I was listening to Stephanie Miller this morning (usual drive to school with kids faire, they love it!) and I was struck by a couple callers from the Dittohead side of the aisle. One in particular, just wanted to lash out – much like my right-wing exemplars, Trent and Edgar, do here – about how “Obama lies” and how he’s turning our nation into a socialist state and and and… it was just amazing to me. He even called the current “Democratic Power Grab” a totalitarian state, believe it or not.
Well first off, to those of similar thought, the democratic “Power Grab” is very real: it’s called an election, and the voice of the people was heard. Interestingly, if you call a democratic election where the people choose to go in another direction anything other than the beauty of an intelligent populace taking control BACK from the attempted dictatorship reign of the Bush White House, you’re just ill informed. Welcome to the world where people are considerably less swayed by vociferous attacks from loud-mouthed demagogues and are starting to see things for what they are again.
All that said, I found this quote interesting today. Andrew Sullivan, from the Atlantic said, “I have to say even I am a little taken aback by the force of the Republican assault. Even in a downturn as swift and alarming as this one, even after an election that clearly favored one approach over another, even after the most conciliatory efforts by an incoming president in memory, these people have gone to war against the president. The president should stay cool. The rest of us should realize what motivates the GOP: the opportunism of selective ideology.”
Brilliantly said and spot on. The Republicans MUST go to war with the president, because he has a mandate to dismantle the iron fisted control they’ve had on government for the last 8 years. He is poised to help the nation return to a semblance of the direction outlined for more than 2 centuries ago – one that made us the envy of the world and an economic and moral high water mark. He is in a position to begin to expose the rhetoric of the neoConservative Republican political body: that they are NOT in favor of bettering America or Americans, they are in fact simply in favor of lining their own pockets and crippling the actual freedoms that Americans enjoy and deserve.
Well, some do. It seems to me that the Dittoheads and followers of Faux Noise got exactly what they deserved in the last 8 years – the only president to simultaneously cry out that he kept us safe, was better for the economy and was about bettering America while we were attacked right here in the continental states, are now suffering from a near-catastrophic depression and are still not recovered from Katrina. In just 3 weeks Obama has put upwards of 11 million children into a position to receive health care, reversed the course for stem cell research, has pushed hard to pass a stimulus bill that will create another 3.5 million jobs and save our crumbling infrastructure and given Americans hope, rather than a war, catastrophe and tax breaks for billionaires.
Say what you want, but adults and patriots are in charge of the country again. I am actually optimistic that he will get something done. Honestly.
“The Republicans MUST go to war with the president, because he has a mandate to dismantle the iron fisted control they’ve had on government for the last 8 years.”
I think there is a mistaken assumption about politics that you are suggesting here, and that some conservatives are buying into. The idea is that they have nothing to lose, so they may as well throw every grenade they can find against the Democratic leadership to try slow Obama’s momentum.
The problem is that they are not allowing the public to have a break in perception of how Republicans are viewed after an election where the public voted them out of office vehemently (actually in two elections).
If they were smart, they would let the Democrats lead for a while, and graciously offer some support to our agenda (not unanimous opposition by the House to the Stimulus, etc.), and let the partisan ranker of the last election subside.
But coming right out the door with opposition sets the stage the same way that Bush did when right after the 2006 election Bush called for more troops in Iraq, rather than a planned withdrawal.
The 2006 election was about Iraq, and rather than listen to the voters, Bush upped the ante with his surge. Conservatives say that the surge worked, and that may be debatable as a war policy, but politically, the surge was a disaster. Bush and the Republicans continued to look like they were not listening to the public and pushing their agenda, regardless of public opinion. And two years later, the public made a rare, two election smashing of one of the parties.
Republican stubbornness at their loss of power is a gift to us Democrats. Polls show that the public thinks Obama has reached out to work with Republicans but that Republicans haven’t been willing to work with Obama.
First perceptions are very important and the stage is set for us to continue to take advantage of negative perceptions of Republicans.
I agree completely – perhaps I miswrote. I was asserting that many of the Republicans, noticing that their control is slipping, see that the only way back into prominence is to tear down Obama. I was not saying that it’s right, or smart heh, just that they have virtually nothing left, since they have chosen to be the party of opposition to anything Liberal, regardless of how correct or powerful the notion.
Nice to see you back
No! Republicans tear down Obama becasue he’s an idiot. He’s a liar. He’s a puppet.
Not qualities we look for in a strong leader. I cant beleive your so wrapped up in your neo-liberilism that you think some how, this guy is the answer to all of problems(let alone any of them).
Keep up with your liberal strategy…
deny, deny, deny! It works great.
A liberal is like a child alone in a room. A lamp breaks. You look in the room and the child says, “it wasn’t me”!
Now, although you know this to be a lie, the child will maintain his innocence, based on the fact that you might not be able to prove it was him. Then when you expose him to video footage, witnesses from the outside window, and finger prints… deny deny deny. In the end, the child knows he’s guilty, and so does the adult.
You guys sound more foolish than ever. Have you considered debating instead of soap boxing empty opinions?
If liberals had everything they wanted, the country would turn to crap!
Some of the neo-liberal ways of thinking is rediculous. I half expect to read one of perks new blogs saying “Liberals Finally Have A Soloution” in wich he will cite how we can achieve a higher level of humanity by simply building a quantum dimensional transporter that would put each individual into his/or her own universe that would be unique to there brain frequency, allowing us all to live in a perfectly harmonious universe, and that we’ll just need to direct all federal funding to this new project that will surely bring all humanity to peace with the universe.
crap crap crap.
earth to perk and the neo-liberals. Come back to reality. it’s real, here! Really real!
roflmao:
Edgar-
I keep trying to get through to our liberal freinds…but I fear they have removed the tin foil hats from there heads… I cant get through. What do I do?
“No! Republicans tear down Obama becasue he’s an idiot. He’s a liar. He’s a puppet”
As opposed to the right wing tool that you are? You live under a rock and are fed right wing talking points intravenously.
Name one thing he’s lied about ONE THING. Name for me something that makes him a puppet. ONE THING. Demonstrate, in any way at all that he’s an idiot. Good luck with all that.
And oh, things you heard on Rush, Billo and Hannity don’t count. Read a real book, quote a real source. Try, at least try, to be reasonably intelligent about this and not just a mouthpiece for the ridiculous right.
“No! Republicans tear down Obama becasue he’s an idiot. He’s a liar. He’s a puppet.”
Trent, I’m happy that this is all you conservatives have to say about Obama. When you have to resort to such clear BS as this, obviously you have nothing real to grasp at.
No one, absolutely NO ONE, but fanatic, far right people believe that Obama is an idiot, a liar or a puppet. Even some on the far right have the good sense to know that Obama is anything but an idiot.
“And oh, things you heard on Rush, Billo and Hannity don’t count. Read a real book, quote a real source. Try, at least try, to be reasonably intelligent about this and not just a mouthpiece for the ridiculous right.”
This coming from the ulmighty source, whom couldnt produce anything but regurgitation from cnn and other liberal media sources. Who in one line condemned conservatives for using sources like wikipedia, and in another line praised his fellow neo-liberal pansy warriors for using them as there sources.
Not biased are we perk?!
roflmao:
You guys deny any facts or statistics that are provided from reliable sources (as proved on other posts) And have no real topic to discuss except how much you hate conservatives.
You dont have to be a genius to google obama and lies and see the rediculousness that follows. Why would a man lie about his father being in ww2? Why would he lie about half the things he’s lied about. Stupidity.
Why would a president be concerned with moving the census to washington? HUH! I guess he has nothing else to worry about right now. I mean…it’s not like we’re in a economical downturn or anything.
Obama has warned that if the stimulous wasnt passed, it would be catastrophic. instilling fear to pass a bill. HMMMMMM!
Sounds remenisant of the days where the shrill cry of the pansy liberals, were aimed at Bush! I guess this will be Bushes 3rd term after all.
