By Steve Thompson
It’s been written about quite a bit this week, on this blog and others, about some of the crazed and delusional rantings that have taken place since the awful tragedy in Arizona. When an evil psycho with no ties to anyone shoots a congresswoman and kills others it should be seen as a national tragedy. We should mourn the victims and bring their killer to justice with a PROMPT execution. The story should end there.
Unfortunately we have reached such a divisive time in our political dealings that this tragedy had to be taken advantage of. Fingers had to be pointed and someone other than the shooter had to be blamed. Leftists were so quick to pick out those they hate the most and try to assign blame they had not time to ask if this was what the victims would have wanted.
Was the shooter a deranged TEA Partier? Not likely. It’s public knowledge now that he was an atheist who didn’t listen to talk radio, and who had made statements more in line with Bill Maher than Bill O’Reilley. Does that mean we should call for Maher’s head? I would say no. Maher’s a divisive jerk but no one is forced to watch him.
Devoted leftists like Paul Krugman and Keith Olberman were some of the first to launch what has been labeled by Sarah Palin as “blood libel.” There are now reports of twitterings wishing for Palin’s death, and a regular poster on this blog commented on his own blog that if he was within 860 meters of “that fat bastard” (I can only assume this means Rush Limbaugh, as he used to be overweight) and he would “strike a blow against hate.” I can only read this as a sort of death threat, as I’m not sure what else someone would do within 860 meters besides fire a high-powered rifle. I could be wrong.
The sad thing here is that leftists are so quick to believe the lies they spew. I am as conservative as they get, and I don’t feel hatred in my heart for anyone. I get impassioned and worked up, I say things in anger and I sometimes debate fiercely. But hate is a strong emotion to feel for someone. I believe it is possible for me to think that Barrack Obama is a poor excuse for a President, without hating him (or being a bigot). It is possible for me to disagree with people on the left without hating them. It is possible for me to vote against liberals with hating them too. I rarely, if ever, saw this level of rational disagreement from the left when George W. Bush was President though. They HATED him. They didn’t just disagree with him, they believed he was evil! This is a big deal for people who claim there is no evil and the world is not black and white.
So why is the left so irrational? And why do they not see their behavior as irrational? What has Sarah Palin done to deserve their wishing for her death? She certainly didn’t win in 2008. All she does now is pretty much political commentary. They hate her so much they are willing to publicly insult her children! Is that truly rational?
Sadly, there are irrational people on the right as well. But given the magnitude of our national debate, given how bad of shape our nation is in right now, the right, and especially the TEA Party movement, has been incredibly civil and courteous in our dealings with our opponents. We do not riot in the streets of Oakland. We do not break windows at Radio Shack. We do not punch volunteers at democrat headquarters. To this day, we do not and have not ever publicly called for the death of our liberal opponents (as they now do to us). Yet this week we have had to endure no less than the accusation of being accessories to murder!
President Obama spoke in Arizona, and to his credit he stayed away from political sloganeering at a memorial service. But the event had the feel of a campaign rally. Probably the most rational statement I’ve seen made came from Sarah Palin, in a much shorter speech with bolder words and a real call for national unity. No finger pointing or blame placement, just heartfelt commentary. It was the most rational and mature thing I’ve heard anyone say about this tragedy so far.
This finally leads me to ponder about our national unity versus our continuous struggle. We as Americans are locked in a political civil/cultural war, and it seems we are only drifting further apart. It would be nice to think that left and right could come together and compromise, but compromise where? There is little in the liberal agenda that does not seem to me to be an affront and violation of my constitutional rights and freedom. There is little policy that I prefer which they do not call evil and heartless. Where is the common ground in this?
I hope common ground can be found in the agreement to disagree with more civility, and to put our nation ahead of our personal politics. What I’ve seen this past week hasn’t given me much hope for either.
One of the problems I have with the left is that they seem unwilling to do anything but blame, accuse and discredit. It’s impossible to reach accord when one side refuses to debate honestly and instead resorts to dismissive diatribes.
I agree that ideologically we are at direct opposites. This is a true contest and the future of our nation will be decided by whoever wins this contest. This is why the times are so contentious. America is in the process of choosing to either embrace the ideal of limited federal powers as our founders invisioned or give ourselves over completely to a statist society like Cuba.
I love feedom and the responsibilities that go along with it. I believe that freedom offers the best opportunity for people to direct their own lives and successes. That puts me at odds with a lot of people who prefer government to plan and control much of our lives.
Sparks are bound to fly.
Steve?
I want you to THINK for a few. OK?
You are capable of rational thought, arent you?
Have you ever thought about the root causes of hate?
Can we agree that lies are one of those root causes of hate?
Have you ever thought there might be a sound reason one of The Ten Commandments warns us against bearing false witness.
Now, have you ever noticed that some people who call Tell it to the ER, write letters to the editor, and even post on this blog are so filled with HATE? It is because they have been lied to.
Lies CAUSED their hate. Obama is NOT out to kill their grandmothers.
Are you with me so far? I cant draw you a picture here, so youll need to focus.
Now, try to picture the results of hate throughout history.
Are ya feelin me, brother?
Did you see the comment on my essay? Pretty hateful, isn’t it! Could it be that someone on the Right thinks I am a Leftist becauseeven after I have told you several timesyou continue to lie and call me a leftist?
You equate me with Paul Krugman?
Youre a liar Steve. No ifs, ands or buts.
You say I am a leftist, why? Because I disagree with you? There is no other option here?
Do I need to worry that one of your little lied-to TEAbagger friends will shoot me at a stoplight because of your lies? Words have consequences, Steve. Thats WHY they pay that thrice-divorced drug addict on the radio $1600 a minute, precisely because his words have consequences. Now your side would have us believe words do not!
I too exhibit hate. But its hate for you liars and the lies you tell. BIG difference!
Now, about that liar comment I just made, OK?
Had you been properly educated, you would know that liar is an adjective. That means it simply describes you. You lie again when you say it is name-calling.
The truth has, and never will be, equivalent to a lie. The truth is not name-calling, even though your side is trying to make it so by repeating the lie over and over.
Now, if I say that is how the Nazis did it too, that is the truth, is it not? If I say that your call to censor me puts you in the same camp with the Nazis, am I wrong? You act like a Nazi, Steve. That is Gods honest truth!
Yes. The truth can be inflammatorythat is WHY I write it! To wake people up to the demise of their country at the hands of partisan hacks like you. If it causes people to hate what is happening, and you, that is a good thing. Hate is what motivated the birth of this Great Nation!
Never EVER confuse my loathing of those who would destroy this country with the partisan hate fomented by those (you) who lie about this country.
One will foster a better America.
Your hate is dividing America. Divided, we fall.
When I said that one of George Bushs stuntswaterboardingwas criminal, that was a fact; the truth.
When your side says that Obama is responsible for a thirteen trillion dollar debt, that is a lie.
Do you see the difference there, Steve?
This really isnt rocket science.
Its a question of Right versus Wrong.
You do know the difference between Right and Wrong, dont you, Steve?
Steve?
Tell us, Steve,WHY is it that the truth does not matter to you? You dont care about the truth and then you turn around and decry the results of the hate that you, yourself, have helped to foster.
You decry the state of the nation, yet instead of doing something about our problems, you add to the problems by not being honest about them.
What color is the sky in your world, Steve?
Please tell me you are not that thick, Steve.
Please tell me they did not let someone so thick become chairman of the Butte County Republican Party.
Your side is doing everything it can do duck responsibility for your part in the breakdown of civility.
They did it too! didnt work when you were in Jr. High and it isnt going to work now on intelligent people.
There is absolutely no precedent in history to match the statements of Sarah Plain.
Name any time a bonafide candidate for Vice President has ever made equivalent statements. I will bet the late-night comedians are flattered by your weak comparisons, but its apples and orangesand you know it.
Even it were equivalent, so what?
Are you going to wait until, They gotta say theyre sorry first!?
Why dont you just grow a pair, Steve?
Man up, admit you have lied, admit you have added to the hate fostered by those lies, apologize, and move on.
As I wrote on my blog, if the leftists dont do the same, that isnt YOUR problem.
And by the way, Steve?
It wouldnt hurt to start telling the truth from now on!
Tell ya what Steve:
I have City Plaza reserved for Tax Day this year.
Why dont you and your little TEAbagger friends come on down and well have a debate about how we can make America a better place.
An honest debate.
Just dont shoot me.
You know how to get a hold of me.
Tina–“I agree that ideologically we are at direct opposites. This is a true contest and the future of our nation will be decided by whoever wins this contest. This is why the times are so contentious. America is in the process of choosing to either embrace the ideal of limited federal powers as our founders invisioned or give ourselves over completely to a statist society like Cuba.”
Tina, this is simply untrue. No one who matters in America wants to “give ourselves over completely to a statist society like Cuba.” No one. Not Barack Obama, not Nancy Pelosi, not Harry Reid, not Barney Frank, not even George Soros or Michael Moore, two liberal bogeyman who are a whole lot less influential than conservatives like to think.
The truth is that ideologically, conservatives and liberals are NOT at “direct opposites”–claiming that we are, by making caricatures of the other side, is PRECISELY why the climate of division in our country that Steve Thompson points to exists.
The truth is that the American people decided, long ago, that our mostly capitalist country could benefit from some small degree of “socialism” as it is currently defined by those on the right. This would include child labor laws, mandatory public education, minimum wage laws, regulation of food, government aid to the needy, and so on. Almost every American, Democrat or Republican, supports these types of measures to SOME degree.
Practically every significant debate between the right and left these days is over the DEGREE to which we should balance the capitalist and “socialist” elements of our economic and governmental institutions.
Unfortunately, a significant factor that is impeding these debates–arguably the MOST significant factor–is the right’s insistence that this is a binary conflict, rather than a disagreement over degrees. Tina, every time you insist that the right and left represent completely opposite philosophies–on one side, free market capitalism, on the other, tyrannical socialism–you are not only wrong, you are contributing to a political atmosphere in which real, substantial debate becomes a whole lot more difficult, and the arguments between the two different sides become a whole lot harder to resolve.
Now, the left does this too to some extent. Some liberals insist that conservatives actually WANT people to go hungry, be denied healthcare, be racially discriminated against, blah blah etc. etc. This is, of course, completely untrue, as well as further damaging to the political climate of our country. I would say that these statements are partially motivated by the statements of influential righties such as Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, et. al., but that might lead us into a whole “who started it” debate which no one would ever win, so I’ll avoid that sidetrack for now.
Regardless, both the left and the right need to cool down the rhetoric, the demonizing, the division. That doesn’t mean everyone has to agree. It doesn’t mean that if we think our opponents’ suggestions are wrong, or even unconstitutional, we shouldn’t speak up. Of course we should. But we need to stop assuming bad faith.
I don’t care for Sarah Palin. I think she was a failed governor and would make a worse president. I also think she has made numerous dubious claims, many of which fall into the category of “lies.” But I also think she has good qualities; she has a charming personality and I would probably get along with her if we talked about anything other than politics. I think people like Andrew Sullivan and Sandra Bernhardt should be absolutely ashamed of their
misogynistic (and in Bernhardt’s case, racist) smears against her, and I also think Sarah Palin should be ashamed of her “death panels” lie, which she repeats even to this day.
I don’t think Palin would be a complete tyrant who would impose a Christian theocracy and lock up all the gays and Mexicans, and anyone who does think that is very, very stupid. Just anyone who thinks Barack Obama is a Kenyan-born jihadist who “has a deep-seated hatred for white people” is very, very stupid. Not only are these accusations dumb, they are dangerous. For if they were true–if the people who said these things actually believed them–than radicalism would be an appropriate response. The terrorists who have shot abortion doctors were unhinged, and we can’t blame all pro-lifers for their actions; on the other hand, if abortion really was a “holocaust” as so many claim, then violence WOULD be an appropriate response to ending it. If Obama really wanted to turn the U.S. into a nation like Cuba, then those who used violence to stop such a plan would be hailed as noble revolutionaries, rather then terrorists. But of course, it isn’t true.
We all need to take a serious look at our political beliefs and make sure that we actually believe what we are saying. We can’t carelessly demonize our political opponents, no matter which side of the aisle they are on.
Yes, I realize that Laughner most likely was not acting out of any recognizable political motive. That doesn’t change the fact that we need to take a second look at what we’re saying, and how we’re saying it.
You sound like you are full of hate. By the way teabagger is dirty, they are not teabaggers.
Steve, bravo, bravo! I gave you two bravo’s one for each time I read your post. I read it once then I read what the future clock tower sniper had to say. I was forced to reread your post to see if you snuck in another post that I had not seen.
Quentin get some help.
Steve, good article! So what did you think when you first heard about those shootings? I know what I thought, a possible terrorist attack or maybe a narco bunch from Mexico. I did not think Tea Party or Sarah Palin first!!! lol…that’s so out there! But, obviously those irrational haters on the left think like that! They’re plain nuts, they belong in the rubber room with Jared Loughner.
Harriet thank you for telling Quentin that, but he doesn’t care. We’ve been over and over that with him and asked him not to use the degrading, insulting terrm of teabagger. But, becasue he feels it offends people in the tea party he would not want to use anything elese. He hates them and thinks they are dupes for corporations and racists. I know, I know, it’s crazy talk, and I have no idea where he gets this baloney.
Chris: “No one who matters in America wants to “give ourselves over completely to a statist society like Cuba.” No one. Not Barack Obama, not Nancy Pelosi, not Harry Reid, not Barney Frank, not even George Soros or Michael Moore…”
Please show me the things they do that put them in the camp to move America toward more limited government rather than toward a statist government. Please show me in their writings and activism how they demonstrate that they are not thinking in collectivist terms. You are going to have to do more than claim they do not intend to move toward statism if yiouwant to be convincing.
The truth is that the American people decided, long ago, that our mostly capitalist country could benefit from some small degree of ‘socialism'”
Another truth is that the American people, in larger and larger numbers now, are seeing the folly of that little experiment in “socialism” (And no one is talking down reasonable government regulation)
“This would include child labor laws, mandatory public education, minimum wage laws, regulation of food, government aid to the needy, and so on. Almost every American, Democrat or Republican, supports these types of measures to SOME degree.”
