Democrats & Liberals Archives

Ah, that's gratitude for ya.

After several years of doing his best to obstruct the Obama Administration, and impress Republican voters, they dumped him for a Tea Partier named David Brat. So, as is appropriate for the New Republican Congress, Conservative dogma and theory has overtaken practice and perspective on history. Well, Eric, you should have seen this coming.

From my point of view, and the view of many Americans, Cantor and the Tea Party aren't too far apart. Cantor and others, in fact, pushed much of the hard right stuff of the last two Congresses. He was part and parcel of the whole effort to obstruct the Obama Administration's legislative efforts, and one of Obama's key opponents in the Debt Ceiling negotiations back in 2011.

So, my position might be, "Really, he's not conservative enough for you?"

I really am not going to complain if your pickiness about who you to nominate people for House or Senate Seats, for the Presidency, leads you to pick people that are everything you love, especially since what you love seems to be more esoteric than what it once was. More power to my people. The perverse thing about the last four years is that time and again Democrats have won not because we were positioned ideally, or because all our politicians just became perfect Democrats, but because Republicans kept on trying to prove, with rather narrowly appealing candidates, that their movements righteousness and appeal could overcome any controversy.

If all I cared about was the politics, I think I could wait this rabid right out. Unfortunately policy matters to me, and these increasingly impractical and ideologically overbearing people are leaving great big furrows of damaged wall on their way out of the building.

Whenever I bash Republicans for how lazy their Congresses are, or the obstruction of the President's agenda (Congresses full of record-breaking filibusters, one of which drew to a head recently with the nuclear option on appointees), they point to these groups of bills they call jobs bills.

If you're thinking direct funding of things like infrastructure or green energy, or even job training, tax breaks for hiring or any of that, well, think again.

The one thing that might create jobs, would basically increase the number of people who are invited from other countries to work here! The rest is pretty much "Trust us, if you deregulate Wall Street, let polluters off the hook, and give more tax cuts to the rich, the economy will improve, and then the hiring will commense."

In other words, Republicans put forward bills that no Democrat in their right mind would want on their record, and they knew that when they submitted the bills. It was simply meant to be red meat, to look like legitimate jobs bills to those who already believe the party dogma. But they weren't anything of the kind in intent or effect, just more of the same thing that Republicans were doing before the economy collapsed, in the employment doldrums of the Bush years.

In fact, if we're talking about much of the rest of the legislative agenda of the Republican House, that is exactly where much of it was meant and/or expected to go. If it never has to come to pass, if it never will come to pass, then you can go hog-wild on things, ignore the logistics, ignore the actual track records of such measures. Just throw your constituents red meat.

Trouble is, as you rationalize the red meat, you begin to define down its deviancy, if only for yourselves. While everybody else looks and sees something unworkable, and you yourself suggest it knowing it won't go over, your media and your viewers begin to push this stuff as policy as it should be, as policy that must be passed, and finally as policy your people are too weak to pass.

The evolution of fantasy into expectation, of nice-to-have into must-have litmus tests crushes the range of options open to conservative politicians, media groups, and institutions. They've taken an idea not dissimilar to Goldwater's "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." to heart, with the result that their base greets any compromise, on any level, with disproportionate scorn. Folks aren't thinking, "With Obama in charge of the White House, and Democrats in charge of the Senate, it's not practical to expect these things to pass. We need to compromise."

No, it's "If anybody compromises or acknowledges a critical point of view, it's treason with the enemy."

So, when, say, The NRA begins to show some common sense to the general public, recognizing that open carry advocates are undermining public support, and forcing businesses to take a open stance against what gun owners are doing, the base get furious with the NRA! A retraction is forced.

Of course, this doesn't come out of left field, this extremism. The NRA encouraged it, through years of telling these people that there's this massive liberal conspiracy to take their guns. You have people thinking that any concession or capitulation to gun control leads down the slippery slope to the Third Reich.

The consequence of such overwrought, overheated rhetoric is that you have a bunch of people either scared or outraged out of their wits. Everything is the worst thing ever. Every mistake Obama makes or they can appear to make is hyped up, even to the point of calling for his impeachment and removal from office. Democrats and Liberals, and even Republicans who don't go far enough right get labelled as leftists, and not just leftists but Socialists and Communists.

When your philosophy is one of oppositions, you are a slave to your rival's changes of heart. If they compromise with you, you might not be able to accept the compromise. If they take up your policy or your philosophy, you might just end up rejecting your own to stay on the other side from them!

More important, though, is the social isolation.

When everything is at such high stakes, when disloyalty must be punished severly, the impure cast aside, inevitably the body of the movement using such paranoid ideology must start tearing pieces from itself, something that will get worse as each faction of the party, which inevitably has its various groups, define themselves as the one pure set of Republicans. It's a sign of the times, of the degree to which this has mutated, that the phrase "Chamber of Commerce Republican" has been applied, and not as a good thing. That with the Chamber of Commerce being much of the force behind the Tea Party's rise!

But why did they turn on them? Because the Chamber of Commerce started supporting other candidates, after having seen Republicans lose too many races on their account, or alternatively, create too much economic havoc, something an institution that represent businesses can't have, can it?

Having created this monster, the Republicans can no longer control it, even if it's just to win elections. They live in fear of the monster, live in fear of the consequences of its radicalism. How many votes for Republican-favorable compromises have Tea Partiers rejected, forcing Boehner and the others to avail themselves of Democratic votes in order to pass Budgets, debt ceiling increases, and other necessary business? By crippling a key part of their majority, the Republicans have often been forced to create an ad hoc majority with Democrats in order to pass things, or to even shift most of he votes over to Democrats.

Ironically, this is probably closer to what the Framers wanted than what the Tea Partiers would allow. The Framers were not big fans of political parties, and imagined factions in the legislature entering into ad hoc alliances in order to pass stuff that was in their common interest. Rather than have one faction dictate terms to everybody, they would have the other factions join together to do the will of the majority in America. It's interesting that those votes happened on things like the Debt Ceiling, that in effect a majority of Americans, as represented, rejected that suicidal policy position across party lines.

Parties represent only one cross section of possible majorities. By making everything so partisan, the GOP's created a rather unusual, artificial condition in American history, denying much of America's political will the chance to be expressed.

The Tea Party's ascent was created by the GOP as a way to latch onto public distrust and disappointment in government, public anxiety about the economy, and turn it into energy for a campaign to retake the government from the Democrats. It worked... up to a point. It's inherent weakness and it's inherent strength are the same: the concentration of hard-charging conservatism, oblivious, if not hostile to outside criticism and constraint, and dead-set on fulfilling the fantasies about policies that Conservatives had long stoked within their base.

Eric Cantor and the rest of Republicans wanted the Tea Party as a battering ram of a sort, an energized front of angry, outraged, fearful Conservative loyalists who could not be turned from their cause by offers of compromise from the Democrats, especially from Obama. They got what they wanted! Only problem is, such pure ideology, such concentrated, unreachable partisanship rarely cares to be told to sit down and work and play well with others. Like your average spoiled brat, they've never learned how to get what they want by working with others. They want to be self-sufficient, the whole affair, and suddenly they find the parents of their movement telling them to sit down, be quiet.

They rightly guess that they were being used, and that if they want to get their way, they've got to kill off their political parents. And so they do, replacing old familiar figures with new faces that say strange things. Maybe it flies in mainly conservative places, but in much of America, the ungrateful successors of the Republican establishment are a weird, alienating species of conservative, and as they damage and destroy and disavow the very political organizations that backstopped their party's power for the longest time, the Tea Party succeeds in defeating the Republican Party more thoroughly than the Democrats ever could on their own.

That's gratitude for you.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2014 8:37 PM
Comments
Comment #379367

LOL…I will say that Daugherty can spin among the best of the left. Conservatives are bold enough to root out the liberal loving part of the party. We don’t want more liberalism, more and bigger government, more job harming regulations, and more wasteful spending.

His analysis is way off the mark in judging the American people. Ronald Reagan bucked the party big-wigs and we had 25 years of prosperity. Even democrats voted for Reagan in huge numbers.

Reagan defeated Carter and Mondale. And, he did it with a conservative message. A majority of Americans still love the message, we merely must find a conservative message giver.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 13, 2014 6:21 PM
Comment #379370

Royal Flush-
First, just how much better were Reagan’s job numbers? Net, Reagan only totaled about 15 million jobs, part of which was due to a recession, the worst post-depression one until Bush’s last, where unemployment exceeded Obama’s worst numbers by almost a full percentage point, and remained above 10% for ten months. In essence, it’s a wash. If Reagan’s first term had been Carter’s second, instead, then they would have had about equal job growth, total!

Thing is, my generation and I lived through the consequences of Reagan’s policies, and Bush’s (both of them), so we’ve got experience of what Conservative policies are like, and not terribly positive at that. Deficits did not get better when taxes were cut, and neither did economies.

The spin is yours. Truth is, you folks are running after political perfection, and forgeting that at its heart, politics is a social enterprise. Reagan was willing to compromise to gain converts, didn’t need to turn people all the way Conservative. You folks? You’re glad to see anybody who isn’t far right, go, but you can’t do that, then turn around and expect Reagan’s numbers.

Too many people try to repeat Reagan’s results, without his charm, without his ability to reach across the aisle, without his ability to avoid awkward five-o-clock shadow moments.

Worse yet, you’ve emptied your back bench of really thinkers, in no small part because they don’t tend to stay firmly planted in ideologically stasis, or stick around in Congress for endless gridlock. You drain your party of political creativity in your effort to purge it of dissenters and impure souls.

I got news for you: you can’t have a party all to yourself and keep winning elections. You have to be willing to share political alliances beyond your inner circles. You can’t, and won’t, convert everybody to your cause.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2014 7:22 PM
Comment #379372

You can’t, and won’t, convert everybody to your cause.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2014 7:22 PM

Really? Find me some folks, other than the hard left, that believes American is doing well under the heavy liberal hand of obama and his yes men/women.

You admit that you are all about politics and alliances. We are about conservative constitutional values that have served the nation well.

Our message resonates with people, your message divides people.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 13, 2014 7:29 PM
Comment #379466

Royal Flush-
You know, I could show you hundreds of comments, and whole polls, and you would just say, those people are all hard left. You have no mature mechanism here for accepting that people with different opinions are not your enemies much less your nation’s

I recently listened to a podcast about anesthesia. Funny thing about what they said about what happens when some body goes under: these big, regular waves of electrical activity start going over the brain, washing over all the parts. The theory is, this might serve to disrupt communications between parts, which in the waking human brain are always in communication with one another. Oh, the parts still work, still buzz with their activity, but they don’t buzz back and forth between each other. Without connection and communication, there is no consciousness.

Contrary to popular belief, Epilepsy isn’t a disease of disordered neural activity, but overly ordered. Rather than a responsive stream from the environment, feeding through the different responding areas of the brain, the brain is simply getting a meaningless, content free signal that’s washing over everything else, overwhelming communication and connections.

If your heartbeat, for example, is too orderly, you’ve got problems. A healthy heartbeat is a synchronized (mostly SELF-synchronized) chorus of different signals that help create a robust defense against instability.

I think politics works the same. You need some structure to keep things together, but if you demand too much conformity, and purity, you make your party fragile.

The Tea Party doesn’t solve that problem, it makes it worse.

My message is a simple one: the real world is what matters, not the political scorecards.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 14, 2014 11:27 PM
Comment #379468

I guess my previous comment was made at too late an hour, so let me clarify.

We would like to believe that there is some commonality between what people experience, that we have the same needs, the same aspirations, etc. Truth is, though, even if we do, that doesn’t mean conflict is automatically resolved if everybody just agree on something. Put two hungry men in a cell where there’s food for just one, and the commonality of what they desire doesn’t defuse the situation, IT CREATES IT!

Of course, they could fight each other for it. But does that necessarily improve things? Fighting takes energy, results in injuries. Developing an antagonistic relationship often results in insecurity, as your actions (and theirs in turn) make the situation less stable.

If you split the food between the two, maybe both are a bit hungrier, but both are fed somewhat, and don’t have to devote so much energy to guarding what they’ve got. Putting in check personal greed, ensuring that others are not desperately motivated to take from others, creates a more stable system.

Of course, the real world is more complex. The logic still stands, though. Forcing a more cutthroat competition for resources doesn’t necessarily protect those resources better. In fact, it can put them at greater risk, thanks to the fact that folks can’t prosper except at your expense. Make the fight a zero sum one and every interaction is a battle, one you could lose.

I think at a basic level, politics itself is meaningless, transactional, social activity. When politics becomes it’s own priority, that can be problematic, because politics is like any other system of thought and communication, vulnerable to mutations.

Let me take y’all aside on that part. It was once assumed that if you developed logic far enough, you could make a completely consistent system which had the ingredients for all possible true statements. What was discovered is that you could always turn such a system on itself, simply by taking advantage of the recursive nature of logic, the ability to fold logic into itself. This is Gödel’s theorem, essentially a liar’s paradox.

A statement like this gives you some idea of what that means:
“yields falsehood when quoted.” yields falsehood when quoted.

If the statement is true, it’s false. If it’s false, it’s true.

No matter how good your system is, logic alone cannot guarantee truth. You can’t create a system where the logic alone guarantees truthfulness. That naturally extends to much less formal, much more approximate, and much more probability based things like systems of political belief.

I believe that political systems that get taken too seriously, made too much into unquestionable gospel, do not actually endure as people hope, but instead mutate over time as both logic and people’s impulses towards different things motivate them to redefine things. Also, of course, experience tends to teach us things, right or wrong, that affect our choices. Even if we don’t realize it, even if we think that we’re rooted in the unassailable wisdom of old, we’re actually constantly changing things.

Not necessarily for the better. We see this past week that the GOP is apt to redefine what kind of soldiers they’d like to see come back home, rather than stick with a general policy of ensuring their return. We also see them having redefined what a Prisoner of war means, in regards to the five who we let go from gitmo, who were by all accounts more like POWs in both behavior and circumstances than the accused terrorists who were also caught up in that place.

A lot can get twisted when a political object is in mind, and the Right’s obsession with taking down Obama is doing the same to their principles, their ideas.

Me? for my money, it can’t just all be about the politics. We don’t do this dance for just any reason and the government wasn’t instituted by the framers to be a playground for people’s systems of logic. At the end of the day, government is what politics is meant to serve, not the other way around.

But what is government meant to serve? The glib answer is, the government is meant to serve the people. Of course, it gets more complicated than that. You don’t let somebody be king so they can eat, drink, and whore on your dime. You let somebody be king to enable defense of the realm, diplomacy with other political units, and conflict resolution as well.

Why didn’t we stick with kings? Because in the strange math of the masses, it’s easier for a sufficient number out of anonymous millions to decide they’ve made a mistake than to expect one man with the spotlight on them to do so. Rather than go nuts trying to change the mind of a permanent leader, we have the option, and in some cases the requirement to choose a new set of leaders every few years on election day.

It become important, then, why we choose those particular people, and I feel that the Tea Party represents conservative philosophy run away with itself, unmoored from practical reality. You say it’s about sticking to your principles, but principles have to be reliably mapped to both results and consequences, or otherwise those principles can end up becoming the feedstock for a lot of bad decisions

Take his whole debt ceiling thing. Tea Partiers actually go, “let it get hit!”, claiming it will stop the government from taking out more debt. Well, in actuality, it wouldn’t change the debt we already owe, just make getting out of the debt we already have, and dealing with the deficits we already have that much more problematic.

Saddam certainly deserved both to be deposed, and to die, and Iraqis certainly deserve to govern themselves, accorded all the rights we are granted as Americans. However, the way we did ultimately led to how we end up in the current situation.

The Tea Party represents a reaction to all the well-intentioned failures of the right over the last couple decades that argues that what the GOP or Conservative movement needs to do is go further into it’s own philosophy, disregarding any exterior forces that might tempt them away from dedication to those principles. However, not only are the leaders of this movement fringe, and represent some questionable points of view, even by GOP standards, but the policy prescriptions are intensifications of policies that already went wrong under the GOP.

What makes it worse is that the Tea Party’s managed to take over the GOP in terms of both recruitment and in terms of policing its ideology. So rather than be a party that could adapt to new realities, it’s even less adaptable than ever before.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 15, 2014 9:44 AM
Comment #379470

For someone who thinks that the tea party movement has lost it all, SD sure is concerned about a vibrant movement. He has lost it all in his assumptions concerning the movement.

Posted by: tom humes at June 15, 2014 10:50 AM
Comment #379518

tom humes-
What I believe is that when the Tea Party takes the wrong side of an issue, it is even less able than most institutions to adapt in order to come out better in that situation. That is why, despite the supposed power of the group, it’s lost the last two election, and if it wins the next, it will only be by virtue of a Senate Election slate that favors red states. The next election will be far less kind in the senate to Republicans.

Again and again, your people have lost elections you shouldn’t have, which otherwise would have been easy for Republicans, or competitive, at least. Harry Reid and Claire McCaskill has this phenomena on the right to thank for that.

In he end, there are sustainable enterprises, and there are unsustainable ones, and the Tea Party, with it’s reckless indifference to the interests of anybody else, their hatred of compromise, can only win if they win everything. And even then, what will make that situation any different from 2004?

The Tea Party, in fact, is as powerful as it is because the GOP became weak in contrast to the Democrats. Only in that weakness could the fringe get this far. But their promises are hollow, in the end, because to please them, the GOP has to forsake all of the most important growing demographics.

Short term gain, long term loss.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 15, 2014 1:12 PM
Comment #379540

Gotta love how the Republicans of yesterday have become the “fringe” of today. Love it even more when used by people claiming the country has moved to the right.

Posted by: kctim at June 16, 2014 1:24 PM
Comment #379543

Dauagherty is a great believer in “go along to get along”. But, that is only true when the left is in charge. He stands for nothing that involves individual freedom, and Constitutional mandates and restraints on government. He obviously leans toward group rights over individual rights. His logic dictates that money can fix anything. Not his money, our money.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 16, 2014 5:01 PM
Comment #379544

Well, one things for sure Royal, IF the country is lucky enough to not get another liberal in 2016, we should have a fun time pointing out all the hypocrisy.

Posted by: kctim at June 16, 2014 5:04 PM
Comment #379545

I have an analogy to present to you.

Let’s take 535 of the best child care experts in the country and put them in charge of taking every child in the country on a trip to the beach for the day. Let’s see how that works out. If everybody is satisfied with how it turns out we can let those 535 people run the country because they just proved they can.

If things go terribly wrong we can chalk it up to lesson learned and stop expecting the 535 people running our federal government to micromanage every individual person that lives in this country.

I think it’s telling how Democratics always say it’s a free country, then pass laws saying it’s for the good of the children, then say everybody has to do what they tell them to do or get put in jail.

Why can’t Democratics take it upon themselves to invite one child into their home to remedy what is troubling it and be happy. Can’t they be satisfied doing their own little part to solve the problem?

I think not. Not because they can’t afford it, or they don’t know how. They won’t take the lead and personally practice what they preach because what Democratics are really concerned with is the power they grant to themselves and the money they take from others in the name of helping the children. It’s not that they can feel comfortable helping one child, they have to include every child into the problem before they can even consider it a worthwhile venture. Again, because there is no avenue toward accumulating power in helping one child, they cannot justify pilfering the national treasury for one child, and one child is only one vote in the far future.

Democratics have convinced themselves the federal government is an entity in and of itself. They have forgotten the true intent of the federal government and it’s purpose, to do what 2/3rd of the states tell it to do and to represent those same states to the world. As callous as it sounds, the federal government has no business helping any child. If the federal government stuck to what it was constitutionally bound to do everything else would take care of itself.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 16, 2014 5:52 PM
Comment #379553

kctim-
When the Anti-vaxxers come along, we beat them down. When the 9/11 truthers come along, we beat them down. When the folks come along trying to say that Trig is Bristol’s child, there were people who felt ashamed that the claim in question was made without hard evidence to back it up. Maybe it’s thirty or forty years having to deal with constant criticism of our radical fringe from the sixties, but we don’t indulge our fringe, let it fly loose with BS the way yours is allowed to.

Maybe we should. Maybe we should encourage them to flood the market with their venom, so we can take advantage of the hatred and distrust they brew.

Or maybe we shouldn’t. Maybe I have more pride than one can have to tolerate that kind of intellectual depravity. Maybe I want things less crazy, less built up like some civil war in the making. Maybe people should step back from the political theories and stop considering consequences to be just collateral damage.

Problem is, if one set of people act responsibly, but the others keep on with this unfounded BS, with this constant venomous attack dog crap, then the people who are actually trying are going to get the worst of it. Whether it’s Republicans who put the nation’s needs ahead of their party, and then get primaried, or Democrats who actually try and do things, and being thoroughly blocked, have nothing to show for it in November, the people who actually take the risks to make things better for the rest of us end up discouraged and defeated, while the idiots on parade take over and get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars just to pontificate.

Royal Flush/kctim-
We have put more compromise in actual legislation during the past thirty years, much less the past ten, than your people have. We’re the ones who were pushed to help pass legislation that benefited Wall Street, water down our liberalism so folks could essentially act like Diet Republicans. We’re the ones who were browbeaten, threatened with political oblivion if we didn’t back the Iraq war. Then, having won, your filibusters force us into all or nothing negotiations with both Republicans and the Right wing of our party which help make the stimulus less effective (by making more of it tax cuts, rather than infrastructure spending) and our Healthcare reform less popular (we didn’t go with the mandate for our health.) And then once your Tea Party tantrumed its way into power, then we’re told we have to be willing partners In the deconstruction of liberalism, or your people will blow up the US dollar and America’s debts! So we made a sequester deal when America should have had more room to recover which probably still haunts us because of the growth it killed. And then we have that dumbass debt ceiling confrontation again!

You want to talk about who is going to get along, then you had better drop this ridiculous idea that you can remain nobly uncompromised and fault me and my own for not choosing to hold out for better deals. I mean the double standard you apply is ridiculous, and the arguments I’m presented with just look like a bunch of pretentious philosophical BS, to be honest. I believe that many of our rights have both individual and group sides to them, and I think the jurisprudence backs me up on it.

We’re social creatures. The Framers acknowledged that by saying that Congress could not make laws against people’s choice to peaceably assemble. Churches, especially if you take the biblical standard of “when two or more gather in my name”, are social enterprises, too. I don’t cite one dimension of our rights to exclude or preclude the other dimension. You are arguing with your own false summation of my beliefs, not my actual beliefs.

That seems to happen a lot around here, probably because some people are used to being attack dogs in politics, rather than treating others like equals. Yours has become a philosophy built not on consistent internal principles, but the contradiction of both the other Party’s more consistent philosophies, and (ironically enough) their compromises with you!

Weary Willie-
The government’s not meant to care for us like it would children. You imagine the ideal is the opposite. I don’t imagine things along your axis of absurdity.

People have differences of opinion. Folks with lots of money and power become convinced that they know best, even as they run roughshod over others. You can call them a baron, or you can call them a tycoon… either way, it’s not what Washington and other fought for, another government where the vast majority of Americans are forced to wait on the will of “greater” men to decide what’s best for themselves.

I don’t think this country’s population should have to live off the scraps from the table of the rich. I think people need a system with greater dignity than that to be happy. Moreover, as things grow and fester in that particular direction, the other inalienable rights become degraded in their expression, life and liberty as well.

All must be accountable.

And no, everything didn’t take care of itself. I think you forget that inbetween now and the time of the framers, we had something like 200 years of experience at what worked, and what didn’t. You would throw that all away.

We’ve tried this game, over and over again, and results have been mixed at best.

A government is not a nanny state taking care of children, it’s the negotiating ground of America’s adults, who have different opinions, different priorities, scarce resources to manage in common, etc. You would like to pretend that if we just let some have their way, that if we deferred to them, that everything would work out fine.

But that hasn’t happen, and it won’t happen. Government needs to be adjusted according to more skeptical inquiry, not according to some generalized theory of whether more or less government is what’s needed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2014 10:59 PM
Comment #379565

I believe we have a system that affords us the ability as a society to learn. What we have been faced with is forces in our society who don’t think they need to learn, or don’t want to, who feel they need to lock things in place, from what they perceive is great wisdom passed on to them from before.

Truth is, though, in the over two centuries we have been a nation, we have been through a lot, and what we built over that time does matter. We know more. We know the results of having certain laws, and the results of not having them. We know thing about NEST discplines far beyond the limits of what the Framers did know, or could know.

We know more about humanity, too. We’ve learned so much, both through experience and through scholarship and exploration. Our map of the world is far different from theirs, far more complete. We’ve done away with a lot of the racism, sexism, and other bigotries.

The hope of many is that we could just drop much of this experience, start over from scratch, and things would be simpler, and the good things we created would just create themselves. It’s a path that ignores history, that forgets that much of what we deem necessary in this day and age comes from very artificial origins, rather than simply having emerged.

Not everything is planned, or should be. But we should stop indulging the naturalistic fallacy when it comes to that, because our society is too complex to support just by what we can think or decide on the edge of our pants.