So let me ask…..
Where does obama stand on the death penalty?
How about abortion?
How about, where does he stand on anything?
I guess he must have been telling the truth when he said he was going to really make an effort to reach across the isle (unless of course the other side of the isle diagreed with him)
His poor choice of people to be by his side in his administration is a glimpse of the next 4 years. Nothing but the same ol washington politics.
and its only been less than a month.
God help us all!
Lets kill those innocent babies so they won’t punish our sluty daughters!! YA!
But killing a murdering rapist…..WWWHHHOOOAA!!!! that would be violating his civil rights!!!!
I should be liberal. I could justify everthing I know I shouldnt do so I could feel better about myself, then…. blame it all on the republicans!!!!
Brilliant!!
roflmao:
@Trent
“in one line condemned conservatives for using sources like wikipedia, and in another line praised his fellow neo-liberal pansy warriors for using them as there sources”
LMAO!!! So true Trent, so true!
@Perk responding to Sfnathans quote:
“I think there is a mistaken assumption about politics that you are suggesting here, and that some conservatives are buying into. The idea is that they have nothing to lose, so they may as well throw every grenade they can find against the Democratic leadership to try slow Obama’s momentum.”
Perk answers with an apology…
First of all Sfnathan is wrong but let me just say that Perk wouldn’t kiss sfnathans ass so shamelessly if he weren’t openly gay. It’s a liberal thing to bend over backwards for gays and be super phoney nice etc… makes me sick.
@Dumbasses
Let me straighten you out regarding the the segment I quoted from SF.
Conservatives may or may not feel they have nothing to lose. I wont argue the point because I don’t know every conservative and neither do you. But I will say this: It has nothing to do with how good or bad the republicans are doing currently in washington, politically speaking.
This is a philosophical thing guys. You guys have a liberal philosophy right? So if you were in congress and the shoe was on the other foot (democrats in the minority) and you disagreed with a republican sponsored bill, would you only disagree because you have ‘nothing left to lose?’
Look, conservatives have no faith in the basic premise of liberalism. And from those basic premises come all of the liberal legislation. Conservatives believe that all things liberal are bad. Not good for me, you or the country. So it is our obligation to try to obstruct anything liberal.
It’s bad for the country so why shouldn’t we oppose it with all we’ve got? Granted you disagree that liberal policies are bad for the country but us conservatives feel that way. So we obstruct what we feel are bad policies. That’s our job as conservatives.
Its not a matter of desperation but a matter of principle. Cats and dogs.
@Obama is a baby killer
We are striking inside pakistan and killing people everywhere with out the consent of the Pakistani’s! That is a war crime and Obama should be prosecuted as a war criminal along with Bush now.
Nobody’s talking about that on this blog are they? NOOOOOOOPE!!! Not here. Obama is just bombing villages and targeting anyone who might look like an “Afghan Militant Refugee”
Obama is just like Bush but he just talks a better game and has a slick way to lie about everything. War crimes!
Wow.
There are so many things wrong with what you’ve both just said it’s not even funny. But I’m not going to comment, because your drivel does not even deserve my time.
I’ve had it. You’re both assholes with no understanding or brains. You slop insult and stupidity as if they’re valid arguments, with no consideration for either what you’re doing to our country, or our countrymen with your garbage.
You’re both done here.
As vitriolic and spiteful as much of what Trent has said tends to be, I don’t feel it necessary to lump Edgar in with him. The majority of the time, Edgar does think before he speaks. Trent tends to just say things without backing them up or (apparently) reconciling them in his own mind. That, or he’s comfortable living with an egregious black hole of cognitive dissonance inside his skull where his brain used to be.
At any rate, I’m bummed that they won’t be posting here anymore as I really wanted Edgar to define “liberal” and “conservative” philosophy for me. I have a hunch that he wouldn’t quite nail either one, as I have a hunch that he hasn’t read a lot of history.
@Trent – your lack of factual content is showing through here when you refer to Perk, myself, and others as “neoliberals.” The term was re-invented by the Chicago School of Economics (aka Milton Friedman) to indicate that markets function best when they are “free.” and is a term used internationally when speaking of the practices of the U.S. and our “globalization” efforts to offshore labor and rob 3rd world countries of their natural resources. You won’t find Perk, myself, or any other liberal in favor of “neoliberal” policies or practices.
I know you’ll be tempted to throw the dictionary.com definition at me, but you’ll note before you do that it’s definition that admits “beginning in the late 1960′s” and is a definition neither recognized nor embraced internationally.
Again … “keep up with the times, Jethro.”
Here is a great Primer on Neo Liberalism from an objective source.
- http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism
Additonal resources:
The central principle of neoliberal policy is untrammeled free markets and free trade.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Since the 1990′s activists use the word ‘neoliberalism’ for global market-liberalism (‘capitalism’) and for free-trade policies. In this sense, it is widely used in South America. ‘Neoliberalism’ is often used interchangeably with ‘globalisation’. But free markets and global free trade are not new, and this use of the word ignores developments in the advanced economies. The analysis here compares neoliberalism with its historical predecessors. Neoliberalism is not just economics: it is a social and moral philosophy, in some aspects qualitatively different from liberalism. Last changes 02 December 2005.
- http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html
“Neo-liberalism” is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.
- http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
:popcorn:
This, to me, is an excellent example of Edgar thinking before he speaks:
Or virtually any of his posts from the Gay-As-A-Choice debate. Sorry VS, but I am just no longer in the mood to let wild-eyed sociopaths try to dominate the discussion at my blog. Frankly, their inability to be open to ANYTHING other than what they’ve been told is just pathetic and pin-headed. I’ve had it, as has most of the country, with their regurgitation of right wing talking points.
BTW: Please don’t tell PinkHat that I’m so gay … it’d just ruin her day
@Trent vs. Edgar – I tend to agree with VS here. fwiw.
@Edgar – I believe I know the liberal policies conservatives hate:
* socialism (e.g. police departments, fire departments, roads, epa, fdic, ftc, sec, … etc.) – basically any government agency because that means an unfair advantage against anyone who chooses to make money off of these.
Am I right? If conservatives can’t make money off of it or keep it for themselves, they hate it.
Liberals are just the opposite. We hate selfishness, which happens to be a conservative trait.
Check.
I’ve now deleted a couple Trent comments now – they essentially lay out that I’m an asshole and can’t handle “The Truth.” They are as angry and silly as anything he has posted before, and he’s done an excellent job of proving to me that my decision was the right one.
What I’ve come to realize recently is: What does it matter if being gay is a choice or not?
It hurts no one, brings happiness to the one who chooses to engage in it (from everything I have seen and experienced)…Who cares? Religion is a choice, but we extend special rights and privileges to those who choose a religion (tax exempt status, authority to perform marriages, a reasonable degree of freedom from cencorship, etc). Something being a “choice” does not automatically preclude one who makes that choice from having the same rights everyone around him does. It’s just asinine.
I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as “straight” and “gay”. There is simply an amalgamation of innumerable thoughts, feelings, and life experiences that affect a person. I don’t think anyone alive is “100% straight” or “100% gay”, I think that we all experience some minute level of attraction to both sexes (the same as every other mammal with a spine, look it up). It’s just that some men and women experience an inordinate or disproportionate level of attraction to one sex or the other, and that determines their sexual orientation. The rest of everyone is just bisexual, but societal norms and antiquated evolutionary mechanisms (religious teachings on the subject, valuable at a time when procreation was still such a big deal to keep our species alive) keep the majority of people who are otherwise attracted to the same sex in line.
I have no shame in admitting that I find some men very attractive. That doesn’t mean I would like to have sex with them, I am more attracted to women. That does mean that I think it’s juvenile to be grossed out because some guys aren’t attracted to the same things you are, sexually.
“Obama is just like Bush but he just talks a better game and has a slick way to lie about everything. War crimes!”