That “and so on” leaves out a lot, Chris. Much of it has been added since the early sixties. Do you have any idea how many welfare agencies and programs now exist? Have you read much about the unsustainability of both Medicare and Social Security? Have you given any thought to the abject failure of our schools to deliver what was promised when the federal government got involved in education? Federal involvement was going to ensure that every American child would receive the same quality of education. It’s just made it more expensive.
Layers of bureaucracy are expensive…very expensive…and the money spent to fund the bureaucracy adds zero to the well being or care of the citizens. What it does inevitably is rob future generations of their capital in the form of inflated costs, higher taxes and less in services.
“arguably the MOST significant factor–is the right’s insistence that this is a binary conflict, rather than a disagreement over degrees…”
The “little bit” theory is exactly what has gotten us into this fix. Conservatives have gone along to get along for decades…what you are experiencing now is a havy foot planted firmly on the brakes!
“Tina, every time you insist that the right and left represent completely opposite philosophies–on one side, free market capitalism, on the other, tyrannical socialism–you are not only wrong, you are contributing to a political atmosphere in which real, substantial debate becomes a whole lot more difficult…”
After all of these years of going along, I’m not no longer interested in debating the left about how much more socialism we in America should accept. It has proven to be a failure all over the world! I am interested in debating how best we move back toward a free capitalist nation. That is where we run into problems. The left is not interested in moving in that direction. They have not been willing to consider it much less discuss it. I would say that puts us at opposites.
” Some liberals insist that conservatives actually WANT people to go hungry, be denied healthcare, be racially discriminated against, blah blah etc. etc.”
That’s because they demonize instead of considering what we actually say. We have advocated for power at the state and personal level. We think that the federal government was created by the states to defend the collective states and to arbitrate and litigate when conflicts or disputes occur between the states…and little else.
“I’ll avoid that sidetrack for now.”
You brought it up; I must counter it. Long before there was Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Beck, et al, there were many main stream leftist activist, journalists, educators and politicians. They had no competition to speak of. The right had a couple of small publications, most notably Buckly’s “National Review”, to provide “equal time”. (And that was under the “fairness doctrine”) Rush changed all of that and the left has been angry ever since. It isn’t about who started it; it’s about being given respect for having a differing opinion.
“I also think Sarah Palin should be ashamed of her “death panels” lie, which she repeats even to this day.”
What words would you use to describe a government panel that decides whether or not you can have a treatment or drug that might extend your life? (Please don’t tell me insurance companies do that…insurance policies can be read and rejected or accepted by the individual) I want words to describe a panel that makes those decisions for you instead of you and your doctor.
“…if abortion really was a “holocaust…”
When the worlsd found out what the Nazi’s had done they were horrified and ashamed…6 million Jews. How many abortions have been performed in the last 25-30 years? Worse than that…how our values, revering human life, have changed since then!
“If Obama really wanted to turn the U.S. into a nation like Cuba…”
Please tell me which of his policies haven’t moved us in the direction of Cuba.
“That doesn’t change the fact that we need to take a second look at what we’re saying, and how we’re saying it.”
Agreed! However I wouldn’t get my hopes up if I were you. You may think it’s a lie but I base what I’m about to say on years of observation. There are people and organizations whose goals have been to change the United States into a different country. They have succeeded to a great degree. They are not about to give up now when they have come so close to realizing the (utopean) dream. The more they see themselves losing the nastier they get. I will not be bullied into silence by these types; I hope you will not either.
“When an evil psycho with no ties to anyone ….”
What kind of ignorant rant is this supposed to be?
Evil? Since when is schizophrenia evil?
“No ties to anyone?” That’s just a lie.
He had parents … who were apparently unable to cope with their boy’s breakdown. He had friends who were, alas, clueless as to their friend’s breakdown.
And your sad, simple-minded efforts to cope with this also need to be redressed.
Here’s a story for Steve.
Some years back, I wrote a letter to the N&R in opposition of the parking structure proposed for the lot where the Saturday Farmer’s Market is currently held. I had been to the day meetings and found out, they were talking about either a bond or a sales tax increase to pay for it, and I said, No Way!
I said I’d follow the Farmer’s Market wherever they went, that wasn’t an issue for me. I didn’t want to PAY FOR IT. The lot was proposed because a certain Downtown developer did not want to pay “in lieu parking fees” when he developed two major Downtown parking lots with “live-work” units. Staff was going to make the public pay for a parking lot for a private developer.
But Steve, when you wrote your letter in favor of said parking lot, you called me, by name, “a dead weed and rock protector.” You just assumed I’m some cock-eyed liberal tree hugger, and you attacked me. You completely ignored the issue of how the parking lot would be financed. Meanwhile, Andy Holcombe kept saying, I was opposing the lot because I shopped at the farmer’s market. How frustrating to have people completely pervert what you’re saying and turn it 180 from what you actually said.
So, did I want to shoot you? No, but I was disappointed that you chose the low road, instead of sticking to the issues. The whole conversation went into the toilet, and has stayed there.
This past year, Staff, frustrated by the tree huggers, but determined to dump those in-lieu parking fees, foisted us with their “Downtown parking plan” – which we paid for. See? Told you so. Try listening next time.
Oh and Jack, I’ve gained about 8 pounds. I’m just trying to make you feel good.
Wow!
Harriet! I had not idea that you were so delicate a word–that is used by memebers of the TEA party to describe THEMSELVES–could offend you.
People are DEAD!
Does THAT offend you?
I am perosnally offended by your willful ignorance, Harriet.
Willful ignorance–stupidity–is what causes hate, dear. Last Saturday we witnessed a natural outgrowth of stupidity.
Educate yourself–and then grow the Hell up!
Tina has once again misled us all by saying she does not know where I get the idea you are being led around the nose by corproatists and race-baiters.
I believe I am up to a score of times telling her. She knows EXACTLY where I get the evidence to back up those claims.
I have given her links to examine, and the proof is so obvious a blind man could see. Yet, she continues to LIE!
Tina, sweetie, once more, in case you missed it.
LIES CAUSE HATE.
HATE CAUSE VIOLENCE.
TELL THE TRUTH!
You’ll be glad you did.
Jack?
Why are we crazy because the first thing we thought of was an attack by TEAbaggerz?
It was a hateful despicable act by a lunatic.
Since Obama’s inauguration, hateful, despicable acts by lunatics have been increasing nationwide.
Have you forgotten the hateful, despicable acts by lunatics right here in the North State last Summer?
The TEAbaggerz are legend for hateful, despicable, ignorant acts of violence and assault. Do you deny this?
In fact, Jack, MOST people thought it was a TEAbagger. Even the haters on the radio admitted it was the first thing they thought of.
“What kind of ignorant rant is this supposed to be?”
The kind of ignorant rant that is supposed to “baffle you with BS.” It is HOW the right debates. With no facts to back their assertions, it is standard operating procedure for TEAbaggerz.
Notice how far off the subject they get!
Have you noticed how no one on the Right can make an intelligent argument? You can’t buld with nothing.
I note it has been almost a full day, and as you can see, Mr. Chairman does not even try to argue with the facts–for no one can!
At least he he’s got some brains.
Q, nobody I know in the Tea Party ever uses the term teabagger. Once it was known this was a low slang term used by the gay community to describe a sexual act – naive conservatives were suddenly reviled by it. And it spread like a flash fire among leftists and liberals who were strangely titilated by using that term to provoke them. Do yourself a big favor and give it up. You know it is a slur, it’s offensive to the gay community and the Tea Party, so be the adult now and don’t go there anymore. We’re not amused – any further comments using this low brow slur will not get posted. .
What in the heck are you on Quentin?
The killer was a left wing pot head, his two friends said he ws not political, did not listen to radio, and on and on.
I will make you a bet though (rhetorically speaking)his attorney will get him to admit he listens to all the right wing radio, blogs, and etc. just a thought.
You are the most virolent poster here, no one speaks to you the way you speak to us, guess you missed the presidents speech on civility,
What hateful acts did a Tea Party member commit?
I guess I did not read that, must have been listening to the speech on civility.
On a side note, others here seem to know who you are, are you a business owner in Chico or elsewhere? politics?
curiosity got me.
BTW Steve, the “heartfelt” commentary can be seen reflected in Sarah’s glasses as it scrolls up the teleprompter.
You know what a teleprompter is, Steve?
It’s what YOU have been saying our president uses because he is no good at being president.
Here’s another tip to avoid violence. When a Black president uses a teleprompter, it is because ALL presidents have used them since they were invented. Many people use teleprompters.
Good story Juanita, but sorry about the weight gain! I know it’s tough to lose weight this time of year when everything tells us to eat more! Food is tastey and abundant and it makes us feel good, but too much is not a good thing is it? Join me Juanita and we can lose it. I’m not killing myself with a strict diet, but I am doing better and I’m tightening my belt now, so it must be working. I’m also saving money because I only eat out about once a week, not 3-5 times a week like I was doing.
Harriet, he works at Chico State…figures, huh? lol
Good morning everyone!
Lot’s of comments today, I’ll try to respond.
Juanita. I’m a little shocked here, I don’t remember sparring with you over a parking structure at all. I do remember a letter I wrote years ago in which I mentioned people putting dead weeds and rocks ahead of building homes, but that was in regard to the upper foothills/Bruce road area. To my knowledge I never weighed in on the parking structure. If I did and I offended you, I apologize.
Mr. Colgan, hmmm. I write about irrational liberals and you write in, frothing at the mouth, and prove my point. You’ve accused me of being a liar and a nazi so what really is the point of us debating? You never provide any facts on here just your own twisted opinion so to be honest you’re a waste of time.
BTW, when a kid who is a POT-SMOKING ATHEIST, and a 911 TRUTHER, shoots a moderate congresswoman and a republican judge, blaming the TEA Party or me or Tina is pretty much “bearing false witness.” Does that make you a liar?
I do not understand your infatuation with the TEA Party, or this blog. I defend your right to have your own blog, Uncomfortable Truth, but your comments on this blog are insulting and inappropriate. Your possible death threat at Rush Limbaugh, which you won’t answer to now, makes me concerned for the safety of those who post here. I think perhaps you should take a break for some personal reflection and ask yourself if your current methods are getting you anywhere?
Thank you, everyone else, for engaging in civil debate on this and the other issues.
“Q, nobody I know in the Tea Party ever uses the term “teabagger.”
You really should try listening to NPR.
You will discover fair and balanced reporting–though the monotone voices will drive ya crazy.
And truly, you don’t know everyone in the movement.
Recall last April where I was not the only one sporting a row of teabags on m’hat–though my hat WAS taller.
I don’t believe for one second you hang with the TEAparty Express type of baggerz, but you should look at what they say. Their crazy notions paint YOU as crazy too. Tina’s sharing of your blog paints you with the brush of obtuseness.
Deep down, I honestly believe that–deep down–you’re a decent guy, Jack. You and I want the EXACT same things for our country.
I would share a foxhole–OK, a’two-man fighting position’–with you, brother, if it came to that.
But, as the fat bastard says: who you hang with defines you. You hang with haters and ignorami, Jack.
I believe you are better than that.
Dig deeper into the TEAparty and you will find nothing but ugly!
Not that it matters. I believe Tucson will be the death knell for the baggerz. Good!
Take the opportunity to start over with a true and honest grass-roots movement, and I will help you.
The best defense is a good offense.
Straight out of the Republican playbook.
And so it goes . . .
I tried.
Tina–“Please show me the things they do that put them in the camp to move America toward more limited government rather than toward a statist government.”
My comment was that none of these people are advocating anything like the situation in Cuba, and this remains true.
“Please show me in their writings and activism how they demonstrate that they are not thinking in collectivist terms.”
This is a completely subjective question, and I have no idea how one would answer it in a way that would satisfy you.
“You are going to have to do more than claim they do not intend to move toward statism if yiouwant to be convincing.”
That’s not even what I claimed.
“Another truth is that the American people, in larger and larger numbers now, are seeing the folly of that little experiment in “socialism” (And no one is talking down reasonable government regulation)”
The difference has become completely collapsed in conservative rhetoric, which is why I used quotation marks.
“That “and so on” leaves out a lot, Chris. Much of it has been added since the early sixties. Do you have any idea how many welfare agencies and programs now exist? Have you read much about the unsustainability of both Medicare and Social Security? Have you given any thought to the abject failure of our schools to deliver what was promised when the federal government got involved in education? Federal involvement was going to ensure that every American child would receive the same quality of education. It’s just made it more expensive.”
There are far too many factors involved in all of these examples to simply say that the problems are caused by “federal involvement.” Enforced integration of schools is an inarguable example of a time when the federal government had to overturn the will of individual states. Other federal measures, such as No Child Left Behind and funding for abstinence-only sex ed programs, have been abject failures. Once again, you are attempting to make an issue much more simple and black and white than it actually is.
“That’s because they demonize instead of considering what we actually say.”
And calling your opponents socialists, dictators, Marxists, baby-killers, foreigners, lazy welfare queens…that’s not demonization?
“We have advocated for power at the state and personal level. We think that the federal government was created by the states to defend the collective states and to arbitrate and litigate when conflicts or disputes occur between the states…and little else.”
I hate to go here, but you do realize that George W. Bush did more to expand the scope of federal power than any other president in recent history, right?
“You brought it up; I must counter it. Long before there was Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Beck, et al, there were many main stream leftist activist, journalists, educators and politicians. They had no competition to speak of.”
They still have no legitimate competition. None of the names you have just brought up are journalists. They are certainly not academics or educators. They twist and distort history and facts daily and with glee. They routinely make statements that are hateful and offensive to large swaths of the U.S. population. These are not the people you want to point to as the intellectual leaders of your movement. And before you rush to defend them, let me remind you that you have admitted several times that you do not follow any of their work as closely as I do. I don’t know why you are so quick to defend these people when you don’t even listen to their shows or read their columns and books enough to know what they have actually said.
“The right had a couple of small publications, most notably Buckly’s “National Review”, to provide “equal time”. (And that was under the “fairness doctrine”) Rush changed all of that and the left has been angry ever since. It isn’t about who started it; it’s about being given respect for having a differing opinion.”
Rush has never shown the other side a single ounce of respect, ever. The other day he even claimed that the left actually SUPPORTS the Arizona shooter. Ann Coulter wrote an entire book on how all liberals are by definition treasonous, which even a big supporter of hers, David Horowitz, said was over the line. Glenn Beck calls himself a “progressive hunter.” All three of them claim that liberals are intentionally destroying the country. That’s not respect, that’s demonization. It’s certainly not in any way comparable to the treatment of conservatives in the mainstream media, where equal sides are usually presented.