Put another way, there’s a lot in the libertarian direction that requires people to become ruthlessly efficient, ruthlessly rational planners, but which instead encourages them to be remarkably short-sighted and reactionary. That’s not how you maintain a world like ours, that’s how you lose control of it, and lose its benefits in the process.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 17, 2014 7:36 AM
Comment #379566

Thought-provoking letter to the editor in today’s paper. The writer posited that the reason politics is so polarized now is that the government dictates so many aspects of our lives that having control of the political system is now more important than it was previously.

It does seem to me that every politician wants to pass *some* legislation and that there are many rent-seekers of all stripes (NPR to the Koch Bros.) there to encourage them.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at June 17, 2014 8:01 AM
Comment #379567

Stephen

You have got to be living in a bubble, my friend.
Your fringe has gotten so out of control with their rhetoric that even once commonsense Democrats are repeating it. Any and all disagreement with liberal policy is met with cries of racism, sexism, phobia this and phobia that. They compare 4+ million of your fellow Americans to terrorists. They want tens of millions of your fellow Americans as members of actual terrorist organizations.
You don’t need to encourage them to flood any market, their venom and hatred is broadcast as the truth, daily.
You self-righteous rants are the weakest arguments you make on here.

“Whether it’s Republicans who put the nation’s needs ahead of their party…”

As I have told you many many times before, tens of millions of Americans do not believe the nation’s needs have anything to do with never ending liberal policies. Representatives who stop or slow those policies are doing what tens of millions of Americans believe is in the best interest of the country.
They aren’t putting the nation’s needs ahead of that which will destroy it.

“the people who actually take the risks to make things better for the rest of us end up discouraged and defeated”

GOOD! Hopefully, at sometime you will feel so discouraged and defeated that you will stop trying to transform the country into being just any other European joke of a country.

Another thing, Stephen. The “rest of us” that you refer to is basically the same size as those who disagree with you. Just another example of how this isn’t about the needs of the nation, it’s only about policy.

Posted by: kctim at June 17, 2014 9:26 AM
Comment #379569

Stephen

“We have put more compromise in actual legislation during the past thirty years, much less the past ten, than your people have.”

Change takes time. Drastic change takes more time. YOUR people want drastic change, YOUR people have to be patient.

“…We’re the ones who were browbeaten, threatened with political oblivion if we didn’t back the Iraq war…”

Do you think you all will ever get tired of blaming others for your own faults?

“Then, having won, your filibusters force us into all or nothing negotiations with both Republicans and the Right wing of our party…”

Oh the horrors! Republicans and Democrats working together. Why, that sounds almost like compromise.

“You want to talk about who is going to get along, then you had better drop this ridiculous idea that you can remain nobly uncompromised and fault me and my own for not choosing to hold out for better deals.”

Actually, you are usually faulted for not having any concern for Americans who disagree with you. To you, 51% for to 49% against is the same 100% for.

“I mean the double standard you apply is ridiculous, and the arguments I’m presented with just look like a bunch of pretentious philosophical BS, to be honest.”

Sorry Stephen, but, unlike the left, I am consistent in my beliefs. That may seem like “pretentious philosophical BS” to you, but to me, it’s integrity and respect.

“I don’t cite one dimension of our rights to exclude or preclude the other dimension.”

No, you just pick and choose when and where individual rights are applicable.

“You are arguing with your own false summation of my beliefs, not my actual beliefs.”

You know, I’ve asked you many times where I am wrong and you still haven’t told me.

“That seems to happen a lot around here, probably because some people are used to being attack dogs in politics, rather than treating others like equals.”

So says the guy who spends 90% of his time attacking those who don’t agree with him. Insulting their intelligence and placing all blame for his party’s failures on them.

“Yours has become a philosophy built not on consistent internal principles,”

BS. I am consistent in my principles and I challenge you to point out otherwise.

“but the contradiction of both the other Party’s more consistent philosophies, and (ironically enough) their compromises with you!”

You are not consistent in your beliefs, Stephen. Sorry but that is fact.
Your definitions of compromise also leave a lot to be desired. Part of the reason for this is how you reset the debate back to zero after every compromise. You demand 10, compromise gives you 5, and when you come you demand 10 again, acting as if the 5 you already received doesn’t exist. Over and over again.
Sooner or later, people have enough and start fighting back, and THAT is what really bugs you, isn’t it.

Posted by: kctim at June 17, 2014 10:17 AM
Comment #379570

Have you noticed the liberal counter to anything oriented toward the individual/smaller government equals no government at all.

The hope of many is that we could just drop much of this experience, start over from scratch, and things would be simpler, and the good things we created would just create themselves.

Liberals think that if the federal government loses it’s 5% increase in growth every year it will simply fall apart and disappear. Liberals also think that when this magic act happens it will leave a void, a black hole, where everything created in the last 200 years gets sucked in and compresses into a grain of sand sized lump of destruction.

Liberals go to extremes to counter arguments that threaten that philosophy.

That’s not how you maintain a world like ours, that’s how you lose control of it, and lose its benefits in the process.

They think this world won’t exist without liberals to control it. It’s an all or nothing proposition to them. They use fear to control. What they really fear is losing control, and they will destroy anything that threatens that control.

Look at the many conservative politicians that have been destroyed by the liberal media. Tom Delay, proved to be innocent of what he was railroaded for. Sarah Palin, considered by many of the ignorant to be a dumb brunette who can see Russia from her house. Why is she treated like that? Because whenever she gets in front of an audience they vote for the person she supports. If she was a liberal she would be leaving Hillary in the dust, but since she’s not she must be destroyed. Good luck with that, liberals.

It’s a shame Republicans in Washington D.C. think to win they have to be like Democratics. Think about it. To get anywhere in D.C. you have to give up what you believe in and support what you don’t to get anything back. Just ask Stephen Daugherty!

Republicans should really think and examine what they’re supporting to get their scraps. Liberal teacher threatens and steals 16 year old’s property because she didn’t like what was being said. Union thugs beat up man in wheel chair because he displays the Gadsden flag. Character assassination. A complete disregard for the rule of law. Ignoring the constitution. Undermining troops in the field. Passing laws without even reading them. The callous disregard for human life. Promotion of dependency. Class warfare. Sacrificing whole industries on the alter of MMGW.

None of this helps. It is designed and implemented as a method of gaining and keeping power, and it’s getting old. It’s getting obvious. Liberals will allow this country to be destroyed as a method to their madness. Democratics believe from the ashes rises a Phoenix, and that Phoenix rides on the Democratic party.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 17, 2014 10:24 AM
Comment #379573


2014 comes,in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style,varieties, low price and good quality,and the low sale price.Thank everyone Welcome to ==== http://www.kkship4biz.net ==
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35
Jordan (1-22)&2009 shoes $45
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $30
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $14
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $16
Biki ni (Ed hardy, polo) $18
FREE SHIPPING
http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net
http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===
This is a shopping paradise
We need your support and trust

Posted by: dkuredfsgt at June 17, 2014 11:00 AM
Comment #379604

Daugherty wrote; ” You can call them a baron, or you can call them a tycoon… either way, it’s not what Washington and other fought for, another government where the vast majority of Americans are forced to wait on the will of “greater” men to decide what’s best for themselves.”

LOL…of course Washington and others wanted Czars to run everything. obama is complying. It is so sad that Daugherty can see the trees but not the forest. Blinders tend to do that.

The current administration is filled with Czars that demand the “We the People” obey their every whim and desire. obama makes his own laws disregarding congress. He is a First-Class Tyrant.

Daugherty writes; “I don’t think this country’s population should have to live off the scraps from the table of the rich.”

Typical liberal myopic vision. What percentage of taxes do the rich pay? What exactly does our liberal in chief consider “Scraps”?

Daugherty saved the best for last…”Government needs to be adjusted according to more skeptical inquiry, not according to some generalized theory of whether more or less government is what’s needed.”

For those who don’t understand liberal thinking, that means adjust the constitution to allow whatever the liberals think is best. The founders went to great lengths to define the federal role and the role of the states. They defined the powers of each. That doesn’t suit liberals as it curtains their power. So they come up with the usual BS that our constitution is incapable of dealing with the complexity of today.

I would guess that many liberals believe the same of the bible. God couldn’t have possibly understood the needs and desires of the “modern” world.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 17, 2014 3:02 PM
Comment #379606

kctim-
It’s never self-inflicted, is it? You can do no wrong, it’s just us trying to make victims out of you.

Look, whatever you want to do, your tens of millions of Americans don’t have the majority to do it themselves. Yet you want the rest of us to have to agree to give up what WE want, just so they can get what they want.

Selfish, really. This system was meant to be guided by consensus in the population between all the nation’s different parts, states and districts.

You can’t see past your own views, your own political wishes to recognize that America’s constitutional freedoms and the constraints that come with its powers are part of the reason your policy objectives get frustrated. You simply haven’t built your consensus up to the standards required by the framers.

You try and plead that ideologically, the framers would be with you, but even if that were true, which I doubt, it would not entitle you under the constitution to make that so in policy.

I want my country to run smoothly. I want Republicans to become a party that’s once again concerned about more than just abstract political dogma’s, which has its hands dirty actually governing, gauging real world results, rather than trying to derive all policies from the tenets of their political beliefs.

Nobody can anticipate everything. And nobody can sit on what a majority of people in a country want forever without pushing their luck too far.

“…We’re the ones who were browbeaten, threatened with political oblivion if we didn’t back the Iraq war…” Do you think you all will ever get tired of blaming others for your own faults?

I get tired of people acting like everybody in the party was automatically okay with it, forgetting the context of things like Max Cleland’s defeat by that Chickenhawk Saxby Chambliss. I remember Bush taking that high approval rating he had and spending the summer stirring the country up for a war in Iraq, while Republicans called anybody who opposed it terrorist sympathizers.

Personally, I opposed it, up until the point that Colin Powell made his presentation. But that meant I bought into the war for what they were supposed to find there. Otherwise, I would have believed it to be an unforgiveable diversion from Afghanistan. I was right before, but then, I was taken in.

Should I feel responsible for this? I was lied to. Others were convinced to sit down and shut up about it because they didn’t want to appear like they didn’t support the country and the War on Terrorism.

Maybe some of the politicians would have voted the other way, but Bush sure put a lot of effort into pressuring politicians on my side of the aisle. He didn’t have to do so with the Republicans.

That should have some bearing on culpability, shouldn’t it?

“Then, having won, your filibusters force us into all or nothing negotiations with both Republicans and the Right wing of our party…” Oh the horrors! Republicans and Democrats working together. Why, that sounds almost like compromise.

We earned a majority, but for some reason weren’t allowed to use it. The American people had a clear consensus on the matter. If they had gotten the policy we had intended to pass, perhaps they would not have been so disgruntled with us. Or perhaps, at least, they would have been able to like or dislike us based on what we did, rather than the things we were kept from doing.

Actually, you are usually faulted for not having any concern for Americans who disagree with you. To you, 51% for to 49% against is the same 100% for.

If a democratic, representative republic is working right, that’s how laws should pass. The Framers tried a different standard, and it failed miserably. That’s why they only explicitly called for these standards for very special items like Treaty Ratification, veto overrides, Constitutional Amendments and the like.

I don’t feel your people are victims. I feel that after decades worth of growing control, capped by a disastrous fall from grace, you believe yourself entitled to power, to deference on the Constitution, control of the public consensus which you actually needed to earn, and failed to earn at that.

You talk about compromise… Well, maybe we’ve become impatient with not being met halfway, but instead forced to knuckle under to a no longer operative Republican paradigm of government. We’re no longer the longtime party in decline, and acting like that is pathetic, and unforgivable. Yes, we’ll compromise, often enough, but we’re no longer afraid to plant our feet if we’re being pushed too far.

Weary Willie-
I don’t think you’d ask business not to price inflation and other price pressures into their budgeting. It would not make sense at all.

It wasn’t just liberals or progressives that built the system over time. There’s plenty of experience on all sides that went into it, and Republicans were once humble enough to acknowledge it.

Tom DeLay wasn’t proven innocent. It’s even an open question as to whether the appeals court that overturned his conviction actually acted properly. Even if it is, it’s still true that Tom DeLay was using outside money to affect a set of local state elections, and gerrymander the system with the officials it bought.

Sarah Palin actually said that line. Nobody forced her to sound stupid, she did that all by herself. And how many people has she campaigned for that actually won? I’m sure you’ve left out plenty of people who’ve lost.

I don’t fear the woman that lost an election to the man I supported, then turned around and quit her day job halfway through.

You keep on acting like you’re the ones who will triumph, but time and again, you either lose, or you win and use that win to do something that angers the voters.

Royal Flush-
Czars? It’s a fancy name for specialized cabinet staff. I don’t recall the Framers objected to those. In fact, they said that the President could appoint advisors. But I guess you’re more interested in manipulating people with language than you are in reading it properly.

You talk about Obama making his own laws, etc. Well, I know you can’t really use language for clear argumentative purposes, so I suppose you haven’t gone through the actual trouble of figuring out or finding out whether Obama’s excecutive actions actually dealt with stuff outside his purview.

No, You got your talking points and marching orders from Washington.

Daugherty saved the best for last…”Government needs to be adjusted according to more skeptical inquiry, not according to some generalized theory of whether more or less government is what’s needed.” For those who don’t understand liberal thinking, that means adjust the constitution to allow whatever the liberals think is best. The founders went to great lengths to define the federal role and the role of the states. They defined the powers of each. That doesn’t suit liberals as it curtains their power. So they come up with the usual BS that our constitution is incapable of dealing with the complexity of today.

No, that means adjust policy to what actually works best in the Constitution.

It’s my experience that when somebody keeps exaggerating a point like this, it’s because they don’t think the truth will motivate people to do what they want.

You say the framers went to great lengths to define things. Well, look at the Napoleonic code, books upon books of legal code about those sorts of things. We, though, make do with a few pages, despite the fact we have our own rather thick books of laws.

Truth is, you use these arguments because you want to constrain people’s political thinking until they have only your options, as defined by your ideals.

As for the Bible?

You wanted me to take a whack at this, so let me take a nice big whack at this:

You insist on these kinds of authoritative texts because you don’t want people questioning you, not because it’s a particularly smart approach. Threatened by the approach of science that disrupts your ancient view of how the world came to be, threatened by political movements that change things from your blessedly nostalgically remembered yesteryears, you’ve turned around and tried to insist on rigid, literal, legalistic interpretations of the Constitution and Bible in order to pre-empt any argument.

And it’s all worked out pretty crappily.

Religion was never meant to be dealt with in the hard-facts manner of science. It’s a more human factors sort of thing, Written as narrative, written from oral sources, set down by folks who never had to endure the rather disciplined nature of modern scholarship.

Meanwhile, are most the people you’re accusing of being constitutional heathens coming to agree with you? No.

I could go on, but you’re essentially trying to force two disciplines to work together in a way neither was designed to tolerate well.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 18, 2014 12:59 AM
Comment #379608

I’m kind of a bit more vulnerable than most to criticism that I believe contradicts who I actually am, and what I actually do. I don’t hide things like that, even when it might be more socially acceptable simply to moderate the answer.

However, at the same time, I’ve learned that people can take ideas a lot further in their imagination than they can in the real world. A person is not God, and cannot, as consequence, imagine all ends. Failing to do so, we can push forward with what we think is a perfectly logical, consistent, righteous action, and have it backfire on us, because we didn’t appreciate the full picture, the full set of things that would react to our stimulus.

Or, we didn’t appreciate the synergy and interlocking behavior of the system.

Republicans, believe it or not, were actually trying to redeem themselves of looking like they were being too liberal, when they refused to bail out banks further in Fall of 2008, and while there is something to their logic, their picture was incomplete. They did not consider the huge dark market in derivatives. They did not consider how fragile and interconnected the finances of all the banks were.

The irony is, many Republicans probably lost seats or lost prestige because they turned around not long after, and voted for the bailout. Thing is, though, these kind of interactions are known to economists, should have been known to them.

Same thing goes with the Debt Ceiling. No doubt, some actually believe that it’s no biggie if we cross that threshold into a default. However, there have been other cases with such defaults, and it usually doesn’t end well for the country in question.

What would make it worse is how dependent the world economy is on us, how much the value and trustworthiness of financial instruments of all kinds is based on that of America’s debt instruments.

Again, a failure to see things in their interconnectedness.

The ideas that the Republicans put forward never worked perfectly, weren’t ideal solutions in their times. It’s a common feature of the platforms, these nostalgic piece of legislation whose justification boils down to them being the old, pre-New Deal way of doing things. Gold Standard meant that your economy could only grow as fast as your gold supply, and that if you sent gold overseas to banks, you could end up with a money shortage back home. That’s not merely speculation on my part, but a regular feature of that kind of economy. It tells you something that a depression was not an odd occurrence between the Civil War and the Great Depression, but afterwards it became a rare to non-existent thing.

I can’t promise that all liberal policies will work. What I would say is that my people have an investment in things working. We don’t benefit politically from the screw-ups.

Democrats, even today, don’t want to be seen as deficit spenders. Obama, rather than just charge the trillion dollars for Obamacare to the national credit card, instead offset it and added revenues. Democrats want to be seen as streamliners of bureaucracy, not creators of excessive ones.

What I’m saying is that there are places where Democrats can be reached on matters, where agreements with Republicans that help keep government lean in its profile can be had.

Republicans, though, aren’t so reachable, so accessible, and it’s costing them. This is a nation whose government is designed to be resistant to takeover where the consensus doesn’t support it, designed to undermine folks when they lose support. Yet Republicans want to go in two separate directions: enhancing their purity, expanding their political reach, and not over time, aided by a long campaign of indoctrination, but quickly.

The Tea Party, I think, represents the cost of those conflicting imperatives. Yes, they enhance the political purity of the GOP. But voters in a free society who might associate with a party don’t necessarily follow the full set of platforms, and if you make it clear that they must, they might just decide to walk away. Yes, they’ve temporarily extended reach, but often at the cost of making the GOP reliant on a whole bag of tricks that skews the electoral map away from popular underpinnings.

Put another way, there was a reason Democrats won the popular vote in 2012, even if the Republicans won the seats. Republican voters are overrepresented, their proportion in the population much less than their proportion in Congress.

In other words, their domination of Congress is a fragile thing, supported by the fact that Congressional redistricting is done in an often Partisan hodgepodge, and that Republican number could easily collapse if we combine both a Demographic shift and a change in the districting.

I might be wrong, but I think we’ve seen something like this before, in 1994. Republicans, I believe, are playing out many of the same scenarios of the decline of the Democratic party, leading up to the Gingrich takeover.

To get them going this quickly, Republicans had to panic the voters they had into a “now or nothing” sort of stampede. They had to basically pull out all stops, and keep voters angry, fearful, and paranoid of liberals winning on a continuous basis. I’d observed two things: one, it is never good to keep people stewed in that kind of psychological distress for the long term. Eventually it hollows them out, makes them fatalistic, makes them physically tired. Two, by doing so, the GOP essentially created a runaway phenomena, one that wouldn’t simply stop when it was sensible to. If you set the stakes as being the survival of the nation, of freedom, of whatever, etc., people are not going to be happy when you finally realize that a push is going too far, and you ask them to pull back. If you make inhibition and restraint acts of treason, acts of surrender to an illegitimate government, etc., things will get out of hand, and you won’t be able to pull people back without disenchanting them.

Put another way, there’s no way to talk the Tea Party down, to stop it, without breaking it. So when it starts screwing things up, starts alienating people, you are forced to sit there and watch it happen. The Tea Party is doing to the Republicans what the Democrats never could by themselves, because the other Republicans don’t have the heart to stop the Tea Party, whereas they’ll fight us every step of the way.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 18, 2014 8:58 AM
Comment #379609

Stephen

Victims? No. We are just regular people who respect and understand what this country was supposed to be. So, if you consider “self-inflicted” wounds to be us losing support by preventing the transformation you desire, you are wrong.

“Look, whatever you want to do, your tens of millions of Americans don’t have the majority to do it themselves.”

What we want to do is prevent liberal policy from further destroying the country, but you are correct, there are now just as many people who wish otherwise.

“Yet you want the rest of us to have to agree to give up what WE want, just so they can get what they want.”

You are not giving anything up by not having it provided to you by government. It’s your materialism vs. our principles.

“Selfish, really. This system was meant to be guided by consensus in the population between all the nation’s different parts, states and districts.”

Seriously? I am being called selfish by someone who supports policy based on forcing everyone to do what he wants, so that he doesn’t have to do it himself?

“…are part of the reason your policy objectives get frustrated.”

My objective for our government to work within the boundaries of the Constitution get frustrated ONLY because there are now a few million more people who vote comfort and convenience over individual rights and freedoms.

“You try and plead that ideologically, the framers would be with you, but even if that were true, which I doubt, it would not entitle you under the constitution to make that so in policy.”

I make no such claims or pleas. What I actually say is that for our country to run as it was meant to, we must honor what the words of our founders actually say, not what we want them to say.

“I want my country to run smoothly.”

No, you don’t. Going by your writings here on WB, you want OUR country to change so that it runs how YOU think is best for everyone.
We have discussed this before Stephen, I do not agree that Americans are so inherently stupid that they cannot live their own lives as THEY see best.

“I want Republicans to become a party that’s once again…”

I’ve been wondering about this for a while now. Just how exactly does the Republicans platform of today differ from the one back then?

“…gauging real world results, rather than trying to derive all policies from the tenets of their political beliefs.”

Once again, the real world results you desire are not the same others desire. You worry about the money, they worry about rights.

“Nobody can anticipate everything. And nobody can sit on what a majority of people in a country want forever without pushing their luck too far.”

IF we were the majority rules democracy you desire AND you had say a 70-30 majority, you might have a case. But we are a Constitutional Republic where the minority is supposed to be protected from the majority.
There are two main reasons why your transformation of the country is facing such stiff opposition:
1 - Your “majority” is at best, 53-47. You are basically trying to force change onto half of the country.
2 - That half of the country still respects the proud history of our freedoms and our success.

“I remember Bush taking that high approval rating he had and spending the summer stirring the country up for a war in Iraq, while Republicans called anybody who opposed it terrorist sympathizers.”

Too bad you don’t remember how Obama took his high approval rating and divided the country to help him force the ACA onto everyone. Too bad you can’t remember how, to this very day, liberals call anybody who opposes the ACA racists and terrorists.

“Personally, I opposed it”

As did I. Not because of leftist opinions, their twisting of words or partisan conspiracy theories, but because I knew we would not fight to win.

“Should I feel responsible for this?”

Of course not. But you should be willing to hold ALL who deserve it, responsible. Sadly, I don’t think you will. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that you will be pulling that lever for Hillary in 2016.

“We earned a majority, but for some reason weren’t allowed to use it.”

You weren’t allowed to use it because there are still a few moderate Democrats in the party and because your “majority” wasn’t as big as you thought.

“The American people had a clear consensus on the matter.”

Yes, and it was made even more clear in 2010. You do your party no good by making excuses for the rejection its policies.

“If a democratic, representative republic is working right, that’s how laws should pass.”

Maybe, but we are a representative republic with a Constitution that has guidelines that must be followed, not skirted around. 51% doesn’t cut it and you know that Stephen.

“You talk about compromise… Well, maybe we’ve become impatient with not being met halfway…”

Not being met halfway? Give me a break. Our government is larger than it has ever been, provides for more people than ever before, and has more control over our everyday lives than anytime in its history.
You’re not impatient with not being met halfway, you’re pissed off because people are resisting your desire to go all the way.

“Yes, we’ll compromise, often enough, but we’re no longer afraid to plant our feet if we’re being pushed too far.”

Who’s more dangerous?
- The guy begging for more of what is not his?
OR
- The guy protecting what is his from those trying to take it?

Posted by: kctim at June 18, 2014 10:15 AM
Comment #379612

kctim-
You can’t prevent the transformation. Simple death will speed it, as those who could remember how things were die, and those who only remember what came after their fathers and mother’s time are all who remain. Then they will die, and that part of history, where it’s not set down, will die with them.

You will die. Your fellow tea partiers will die. Beyond that death, you will have no say in how thing change, beyond what you’ve persuaded others of my generation to do.

The problem is, you think that by opposing us with such absolutism, you’re preventing destruction. Trouble is, people like me view YOUR policies, your failures as the destructive force. The die was cast with the events of the Bush Administration, the repeated failures of Conservative policy to live up to its hype, and worse yet, the way these policies ended in catastrophic failures.

I keep seeing conservatives trying to blame the collapse in Iraq on Obama. Clueless. That’s one donkey tail that came with a barbed pin, and it’s stuck pretty deep in the GOP’s rear. Nobody missed where you guys pushed and pushed for the war, then pushed and pushed not to change the strategy in it, then pushed for that final surge to try and make everything right. When you push and push and push to make certain policies a reality, you should not be surprised when folks look at them and think you’re responsible for them, because you are. Nobody is fooled about who made the mess, other than the people who want to be fooled.

People my age and younger aren’t fooled about what happened. They don’t think you’re the ones trying to save the Constitution. They just think you’re the folks trying to force everybody else to your own, esoteric interpretation of it.

All your fighting does is convince people like me that I can’t back down or concede much of anything. That’s all it’s ever done. You haven’t grabbed the arrow out of flight, you’ve pulled it back on the bowstring. If life doesn’t force you to let it go, death will.

Things will change, as they always have, as they must.