I really don’t understand this sentiment. Most of you right wingnuts hung from Bush’s sack the entire time he was in office. If Obama is so much like Bush, what are you complaining about?
Oh right, he plays for the wrong team. Partisanship is sophomorish. I’m going to guess that you decide which “party” you vote for in much the same manner as which football team you root for in the Super Bowl.
@Jairez and Vsloathe
I wasn’t going to comment here anymore because Perk has censored me and has made it clear I am not welcome here.
So why are you still responding to my comments? I can’t answer you back. If you want to continue our almost daily heated debates then I’m afraid you will have to go to my crappy ole blogspot blog and debate me there.
You are all welcome to stop by and irritate the fuck out of me.
So, Vsloathe, Jairez, SFNathan, Donkey, and even you Perk are welcome to come to my blog and try to dominate the conversation.
I don’t mind an opposing view even though I think you guys are all idiots
Sorry for posting on your blog again Perk, it wont happen again.
Hope to see you guys there once in a while.
Edgar
Go well Edgar.
I don’t like to expend my energy trying to educate people about things they have no desire to learn about, like economics and global politics.
I post here because Perk’s my friend (in real life even!)
@VS re Perk … and he’s always good for the odd reach-around.
uuuhhh …. was that my inside voice?
roflmao:
oh lordy. Here we go. roflmao:
Perk,
on a side note – I’d love if you blogged some time on the issue of nationalizing the banks. Apparently some Republicans are even supporting this idea now – seems like a good idea to me. I work for a municipal utility and watching the difference between rates and service for municipal utilities vs investor owned utilities, I’m convinced that for some things, we would be much better off without having a profit margin involved, and just providing a government service. Energy, water, banks, health care, defense, law enforcement, and all critical services that we all need for society to function, are better off, in my opinion, in government hands.
What do you think of that?
Excellent idea… and extremely topical. I’ll give it a think and see if I can work one in.
Again, I apologize for being so remiss in my writing, the beginning of this year has just been a killer. I’ll return to being my normal, prodigiously verbose wordsmith soon.
Thanks for the suggestion!
I loathe your licentious loquacity.
I also apologize for the abundant alliteration.
You know I’m reminded of the old addage:
“Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.”
I was hoping that others could do as I have (read my comment history) and keep it impersonal, in spite of Trent and Edgar (trolls love when you bite back, it feeds them and they come back for more). In my many years of arguing on the Internet, if I’ve learned one thing it is that you won’t prove anyone wrong. The normal constraints placed on social interaction are utterly absent from this place, which is why I always try my best to keep them in place in my own speech, though I cannot account for what others do.
I could say things like “Bush is an idiot”, but it’s inflammatory and my own opinion. I could say “I am smarter than George W. Bush”, and that would be well-researched fact, as I achieved better grades in school and while Mr. Bush has managed to bankrupt or severely damage a number of companies, I have either helped or been directly responsible for a number of companies’ ultimate success.
-my 2c
I just had to respond to posts by Edgar, even though they really don’t deserve the time of day. One of the favorite “silver-bullets” of the conservative noise machine is the “lie” from Obama regarding his father returning from WWII.
This is a pretty sick thing to say about anyone speaking publicly and relating their experience with a family member returning from service.
Obama’s _grandfather_ served in WWII and also raised him, as Obama’s only father figure in his life. Obama only even met his hereditary father one time in his life. Otherwise, this minor omission to clarify that he was referring to his primary father figure – his grandfather – with precisely the same point to the spirit of what he was communicating, is not even worthy of discussion.
For the rest of us, I just wanted to make sure the whole truth was expressed in case it was new information since looking at the YouTube clip without the background could be confusing. Based on the level of knowledge and political savvy in this blog (with one exception) it’s probably not news to everyone here.
When I read The Audacity of Hope I learned more about his background and I certainly back my understanding up with independent research.
People who damage others in ignorance are just as accountable for their character attacks as those who know better and consciously groom their message to fit their ideologies. They’re just not as intelligent.
In any case, they’re both enemies of possibly the largest challenge that faces any democratic society, and one that has flourished with our fearful and ignorant consent at the hands of neo-con megalomaniacs such as Dick Cheney.
Thomas Jefferson’s been break-dancing in his grave since Nixon took office. Ignorance is the enemy of freedom, and he knew it. To my mind, perpetuators of ignorance are in a very real way enemies of the state.
Had to rant – thanks for reading!
Adam
Since you closed the other thread like a mad child picking up his toys and going home, I’ll post here:
“So was killing Jews because they were Jewish during the Third Reich. Sometimes it takes quite a while for abuses of power to be brought to justice. We see more, every day now, how Bush, Gonzalez, Cheney, you name it in that cabal are being exposed as the criminals-against-our-state that they were. Their crimes against us, over time, will be exposed.”
Yeah, whatever.
I’m sure someone somewhere can say that there were war crimes at every war, even Clinton’s war in Afghanistan.
Bottom line – the War in Iraq was substantiated based on the info they had at the time. Even Kerry said so, so he would’ve used force too, if he was president at the time.
“it’s not whether Hillary was hurt at all (at least from a government and Constitutional perspective) – it’s about what was done illegally in this country. He lied, he was prosecuted. Again, whether he should or should not have been prosecuted is for another day.”
You still avoided the question.
I’ll answer for you.
Yes, Hillary is a victim, so it was NOT a “victimless crime”
It amuses me that you downplay Slick Willie’s transgressions and build of Bush’s. They’re not that far apart. Lying is lying, and illegal is illegal.
Stealing is stealing, whether it’s penny candy or an Ipod. Quit trying to make GWB’s ALLEGED “crimes” seem worse than Slick Willie’s.
I’ll answer the other question:
YES SLick Willie should’ve been impeached and disbarred. No question. Common sense. That’s a no-brainer. No need for discussion.
“We as a country are going to need to outlive our national shame at allowing a hooligan pseudo-cowboy to trash our reputation, allow us to get attacked, dismantle our Constitutional rights and destroy the General Welfare. He is a stain on us.”
Actually the “shame” and “reputation destroying” is still 4-8 years down the road (get it?);
And, as I pointed out, Slick Willie was the one that allowed us to get attacked. GWB had to clean that up, too.
You’re living in a dream world.
Good luck.
Shmuck.
Wow. And you call me the angry one.
If I really wanted to take my toys and go home, you insolent right wing tool, I’d simply ban you from posting on my board. As it is, I’m close because you are just tedious and offer nothing at all except ill-based rants. Where, at the very least, Edgar and I have struck a balance so that there is discourse among us for the betterment of readers and each other, you are simply venomous and stupid.
@ Iraq: it was wrong, it’s been long decided that this was so. Your revision of history does no change it. Bet you think we coulda “won in Vietnam” as well if we’d've just stuck it out a little longer. You’re simply rearranging chairs on a Titanic argument.
@ Hillary, downplay: you don’t read anything at all. I don’t downplay his indiscretion: but what he did with Monica was not my business, nor was it yours. Nor, frankly, was it any of Congress’. But they despised him and wanted a way to destroy his popularity: and he fell headlong into a trap of his own making. Regardless of the discomfort, he should have come right out and been done with it so that he could not be trapped in his lie. He was expertly and cruelly bound for a really minor issue. It was sordid, stupid and he embarrassed the presidency. And, his sexual proclivities are NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.
I submit to you, for the 4th time, that the argument is about the government and the Constitutional and our laws. WGAF if he was banging George Stephanopolous FFS. I could give a damn. GWB, on the other hand, was either duped or dragged us into an illegal war, on false premise. Even you cannot have been so deaf as to not hear the change in “reason we’re there” over the course of the years. Even you cannot have been so deaf as to not hear the data that now flows forth, describing in ever more exquisite detail of how the Cheney office was directly responsible for misleading Congress about the whole affair. Even you cannot be so callous, self centered and self righteous as to assign the sexual indiscretions of our previous-previous president more heavily than our previous in his murderous rampage. Even you Nash.