“What words would you use to describe a government panel that decides whether or not you can have a treatment or drug that might extend your life?(Please don’t tell me insurance companies do that…insurance policies can be read and rejected or accepted by the individual)”
Are you under the impression that this changes under the ACA? You do realize that this plan doesn’t do away with private insurance companies, don’t you? People will still be able to read different insurance policies and accept or reject them.
Also, it’s my understanding that the death panel lie has expanded to include end-of-life care for senior citizens. This part of the healthcare provision gives senior citizens the option of having free end-of-life counseling, wherein they can make decisions regarding how they are taken care of in their last days. Palin and others have tried to twist this into a mandate that seniors be pressured into getting euthanasia. This is utterly false, and ridiculous.
“I want words to describe a panel that makes those decisions for you instead of you and your doctor.”
Since no such panel exists under the healthcare plan, your demand is absurd.
“When the worlsd found out what the Nazi’s had done they were horrified and ashamed…6 million Jews. How many abortions have been performed in the last 25-30 years? Worse than that…how our values, revering human life, have changed since then!”
Tina, would you agree that violence was an appropriate response to the Nazis?
Do you believe that violence is an appropriate response to those who terminate or enable the termination of pregnancies?
I would bet your answers to those two questions would be very different. You need to think about why that is so.
“Please tell me which of his policies haven’t moved us in the direction of Cuba.”
Another absurd question, which I will not dignify with a response.
“There are people and organizations whose goals have been to change the United States into a different country.”
See, Tina, the reason I can’t take this seriously from you is because you often cite the ACLU and similar groups as having this goal. The ACLU are constitutional absolutists. They will defend constitutional principles no matter what group their client belongs to. They have defended the freedoms of whites and Christians countless times, as you can determine with a quick Google search. That you have such misconceptions about them makes me seriously doubt your interpretation of others you believe to be Marxist or anti-American.
“I will not be bullied into silence by these types; I hope you will not either.”
Certainly not.
Q, no you really didn’t try. If you tried you would engage folks in a battle of ideas and real facts, not name calling. We like to exchange ideas with you and have a good dialog, but honestly you are so prone to shoving empty rhetoric and nasty remarks at us it makes it hard for us to do that.
NPR fair? Are you joking? Remember teh firing of Juan Williams? Certainly not a conservative guy, but he said something that ruffeld their feathers.
Quentin, what do you do at CSU? Teach?
Chris: “My comment was that none of these people are advocating anything like the situation in Cuba, and this remains true.”
Of course they won’t come right out and say they want to replace our system with Cubas, that would be political suicide. (Although a number of prominent lefties do) At the same time, do they realize that “Cuba” is what they will eventually create? Some do and many others think they are just trying to “help people” or “save the planet”, but at what cost? Do they bother to consider the costs or attempt to find free market solutions to actual problems? NO!
I’m afraid, Chris, that the left has always operated from a “my way or the highway” position and has no affiliation to free market principles. Anyone who suggests considering costs, lost jobs, energy shortages, or even the harm to minorities that some policies will ultimately bring are called names and dismissed as extremists. When we point out the intentions of the founders for small federal government and greater freedom and responsibility at the state and personal levels we are told that those ideas are outmoded, the thoughts of a bunch of “old white bald guys”.
“That’s not even what I claimed.”
OK, let’s begin again. You said the following:
By what measure do you come to this conclusion, Chris? You have not told me how they are somehow, what? Aligned? Similar of mind in their ideals? Close in their policy suggestions? How would you describe them?
I ask again, are the people you mention, Barack Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al, proposing legislation or advocating for policies and legislation that move America in the direction of CUBA or in the direction of limited federal government? And at what point exactly would YOU begin to be concerned? Where would you draw the line? This is important Chris, because your generation will pay a heavy, heavy price if we continue down the current path.
Whether we stand in some comfy middle ground at the moment or not, and I say we do not, the polices being enacted today will create a much more socialist future. The left has already accomplished considerable federal control especially in education and the law, the arts and entertainment. Now they seek even greater control focusing on the health industry, the energy industry, and the food industry. Actually once they achieve their energy control goals industry will have been strangled.
That our presidential leadership has assumed a level of power to take control over the car industry and banking, even temporarily, and completely shut down all drilling in the gulf is astounding. That the EPA, an unelected body, has been given the power to levy fines and obstruct business to the point of stagnation and ruin through regulation is astounding. This is not reasonable; it is not policy that respects private property, freedom, or the Constitution. How can you assert that these people are not at odds with their conservative opponents?
This process of greater and greater government control has been ongoing for decades. The move toward statism is not being accomplished through revolution, as was Cuba, but instead through steady creeping “change”…always toward the marxist/socialism model. I’m clear it’s not only time to yell, “STOP!”, but time to begin to reverse this power grab before we are irreversibly swamped. The left’s position is clearly to remain on the path of big government change toward a socialistic state. You have not and, I would guess, cannot dispute this.
We are at opposites.
“The difference has become completely collapsed in conservative rhetoric…”
The left has always been deaf, dumb and obstructionist to reasonable Republican input requiring pointed, explicit rhetoric.
Enforced integration of schools is an inarguable example of a time when the federal government had to overturn the will of individual states.
What has this to do with what we are discussing?
Other federal measures, such as No Child Left Behind and funding for abstinence-only sex ed programs, have been abject failures.
And would not be an issue if education was left to the individual states.
And calling your opponents socialists, dictators, Marxists, baby-killers, foreigners, lazy welfare queens…that’s not demonization?
I wont deny that in the mouths of some these words are meant to demonize an opponent. In some cases they are also just blurted out as a way of venting frustration. (same with your side)
Much of the time, however, the words you have chosen are simply descriptorsand they are accurate! I dont say someone has Marxist policies unless they do, given enough evidence I might also call them a Marxist directly. I dont call someone a socialist unless he has displayed socialist behavior or expressed socialist ideas. I have never used the term baby killer. Even that word is legitimately descriptive for those who believe life begins at conception and that those children deserve respect and protection from the society in which they exist. The word foreigners is also descriptive, although I have not heard this word used disparagingly by anyone. Welfare Queen is also a descriptive word. It does not refer to people who want to provide for themselves, and do, but need some temporary assistance. Those people use the laws we have provided them, and I cant fault them for using services we have made legal. Welfare Queens are people who scam the system and have no intention of working or bettering their own lives or the lives of their (often many) fatherless children. I think there are better ways to assist people who truly need help without encouraging the Welfare Queen mentality. In the end I think both the productive and the WQ’s would be better off.
If a description fits it fits. In the heat of argument it is sometimes hard to tell the difference. Making public statements that the Republicans want to kill old people after they introduce Medicare reform legislation, or that heartless Republicans want to throw old people out in the street and take their social security away when there is nothing like that in their SS reform planthat is using the language to demonize. Words used in that context like mean, cruel or heartless are meant to inflict harm not describe.
I hate to go here, but you do realize that George W. Bush did more to expand the scope of federal power than any other president in recent history, right?
I doand I wasnt in favor of much of it. The no child left behind program was worth a shot and came in with mixed reviews. His voucher experiment in DC was working and was rejected by Democratswhy? Do you realize that the only government social program that came in under budget projections was Bushs Medicare Rx drug plan?
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Bush–Drug–Plan–Cost/2010/08/17/id/367665
His plan was an extension of big government but it moved in the direction of smaller government in that it implemented free market principles. I’d rather see a plan that includes moving younger people into private plans.
People will not stand for radical changes, I have no doubt about that, and it would be terribly unfair to people to jerk them around with extremely radical change. It is important, however, to move in that direction so I have to give him partial credit for that. Frankly, given the staunch Democrat commitment to big government, baby steps may be all we can hope for at this juncture.
They still have no legitimate competition. None of the names you have just brought up are journalists. They are certainly not academics or educators.
Oh I see the only legitimate people are (leftist) journalist, academics and educators. Thats a little short sighted on your part and shows a certain level of ignorance and arrogance. Rush grew up in a household steeped in history, politics and the law. The many people that Rush refers to for their expertise and guidance have included Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams (economics and history)his own brother, David, Mark Levin, and others (legal), the entire staff at Heritage and other similar Institutions (you name it they cover it). These are acedemics, intelectuals historians and lawyers. He does not live in isolation and has a keen mind. Ann Coulter is a very smart and well educated woman in history, politics and the law. Hugh Hewitt, not mentioned but one of my favorites on radio, served in DC under Reagan, teaches Constitutional law at Chapman University Law School and is a member of a large law firmhe does right talk radio daily, lectures and writes books. Most of the people that work at FOX hold higher degrees. Hannity and Beck are not educated but dont claim to be journalists. Lack of formal education does not mean a person is not informed and it doesnt get in the way of expressing opinions, which is what they do, just as any number of leftist talking heads, with similar credentials, do every day. The point I was initially making is that there was a time, not so long ago, when our side had almost no voice in media. I’m relatively certain you wouldn’t be in favor of silencing these conservative voices…or would you?
These are not the people you want to point to as the intellectual leaders of your movement.
Now youre just being an uninformed snob. I refuse to waste my time.
And before you rush to defend them, let me remind you that you have admitted several times that you do not follow any of their work as closely as I do.
Is that soI have been listening to Rush for over twenty-two yearsare you even that old? I admitted I dont follow Beck and I often listen to Medved instead of Hannity. That is all. I also read…every day. Many papers and articles.
I don’t know why you are so quick to defend these people when you don’t even listen to their shows or read their columns and books enough to know what they have actually said.
I dont know why you assume from a couple of snippets of conversation that my knowledge is limited, that I dont read or know what they have said. Or that you do know everything they have said! You’re being a bit of a punk!
Rush has never shown the other side a single ounce of respect, ever.
That is a bald faced lie! I can see why you think it however since you are quick to lump yourself in with the more hateful elements of the left. (we are the world….)
All three of them claim that liberals are intentionally destroying the country.
There are liberals (progressives) who are intentionally destroying the country…three are (were) in leadership positions. That is who they are talking about. If you assume they mean you, you can forget itunless of course you want to destroy the country with socialist policies.
Things the intentional have done or are doing to destroy the country: crushed the housing market (new policies wont help it to recover), saddled future generations with unimaginable indebtedness thus lowering their standard of living greatly, placed or will place hardships on business that make it difficult for them to put people back to work (and will make it even more difficult in the future), discourage research and development, and are on track to ruin our medical, energy, and building industries.
How would you describe it these things in terms of the countries future?
This part of the healthcare provision gives senior citizens the option of having free end-of-life counseling, wherein they can make decisions regarding how they are taken care of in their last days.
Im damned close to being a senior citizen; I know what end of life counceling is.
Are you under the impression that this changes under the ACA? You do realize that this plan doesn’t do away with private insurance companies, don’t you? People will still be able to read different insurance policies and accept or reject them.
So much for all of your reading and knowledge!
The legislation doesnt come right out and say, under this plan you cant keep your doctor and insurance. HOWEVERif insurance rates climb too high (mine are already going up) companies will drop the insurance and pay the damn government imposed fine because it is cheaper. Those people will run to the government plan because it will be cheaper (and rack up more debt for YOUR future!) Meanwhile docs will get sick of the whole routine and retire in droves (especially the experienced boomer docs) There will be a shortage of services, costs will go up, you will no longer have choice and your generation will be royally screwed (more than they already were with SS and Mcare costs). Wake up kidthey passed this (secret) legislation ignoring all of the cautions because they too are unwilling to listen to concerns about the probable unintended consequences and outcomes. (And they are the so-called “smart” people)
Take a look at this video out of Oregon. It describes what happens when a bureaucracy makes decisions for you instead of you and your doc deciding on treatment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6ojBgTyA7I&feature=player_embedded
If it happens in the Oregon plan it will happen in the federal plan, not because of how the legislation is written, but because of the bureaucracy and the unsustainable and unworkable problems that plague all government fixes.
Also you might want to read this about remarks made by Obamas appointed health czar:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/27/death-panels-were-an-overblown-claim-until-now/
I repeat: “I want words to describe a panel that makes those decisions for you instead of you, your own purse, and your doctor.”
Do you believe that violence is an appropriate response to those who terminate or enable the termination of pregnancies?
Of course not! I can see how someone would think that an abortion doctor is engaging in a murderous activity. But we are a nation of law and the law must be followed. (And challenged if thought wrong)
I would bet your answers to those two questions would be very different. You need to think about why that is so.
Are you trying to say that Nazis baking men, women, children, and the unborn in giant ovens is somehow a much clearer or lesser horror than taking the life of an unborn childone decision at a time? Are you saying that a woman making the decision to terminate her pregnancy is responsible but Nazis cooking folk are not? Is it less destructive to the single dead human because the irresponsible mother, in most cases, just doesnt want her baby and so the baby would be better off dead which is much different from Jews dying in ovens? Or are you trying to say that killing is always justifiedor that condoning the killing that occurs during times of war is equivalent to a human being choosing to take the life of her own unborn child, flesh of her flesh?
We didnt go to war with the Nazi because it was something to do to avoid an inconvenient responsibility. We didn’t go to war because we envisioned ovens in death campos. We went to war because the Nazis envisioned taking over the world and were willing to murder people, a lot of people, to accomplish their sick goal of a pure Arian society. So what is your point?
You need to get out of your head. That intellectual environment is taking a toll on your humanity, common sense and decency
.Another absurd question, which I will not dignify with a response.
A perfectly legitimate question that you cannot (will not) answer because all of Obamas policies move us toward a more socialist state.
The ACLU are constitutional absolutists.
Sometimes! I’d say that’s in the eye of the beholder. When it suits them they do, other times…not.
That you have such misconceptions about them makes me seriously doubt your interpretation of others you believe to be Marxist or anti-American.
That you dont question them at all makes me seriously doubt your interpretation of what it is to be an American.
The ACLU was founded by a man that believed the following:
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=21474
I fall on the side of caution and observe behaviors. A Rabbi writing in Human Events makes a case for suspicion as to the (continuing) ultimate intentions of the ACLU:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21597
The inconsistency makes me very suspicious of their motives. Since you have a particular cause, and the ACLU is on your side, I can see how you would think they stand up for civil liberties and freedom. I have found myself agreeing with them from time to time but their anti-Judeao Christian bent (and their support of pedophilia) are most troubling for me.