The Framers gave us a nation that could change with us, that could correct errors, that could survive that first generation of leaders, and not fall prey to all that BS so many former colonies do, where the revolutionaries become tyrants to stamp out their enemies, under the banner of defeating the counterrevolutionaries.

As for majorities?

People like you said they had a mandate when Bush won by less than a few hundred votes and even lost the popular vote. They said that again when he once again won by just a couple states, and a marginal popular vote victory. They said that when they had smaller numbers than us in both the Senate and House. They even say it now, when the House is all they have.

Did the Framers want a perfect Democracy? No, no they didn’t. What they did construct, though, was along democratic lines, especially in the way laws were passed. Majority rules. Even with the invention of the filibuster in the middle of the 19th century, they didn’t come close to the wholesale blockade of legislative power that the Republicans engaged in with the 2008-2010 Congress. The term unprecedented can be used literally here, which is troublesome for those who say they want to govern constitutionally, in the manner of the Framers.

The Framers had no such brake on majority power in the Congress.

What I think is that they felt that the majority would be a more fluid thing, with party and faction secondary to local wishes and desires. They wanted a system that could project the will of the people into that chamber.

I think you’re just inventing ways to justify your power grabs, which you’ve convinced yourself are justified in the name of defeating the evil that is the other half of the country.

I pity you, really. You’ve cut yourself off not merely from other Americans, but from a recognition of your community with them, of what you share. I think politics have created a false impression of Americans being irrevocably divided from one another. I think they are in fact only artificially divided, and the more people would allow themselves to see what they have in common with others, the easier it would be for everybody to reach deals.

Unfortunately, it’s not so easy to keep power in this country if the people don’t keep it solidly in your hands for you. The Tea Party is the clinched and cramped hand of the GOP trying to keep hold of an American people who really want more peace and quiet out of Washington, and more function, too. They want things to be more normal.

An Amazing thing that sense of normality is. One of Obama’s key political talents is that he knows how to discuss policy in a very conversational and normal tone. He isn’t like many politicians, who kind of show the edges of their talking points sheet in everything they say.

But anyhow, when you have to relate to people on that level, when you step away from that world of jargon and talking points, I think you begin to understand something key: that the real politics of this country, the politics on which people’s changes of mind and general attitude depend are fairly robust in the face of political rhetoric.

People like me turned against conservative policies not because we were taken over by commies, but because the brand of capitalism you folks employ failed so miserably, when you said that couldn’t happen. You said so many things, failed at so many things. You need to realize that many of my generation don’t trust your conservatism personally not merely ideologically, and the best you can do is reintroduce conservatism by way of making good, practical policy that works.

If you can’t make things work, if all you can set up are more disasters in the making, you will never earn that trust back, and whatever hopes you have for conservatism’s return will be dashed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 18, 2014 3:54 PM
Comment #379613

Daughery writes; ” Yet you want the rest of us to have to agree to give up what WE want, just so they can get what they want.”

In this second sentence in response to kctim, this liberal sums it up really well. What “WE” liberals want is at the expense of others. What “WE” conservatives want is to simply follow the Constitution. Today’s politics are mostly about “group rights” which entitle some Americans while costing others.

Daugherty writes; “I could go on, but you’re essentially trying to force two disciplines to work together in a way neither was designed to tolerate well.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 18, 2014 12:59 AM

That supposes that not only were our founders unable to write a constitution adequate for the 21st century, but that God wasn’t able to clearly define His moral principles and consequences of sin suitable for today. Of course, some will say there is no God, no sin, and no agreed upon bible. No surprise there.

Liberals and atheists have a common core belief. Simply stated, it is…Give me what I want or I will find a non Constitutional way or non biblical way to get it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 18, 2014 4:12 PM
Comment #379614

The Tea Party is doing to the Republicans what the Democrats never could by themselves, because the other Republicans don’t have the heart to stop the Tea Party, whereas they’ll fight us every step of the way.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 18, 2014 8:58 AM

Poor fool, he can’t understand something so simple. He has such hatred for the Tea Party that he can’t understand why their candidates win so many elections and primaries. The Dems have indeed taken over the liberal wing of the Rep party. We object, and are changing that.

The new NBC poll indicates that 54% of Americans think obama is unable to lead the country. I love the liberal spin.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/chuck-todd-obama-presidency-over_n_5506637.html

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 18, 2014 4:37 PM
Comment #379616

Royal Flush-
If I had a wish at this moment, it would be for you to understand just how tediuous your sophistry is to me. It’s like, does this man really understand how much his criticism of me reflects his biases more than my own?

On the subject of the bible? I have faith in God, faith in Jesus, not faith in scribes and translators. I think there were certain things God cared about which have not aged, and other things that the men who wrote the bible cared about that have aged, considerably.

As for the Constitution? It’s not simply some magical talisman of a document, it’s something that the government has built a body of law and jurisprudence around.

It’s also something you tend to wave around like a bludgeon, trying to shutdown policy conversations. Do I get backing logic that has anything to do with modern jurisprudence? No. I’m instead expected to accept your personal opinion about what is Constitutional as the grounds for abandoning my position. It’s not even an argument about what should be unconstitutional, it’s an argument that says, without that critical backing, what is constitutional.

It’s the GOPers on this site who keep on misstating my opinion (which I keep correcting them on), saying that I believe that the Constitution is outdated.

I’ve considered many reasons why people keep on making that damn mistake over and over again. I could insult people quite well with a number of the possiblities I consider, but let me put things squarely: It’s the interpretation of the Constitution that must be constantly ongoing. The world doesn’t present us with nice, neat and orderly chances for interpretation, like a biblical king handing out wisdom, based wisely and solely on scripture.

Instead, the world bombards everybody with all kinds of crap all day, and it doesn’t make everything nice and neat. Technology changes, generations change, the judges and the laws that congress have passed changed. You can’t amend the Constitution every time, but you can find a way to take it’s principles and make them work.

We are responsible for our own upkeep. This is a nation of adults, not a nanny-state.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 18, 2014 5:03 PM
Comment #379618

“You can’t amend the Constitution every time, but you can find a way to take it’s principles and make them work.”

OH, I get it. Sophistry makes me believe the Constitution and Bible are correct but my interpretation is false.

Look son, you couldn’t say what you said about either writings if you understood and valued them. The bible is the product of the early Christian bishops. They were the closest to the Judaic leaders of the day and to those who wrote about Jesus. You wouldn’t even have a bible if it weren’t for them dumb ass.

Daugherty, like his lib pals, discount the Constitution only because it doesn’t allow for their socialist ways. We understand where you come from Daugherty, it’s a place that none of us ever hope to visit. In his misery he is hoping that he can win in life by political means rather than by his own weak and puny efforts.

The Daugherty’s of the world are losers, pity-potters, and malcontents. He imagines a God and government that follows his rules. Sophistry Daugherty…your photo is next to the Webster definition.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 18, 2014 5:59 PM
Comment #379622

Royal Flush-
No, sophistry is what you constantly use to claim things like “Daugherty believes the Constitution is outdated” when time and again I explain that I don’t hold that opinion.

You argue to suit your argument’s goal, not with any notion of actual inquiry or truth-seeking.

My education focused a lot on communication, both the part that dealt with modern media, and the elective elements I chose, which largely dealt with questions I had about the human brain, psychology, communications theory, and other matters.

Thing is, passing information between people has always been an incomplete, imperfect thing. You accuse me of being a sophist when it comes to the bible and the Constitution, but my views are very much informed by what I’ve learned about the art and the science of communication.

To wit, anybody relying on the smallest literal detail to project a message is liable to get that message screwed up. Even electronic communications have to check to see that information has been transmitted properly, because noise on the line can overwhelm the message.

God isn’t using wired communication to get his message across in the bible. He’s using literature whose origins spread across centuries of time, the story of Noah set down in some form in the Epic of Gilgamesh as early in relation to Christ’s coming as our times are late to it. The youngest of all Narratives is the Revelation of John, written within a hundred years of Christ’s birth. That’s a spread of two millennia. Much of the first books is taken from oral tradition, with all that entails.

You have multiple translations involved in even the books that Jesus would have known. Hebrew was a dead language in that time, Jews typically speaking Aramaic and Greek. So prevalent was the Hellenizing of the Jews by Jesus’ time, that the Torah had already been translated into a Greek form we know as the Septuagint for a century or two by that time. Why was it translated? The tradition has it, that one of the Ptolemies did it for the Jews of Alexandria, who were so thoroughly Hellenized by that point that they could barely read or understand Hebrew.

The style of Greek wasn’t literary Greek, but a kind called Koine Greek, which was considered kind of crude by the standards of the day, giving rise to the joke among scholars later that God spoke bad Greek. This was the Greek that Paul also spoke, and which his secretaries wrote in.

The church did not persist in using that Greek, too, because that form of Greek became less and less common as time went on, as Latin became the common language of the church. So, we have Hebrew to Koine Greek, then Koine Greek to Latin. We haven’t gotten to English yet, and we have two changes of language, and not between nice, neat languages, but very complex languages with multiple shades of meaning. There are tons of documented errors. If you take the full logic of literal interpretation to its logical conclusion, you end up having to ask which translation, and then you end up having to ask why God would allow so many different translations if he intended for his work to be absolutely true on word to word level.

This is where being trained in the arts of storytelling kind of helped me reconcile what were severe challenges to my budding faith.

I think God put his meaning beneath the surface, like any good storyteller would, in what would best be replicated.

Rather than depend on a fragile, crystalline perfection of literal detail, I think God relies on the more robust, meaning underlying the text, the themes and the actions of the people portrayed within. That sort of stuff is more robust in regards to translation mistakes and changing cultural attitudes. I think God guided a sort of selective process, refining what was passed on down to the most powerful narratives possible. You may think I’m disrespectful when I talk about is as mythological in its approach, but really, Mythology is what you get when you distill strong stories down to the elements that keep best.

Remember, literacy was not always a guarantee in ancient times.

Going forward to modern times and the Constitution, I’d say this: there is no use to a Constitution that is just left there on the page. What’s underneath that, the meaning and the intent is critical, because much of what we have in common with those people is to be found there. The colonials might not have had our various communications technologies, but they did have some forms of communication, and they obviously wanted people to be able to keep that stuff private unless the police or the Feds have a reason to pry into them.

Of course, to do any meaningful kind of interpretation, you have to get into complex realms of thought that reduce the ability of reductionists like yourselves to nail everything down to one set of meanings as you would like it. However, I don’t think the Framers would have created an entire separate Judicial Branch if they didn’t think there would be disagreements. That reflects a recognition that even at the Zero on our nation’s historical timeline, there was no one original interpretation that all believed applied to everything.

In my experience, people argue about everything, and they don’t necessarily abide by rules of quality logical derivation for those arguments. We don’t have layers of appeal because the lower courts always get the law right and everything. Law in practice is complex, and even looking at the Constitution, people can disagree.

Only in the fantasies of partisans, particularly the extreme ones, do we see folk simply assuming that their interpretation of everything is self-evident.

The irony is, if you loosened up, you might find more commonality with others. But because you focus yourself so keenly on finding what divides you from everybody else you’ve deemed fools, madmen and degenerates, you imagine yourself a law unto yourself, apart from all those other folks.

That’s what’s killing the Tea Party.

See, it’s very easy to connect to those who are just like you. Connecting with folks that are of different opinions, who might share some principles, but not others, is more difficult. It requires negotiation and compromise. It yields, though, the network of friendships, the rewards of cooperation that a party needs to expand its ranks.

Simply put, if you’re too good to compromise or work with people, then they’re usually going to leave you alone to enjoy your purity. Meanwhile, the less picky Democrats will woo the people you alienated, pick up some of them. Others will simply sit at home, having lost interest in a cause they feel has gotten too political.

Long story short, you need to realize that the Republicans don’t have the solid foundation necessary to create their swaths of political conformity. The narrower base is stronger, but they need a broader base for that to be any use, and the other elements are even getting broken by what’s been necessary to convince those people to stay Republican. You have avoided compromise with some at the price of their unwillingness to compromise with you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 18, 2014 10:28 PM
Comment #379647

Stephen

I absolutely agree that we cannot stop this terrible transformation that is destroying out country. 100%!
But that does not mean I should just roll over and let the tyranny engulf my life. I want my children to be able to experience at least some of the freedoms I had while growing up.
I understand the cycle of life, but thanks.

“The problem is, you think that by opposing us with such absolutism, you’re preventing destruction.”

Na, I understand that all I can do is possibly delay that destruction.

“Trouble is, people like me view YOUR policies, your failures as the destructive force.”

They’re not MY policies, they are the policies that were used to run this country for the majority of its existence. Denying you the material things you desire is not failure.

“I keep seeing conservatives trying to blame the collapse in Iraq on Obama. Clueless.”

Sigh. This is getting to be really pathetic. Here are the facts of the matter:
The war began when Bush was President and he was responsible for running that war while he was President. You disagreeing with the war, not liking how it was ran, or having your feelings hurt, does not change that.
The war was still going on when Obama became President and he accepted responsibility for running it from then on out. Again, your disagreement with the war, and Iraq being a mess, does not change that.
The war ended under President Obama. He made a nice speech about HIS NEW strategy for ending it, and how HIS NEW strategy would lead to the future success of Iraq.
So far, President Obama has accepted this responsibility, you should agree with him.

“They just think you’re the folks trying to force everybody else to your own, esoteric interpretation of it.”

And yet, just as you, they cannot point to a time in our history where the country was ran how you want it to be ran. Imagine that.

“All your fighting does is convince people like me that I can’t back down or concede much of anything.”

Do you really think that I believe anything different? You want what I have, you want me to believe and live a certain way. Of course you’re going to fight to be given those things.
Do you think I’m really going to just roll over and take it all?

“The Framers gave us a nation that could change with us, that could correct errors…”

As I have told you before, do it as required under the Constitution and I will concede defeat. Stop reinterpreting things so you can skirt around doing it the proper way.

“People like you said they had a mandate when Bush won by less than a few hundred votes and even lost the popular vote.”

Actually, “people like me” were saying that nothing would really change. That we would still be overtaxed, that our rights would still be infringed upon and that our freedoms would still deteriorate.
But you mean partisans on the right, don’t you. In that case, look at what they were actually using that supposed mandate to try and do. Stop or turn back liberal policy.

“Even with the invention of the filibuster in the middle of the 19th century, they didn’t come close to the wholesale blockade of legislative power that the Republicans engaged in with the 2008-2010 Congress.”

Have you ever taken the time to actually look at just how much legislation was being created back then? How much power they were trying to wield over individual citizens?

“The Framers had no such brake on majority power in the Congress.”

Then why didn’t liberals just change the Constitution when they had the majority under Clinton or Obama? Why didn’t Clinton or Obama and their Dem majority just repeal or rewrite the 2nd Amendment to apply only the militia, only mean certain people can own a certain kind of firearm? Why didn’t either one change the 1st to mean freedom FROM religion?

“What I think is that they felt that the majority would be a more fluid thing, with party and faction secondary to local wishes and desires. They wanted a system that could project the will of the people into that chamber.”

Well, what they actually wrote, says they are protecting the individual from the wishes and desires of government and others. In fact, I can point some out to you to prove my point. Can you do the same? No.

“I think you’re just inventing ways to justify your power grabs, which you’ve convinced yourself are justified in the name of defeating the evil that is the other half of the country.”

Well then, it should be pretty easy for you to explain how my wishing to live my life as I see best, is grabbing any power from you in any way. Come on Stephen, tell us how the person who is trying to take from another against their will, the real victim?

“I pity you, really. You’ve cut yourself off not merely from other Americans, but from a recognition of your community with them, of what you share.”

Don’t flatter yourself. Save it for someone who wants or thinks they need your pity.
I really don’t care if people are so petty over politics that they are willing to “cut themselves off” from others with opposing views. I do not live my life for the acceptance or recognition of others.

The divide isn’t artificial, it has been created to shame and force people into accepting a set agendas solutions, to deal with common goals. Deals are not reached that way.

“One of Obama’s key political talents is that he knows how to discuss policy in a very conversational and normal tone.”

Is that why you guys always feel the need to explain what he “really” meant?

“People like me turned against conservative policies not because we were taken over by commies, but because the brand of capitalism you folks employ failed so miserably, when you said that couldn’t happen.”

Don’t BS yourself, Stephen. People like you are against conservative policy because it places society second to the individual. Because its “brand of capitalism” is about making money instead of providing for people.

“You need to realize that many of my generation don’t trust your conservatism personally not merely ideologically”

That is because many of your generation place more value on your own personal comfort and convenience, than you do your rights or the rights of others. Believe me, I have realized this for a very long time.

Posted by: kctim at June 19, 2014 12:45 PM
Comment #379659

We can be thankful that Daugherty didn’t choose teaching as a profession. We can imagine the liberal rewriting of history crap he would be foisting on unformed minds.

I have challenged Daugherty many times to point to any of our founders who believed in a government so large and overwhelming as to dwarf the rights of individual citizens and the powers delegated to our individual states.

Time and again Daugherty has sought to foster the idea that our founders could not possibly write a document that would be viable in a future world. Yet, it has survived intact with only 27 amendments. There are many laws and regulations that should be challenged by the judiciary as unconstitutional but aren’t. No shame to our founders or the product of their minds. The shame belongs on our heads for failing to elect politicians who faithfully follow the edicts of our founding documents for whatever reason.

We have managed to unlink our government from the very restraints found in the documents giving it birth. Shameful at best, catastrophic at worst.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 19, 2014 4:06 PM
Comment #379670

kctim-
I like to write complete thoughts, complete arguments, and way too often, you seem to break things up. Anthony Hopkins once started doing that with a Shakespearean speech, and a friend or teacher of his told him not to do it. The speech was one thought, and if you broke up the sentences and everything, you broke up the flow of the thought.

Whether you want to challenge somebody or agree with them, you need to understand their thinking. In general, I write paragraphs that are complete thoughts. I like expressing things comprehensively, because the idea is often there, all at once.

If you’re responding to every line, you’re breaking up the flow of the thought, the chain of the logic before it reaches its conclusion. I like to get the full scope of people’s thoughts when I read them, so I know just what kind of argument I’m responding to, what it’s aims are. Too close, and you miss the forest for the trees.

You need to realize that as both a Democrat, and just some somewhat autistic young man, your picture of what my thoughts and intentions are come across less as an argument I’m unable to refute, and more as a bizarre, strange, out-of-left-field tirade I’m at a loss to figure out how to respond to.

I don’t need the economy to go south again, thank you very much. I’m not rich enough to float above such events, and I’ve had more than enough fun with that kind of thing in my life. I’m thankful things are getting back to normal. I had to consider the possibility of my own unemployment within the last two years, and that was kind of ugly, to be frank.

I’m very patriotic. I love my country. I don’t define that love in terms of not criticizing bad policy, or not acknowledging where we as a nation have egg on our face, though. I don’t think of that as love, but sort of like when an adult becomes too permissive with a teenager, an abdication of responsibility.

I don’t see the government as father figures, I see it as an extension of the popular will. It doesn’t happen for free, though: we have to be willing participants. Big government, small government, the government should be what the people want it to be, even if some people think that those people want it to be too much of a welfare state.

It should be the American people’s mistake to make, and subsequently to repent of, should it be necessary.

You speak of the Constitution and your own interpretation of it as if they are one. I don’t appreciate this arrogance, this presumption. Everybody’s got an opinion of what those rules mean, how far they should be carried, how they should be qualified, and or smoothed over. The courts were created by that Constitution to help decide these matters.

Madison talked about the whys and wherefors of why they went for a Republic, rather than a complete Democracy, and it seems like their approach was less to try and destroy the liberty of people to hold different views, or force some kind of conformity, but instead to break up America into sections and states whose separate interests would play against each other.

Put another way, his remedy for the problem of faction is already operating, and your people are running afoul of it. You could say we ran afoul of it, too. As frustrating as it is for both of us, it’s what keeps each side from overrunning the system. Difference is, I’ve made my piece with it to a certain extent, while you’re raging at the heavens over the fact that you can’t simply force everybody to accept your interpretation and live by it.

As for why I feel the need to explain what Obama says? It’s less an explanation than a plee to stop with the insane sort of replacement of the face value statements with these bizarre, poorly founded claims.

What I feel like saying, often enough, is “I’m not a communist you stupid sons of b****es! I want to make millions of dollars just like the next guy! My aspiration in life is not to live it all out on public assistance… I mean who the **** actually wants to be poor? Have you seen any rap videos lately? Have you seen the big cars, the boats, all that luxury crap? THAT’S WHAT MOST POOR PEOPLE WANT!!!!!”

I mean, you folks have essentially internalized the super-rich person’s rationalization for why people aren’t just backing their play, which essentially consists of, “poor people exist to suck me dry of what I’ve earned through my amazing awesomeness”. They never consider that from the point of view of those people lower on the economic scale, their lay-offs, tax avoidance, idiotic business decisions, employee and customer squeezing, bill-increasing behavior doesn’t look so justified.

They also forget something: the Reason why the 47% don’t pay the taxes they once did was that Republicans themselves reduced those taxes. Why? Because you could never have passed tax cuts exclusively for the rich, just because. It would have been politically untenable. The irony is, they see the tax avoidance down below as emblematic of a entitled sensibility fromt he poor, concerning fiscal policy, yet it’s pretty much their as a result of THEIR tax avoiding strategies and political pushes, which required them to make the rest of America willing co-conspirators in the tax cut, in order to avoid it being a political disaster. They see the mirror reflection of their own irresponsibility, and they hypocritically blast it.

Comfort, convenience… You folks always talk about the hardships associated with reducing carbon emissions to discourage people. When folks float proposals concerning nutrition and dietary labelling, it’s you out in front defending the comfort foods, lionizing the manlinhess of being able to eat whatever steaks or hamburgers you want. It’s Conservatives we see in there among the kids with their school lunches, saying that we shouldn’t be pushing healthier stuff because the kids don’t like it.

I mean, I can recall a generation who would say, “tough,” but not this generation. No, just give them their high-fat, refined carbohydrate, Grade B quality fast food analogues.

How can I put this delicately? The system as the Republicans push it and define it doesn’t seem like the picture of personal morality and responsibility, it just seems terribly corrupt and lacking in common sense. It seems like the sort of system that’s designed essentially by asking every lobbyist with big bucks what they want, and then creating that system. That seems to be the organizing principle, more or less.

I want a better founded system, with better integrity than that, which can say no to the polluters, the schemers on Wall Street, the folks trying to turn the internet into a robber baron’s toll road, and the folks selling people bad pharmaceuticals and overpriced healthcare.

I don’t need everyting to be fun and happy and lovely. I want to be able to go off on my own with a clean conscience and a balanced checkbook. I want to get the internet speeds I pay for in my plan. I want the businesses to operate honestly, with actual, active consequences if they don’t, not just the possibility that the market MIGHT correct against them if they fail to do so. I’m sick of seeing bills go up simply because the companies can charge whatever the market will bear, regardless of whether people are being squeezed by other concerns. I’m sick of seeing people who pay their bill on time get kicked out of their houses by greedy financial institutions playing dirty tricks.

Long story short, what I want is a system that isn’t kicking me when I’m down, or dragging me down when I’m trying to be upwardly mobile, independent. Long story short, I want a system that works on an objective level, rather than deteriorating further with every year. I’m sick of our nation always being on this critical threshold, with your people doing things like the Debt Ceiling standoff, trying to push it over.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 19, 2014 6:56 PM
Comment #379671

Royal Flush-
It’s quite evident that you have no idea what you’re talking about. If I really didn’t like the Constitution, I would have said by now, if only out of complete frustration.

I think you’re wrong, but I’m not so brainless of a debater that I feel I need to back every disagreement I have with you by saying you are wrong because you hate the Constitution.

That’s the heavy handed, thick-skulled way one argues when one neither desires to convince people of things, nor has much skill at it. You bring out the Constitution and claim we hate it, because you are less than confident in both the system, and the Public’s willingness to agree with your criticism of it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 19, 2014 7:07 PM
Comment #379672

Daugherty: “I don’t see the government as father figures, I see it as an extension of the popular will.”

You sir, are a bald faced liar. Time and again the federal judiciary has ruled against the popular will. obamacare was not the popular will, but rather, the will of leftist willing to prostitute themselves on the altar of convenience and power.

Our energy policy is not part of the popular will, but rather based upon an elite bunch of leftists willing to sacrifice our economy and the well being of millions of Americans for personal gain and ideology.

Our educational system is in shambles when it comes to teaching our children the basics. The popular will isn’t demanding that moral degeneracy, concocted history and government dependence be taught their children.

You sir, are a liar and a hypocrite.

Daugherty: “It should be the American people’s mistake to make, and subsequently to repent of, should it be necessary.”

Pure sophistry. With that kind of twisted logic, we wouldn’t even require a constitution or courts or congress. Hell…make every issue a direct public plebiscite.

This sorry person believes he will do better under some other form of government. He certainly doesn’t support a democratic republic.

When a government makes enough mistakes it is replaced, not restored, as Daugherty seems to believe possible.

It is nearly unfathomable to understand Daugherty’s rants about personal, corporate and government responsibility. He understand none of them. He sits on his pity-pot whining about his life and circumstances. Listen fella…most of us get what we earn. You blame others while you should take a serious look at your own failings.