@ Slick Willie and we got attacked: OK cowboy, you just go believe that. Although noting the calendar of exactly when it happened, and the data that lead up to it, and the CIA briefs that warned us of EXACTLY such an attack months before were completely ignored, you just go on believing that.
@ Dream world, Schmuck: Paragon of compassion and critical thought, you are. Let me, yet again, offer a clever and fiendishly accurate and penetrating retort:
I know you are, but what am I? roflmao:
Only the moonbats decided that the War in Iraq was wrong.
Stop presenting your slanted opinion as fact.
It is not an illegal war.Iraq is rid of Hussein, they have had free elections, are protecting themselves, and we have not had another terrorist attack.
The bombing of the Cole – during Clinton’s watch – was perpetrated by OBL and Al Qaeda.
@perk
“If I really wanted to take my toys and go home, you insolent right wing tool, I’d simply ban you from posting on my board. As it is, I’m close because you are just tedious and offer nothing at all except ill-based rants. Where, at the very least, Edgar and I have struck a balance so that there is discourse among us for the betterment of readers and each other, you are simply venomous and stupid. ”
Perk, we are all grown men and no one can tell you what to do and what not to do. But for what it’s worth;
I just finished setting up 100 parasite pages in a row. All day I’ve been working on this shit. Believe it or not I actually look forward to getting in the ring at the end of the day here on your liberal blog.
I love arguing and reading the arguments, I even get my coffee etc…
You really shouldn’t close your posts down like that. I know, I know it’s your blog but still, you shouldn’t just shut down a live post. I wanna read this shit ya know?
Also, imo Nash is not angry or silly or venemous or any of that. If he was here just saying that your a fuckin asshole etc…then I would say, ya, shut down the post.
Nash’s viewpoints are more moderate than mine and yours imo. As I’m not really emotionally involved in this debate (like the great homo debate) I can say as an outside objective observer that both you and nash are a little emotional. So what?
Why argue with someone who has no passion and emotion anyway? It’s interesting and you should reconsider pulling your posts. Both sides make good points and you can’t do that if you shut the post down.
Now for my penetrating and insightful comments:
@The Most Infamous Blowjob Ever
A victimless crime? Well if you look back perk to your post about a primer to the financial collapse, you will see a very interesting concession that you made.
You were admitting that clinton screwed up by deregulating the system. But you said that the only reason he did that was because he was in the hot seat due to the blow job.
That’s in your own post in your own words basically. He was hamstrung and made impotent (pardon the pun of course) by the scandal he had created and thus ran out of that ‘Political Capital’ that we were talking about.
Is it possible to talk about this in a sensible way? Can I challenge you to allow yourself to think a while about it. Clintons personal behavior interfered with his ability to act as he should have as president.
I’m not going to quote the post because it’s too long and too hard to find but it’s there.
All I’m saying is that when you carelessly call something a victimless crime you sometimes shouldn’t defend your statements. Sometimes it’s better admit to a hasty statement and let it go.
There nothing more interesting that unrestricted, politically INCORRECT but intelligent debate. That’s what we’ve got going on here and you should consider that a bit more perhaps.
By the way, I’m still a loon
roflmao:
Excellent points.
As I have stressed, I don’t consider myself “Left” or “Right”. I take each issue, review the facts, and then I go to the “Common Sense” side.
I’m all for “Do The Right Thing”.
I’m all for stem cell research and the right to choose – two things that the “Right” do not support.
The only reason they support them is because the Bible tells them that only God can give or take life.
However, the “Common Sense” side, being in America, states that the Government should not tell a woman whether she should, should not, can, or cannot have a baby.
The 2nd Amendment.
It guarantees us the right to bear arms. Period. No conditions.
However, the “left” wants to take this right away from us because they want it that way. It’s not for the good of the country or “the people”, it’s just what they want.
They don’t seem to realize that we need to protect ourselves from the thugs, gang-bangers, car jackers and home invaders. Trying to abolish the 2nd Amendment is not going to stop crime. It’s going to take away our ability to play defense. That’s all.
Ever hear of Joe Horn from Pasedena, Texas? “Castle Laws”? He’s my new hero.
National defense. Another no-brainer.
Clinton weakened our defenses and cut our military, leaving us vulnerable for 9/11.
Remember how the American hostages in Iran were IMMEDIATELY released when Reagan was sworn in? They knew that Reagan was not some Carter-type wuss. They knew Reagan would put a hurtin’ on ‘em.
“Peace Through Strength”. Sweet. And, another common-sense no-brainer.
Perk kinds said it all when he said that PrezBO “isn’t Liberal enough for me”. That tells me that Perk is not interested in whether or not PrezBO does the right thing, but whether or not he will support and promote the liberal agenda.
Why are Iran and South Korea standing up and showing their butts all of a sudden? PrezBO, that’s why. The know that he’s going to wuss out and “talk” to them.
Cuba gave PrezBO their full support. Yeah, that’s a ringing endorsement.
The USA is a laughing stock because the rest of the world sees the divisiveness created by the media during the last election.
We need to get on the same page, the same common-sense side, and stop hanging on to partisanship.
Nash used the word “Habib” in another post.
I will not be responding to any more posts on this blog while a racist piece of shit is still welcome here without reprimand.
“Racist”?
Are ya kidding me?
Why do you think that the airports “red flag” people? How do they do it? It’s based on name. I didn’t create it.
Just like the 5 Imams that were thrown off a plane a while back. Given the current climate, it is certainly justified.
If you want to see “racists”, look up Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton.
See vsloathe, your comment is the food fight kind of comment that drags the level of discourse down to a quarrel. No need to call someone a piece of shit.
Besides, why are you so quick to make moral judgments?
Ahmedinajad is a racist but you think it’s just a dandy idea for Obama to talk to him. Grow up kid…
@@Nash
The problem Nash is that not everyone agrees as to what common sense is. Liberals believe that they truly have an enlightened ‘common sense’ and that conservatives simply get their common sense from the bible.
See how it works? If a consevative governs the nation then he is simply imposing his religion upon the nation. Whereas if a liberal is governing then he is governing according to modern reasoning.
“As I have stressed, I don’t consider myself “Left” or “Right”. I take each issue, review the facts, and then I go to the “Common Sense” side.
I’m all for “Do The Right Thing”.”
Well I consider you to be more Right than Left for what its worth. But the whole “do the right thing” statement is missing the mark. It’s too superficial to be taken seriously. I mean, you have to dig deeper than that imo in order to express WHY you believe the Right Thing is the Right Thing.
That makes the discussion more interesting in my view. On the other hand trying to highlight the hypocisy of our liberal debate partners here is a good and valid form of argumentation, because it exposes the fact that their blind partisanship takes precedence over their principled notions of personal philosophy.
In other words partisanship affects judgment and the ability to be intellectually honest. I feel some people fail to admit to their hypocrisy because they simply don’t want to admit they were wrong…ever. It’s an ego thing and not a truth thing.
“Common Sense”, or “The Right Thing”, I really don’t know what to call it, but, for instance:
There is a lightning storm. You’re on a boat on the lake. There is only one correct and smart thing to do. Get off the lake. Only a complete moron would stay on the lake, and there is no question that to get off the lake is the best thing to do. Kind of like the “child-stealing-from-Target” example I gave a while back.
The problem is that most people cannot separate fact from opinion. Good and evil are defined, they are not subjective. The “right thing” to do in every situation is not subjective, either.
Secondly, there is a difference between “conservatives” and “religious right”. Not all republicans or conservatives are bible-thumpers.
I took an online quiz, and I am actually more “Centrist”. I support the death penalty because it is sensible. Why punish taxpayers keeping a viscious murderer alive? I support low taxes an capitalism because it has been proven by economists that it is the best way to prosperity.
Because “the right thing” is a constant, it is defined. That’s where the phrase came from.