Thanks Jack, I will get back on the horse. I analyzed my habits and found, I been backsliding! Butter on my oatmeal? A teaspoon of brown sugar has turned into a scoop? Etc.
But you’re right, nothing gets me out of bed on a socked in foggy morning like the thought of a chunk of butter sliding across a crust of brown sugar… January is tough. The fog is so thick this morning I couldn’t see 20 feet ahead of me in the yard. February will be better – the irises will bloom. If I lose some weight, I will allow myself a very conservative trip to Shuberts.
As for you Steve – frankly, that was one of the most flattering insults I ever got. Most people call me really mean stuff, you were just spouting. My husband remembers it, and my friends – every one of them teased me about it being totally true. I liked it so much I wrote it on an old t-shirt with a sharpie. “Dead Weed and Rock Protector.” I have never forgotten it. It’s true! I collect rocks, and I know the name of almost every plant in my yard, as well as medicinal uses.
The problem was, it diverted the conversation away from the truth. Every time I tried to bring up the real reason for the Downtown parking lot/parking plan I got called names but nobody would discuss what I was saying. I know, I get mad sometimes, I say mean stuff. And you know, it’s better to vent your feelings with words.
But something Chico must learn is how to keep a subject on the table and not let it get diverted into a battle of ideology. There are people who profit greatly by keeping Chico a constant political mess.
Remember what we learned as tiny children – sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Discussion is the blood of Democracy, and sometimes, yeah, blood gets hot. That’s what makes us humans. I don’t like talking to automatons – every time you get passionate about something, they give you the back of their hand, saying, “you’re out of control!” We’ve had those too, that’s how they win an argument.
One of my biggest hurdles to discussion was learning not to let people get my goat with cheap personal shots. I try to keep that shaggy beast locked up good now. But he still gets out now and then.
Well, back to the salt mine. Thanks Everybody, for helping me get through the morning without butter!
That was very well said Juanita, you’re an excellent writer! As for the weight loss, I can relate to everythging you said. All those things taste really good and they seem to take the edge off an otherwise gloomy, raining or foggy day. Right now I’m dealing with finding substitutes for those food things which aren’t so good for me. I was reading the labels (been doing a lot of label reading lately) on margerine and most of them are worse than butter. There’s a few that are made for dieting. They’re adverstised as heart healthy and low trans fat, like Parkay light and “I can’t believe its not butter”.
As for your sugar, one in awhile one spoon full of sugar as a topping isn’t too bad, I think it’s about 60 calories. The rest of the time I am using fake sugar.
When I get in a hurry, which is 90% of the time, my lunch is now a Healthy Choice meal. Several people who have bought these meals-to-go to lose weight like you see on TV say just buy the Healthy Choice, it’s basically the same stuff and whole lot cheaper. So, that’s my quickie back up meal. Well, as they say, one day at a time…it’s going to take me 6-7 months, but thats okay, time is going to pass anyway might as well make it healthy time.
I only have time to reply to a few things right now.
Tina, Roger Baldwin made that statement in 1935. The United States was a very different place then. Communism looked like a viable alternative to many smart people at that point in time. They look painfully naive to most liberals today, but hindsight is 20/20. This quote tells us very little about the goals and tactics of the ACLU today.
What tells us even less about the ACLU is that Human Events article you cite, which is full of lies. This sentence is especially shameful:
“Has the ACLU brought this school district to court as it has hundreds of times when schools simply mention something involving Christianity or when a student reads her own Bible on her own time at recess or when a student chooses a religious theme for an essay topic?”
The passage implies that the ACLU has sued school districts for allowing students to do such activities, but the truth is the complete opposite; the ACLU has actually defended the rights of students to express their religious beliefs at school.
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-new-jersey-joins-lawsuit-supporting-second-graders-right-sing-awesome-god-talen
NEWARK, NJ — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today announced that it is seeking to participate as a friend-of-the-court in the case of a second-grade student who was barred from singing a religious song in a voluntary, after-school talent show.
“There is a distinction between speech by a school and speech by individual students,” said ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York City. “The Constitution protects a student’s individual right to express herself, including the right to express herself religiously.
According to the complaint filed by the second-grade student and her parents, an elementary school in Frenchtown prohibited the student, Olivia Turton, from singing the song “Awesome God” in a voluntary, after-school talent show. The talent show was open for anyone from first through eighth grades who wished to play solo instruments, dance, perform a skit or sing to karaoke. Students were permitted to select their own songs or skits so long as they were “”G-rated.””
Because the school left the choice of songs up to each individual student, the ACLU said, no reasonable observer would have believed that the school endorsed the content of each student’s selection.
“The ACLU of New Jersey has dedicated itself to protecting the right of individual religious expression, including recently helping to ensure that jurors are not removed from jury pools for wearing religious clothing and that prisoners are able to obtain religious literature,” noted ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. “This student also deserves our full support.”
“The case, Turton, et al. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, et al., was filed in federal court in Trenton, New Jersey.
http://aclu-co.org/news/aclu-supports-students-right-of-religious-freedom
COLORADO SPRINGS The Colorado Springs Gazette has reported that a local middle school has announced a policy forbidding students from wearing certain Christian symbols to school, unless they are worn underneath clothing.
The ACLU strongly opposes the decision of Colorado Springs School District 11 on the basis of religious liberty.
Mark Silverstein, Legal Director of the ACLU said, The First Amendment protects the right of students to express their faith by wearing crosses, rosaries, or other religious symbols without interference from school officials. Our Constitution protects the right to individual religious liberty and the ACLU is here to support everyone who chooses to exercise that right.
For over 90 years the ACLU has always defended the religious liberty of all Americans. It is one of the most fundamental of our nations freedoms, said ACLU Executive Director Ray Drew.
According to the Gazette, Monsignor Bob Jaeger of the Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs has stated that the church is OK with the schools position and Colorado Springs School District 11 spokesperson Elaine Naleski states that this policy is necessary to prevent the use of crosses and rosaries as gang symbols.
The following links provide long lists of cases wherein the ACLU defended the religious freedoms of Christians.
http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression
And here is a qualified defense of the ACLU from Christianity Today:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/may/22.64.html?start=1
“More to the point, the ACLU is often right about the First Amendment’s free exercise clause, taking on fights that others refuse. It might surprise some critics that the ACLU defends the free speech and free exercise rights of, well, Christians.
For example, in 2001, the group interceded with a school district in Michigan that had deleted a high school senior’s yearbook entry because she included a Bible verse. In 2002, the ACLU filed a brief on behalf of a pastor associated with Operation Rescue who was prevented from participating in a parade because his pro-life poster showed a photograph of an aborted baby. And last September, the organization joined a lawsuit on behalf of a New Jersey second-grader who was not allowed to sing “Awesome God” in a school talent show. (All of these examples are easily accessible on several Web pages now devoted to defending the ACLU ‘s record on Christianity.)”
You could have easily found these cases in the five minutes it took me to do so, and found that the basis of the Human Events article is completely untrue. Human Events has a long track record of publishing lies and distortions. The next time you read an article in which they make such wild claims, it would serve you well to do the tiniest bit of research to see if they are true before posting them on your site, and thus attaching your name to a bunch of lies.
Also, I would like to see evidence of the ACLU’s “support of pedophilia,” please–and this time, if you could link to an article which documents actual cases, instead of a discredited site which makes wild, false accusations without offering any sort of evidence to back them up, that would of course be preferable.
“Are you trying to say that Nazis baking men, women, children, and the unborn in giant ovens is somehow a much clearer or lesser horror than taking the life of an unborn childone decision at a time?”
I am absolutely saying that the Holocaust was worse than abortion. I am quite comfortable saying that, and I think most people would say the same. Look, I may think the common pro-choice argument which claims that unborn fetuses aren’t human lives is a bit weak. But even granting the pro-life argument that the unborn have equal human rights, that still doesn’t give them a right to overrule the bodily autonomy of anyone else. If someone does not wish to allow another human being the use of their body, they should not be forced by the government to do so.
But the point of this isn’t to argue the merits of abortion; it’s to determine why, if you truly believe that abortion is a sin comparable to the Holocaust, you don’t believe that we should treat the sinners the same way that we would treat Nazis.
“Are you saying that a woman making the decision to terminate her pregnancy is responsible but Nazis cooking folk are not?”
I don’t understand what this question means.
“Is it less destructive to the single dead human because the irresponsible mother, in most cases, just doesnt want her baby and so the baby would be better off dead which is much different from Jews dying in ovens?”
This is incoherent.
“Or are you trying to say that killing is always justified”
Of course not, and you know that.
“or that condoning the killing that occurs during times of war is equivalent to a human being choosing to take the life of her own unborn child, flesh of her flesh?”
Again, incoherent.
“We didnt go to war with the Nazi because it was something to do to avoid an inconvenient responsibility. We didn’t go to war because we envisioned ovens in death campos. We went to war because the Nazis envisioned taking over the world and were willing to murder people, a lot of people, to accomplish their sick goal of a pure Arian society. So what is your point?”
My point was very clear, unlike your questions. Why do you feel that violence was an appropriate response to the Nazis, but not to those who you believe to be murdering babies?
The only way that makes sense is if you believe there is a significant difference between the two.
If there isn’t any significant moral difference–as some pro-lifers have argued–than killing George Tiller was just as justified as killing Hitler.
This is not a position you want to take. I’m trying to figure out if you can present a better reason for that than “it makes me feel uncomfortable.”
“You need to get out of your head. That intellectual environment is taking a toll on your humanity, common sense and decency”
No, Tina. Making sure my positions make logical sense, and backing them up with evidence, has greatly benefited my humanity, common sense, and decency.
Jack, congratulation, good job.
On the sugar, use Spenda, it is a great substitute, my husband is diabetic and uses it, spenda is used in most of he sugarless products for diabetics, you can also cook with it.
Be careful of the “healthy” foods, have to check out calories Per serving, sometimes we might think its a perfect lunch, but actually might be labeled as two servings.
Chris the roots of the organization are what they are. The snippet I selected included the following:
The ACLU has been more even handed with respect to Christian religious expression of late, perhaps because they are now faced with Muslim religious expression in public schools. But they do have a history of bringing suits against Christian expression and symbols in schools and in public displays, historical monuments, and city seals, of all things. Some of it seems so petty. Try looking at cases from the 1990s. Here are a few that show the ACLU has attempted to block Christian expression in schools that show the Human Events article was not full of lies.
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-and-americans-united-file-lawsuit-over-public-school-graduations-church
http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/article_5965b13a-c0e0-11df-b662-001cc4c002e0.html
http://www.ucdailynews.com/schools/ACLU-Warns-Schools-to-Say-Holiday-Parties-vs-Christmas-111571939.html
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2009/06/students-defy-aclu.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_23_05_JL.html
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-17-Sat-2006/news/8014416.html
The ACLU is also quick to bring lawsuits that interfere or go against the will of the people as expressed through the legislative process. In my opinion this amounts to judicial activism. This is very expensive for taxpayers and in many cases serves to undermine the legislative process. We are both familiar with suits filed in California regarding gay marriage after the people had spokentwice. Another case in Mississippi involves the defining of personhood where the ACLU sought to prevent voters from going to the polls to decide a proposed measure:
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=15656&posts=1&start=1
The ACLU has the right to do whatever it wants but I dont have to like it. I disagree with many of the cases they take on moral grounds and out of concern for children and our nation. The ACLUs defense of NAMBLA in the following case bothers me on moral grounds.
http://old.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp
The next time you read an article in which they make such wild claims, it would serve you well to do the tiniest bit of research to see if they are true before posting them on your site, and thus attaching your name to a bunch of lies.
Next time you should do more thorough research before you completely dismiss publications, make your own wild accusations, and all because you dont like it or disagree.
But even granting the pro-life argument that the unborn have equal human rights, that still doesn’t give them a right to overrule the bodily autonomy of anyone else.
Thats the liberal line all right but the conversation changes if abortion is considered an act of murder or manslaughter. That would create an entirely different debate. The problem with this issue is the people didnt get to decide. Creating law through the courts is not how we do things in America. The Roe v. Wade decision did just that and in doing so left out the part where Americans get to decide whether it is or is not an act that takes a life and whether or not individual autonomy trumps the right of a human being in the womb to protection and life. My position is that the individual has responsibilities as well as rights. Except in cases of rape or naivet (very young girls used and abused) women engaging in the activity that produces children have a responsibility that takes precedence over their autonomy. You may have the right to cut off your own arm but you dont have the right to cut off the arm of another.
You can accomplish suicide without enduring prosecution for obvious reasons but try taking the life of your sister with impunity.
If someone does not wish to allow another human being the use of their body, they should not be forced by the government to do so.
OMGwhat a childish, irresponsible, bucket of self centered BS that is! As if the child chose to crawl up and nap in there all by itself! Geez Chrisah well you are young and all in your head.
it’s to determine why, if you truly believe that abortion is a sin comparable to the Holocaust, you don’t believe that we should treat the sinners the same way that we would treat Nazis.
One is a matter of civil law, the other a matter of national defense. Neither is about sin, except of course, to the individual. I fully acknowledge there are those who believe themselves to be soulless and/or Godlesshere and then gone and thats that. This is why the people should have a chance to make arguments and decide these questions.
I don’t understand what this question means.
I didnt get what you were intimating either.
My point was very clear, unlike your questions. Why do you feel that violence was an appropriate response to the Nazis, but not to those who you believe to be murdering babies?
Your point wasnt clearyou were being coy and cleverand terribly unclear. Your direct question was a snap to answer (see above)
Making sure my positions make logical sense, and backing them up with evidence, has greatly benefited my humanity, common sense, and decency.
Im sure it has made a big difference in your ability to reason and debate with cold calculation. As for your humanity and decency some world experience will make a greater differencesee OMG above.
Tina: “Of course they won’t come right out and say they want to replace our system with Cubas, that would be political suicide.”
Another reason they won’t come right out and say they want to replace our system with Cuba’s is because they don’t want to replace our system with Cuba’s.
“(Although a number of prominent lefties do)”
Who?
“At the same time, do they realize that “Cuba” is what they will eventually create?”
No, because they won’t.