Shape up, and man up.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 19, 2014 8:06 PM
Comment #379673

Flushed, you have got to be one of, if not the most, condescending jerks I’ve ever encountered ! You and a couple of your buddies have driven most of the original and long-time contributors off of here. You must enjoy your own bloviating, because you’ve cleared the room of the rest.
Good job, Stephen, for controlling yourself and hanging in with your beliefs and attempts to encourage some new readers and contributors !

Posted by: jane doe at June 20, 2014 12:00 AM
Comment #379682

Hey! Look! The choir is back! Always critical, never constructive.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 20, 2014 9:15 AM
Comment #379683

Stephen Daugherty, on many occasions, brags about how he does the research needed to verify his comments. He insists everyone take his word as Gospel because his unquestionable, relentless, pursuit of the truth through research is reflected in his comments and they are beyond reproach. He is also of the mindset the Democratic Party is as clean as the wind driven snow, above the political mud slinging that dominates Washington D.C., incapable of fallacy.

In all his pompous demagoguery, he cannot be mistaken, or even capable of error. And then he comes up with this:

Sarah Palin actually said that line. Nobody forced her to sound stupid, she did that all by herself.

Really, Stephen Daugherty?

No wonder this woman is such a threat to the Democratics. One mention of her and any semblance of truth, civility, decorum goes out the window. How embarrassing for you Stephen Daugherty. Apparently, we were mistaken when we assumed you were knowledgeable in how to search for fact on the internet, and you just parrot the slander and lies put forth by your handlers.

So, let’s go through a little lesson on how to find facts on the internet.

First thing you need to do is understand what the internet is. It’s a place where information is stored and can be accessed with a computer program called a browser. The browser (pronounced brow’ zer) has a little space called a search bar, usually at the top of the browser, used to search for information. You simply type in the words you want to search for, like “sarah palin tina fey quote”, and the browser goes out to the internet to find them. When it finds them it displays the results in a browser window. The information displayed are places on the internet where pertinent information is stored. They are called links. Clicking on the links with your mouse button will take you to the information where you can actually read it in an effort to get to the facts.

Here, I will demonstrate:

http://youtu.be/JXL86v8NoGk

This is a link to a video in which Sarah Palin is answering a question from a reporter and pertains to your comment above. Notice it is actually Sarah Palin who is speaking. Notice the words she is using to answer the question. Given she is actually the person speaking and you can hear the actual words she is using to formulate her answer you can reliably assume those are the words Sarah Palin actually used.

Now, given the short attention span of many Democratics I should urge you to suffer through the commercial at the beginning of this video to get to the actual portion of the information we are looking for at this link:

http://www.hulu.com/#!watch/34465

This link takes us to the information we all call a parody. It is used to simulate an actual event, but it is modified to produce humor. Given the fact this parody is much greater in length than the average Democratic can pay attention to we can skip forward to the 1:15 mark in the video to get to the actual information we want to reference. It shows a comical mis-characterization of Sarah Palin’s words used to assassinate her character and discredit her worth. You know, the standard operating procedure of a Democratic’s debate tactic.

Based on your quote above I have to assume you have only seen the parody, which explains your need to call the woman stupid, to slander and discredit her character, and I have a solution.

You should get Obama to sign an order stating all left wing parody must be displayed in cartoon format so Democratics can tell the difference between the actual fact (real life) and parody (cartoon) to avoid the embarrassing statement such as yours made above.


Posted by: Weary Willie at June 20, 2014 10:08 AM
Comment #379685

You should get Obama to sign an order stating all left wing parody must be displayed in cartoon format so Democratics can tell the difference between the actual fact (real life) and parody (cartoon) to avoid the embarrassing statement such as yours made above.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 20, 2014 10:08 AM

Great idea Willie. And, obama could name Daugherty Parody Czar with a nice hefty government salary and perks.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 20, 2014 11:07 AM
Comment #379687

Jane: “You and a couple of your buddies have driven most of the original and long-time contributors off of here.”

Actually Jane, I correspond with them regularly now that they have been reformed. I will accommodate you also when and if you so choose.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 20, 2014 11:49 AM
Comment #379688

“In a Parade magazine cover story this week, the Obamas said that Malia, 15, and Sasha, 13, must learn early in life what it feels like to do really hard work with not enough pay.”
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2014/06/obamas-girls-will-get-minimum-wage-jobs-learn-hard-work/#e8htUp0yjGvpflYy.99

Well sure, just like Chelsea Clinton and her $600K salary.

“Malia, who will turn 16 on July 4, has reportedly been working as a production assistant on a Steven Spielberg-produced television show this summer, according to Reuters.”
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2014/06/obamas-girls-will-get-minimum-wage-jobs-learn-hard-work/#e8htUp0yjGvpflYy.99

Now you’re talking…really hard work. Certainly equivalent to my mowing lawns with a reel-type push mower when I was fourteen. Or picking cucumbers eight hours a day in season, or having a paper route with 200 deliveries six days a week year around. And the pay…just great, I bought my first new bicycle with my earnings and had a bank savings account with balance of over one thousand dollars.

obama…gotta love him.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 20, 2014 12:01 PM
Comment #379689

Stephen

I respect people enough where I like to address the points they make. I also like to deal with facts and have found addressing those facts on point by point basis is the easiest way for people to understand where and why they are wrong.
I am also very often pressed for time, so bypassing the hoopla and addressing the facts, is often my only choice.
I find a lot of people will go off on tangents filled with hyperbole and opinion just to avoid those facts.
Their goal is for me to accept their opinion as fact, or for me to embrace their ideas because everybody else has. That is not going to happen.

Stephen, we have been discussing things here on WB for what, 10+ years now? I personally hope for at least another 10+, so we might as well do what we can to insure our writing is understood.
I am glad you mentioned this up and I will do my best going forward.

—————

What I think you need to understand is that I don’t pretend to know what you actually believe. I can only go by the policies you support and what you write on here. Often times, I think what you actually believe conflicts with those two things and that is the reason you find it difficult to refute what is actually being said.

A lot of our goals are the same, where we differ is on the solutions, and the reason for that difference is our priorities. I know you have a hard time understanding this and write it off as some old movie cliche so as not to have to acknowledge it, but there really are millions of people who would rather live free and have nothing, than be controlled and given things.

Nobody wants a bad economy, most people are not rich, and everybody deals with hardship at one time or another. What you have to understand though, is that everybody isn’t willing to give up all of what they have in order to avoid those things. That people being more concerned with their rights and freedoms than they are with your comfort and convenience, is not personal.

To be honest, you have a habit of automatically going on the defensive anytime somebody questions the party you support and the policies it promotes. And you have a really BAD habit of using meaningless stereotypes while doing that. This prevents you from understanding the positions you are against, and causes you to debate what is not being actually said.

Now, I don’t pretend I don’t also sometimes do this, but I believe I have a pretty good understanding of liberal policy overall. In fact, I have asked you many times to show me where I am wrong and you have not been able to. Instead, I get verse after verse telling me that I am wrong for interpreting what liberal policy actually says and does, instead of falling for what it “really” means and what it might do.
You say you want effective government that is an extension of the peoples will, but yet liberal policy intentionally ignores the fact that the 49% who disagrees are also part of the peoples will.

This is why you are so wrong when you argue about changing the Constitution so that the will of the people trumps the rights of the individual. This is why the Constitution limits power that government holds over the people.
This is why mistakes almost always happen because people do not follow the directions.

Now that we are on the Constitution, the major problem with your argument is that the majority of our nations history supports my views on it, while only the latter decades support yours.
This notion of changing what the Constitution says in order to fulfill desires is relatively new to us. Which probably wouldn’t meet with so much resistance IF you guys kept it at a state level instead of the federal level. Now tell me, just how in the heck can separate interests play against each other when liberals use the federal government to force the same interests onto all of the states?
You always like to say it’s “my people” responsible for this, but the facts say differently. Liberals are the ones saying things must change, “my people,” are the ones saying it was never like that before in our history. Liberals are the ones saying that our nation was ran wrong for the majority of our history.
And why do they do this? Because liberal policy cannot co-exist with the way our Constitution was written. It must be reinterpreted and perverted so that people will accept liberalism.
How else will people believe they are being forced to live a certain way because government isn’t giving them something.

RE Obama: You lost that battle long ago, my friend. People in his position say what they mean, especially when off script. You aren’t making some plea for people to understand what he really said, you are trying to qualify what he actually said so that it doesn’t hurt him or the party at the polls.
When he said “if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance,” he didn’t mean everybody could? Seriously?
Come on man, even the most partisan lackey has to acknowledge this.

No, I do not watch rap videos. I do not like how they treat and objectify women. I also don’t appreciate when people flaunt their wealth and then turn around and tell me that I am selfish for not agreeing with a new government program to help others.
I disagree that most poor people want to be just like them though. Yes, way too many people now base their happiness on material things, but I honestly believe many are not so shallow.
That doesn’t mean they don’t think about it sometimes, I just don’t think they dwell on it to the same extent as those who do. Which is probably why they don’t envy or blame “the 1%” for everything as you do. Why they understand that there is more to life than money. Why they understand tax cuts don’t harm anything if spending is kept in check.
Here’s some advice I have given both my kids, Stephen:
- Don’t spend what you don’t have. Don’t spend what you think you might have. If you find yourself in money trouble, don’t expect your boss to give you raise and bail you out, STOP spending.

THAT’S called personal responsibility my friend. Why? Because they are not based on wants. Everybody wants a balanced checkbook, not everybody is willing to do what it takes to do it.
Constantly blaming “my people” for such lack of discipline and responsibility does not justify the policies you support, or your cause in promoting them.

As I have said a million times before, this all boils down to how one defines the job of government.
Is government working on an “objective level” when it controls and forces all to provide the wants of some? Or is it working on an objective level when it runs government, not lives?

Personally, I vote for the latter.

Posted by: kctim at June 20, 2014 12:04 PM
Comment #379692

Weary Willie-
You just don’t have much self awareness about how you sell your politics, do you?

Royal Flush-
Can I get a side of ranch dressing with that word salad?

The Framers themselves had the judges of the Supreme court appointed for life. Article III federal judges also are appointed for life, more or less. The point of that is PRECISELY to enable those judges to decide their cases without concern for popular sentiment. Additionally, they are appointed by the President, so Presidents can have a long lasting legacy in the courts.

That’s the point. That’s consensus on the purpose of those provisions. These are key parts of the separation of powers and the checks and balances system.

As for Obamacare? Americans gave the US Congress the shape it had when they passed it. They had proper authority to do what they did. You say popular will was against Obamacare, but I’ve cited multiple surveys that tell us that most provisions of it are well appreciated by the public, with the exception of the individual mandate.

Something else interesting comes up. A Bloomberg poll indicates that 11% of those who don’t approve of Obamacare, basically disapprove because they don’t think it went far enough. Combined with numbers of support, you get a different picture than your polls might show. You have 50% of Americans wanting Obamcare or something that goes further, opposed to 42 percent who think it goes too far.

Another odd thing is that 60% of the people report no change in their healthcare, and a quarter report a big change.

The next result, that of whether it should be repealed, whether people should see whether it works, or whether it just should be kept the same comes out firmly in the majority for seeing whether it works. Americans are willing to give it a chance, despite being told from your elite that it’s all an evil socialist takeover.

And, very importantly for upcoming elections: it seems to be a wash as to whether it motivates voting for or against.

Americans seem to be taking a truly skeptical approach to the law (as opposed to being critical sight unseen), one built on seeing how it works, rather than on your frenzied panic and outrage.

They did similar things on many of your policies. They looked at what happened with them, gave you a chance to carry them out. When they failed, then they turned on them.

The other polls indicate that people think it needs changes. Guess what? I’m completely comfortable with that. I never expected that this first bill would be the last. Americans have decided that, flaws and all, the industry needs to be regulated, and ordinary healthcare made affordable and available to all. They may not like Obama’s form perfectly, but they are for taking care of the problem.

As for the rest… damn, mister, I don’t know what to make of it. First you slam justices for not following the public sentiment (though that actually was the design of the system), then you ridicule me for pushing a mindless plebiscite as my form of government.

I can’t really decide how I am going to respond to you on many of these charges, before you yourself decide exactly what charges you’re going to level. You seem to be trying all of them out all at once, without regard to what might or might not work.

As for sitting on my pity-pot, it’s a certain sense of stubborn pride that keeps me coming here.

You talk to me of deserving things, but I don’t think people who pay every mortgage payment on time should have somebody pulling tricks with that bill in order to trip them up, just so they can get the instant profit of a foreclosure sale. I don’t think corporations should be setting out to put people deeper and deeper into debt as a matter of practice so they can sell derivatives with larger values on them to other investors.

When I talk about my personal experience… Well, I’m not just sitting around the house doing nothing. My personal experience is having worked without interruption for almost the last ten years. Even before then, I was trying to get work. I think I can reflect with pride on the way I’ve held up these last few years, on the way I’ve struggled to help keep my family going.

I can certainly look at what I do in my off time with some kind of pride, whether that’s the political writings, of which there are hundreds of essays and thousands of comments, or at the huge fictional universe I’ve been constructing, which I doubt most people can point to as an accomplishment.

But you know what? That doesn’t mean I don’t have problems, problems made worse not by my moral failings, of which I have a few, no dbout, but instead by the moral failings of others.

I consider it a moral failing for a mortgage company to push people falsely towards foreclosure, rather than do right by those who honor their end of the agreement. I consider it a moral failing for a company to sell food that is contaminated, or otherwise lacking in necessary quality, or for drug companies to sell drugs that either don’t work, or work at the cost of all too common and all too dangerous side effects.

I consider it a moral failing for a banks to take their depositor’s money, and use it to build irresponsibly large houses of financial cards.

All these things, if we translated it to one human being doing it, would also attract your ire. You wouldn’t argue with the fact that a man shouldn’t be allowed to contaminate your hamburger by not washing his hands before he prepares it. You wouldn’t argue that a man who sells you a drug that he claims will cure you should be punished if that drug is a fraud, and/or if it has dangerous side-effects. If one person took money you left with him, did a whole bunch of elaborate wagers, and then turned around and left you with nothing, you would want them punished.

Somehow, though, you seem to believe that when people get together in these big businesses, when that person is a legal person rather than an actual one, that all these basic, social rules go out the window.

I have no such double standard. I expect groups of people to behave as responsibly as individuals are expected to.

My experience in life is that circumstances tend to be random, while the way we deal with things aren’t. Morality sometimes has something to do with how people end up, but sometimes sheer, bad luck dominates.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 20, 2014 12:55 PM
Comment #379693

kctim-
I think you’ll find that I rarely mention amending the Constitution itself. I don’t feel we need to change the document itself, just how we apply it. It needs to make sense for the times as they are today.

I believe the only time we should amend the Constitution is when there is no other way to deal with a given problem. Otherwise, we should figure out how best to apply what we got, and where it’s limits fall, so should the government’s.

We differ on what we think that constitution says. I don’t differ in the belief that it needs to be adhered to. I don’t think most Democrats differ much from that, either. I do not equate your difference of opinion with a lack of belief in the Constitution. I would hope that the favor be returned.

What frustrates me is that Conservatives are more and more being taught to look at everybody else like they’re from Mars, instead of being much like the folks themselves. It seems to me that this is being done deliberately to preserve a kind of political enclave of unpersuadables. Unfortunately, our system was designed for more cooperative people, and they don’t seem to get that.

You need to realize that as much as you resent the way I can lump people together, that much of what you and other say about us reflects a hostile political view, fed back into itself, rather than a realistic vew of people like me.

You need to stop looking at us as people who are uniquely unable to handle our money, or our own lives. You need to realize that much of this stereotype was purposefully constructed in order to draw white voter to Republican candidates, play on your fears of having to slave away to support somebody else’s life. The irony is, many of the people who do the resenting for the GOP would be in much sorrier shape if it wasn’t for what the government did for them.

People can be myopic when it comes to how government actually works in their lives. They see getting helped as only right, while they look at others getting that assistance and see leaches. They get caught up in the fear of losing a job, and businesses and wealthy individuals use that in order to pressure the govenrment to let them do more things to individuals just like them, just so they can make more money.

In another time, I might have been a Republican. Trouble is, the modern Republican party doesn’t respect science, doesn’t acknowledge the history of how things have gone wrong in business, and doesn’t leave people to make their own free choices on personal and private matters.

I’m not a libertarian, I don’t have the faith some do that people always follow rules when they don’t have to, when there aren’t costs to breaking them.

I am not a socialist. A part of me, that very concrete-minded creature, would like to believe that if you set up all the right rules, folks would be good. Another part, tempered by experience, says that not only are too many rules unweildy, and unlikely to be followed in full, it’s often an inelegant solution to things. I’m of the school of thought that you figure out how to do things more elegantly with fewer rules, emphasize results over means of attaining those results. I’ve learned about cognitive systems, about the way people communicate, the way information diffuses, and all that.

I think political discussion gets hung up too much on positions, especially on the right, where they’re the means to tell whether somebody has proper conservative credentials. What do those matter, really? These things are the bleeding over of rhetorical constructs, created so that candidates can keep their stands on issues straight in their speeches, into some sort of pseudoscientific test for who’s a quality candidate.

The real world takes nuance. It’s not simply some speech where you’re trying to make distinct points, it’s a whole lot of messy, practical concerns where things don’t operate as simply as they do in the abstract, imaginary world of talking points.

I don’t have the kind of brain that allows me to gloss over discrepancies. I understand my party’s policies aren’t perfect. However, I end up measuring that imperfection against other policies, and I can’t convince myself that today’s GOP policies are anything but an inconsistent jumble of campaign financier’s wishlist items. Their inconsistencies are far more glaring than the ones you might point out about my side’s politics.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 20, 2014 1:29 PM
Comment #379694

The “moral failings” which Daugherty makes reference to are actually against the laws and regulations we have in place.

Corporations operate for profit, not to set moral standards. Just as we find crooks and incompetence in government, we expect to find it in our private companies. Human nature has not been ruled inoperable and invalid.

When those who operate beyond the boundaries of law are not prosecuted we all suffer. Such is not the case unfortunately in both government and business.

Without doing any research, I will make a bold assumption. I would be surprised if more than one quarter of one percent of our companies are guilty of what you describe. But then, you and I disagree even on morality.

I will assume that Daugherty draws upon some loose definition of morality…if it feels good and a majority agree, it must be moral.

Daugherty: “As for the rest… damn, mister, I don’t know what to make of it. First you slam justices for not following the public sentiment…”

How could you understand my position when you misstate it?

Elections have consequences as you have often reminded us. When a majority of voters in A STATE have their wishes confounded by liberal federal judicial fiat it is a serious breech. When a president or attorney general decide which laws to enforce and which to relax, it is a serious breech.

When we empower unelected regulators to impede upon our personal liberty and private property it is a serious offense.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 20, 2014 1:32 PM
Comment #379695

Weary Willie-
I find this whole, “afraid of x” canard truly annoying. No, I don’t fear Ted Cruz. Obama went up against him and forced his party to accept the very compromise that his people promised their voters would never pass. I don’t fear Sarah Palin. The woman couldn’t stand the media scrutiny, ended up resigning as governor halfway through her term, to become what? A pundit. A talking head.

Whether it’s Mr. Drinkwater (aka, Marco Rubio), or Jeb Bush (trust me, they’re not ready for another), or somebody else entirely, I find most Republican politicians these days kind of pathetic.

They’re often completely clueless about keeping their foot out of their mouth, thanks to years of indoctrination in the evils of political correctness. They lack any real, exciting agendas. Your last running mate went with an agenda so corrosive to social service in the government that the Catholic Bishops, usually conservative stalwarts, abandoned it.

Republicans got their wish in terms of figures who appeal strongly to them, and don’t fail the litmus tests, but the consequence of that is that their people are limited in their appeal beyond the party.

Sarah Palin is emblematic of that. Her political career is essentially over, and quitting halfway through the first term of her governorship essentially sealed that fate. In a real sense, it’s far easier to demonstrate that she’s afraid of us than we are of her. The ridicule we level at her isn’t just strategic, it’s sincere.

We really do think she’s a joke.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 20, 2014 1:46 PM
Comment #379696

Am I supposed to kiss your ass when you choose to slander someone, Stephen Daugherty? You claim to verify your sources and then say something like that and I’m supposed to laugh it off and let it go? Do you think you can say whatever you want to demean people you disagree with without consequence?

For someone who puts themselves on the pedestal you do, you are very loose with the degradation you use to abuse your political opponents you can’t compete with.

I think you owe Sarah Palin and the rest of us a public apology for calling her stupid and saying she should keep her mouth shut when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 20, 2014 1:59 PM
Comment #379697

Again with the lies? Have you no shame? It’s no wonder your party doesn’t want the 10 commandments in view. Not that they would give it a guilty conscience. It takes morals to have a conscience.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 20, 2014 2:35 PM
Comment #379698

WW
It would be nice if you showed the same respect you do to Sarah Palin to the women who used to and in one case still do frequent this blog. We miss a lot when we don’t have comments from women on this blog, besides adding a sense of civility they have a perspective that we men seem to be lacking.

Anyway can’t comment much lately due to personal circumstances but I have tried to keep up on my readings at this blog. Thanks to all who provide reasoned thoughtful comments, it is exactly why I started coming to this blog a long time ago. Those comments help me gain a better understanding of the people I may disagree with but share a country with. Adversarial politics is great, thanks again.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 20, 2014 2:40 PM
Comment #379699

Royal Flush-
Saying “corporations operate for profit” as a defense for them behaving differently from regular people is misleading, for don’t individuals act for their own profit?

I have no problem with profit. I know you’ll come up with some bizarrely different words to put in my mouth, so let me just say this explicitly: profit itself is not inherently evil to me.

I believe, though, it must be earned within the boundaries of moral behavior. Otherwise, like any “person” who forsakes such boundaries, they become a menace to others.

Without doing any research, I will make a bold assumption.

Wouldn’t be the first time. I would counter-bet you, with much more evidence and research on my side, that everybody cheats to one extent or another. Truth is, social constraints are a big part of what keep us honest. Research has shown even a cartoonish set of eyes, set over a coffee station or snackbar, can keep folks more honest when they’re asked to abide by the honor system.

The less people think it’s possible to get caught, to get punished, the more they’ll ignore the rules. Human behavior is often a competition between our sense of what’s expedient, and a sense of what others would do if they knew of our actions.

As for what definition of morality I draw upon? A very deep, very concrete one, compared to yours, apparently. For you, it’s all good and well to let the market, that is a whole lot of somebody elses, keep morality for you. If they don’t? Hey, it doesn’t matter then!

As for this?

Elections have consequences as you have often reminded us. When a majority of voters in A STATE have their wishes confounded by liberal federal judicial fiat it is a serious breech. When a president or attorney general decide which laws to enforce and which to relax, it is a serious breech.

You know, my civics teacher in high school was quite conservative, really disliked Clinton. But she did me the favor of teaching me in quite thorough detail how the government works.

You seem to have no clear idea at all. Congress is what gives agencies their power, both in the enabling acts, and in subsequent legislation. As for “liberal federal judicial fiat?” You can’t argue that somebody doesn’t have the authority to render a ruling just because you don’t like who appointed them, or what that judges politics are.

The constitution and subsequent laws deliberately puts judges at odds with popular sentiment, giving them lifetime appointments far beyond those of the elected officials who appoint and confirm them.

Once again, you seem to say one thing (that we shouldn’t be a “direct public plebiscite”), and then another (that the majority of the voters shouldn’t be defied, that judges should not gainsay popular opinion.) It just seems to me that if you want to criticize me for one thing, you bash me with one attitude, and if you want to criticize me from another, you do it from that angle.

You know, the thing is, I look at the way your people deal with the Constitution, and it doesn’t seem to really get the way it was constructed.

It seems to revolve around whether or not something gets in the way of the power you want to have. The Bicameral, Presidentially checked nature of our legislative process doesn’t seem to factor into the Tea Party’s decision making. The fact that the Constitution makes no supermajority requirement for most appointments didn’t seem to faze Republicans who blocked much of Obama’s slate of judges and officials wholesale, despite THAT being a presidential power. Republicans howl about judicial activism, but when confronted by many of Justice Robert’s controversial decisions, often flying in the face of precedent, they’re a-okay with it.

It’s not a good thing that I can predict whether you remember or forget that this is a constitutional, democratic republic based on whether what you want is in conflict with it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 20, 2014 2:51 PM
Comment #379701

Daugherty: “Saying “corporations operate for profit” as a defense for them behaving differently from regular people is misleading, for don’t individuals act for their own profit?”

Never implied, another misread by one who is literacy challenged.

Daugherty: “I believe, though, it (corporate profit) must be earned within the boundaries of moral behavior.” Whose moral behavior would that be? I have written that they must operate within the law and regulations in place. Beyond that, it’s none of your business and certainly not subject to your morality…whatever that may imply.

I wrote: “Without doing any research, I will make a bold assumption. I would be surprised if more than one quarter of one percent of our companies are guilty of what you describe.”