@Nash
Ask anyone here and they will tell you that I line up with you politically more than any of the liberals here. So I’m on your side of the argument as a whole.
But I still think you are missing my point. You must not have much experience arguing with liberals like this. I do this all the time and I’m used to it by now.
The idea of ‘the right thing’ being defined is exactly what liberals disagree with! Sure, getting out of the way of lightning is the right thing to do. But that’s neither here nor there.
Apply your common sense approach to an issue like affirmative action and it’s not so easy to be convincing. See what I mean?
@Centerist
Why do people fall on the right or left? I think it’s because of our core values. Each idea gets passed through our core value filter, receives judgment and is either accepted or rejected.
I personally believe that people are either on the Right or Left and I don’t believe in a center. The center is for people who haven’t fully matured their reasoning and explored certain concepts in a deep enough way.
In my view a persons core values can not be both Right and Left because there is too much dissonance. IF you are a centerist then you are either a lefty that hasn’t figured it out yet or a Righty that hasn’t figured it out yet.
We all take each concept and weigh it against our reasoning and make a judgment call. No one here makes blanket judgments I don’t think.
Also, I think a lot of people who claim to be centerist do so just to have some credibility. They can say, “See, I’m not on the right or the left like you guys, I use common sense”
I don’t think that’s what you are doing Nash but I do see that all the time. Take Bill Orielly for example. He tries to play the center game and it’s bullshit.
Exactly!
But, should we give up trying to rehabiltate them? I’m just trying to educate people here.
At the very least, we should put the kaibosh on their propoganda, just as we would scold a child for their temper tantrums.
I disagree.
That’s where the Neal Boortz’ and the Ron Pauls come from. There are good ideas from both sides, but the right has more of them. Yes, I am more “right-leaning”, but I am an atheist.
Maybe they call them “the right” because most of the time, they are!!
I do not agree with them regarding abortion, stem cell research, or the whole bible-thumping thing.
As for taxes, I agree with the idea of everyone paying as little as possible, but I do agree with the left that the middle-class should shoulder the least of the burden.
You are an atheist huh? Well did you know that Barack Obama is the anti-christ?
It’s been proven as of today. Look http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105527
This is strange. Me and an atheist on the same side of an argument. Even Vlsloathe isn’t an atheist! LMAO!!!
I am all alone in this crappy world! LMAO!!
I’m telling ya –
There are too many “qualifiers”. Everybody wants to fit someone inside some mold.
I am always on the side of sensibility. My idea is to “fix stupid”.
There is a method to fix stupid. It’s called “education”.
I already explained why I’m not bothering to respond to anything else. Words like habib, paki, chink, gook, spic are racial slurs and I have no interest in dialoging with those who don’t see anything particularly wrong with including these terms in their vocabulary.
OK fine you’re right. I shouldn’t call anyone a piece of shit. I just found the use of a racial slur reprehensible. That is all.
Edgar I’ve never claimed to be an atheist, or Christian, or Muslim, or anything else. I happen to be a Christian theologian, but I don’t put a word to my belief structure because I’ve never really believed. Technically, I’d have to be considered an atheist, but I don’t like even giving a name to something that occupies about .0000001% of my day-to-day thoughts.
Not by even the loosest definition of the term “kidding”. People who think that others should be treated differently because of arbitrary traits over which they have never had any control are a very very serious matter to me.
Oh, I’m well aware that racial profiling goes on. I’m also aware, having worked in security (both information security and meatspace security), that it does no good. It is more efficient to train security personnel to spot suspicious behavior than to spot suspicious people. Humans are not good at controlling their emotions, and suicide bombers have traditionally not been a very well-trained group with poker faces on.
I am not sure how Al Sharpton would be considered a racist. Perhaps if you had been denied opportunities your entire life that others had given to them as a matter of course, your outlook might be a bit different. These men were around during the 60s, during which time they were considered second-class citizens. Sure, things have changed. I challenge that perhaps you would not be so quick to forget if it was you who grew up seeing signs that said “Whites Only”.
How is this inanity a workable view of reality?
Is lying wrong? What about lying to your kids that Santa Claus came down the chimney on Christmas Eve? What about lying to save a life?
There’s not *always* a clear right and wrong. Human beings are required to make the best possible choice given the data at the time. That is, by definition, subjective. Have you never heard of the concept of “moral dilemma”? How could such a concept exist if right and wrong are always predefined?
Further, as an atheist, who gives you your morals?
I’ll clue you in: You do. That’s subjectivity in a nutshell, my friend.
@Vsloathe
You’re a trip man! You are always saying that “your not going to respond anymore” here and at other blogs where we argue. Yet you are looking for me everywhere just to argue with me, and you NEVER opt out. You can’t help it! What a turkey! LMAO!!
“I just found the use of a racial slur reprehensible. That is all.”
Actually it’s a cultural slur. A habib probably refers to someone of middle eastern culture. Since there are blacks, whites, browns and yellows in the middle east you can’t define Habib as a racial slur.
But I wonder where you get your strict and unforgiving set of morals from and why you are convinced that they are correct morals. Shouldn’t you respect Nash’s morals just as your own because you understand that morality is relative?
Perhaps Nash grew up in an area where everyone called middle eastern people habibs. You know, like POOR AL SHARPTON who grew up in an area where he saw WHITE ONLY signs?
@Athiesim
Ya, I know you never said you were an atheist, that’s why I said what I said.
And yes I do believe you when you say that you spend about .000001% of the time thinking about such things…it’s obvious to me because your actions contradict your words often.
@Nash
Are you a racist? Do you judge people based on their race and leave it at that?
Let’s ask the man a question before judging him shall we?
:popcorn:
Nope.
I only “judge” people by what they say and do.
People use the word “prifiling” like it’s a bad thing.
If you’re walking down the street and you see a group of guys coming near you with “gang gear” on (as described on all of the “Identify a Gang” web sites), you will have reason to fear for your safety.
Likewise, after 9/11, we have every reason to be suspicious if we see middle-eastern people in an airport, particularly if they are behaving strangely.
Better to be safe than sorry.
Racists are people like Jesse and Al, who will side with the black people on every issue, no matter who is in the right.
Sure, in the movies if you have to decide who dies, your wife or your daughter….
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. I was speaking about all of the political issues, particularly the ones that came up during this last election.
Obama was correct on some points, but McCian was correct on the others.
That term was coined by people that wanted to justify things like adultery, lying, etc.
You think religion and morals are mutually exclusive?
Again, it goes back to common sense and basic human decency.
BTW –
I thought you were cancelling yourself.
The less liberals in here, the better.
I’m not a liberal.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal.
Tomato, tomahto. Come up with some new justifications for your baseless bigotry.
Reason. And there’s nothing strict about them.
Why would I need to do that? Of course morality is relative, but that doesn’t mean that your morality is automatically more or less valid than mine. In this case, he’s displayed a grossly immoral attitude by using a slur. I could care less how it was intended or at whom it was directed, mature, well-adjusted people don’t use words like habib.
Don’t straw man me. Al Sharpton doesn’t go around calling people of other races slurs, whether or not you consider him a bit too extreme for your tastes.
You’ve never met me. How do you have any clue whatsoever about my actions? You are wrong, though I don’t think there’s a person alive who wouldn’t look like a hypocrite when cast in a certain light. There are just too many angles to cover.
Further, the fact that I don’t spend much time thinking about religion is not relevant at all to this discussion.
You’ve never said what sort of persuasion of religiosity you are Edgar. I’m curious if you’re a Christian, because your views don’t seem to align with what was important to Jesus.
Education can fix ignorance
Nothing can fix “stupid”. That’s natural.
I came up with that just out of thnin air. It’s no different that referring to an American as a “Joe Six-Pack”.
@Vsloathe
“You’ve never met me. How do you have any clue whatsoever about my actions? ”
Because typing words is an action.
“Further, the fact that I don’t spend much time thinking about religion is not relevant at all to this discussion.”
