty provides many sentences to which I can object but I will just choose this one…

“What he (Romney) saves on taxes, in many cases, could pay my salary for a year.”

Does SD really believe that taxing the rich more will put money in his pocket? Please explain.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2012 5:48 PM
Comment #356497

We traveled in towns and countryside and I have said this before and I know it’s not scientific; but there are almost no Obama/Biden signs, but we saw thousands of Romney/Ryan signs. Well I live in Missouri and I see very few Romney signs but I have no illusion that Obama will win the state so your observation means very little.

Posted by: Jeff at November 5, 2012 6:13 PM
Comment #356498

Is Missouri a battleground state?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2012 6:17 PM
Comment #356500

So, Stephen’s argument for an Obama defeat is that Romney wong by restricting the votes, “But let me tell you something: for the past couple years, your people have fought furiously to restrict voting among groups, times and places that favor Democrats. You tell me: is this the behavior of a confident majority?”

Of course, what Stephen fails to know is that Rush Limbaugh predicted the polls would show Obama ahead and when the election was a “shock” or “unexpected” loss for Obama, the left would begin to cry, “the election was stolen”. How could Romney win, when the polls showed him so far ahead??? Stephen Daugherty has begun his protest one day early. Evidently Stephen didn’t get the memo to not protest until after the election.

Posted by: Frank at November 5, 2012 6:22 PM
Comment #356502

RF Missouri is about as far removed from a swing state as Mississippi.

Posted by: Jeff at November 5, 2012 6:31 PM
Comment #356503

Jeff, perhaps you have missed some of my other posts. I have repeatedly said I travel extensively around Ohio and see only a few Obama yard signs compared to Romney signs. I also stated that 4 years ago there were Obama Hope and Change signs everywhere. Do you travel across the state of MO or are you just in St. Louis? You must be in St. Louis, because the rest of the state is Republican and evangelical.

I am the first to admit this is not scientific, but it is an observation.

Posted by: TomT at November 5, 2012 6:31 PM
Comment #356508

Jeff, I wouldn’t expect a myriad of campaign signs in a state that was firmly in one or the other camp.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2012 6:44 PM
Comment #356514

Royal Flush-
The real point, which you missed entirely is what’s called marginal utility. Romney is saving a great deal in taxes, but if he didn’t would he be as sorely effected as I would be if I lost, say, 20 or 30 dollars a check?

He would not.

But here’s the thing, the thing your leaders don’t have the decency to tell you: the cost of those tax cuts, if Romney has his way, gets dumped on us, sooner or later. And it will hurt us, more than it will hurt him. And people like him are a small, small minority.

So you tell me: make life easier for a few men and women like Romney, and harder for most of us, or make things a little tougher on Romney, and easier for more people.

There use to be a sense that the fortunate should help the less fortunate. Does that make more sense in reverse?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 5, 2012 7:06 PM
Comment #356516

Behind Morris’ Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213

Read more at http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/20121106009-morris-prediction-last.html#eqmLeB8EmOibxBZt.99

Posted by: Frank at November 5, 2012 7:21 PM
Comment #356517

TomT as far south as perryville and as far west as Lebanon. Areas that are very republican. In Lebanon where my parents lived until moving to Texas last year still had McCain signs up crazy. I disagree with the lack of signs Missouri people are very political it may have something to do with Akin he is pretty disgusting.

Posted by: Jeff at November 5, 2012 7:45 PM
Comment #356518

So you tell me: make life easier for a few men and women like Romney, and harder for most of us, or make things a little tougher on Romney, and easier for more people.

There use to be a sense that the fortunate should help the less fortunate. Does that make more sense in reverse?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 5, 2012 7:06 PM

SD, your liberal writing has revealed, once again, your socialist leanings. Romney is not advocating what you suggest. Simply because you say or believe something doesn’t make it true.

Nowhere in our founding documents is there even a hint that government is charged with helping the less fortunate by taking from the more fortunate.

You keep writing about what you believe is “right”, “fair”, and “just”, but never about what our founders intended. Every time I bring this up you weasel out and parse about the Constitution being a living document and one that must change to reflect current times and reality. You hang your whole rotten political philosophy on disparaging the men who founded our Republic.