Daugherty: I would counter-bet you, with much more evidence and research on my side, that everybody cheats to one extent or another. “

Here is a chance for me to instruct Daugherty so he doesn’t make so many ignorant comments. I defended corporations as only having a few who operate outside the law and regulations. And he…writes about individuals cheating.

Now read carefully Daugherty, breaking the law is not the same as cheating. Getting into some silly psychobabble about John and Jane Doe cheating hardly compares with the uncontrolled lawbreaking by corporations you described in a previous comment.

Daugherty: “As for what definition of morality I draw upon? A very deep, very concrete one, compared to yours, apparently. For you, it’s all good and well to let the market, that is a whole lot of somebody elses, keep morality for you.”

Well…what is that “very deep, very concrete one” you espouse?

Another teaching moment. Because I defend most corporations as law-abiding and regulation keeping, he equates that to my personal morality. Mr. Daugherty, you are ill! You have a brain disease! Get help!

Apparently Daugherty’s Civics Teacher failed to teach, or he failed to absorb, the nature of States Rights outlined in our Constitution or the concept of “individual” not “group” rights.

Unfortunately for Daugherty, he views every American as either his competitor or compatriot. He believes in some formulation for wealth equality. The equation does not include individual effort, ability, risk-taking, or initiative.

Here is Daugherty’s equation for equality: Take the pie…and, divide it equally without regard to who created the pie.

In many of his comments Daugherty likes to portray anyone under 30 or 40 years of age as being his natural compatriot in liberalism. That age group has far different ambitions that he could possibly imagine in his little fantasy world.

Should Daugherty ever become successful in his personal (not political) ambitions, I fear his mind would split. The left half of his brain would detest his success and accuse the right half of his brain of gross unfair capitalism.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 20, 2014 3:34 PM
Comment #379703

I would be thrilled if, in one case, women had anything intelligent to say. Why anyone would insist on carping about by-gone days, when anyone with a dissenting opinion was banned, is beyond me. Preaching to the choir is not debate. I would be thrilled if they commented by injecting their own opinion instead of whining about the opinion of others.

For instance, can anyone put forth a fault of Sarah Palin’s without lying through their teeth.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 20, 2014 4:53 PM
Comment #379704

Weary Willie-
She said she’d rejected earmarks. She lied. She said she put the plane on e-bay, implying that she successfully innovated a private sector solution to the problem. She forgot to mention it never sold, and had to be sold the way it ought to have been in the first place, by some sort of agent. She ws for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it, and flooded Wasilla with Earmarked money when she was mayor.

The woman was generally unprepared for key debates, couldn’t even get her tone right so you knew when she was ending a sentence. What magazines do you read is not a gotcha question, and blaming the liberal media when you screw up is not helpful to you or anybody else.

It didn’t help that your people tried a combination of her age, her femininity, and her brashness to make her seem like a combination of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, when she was more like a combination of Dick Cheney and Dan Quayle. Mean people bug me. Stupid people bug me. Mean, stupid people with a lot of power? No thanks.

Her selection was a collosal, unforced error on the McCain Campaign’s part. The retention of her as a public figure, the rationalization of her blatantly obvious failings as Liberal media slanders, is a continued, unforced error on the GOP’s part.

You guys have embraced too many of these people on these sorts of defensive grounds, and as a result, you just don’t get rid of the people who make folks outside the party wonder at the sanity and intelligence of the party.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 20, 2014 5:57 PM
Comment #379705

Stephen, You have no room to talk about the strange people in the Republican party, when you have strange people in elected capacity who are Democrats. To name a few Biden, Waserman Schultz, Pelosi. The strange thing though is your side keeps electing them.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 20, 2014 6:34 PM
Comment #379710

Guilt by association, eh Stephen Daugherty? Murkowski and Young get earmarks and you attribute their inclusion to a Governor and a Mayor.

Let’s take look at the queen of the anti-earmark movement Clair McCaskill. She is a staunch opponent of earmarks yet her state received over 1 billion dollars in earmark spending from 2008 to 2010! Where’s the “Stupid Clair” comments, Stephen Daugherty? What? Good enough for me, but not for thee?

You also forget to mention how stupid and hypocritical Obama is when he was against earmarks and then had them spike when health care, Dodd/Frank, and Cap and Trade came to a vote. What about his own earmark for 1 million to the state of ? MISSOURI!

Report finds spike in earmarks to Democratic lawmakers during controversial votes

Numbers from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service show that the value of administration earmarks under President Obama increased by a 126 percent in his first two years in office and the actual number of administrative earmarks increased by 54 percent.

Those are dramatic increases that are 11 times more than Congress itself increased earmarks, which the White House did not explain today.

Yea, no hypocrisy there, right Stephen Daugherty? It seems Sarah Palin was a lot smarter than you give her credit for by anticipating Obama and his lies and trying to circumvent them.

Tell me, Stephen Daugherty, what would happen if Rush Limbaugh moved in next door to Wendy Davis and started writing a book about her the way Joe Mcginniss did? That would be fine and dandy for you, yes?

What would you say if the NRA started suing the pants off of the Governor of Illinois with frivolous lawsuits? Would you give him a pass when he couldn’t do his job anymore?

For someone who is so knowledgeable about well, everything, you sure are ignorant when it comes to believing the talking points against someone you feel threatened by. I think you would have to become a Republican to be able to have a legitimate debate minus the hypocrisy, double-standards, lies, and slander because it seems that’s all the Democratics have got going for them.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 20, 2014 10:26 PM
Comment #379712

Speak4all


“It would be nice if you showed the same respect you do to Sarah Palin to the women who used to and in one case still do frequent this blog. We miss a lot when we don’t have comments from women on this blog, besides adding a sense of civility they have a perspective that we men seem to be lacking.”

I read jane doe’s comment to RF and there was nothing constructive or informative about it. In fact if my memory serves me it would appear she broke pretty much EVERY rule of participation for this site. Sense of civility….perspective ? Not in this case. But go ahead and continue to opine, it’s entertaining if nothing else.

Posted by: dbs at June 21, 2014 7:27 AM
Comment #379713

RF

Stephen said:

“You know, my civics teacher in high school was quite conservative, really disliked Clinton. But she did me the favor of teaching me in quite thorough detail how the government works.”

Well RF it would appear your concerns about the declining condition of our public school systems would be correct. LOL !

Posted by: dbs at June 21, 2014 7:36 AM
Comment #379717


2014 comes,in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style,varieties, low price and good quality,and the low sale price.Thank everyone Welcome to ==== http://www.kkship4biz.net ==
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35
Jordan (1-22)&2009 shoes $45
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $30
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $14
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $16
Biki ni (Ed hardy, polo) $18
FREE SHIPPING
http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net
http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===
This is a shopping paradise
We need your support and trust

Posted by: dfertw at June 21, 2014 10:39 AM
Comment #379787

Well I guess this clarifies the Republican War on Women. They have been denying and denying this but the clarification would seem to be that they only have a War on Women that they disagree with. Problem is they disagree with over 75% of the women in this country. I’ll bet you guys were and still are real charmers around the opposite sex. Calling them whining and uncivil is a sure way to put yourself in their good standing. Now you might say you don’t want to be in any standing with them, that is your choice. I just think you are stupid for not seeing value in attempting to communicate with them whether you agree with them or not. But then again that’s the whole problem with Republicans/conservatives/TeaPartyics and the rest (no compromise ever). Good luck with your interactions with them and don’t expect to much in the way of results.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 23, 2014 10:12 AM
Comment #379802

Stephen

Changing how we apply the Constitution is the same as reinterpreting it, and the dangers of doing that are proven every day. What I think you fail to respect is that the foundation is most important and must be adhered to at all times.
For example: if the arms of today are too scary for some and they don’t care or worry about government tyranny, then amend or repeal the 2nd Amendment the proper way. If people want freedom FROM religion, do it the proper way and change the 1st to say FROM religion, instead of saying OF religion.
In other words, stop reinterpreting our basic rights in order to infringe upon them, do it the right way.

Yes, we differ on what we think the Constitution says, but, as I said before, I have the majority of our nations history backing me up.
You have to remember that you are the one wishing to change that history, so you are going to be the one that faces the most resistance. You are getting so frustrated lately because people have reached the limit to how much they are willing to give up.

Stephen, the way I view the far-left is based solely on their actions, not unfounded stereotypes. Your willingness to infringe on the rights of the individual in order to “benefit” society in the way YOU think is best, is fact.

You question how some people on the right resent you even though government helps them, but the real question is WHY do they resent those policies? WHY do they care less about what you promise to give them and more about their individual rights?
Why are you so willing to write this very fundamental belief off as nothing more than racism or fear?

Let’s be honest here, you don’t like the modern Republican party because it has not changed the way you believe it should. I have asked you guys numerous times exactly how the beliefs of the modern right differs from the past, and cannot get an answer. You don’t find it troubling that the right doesn’t respect science, you find it troubling that all of them don’t support the theory of climate change. You are troubled that we define success differently than you do.

As far as us not wanting to leave people to make their own free choices on personal and private matters, please.
Me not paying or wanting to pay for your desires is NOT me dictating your personal or private matters.
It is the policies that you support that control how people believe and what they support.

Political discussions will always be about positions, you blame the right because we have different priorities and you refuse to acknowledge how that related to the rejection of your policies.
Simply put, you cannot grasp how people accept a candidate who tells them they think government should leave them alone, over a candidate who tells them how great the economy will be if government redistributes the wealth of others to them, gives them free health care etc…

The fact is, Stephen, that we measure the success and failure of policies in two very different ways. You want policy based on your ideas of fairness, comfort and convenience, I want policy based on individual freedoms and liberty. You are willing to give up some of mine in order to get yours, I am not.

Posted by: kctim at June 23, 2014 11:58 AM
Comment #379805

Plural? Just like a Democratic. Exaggerate, make stuff up, ignore their own shortcomings, and blame whatever faux outrage they concoct on anyone who disagrees with them.

Speak4all, how can you ignore a statement like this and then expectorate your spurious indignity?

Flushed, you have got to be one of, if not the most, condescending jerks I’ve ever encountered !

jane doe waltzes in here and starts insulting people and offers nothing constructive. What is there to communicate with, Speak4all? How do you have a conversation with someone who only levies insults and false statements?

You and a couple of your buddies have driven most of the original and long-time contributors off of here.

jane doe doesn’t realize her type of conversation was getting old and tiring. I would also venture to say Democratics have nothing to say because they cannot stand behind the lies, deceit, falsehoods, and criminal behavior that exemplifies the Democratic Party as of late.

You must enjoy your own bloviating, because you’ve cleared the room of the rest.

You ignore the obvious callousness of jane doe’s comments to create an issue where none existed. An issue of your own making:

Problem is they disagree with over 75% of the women in this country.

Prove it, Speak4all! I know! You don’t have to prove anything to me. You just have to regurgitate your hate and we’re expected to take it at face value. Prove to us that Republicans disagree with 75% of the women in this country!

I just think you are stupid..

Good job, Speak4all! Way to win friends and influence people. Let’s call the kettle black, Mr. Pot!

Good luck with your interactions with them and don’t expect to much in the way of results.

I don’t expect much in the way of results with people who refuse to have it any way but their own. Stubborn, childlike, conceited behavior permeates the Democratic party politics. The only way to deal with Democratics is to stand up to them and put them in their place. They are not the only plant in the pot, Speak4all. They are going to have to figure out how to deal with people who disagree with them. They are going to have to realize they must compromise because the give and give way the Republicans are dealing with them will come to a screeching halt when the money runs out.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2014 2:12 PM
Comment #379808

All you do is come here and whine, whine and whine some more and then you complain about someone whining, what hubris. You are probably the most uncivil comment writer that I have read on this blog. Calling you stupid probably gives you more credit for intelligence than I should. Your willful ignorance would be a better description of how you treat others. It seems pretty clear why you are unable to have a successful relationship with the opposite sex. You are to willfully ignorant for them to want to waste their time on and frankly I feel the same.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 23, 2014 2:27 PM
Comment #379810

What do you know about my personal life, Speak4all? You don’t know anything about me. Your comment only reflects the arrogance the Democratics have toward people they disagree with. They can’t help but attack on a personal level because they have no foundation to debate from. The immoral behavior of the Democratics deserve uncivil discourse because they must learn how to be civil to others.

Only when they learn to communicate with others instead of forcing them to submit to their point by lying, slandering and mis-characterizing their opponents, will there be a healty political atmosphere in this country. It is not the Republicans who are causing this poisioned atmosphere. The unyeilding, uncompromising positions of the Democratics have pushed people who disagree with them into a corner and they are tired and are fighting back.

The attitude needs to change, Speak4all, and the ball is in your court. Let’s see if your side can offer something constructive that doesn’t force Republicans to submit as a matter of course.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2014 2:41 PM
Comment #379811

Weary Willie

Remember what they say about arguing with idiots. Speaks didn’t bother to address the facts presented in either of our posts. Instead he/she decided to take the high road (LOL) and level personal insults instead. A complete waste of time. Nuff said.

Posted by: dbs at June 23, 2014 4:07 PM
Comment #379812

The Democratic’s position is hollow. They cannot stand for anything because if they try to explain what they truly believe in they will be laughed out of the room. They have to resort to lies, insults, subterfuge, slander, anything that will distract from the actual truth.

They don’t even have the stuff to truly state what their position is. There isn’t a Democratic in the country who will stand up and say they are really socialists. They hide behind calling our political system a democracy. What our political system truly is at this point is a mob voting themselves largess, holding it together with war and counterfeiting, and calling it all pretty names while bad mouthing anyone who disagrees with them.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2014 4:24 PM
Comment #379813

Perhaps you don’t recall your first visits to this blog, but I do. Your rants about your wife or significant other were tiresome and you obviously haven’t been able to make headway in changing your attitude. Good luck with that.

This country needs Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and even Teapartyics. All of our voices combined make this country what it is. That you disapprove of that does not make you special or deserving of any special considerations.

You two complaining about someone whining would be laughable if you weren’t trying to act serious about it.

I am not arguing with either of you just commenting on your inabilities to treat others on this blog with the common respect that others try to show. There you both fail.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 23, 2014 4:33 PM
Comment #379815

When was my first visit, Speak4all? Unless you’ve changed your moniker I remember when you started posting here.


Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2014 4:42 PM
Comment #379817

As I have stated before I have been visiting this blog since it’s inception or very near to that, forget what you think you know about that. I did not start commenting until I read some comments that I didn’t think were truly contributing to the discussion. You however are pretty much a new comer here (couple of years). Who of us here could forget your strawberry jam problems? Look all I am asking is if you see someone (especially of the opposite sex) make comments here try to control your rage and understand that not all of us harbor your hatred of women, minorities or anyone that is different than you. Some of us enjoy the differences and look to find out as much as we can without being offensive.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 23, 2014 4:50 PM
Comment #379818

No, I think Speak4all is resorting to slander again in an attempt to justify his side’s position. Does anyone even remember what Speak4all’s position is?

Yea, the war on women. All women! 75% of the female population! And the point he makes to back up that outragous statement is:

Your rants about your wife or significant other were tiresome and you obviously haven’t been able to make headway in changing your attitude.

He only confirms my statements. They can’t help themselves. They have to resort to slander and lies because they can’t back up their original position.

Not once have I personally attacked you, Speak4all. And you wonder why we choose not to be civil. It has been proven it gets us nowhere.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2014 4:51 PM
Comment #379819

You are constantly on the attack with anyone you disagree with on this blog. Please try to remain calm and just try not to be offensive.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 23, 2014 4:52 PM
Comment #379820

My wife’s name is Strawberry Jam? You’re funny, Speak4all!

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2014 4:53 PM
Comment #379822

You wrote a post about making jam as one of your first posts to this blog. Perhaps you were drinking more then. You might be able to find it in the archives. I don’t care to as it wasn’t very informative then and it wouldn’t be for me now. I just remember it at the time since someone else was attempting to post but was unable to get the moderators to allow them to. I don’t post on this blog but I do write comments.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 23, 2014 4:57 PM
Comment #379823

The thickness of your skin is showing, Speak4all. Never have I resorted to the vicious slander you’ve stooped to in this thread.

You are getting personal without any justification. Simply because I say something you disagree with is no reason to create lies and fabricate stories about my personal life. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2014 4:59 PM
Comment #379824

I remember the post very well. It had nothing to do with women and you’re bringing it up only shows you are grasping at straws to distract from the fact you cannot back up your assertion that I am waging a war on women.

Typical Democratic tactic. Deflect and obfuscate by throwing around lies hoping they stick.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2014 5:03 PM
Comment #379825

Read through the archives, you may learn something about yourself. I have better things to do. No slander here.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 23, 2014 5:03 PM
Comment #379826

I do not think you understand what I am trying to say. You have an obvious hatred of women who disagree with you and I think that it is unhealthy and not productive to a lively political discussion.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 23, 2014 5:05 PM
Comment #379828

You’re making that up, Speak4all. Look how easily it is for you to believe your own lie. All you have to do is say it and it’s like you’ve believed it your whole life. It’s sad you can brainwash yourself so quickly, all in an effort to not admit someone may disagree with your politics.

And you wonder why people won’t agree with you.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2014 5:15 PM
Comment #379829

I would remind, or inform Speak, of the Misogynist-in-Chief Bill Clinton. Nuff said.

For everyone else…you may get a kick out of this “youtube” video titled…”The Golden Age of Liberal Misogyny: The Long Liberal Tradition of Abusing Women”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67TLPOMHHWY

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 23, 2014 5:16 PM
Comment #379830

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. In fact I have stated many times that the adversarial political nature of our government has served this country well and will continue to long after you and I are gone. E pluribus unum.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 23, 2014 5:21 PM
Comment #379831

The video I linked called Ted Kennedy the Lion of the Senate which sparked a reminder of one of my favorite liberal jokes.

A Republican Senator rose on the floor of the Senate and began by saying…”Gentlemen, let me tax your memories.”

Kennedy was heard to whisper to a colleague…”Damn, why didn’t I think of that.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 23, 2014 5:22 PM
Comment #379832

So then why are you attacking people with personal lies, Speak4all? This episode, in your attempt to carry jane doe’s hankie, has resorted to the most vile of personal attacks on me. I said nothing to compare what you’ve said in this post.

You start by going off on a tangent, this outragous comment that we are waging a war on women, and when you are asked to back it up with some kind of fact, any kind of fact, you slander and malign me in a personal way that is totally false! I think you should, instead of digging your hole deeper, you should retract what you said about this faux issue you call an

obvious hatred of women who disagree with you

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2014 5:34 PM
Comment #379833

You continue to make it worse by your protestations to the opposite. “The lady doth protest to much, methinks” (look it up). I am shocked, shocked I tell you that you feel so attacked (not really but just thought I would add that). No retraction here and in fact I would just reiterate my request, try to remain calm and not be offensive to others on this blog.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 23, 2014 5:40 PM
Comment #379834

Why don’t show some proof speaks? Maybe then we would take you more seriously but to just spout off accusations without proof shows nothing but just run off of the keyboard.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 23, 2014 5:44 PM
Comment #379835

Tell me something, Speak4all. What would you say if I accused you of hating your wife, of having no respect for your significant other?

Calling you stupid probably gives you more credit for intelligence than I should. Your willful ignorance would be a better description of how you treat others. It seems pretty clear why you are unable to have a successful relationship with the opposite sex. You are to willfully ignorant for them to want to waste their time on and frankly I feel the same.

You should comment on my superior restraint, Speak4all. I would never come to be so low as to comment like that to anyone. Yet for you, it rolls off your tongue like King George to a peasant. Where do you get off saying something like that to anyone?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2014 5:52 PM
Comment #379836

Read the paper, watch the news, surf the internet. I have told people here many times that they can look for their own proof. I am not here to provide for your proof, you will find your own soon enough. I live with a lady who lets me know regularly what conservatives/Republicans/Teapartyics and the rest think about women and I respect her opinion a whole lot more than any of yours. I live with my proof. How about you guys? Gotta go now, you guys try to remain calm and be nice, K?

Posted by: Speak4all at June 23, 2014 5:54 PM
Comment #379837

Again with the fake indignation? Oh well, if it makes you feel better. I can tell a phony when I read one.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 23, 2014 5:56 PM
Comment #379838

LOL…thanks for the great laugh Speak. Let’s see if I understand. You “live with a lady”. OK. She informs you of what we think about women. OK. You respect her opinion. OK. You have no opinion of your own. OK.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 23, 2014 6:01 PM
Comment #379839

Gawd, how obtuse!

Speak4all throws out an outragous charge and then expects us to prove it’s validity to ourselves!

Yes, Speak4all. Please. Run away instead of stand behind your outlandish remarks like a typical Democratic.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2014 6:10 PM
Comment #379840

The lady I live with will tell you a whole different story speaks. All because conservatives disagree on some points doesn’t mean that they are at war with women. Heck I’ve read in some news articles on the net that it’s the liberals who are at war with women!!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 23, 2014 6:13 PM
Comment #380271

You know, as far as the whole “liberals are misogynists, too” line goes, I think the fact that so many of their people can and do say things that are terribly misogynist, which their fellow Republicans, especially that Rush Limbaugh guy, rationalize, tells me that this is really just another red herring they throw out.

Truth is, your views are behind the times. When you make jokes about putting an aspirin between your knees as contraception, you are going to get it, because for the last forty years, birth control pill have been part of the standard kit of things that women in our society use, and that includes faithful wives as well as party girls.

The position hasn’t changed since the seventies on the Conservative side, but the rest of society has moved on.

Now you have people who want to reassert a resistance and rejection of this, and do so now. Only you’re not dealing with women who expect to become homemakers, you’re dealing with women who have a choice.

Republicans are right now fighting for an employers right to take away that choice, in the name of their own religious beliefs, and they label this removal of choice on the employee’s part by the employer, an expression of the employer’s freedom of religion.

I would have think that would have applied to the owner’s own choice. I keep getting told these things are individual rights, yet somehow an employer, through their corporation, gets to deny an employee their right to choose according to their religion what benefits they will or will not get.

Where does this end, and how? What are the standards being set?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2014 4:40 PM
Comment #380272

dbs-
You should be ashamed to besmirch her name. She did her job thoroughly, did it very well. It’s part of the reason all this process bull**** you guys try to faze me with doesn’t work. I know how the sausage is made, so my expectations are not set unrealistically. I know how stubborn a person has to be to actually get anything done in Washington.

But not just stubborn. I understood going in what the problems for the Tea Party were going to be, because I knew the structure of our legislative process. I knew damn well that my party wasn’t going to pass through the Senate the house bills that were Republican fantasies. The Republicans want to pretend they can bully the Democrats into it, but they know the score on the Constitution.

Tea Partiers don’t. If they were smart, they would understand something very simple: the only thing getting through will be something both sides agree on. It might be more conservative than what the Democrats would pass on their own, but it’s not going to be bills gutting the EPA’s authority, or regulatory authority in general.

My civics teacher made it clear the first few days of class: Majority rules with minority rights.

Why do Republicans expect that formula to be stood on its head? This is not a Democracy, at least not a direct one. But it is a representative republic with democratically elected officials. Filtered as it is, the will of the people is still expected to percolate through. Unfortunately, some are not satisfied with the power that affords them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2014 4:58 PM
Comment #380273

Daugherty…”Truth is, your views are behind the times. When you make jokes about putting an aspirin between your knees as contraception, you are going to get it, because for the last forty years, birth control pill have been part of the standard kit of things that women in our society use, and that includes faithful wives as well as party girls.”

Good grief man…you are so out of date it’s pathetic.

He writes; “Republicans are right now fighting for an employers right to take away that choice…”

How silly and immature. Women have rights regardless of their employer dummy. No one is preventing any woman from having and using a contraceptive.

Daugherty is merely arguing about who should pay for a prescription…not rights. But, one should not expect him to address issues…just parrot a stupid non-argument by his clown leaders. I wonder if Daugherty has ever even dated a woman.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 28, 2014 5:02 PM
Comment #380283

Royal Flush-
Don’t lie to me. Don’t tell me that the people who run Hobby Lobby don’t want to discourage contraception, due to their religious beliefs. Don’t insult my intelligence by claiming that this isn’t part of a social agenda they’re using their business to promote.

Legal precedent already requires that non-church health plans carry contraception. It’s a response to Viagra being available. Let’s be clear: companies have already been paying costs for this, already been required to do it.

All Obamacare does, simply, is remove the last measure of cost for Contraception. If a woman wants it, and her doctor agrees, they get it without a co-pay. Not necessarily for free, since it’s folded into the premium, but at least for nothing out of pocket.

The answer is yes. I have dated a woman. I’ve also been a brother and a son to women as well, and a co-worker to them. In my experience, they want to be able to control their reproductive destiny, or in some people’s case, control a hormonal condition that otherwise might lead to ovarian cancer. This is about people trying to control other’s reproductive destiny and healthcare who really shouldn’t have this be any of their business. An employee should be responsible for what they do with their healthplan, and it would literally be a lot healthier for all concerned to think of it in that fashion.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2014 11:58 PM
Comment #380284

Speaks4all,thanks for trying to lend a little sanity, intelligence and common sense to the mix in here. It hasn’t been amenable for a very long time now. Take a look at several contributors who have abandoned the ship, and the forum has suffered. And it hasn’t been all female contributors that have left in disgust!!
Flushed, just exactly what business do you think it is of yours who Stephen has dated ?!?!
I think we would hear whining and squealing like a bunch of little piggies if someone decided that all males over 12 were to be required to get vasectomies !!!! Then women wouldn’t have to be the responsible ones and carry the burden of common sense around on our own. You might find it a real challenge also, to start using your other head to figure things out!!