“Some do and many others think they are just trying to “help people” or “save the planet”, but at what cost? Do they bother to consider the costs or attempt to find free market solutions to actual problems? NO!”
Um, yes. To take the healthcare bill, for example, considering the costs and finding free market solutions was most certainly done by everyone involved in the debate. Those who support the ACA argue that the healthcare bill might actually save money in the long run, pointing to the fact that currently, the U.S. spends more on healthcare than most nations with universal coverage. In addition, the ACA relies almost entirely upon “free market solutions,” according to Politifact:
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/
“”Government takeover” conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:
Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.
Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up “exchanges” where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don’t have it.
The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.
The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.
The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.”
It’s simply not true that the left doesn’t consider free market solutions or the costs of our policies. You may disagree with our analysis regarding these issues, and the conclusions we come to. But to say that we don’t analyze or consider the consequences of what we support is unfair and unsupportable.
“I’m afraid, Chris, that the left has always operated from a “my way or the highway” position and has no affiliation to free market principles.”
Another unsupportable claim. The left has problems with free market fundamentalism, but to say we have “no affiliation to free market principles” is ridiculous.
“When we point out the intentions of the founders for small federal government and greater freedom and responsibility at the state and personal levels we are told that those ideas are outmoded, the thoughts of a bunch of “old white bald guys”.”
Seriously? By whom?
“By what measure do you come to this conclusion, Chris? You have not told me how they are somehow, what? Aligned? Similar of mind in their ideals? Close in their policy suggestions? How would you describe them?”
They’re closer in their positions than many would like to admit–just look at the Republican health care plan from 1993, which “bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” according to Kaiser Health News. Going by this example, it would seem that conservatives have been moving further to the right, rather than liberals moving closer to…er, Cuba.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx
“I ask again, are the people you mention, Barack Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al, proposing legislation or advocating for policies and legislation that move America in the direction of CUBA or in the direction of limited federal government?”
I guess it still isn’t apparent to you that this question is ridiculous; maybe I can show you why it is.
Tina, when the federal government decided to mandate that all children under the age of 18 are provided a decent education, was that a step toward the direction of CUBA or in the direction of limited government?
When the federal government decided to pass federal laws banning marijuana, was that a step toward the direction of CUBA or in the direction of limited government?
When the federal government decided to go to war in Iraq, establish the Patriot Act, and authorize extraordinary rendition, was that a step toward the direction of CUBA or in the direction of limited government?
When the federal government decides to pass any sort of federal law, or do anything, ever, is that a step toward the direction of CUBA or in the direction of limited government?
You may be able to answer these questions; you may also quickly notice that the answers to such questions are completely irrelevant to whether the issues at hand are good or bad policy.
“Whether we stand in some comfy middle ground at the moment or not, and I say we do not, the polices being enacted today will create a much more socialist future.”
Policies involving food safety laws, public education, workplace safety and protection from exploitation, and aid to seniors also created a “more socialist” future. They also created a better future than what would have otherwise existed.
“Enforced integration of schools is an inarguable example of a time when the federal government had to overturn the will of individual states.
What has this to do with what we are discussing?”
It’s relevant because it shows that federal involvement in education is not necessarily the problem.
“And would not be an issue if education was left to the individual states.”
What would be an issue: segregation.
“Much of the time, however, the words you have chosen are simply descriptorsand they are accurate! I dont say someone has Marxist policies unless they do, given enough evidence I might also call them a Marxist directly.”
Then I’m forced to conclude that you don’t know what a Marxist is.
“I have never used the term baby killer.”
I wasn’t talking about you specifically.
“Even that word is legitimately descriptive for those who believe life begins at conception and that those children deserve respect and protection from the society in which they exist.”
That would include you, right? So you think baby-killer is a legitimate, descriptive term for people who support the right to choose?
Once again, I must point out the extreme cognitive dissonance this position requires. If I seriously thought that my government was allowing the murder of thousands of American babies a year, I would consider myself a coward if I didn’t take up arms against them. I abhor violence, but even I’m aware that revolution and war are sometimes necessary, and if this “baby-killing” was really going on in America, then stopping it would absolutely be a cause worth fighting, dying, and perhaps even killing for.
You don’t seem to agree, which implies that you don’t really think your fellow Americans are engaged in baby-killing. Perhaps you consider abortion to be some less egregious form of sin than murder, as most people do, but that is not supportable by the arguments you have put forth against abortion so far.
“The word foreigners is also descriptive, although I have not heard this word used disparagingly by anyone.”
Many on the right have called Obama a foreign usurper. His alleged “foreignness” has also been used to discredit him by prominent conservatives such as Dinesh D’Souza and Newt Gingrich.
“Welfare Queen is also a descriptive word.”
It’s really not, by any stretch of the imagination.
“If a description fits it fits. In the heat of argument it is sometimes hard to tell the difference. Making public statements that the Republicans want to kill old people after they introduce Medicare reform legislation, or that heartless Republicans want to throw old people out in the street and take their social security away when there is nothing like that in their SS reform planthat is using the language to demonize.”
I completely agree with you there. Sarah Palin implying that Obama’s death panels might want to kill her baby with Down’s Syndrome would be another good example of this.
“His plan was an extension of big government but it moved in the direction of smaller government in that it implemented free market principles.”
One could say the same thing about Obama’s health care plan.
“I’d rather see a plan that includes moving younger people into private plans.”
That’s very likely what the ACA will do.
“Oh I see the only legitimate people are (leftist) journalist, academics and educators.”
That isn’t at all what I said. There are conservative thinkers and bloggers that I do respect; however, none of them have gained enough popularity to provide competition to the mainstream media. The most popular conservative pundits are people like Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter–and you should consider that a huge problem and liability for your movement.
I will respond more tomorrow, when I will address these speakers in more detail, as well as further thoughts on the healthcare bill.
Tina: “Of course they won’t come right out and say they want to replace our system with Cubas, that would be political suicide.”
Another reason they won’t come right out and say they want to replace our system with Cuba’s is because they don’t want to replace our system with Cuba’s.
“(Although a number of prominent lefties do)”
Who?
The following members and former members of Congress are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. One of the things it seeks to promote is economic justice. This is the spread the wealth philosophy that our president shares, that is, the purpose of government is redistribute wealth. That philosophy is right out of the Marxist handbook. Maxine Waters was caught on tape suggesting that once Obama was elected they would be able to take over the oil companies. We posted the video.
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/
Sheila Jackson-Lee; Senate Members: Bernie Sanders, Tom Udall; Xavier Becerra, , Carl Blumenauer, Robert Brady, Corrine Brown, Michael Capuano, Andre Carson, Donna Christensen, Yvette Clarke, Emanuel Cleaver, Steve Cohen, John Conyers, Elijah Cummings, Danny Davis, Peter DeFazio, Rosa DeLauro, Donna Edwards, Sam Farr, Chaka Fattah, Bob Filner, Barney Frank, Marcia Fudge, Luis Gutierrez, Alcee Hastings, Maurice Hinchey, Mazie Hirono, Michael Honda, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Eddie Bernice Johnson, Hank Johnson, Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, David Loebsack, Ben Ray Lujan, Carolyn Maloney, Ed Markey, Jim McDermott, James McGovern, George Miller, Gwen Moore, Jim Moran, Jerrold Nadler, Eleanor Holmes Norton, John Olver, Frank Pallone, Ed Pastor, Donald Payne, Jared Polis, Charles Rangel, Laura Richardson, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Bobby Rush, Linda Sanchez, Jan Schakowsky, Jose Serrano, Louise Slaughter, Pete Star, Bennie Thompson, John Tierney, Nydia Velazquez, Maxine Waters, Mel Watt, Henry Waxman, Peter Welch, Lynn Woolsey
Several of these members are black and yet when they went to Cuba a few years back they met with Castro, leader of a country with a deplorable human rights record, particularly against blacks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/08/AR2009040803769.html
Their praise for the dictator displayed no concern for this record of tyranny and abuse.
No, because they won’t.
Armed revolution is no longer the means by which socialists work. Chris, do you acknowledge the serious economic problems this country and many states and cities are facing because of government spending? What philosophy encourages and increases massive government spending? These programs are unsustainable; they follow the Marxist model; if they dont collapse our economy completely they will surely create oppression in your future.
Um, yes. To take the healthcare bill, for example, considering the costs and finding free market solutions was most certainly done by everyone involved in the debate.
What free market solutions were implemented in ACA?
Those who support the ACA argue that the healthcare bill might actually save money in the long run, pointing to the fact that currently, the U.S. spends more on healthcare than most nations with universal coverage.
Medicare costs a lot more than they projected back in 1965. The same happened with SS. Those who are concerned about not only future costs but what ACA will do to the economy disagree. The CBO has changed its projections:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/cbo-health-care-bill-will-cost-115-billion-more-than-previously-assessed.html
Use your noodle Chris. The bigger the bureaucracy the more costly healthcare becomes for taxpayers. The idea to tax the rich may make the less fortunate feel powerful but the scheme is bound to put downward pressure on the overall economy. That means higher prices, fewer jobs, and less revenue flowing to government. Lose, lose, lose, especially for the less fortunate! There are better ways to address our healthcare problems.
In addition, the ACA relies almost entirely upon “free market solutions,” according to Politifact It’s simply not true that the left doesn’t consider free market solutions or the costs of our policies. You may disagree with our analysis regarding these issues, and the conclusions we come to. But to say that we don’t analyze or consider the consequences of what we support is unfair and unsupportable.
The left, for the most part, doesnt understand how the free market works. They dont factor in behaviors. Their policies, therefore, end up stifling the market. They want it both ways but they have pushed that puppy down the road so far that now the roof is caving in. Medicare and SS are already positioned to stick it to your generation big timeand they add another? Ignorantsorry!
The left has problems with free market fundamentalism
Free market fundamentalism? Now thats a new term for me. What exactly is that?
“When we point out the intentions of the founders for small federal government and greater freedom and responsibility at the state and personal levels we are told that those ideas are outmoded, the thoughts of a bunch of “old white bald guys”.”
Seriously? By whom?
This was a retort picked up by the chattering classes and based I suppose on the lyrics in a rap song: Old Dead White Men White men getting richer than Enron. They stepping on Indians, women and blacks and was picked up by talking heads, Whoopie, for one when referring to Tea Partiers and others who revere the founding fathers and limited government. But since you asked seriously, let me ask you for examples when the left does consider conservative ideas. Do you have any examples of that? ALL of the ideas brought forth by Republicans regarding healthcare were ignored and dismissed. Obama made pretty speeches about wnbating to include them in the process but the reality was a locked room with Pelosi Reid and a few experts hammering out this legislation that we had to read to find out whats in it.
They’re closer in their positions than many would like to admit–just look at the Republican health care plan from 1993, which “bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” according to Kaiser Health News. Going by this example, it would seem that conservatives have been moving further to the right, rather than liberals moving closer to…er, Cuba.
The very big difference that Kaiser does not mention is that the proposals are employer or employee driven. ACA is government mandated and managed some of it covertly. The taxes to fund it are also oppressivea major difference.
when the federal government decided to mandate that all children under the age of 18 are provided a decent education, was that a step toward the direction of CUBA or in the direction of limited government?
Americans all agree that education is important but from the founding the idea was not government control of education. There is a difference between government promoting education and government control of education:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/951-dr-samuel-l-blumenfeld/2192-why-the-federal-government-should-get-out-of-education
When the federal government decided to pass federal laws banning marijuana, was that a step toward the direction of CUBA or in the direction of limited government?
Actually, it moves toward an anarchists dream. A better question is what has been the result of the social liberal (snicker snicker) promotion of the use of marijuana and other drugs and how has that impacted the need for government to address this growing debilitating problem through legal and enforcement means and what has been the financial and economic impact on our economy and budgets?
When the federal government decided to go to war in Iraq, establish the Patriot Act, and authorize extraordinary rendition, was that a step toward the direction of CUBA or in the direction of limited government?
This is a stupid question since defense of the nation is constitutionally mandated. The courts upheld Bushs actions.
Policies involving food safety laws, public education, workplace safety and protection from exploitation, and aid to seniors also created a “more socialist” future. They also created a better future than what would have otherwise existed.
How do you know? You assume that people were statically caught in their circumstances and would have done nothing about those circumstances without government intervention. In other words you believe that people will not act in their own best interestsincluding cleaning up polluted waters, making sure medicines do not harm people, educating their children, saving for their futures and helping their fellow man.
“Enforced integration of schools is an inarguable example of a time when the federal government had to overturn the will of individual states.
Integration was one method used to force those states to reverse discrimination. It was not necessarily the best way to improve education.
It’s relevant because it shows that federal involvement in education is not necessarily the problem.
Not really.
“And would not be an issue if education was left to the individual states.”
What would be an issue: segregation.
NO! Segregation is a matter of choice in America even now. Blacks and Hispanics, Asians and other minorities often prefer to segregate. That may change but it wont be by government control as much as changing attitudes. There is no way to prove that wouldnt have happened with or without government mandate. When the Irish came to America they were discriminated against and without government interference the barriers came down.
“Then I’m forced to conclude that you don’t know what a Marxist is.
You still have not answered my question. Is spreading the wealth around Marxist in nature or not? Does it reflect from each according to their means to each according to their need or not? You dance around it but is ACA reflective of that same phrase or not?
That would include you, right? So you think baby-killer is a legitimate, descriptive term for people who support the right to choose?
The right to choose is a euphemism; it ignores the reality of the act. I wouldnt call anyone a babykiller but I do reserve the right to point out that that is indeed the result of choicea baby becomes dead.
Once again, I must point out the extreme cognitive dissonance this position requires. If I seriously thought that my government was allowing the murder of thousands of American babies a year, I would consider myself a coward if I didn’t take up arms against them.
I suppose you might. I doubt it. The right has never to my knowledge sought to make women criminals. We didnt jail women before Roe. We did however have a reverence for life that Roe has obliterated after decades of acceptance and promotion. Remember the feminists that started this assured everyone that abortions would be RARE.
I abhor violence, but even I’m aware that revolution and war are sometimes necessary, and if this “baby-killing” was really going on in America, then stopping it would absolutely be a cause worth fighting, dying, and perhaps even killing for.
This is why the peaceful war has been ongoing for some time. Your own cavalier attitude belies a certain cold acceptance of the killing of these small human beings as a birth control method and a way to avoid responsibility.