There is nothing old fashioned, or unrealistic in the words our founders wrote about the intentions of the government they created and envisioned.

Simply because you believe you should have more and someone else less is obnoxious, disgusting, and shameful. You continue to believe that opportunity and accumulation of wealth in this country is a zero-sum game. It is definitely not.

What our labor and minds create for ourselves does not belong to you or to government. We do not work and achieve at your expense and we feel no obligation to reward you for underachievement. Those unable to work and achieve will receive our support…others must learn to depend upon themselves. This is what our founders intended and what I believe will never be outdated. I absolutely despise your socialist manifesto.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2012 7:46 PM
Comment #356520

Stephen Daugherty is all giddy with obama’s statement about successful people when he said…”you didn’t build it” that he is pissing in his pants to participate in the hard work of others.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2012 7:55 PM
Comment #356522

Until all of you accept that both parties are screwed up and catering to Big Money,we will not be moving off high center. Forget about who started which war, who gave money to private companies destined to fail, who wants to continue tax breaks for the rich, or who wants to create jobs that are civil instead of private sector, we will not move forward. It’s two 600 pound gorillas pushing against each other, and going anywhere. You are part of the problem. Get your mind around it. Decide whether or not there is common ground and be prepared to compromise. Until we all come to this realization, we are going to spin down deeper into the abyss. This is fact.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 5, 2012 8:06 PM
Comment #356539

Royal Flush-
You always argue in perjoratives. What is wrong with wanting things right, wanting things fair, wanting things just? People like you wave the Declaration of independence around, and forget to read the long laundry list of complaints that the patriots had, and their basic argument that a government that does not do well by its people has to be exchanged for one that does.

Should the system be rigged for those already wealthy, already powerful?

As for what Romney suggests, who do you think the main targets of his cuts are? You think he’ll take from oil companies, or the job creators? You think he’ll have the spine to tell their lobbyists no on which deductions remain, and which don’t? His rhetoric in that 47% is the evidence you choose to ignore, to the detriment of your argument.

As for your assessment of my assessment, it sounds like you just read from your canned list of anti-liberal sentiments. It’s a shame you don’t think much of the concept of properly interpreting the constitution as it is, to cover current circumstances. To say that the Constitution is living is no more an insult to its solidity than to say an Oak or a Sequoia is living. Living things can keep basic structures intact, while the branches and the leaves grow from the trunk differently to suit each season.

It’s only common sense to interpret the law in a manner that suits the current circumstances.

Now you can pitch your vile slander, and content yourself to believe that you are the sole defender of the Constitution between the two of us, but I personally think that’s a bunch of BS, and I think we have an easy way to figure out that the framers thought it was Bushwa, too.

See, they founded a court system. If everything is just nicely and neatly laid out in a literal text that must be altered in order to be enforced differently, then you have something like France has, the Napoleonic code. That’s not our tradition of law. You don’t just read our laws out and have them pronounce what is good or bad, we read between the lines as well.

A system like ours can only remain simple if interpretation carries some of the weight of complexity. Otherwise law and constitutions become endless bureaucratic morasses.

As for zero sum games? Bull. If you’ve read what I actually wrote, you would know that I believe that there are way to run an economy that benefit everybody, arrangements where both sides get value for their expenses.

More tomorrow.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2012 12:05 AM
Comment #356581

Grazie per aver condiviso questo aiuta a liberare, è molto interessante leggere la pena, mi piace il tuo stile di scrittura, romperlo. Mantenere il rilascio di queste informazioni.

Posted by: www.monclermilano.net at November 6, 2012 4:14 AM
Comment #356594

John Johnson-
I have had it up to here with people who believe that if we somehow blame everybody equally, that will solve things. My philosophy is that you find the better candidate, the better party, and you stick with them until something better comes long. I went through eight years of Bush because somebody thought Gore would simply be equivalent.

But he wasn’t. Bush took a pathway I don’t think Gore would plausibly have done.