Posted by: jane doe at June 29, 2014 12:59 AM
Comment #380288

Stephen, My insurance DOES NOT and I repeat DOES NOT cover any kind of erectile disfunction meds. Any insurance that I have ever had has not covered it. Maybe those UNION Cadi plans covered it. The point is contraceptive meds are cheap and even some are free at PPH and other places. One question for you and jane, How would you like it if you were forced by government to do something that you deemed was against your principals?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 29, 2014 9:27 AM
Comment #380289

I forgot to mention that my insurance does cover B.C. meds.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 29, 2014 9:40 AM
Comment #380293

Mandatory insurance coverage for contraceptives for women is simply pandering. If they were pandering to old white men then ED medication would also be mandatory.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 29, 2014 11:10 AM
Comment #380298

The major insurance carriers started carrying it. That’s what mattered.

I think the irony in all this is that the culture war was lost, and it’s still being fought. Truth is, though, people often find their own moral compass, without the help of government. I don’t insist on the presence of government in all things the way some insist on the absence of government in all things. I can live with government being more involved here, less involved there. What I don’t like are situations where it’s obvious that a behavior is supremely immoral, and that a lot of people are getting hurt by it, yet nothing is done. Millions were hurt by the irresponsibility and unaccountability of Wall Street and the non-bank lenders.

Who gets hurt when a woman can plan her pregnancies, rather than leave them to chance? Well, as it turns out, it actually helps people when they can plan their families, rather than leave it to chance. A woman who doesn’t get pregnant also doesn’t have to worry about getting an abortion, so that’s a plus if you dislike those.

Helping people be more responsible and accountable in their lives, and forcing those with power and wealth to be more responsible and accountable in theirs, I would argue, is a primary function of government. If I can make sure that a person who is given a loan is only given one they are at sufficiently low risk of defaulting on, that’s helpful. If I can make sure that unscrupulous lenders don’t throw stumbling blocks in their way, trying to force them to financially sin, so to speak, that’s helpful too. The less people have to clean up from each other’s messes, or dig themselves out from under the messes of the elite, the better, and the more effort we can devote to actually getting ahead.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2014 11:30 AM
Comment #380304

Stephen, the point is if something is cheap and can be gotten with little or no funds why be covered by Insurance? No one is telling a women they can’t use B.C. We are just saying that “IF” a women can pay for it out of pocket they should just the same for a man who can’t get it up pay for it out of pocket. The meds are not that expensive. People can pay for things such as cigarettes and booze out of pocket then they surely can afford B.C. or E.D. meds. All people need to act more responsible in their lives and keep government out of it, as far as the rich are concerned I agree they need to be responsible and accountable in their lives just like the poor or not so rich. The elite who created the messes we have now can be blamed on the elite in D.C. and by that I mean BOTH PARTIES.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 29, 2014 12:27 PM
Comment #380311

Daugherty writes; “Legal precedent already requires that non-church health plans carry contraception. It’s a response to Viagra being available.”

Medicare Part D does not cover any type of erectile dysfunction drug.

Tier III drugs are usually considered non-essential and are billed at the highest rate. Most insurers list Viagra and other ED drugs as Tier III.

Unlike contraceptives, unless your particular insurance provider covers Viagra, you may find that the cost is prohibitive for regular use.

Dear jane doe…once again I must thank you for your cogent remarks and keen social and political insight. You have been sorely missed.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 29, 2014 3:24 PM
Comment #380329

If a woman has already paid for contraception medication by purchasing a health plan that covers prescription drugs, why does she have to pay a second time to buy her medication just because her employer doesn’t approve? This is not an issue of making someone else pay for her drugs, it is an issue of whether not a woman has the freedom to spend her money as she sees fit.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 30, 2014 7:41 AM
Comment #380335

Warren, If a women already has a health plan that pays for meds, then she doesn’t need her employer paid H.C. and she doesn’t have to worry about what her employer H.C. covers.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 30, 2014 11:13 AM
Comment #380336

jane doe, just trying to add civility to the discussion can sometimes get me in trouble with some commenting here but I think it is worth it.

KAP, I’d say you get to chime in when you are able to get pregnant. Until then how about just trying to understand the point of view that the woman is already paying a premium through her employer provided HC so why should she have to go into her pocket again to pay for medication she would like all because someone else wants to have a say in what she should or should not do. SC ruled in favor of corporations anyway. I guess that corporations are more important than people in their view (majority that is). Oh that’s right I forgot some misguided person once said “My friend, corporations are people too.” That is hogwash. Gosh I am so glad there isn’t a President Romney, hallelujah!

Posted by: Speak4all at June 30, 2014 11:50 AM
Comment #380337
If a women already has a health plan that pays for meds, then she doesn’t need her employer paid H.C. and she doesn’t have to worry about what her employer H.C. covers.

I don’t think you understand the situation. If a woman works for an employer and receives health benefits as a part of her compensation then the health plan is paid for by the woman (not the employer!). Whether or not the health plan covers a drug or not should strictly be an issue between the woman, her doctor and the insurance company. Her employer shouldn’t have any say on this matter. If a woman already receives health benefits as compensation from her employer, but she is forced pay out of pocket for certain drugs she is paying twice for those drugs.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 30, 2014 12:14 PM
Comment #380338

I do think HC should cover contraception but that’s just me. Women are enough of a hassle not knocked-up with their short hours and sick days, imagine preggers?

No wait!!!!Women should get pregnant to help reproduce the planet after the liberals and unions nuke it with Hilary Clinton’s gov’t plans to take away your guns. See that’s how it works.

Republicans and teaparty-ers are the same party. Both are buying gold coinage and colloidal silver and setting up bomb shelters and buying dehydrated pouch foods by the barrel and watching for black helicopters and in fear of losing their guns or even weirder—land. It’s like a cult for Elizabeth Claire Prophet or something. A nuclear war is innevitable or a holocaust perhaps. I’m just saying Republicans and Democrats are different.

Some Republicans are dumber than others—maybe that’s the fight? Some are concensus and some are outlandishly fringe-group? But both are tinfoil helmet. Look at what SCOTUS is putting through as of late. It’s all bonky backwoods paranoid libertarian horseplay. It’s all in case of some type of scenario—what’s the scenario Right wing? Do clue us in.

Some Republicans like or not unlike some Democrats are too dumb for office. Too bimbo (if you will) and the Tea Party looks bimbo.

Just some observations.

Posted by: simpleheaded at June 30, 2014 12:48 PM
Comment #380339

Everywhere I worked Warren I paid PART of the premium and the employer paid the most and I had a co pay for scripts.
Speaks, Why should I or anyone else pay an extra premium for something they don’t want? If B.C. was expensive I could understand the Bitch.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 30, 2014 1:01 PM
Comment #380346

You couldn’t understand this if it was drawn out in a picture and plastered everywhere you went. The part of HC that the employer pays is part of the compensation for you working for them. It is in essence part of your salary therefore it is the employee’s money, not the corporations. They decide they want to hire you and then compensate you for that with a salary and benefits (which HC is part of). Would it be OK with you if they just paid you a salary into your account at the company store without the ability to move the money anywhere else? Not much difference here with that example. They are compensating women with HC coverage but also demanding to detail how the money of that coverage is spent. This is not the American way of doing things. This SC(the 5 conservatives that is) is looking to enshrine corporate America as the real strength of our country. The people of this country are the real strength of this country, they may some day realize that but I doubt it. What a pity.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 30, 2014 2:11 PM
Comment #380347

People are entitled to NOTHING they are not willing or able to provide for themselves. The entitlement mentality in this country is completely out of control. Just because you require something be it food, shelter, medical care, or clothing does not mean that someone else should be forced to provide it for you. What ever happened to the idea we are all responsible for our own well being ?

Posted by: dbs at June 30, 2014 3:14 PM
Comment #380348

dbs, please try to be aware. We are not talking about anyone getting anything for free. HC is part of the negotiations for compensation paid by a company that would like to employ someone. This is not what you think it is, no one is getting something for free. Besides the most entitled people I know are the old white males that I know. They all have the same attitude, something was taken from them and is being taken from them and they are entitled to take that back because it is theirs. Don’t talk to me about taking your money to pay for things. You pay taxes in this country and need to consider that an honor and a privilege not something that you can feel entitled about and decide who should get what (we have three branches of government and laws to take care of that). Thank goodness that mortality will take care of this entitlement attitude of old white males and be replaced by our younger generation that considers it an honor and privilege to live in this great country.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 30, 2014 3:52 PM
Comment #380349

Speak wrote; “This SC(the 5 conservatives that is) is looking to enshrine corporate America as the real strength of our country.”

Why not read the decision Speak, and then give us your viewpoint of why contraceptive “rights” overrule religious “rights” for privately held companies, sole ownerships and partnerships. The words “corporate America” is poorly understood by you. We do understand your angst, however, it should give the left even more fodder for its drumbeat about the right hating women.

Did you complain about the SC when CJ Roberts ruled obama care was legal in certain respects?

“What ever happened to the idea we are all responsible for our own well being?”
Posted by: dbs at June 30, 2014 3:14 PM

Good question dbs. The left has rewritten the Constitution and the idea of individual responsibility was thrashed.

Daugherty will explain to you that the founders couldn’t imagine an America with over 50% of its citizens receiving some form of government direct benefit and consequently the founders are old-fashioned and their thinking is outdated.

The left believes that the provisions in our founding documents can be overridden at any time by a majority.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 30, 2014 4:04 PM
Comment #380350

Thank goodness that mortality will take care of this entitlement attitude of old white males and be replaced by our younger generation that considers it an honor and privilege to live in this great country.
Posted by: Speak4all at June 30, 2014 3:52 PM

Hmmm…sounds like Daugherty’s echo chamber.

Seldom have I read a comment more despicable than this and those of Daugherty’s regarding the “old white males” who served in our Armed Forces to protect the very freedoms and liberty that the left enjoys.

Resenting those upon whom your very existence depended is as hateful a thing as one can imagine. I don’t understand the racism implied here as “black” people seem to be forgotten in the rush to ignorance.

Perhaps Speak also hates all old “white” women…hmmm, I wonder.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 30, 2014 4:11 PM
Comment #380351

Old white males spent their whole life giving to the government. They did it because they were forward thinking. They understood it was to be used when they retire.

The younger generation thinks they pay taxes now, therefore they should reap the benefits now.

That’s quite a difference.

Warren Porter, if you worked for a company that provided a salad and drink as a benefit toward garnering your employ would you go to the employer and tell him you also want the steak dinner because it’s food and you receive benefits?

If an employer provides health care insurance and that insurance doesn’t cover baby killing pills the employee doesn’t have a “right” to force the employer to provide those pills. The employer also gives that employee money to get the things they “want”. Why doesn’t the employee realize that?

Because this whole birth control coverage aspect of the arguement is simple pandering to garner the woman vote. Ann Coulter once said now that women can vote they will replace the husband with the government. It seems they’re well on their way to doing just that.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 30, 2014 4:23 PM
Comment #380352

As an old white male who served his country RF you would be wise to show respect to others like myself that did. I dare say that any of those old white males that I spoke about never lifted a finger for their country. Anyone who did understands that the sum of our country is really greater than all the parts and this is something that you learn by serving your country. Showing disrespect? I would categorize it more like disgust than disrespect. It would seem as though some people get more stupid as they get older but then again look where they start from, an “I am entitled” mind set. Keep all of your religious righteousness and fervor to yourself. I consider it a great wrong doing that this country does not collect taxes from religions where they should. After all, we are all a part of this great experiment and everyone should pay their share if possible.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 30, 2014 4:30 PM
Comment #380353

Like I said speaks if B.C. meds were expensive I could understand the bitching about it but they are NOT. Being forced to pay for something you don’t want or need is uncalled for. This “old white man” served this country honorably just so “old liberals” like you can spout off with your liberal BS.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 30, 2014 4:32 PM
Comment #380354

WW, you and Ann Coulter. Two peas in a pod. You pay taxes for being able to live in this great country, not so that you can retire. That would be social security and retirement savings that you are thinking about, not taxes. Your food analogy only proves the point that you have no idea what the conversation is about but just want to make it seem that you do. You don’t.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 30, 2014 4:35 PM
Comment #380355

KAP, no you served this country because you volunteered to or were conscripted. This old liberal volunteered to serve his country at a time when he didn’t agree with their foreign policy in Vietnam but served the country well just the same. You on the other hand seem to think you get to decide who you include as being part of this country. You don’t. Talk about spouting BS, you need to go look in the mirror.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 30, 2014 4:38 PM
Comment #380356

Speak obviously doesn’t know me or my service in our Armed Forces being drafted into the Army in 1963. That’s OK. I will still honor his.

Speak now has to start spinning to not look like a hater of those who serve(d) in the military by writing…

“I dare say that any of those old white males that I spoke about never lifted a finger for their country.”

Speak, please point to this distinction in your original statement. Obviously you can’t. You are an equal opportunity hater, expect for old blacks and women.

Then, to really seal the deal that he is a hater, he writes…

“Keep all of your religious righteousness and fervor to yourself.”

Unrelated to the topic we are discussing…he throws this piece of raw meat in just to prove he is incapable of honest discussion.

Actually, I plead guilty to being a fervent Christian and one who seeks righteousness. There is plenty of evidence for my conviction of the charge.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 30, 2014 4:43 PM
Comment #380357

Speak4all, half the people in this country don’t pay taxes at all! Yet they want to tell the other half that do what they spend their money on. That’s both disrespectful and disgusting.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 30, 2014 4:44 PM
Comment #380358

speaks

“We are not talking about anyone getting anything for free. HC is part of the negotiations for compensation paid by a company that would like to employ someone.”

It is a perk or benefit in which the employer subsidizes part or all of the cost of health insurance for the employee, therefore they can also choose what they will and will not subsidize. If a prospective, or current employee is unhappy with that coverage they have the option to seek greener pastures elsewhere.

Posted by: dbs at June 30, 2014 4:52 PM
Comment #380359

Digging an ever deeper hole, Speak writes; “You pay taxes for being able to live in this great country, not so that you can retire.”

You know he is having a bad day when he neglects to account for the persons living in the country who pay no taxes.

I wonder if it is even possible to be more confused about taxes than Speak appears to be.

Look up “Payroll Tax” Speak so you will stop embarrassing yourself.

Showing himself to even being hypocritical about the men and women who serve(d) in our Armed Forces Speak writes…

“KAP, no you served this country because you volunteered to or were conscripted.”

Just imagine the mind that could write such a comment. Speak, should we note on the grave markers in the hundreds of cemeteries around the world whether the man or woman buried there was in the correct frame of mind when they died?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 30, 2014 5:01 PM
Comment #380360

RF, here is what I typed in response to your comment, “As an old white male who served his country RF”(that is you)”you would be wise to show respect to others like myself that did.”(that is me), got it? And oh yes thank you for the service to your country but why the hell didn’t you learn about being a part of a team and getting things done because of that?

Then you said “Why not read the decision Speak, and then give us your viewpoint of why contraceptive “rights” overrule religious “rights” for privately held companies, sole ownerships and partnerships”, you brought religious rights into the conversation. We all know about your American Taliban fervor. Christian, indeed!

I would ask that you pay attention to what I type and not what you would like to think I am trying to say. But I know that is difficult for you, just try.

WW, you really have no idea who pays taxes. Stop listening to talk radio for your information. When you can tell me exactly who pays taxes and how much get back to me on that. For now just stop listening to Rush or Mark or Ann or whoever it is that has been able to convince you of this malarkey.

dbs, I get all of my HC insurance paid for at my job and I include that in looking at my compensation package as my employer does also. This means that my HC insurance coverage is part of my salary and not part of my employers assets. Do you understand that? You seem to think it is something that an employer pays out of the kindness of their hearts. That is not the case, it is a negotiating point in any discussion I have had for employment. Once I make the decision to be employed that HC insurance coverage is mine and I should be able to use it as I see fit, not how the company/corporation/organization wants me to use it.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 30, 2014 5:14 PM
Comment #380361

RF, I now have no idea of what you are talking about. Conscription refers to being drafted into service. You really need to get a handle on what you are trying to say as you seem to be just trying to say nasty stuff in response to my reasoned and thoughtful comments. Please take a breath try to remain calm and respond in a reasonable comment, or don’t.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 30, 2014 5:18 PM
Comment #380362

Two tours in Nam speaks and I did Volunteer. I served because I wanted to NOT because I had to. I served so “old liberals” like you could whine and cry about the things they expect others to pay for.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 30, 2014 5:18 PM
Comment #380363

This case wasn’t about birth control and contraception, it was about abortion. Well, not even that since the ACA doesn’t have a requirement for abortion coverage.

Hobby Lobby never objected to providing coverage for basic birth control prescriptions, only morning after pills (Plan B and Ella) which they referred to in their suit as abortifacients. Interestingly, Hobby Lobby had provided coverage for those very same drugs until the ACA made it a requirement. More interesting is that those drugs and IUDs are not even abortifacients as claimed by Hobby Lobby. They prevent ovulation and conception and don’t destroy a fertilized egg. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/22/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say

So, what was this case about? It was about a closely held for-profit corporation exercising another “personhood” Constitutional right,i.e., religious freedom. It doesn’t seem to matter that Hobby Lobby was simply wrong about Plan B, Ella and IUDs being abortifacients. What mattered is that Hobby Lobby believed that the ACA contraception requirements would cause it to violate its religious beliefs.

The precedent opens the door to all sorts of possible exemptions from generally applicable law by closely or privately held corporations citing religious beliefs however bizarre.

Conservatives may applaud this decision because it dinged Obamacare but they might want to think about the ramifications in the future.


Posted by: Rich at June 30, 2014 5:22 PM
Comment #380364

I served for all of us KAP. You on the other hand served for yourself if that is really the way you feel. You seem to have a lot of pent up anger towards liberals like myself that served their country as you did. Have you ever asked yourself why? Is it because they don’t do what you want them to?

Posted by: Speak4all at June 30, 2014 5:23 PM
Comment #380365

“…. it should give the left even more fodder for its drumbeat about the right hating women.”

Uuum, Royal, it is not the left beating drums that you should be worried about, it is women.

Posted by: Rich at June 30, 2014 5:52 PM
Comment #380366

I served for all of us to speaks. Didn’t I say so “old liberals like you” can you can spout you BS. We differ in our views and politics speaks. Does that make people like me less honorable then you or people like you. All because you want your tax dollars to go in someone else’s pocket doesn’t mean I do.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 30, 2014 5:55 PM
Comment #380367

Speak4all sounds like a quack more and more. He’s more concerned with us all getting our heads around his point of view than he is in trying to clarify his own points and back them up with facts.

Hey Speak4all, you really should try to be concerned about yourself and what you believe in instead of trying to force the rest of us to believe what you want us to believe.

You seem to have a lot of pent up anger at conservatives that disagree with your point of view. Have you ever asked yourself why?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 30, 2014 5:56 PM
Comment #380368

Speak: “I would ask that you pay attention to what I type and not what you would like to think I am trying to say. But I know that is difficult for you, just try.”

Just more spin. The left hates and it is apparent.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 30, 2014 6:16 PM
Comment #380369

Speak is mistaken about taxes and I suggested he inform himself about “payroll taxes.”

Never one to admit he is wrong, I expect he will remain confused.

He suggested that only the politically left correct thinking men and women could serve in our Armed Forces with honor and purpose. Balderdash!

And, he has never clarified why he singles out “old white men” for abuse and can’t explain why he omits old black people and old women. We will just chalk that up to race and gender confusion.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 30, 2014 6:22 PM
Comment #380370

If liberals really believed what they say about the constitution they would group themselves, call themselves Liberal Americans, and tax themselves to pay for their folly. If they believed what they say about the constitution.

But they don’t. They have to read into the constitution things that aren’t there to justify the force they use to get their wants. They group people by race, age, and sex to divide everyone along those lines. They pander to each group by convincing them they can get their wants by taxing others and villify the others to justify the tax.

That’s why I call them hypocrits. Speak4all exemplifies this by using the term “Old White Men”. There are all three groups in that term. Age, race, sex. He uses all the Democratic’s talking points in one three word phrase, but can’t bring himself to believe the truth. It’s racist, sexist, and ageist all rolled up in one neat phrase. The hypocrisy lies in the fact Democratics fancy themselves to be against all three.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 30, 2014 9:13 PM
Comment #380371

speaks

“You seem to think it is something that an employer pays out of the kindness of their hearts. That is not the case, it is a negotiating point in any discussion I have had for employment. Once I make the decision to be employed that HC insurance coverage is mine and I should be able to use it as I see fit, not how the company/corporation/organization wants me to use it.”


Yes so long as what you see fit, fits with in the confines of the benefits offered within the plan. If it doesn’t you have the option of leaving for greener pastures, or accepting those terms.

Posted by: dbs at June 30, 2014 10:09 PM
Comment #380376

KAP, no you are not less honorable you are misguided though. I didn’t say that I served so angry old white guys like you could spout your BS, did I, you did. I believe this country is great because of all of it’s citizens, unlike you who seems to hold the position that only the ones you approve make this country great.

RF, where do you get “He suggested that only the politically left correct thinking men and women could serve in our Armed Forces with honor and purpose. Balderdash!” from anything that I typed. I am glad to call you a fellow citizen and veteran. You make things up about me. I single out old white males because I am one and can speak from experience, there is a contingent of them that feel very, very entitled. I don’t include myself in that group.

WW, you chastise me for wanting to cause division and then out of the other side of your mouth you talk about dividing a group off as “Liberal Americans”, yah sure. I would be proud to call myself part of that group by the way. Even a Teapartyic like yourself should be able to understand that.

dbs, lets just leave it at you don’t understand how I negotiate my compensation and say that is OK. I don’t expect you to but thanks for trying.

Yes, I struck a nerve with the statement that old white males are the most entitled group of people that I have had the experience of witnessing. I think it is disgusting and would just like some of them to think about what they mean when the talk about “entitlements”. I guess the only solace I would have is that they will take their hatred to their graves, unless they change and join the rest of us in celebrating the diversity of our great country.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 1, 2014 9:42 AM
Comment #380377

Speaks, misguided, NO, of a different opinion, YES. I think everyone makes this country great. The difference of opinions we have is what makes this country exceptional and great. It’s to bad that you seem to think all because a person has a different opinion he/she is misguided. All because I have a different opinion and believe everyone should be responsible for their actions, If they want certain things in their H.C. ins. then I feel it is up to them to request it and pay the extra cost, NOT government mandate it.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 1, 2014 11:26 AM
Comment #380378

EERRRRTTT! Speak4all! Wrong! I did not divide liberals into a Liberal American group. I said you should divide yourselves into that group instead of dividing everybody else into groups.

Good enough for me, but not for thee, eh, Speak4all?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 1, 2014 11:42 AM
Comment #380379

KAP, and you are able to hold those beliefs in this country, I don’t deny you that and it is your right as a citizen. I have a different opinion and I don’t have any problem calling yours misguided any more that you do with mine. See, not such a big deal. We disagree, that is OK.

WW,still divisive. I have no idea what your last sentence refers to. But then I get that a lot from you.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 1, 2014 11:52 AM
Comment #380382

I see the SC decision yesterday as contributing to the United States of America sharia law. I am sure there are islamic owned corporations/companies/organizations with teams of lawyers ready to test the precedents of this decision as it might relate to their religious objections on a number of things. Oh my, unintended consequences I guess.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 1, 2014 12:16 PM
Comment #380383

speaks

“lets just leave it at you don’t understand how I negotiate my compensation and say that is OK. I don’t expect you to but thanks for trying.”

Most people DON”T negotiate benefits. I realize with a corporate officers or even some upper level management this may be possible. For you to suggest that the average person negotiates their benefits package as opposed to the way it really is for 95% of job seekers which is the company has a STANDARD set of benefits for their employees. But like you said “thanks for trying”.

Posted by: dbs at July 1, 2014 1:11 PM
Comment #380385

Ignorance is a choice.

I’ll explain, hoping you choose to listen.

I cannot understand why liberals don’t group themselves together, pool their own resources, and provide themselves with the things they want with their own money.

Why do they have to force others, who have nothing to do with them, who don’t believe in what liberals believe in, to provide them their wants? In some, perhaps most cases, don’t contribute anything themselves!

Perhaps Liberal Americans can take a lesson from the Amish Community. They belong to what they call a church and that church provides it’s members their health care using donations from it’s members, not government or any other entity.

They don’t believe in having abortions and therefore, don’t provide abortion coverage in their health care. No one else cares about the lack of abortion coverage because no one else is forced to contribute. No one else even has a right to challenge the Amish method of providing health care because they aren’t forced to contribute to it.

See how that works, Speak4all? Their group is self-contained and insulated from the wants of others. They guarantee their freedom by excluding others from corrupting their beliefs.