You don’t seem to agree, which implies that you don’t really think your fellow Americans are engaged in baby-killing.
Horsefeathers.
Perhaps you consider abortion to be some less egregious form of sin than murder
Like manslaughter? I seem to recall suggesting that. The actual criminal cases prior to Roe were brought against the docs who performed them illegally. That too is a possibility. Are you hapy and thrilled by the numbers of abortions women get year after year? Do you think the law promotes what is best for these women and our society?
Many on the right have called Obama a foreign usurper.
I havent.
His alleged “foreignness” has also been used to discredit him by prominent conservatives such as Dinesh D’Souza and Newt Gingrich.
We have not been allowed access to information that would squelch the question. His secretiveness is responsible for speculation and doubt. The word is still descriptive of what might be true. If it isnt then let us see the documentationit is quite simple to do.
It’s really not, by any stretch of the imagination.
Actually it isthrough use of the imagination to invoke imagery when describing something or someone while speaking on radio, an auditory medium.
“If a description fits it fits. In the heat of argument it is sometimes hard to tell the difference. Making public statements that the Republicans want to kill old people after they introduce Medicare reform legislation, or that heartless Republicans want to throw old people out in the street and take their social security away when there is nothing like that in their SS reform planthat is using the language to demonize.”
I completely agree with you there. Sarah Palin implying that Obama’s death panels might want to kill her baby with Down’s Syndrome would be another good example of this.
Fair enoughexcept that if the ACA panel she is referring to chooses to deny the use of certain treatments and care her description would in fact contain truth. Obama and his health czar intend to do just that to keep costs low. The argument was made not to demonize Obama personally but to warn against his preference for government controlled health care.
One could say the same thing about Obama’s health care plan.
But no matter how it is spun Obama health care doesnt.
“I’d rather see a plan that includes moving younger people into private plans.”
That’s very likely what the ACA will do
No it wont. It will force them to buy insurance orpay a fine.
“Oh I see the only legitimate people are (leftist) journalist, academics and educators.”
That isn’t at all what I said. There are conservative thinkers and bloggers that I do respect; however, none of them have gained enough popularity to provide competition to the mainstream media. The most popular conservative pundits are people like Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter–and you should consider that a huge problem and liability for your movement.
The fact that they are popular indicates something different is going on. The media is losing its following like crazy. The people that are educating and informing Rush and the others are the people youn say you admire. It is such a liability that the following of these commentators just keeps growing year after year. Everybodies out of step but little liberal Johnny? Give me a break.
I dont care to debate about the different talk show hosts. If you have a problem with them take it up with them.
Tina–
“Rush grew up in a household steeped in history, politics and the law. The many people that Rush refers to for their expertise and guidance have included Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams (economics and history)his own brother, David, Mark Levin, and others (legal), the entire staff at Heritage and other similar Institutions (you name it they cover it). These are acedemics, intelectuals historians and lawyers.”
From what little I’ve read of them, Sowell and Williams manage to maintain a certain level of class and respectability that Limbaugh never attempts to match. It’s interesting you bring up Mark Levin, as he is, like Rush, completely unhinged. He recently claimed that the Tea Party has been “tormented and abused far more than the colonists were by the King of England. Far more, far often, and far more aggressively.” Here’s an audio recording:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201007200031
Again I must ask, if this allegation were true, what logical justification could there be for opposing violent revolution against the government, akin to that which founded this nation?
“Ann Coulter is a very smart and well educated woman in history, politics and the law.”
I’ll admit that Coulter has a sharp wit and seems to be better educated than Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck, but she has also engaged in violent rhetoric far more often than any of them. She once said of then-President Clinton, “In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate about whether he “did it,” even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate.”
Here’s another classy quote: “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter#Comments_about_the_New_York_Times
This wasn’t even the only time Ann Coulter wished for the deaths of New York Times reporters. In 2006, she called for some of them to be executed:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200607140015
Her remarks about the 9/11 widows are infamous, and surely you know of them.
Here is a video of Ann Coulter insulting a 17-year-old Muslim college student, telling her to “take a camel.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7i1k6Mc97M&feature=related
This perhaps explains why Coulter is not considered welcome at most college campuses.
She can have all the degrees in the world, and she would still be a disgusting, hateful moron whose opinion is not worth listening to. Your assertion that she is a credible leader of your movement does not reflect well on you.
I’m not familiar with Hugh Hewitt, so I won’t comment on him right now.
“The point I was initially making is that there was a time, not so long ago, when our side had almost no voice in media. I’m relatively certain you wouldn’t be in favor of silencing these conservative voices…or would you?”
No, let them speak. I simply wish that your side would produce and reward more speakers worth listening to.
I also don’t think your claim that your side had “almost no voice in the media” during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush is at all convincing. Evidently, conservatives were quite able to make their voices heard during this time period. It’s interesting to note that as the influence of talk radio grew, we’ve seen Bill Clinton serve two successful terms and the election of Barack Obama. You may want to think about the impact that Limbaugh et. al. are having on how your movement is perceived by the general public.
“Is that soI have been listening to Rush for over twenty-two yearsare you even that old?”
I see I misremembered, and for that I apologize. However, the fact that you are a regular listener of Rush makes your defense of him seem even stranger to me.
“Rush has never shown the other side a single ounce of respect, ever.
That is a bald faced lie!”
It is? Funny how you present absolutely no evidence to support that position. You want to show that Rush is respectful of the other side, then present some examples of Rush doing so. Show me where he has advocated for bipartisanship, cooperation, civility, or compromise. (In reality, he constantly rails against these ideals and calls them code words for censorship.)
I can show you countless examples of Rush demonizing his political opponents, calling them hateful names, spreading lies about them, and engaging in bigoted rhetoric. For instance, you never responded to my point about Rush saying that Jared Laughner “has the full support” of the Democratic party. Here is the audio:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101110027
If you want to provide evidence that shows a contrasting view of Rush, I’m willing to give it a look. But it would have to be pretty compelling to make up for reprehensible statements such as the one above.
“I can see why you think it however since you are quick to lump yourself in with the more hateful elements of the left. (we are the world….)”
This is ad hom with no evidence to back it up.
“There are liberals (progressives) who are intentionally destroying the country…three are (were) in leadership positions.”
Care to name them? And care to explain why they would “intentionally” destroy the country that they live in and serve?
I may vehemently disagree with Sarah Palin, and I think some of her lies have been intentional. But I don’t think she is “intentionally destroying the country.” She is not some comic book villain, and neither is Barack Obama. I believe both of them want what is best for the country.
“Things the intentional have done or are doing to destroy the country: crushed the housing market (new policies wont help it to recover),”
They intentionally crushed the housing market? You don’t think they were trying to help, and were simply wrong about how to do that?
“saddled future generations with unimaginable indebtedness thus lowering their standard of living greatly,”
The standard of living in America right now is higher than it’s ever been in the history of the world, so I’m not sure what you’re basing this on. And even if it were true, it certainly wouldn’t be intentional.
“placed or will place hardships on business that make it difficult for them to put people back to work (and will make it even more difficult in the future),”
Of course you’re ignoring the many, many helpful things this administration has done for small businesses, such as making it easier for them to obtain loans, and numerous tax credits.
http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/blog/?tag=affordable-care-act
“The new healthcare law remains a hot topic, among lawmakers in our nations capitol and the small business community. Since its enactment, many have wondered how small business owners view parts of the law that are aimed at directly improving their ability to afford and purchase health insurance. A national poll we just released should put some of that curiosity to rest. Our survey found that one-third of small business owners are more likely to provide benefits to their workers due to the healthcare tax credits and insurance exchanges established through the new law.
Small Business Majority commissioned a survey of 619 small business owners with fewer than 50 employees from Nov. 17-22, 2010. We wanted to gauge their opinions on two key provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: healthcare tax credits and insurance exchanges. For employers who dont offer health insurance, one-third said they are more likely to do so because of the tax credits, and 31% of employers who currently offer it said the tax credits will make them more likely to continue offering it. The credits, which are available now, allow businesses with fewer than 25 employees that have average annual wages under $50,000 to get a tax credit of up to 35% of their health insurance costs.
The numbers were nearly identical when respondents were asked if the exchange will make them more likely to provide benefits: 33% of respondents who dont provide insurance said the exchange would make them more likely to do so, and 31% who do provide insurance responded that the exchange would make them more likely to continuing providing it. The insurance exchanges are online marketplaces where small businesses and individuals can band together to buy insurance.
Previous polling we conducted showed that small business owners want to provide coverage to their employees, but often cant because of exorbitant premiumswhich is why this most recent data is so encouraging. Small business owners number one concern is controlling skyrocketing healthcare costs, and these provisions of the ACA do just that.
However, the survey also showed that many small business owners arent aware of these two important provisions of the law. This illustrates the need for continued education about these provisions. Only then will small businesses be able to reap the benefits the ACA provides.”
“discourage research and development,”
Your subjective interpretation.
“and are on track to ruin our medical, energy, and building industries.”
Again, subjective; many Americans think that the current administration is improving these areas. In fact, the majority of Americans now support the Affordable Care Act, according to this Gallup poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/slim-margin-americans-support-healthcare-bill-passage.aspx
“So much for all of your reading and knowledge!
The legislation doesnt come right out and say, under this plan you cant keep your doctor and insurance. HOWEVERif insurance rates climb too high (mine are already going up) companies will drop the insurance and pay the damn government imposed fine because it is cheaper. Those people will run to the government plan because it will be cheaper (and rack up more debt for YOUR future!) Meanwhile docs will get sick of the whole routine and retire in droves (especially the experienced boomer docs) There will be a shortage of services, costs will go up, you will no longer have choice and your generation will be royally screwed (more than they already were with SS and Mcare costs).”
This is a lot of speculation from you…much of which many experts disagree with.
Your comments about the British health system are irrelevant, since the ACA does not establish anything like the British health system.
Tina, I may not agree with all of those ACLU decisions either, but I still see no evidence of a bias against Christians. The many examples of the ACLU supporting the religious freedom of Christians is enough to prove this false. In addition, that Human Events article does indeed contain outright falsehoods, such as this:
“Not only did the ACLU not object but it also supported the expenditure as reasonable, something it can never bring itself to say when activities are for Judeo-Christian expression or symbols.”
As I have shown, the ACLU has defended Judeo-Christian expressions and symbols dozens of times, so this claim is a lie.
“Has the ACLU brought this school district to court as it has hundreds of times when schools simply mention something involving Christianity or when a student reads her own Bible on her own time at recess or when a student chooses a religious theme for an essay topic?”
The ACLU has never sued a school district to prevent any of the mentioned activities in this sentence, so this too is a lie.
“The ACLU has been silent. To the ACLU, the non-invasive, mere presence of anything Christian in school is far more dangerous than the actual, coerced undertaking of Islamic religious activities and beliefs in America’s public schools.”
Again, a lie.
And that’s just from the three paragraphs you quoted; were I to bother reading the whole article, I have no doubt I could discover more lies.
I also disagree with their representation of NAMBLA, but I can see how it fits their interpretation of freedom of speech. To say that this amounts to “support of pedophilia” is not true; just because a law firm represents a client does not mean that law firm supports that clients’ illegal activities.
“Thats the liberal line all right but the conversation changes if abortion is considered an act of murder or manslaughter.”
Well, of course the conversation would change if most people believed that. Fortunately, we don’t, otherwise violence against those who provide and obtain abortions would be considered an act of defense, and therefore perfectly logical.
“The problem with this issue is the people didnt get to decide. Creating law through the courts is not how we do things in America.”
It was how we integrated the schools…it was how we did away with Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws…do you have a problem with how those goals were achieved?
“The Roe v. Wade decision did just that and in doing so left out the part where Americans get to decide whether it is or is not an act that takes a life and whether or not individual autonomy trumps the right of a human being in the womb to protection and life.”
Except that the ability of the American public to decide such matters is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution is explicitly set up so that the American people don’t get to decide issues such as what constitutes murder, what defines personhood, and issues of individual rights to life and autonomy. The Constitution itself is designed to deal with these issues, and it establishes the judicial system as the interpreters of the Constitution. These issues are well within the purview of the Supreme Court, and lie outside the whims of the voting public.
“My position is that the individual has responsibilities as well as rights. Except in cases of rape or naivet (very young girls used and abused) women engaging in the activity that produces children have a responsibility that takes precedence over their autonomy. You may have the right to cut off your own arm but you dont have the right to cut off the arm of another.”
If another person is LIVING INSIDE MY BODY, I do have the right to deny that person occupation, even if it takes their life. Of course it would be good and noble to allow that person to continue to live inside my body, I would be doing nothing immoral by choosing otherwise.
“One is a matter of civil law, the other a matter of national defense.”
Why does this matter? If the civil law were allowing murder, and allowing murderers to kill babies with impunity, then it would absolutely necessary to break the civil law if it would stop the government from letting such a travesty continue. Violence would be an appropriate means of stopping such an atrocity. Waiting around for the law to change or be put to a vote, when that has almost zero likelihood of happening, would not be an appropriate solution to the mass murder of babies.
Are you aware that even the Old Testament levies a different punishment for men who cause miscarriages than for murderers?
I only see two ways for your position to make sense. Either you must support those who take up arms in order to stop the government-sponsored mass murder of babies, or you must concede that abortion is not, in fact, murder. Any other belief is simply not logically consistent.
if this allegation were true, what logical justification could there be for opposing violent revolution against the government, akin to that which founded this nation?
Respect for the process and the fact that we arent the out of control, gun happy, radical, idiots we are constantly accused of being.
“This perhaps explains why Coulter is not considered welcome at most college campuses.”
But doesn’t explain why when all kinds of radical leftist speak on campuses they do so without being harassed, yelled down, and pelted with object from conservative students. Free speech and right of assembly, not to mention good manners, don’t seem to be very important to leftist students.
Your assertion that she is a credible leader of your movement does not reflect well on you.
In never said she was a leader of our movement at all. You need to understand something. For the most part we conservatives think of ourselves as individuals. We dont do group speak. We respect the individual even when we band together to protest as with the Tea Party, which is why the attacks on them as a group is insane.
“I also don’t think your claim that your side had “almost no voice in the media” during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush is at all convincing.”
I really couldn’t care less what you think on this. I lived through it.