It became relevant to this discussion when you injected it into this discussion: “Technically, I’d have to be considered an atheist, but I don’t like even giving a name to something that occupies about .0000001% of my day-to-day thoughts.”
@Sharpton
Vsloathe, you make excuses for sharptons apparent racism, and that is hypocritical. That’s not a strawman argument.
“You’ve never said what sort of persuasion of religiosity you are Edgar.”
You are right! First time ever, congrats! I never injected my belief system because I didn’t want it to be a relevant part of this discussion.
But since you asked I will indulge your curiosity and answer your question.
I believe in God. I believe God exists. If forced to chose which current religion most closely resembles my personal beliefs I would have to say Christianity, which in itself is a very, very broad term.
I’m opposed to catholicism though. So which exact denomination of Christianity do I most closely associate myself with? That’s a tough one for me.
I don’t know if there is a current religious world view that corresponds exactly to how I think.
But look at what the bible says about Jesus. He wasn’t of the established jewish religion of the time. He was a renegade. A rebel.
Jesus told the pharisees of the time that the kingdom of God was within you. I believe that. The leaders of the established jewish religion of that time believed in a very literal translation of the bible. Do this, do that etc… and you’ll get to heaven.
But Jesus, I think, tried to show the pharisees that you can’t find your way to heaven from without but rather only from within.
Back then the pharisees would actually charge people money to forgive them of their sins. Thus these people actually held your everlasting fate in their very hands. Of course they were made to be very wealthy because of this.
No wonder they hated Jesus, he was getting in the way of their money making scheme! Jesus was a rebel and did not conform to the established religion of the time.
The pharisees wanted you to “Not Question God!!” and remain ignorant. Just do as you are told. So it appears to me that those who ended up following Jesus were those who thought for themselves, and saw something wrong with the established jewish religion at the time.
I’m of the same mind set. I look inward and question everything. I believe the kingdom of God is a state of consciousness and Jesus came to awaken people to change their consciousness.
Nice. This, I can really dive into. I devoted most of my life to studying to be a Biblical scholar before I decided to leave the faith.
Whatever else Jesus may have been (it’s likely he wasn’t anything, as there are no eyewitness accounts of his life and deeds, and the writings of Titus Flavius Josephus [himself a committed Orthodox Jew] that mention Jesus have been proven a forgery [I've got quotes and citations if you need them, but it would make this parenthetical a bit long and it's already a bit out of the scope of brevity]), he was an Orthodox Jew. He said himself that he came not to “abolish the law” but that the “law might be fulfilled” through him. He also said that “not one jot or tittle” of the law was to be ignored until the “heavens and earth pass away”.
Well, they believed in a literal translation of the Torah, yes. In the Rabbinic tradition, a Rabbi “binds and looses” the law. In this practice, he is determining his “yoke”. A yoke is the set of teachings about the law that you consider canonical as an authoritative voice (Rabbi). For instance, one Rabbi might say “keeping the Sabbath (Shabat) holy means you cannot push a button on the Sabbath”, while another will say “You can push buttons, but not use toggle switches”, etc.
Jesus said before he ascended that he’s given his followers that power of binding and loosing, so that “whatever you bind here on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”. He also said “my yoke is easy”, meaning that it’s not hard to abide by his teachings. But then again, he said “narrow is the gate” (that last one’s taken out of context a lot, it doesn’t mean that few people will be saved in the original language).
Sounds a bit wishy-washy and spiritualist coming from someone like you, but ok.
Well, there was no program in place like the Indulgences of the Catholic Church back then, but close enough. That whole debacle about when Jesus went ape shit in the temple was because they were making a handy profit from selling livestock for sacrifices (no doubt at a generous markup).
Well, at this time there were many Christs, and none were terribly popular with the authorities. They tended to be what someone like you might call hippies.
Since the priesthood would have been pretty much the only literate people (or at least scripturally-literate people) alive at the time, it wasn’t very hard for them to get away with it. You know that not one of the 12 disciples was literate?
Then we should probably agree about more than we do. If you’re so broad and loose with your beliefs about Christianity, why not just ditch the metaphysical mumbo jumbo altogether and admit that it’s really your human reason from whence you derive your morality?
Love to talk more on this if you’re inclined.
Then why differentiate between words and actions?
Are you saying that very often, what I type doesn’t match what I type?
roflmao:
:doh:
Fine, go around asking people if they would rather be called stupid or ignorant. I’m guessing most people wouldn’t be terribly fond of being called either.
How exactly do you define stupidity, Nash? Is a guy like me “stupid”, simply because I don’t agree with your assertions?
Now, I know stupidity is en vogue. Look at how the media criticized Obama for correctly pronouncing “Pakistan”. But just because being dumb is popular doesn’t mean it’s “right”, to use your favored parlance.
“Then we should probably agree about more than we do. If you’re so broad and loose with your beliefs about Christianity, why not just ditch the metaphysical mumbo jumbo altogether and admit that it’s really your human reason from whence you derive your morality?
Love to talk more on this if you’re inclined.”
Sure, but I’ve got to get some work done for the rest of the day lol.
We’ll pick it up later, but where? We can’t kill perks blog with this stuff. You are quite the windbag you know.
Perks enjoys reading what I write
“How exactly do you define stupidity, Nash?”
Stupid is usually born in people, and even with training and education, they will only get so far. They will always be stupid.
Ignorant is more of a situational thing. For instance, a NASA engineer in front of you in line that uses a credit card to pay for his $4 latte. Some people can be “book smart”, but not “people smart” or “street smart”. They may need to be educated in a few areas.
PrezBO is a good example of this…
Nash, that’s actually very true. For some reason, I think you articulated that point exceptionally nicely.
Now don’t let it get to your head man…
What’s wrong with paying for a $4 latte with a card? Some of us don’t carry cash. What’s the point? I have too many businesses, too many bank accounts…the check cards and plastic make it easier to track.
It’s inconsiderate. It takes longer to make a credit/debit transaction. It holds up the line. It shows that you can’t plan ahead. If you want a cup of coffee, planto have some cash on hand.
A Starbuck’s latte is not a major purchase, skippy.
But it’s always tax deductible.
Some people don’t give receipts with cash. It takes me no more time at all to make a credit card transaction that small. You don’t have to sign when it’s that small, so it’s exactly the same amount of time as handing the cashier a bill and having her put it in the drawer, make change, and hand it back to you. They all have broadband connections now. You hand the card, she swipes, hands it back with your receipt. Takes less time than making change FFS.
But again, cash is a pain in the ass. Even if I forget to get a receipt for a latte or a tank of gas or a sandwich, I can print the account records for tax purposes.
Nash has got to be a troll. No one can care this much about people using credit cards at Starbucks. This is the second time he’s derailed a comment thread with a complete non-sequitur (last was flag burning).
I think someone is having fun with us.
huh. I must live in a different universe…
I pay for EVERYTHING with a CC. Here are the reasons.
1) I cannot lose $200 if I don’t have any cash in my wallet. $50 at most in CC protections, and I only use major-brand banks, so they never charge you that anyway.
2) CC is faster at 90% of the places around here. I don’t have to sign for anything under $50, so its, swipe-go. How is that slower than, “let me see… I have a nickle here somwhere…”??
3) like V said, so much is tax-deductable.
4) budget tracking is easy when you have CC statements. And frankly, automatic with services like buxfer and mint.
5) money is fucking disgusting.
hell I paid for a 55 cent candy bar the other day with a CC.
Okay, how about this:
My uncle, who is a brilliant attorney, goes through vehicles every 3 years. He doesn’t take care of them. He doesn’t know anything about checking tire pressure, changing the oil, etc.
Another form of ignorance:
A doctor or firefighter that smokes cigarettes!
This morning, I’m replacing one of the solenoids in my SUV’s EVAP system.
But I know full well it’s a HUGE waste of my time. My time is worth a lot more than that fifty or sixty bucks an hour I would pay a mechanic to fix it. I’m doing it because I enjoy working on my cars.