It’s really ingenious, isn’t it? It’s kinda like what the founders had in mind when they wrote the constitution. You know, the federal government enforcing contracts between 2 parties, instead of writing and modifying contracts for and between 2 parties. They guarantee their own freedom by providing their own wants with their own resources.

If ignorance wasn’t a factor many would recognize it as a form of conservatism.


Posted by: Weary Willie at July 1, 2014 1:38 PM
Comment #380386

WW,I already belong to a group, I am a citizen of the United States of America. It is a very large and diverse group of people that has successfully governed themselves for well over 220 years. I will continue to be a member of this group and support the policies and politicians that work towards the goals that I support. You are welcome to do the same.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 1, 2014 2:23 PM
Comment #380387

Keep digging Speak…when your hole collapses we’ll cover you up.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 1, 2014 2:44 PM
Comment #380388

Obama: “We Are Better Off Now Than We Were When I Took Office” “You wouldn’t know it, but we are,” the president said Friday.


FICTION: ““Over the past 51 months, our businesses have created 9.4 million new jobs,” OBAMA said at a feel-good stop in Minnesota.

FACT: In 2007, there were 146.6 million Americans employed. Last month, there were 145.7 million people in the workforce. But it’s all worse than that. The labor force participation rate dropped more than 3 percentage points, which equals nearly 8 million people. Now, just 62.8 percent of working-age Americans hold jobs, a dismal number that’s the lowest in 35 years.

Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2014/06/obama-better-now-took-office/#pHvreDwuo0kVkOpq.99

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 1, 2014 2:49 PM
Comment #380389

No digging going on by me. Just enjoying my life as a citizen of the USA.

George Bush left this country a mess and President Obama has done an outstanding job bringing us back. I am so glad I voted for that man (twice and would make it three times if I could).

Posted by: Speak4all at July 1, 2014 3:00 PM
Comment #380390

Speak. “He who knows not that he knows not is a …”

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 1, 2014 3:09 PM
Comment #380396

Gee, Speak4all! That pap you’re trying to get us to swallow is really weak.

WW,I already belong to a group, I am a citizen of the United States of America.

It would be nice if your party considered all the citizens of this country belonging to the same group as you do. How do you reconsile your party splitting people off into race and age and sex and political party and religion whey they pander for their votes?

How do you excuse the way you, yourself, has maligned your own group, old white men? You villify them at every turn to justify your politics.

No, Speak4all, I think you are just blowing smoke when you say you already belong to a group of citizens of the United States of America. True, you are a citizen, but you don’t consider yourself equal to others when it comes to taxing and controlling them.


Posted by: Weary Willie at July 1, 2014 5:09 PM
Comment #380397

WW, okay you just want to argue without making any sense. I believe all of the various voices of our country’s citizens need to be heard, all of them. You hold the contention that I do not, no matter how many times I tell you otherwise. You are being tedious and rather child like. Go find someone else to pester.

RF, I know there hasn’t been a President Mcain or President Romney. You can thank me partially for that but then you would also need to thank 50+ million other voters too.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 1, 2014 5:20 PM
Comment #380398

Your point?

Why the angst with white senior citizens? Have we not contributed to this country’s wealth and health?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 1, 2014 5:44 PM
Comment #380400

Not all white senior citizens, you forget that I am one as is my wife. Just the ones that have that aura of entitlement that they bring to every discussion, that would be you. Although I do want to try to understand why you feel that way, I don’t want to emulate it. I am grateful for all of our citizens contributions to our country.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 1, 2014 5:51 PM
Comment #380401

Royal Flush,

Regarding your fiction vs. fact: 1) Obama didn’t take office in 2007, he took office in 2009 in midst of a huge recession with job losses of over 8.8 million, 2) the labor force participation rate has been falling for decades, it isn’t a new phenomena.

Posted by: Rich at July 1, 2014 6:11 PM
Comment #380402

Speak writes; “Not all white senior citizens, you forget that I am one as is my wife. Just the ones that have that aura of entitlement that they bring to every discussion, that would be you.”

I don’t forget Speak, you may, but I don’t. Just exactly what “aura of entitlement” are you referencing to as mine?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 1, 2014 6:26 PM
Comment #380409


2014 comes,in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style,varieties, low price and good quality,and the low sale price.Thank everyone Welcome to ==== http://www.kkship4biz.net ==
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35
Jordan (1-22)&2014 shoes $45
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $30
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $14
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $16
Biki ni (Ed hardy, polo) $18
FREE SHIPPING
http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net
http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===
This is a shopping paradise
We need your support and trust

Posted by: kkT3 at July 1, 2014 8:00 PM
Comment #380422

RF, I guess the best way I identify that “aura” can be answered with a question. Do you feel as though something has been taken or is being taken from you and you want it back?

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2014 9:26 AM
Comment #380440

Astounding…Speak can’t identify what he means by “aura” of entitlement.

No, nothing that I am “entitled” to is being taken from me. I object to others being given entitlements which they have not earned.

Compassionate and temporary help to those “unable” to help themselves is not an entitlement. You do understand the difference Speak?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 2, 2014 3:42 PM
Comment #380441

RF, more than you will ever understand. Good for you on not feeling like someone has or is taking something from you. Look, why do you have to start every comment with a reference to the previous comment in a derogatory manner. This is exactly what jane doe talked about in her comments to you and I do about this aura of entitlement that you exhibit. It doesn’t do anything for to enhance your point of view and more often than not makes you look a little bit foolish and a lot less approachable in a discussion.

There has been a false dichotomy perpetrated on the citizens of this country. This is one country, not two. But if you listen to some Republican/Tea Party members, conservative talk radio, FOX News and a variety of pundits you can tell that they have found a way to profit from this idea of a divided country.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2014 3:56 PM
Comment #380442

That works for the progressive/liberal media to speaks.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 2, 2014 4:04 PM
Comment #380444

KAP, how so? I expect you meant too or also in your statement?

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2014 4:16 PM
Comment #380446

KAP, you will also need to identify this progressive/liberal media. Please don’t try to say it is MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN those are all established media outlets that report news stories using journalists and reporters. The only media I might consider to be what you are referring to would be The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or the Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert. But even those two do not give a pass to this administration or the Democratic leaders of the house or senate. There is no comparison to a FOX News in any of the aforementioned networks/tv shows at all, none.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2014 4:30 PM
Comment #380447

Speaks, you can’t be serious saying those stations don’t pander to the liberal/progressives. Guys and women like Rachael Maddow, Sharpton, Ed Schultz. Sharpton is a so called minister, Maddow was a political science major, Schultz is an ex jock. Journalist that’s a laugh!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 2, 2014 4:48 PM
Comment #380448

KAP, glad you find humor in that. I do not. Reverend Sharpton is a minister no matter your protestations that he isn’t. The other people you mentioned do have progressive/liberal motivations but I do occasionally see them taking the administration and the Democratic leaders to task but if anything it is for not being forceful enough for the policies they would like to see implemented. This does not make the news media outlet progressive/liberal. In the case of FOX news there is nothing but anti-Obama being presented all of the time. Never anything to the opposite. Your reference to the progressive/liberal media is an indication of the prejudice that you exhibit on a regular basis despite your adamant statements that you in fact are a Democrat and wanted to vote for Hillary Clinton. I don’t believe you, sorry but that’s just the way you come across.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2014 4:56 PM
Comment #380451
The other people you mentioned do have progressive/liberal motivations but I do occasionally see them taking the administration and the Democratic leaders to task but if anything it is for not being forceful enough for the policies they would like to see implemented.

Since when do objective journalists (ha) promote positions they want to see implemented?

You are so in the tank you can’t see straight, Speak4all!

It’s hilarious, and you preach to others why they are wrong!

Eyebrows chuckling ~~

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 2, 2014 5:04 PM
Comment #380453

Speak charges me with always opening my remarks with a “derogatory manner” that he and Jane take exception to. Most of my comments are directed to liberals and the outrageous or just plain silly comments they write. If one writes half-truths and spin, expect derogatory comments.

Speak writes; “In the case of FOX news there is nothing but anti-Obama being presented all of the time. Never anything to the opposite.”

Really, to know this you must watch FOX around the clock. I catch the O’Reilly show sometimes for a half hour or so, and sometimes FOX news in the early morning for an idea of what is going on in the world and MSNBC for the equity markets. So, I don’t watch much FOX news on TV, unlike you supposedly do. My question Speak, is when do you get time to do anything else if you are always watching FOX?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 2, 2014 5:16 PM
Comment #380454

WW, since the beginning of journalism in this country there have been journalist that promote themselves and their political positions. Try reading Common Sense by Thomas Paine

Stop with they goofy talk please(“You are so in the tank you can’t see straight”). As I warned you earlier in this thread I do not have time or the patience to deal with your nonsense.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2014 5:21 PM
Comment #380455

You’re right, Speak4all. I did say objective journalists. My bad.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 2, 2014 5:25 PM
Comment #380456

RF, you don’t need to be concerned with what I do with my time. You almost made it through the opening sentence without denigrating the previous comment, almost. You exhibit more intelligence than what these derogatory statements seem to display. All I am saying is that you do not advance your comment by starting out with a derogatory statement. It kind of seems like the SNL skit Dan Akroyd used to do with Jane Curtain. He would always start out with “Jane, you miserable ignorant slut” and then go on to refute her statement. Funny on that show but not so much from you.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2014 5:28 PM
Comment #380458

Speaks, Sharpton is one of the most racist ministers I’ve seen. That patience and nonsence goes two ways speaks. Now those progressive/liberal media outlets are just now taking this administration to task, and that’s because there ratings were lower than whale crap.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 2, 2014 5:32 PM
Comment #380460

KAP, you can believe what you want but that doesn’t necessarily make it true for everyone else. I know a crusty old veteran like yourself is pretty set in your ways. Thank goodness for us crusty old veterans and our set ways. But at least we can discuss our differences and be a part of the same great country whether we agree or not. This President has been taken to task since he was elected. Although I would vote for him a third time if it were possible, I am certain that after the last 8 years he has had enough with obstruction, being taken to task, called a muslim/kenyan/marxist/socialist/communist usurper. I am surprised that he hasn’t just told them to STFU but he is too much of a gentleman to do that. I did like that he said “So sue me” that really made my day.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2014 5:40 PM
Comment #380464

Speak: “RF, you don’t need to be concerned with what I do with my time.”

LOL…can’t spin your way out so dismiss my comment. What a clown.

I did like that he said “So sue me” that really made my day.
Posted by: Speak4all at July 2, 2014 5:40 PM

OH, YES…very presidential, non-combative, and a real possibility he may get his wish. He is a clown too Speak…great company you keep. The latest polls have this guys approval rating in the low 40’s.

obama reminds me of the Cheshire Cat…he is just fading away. He has become irrelevant. Good riddance.

By the way, obama wants another 12 cent tax on gasoline as the Highway fund will be broke in about two months. My question is…where did the 2009 $800 billion stimulus money go?

Using a favorite source of liberals, here’s a quote from Daily Kos.

“Yet another $117 billion or so went to building and repairing roads, bridges, rail, and other crucial infrastructure.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/27/1114259/-Where-DID-the-Obama-Stimulus-Money-Go-NOT-Where-Lyin-Willard-Said-It-Did-That-s-for-Sure

So, in five years obama spent $117 billion on roads, bridges, etc. and the fund is still broke. What a clown. I suspect he wears button pants as he can’t understand zippers.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 2, 2014 6:16 PM
Comment #380479

RF, we all know that your objective in comments here is to try to turn this into the bad monkey cage at the zoo. All monkeys just sit around flinging their feces at one another. Not gonna happen.

Your criticism of our President are very bold words for a man that doesn’t seem to have the ability to find his rear with both hands. How’s President Romney doing? Oh that’s right he isn’t one. Now you can tell me about your latest numbers that show people believe if Romney were president we would be much better off. Well if ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a very merry christmas, as John Boehner said.

You can put your word feces back where they came from, bad monkey bad. I at least can take solace in helping President Obama be able to be our President for the next 2+ years. Enjoy!

Posted by: Speak4all at July 3, 2014 9:24 AM
Comment #380509

Speaks,I want to apologize for getting you involved in this whole fiasco! And then thank you for trying to take common sense where it is obviously foreign matter ! One more point to make, is that Rachel Maddow, whatever you may think of her, is a Rhodes scholar and am pretty sure there aren’t many of them on here !!!!!!!

Posted by: jane doe at July 4, 2014 6:50 PM
Comment #380511

Being a Rhodes scholar does not make you a journalist, if I’m not mistaken her degree is in Political Science.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 4, 2014 10:34 PM
Comment #380512

Correction Maddow has a degree in public policy and is a phd of philosophy. All that means is that she is a very intelligent person, and I give her credit for her accomplishments., but as a journalist NO.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 4, 2014 10:41 PM
Comment #380546

I just figure it makes her a whole lot smarter than you, Kap.

Posted by: jane doe at July 6, 2014 4:23 PM
Comment #380547

I’ll agree with you there jane, but like I said it don’t make her a journalist!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 6, 2014 4:29 PM
Comment #380652

Speak writes; “Now you can tell me about your latest numbers that show people believe if Romney were president we would be much better off.”

LOL…typical liberal spin when stumped. obama is dropping like a rock in the polls for good reason…he’s the CIC, Clown in the Circus.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 7, 2014 6:32 PM
Comment #380663

jane doe, no apology necessary but the sentiment is appreciated. It is difficult to comment sometimes when the comment begins with an attack on the previous comment and doesn’t provide any substantial political conversation. With comments like “LOL…typical liberal spin” it doesn’t take much to understand the comment made didn’t come with much thought just a derogatory statement. Nice to see you visiting this blog again, hope you don’t get to discouraged by nonsensical comments.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 8, 2014 10:39 AM
Comment #380666

Speaks doesn’t want to address obama’s falling poll numbers and instead makes an impossible request about would-be president Romney. He then criticizes me for noticing his deficiency and spin mode. Frankly, I don’t give a damn. Speaks need not read what I write or respond accordingly.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 8, 2014 3:01 PM
Comment #380669

I don’t need to address President Obama’s poll numbers. The presidency of this country was decided in 2008 and re-decided in 2012. I’m sure if it’s bad news for President Obama you are cheering even if it hurts our country and that disgusts me. I criticize you for wanting to turn everything into a game of gotcha or what’s bad about President Obama. Again no spinning from me here just the support of our current President which you seem to take offense to in a very personal way. That doesn’t seem right for some reason.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 8, 2014 3:25 PM
Comment #380670

Again no spinning from me here just the support of our current President which you seem to take offense to in a very personal way. That doesn’t seem right for some reason.
Posted by: Speak4all at July 8, 2014 3:25 PM

Yes, it is personal when a president flaunts his open defiance of our constitution. It is personal when a president demands and oversees an additional national debt of $6.666 trillion from his inauguration thru February 4, 2014. It is personal when a president presides over spying on our allies and mostly ignores our enemies. It is personal when a president urges and receives special treatment for companies and citizen groups he favors. Want more…just ask.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 8, 2014 3:39 PM
Comment #380673

President Obama has not openly defied our constitution. The demands on the debt were mostly made from bad decisions regarding our military involvement in the Mid-East and his decision to put that in the budget instead of acting like it really didn’t exist while trying to simultaneously bring the country out of the worst recession in modern history that was very costly. He did not preside over spying over our allies although the NSA may have, I don’t have a problem with that if it helps to keep us safe. You should ask our enemies what they think of him, start with Osama Bin Laden. What President hasn’t used the power of his office to get things done that he needs to, I would think a rudimentary understanding of politics would allow you to see that but there is that blind hatred that you can’t seem to overcome. Three years after Hillary Clinton becomes President (if we are fortunate) this will all be in history books and all of the rage and furor of the right that was directed at him will be looked at as some kind right wing hallucination.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 8, 2014 4:09 PM
Comment #380675

The usual spin from Speaks. Nothing new, just hash and rehash. Excuses and blame for others for obama’s blunders and excess.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 8, 2014 5:11 PM
Comment #380677

Yah, who is spinning? Look I understand that you don’t like our current President and you did not vote for him. I did not vote for President Bush and did not like him either but I did not have this fervent desire and need to see him fail that you exhibit. In fact I would have been much happier as would many other citizens of our country if GWB had been a more successful President. That’s not a dig on him but a heartfelt desire to see our country do well whether I voted for him or not. The least I would try to expect from you is the same, I don’t think that is to much to ask but I have been wrong before. We can disagree on whether President Obama is the best person for the job but let’s try to remain at least coherent in our discussions about that.

By the way how’s that Benghazi hearing working out? Now that one of the perpetrators is being prosecuted by our justice system, it seems to be a deflated scandal.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 8, 2014 5:28 PM
Comment #380680

obama is a single person and not the Almighty. He is inept, and worse yet, surrounds himself with incompetents. He believes he is above the law and constitution. I don’t despise him personally…just most of what he perpetrates upon the American people.

obama and his cohorts are what is holding this country back from a full and speedy recovery. He has no economic policy, no energy policy, no education policy and no employment policy. He is simply clueless or worse.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 8, 2014 6:17 PM
Comment #380685

Flushed,it doesn’t, and wouldn’t matter if President Obama had ironclad policies or perfect scenarios for every conceivable program and every idea imaginable. You would continue to find bad in all that he goes near, because you refuse to accept him as our Commander in Chief and the top office-holder in the nation, having been duly and legally elected by a majority of the voting populace. But you would follow a weasel down a rat-hole and praise him for a job well-done. You are part of the most disgusting and pathetic group of weak humanity displayed in a very long time. Cop a clue!

Posted by: jane doe at July 8, 2014 10:50 PM
Comment #380693

RF, a man of your stature and importance (in your opinion only) should start raising money and make political contacts. After all for you to be so critical of a sitting President and able to point out what he should and shouldn’t be doing, you should run for President. You seem to be able to divine this nonsense from pure thin air, you should be able to raise the money from that same thin air to make your run for Presidency. Spin that.

jane doe, pathetic is a good description of the adversity our President has had to deal with since 2009 (or actually late 2008 when it was decided by the Republican/Teaparty that by gosh even though he was duly elected he was going down and they would make sure of it, how did that work out?). Adversarial politics have served this country well but there should be an element of rationality and reasoning which apparently the right wing doesn’t want to use. No great loss except for their lack of participation in governing but given their ideas/morals/ethics it’s probably a good thing for the rest of us.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 9, 2014 9:56 AM
Comment #380698

Speaks….
Pathetic is pretty much appropriate in most of the cases where the public is so adversarial in regard to this man. The disagreements have only a little to do with political belief and preference. This whole play-out of disbelief, lack of trust, refusal of acceptance is far more racial in nature than anyone will fess up to. It’s not only disgusting, but is very sad to think that we still have a noisy portion of our populace that is so deeply stuck in the mentality of hate and ignorance that has plagued us since the dark ages.

Posted by: jane doe at July 9, 2014 3:20 PM
Comment #380699

Once again I must thank jane doe for her exemplary writing skills, concise explanations, and attention to truth. What a joy to read her comments, if only she would share even more with all of us.

Speak can not define obama’s economic policy, energy policy, education policy or employment policy and in fact admits that he has none.

Then, the spin to disparage me as he can’t make sensible excuses for the Clown in Chief.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 9, 2014 3:36 PM
Comment #380700

RF, again I don’t need to explain President Obama’s policies to you so that you can cast aspersions and disparage the comments, you do that well enough on your own. The only one spinning here is you and your infantile remarks. You seem to know exactly what our President should be doing and shouldn’t be doing so why not run. Run RF, run. Look you can go out and research the Obama policies but I would suggest you stay away from FOX, WND, Red State, Drudge and Daily Caller but then that’s probably the only news sources you have.

jane, it’s hard to ignore when it is so apparent. Hey just wait if Hillary becomes President (we can only hope) you will see a lot of statements like “well it could be that time of the month, nyuk nyuk nyuk” or “they aren’t called the weaker sex for nothing, guffaw guffaw” or better still “whose paying for her birth control, hee haw”. Numbskulls.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 9, 2014 3:57 PM
Comment #380702

Flushed, as far as I’m concerned, just about all you have to say is superfluous B.S. I was in this site long before you blew yourself in here and started spewing your venom and hatred around. You managed to drive a number of the old participants away with your blasphemy and BullS**t. But that is typically how bullies get to run things. They just drive everyone else away and they think they have won. Does it make you feel good and powerful??? Too bad you can’t see the forest for the trees.

Posted by: jane doe at July 9, 2014 4:15 PM
Comment #380703

jane doe, I feel the love and thank you. I am embarrassed by the power you attribute to me. Gosh!

Speak writes his spin…”RF, again I don’t need to explain President Obama’s policies…”

LOL…no, but can you try?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 9, 2014 4:21 PM
Comment #380704

RF, as stated before not to you since all you want is grist for your hate mill. jane wasn’t speaking about your power at all more like your inability to show any kind of decent human understanding and an unhealthy desire to denigrate a sitting President. Wow, you should be so proud of yourself but I don’t think I need to tell you that since you seem to exhibit a tremendous amount of unwarranted pride already.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 9, 2014 4:30 PM
Comment #380705

Speak, if we were next door neighbors you would appreciate my friendship. Sorry, but I won’t play your “hate” game.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 9, 2014 4:37 PM
Comment #380706

RF, my neighbors are staunch republicans as I think I informed you before and we get along great. We watch each others houses, help where it might be necessary and perhaps sit on my deck with a cold one when we can. But we never discuss politics, it’s better that way. You and I are on a political comment blog and I expect if we met some day I could appreciate your friendship. The anonymity of the internet doesn’t lend itself to friendship well unfortunately but we work with what we have. All I can say is that I am happy that the Vatican guards aren’t armed with .45’s instead of those funny looking lances or we may never have had our conversations.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 9, 2014 5:03 PM
Comment #380707

Speak, thanks for reminding me of my Vatican experience. I sure wish I had that encounter on a video.

I understand, as you do, that we wage political battles on these pages. Off page, we could be great friends.

I was raised in a democrat environment as the 40’s were war years with Roosevelt and Truman and my family was lower middle class in income. Unions were strong then. Public Education was adequate with little or no political correctness being taught. Liberty was at stake worldwide and patriotism was to be found everywhere by everyone.

I was a good student, worked hard even as a child, and accomplished much that I wanted in life…mostly just being happy and free. I served in our Armed Forces and have a deep respect and love for what we, as a nation, have achieved in human freedom and liberty. We have thrived with rampant individualism aimed toward a better life through our own diligence and effort.

I am ready to help all those who can not help themselves and often do. Over my many years I have seen changes in our social and political structure that I don’t believe are as good as what went before. While not stuck in the past, I know the future can only hold promise and rewards by staying true to our founders dreams.

obama wants to “remake” America into something I refuse to recognize. It may happen, but I will resist with my entire will and being. Frankly Speak, I don’t want to live in obama’s imaginings.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 9, 2014 5:25 PM
Comment #380708

RF, an idyllic early life for certainly sure although it wasn’t all roses and gold. I know from previous comments that I believe that you were raised in Wisconsin. Had I ever been near there perhaps we could have shared one of those Leinenkugels that were kept cold in the water tank on a hot summer day after field work and built on a friendship. But as I said we work with what we have.

As I have stated before, I did not vote for or like President Bush but I always called him President out of respect for the office and never did I ridicule his position or refer to him as stupid or malicious. I thought that he tried to do a very difficult job to the best of his abilities. I never once said I don’t want to live in President Bush’s world because it wasn’t his, it is mine and I don’t believe for one minute that any one man can change what has taken over 238 years to build, our great country.

I respect President Obama, I support his efforts to bring about the vision he has for this country. I also respect your right to disagree with that but don’t support that disagreement. This is the nature of our occupying the same great country but only being able to discuss this on the internet in excerpts of what we honestly feel and believe.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 9, 2014 5:51 PM
Comment #380711

AH, Yes…Leinenkugels…made from the cold water from the Big Eddy Springs in Chippewa Falls.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe obama is the first president who proclaimed that he wishes to “remake” the nation. I have heard and seen his vision of what he wants American to be and I abhor it.

This president doesn’t talk about freedom or liberty unless it comes at the expense of another American. This president doesn’t talk about the US as remaining the strongest and most free nation on the planet. This president doesn’t talk about all the opportunity the poor have in this great country available to them with hard work and individual enterprise; not government programs.

This president talks about government in a way that is foreign to me and many others. He does not see us as exceptional, as a nation who has spent its blood and treasure to ensure the freedom of others.

This president continually finds ways to circumvent the very oath he took…to protect and defend the Constitution.

obamaworld will not be a pleasant place for freedom lovers to live. Tyranny practiced in the US will be no different than that found throughout history.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 9, 2014 6:33 PM
Comment #380726

RF, Correct if you if you are wrong? Where do I start, you seem to have a very dismal outlook of our country and it’s ability to survive the presidency of one individual. That is where you are wrong among other areas. I cannot address your individual concerns, I might suggest therapy or some other form of intervention for your irrational and unsubstantiated fears. I am not a psychoanalyst and will be unable to assist you in that respect.

With the election of Barack Obama as the president of this country there was mass hysteria exhibited by approximately 25% of the voting public. I believe you may be part of that group. This was exacerbated by the re-election of President Obama and continues to plague this same group. Get over it and try to move on.