Evidently, conservatives were quite able to make their voices heard during this time period. It’s interesting to note that as the influence of talk radio grew, we’ve seen Bill Clinton serve two successful terms and the election of Barack Obama. You may want to think about the impact that Limbaugh et. al. are having on how your movement is perceived by the general public.
You are being quite arrogant now at the pinnacle of power. This too shall pass. The expectation that either party will win absolutely is just silly.
However, the fact that you are a regular listener of Rush makes your defense of him seem even stranger to me.
I know you dont get it. Thats OK with me.
It is? Funny how you present absolutely no evidence to support that position. You want to show that Rush is respectful of the other side, then present some examples of Rush doing so. Show me where he has advocated for bipartisanship, cooperation, civility, or compromise. (In reality, he constantly rails against these ideals and calls them code words for censorship.)
I will indulge this one demand. Bipartisanship is the name of the game. There are two major parties and they duke it out for us every day. Cooperation. Like Pelosi and Reid. Good for Rush! The last Congress showed us why cooperation with Democrats goes exactly nowhere. Civilitynow that one too is rich. Talk to me (or Rush) when yoiur side has a better track record. Compromise? The reason we are where we are in this country is because compromise has meant Republicans giving in to Liberals ideas in Congress. Somehow it rarely seems to go the the other way. We dont call it big government because Republicans have failed to compromise. We call it that because they have compromised too much. YOUR TURN!
If you want to provide evidence that shows a contrasting view of Rush, I’m willing to give it a look. But it would have to be pretty compelling to make up for reprehensible statements such as the one above.
You will find all kinds of contentious, outrageous things if you mine the many hours that Rush is on the air. You will never understand Rush because you have no idea how those remarks are used, how they come about, or how they fit into monologues that may go on for an hour. You don’t consider that they are menat to show the hypocrisy, negativity, or incivility of the people on your side (from their words). You on the left lack the ability to laugh at yourselves or shrug off such things. You lack the ability to understand that quite often the things he says are in response to things the left has done or said about him. Yes hes contentious! So what? He is also someone who educates and makes people think. He informs and calls attention to things we dont hear anywhere else. If you listen to the news of the day anywhere else you will hear the same basic stories and information, presented with the same language and opinion, no matter where you tune in.
Care to name them?
I have named themObama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, et al. The point is the word is descriptive and used to express an opinionmine. You are welcome to think otherwise.
And care to explain why they would “intentionally” destroy the country that they live in and serve?
Because they honestly believe what they are doing is good and wont harm the country.
They intentionally crushed the housing market?
No, they intentionally passed legislation. The result is destroying the country. The housing sector may not recover for ten years. That’s not an attempt to demonizing those people. It represents my opinion using a descriptive word…destroy.
Of course you’re ignoring the many, many helpful things this administration has done for small businesses, such as making it easier for them to obtain loans, and numerous tax credits.
Ill say it once more. This is the evidence that Obama, even if he means well, doesnt have a clue how to help small business. Taking a loan out, when you dont have much business, just to hire people would be incredibly STUPID!!!!! Actually taking a loan out in this economy would be stupid for just about anybody.
On healthcare our readers can get more information here:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Projects/Impact-of-Obamacare
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/04/ObamaCare-Impact-on-the-Family
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/04/ObamaCare-Impact-on-Taxpayers
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/24/side-effects-seniors-will-lose-big-under-ObamaCare/
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/16/side-effects-obamacare-could-punish-docs-for-better-quality-care/
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/17/massive-medicare-advantage-cuts/
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/07/ObamaCare-Impact-on-States
Also a recent poll found support for repeal is gaining momentum in the country:
http://www.weightofheaven.com/a/560/Rasmussen-Poll-Majority-of-Americans-Believe-ObamaCare-Will-be-Repealed
People dont like the way this legislation was passed. They dont believe it was passed with input from all representatives but instead by a minority of the members working in secret and using tactics such as extortion and bribery to get the votes needed to pass it. They don’t like some of the things they have now found buried in it. Several states have filed lawsuits against it.
When you focus only on what you believe to be good about it without evaluating the impact it will have now and into the future you are making a big mistake. I hope you, and our readers, will read about those. Information in the above links will explain much better than I could in this limited space what the down side of Obama care is.
Tina–“Respect for the process and the fact that we arent the out of control, gun happy, radical, idiots we are constantly accused of being.”
But doesn’t the very fact that there is a process in this country worthy of your respect show that Levin’s accusation is unfounded, frivolous, hyperbolic, and stupid?
The colonies were oppressed because there was no process that respected their rights. They had no representation and no way of getting it other than breaking off and forming their own union. The British were not going to let them do this, so unfortunately war was the only way to get their rights respected.
In the U.S. today, none of this is true. So for Levin to claim that somehow the government under Obama is victimizing us more than the British oppressed the colonies? How can you justify such an obviously false statement? How can you deny the obvious implication of such comments, which is that a response akin to the Revolutionary War would be appropriate given the situation? After all, if we are more oppressed than the colonies, and the colonies were right to rebel using violence because they were oppressed, than why can’t we violently rebel today?
This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that we need to make sure our positions are logically thought out.
“But doesn’t explain why when all kinds of radical leftist speak on campuses they do so without being harassed, yelled down, and pelted with object from conservative students. Free speech and right of assembly, not to mention good manners, don’t seem to be very important to leftist students.”
We were discussing right wing pundits such as Coulter, and your belief that they provide a necessary counter-balance to the mainstream media. I don’t see what the words and actions of random college students have to do with this.
But since you brought it up, the only object I know of that was pelted at Coulter was a pie directed at her face. I’m underwhelmed by the horror.
True, Coulter has received death threats, as all high-profile people on the left, right, or middle have. This is of course wrong, and anyone who would make such a threat should be in prison. This does not excuse Coulter’s own eliminationist rhetoric, however, which you have not addressed.
As for good manners, I don’t think telling a Muslim student to “ride a camel” is an example of such. Nor do I think it good manners to call 9/11 widows “greedy harpies,” or to express the desire for New York Times employees to be murdered, or to call for the assassination of the President of the United States. Do you? The student in question, by the way, was remarkably polite and restrained to Coulter, especially given Coulter’s racist remarks.
As for free speech and right of assembly, how is protesting against Coulter advocating a violation of either?
Finally, you’re equating the words of one of the most high-profile political speakers in America with the words and actions of random college students. You originally compared speakers like Coulter with members of the mainstream media. That is a far more relevant comparison, and it is here that Coulter undeniably loses any kind of moral high ground that you wish to allow her. I don’t know of any mainstream journalist who has said similar things about conservatives that Ann has said about liberals and others she does not like. I can’t recall any mainstream media figures wishing for the death of a president or of conservative media figures. Bill Maher and Michael Moore are not mainstream media figures; they’re nowhere near as popular among liberals as Coulter and Limbaugh are among conservatives, and they don’t have a tenth of the audience.
Furthermore, if you were to show me quotes of anyone calling for the assassination of George Bush, or making other statements similar to those I quoted from Coulter, I would unequivocally denounce them and the speakers who made the statements. You know this, as you have seen me do so before. Yet when I point out such hateful and violent rhetoric from someone on your side, do you do the honorable thing and admit that such statements are wrong and offensive? No; you haven’t even commented on any of the quotes I showed you. Instead, you played the false equivalency game, and instinctively attacked the left, even though your points had little to do with the subject at hand.
“In never said she was a leader of our movement at all. You need to understand something. For the most part we conservatives think of ourselves as individuals. We dont do group speak.”
Saying that a movement has leaders does not imply “group speak.” You were the one who brought up Coulter, Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh as voices for the conservative movement. You accept Coulter et. al. as legitimate competition to the mainstream media, and even got defensive when I claimed that they are not. That is enough to make many reasonable people question your judgment and your credibility. I have shown you plenty of violent, hateful quotes by Coulter, which you have not defended. If you are still comfortable with someone like her representing your side of the aisle, and if you refuse to denounce these violent statements, then I can only assume that you endorse them, as you endorse Coulter herself.
“I really couldn’t care less what you think on this. I lived through it.”
Then provide evidence for it! My point was that it’s unreasonable for me to buy that conservatives had no voice in the media, when clearly they had enough of a voice to get Ronald Reagan elected for two terms and then elect George H.W. Bush. Your word is not enough for me; quite frankly, your word has been compromised enough times for me to have trouble accepting anything you claim at face value.
“The expectation that either party will win absolutely is just silly.”
I agree. When did I say anything that would indicate such a silly expectation?
“I will indulge this one demand.”
You say that, and then you once again refuse to provide any examples of Rush showing the other side respect.
“The last Congress showed us why cooperation with Democrats goes exactly nowhere.”
How so? For that to be demonstrated, cooperation with Democrats would have had to have been attempted. It wasn’t. On every major bill passed for the past two years, you will see many Democrats signing on to largely Republican-backed bills. On the largely Democrat-backed bills, you will see few if any Republicans. That alone shows which party is capable of compromise and which isn’t.
“Civilitynow that one too is rich. Talk to me (or Rush) when yoiur side has a better track record.”
Once again, you can’t defend your side, so you attack mine.
“You will find all kinds of contentious, outrageous things if you mine the many hours that Rush is on the air. You will never understand Rush because you have no idea how those remarks are used, how they come about, or how they fit into monologues that may go on for an hour.”
You assume I only listen to brief soundbites of Rush’s show. This is false. I often listen for about an hour at a time, a few times a week. That is quite enough for me to have a good understanding of the man.
“You on the left lack the ability to laugh at yourselves or shrug off such things.”
Yes, that’s why we liberals hate SNL and the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, because we have no sense of humor about ourselves. Seriously?
“And care to explain why they would “intentionally” destroy the country that they live in and serve?
Because they honestly believe what they are doing is good and wont harm the country.”
OK…then they are not “intentionally destroying the country!” You can’t say they are “intentionally destroying the country” and then say, “they honestly believe what they are doing is good and won’t harm the country.” Those two statements are completely antithetical.
I am getting deja vu here; have I had to explain this to you before?
“On healthcare our readers can get more information here:”
I’m gonna level with you here: I don’t trust any analysis from the Heritage Foundation. In general, I don’t trust the opinion of anyone talking about the Affordable Care Act who refers to it as “Obamacare.” It’s a dead giveaway that the writer has a bias and is not interested in using factual terms. Besides, Heritage is a blatantly partisan think thank. Perhaps some links to some non-partisan analysis would be more helpful.
Interestingly enough, this article from Politifact provides evidence for the fact that the ACA actually resembles healthcare plans supported by Heritage in the past:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/01/barack-obama/obama-says-heritage-foundation-source-health-excha/
One interesting quote, from a writer at the American Conservative:
“Every think tank on the left and right knows that its recommendations will undergo some deformation before they make their way into law, if they ever do,” McCarthy told PolitiFact. “Heritage might prefer state insurance exchanges with greater individual choice, including for workers already covered by their employers. But I don’t imagine Ed Feulner would be complaining at all if a Republican president or a Republican Congress had passed a plan that deviated from the Heritage blueprint to the same degree that Obama’s bill has. While it’s not true that ‘lots of’ the specifics in the Obama plan were dreamed up by Heritage, the overall approach is similar to policies Heritage has long championed, including the individual mandate as well as the insurance exchanges. This is only controversial because the wrong party happened to pass the law, and it’s poison for any conservative to be identified with it.”
“Also a recent poll found support for repeal is gaining momentum in the country:
http://www.weightofheaven.com/a/560/Rasmussen-Poll-Majority-of-Americans-Believe-ObamaCare-Will-be-Repealed”
Given the conflicting polls, it seems unclear whether the majority of Americans do or do not favor the ACA. What is clear is that we shouldn’t rush to generalities about what the will of the people is on this matter.
Tina,
I asked you to name those who want to “replace our system with Cuba’s.” You responded with this:
“The following members and former members of Congress are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. One of the things it seeks to promote is economic justice. This is the spread the wealth philosophy that our president shares, that is, the purpose of government is redistribute wealth. That philosophy is right out of the Marxist handbook.”
It’s amazing that you wrote this today, of all days.
Who else promoted “economic justice,” Tina? Come on, you know this one, since we’ve discussed it before. I’ll give you a hint: today is his birthday.
Since you are apparently trying to tell me that those who advocate “economic justice” are attempting to “replace our system with Cuba’s,” and since you already know that Martin Luther King, Jr. promoted economic justice, I am forced to conclude one of two things. Either you think that Martin Luther King, Jr. desired to replace our system with Cuba’s…or your accusations are completely unserious and poorly thought out.
Since I know you will never admit to either of these, I am curious to see if you have another explanation for your statements. Who knows, maybe you’ll wow me.
“What free market solutions were implemented in ACA?”
I provided a long list of them earlier, as described by Politifact. For one thing, the ACA relies entirely on private insurers. There isn’t even a public option to compete with them.
“Free market fundamentalism? Now thats a new term for me. What exactly is that?”
I’m genuinely surprised you’ve never heard this term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism
“This was a retort picked up by the chattering classes and based I suppose on the lyrics in a rap song: Old Dead White Men White men getting richer than Enron. They stepping on Indians, women and blacks and was picked up by talking heads, Whoopie, for one when referring to Tea Partiers and others who revere the founding fathers and limited government.”
So Whoopie Goldberg and rap music represent the leftist establishment. Interesting.
“But since you asked seriously, let me ask you for examples when the left does consider conservative ideas. Do you have any examples of that?”
As I’ve demonstrated, the ACA relies largely on conservative ideas from the early nineties. Liberals further compromised by eliminating the public option from the bill.
“The very big difference that Kaiser does not mention is that the proposals are employer or employee driven. ACA is government mandated and managed some of it covertly.”
There were plenty of government mandates in the Republican proposed health care plan of 1993. The ACA contains government mandates as well, but also relies largely on the choices of employers and employees.
“The taxes to fund it are also oppressivea major difference.”
What about the many tax credits?
“Americans all agree that education is important but from the founding the idea was not government control of education. There is a difference between government promoting education and government control of education… But there was no requirement that the schools be government owned and operated.”
I’m not sure what your point is, since there is still no requirement that schools be government owned or operated.
“Actually, it moves toward an anarchists dream. A better question is what has been the result of the social liberal (snicker snicker) promotion of the use of marijuana and other drugs and how has that impacted the need for government to address this growing debilitating problem through legal and enforcement means and what has been the financial and economic impact on our economy and budgets?”