I will make my choice. It may not be a perfect choice, but since when has our political system offered us perfect choices? Waiting for a perfect choice is letting somebody else make your choice for you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2012 7:31 AM
Comment #356601

You are a loon, Stephen. You affix no blame to your hero. He truly is the messiah in your eyes. He is without sin. How wonderful it must be in your make believe world. La la, la la, la……

Posted by: John Johnson at November 6, 2012 8:33 AM
Comment #356606

John Johnson-
Look, there are mistakes I think he made, and opportunities he missed. He thought the Republicans would take the hint people were giving them in 2008, and they didn’t. He thought the economic situation was better than it actually was. And he’s the first to admit mistakes, unlike his opponent. He’s not perfect, and I’ve never claimed he was.

My constant drumbeat is that he’s better, that he has done great things, done his job better than his predecessor. I don’t need perfection, I don’t need a Messiah. I don’t need a make-believe world like you do to take a chance on a man who can’t even keep a consistent point of view!

Look, do you think you’re the first conservative to throw nasty words my way? You think you’re moving things in any direction? You concede much by buying into the Republican BS, even as you claim independence. Your independence just seems to be a means for you to hold other opinions than party orthodoxy, but because you support the hardline politicians who run the GOP, the real-world effect of your independence is that nothing changes, nothing broadens, or becomes more objective in the GOP.

The GOP has to start losing badly to realize that it’s not as well supported in its ideas as it thinks it is. But you’re unwilling to separate yourself from the propaganda that makes Democrats and others look like unacceptable alternatives.

You play right into the hands of those you wish to be distant and independent from. You aren’t truly objective, because if you were, you could separate yourself from the controls that keep you supporting the GOP in elections, and spouting their rhetoric in debates.

Me, I’m not that conflicted about where I am, and who I support. I don’t need him to be a messiah. I’m happy for him to be one of those candidates that comes along once in a generation, and changes the way people look at things.

You need me to be irrational, but my support for Obama came from the fact that I saw in him an ability to be politically creative, to take a problem solver’s attitude towards policy, not just a politician’s attitude.

One of this most important policy successes came because he was willing to buck public opinion to prevent an economic catastrophe from occuring in the auto industry. By doing that, he may have, by solving problems, not merely playing the political odds, got himself re-elected.

And that’s what I like about him.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2012 10:15 AM
Comment #356609

Stephen

The Constitution was meant to be the solid foundation of a government that would last, not the “starting point” to morph into something entirely different.


You are like a scribe or a pharisee. You measure the length of a cord, but you do not understand that the Constitution was meant to be the starting point for letting Americans decide things for themselves, putting initial constraints on what the Federal government could do, but also making clear it’s powers, and giving it the authority to carry things out.

As you very well know but willfullly choose to ignore, proper change is only effective when rules are followed. Stripping one person of their rights in order to give another newly created rights, is not proper, nor is it effective. 50% forcing their change onto 49% also is not effective.
The current divide your people have created is proof of that.

I have never said our Constitution does not allow change, but that change must be done as it says. This means respecting the rights of ALL individuals ahead of the desires of a few of you.
You do not get to strip rights by creating new “duties and obligations of the government.

“You need underlying reality as your touchstone instead.”

There is an “underlying reality” behind every personal agenda, because people use the fears and desires of some, to create it. That, is what is truly “problematic,” Stephen.
This is why it is so important that the rights of ALL are respected before anything else is considered. Working back from your personal desired goal is not how it was layed out.

“What is truth does not change, while what is said about truth, even in the plainest and deadest of words can always be reinterpreted into something else.”

Only by those of you who are not content with what the truth is.
You see Stephen, most people don’t really have a problem with your people thinking you have more wisdom than the founders when it comes to little things. The thing that really pisses people off is when you think you have more wisdom than them when it comes to our individual rights and governments role in our personal lives. When your people start making the excuse that ‘times are different now’ so we must re-interpret your individual rights and governments duties and obligations.
We don’t complain about this because we wish to “bar” you from any and all discussion, we do it because we do not agree that desires trump rights.

“As far as your charges, I would remind you that with abortion gone, would contraception be far behind?”

You know full well that a Republican President can not make abortion “gone” simply because he does not like it. Fear mongering lie.

“I mean, the GOP’s bill on the subject went far beyond just answering the Catholic Church’s objection, but would allow every employer the opportunity to act as moral censors for their employees healthcare coverage.”