That you cannot show simple respect for the office of president of your and my country is an indication of how deep the resentment you feel resides in your psyche.

It will be difficult to discuss this inordinate fear you display and forgive me if this seems demeaning but it is a little bit like a conversation that I had with my granddaughter when she was 8 years old about spiders. Tyranny is exactly what you have been trapped by with your obsession with one man.

Now go ahead and comment about how typical that is of liberals. Make a dig at how I don’t want to confront you on issues that you make up, I can’t do that. I won’t assist you by participating in your fantasy.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 10, 2014 9:35 AM
Comment #380729

It seems the only argument Speak4all and jane doe can make is to personally insult their opponents. Speak4all insists Royal Flush’s disagreement with the Obama presidency is some kind of psychosis. jane doe simply insults for the sake of insulting. Neither offers any kind of support for their argument other than blind ass kissing, Obama’s and each other’s.

It is common knowledge blind people have exceptional hearing. This isn’t the case with Democratics. They are blind to the shortcomings of this administration, however they can’t hear any part of a logical argument against it.


Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2014 12:45 PM
Comment #380731

WW, I don’t consider anyone who comments on this site as an opponent. RF expressed a desire that we could be friends. I tried to address his concerns as a friend. If these things are bothering him so much, look for help in dealing with that. I will not contribute to his fantasy by trying to defend non-specific unsubstantiated claims of how terrible President Obama is and will not do the same for you. That I refuse to do that seems to upset you and others but I don’t really care. I have supported President Obama, I do support President Obama and I will continue to support President Obama through the remainder of his term in office. As far as what Democrats are concerned with you can’t expect me to take your criticism seriously if you can’t even type the work correctly. We realize that as a human President Obama is fallible and can make mistakes but as a president we support him even with some mistakes.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 10, 2014 2:12 PM
Comment #380733

Speak may consider me mentally challenged when it comes to politics and perhaps I will give him even more ammunition with this…

Consider me in the conservative camp of Ronald Reagan as my beliefs about this country align well with his. Consider that he walloped two liberal dems and won huge majority votes for president. Consider that many moderate and conservative dems voted for Reagan because of his political beliefs.

I believe I am in excellent company with Reagan. Do you feel the same about obama? If so, why?

PS. I may berate your political thoughts, but don’t intend to malign you as an individual child of God.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 10, 2014 2:30 PM
Comment #380734

Lemmings support each other right off the cliff, Speak4all.
Blind obedience can be counter productive. You say Obama makes mistakes, yet you refuse to think those mistakes matter. Your side thinks those “mistakes” are an irrational personal hatred of the man if they are brought to light. They have nothing to do with his race, height, wife, birthplace, predilictions, etc. Opposition to the guy’s policies are what’s front and center here. Blind obedience by his supporters is what’s allowing him to break the law, lie, and usurp power he doesn’t deserve.
As much as you would like to say, Speak4all, they are not “mistakes”. They are usurpations of power that violate the constitution and must be condemned.


Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2014 2:38 PM
Comment #380736

RF, keep your child of god nonsense to yourself I didn’t ask for it and I didn’t malign you. What don’t you understand about the statement I made. I didn’t criticize you for your comment, I merely suggested that if this causes you so much angst and desire to constantly bring to our attention your dislike of our current President that perhaps it would be healthy for you to seek help with that affliction. If you enjoy that, that is your prerogative. I did not vote for Reagan although my father did, which disappointed me at the time but we still had a healthy relationship. Just avoided speaking about Reagan. I feel I am in excellent company supporting President Obama because he is attempting to do the job I helped elect him to do and he is one of the most likeable and affable President’s I have ever had the pleasure of experiencing. That you disagree is for you to decide but I won’t say that you can’t.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 10, 2014 2:44 PM
Comment #380737

WW, before you go off the deep end again let me make clear that I accept President Obama with his mistakes but don’t excuse them with blind obedience. That is a figment of your wild and crazy imagination, as most of your comments seemed to be filled with sometimes. What you deem as his attempts to usurp power I see as his attempts to do the job I helped elect him to do. We disagree.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 10, 2014 2:47 PM
Comment #380739

Exactly what is that job, Speak4all?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2014 3:04 PM
Comment #380740

OH, MY…mention God to an atheist and they lose their ability to think rationally.

Criticize obama to a leftie and they imply insanity.

Mention the constitution to some liberals and they get a bad rash and diarrhea.

Promote fiscal integrity to most dems and they condemn the writer as being anti-poor, anti-children, anti-women, and anti-freedom.

Mention a supreme court ruling upholding religious rights and many on the left begin to foam at the mouth and demand legislative action to trump the 1st Amendment.

Mention closing and protecting our borders against illegal entry and those who normally hate big business become their allies.

Edmund Burke said it best. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

This good man will stay involved and fight evil.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 10, 2014 3:07 PM
Comment #380742

Speak writes, I like; “President Obama because he is attempting to do the job I helped elect him to do…”

Do you like policies imposed unilaterally by the president in defiance of Congress’ authority to legislate and in contempt of the Constitution’s separation of powers; on which all our freedoms ultimately depend?

We have a maverick president who, on his own, changed welfare reform laws, changed or waived provisions of obamacare law, and ordered Border Patrol agents not to carry out provisions of the immigration laws. obama has no intention of complying with his oath of office.

The Founders understood the dangers of government to the freedom of the people. Our freedom is being eroded by degrees and hardly any liberal such as Speak notices or cares.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 10, 2014 3:37 PM
Comment #380744

Speak4all condones the lies, hypocrisy, illegal activity, slander, pandering, and squandering of our national wealth and reputation with his apathy.
Evil flourishes where good men do nothing. Speak4all will stand by and let the evil happen because he cannot bring himself to criticize Obama for strictly partisan reasons.

Answer the question, Speak4all. What is the job you expect Obama to do for you? I really want to know what you elected him to do! Let’s not have any of your obfuscations by saying you don’t have to tell me. I think you do! You owe us all an explanation as to what you elected Obama to do since you have no problem telling us you won and we should get over it. What do you expect Obama to do for you?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2014 3:52 PM
Comment #380745

WW, I expect President Obama to serve as President of the United States of America and attempt to implement the changes he feels necessary to accomplish that task. See simple it really is so simple.

RF, I support his decisions to use executive orders to accomplish what he needs to. If the HOR wasn’t obstructionist he would be able to do it with legislation but we know that their main goal is to make sure President Obama doesn’t get anything he wants ever. So sue him.

I fear I will not be able to further discuss this with you two as I sense some of your phony righteous indignation coming and I just don’t have any interest in cajoling that by participating.

Remember my long held belief, we need every citizen of this great country’s voice to be heard. WW, RF and many, many more. It doesn’t mean that I have to put up with your nonsense.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 10, 2014 4:07 PM
Comment #380746

What does he need to do? What changed does he feel are necessary? What does he need to acomplish using executive orders?

I’m simply asking questions. I’m not being nonsensical, indignant, or cajoling. I’m just asking you to be specific as to what you want Obama to do.

You also have a voice, Speak4all. Let’s hear it. Quit obfuscating and answer the question.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2014 4:20 PM
Comment #380747

Speak defends a president who violates his oath and calls WW and me obstructionist and claims we are writing nonsense.

Speak, you have lost my respect for your truthfulness. I am pleased that you are pulling out of a debate you are sorely losing. I really don’t wish to read any more comments about the imperial presidency you helped elect.

If you can’t man up and admit the truth and face facts, what good are your comments?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 10, 2014 4:21 PM
Comment #380748

WW, this and as I have told you in the past, stop with the questions. Go do that with someone who wants to participate in that with you. It is not me.

RF, the Republican led HOR are obstructionists, please try to read what I type and not what you want it to mean. If you and WW facilitate that obstructionism to the detriment of our country then that is again your prerogative. Your respect for me doesn’t mean anything at all to me. My comments are good for anyone who cares to deem them as such.

You guys sure know how take a cue but you just don’t have a clue.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 10, 2014 4:36 PM
Comment #380749

Who hasn’t got a clue?!

the Republican led HOR are obstructionists

Reid Laughs at Prospect of Bringing GOP Bills Up for Votes in Senate

Reid claimed that it was simply too time consuming for the Senate to act on the House measures sent over by Boehner, claiming that Senate procedures took up too much time.
“Every time you come to a bill [on the Senate floor] you have to have a Motion to Proceed [and] it takes about 10 days, and it limits what we can get done here,” he said.
When asked again if he might bring any of the House-passed bills to the floor, Reid chuckled and said “some time is a long time, I guess.”
In total, there are 40 House-passed bills, according to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) office, that have passed the House but languish in the Senate.

Republicans are standing on merit and principal, Democratics are standing on partisanship.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2014 4:51 PM
Comment #380750

Speak writes; “RF, the Republican led HOR are obstructionists, please try to read what I type and not what you want it to mean.”

Reading your comments reminds me of my early childhood reading Dick and Jane, rather simple and aimed at children.

So Speak, in your America it’s OK for a president to violate his oath IF the congress obstructs his desires. I see.

By the way Speak…you are losing both your believability and your cool. Don’t get mad, just take your meds.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 10, 2014 4:54 PM
Comment #380751

Good comment Weary about Reid and company. I doubt if Speak can spin that.

We also have former Speaker of the House Pelosi at our Southern border welcoming illegals in defiance of our laws. The dem party of today is a sad reflection of its once admired values. Most admired democrat leaders of the past would be ashamed of what the party has become.

Would any of the past great leaders of the dem party tolerate booing God at their nominating convention?

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=402

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 10, 2014 5:10 PM
Comment #380752

WW, you. Reid won’t bring up any bills the HOR sends to the Senate due to the fact that the amendments made to the bills purposefully attempt to repeal and obstruct the PPACA, every single one of them. I support his efforts and have no compunction for his actions at all.

RF, I have to dumb it down for you but that is OK I understand. In my America I am proud to have a President that attempts to get something anything done to help this country. I could care less what you think about god and see no place in a political convention for that to enter into discussion.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 10, 2014 5:39 PM
Comment #380754

A tyrannical presidency is OK with speaks. And I might instruct him that our founders credited our inalienable rights to the Creator.

However I understand his position even if he denies it. As an atheist and anti-constitutionalist he is eager for religion and our democratic republic to fall. Then, his morality and his personal desires can be met.

Many fools in the past have held the same opinion as they sought to make government their God.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 10, 2014 6:09 PM
Comment #380755

Tell that to those cancer patients that Read blew off on national tv, Speak4all. Geesh!

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 10, 2014 6:15 PM
Comment #380757

Weary, it is disgusting to read the comments by some on this site who seem to believe that because obama was elected that everyone who voted for him are just as Godless and have the same disregard for our Constitution as they, and their leaders do.

These Godless socialist may represent 15 or 20 percent of the electorate and in their dementia believe they are in a majority.

They can succeed if we do nothing. Fat chance. Americans will tolerate most anything for a time, but their time is up. Sanity, morality, rule of law, and love of freedom will trump their pitiful goals. They will crawl back to whatever hellhole spawned them and good riddance.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 10, 2014 6:48 PM
Comment #380763

“Consider me in the conservative camp of Ronald Reagan as my beliefs about this country align well with his.”

Royal Flush,

Do you agree with Reagan’s immigration policy?

By the way, how about you guys stop hurling insults at each other.

Posted by: Rich at July 10, 2014 8:54 PM
Comment #380765

Speaks, it just does absolutely no good trying to approach some on here with common sense and sensibility. Trying to get into a locked mind does nothing but frustrate. Then there is WW following behind Flushed like a puppy dog who found a feeding trough. Flushed is simply a bully who will stop short of nothing that denigrates anyone who won’t fall into the short line behind him. One of the most well-read and knowledgeable posters on here gave it a heck of a go against some of these hate-mongering bloviators. Adrienne got beat up pretty badly and the jackals just circled closer.

Posted by: jane doe at July 10, 2014 11:40 PM
Comment #380766

jane doe, is name-calling a common sensibility where you come from? In your last comment you called Royal Flush a bully and me a puppy dog. You called anyone who disagreed with Adrienne hate-mongering bloviators. Is that constructive? All I’ve done today is ask Speak4all to answer a few simple questions as to why he supports Obama. He wouldn’t answer them. He believes he elected Obama to do whatever Obama wants to do. You seem to denigrate anyone you disagree with and when the tit for tat starts you blame the guy you insult for instigating it. You even insult them while blaming them for insulting behavior! You offer nothing else.

If you pine for days gone by why don’t you step up and present the liberal point of view in a manner that doesn’t include insults and name-calling? Don’t worry, they don’t bann people they disagree with now.

Take some advice from Rich and stop with the insults. Be constructive. Offer opinions that have value, not insults. You would be surprised how open and understanding conservatives would be if you weren’t always in their face with the denigrating rhetoric.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 11, 2014 12:13 AM
Comment #380773

RF, in your typical “christian” manner you assume that you can designate my religious beliefs as you see fit. Put a sock in it, you have no idea of what my beliefs are and your always apparent holier than thou attitude is even more disgusting when you attribute beliefs to someone you know nothing about. And by the way my beliefs are none of your business and it will stay that way. Unlike yourself I do not wear my beliefs on my sleeve and constantly expect everyone to acknowledge how pure of heart and mind I am as you do.

WW, awww poor butt hurt baby. jane doe called you out for what you are and you display regularly and now you accuse her. This is a typical Republican/Teapartyic stance and it wears thin. I help elect people to office and then let them do the job, based on their accomplishments I decide if I like what they do. So far I have not been disappointed by President Obama. I have an idea, if you just ran for office yourself you could claim some superiority or maybe find answers to your questions even, as it stands now you sound like some whiny little pest asking more and more questions. Try someone else, it will not be me that attempts to answer your questions.

Rich, sorry but I learned a long time ago that the bluff and bluster of bullying can only be overcome by stepping up when the rhetoric and hyperbole becomes unavoidable. I do appreciate your sentiment however and hope this can change. I have my doubts.

jane, yes I know it seems pointless to try and make sense with someone who doesn’t want sense but hey I’ve got 3 children and 14 grandchildren and have spent the better part of my adult life trying to help someone make sense of a life that can be confusing and daunting (but they at least try to understand). It does get frustrating though when all someone wants to do is insert their fingers in their ears and shout “la, la, la I can’t hear you”.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 11, 2014 10:03 AM
Comment #380774

Slavery is alive and well in the Democratic party. Not only is it enslaving the poor and ignorant by making them dependent on the taxpayer’s money, it has captured it’s followers using intellectual and emotional slavery as well.

The following class of the Democratic party has spoken out against anything not Democratic for so long they can no longer have an independent opinion or a reasonable evaluation of the Democratic party’s policies. To do so would risk losing every ounce of credibility they imagine they have.

It is so saddening to watch an intangible like a political party so completely control the thought process of otherwise intelligent people. It can only be described as intellectual and emotional slavery.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 11, 2014 11:24 AM
Comment #380775

Speak; “RF, keep your child of god nonsense…”

Hmmm…let’s take a vote. Is this an atheist attitude?

Speak; “Unlike yourself I do not wear my beliefs on my sleeve and constantly expect everyone to acknowledge how pure of heart and mind I am as you do.”

Well thank you very much as, being convicted of having deep religious beliefs is complimentary. I don’t believe I am “pure” of heart and mind but again…I thank you for the compliment.

Take a look at your own “sleeve” Speak. What are you wearing on it that you constantly reminds us of?

I have written very complimentary comments to jane doe which she does not acknowledge. That’s OK, I really didn’t expect her to notice as she seems to be living in some other world. And, I understand that too, and wish her well.

My only request to jane is that she change shoulders for that chip she is carrying.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 11, 2014 2:53 PM
Comment #380776

WW, thanks for the word salad. Since you don’t seem to know the difference between the words Democrat and Democratic forgive me if I don’t take any heed to your twisted description of the Democratic party. Besides being pure poppycock it just seems kind of false coming from someone who has done nothing but disparage and berate anyone professing to be a Democrat or holding Democratic tendencies.

RF, I didn’t say you had deep religious beliefs in fact what I was trying to point out is that your deciding to be able to define my beliefs from my comments here is probably not christian like at all but I think you know that. To the contrary I consider you to be one of the most non-religious people commenting here since you exhibit such an aura of sanctimony that a religious person would reserve for someone more deserving than yourself. You can vote all you want but you do not get to decide what my beliefs are, fool.

You are unable to be complimentary in a very primordial sense. Your dislike of individuals that disagree with you makes you unable to use a compliment without seeming demeaning to the other person.

Anyway it is Friday and although I don’t like to have my raw oysters in a month without an ‘R’ in it I can still enjoy a bloody mary and a beer and make do with some conch fritters or clam strips until September. I know some may think that the tale about oysters is an old wives tale that dates back to when oysters really only came from the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding area and it would warm in that area during the summer causing bacterial infestation to the oysters but I have an opinion that the metabolism of the human body doesn’t handle oysters well during the summer (they don’t seem to taste as good in the summer either). Vaya con dios my friends, cohorts and detractors.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 11, 2014 3:36 PM
Comment #380777

Speak has promised to leave for two days now…is this the last goodbye?

Two of my favorite conservative political writers are Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. I urge my friends to read them on a regular basis.

Williams wrote; “There’s very little guts in the political arena to address the basic causes of poverty. To do so risks being labeled as racist, sexist, uncaring and insensitive. That means today’s dependency is likely to become permanent.”

Well now, that’s not too rough a statement for my liberals friends.

“Since President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty, the nation has spent about $18 trillion at the federal, state and local levels of government on programs justified by the “need” to deal with some aspect of poverty. …enough to purchase everything produced in our country each year and then some.”

Well, not quite enough to rile my liberal friends.

“No one can blame a person if he starts out in life poor, because how one starts out is not his fault. If he stays poor, he is to blame because it is his fault. Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum wage. And finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior.”

OH…OH, now we are stepping on liberal toes.

“There may be some pinhead sociologists who blame the weak black family structure on racial discrimination. But why was the black illegitimacy rate only 14 percent in 1940, and why, as Dr. Thomas Sowell reports, do we find that census data “going back a hundred years, when blacks were just one generation out of slavery … showed that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. This fact remained true in every census from 1890 to 1940”? Is anyone willing to advance the argument that the reason the illegitimacy rate among blacks was lower and marriage rates higher in earlier periods was there was less racial discrimination and greater opportunity? “

Well now you have done it Williams. The liberal crowd will be calling you an “Uncle Tom”.

For those with open minds and sincere hearts I suggest a full reading at…

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2014/02/12/dependency-not-poverty-n1792538/page/full

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 11, 2014 3:58 PM
Comment #380789

Stephens message is to the point. The modern day right, thanks to the tparty has managed little more than making the politics much more important than actual results. Unfortunately compromise is absolutely a dirty word in modern day conservatism. Without it authoritarian rule is certainly insured. Making the views of just a few the ultimate say in all things. That in itself is the antithesis of democracy. It does not take a mental giant to see the result of the evolution of modern day conservatism. Regardless of what the right claims their values are, practicing them and having the ability or willingness to recognize the actual results of them are entirely different things. Ignoring the actual outcome of ones actions in favor of politically advantageous fictional outcomes is a fools game at best. The right in this modern day is without a doubt their own worst enemy.

I for one have no expectations that any of the right wing political mouth droolers here will be capable of accepting recognition of the latter. Fortunately it does seem to me that the majority of sensible adults do recognize the downfalls of such ridiculous anti productive behavior. It is time to grow up folks and encourage a functional govt capable of adult compromise with the recognition that none of us will ever get exactly and or all of what we hope for. After all we all, each and everyone of us, regardless of ideology, are in this thing together whether we like it or not.

Posted by: RickIL at July 12, 2014 11:43 AM
Comment #380792

Do us all a favor and explain the left’s endgame. What are their intentions? What do the left expect this country to be when they have reached their goals? For that matter, what are their goals?

I can’t get an answer. Am I supposed to just sit back and wait for an end result that is not defined? Am I supposed to take the left’s word that whatever they want to do is for my own good?

I shouldn’t expect to settle for an “Obama does what he wants to do” answer to these questions.


Posted by: Weary Willie at July 12, 2014 1:16 PM
Comment #380795

Willy, I would suggest that since you’re having such a tough time understanding what is being said in here that doesn’t come from the mouth of a wing-nut conservative, that you should find a more simplistic site to loiter in. You continue to ask the same ridiculous questions that you’ve been posing for several years now. You’re not accepting the answers provided in all that time, so you are either blind, deaf or just dense!
Speaks, hope you enjoy your shellfish break and don’t get any bad stuff. I love lobster and a good homemade clam chowder, but that is about as far as I get. ;)

Posted by: jane doe at July 12, 2014 7:38 PM
Comment #380796

Do my questions get in the way of your chatting, jane doe? Am I supposed to read your mind? I haven’t got answers. I get insulted, criticized, ignored, anything but answers.

Why don’t you answer the question, jane doe? Put the insults aside and simply describe where you expect the Democratic party to take this nation. I would describe what I expect from conservatism, I would appreciate it if you would describe what you expect from liberalism.

What do you say?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 12, 2014 8:52 PM
Comment #380802

Willie, if any one word could describe you, I would choose dyslexic. Regardless of your own feeling of supremacy, you are not the decider-in-chief of what is discussed,and by who on here. Get over yourself!

Posted by: jane doe at July 13, 2014 3:42 PM
Comment #380803

Willie, some libs yearn for the good ole days on WB when only they were allowed to ask questions.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 13, 2014 3:50 PM
Comment #380804

Flushed, you don’t know squat about the “good ole days” on here. They most definitely took place long before you decided to proclaim yourself the bloviator-in-chief.

Posted by: jane doe at July 13, 2014 4:34 PM
Comment #380805

As expected…still has the chip on her shoulder.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 13, 2014 5:07 PM
Comment #380816

I guess it’s game on! I tried to be civil. Screw it.

jane doe, are you fat? Do you hate yourself? Do you have acne and can’t stand looking at yourself in the mirror, or something like that? I’d bet you’re a real pain to live with, yes? Do you live alone with 90 cats?

It seems like it. Your comments have nothing good to say. I feel sorry for you and pity you. It’s a shame. What a waste of comment numbers.

See? I can get personal too! And, unlike you, I can do it without violating the rules of participation.

Oh well. God helps those who help themselves, jane doe.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 14, 2014 2:32 AM
Comment #380821

Rick

Two questions:

1. How do the words of the Tea Party differ from those of our founders?

2. Why is placing our individual rights and freedoms as most important, not a valid actual result to achieve? Why is one persons desire for comfort and convenience, more important than another persons freedom of choice?

Posted by: kctim at July 14, 2014 10:58 AM
Comment #380832

kctim-
For one thing, the Framers had respect for intelligence, for earned elite status. For another, they created a system that both addressed the problems of a weak government, and held back some of the problems of a strong one.

You folks claim to fly their banner, but if you folks were the framers, we’d have been broken apart by England, France, and Spain long ago, because you can’t see that there is at least some advantage in not insisting on getting EVERYTHING you or your state wants. You don’t see that their greatest achievement was creating a nation where vastly disparate states could function together in peace.

The irony is, in order to believe what the Supreme Court said, you have to believe that a collective organization can have rights. That’s what corporation, even a closely held one, actually is.

I get the impression, really, that your side has allowed itself to stew in its own wishful thinking for too long, and rather than adjust to reality, it tries and force reality to suit it, with varying success, but pretty much constant conflict.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 14, 2014 5:32 PM
Comment #380833

Daugherty writes; “For one thing, the Framers had respect for intelligence…”

Tell me the government intelligence behind the need for this searing report on illegal immigration.

Endless wave of illegal immigrants floods Rio Grande valley

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/14/night-time-on-border-endless-wave-illegal-immigrants-floods-rio-grande-valley/

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 14, 2014 6:14 PM
Comment #380894

Royal,I have no chip on my shoulder….not in all the time before you blew in here, and not now. The fact that you choose to bully anyone….anyone who does not bend to your beliefs is your negative point.
Willy, you are just a few kegs shy of a barrel, now and have always been, and
I’d suggest that you make a trip by a mirror before posting any more scathing comments about anyone on here. What do you think gives you so much room to spew your acidic bile?

Posted by: jane doe at July 17, 2014 8:15 PM
Comment #380902

You do, jane doe. You give me the room. You reap what you sow.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 18, 2014 10:50 AM
Comment #380907

You take license to insult jane doe. She neither gives you room or approves it, of that we are all certain.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 18, 2014 2:41 PM
Comment #380915

It’s really too bad to see how this forum has all but destroyed itself by just two or three out-of-control dolts who only excel in trying to destroy any who refuse to fall to their knees in idolatry. Beware of karma…..it will bite you square in the ass, which could be a vast area !

Posted by: jane doe at July 18, 2014 6:23 PM
Comment #380919

Dolts? Clever.
Who have I expected to fall to their knees and idolize, jane doe? Answer the question instead of throwing insults and namecalling.

Quote me expecting someone to idolize anyone.

This is quite a bit of fun, actually! Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me! C(:

Are you capable of saying anything constructive?

Don’t tax yourself. HA HA Get it? Tax Speak4all!!!

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 18, 2014 7:48 PM
Post a comment