That may be a good question for another time…for now, it’s completely irrelevant.
“This is a stupid question since defense of the nation is constitutionally mandated.”
And the “general welfare” isn’t?
“Integration was one method used to force those states to reverse discrimination. It was not necessarily the best way to improve education.”
I never stated it was the best way to improve education. But it was, undeniably, a very good thing that resulted from federal involvement in education.
“NO! Segregation is a matter of choice in America even now. Blacks and Hispanics, Asians and other minorities often prefer to segregate. That may change but it wont be by government control as much as changing attitudes. There is no way to prove that wouldnt have happened with or without government mandate. When the Irish came to America they were discriminated against and without government interference the barriers came down.”
Tina, the government mandate undoubtedly forced integration of schools years before it would have happened in many states if they had had their way. You can’t seriously be denying this. Individuals choosing to segregate themselves today has nothing to do with state-enforced segregation in the South in the 1960s, or the federal response to this, so I’m not sure why you brought it up.
“You still have not answered my question. Is spreading the wealth around Marxist in nature or not?”
It has some relation to the writings of Marx, which inspired many more modern thinkers, including MLK Jr. However, MLK Jr. was not a Marxist, as he did not accept most of what Marx advocated. I would call someone a Marxist only if they accepted the majority of Marx’s writings and policies. Barack Obama does not fit that description any more than MLK Jr. did.
“I wouldnt call anyone a babykiller”
Given your position I honestly don’t see any reason for you not to, other than political correctness.
“I suppose you might. I doubt it. The right has never to my knowledge sought to make women criminals. We didnt jail women before Roe.”
I get that; my point is that you haven’t explained to me WHY. How is this logically consistent with your belief that abortion should be considered, at the least, a form of manslaughter?
“Are you hapy and thrilled by the numbers of abortions women get year after year?”
No; I think abortion is a very sad situation. I also think all responsible measures should be taken by individuals to prevent and reduce it. That’s my preferred way of dealing with this problem; interestingly, yours is government intervention.
“I havent.”
Good to know.
“We have not been allowed access to information that would squelch the question. His secretiveness is responsible for speculation and doubt. The word is still descriptive of what might be true. If it isnt then let us see the documentationit is quite simple to do.”
OK, here is the documentation. You were right, it was quite simple to find:
http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
Hope that helps!
“Fair enoughexcept that if the ACA panel she is referring to chooses to deny the use of certain treatments and care her description would in fact contain truth.”
Actually, I don’t even know what ACA panel she is referring to. Can you show me where in the ACA such a panel, with the power “to deny the use of certain treatments and care” is described?
“I’d rather see a plan that includes moving younger people into private plans.”
That’s very likely what the ACA will do
No it wont. It will force them to buy insurance orpay a fine.”
And who do you think they will be buying insurance from? PRIVATE PLANS.
Seriously, if you don’t get this, then you don’t understand the basics of the ACA at all.
“The people that are educating and informing Rush and the others are the people youn say you admire.”
Really? I haven’t even named them, so I’m not sure how you’ve come to that conclusion.
“It is such a liability that the following of these commentators just keeps growing year after year.”
As is the number of those who see them for the hateful, divisive liars they are.
Chris: “But doesn’t the very fact that there is a process in this country worthy of your respect show that Levin’s accusation is unfounded, frivolous, hyperbolic, and stupid?”
No, because people who listen to him and have goitten to know him know that he isn’t being literal; is is making a point and having a little fun along the way You people on the left are unhinged and humorless. The more your chain is pulled the louder you scream. Are we having fun at your expense? Yes, yes we are! Comes from years of being gentlemanly to a bunch of snarky dweebs who have no respect people with other points of view. You don’t like it? Tough! Don’t listen to it.
“The British were not going to let them do this, so unfortunately war was the only way to get their rights respected.”
Well now maybe you have a point. the left is so hard headed, disrespectful, unreasonable and authoritarian that taking up arms may be the only way to get the job done.
“How can you justify such an obviously false statement?”
I don’t believe I did. Furhtermore, I can’t and I won’t. You got a problem with Levin, take it up with Levin.
“We were discussing right wing pundits such as Coulter, and your belief that they provide a necessary counter-balance to the mainstream media.”
Actually I think you were discussing it…if you call it that. I believe this discussion has devolved into a pi**ing match anf frankly…I’m a bit bored.
This is the last thing I will say about Anne Coulter. She was treted badly from the beginning by people in the media. She has a sharp wit and refused to go away quietly. She uses that sharp wit regularly to make her point. The times I have had the priviledge to be a witness, her retorts were in keeping with that lack of respect and appropriate to the discussion. You’ll have to ask her about the camel bit…I know nothing about it.
“…they’re nowhere near as popular among liberals as Coulter and Limbaugh are among conservatives, and they don’t have a tenth of the audience.”
Lets play yopur game, shall we? YOU might want to ask yourself why that is?
NOBODY would listen to Limbaugh for an hour much less over twenty years if all he did was rant, rave, and bash people.
“That is enough to make many reasonable people question your judgment and your credibility.”
Really? It doesn’t surprise me. Judging and discrediting people on the right is important to you lefties. It isn’t enough to just compete and see how the game turns out. Soooo, I guess I’ll just have to live with that.
“No; you haven’t even commented on any of the quotes I showed you….”
That would be correct. I am not willing to continue in this silly game of comparison because I don;t think even if we could make massive lists of things people from both sides said, and then oplace them all on popularity scales and influence scales, and high office scales it would mean a da*n thing.
I don’t like negative disparaging speech any more than the next person. I don’t think any of us need to attempt to comment on snippets of things others have said. My only point has been to demonstrate that accusations about the right are balanced by things said on the left.
Should we tone it down? Actually I don’t think we can because the subjects we discuss are important and personal in the bigger scheme of things and people are human. All I ask id that the left get get off this righteous BS where they pretend to be innocent in this area and try to make out like the right is worse than the left. It’s absolute crap! Boring crap!!!
“Then provide evidence for it!”
On your command?
“clearly they had enough of a voice to get Ronald Reagan elected for two terms and then elect George H.W. Bush.”
Ronald Reagan got himself elected. He isn’t called the great communicator for nothing. He did it by speaking directly to the American people, going around a media that was contentious to his candidacy. He never failed to adequately counter their smears and lies. They were in shock when he won. GHWB benefitted from what Reagan had tought the people and was a better candidate than his opponent; he won despite liberal coverage.
“Your word is not enough for me.”
And it shouldn’t be. But if you really are that interested find a way to look at old articles from those periods, especaily the big city papers. ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. Those were the only television networks. All had a strong liberal bias, as they do today. The fairness doctrine was still in force when Reagan ran…so much for the diversity of opinion that that crazy thing ensured. Opinion programs always had a token righty (republican) on the show along with two or three lefty (democrats). They fed fewer questions to the righty and never gave him the last word. I swear it was worse than watching television shows that were attempting to be integrated. They always featured a lone black character with a few lines. So believe it or not that is what Rush, who really started this movement to give voice to the right, was up against. I think given the odds against him he’s done an amazing job!
“When did I say anything that would indicate such a silly expectation?”
When you suggested that if Rush and the others were so popular and influential Clinton and Obama would not have won. As if their wins somehow diminish Rush and the others. Snarky!
“You say that, and then you once again refuse to provide any examples of Rush showing the other side respect.”
1 800 282-2882
Call and ask him. He is much better qualified to answer.
“For that to be demonstrated, cooperation with Democrats would have had to have been attempted.”
First of all we won graciously:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/17/barack-obama-john-mccain-meeting
Then attempted to participate:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won/
Republicans offered alternate plans to be considered for healthcare legislation and Dems arrogantly dismiss it:
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56640
The president and his aids continued to say republicans had nothing to offer.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/29/tom-price/price–obama-health-care-no-ideas/
Pelosi and Reid write bill behind closed doors:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/06/eveningnews/main6064298.shtml
“On every major bill passed for the past two years, you will see many Democrats signing on to largely Republican-backed bills. On the largely Democrat-backed bills, you will see few if any Republicans. That alone shows which party is capable of compromise and which isn’t.”
Or which bills are really bad and which aren’t. Your turn. What bills are you talking about?
“Once again, you can’t defend your side, so you attack mine.”
I could defend my side but why bother? In fact I thin it better that people defend themselves.
“That is quite enough for me to have a good understanding of the man.”
What has he (Rush) said that makes sense to you?
“I am getting deja vu here; have I had to explain this to you before?”
Do I have to explain the difference between MY OPINION and someone elses to you again?
“In general, I don’t trust the opinion of anyone talking about the Affordable Care Act who refers to it as “Obamacare.” It’s a dead giveaway that the writer has a bias and is not interested in using factual terms. Besides, Heritage is a blatantly partisan think thank. Perhaps some links to some non-partisan analysis would be more helpful.”
And those “nonpartisan” anylists would be? If you look carefully on the Heritage Foundation articles I posted you will see that all of the factual information used for their analysis comes from the CBO, the IRS, and other official sources. Heritage is not a fly by night organization. If you prefer left leaning think tanks go right on ahead and site them.
“…the ACA actually resembles healthcare plans supported by Heritage in the past…”
That doesn’t mean much; almost any plan would “resemble” another plan.
“This is only controversial because the wrong party happened to pass the law, and it’s poison for any conservative to be identified with it..”
Not true. This plan is big, complicated, and costly. It also may be unconstitutional in some areas. It gives control of decisions to government that should remain with individuals and physicians. It incentivises in ways that will harm the industry and physicians…no plan should do that. It puts extra burdens on the states medicare plans and costs. It also doesn’t deliver what was promised; some people will still not have insurance. There are better ways to handle the really big issues and bring costs down to make health care more affordable and available for everyone.
“What is clear is that we shouldn’t rush to generalities about what the will of the people is on this matter.”
I imagine that is one thing that will be decided in 2012.
Chris…blah blah blah…show me the proof…answer my questions…blah blah blah”
The phrase, “spread the wealth around”, Marxist or not?
Tina–“Chris…blah blah blah…show me the proof…answer my questions…blah blah blah”
The phrase, “spread the wealth around”, Marxist or not?”
I answered this already; here is what I said:
“It has some relation to the writings of Marx, which inspired many more modern thinkers, including MLK Jr. However, MLK Jr. was not a Marxist, as he did not accept most of what Marx advocated. I would call someone a Marxist only if they accepted the majority of Marx’s writings and policies. Barack Obama does not fit that description any more than MLK Jr. did.”
I think this answer is satisfactory.
Tina, first you defend Levin by saying “he isn’t being literal; is is making a point and having a little fun along the way You people on the left are unhinged and humorless. The more your chain is pulled the louder you scream. Are we having fun at your expense? Yes, yes we are! Comes from years of being gentlemanly to a bunch of snarky dweebs who have no respect people with other points of view. You don’t like it? Tough! Don’t listen to it.”
This is a weak defense; it’s not at all clear that Levin isn’t being serious. In fact, he sounds extremely serious in that clip I posted. Conservative speakers often use the “satire” defense when they imply (or overtly say) that they want to kill liberals. The problem is that these speakers are incapable of delivering satire, and often can’t even decide whether or not they’re being honest or comedic themselves.
But this defense is made even weaker by the very next thing you say:
“Well now maybe you have a point. the left is so hard headed, disrespectful, unreasonable and authoritarian that taking up arms may be the only way to get the job done.”
Am I to assume that you aren’t “being literal” when you say this? Because there’s nothing here to indicate whether or not you’re joking. The most likely interpretation is that you are completely serious, in which case, not only are you completely contradicting your original defense of Levin, you are also making a threat on my life and the lives of others. Whether you are joking or not, I will not attempt to reason with someone who thinks such calls to violence are appropriate. Especially in the wake of the Tucson tragedy, when you claimed up and down that you would never do or say anything that would advocate violence against the government, here you are doing exactly that. It’s been interesting, but you are clearly no longer worth talking to. But first:
“”How can you justify such an obviously false statement?”
I don’t believe I did.”
Uh, yeah, you just did, twice, in two completely different and contradictory ways. Seriously, you can’t even read and understand your own words, so I’m not going to try to get you to understand mine.
Chris: “This is a weak defense”
It is no defense at all and wasn’t intended as such. The truth is I have no desire to explain or defend or refute or condemn any of the people who speak from a conservative perspective. I think I have asked you several times to take your concerns up with them. If you don’t like talk radio or find it offensive, fine, don’t listen. Unless you have an intention to learn something, rather than merely being offended, it’s a waste of your time. Your critique of them boring and is getting old. You have made yourself clear. We disagree profoundly but we get it.
“Am I to assume that you aren’t “being literal” when you say this?”
At this point you can do and think anything you choose. I think sarcasm and boredom are the too emotions I would attach to my remarks for AWHILE up to this point.
“Especially in the wake of the Tucson tragedy…”
What I’m beginning to sense is a need on your part to play the character assasination game…both for them on radio and for me. Since these comments fall on the tail end of a devistating demonstration of rabid character assassination on the part of the entire liberal side, I can only assume this is your method for trying to re-establish yourselves as the nice people again.
Here’s the deal. We all have the right to speak and express ourselves however we wish. We also have the ability to evaluate what others say. some of us are better than others. If we are clever we also realize that we bring our own prejudices to all situations. It takes a high level of consciousness to set those prejudices aside and attempt to really get what someone is trying to say. We don’t always succeed. When our sacred buttons are pushed we often strike out. None of us “owe” anyone an explanation for our remarks. We may choose to offer one if we are treated with respect…but we are not required to answer questions on demand. You have been treating all of this as an inquisition, in my opinion, and I refuse to play.
It’s been interesting, but you are clearly no longer worth talking to.
You too were at one time quite interesting to talk with. Of late you have become rabid, bossy, and contentious…just like the liberal progressives that inspire humor on the radio.
Go in peace Chris. You are always welcome to comment on Post Scripts and free to ignore me completely.
My Goddess in Heaven!
I would, in the old days, take Nick to pieces, but never to such a horrific degree.
I have not read these lengthy posts. Has anybody else out there read these interminable screeds?
Concision … people … wit, brevity … this is how you persuade.
Though I suppose, there is something to be said for working through your arguments. Just don’t expect the rest of us to exert ourselves in concert.
Geez.