More power to your uncle. Life is too short to do things that you don’t want to do.
A doctor who smokes is not ignorant. They are fully aware of the consequences of their habit. They are smoking for one of the many reasons anyone smokes, #1 being habit. And started because of any of the number of reasons, #1 being pressure (peer or personal).
You uncle is only ignorant if he feels it is important to know how to fix his own car and keep it maintained, but refuses to learn.
Stubborn (in the context of what we are talking about here) is refusing to even try to understand or embrace an alternative. Knowing that your fat, and knowing how to not be fat, but refusing to do anything about it.
Ingorance generally is a choice or belief, which goes against your understanding or common sense, and is based upon a simple misinformation. Like, thinking all black people are criminals.
Stupid is a character trait. You can be the educated person in the world, and still buy a lottery ticket. Or answering a cop when he asks “do you know why i pulled you over?” with anything other than “no”.
Dumb is uneducated or inexperienced. Someone with a PhD cannot be “generally dumb”. Maybe in some subjects they can be.
So to use me as an example.
I am stubborn. I am overweight and lazy. I know exactly how to fix it, but dont.
I am ignorant when it comes to scrapbooking for cats. Never want to change that either.
I am stupid when it comes to making choices about the toys i buy.
I am dumb regarding caring for plants. (i have a poison thumb).
But “ignorant” has to do with things that someone should know, but doesn’t .
You are not ignorant when it comes to scrapbooking for cats. You are uneducated (or uninterested).
I actually agree with you, from a personal point. But who am I to dictate what someone else SHOULD know, when they have no involvment with me. For example. I don’t have any say what some farmer in idaho should know.
A better example would be someone who refuses to listen to, and try to understand the studies showing environmental change is affecting our lives in a bad way. Warming, cooling, smog, whatever. Instead insisting, that it’s a normal cycle that happens every N-thousands of years, and that the industrial boom is “only coincidence” is ignorant. Hitting that upswing, in a claimed-to-be-normal 30k-years cycle, is quite frankly retarded. Go play the lottery if you believe it. Thats a HUGE cosmic hole in one.
If you HAVE read the studies and understand them, you are just stubborn in my opinion. If you refuse to even try, because you just know your right, or are afraid your beliefs might crash down your ignorant.
Make sense? Whether you agree with me on climate change is not for discussion, just the point about ignorance.
Another would be Religion. Most (not all, but most) main stream religious folks are ignorant. Not because they believe in whatever god they do, but because they refuse to explore or in many cases even acknowledge the options (different god, no god, a magic turtle, aliens, pixies and dragons). Their god is the 1-true-god and everyone else is crazy, generally is the party line. Ironically, the un-faithful, such as agnostics and athiests, do tend to explore and try to understand the beliefs of others. They may not be as versed, but they are certainly not as ignorant.
Ignorant means unaware.
A non-doctor who smokes would be ignorant, not a doctor.
The people that voted for PrezBO because they wanted to make history by electing the first “black” president (who’s actually bi-racial), and/or because they think that they’re “not going to have to worry about mortgage or car payments” (you’re heard the sound bytes) are stupid.
The people that think that PrezBO is WAY up above President Bush are just plain ignorant.
I would actually agree that people who voted for Obama because he is black are stupid. Not the other reasons you bolted on however.
I also think that people who voted for him, in spite of being black, “get it”. There are MANY people who “voted for the n*gg*r”, which of course makes your head hurt, until you realize the point. Those people were SO disillusioned with Bush, whom they most likely voted for both times, that they were willing to vote for a black guy. Something that they probably swore they would never do.
People who think Obama is above/better than bush, are not ignorant. Only if they don’t know why, would they be ignorant. Ignorance requires a lack of knowledge, not just a contrary belief to yours. Ignorance is a choice, and occurs on both sides. If you chose to not hear any of the good things, and only judge based on the bad, you are ignorant. Are there bad things? Of course. My knowledge of those things prevents me being labeled ignorant.
Holy smokes! I go on holiday for a few and look what happens! So much fun I missed!
The only response I have right at the moment is to Nash and Edgar re. folding the other thread: The discussion had LONG run it’s course and I closed it because I am trying to restructure and/where discussion runs in the blog. It is neither helping my SEO or being obvious and easy for new readers to figure out WTF is going on. This one has too. I need to figure out how to channel this into discussions that both stay on topic, but allow for free-form debate and argument as well. Haven’t done it yet, but I got a couple good ideas from SFNate this weekend, when I happened to see him in SoCal.
I’ll try to catch up later tonight or tomorrow.
@perk
I didn’t even think about you considering seo for a blog like this, that is to say a real blog lol.
I think the only way is to heavily moderate the discussions. Do you really want to spend the time to do that?
You need to have a section for pure “shit slingin’ ”
I guess you could demand that everyone stay on topic and if they appear to drift off topic they have to show how it ties in to the main topic – or delete the comment.
My two cents
I’m working through it E – because I’d like to have some things stay on target, but not just for SEO – also because the debate is important and SHOULD stay on target. SFNate made a suggestion this weekend, that things I find really important, it would be interesting if everyone who commented could only post/comment 3 times (in that thread) – pushing everyone to be very cognizant and thought out about what they wanted to say, where others could be free form shitslinging like we’ve become accustomed to LOL … I am thinking I’m going to have to do a pretty major rewrite of the way WordPress constructs output to do what I’m thinking about… but if it comes together, it might be pretty cool.
I don’t do SEO because I’m monetizing, but I’d like to be found if someone is interested in the debates we are on.
you could make a twitter type thing.
300 words. and you can’t repost for an hour.
Hmmm.
Sounds like Pery’s version of the “Censorship…” – er, the “Fairness Doctrine”..
Nothing said here makes you happy, huh Nash? You just want a space, hosted by someone else, where you can scream anything at any time for any reason… right? Perhaps you should invest in your own blog. Then you wouldn’t think that I’m “censoring you” by trying to keep discussions on track here. FFS.
BTW – do you even know what the Fairness Doctrine actually did? Or do you just believe your radio demi-gods that it is tantamount to right-wing censorship?
Yeah but the reason the fairness doctrine is bullshit is because it wrongly assumes there are only “two sides”, which there are not.
It’s just like Fox News saying it’s “fair and balanced”, because it presents “both sides” of the issue. As if there are only two sides. And as if you even have to present them…what happened to just reporting facts?
It’s just that false dichotomies are easier for the masses to handle than actually, you know, thinking for themselves.
Incorrect. The fairness doctrine was put together specifically to avoid the kind of media domination on a topic that we see today, with the kind of broad monopoly Rupert has on the AM band. It was created so that people with opposing voices could be heard and you could not, essentially, make a station that only told one side of the story repeatedly.
The problem with the notion of “reporting the facts” is that figures don’t lie, but liars figure. Ergo, what is reported as fact may be a manipulation of the essence of the issue. Natch, when people like Nash wants to say that old people are going to be euthanized as soon as Obama’s government option becomes reality. People with an agenda create a slant, and the fairness doctrine essentially said that station time must allow for people with a differing view to have time as well. It is the opposite of censorship – it is the legal protection of the virtual Speakers Corner.
The elimination of it by Reagan is exactly why we have the kind of airwave domination by right-wing dirtbags we see today.
Well, the arguments largely fall on two sides. What are the other sides?
For instance regarding abortion, death penalty, socialized health care, the iraq war, illegal immigration, affirmative action…what are the third and fourth sides to those issues?
Pretty much as far as I can see you are either for or against these things.
Give an example of the other sides?
Then hollywood should have to put out an equal number of movies that supports conservative values. And, musicians should have to make balanced albums that have 4 songs that support liberal ideas and 4 songs that support conservative ideas.
Want to be fair?
Let’s put sean hannity bill orielly on msnbc and fire a few liberals to make it more fair and balanced.