Not true. Not fact. And it is a fearmongering lie.
Employers would have the right to choose what they pay for and if the employees are not satisfied with what their employer offers, they are free to get coverage they would be satisfied with.
As with most liberal policy, you are willing to strip the rights of one in order to satisfy your desire for another.

“if you’re a woman who cares about your reproductive rights, even your own health, this SHOULD be a cause for concern.”

Being responsible enough to choose your own health care does not in any way take away a womans rights.
If a woman really cares about her reproductive “rights,” then shouldn’t she be expected to responsible?

“And though making blacks slaves again is not on any mainstream agenda (I never said it was, why are you confused?)”

I am not confused. You take what some conservatives say or believe and apply it to all conservatives, so it is only fair to do the same.
Like it or not, the truth is that there is plenty of BS coming from BOTH sides and you BOTH try and use it to get votes. On this, you just choose to ignore the rhetoric about nazi’s, the klan, rednecks etc… because it is pointed towards those on the right.

“As for Romney not paying any taxes? Well, that might not literally be true, but can you dispute he pays a lot less in proportion to his income than many of us out there do?”

He pays as much as you or anybody else with that kind of money would pay. If you don’t like how they pay, then change it. Don’t tell bold faced lies that he doesn’t pay taxes or that he somehow gets special treatment.

“This despite the fact that he is capable of paying more taxes, without dimming the bright light of luxury in his life?”

I do not know or care about how much he or anyone else pays in taxes. And it is not me who should determine what kind of lifestyle he should have.

“What he saves on taxes, in many cases, could pay my salary for a year. Somehow, because he is this member of the economic elite, he gets to bear a lighter burden.”

As do other millionaires, but I never hear you complain about their money.
But to be honest here, they do pay a higher burden. What you are upset about is how income is defined, right?

“What kind of country is this, where we give the lightest burdens to those with the greatest power and wealth?”

What kind of country is this, where we care more about a persons money than we care about their rights?

“…The load must be supported on those who can manage the weight, or the system will collapse.”

Our problem is the “load,” NOT who supports it.

Posted by: kctim at November 6, 2012 11:12 AM
Comment #356616

I am no Republican, kiddo. Get that through your noggin. I am a moderate conservative independent and I do vote for Dem’s, Repub’s and Libertarians alike. In the most hotly contested senate seat in this election in my state, I voted for the Democrat. My guess is that you vote a straight Dem ticket. Most lemmings do. They vote to make their party stronger instead of making the country stronger.

Call Bush whatever you want to ….blame him for everything. I don’t care. I will agree with you on some of it…but don’t keep telling me how wonderful O is, because facts show otherwise. He is a lazy, egotistical loner who has hoodwinked half the people in the u.s. into loving him.

O is going to go down as one of the worst Presidents ever. The one who screwed our children and our grandchildren. Mark my word.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 6, 2012 11:26 AM
Comment #356626

John Johnson-
If you’re so bloody objective, you would realize that most of the stuff you’ve heard about Obama is BS. Most of it is unfounded in the facts. I can name the reasons why Obama is good, and Bush is bad, and why many of the headwinds Obama has struggled against comes from the last president, and also the Republican Congressmen and Congresswomen who continue to do what they can to freeze Bush’s status quo in place.

I want a stronger America. But I can’t see how electing Romney or any Republican, at this point, does it. Yes, they’ll talk our ears off about how they’re better stewards of the economy, better stewards of fiscal discipline, but where’s the bloody evidence of that?

I don’t blame Bush for everything, but I don’t think you realize just how badly he screwed things up, how long it’s going to take to recover from his policies

Republicans are trying to blame the crash on Big Government, and the slowness to recover on Obama. Never mind what makes this recession different, in boths structure and effect.

Worse yet, if you look ahead, their little contribution to the fiscal horizon is the fiscal cliff, which looks like it could tip us into another recession, or at least slow our growth. It will definitely kill a lot of jobs, both private and public sector.

Do you oppose that? Do you oppose policies that work counterproductively if they work at all?

You call me a lemming, but who is blindly rushing towards the edge of a fiscal cliff, unwilling to see that what America needs right now isn’t drastic spending cuts. They didn’t help England, they haven’t cured greece or Spain, and Portugal and Ireland’s economies are groaning under the burden.

Political fashion should not be running our policy, practical experience should be. We should acknowledge what the real world economy is telling us works wells, and what it’s telling us isn’t, instead of just pushing political dogma.

You’re just following somebody’s political propaganda, and congratulating yourself for being objective because you’re listening to both sides. But I long ago learned that many of these allegations are false, so my sense of what’s objective, based on facts, told me I shouldn’t give it equal weight, that I should in fact not allow it to be part of my balance of thought. Reason, not some arbitrary credulity towards both sides, should determine how we weigh the given situations.

kctim-
America’s government was always meant to change with it. If the framers had wanted tradition and implacable structure, they would have had a monarchy; libertarian states rights excess, they would have stuck with what they had.

But they didn’t want either. They didn’t want a decentralized mess of a nation that couldn’t get its act together, however much it pleased the locals. Nor did they want the rigid, unyielding order of a monarchy or similar such system.

What they wanted was a system that balanced people’s freedom and the authority of the states and local governments against a sufficiently powerful central government.

A mix, in other words. And that mix has changed over time, in order to deal with an ever more complex and well populated world, in order to deal with a nation that’s gone from being mainly frontier to being mainly civilized.

This is no longer the world it was, and it would be absolutely stupid to govern it as if it were.

You want to throw that crap at me, about how I hate freedom and such? Screw that. I have a different point of view. I want a balance between freedom and law, between the order that is necessary to keep a nation working together, and society functioning, and the more chaotic elements necessary to keep it alive and prosperous.

But you don’t listen to me! You don’t! You have this stereotype in mind, and you never even seek to see whether you have common ground with me. Those conversations could be interesting.

Right now, though, you seem to be intent on waging this nutty kind of moral crusade against me, having pegged me as an enemy.

No working form of government can rule a nation without getting in somebody’s way. Intervention requires the possibility that somebody’s interests become undermined.

As for what I think? I do the best I can. I know I have limits. Here’s the thing, though: it has to make sense to me. I have to understand why it might be a better, or at least workable policy. If I can’t see that, if my experience tells me that it hasn’t worked, I’m not going to mince words. I will oppose what I believe doesn’t work or isn’t true in favor of what does work, and what is true.

That’s my “heuristic”, my decision making process. That’s why I supported the Healthcare Reform bill, despite a number of disappointing compromises. That’s why I supported negotiating with the Republicans, when I thought that would yield some support from them. That’s why I opposed the so-called “jobs bills” because I knew they were nothing of the sort. That’s why I oppose more tax cuts, because they didn’t really work out that well the last time.

I’m not that complicated. A working solution scores better with me than a politically orthodox theory.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2012 1:27 PM
Comment #356628

Stephen, you’re showing your ass again. I don’t base my opinions on just what I hear.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 6, 2012 2:06 PM
Comment #356664

John Johnson-
If I were showing my ass, you would know it. Birds would drop from the sky and innocent bystanders would turn to stone. ;-)

Seriously, though, do you mean to say you base your politics on all the things you experience first hand in Washington, and around the world? You must get around a lot.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2012 6:49 PM
Comment #359355

gonzalez gets boot from patriots

[The] Patriots obviously felt Anderson was a part-time player (47 percent of the snaps), The Bills, who rewarded him with a generous four-year, $27,5 million contract with $8 million fully guaranteed, view him as www.gamejerseyshop.us closer to a full-time option. If the Patriots signed Anderson to that contract, it would have been their only pact longer than three years this offseason while also making him the third-highest paid player on defense behindVince Wilforkand Jerod Mayo.

Posted by: dian at December 24, 2012 3:03 AM
Comment #378775

Great blog and I love what you have to say and I think I will tweet this out to my friends so they can check it out as well. I like what you have to say Pollen and Bleu | Pollen & Bleu | Rivertrees Residences | Rivertrees | coco palms pasir ris | coco palms | coco palms condo | the rise @ oxley | the rise @ oxley residences | rise @ oxley | handbags | handbags Singapore | ladies bags excellent article.

Posted by: the rise @ oxley residences at May 25, 2014 12:45 AM
Post a comment