Who the fuck listens to AM radio besides the fringe on both ends? It’s like it’s not even there almost.
TV is dominated by liberal idealism and so are the movies that come out of hollywood. AM radio is such a small piece of the pie it ridiculous.
Do you know why conservative radio is big on AM? Because you can’t find conservative platforms like that on mainstream tv.
If we are going to be fair and DIVERSE then lets make sure that half of all college professors are conservative and fire the remaining liberals so that one single thought system doesn’t dominate the campuses.
Sounds good to me…the fairness doctrines. Let’s get them moving!
An incorrect analogy Edgar, because people can choose other movie theaters, they can choose other musical artists. Also, they are paying for content in a private agreement between them and the artist (forget the labels and all that crap just for now).
The airwaves are a PUBLIC utility. That means they are owned by all of us. If one person has a license to broadcast on this public utility, and dominates it, then the argument becomes that they have taken something from the commons and used it for their own agenda. That, in a strictly public utility space, is unfair and inappropriate.
Actually, the airwaves are a Government utility, “owned” by the FCC.
But, they are actually more “private”.
A broadcasting company pays for the equipment to broadcast on that frequency. You buy your own (private) radio to listen to that station.
Actuallym the movie analogy is correct, not only because of the above mentioned, but also because there is “pay radio” now. There are “news/talk” stations on Sirius.
It’s a free market. You are free to listen to whatever station you want to, or to turn the radio off. No one is forcing you to listen. Radio station owners format their stations to gain the most listeners. The government cannot tell them what to air, just what not to air, and so far, the only taboo there is obscenity.
Isn’t it interesting that the “left” has control of the cable TV news outlets – and they are all “package channels that everyone is forced to take if they want cable….
I think we all understand what V means though. There are all shades of gray on almost any issue. From your personal point of view, there is only 1 correct viewpoint of course. The job of a pundit is to point out options (in my opinion at least thats their job).
The one thing though that is dead-on is the fair-and-balanced issue. The news should be the NEWS. I don’t know when this changed, but I recently became aware of it when Cronkite died and they were playing old clips of him. The news was the news. His opinion, when he shared it, was HIS. Never claiming it to be the right one, and even sometimes pointing out it is the unpopular one like speaking against Vietnam policies. It’s disconcerting to watch the news and see sales pitches in everything, including murders.
“family of 8 brutally murdered in bed! Coming at 10, how to protect your family and some products to help you!”
@ Nuts – agree re. Cronkite. A true giant in the industry. And agree that we all understand what V is saying.
@ Nash – I have no argument with XM, Sirius or even streamed radio. Plenty to choose from – either no capability to monopolize or you’re paying to hear what you want. No argument *at all.*
But the AM & FM dial is FCC controlled airspace, meaning that it is the domain of the taxpayer. Although entities purchase licenses to broadcast on those airwaves, they should not be allowed to dominate the message – especially when they manage to eliminate all competition in an area for competing messages.
The “left” does not own the cable networks – that’s just a silly argument because not every station reports what Fox does. And the very existence of Faux Noise on the cable outlets eliminates the monopoly of ideas notion. But simply again, you purchase cable TV and the information does not flow on a public-supported or taxpayer based system – it’s on Cox’ (for example) wire. I purchase them, they come to my door with their information. And even then, I can watch Fox or MSNBC all I want. But here in Arizona, if you want to listen to progressive radio, you can’t.
You can’t find Ed Shultz on the radio in Arizona? What about “Doing time with Ron Kuby” ??
If the demand wasn’t there then conservative radio wouldn’t be there either. What about people who tune into their favorite station to listen to the baseball game? What if you cut their baseball time in half so you could fit in tennis time?
People would be pissed because they don’t tune into the radio to hear a bunch of shit, they want to listen to The Game!
Try to find a guy like Michael Savage on mainstream tv. The third largest talk show in America with millions of daily listeners. Why can’t you find a guy like him on TV?
You can’t. So where do you have to turn? The radio, AM radio at that. You can’t even find that kind of stuff on FM. It’s buried WAY beneath the earth somewhere on AM radio. Gimme a break!
Liberal talk radio is boring, that’s why it always fails. Hey, money makes the world go around…
I have noticed an awful lot of “hospital” shows on TV. Will the Fairness Doctrine balance that out with an equal number of law shows?
I hope not, because lawyers offend me.
Should this be moved to another thread??
Radio and TV has changed a lot since the FD was first introduced. George Carlin’s “Seven Words You Can’t Say On Television” has been reduced to five.
Some people confuse the FD with “Equal Time”. I had heard a lot of political commercials on local FM radio that were clearly one-sided. I e-mailed the Head Honcho and asked him about the Equal Time law, which applies to political candidates. He said that in a regular program, ET would apply, but it does not apply to paid announcements.
Thus, radio is commercial. Conservative talk radio flourished because it makes money. It makes money because it is popular. All someone has to do is start their own liberal talk radio show and shop it around. If no one will buy it, it is not the government’s place to make a broadcaster air it.
Now, if the US government wants to fund and operate their own radio station, then the FD would/could work.
Otherwise, commercial radio and TV stations are just that, and their content/programming should NEVER be dictated by the government.
Trying to supress the airwaves is the same as trying to supress the newspapers, which are commercially owned, and can slant the news any way that they want.
It is apparent that the FD support isn’t about fairness, it’s about supressing the conservative talk radio while, at the same time, increasing the ability to broadcast the liberal perspective. If AM talk radio was all liberal talk radio and the conservative talk was shut out, the liberals wouldn’t be crying “unfair” then.
actually. I would argue that conservative radio is popular, not because it is profitable. It is profitable only because people listen to it. So profit is just a by-product.
People listen to ConRadio because it is “safe” for them. There are no ideas that are uncomfortable. Rush will never get on the air and say, “Congratulations to the new happy gay couple in sometown for winning their case” or “Change is good”.
Conservative radio has a very simple tenet that it abides by.
“change is bad, fear of change is powerful”
Murders are not popular on the news because people are actually sad for the people killed, or angry at the murderer. They are popular news fodder because people are afraid it will happen to them and are projecting.
Conservative radio would die tomorrow if the water supply was drugged to make people more open to change.
Gee.
No chip on your shoulder…
Profit is not a “by-product”. Profit is the only reason people go into (the radio) business.
If it was profitable to play French Polka music, you can bet your bottom dollar that all the radio stations would be playing it.
No AM Talk Radio program is “safe”.
Apparently, Rush is always complaining, and the news he delivers is all bad. Does he ever have anything good or positive to say? Do you think that people puposely tune in to radio just to hear bad news?
Here in my neck of the woods, the morning guy is sickeningly “ProBama”, and, according to their website, after Boortz, then comes Rush, Shawn Hannity, and then Michael Savage. I know that Boortz is Libertarian, Rush is conservative, and I’ve heard enough bad press about Hannity that he must not be liberal, and I’m not sure about Savage. In any event, the majority of shows appears to be conservative. Apparently because it is profitable.
Murder stories are not “popular”. They are on the news for the same reason that the story about the baby born in the back of a cab is – it is relatively unusual, and serves as a public service that people need to be more aware.
Conservatives / Libertarians / Centrists are open to change.
We’re open to changing the makeup of Congress back to more “Progress”.
We’re open to changing the tax laws that allow corporations to bring business back to the US.
We’re open to changing the status of Al Qaeda, home and abroad.
We’re open to changing the status of the American Government’s involvement in private business.
That’s just a start, but that’s “Change We Can Believe In”!
Conservatives are the largest group in this country and they are LARGELY under represented. Put it this way, about half the country thinks like Rush or Michael Savage but you have to go down in the basement of AM radio to find them.
What’s up with that?
nash. no chip here.
Obviously profit is the only reason to go into business, duh. Your assertion was that conservative talk is so popular because it is profitable. I am merely continuing your “logic of obviousness” and pointing out that it is only profitable because of the listeners. And it has so many listeners because of how it panders to fear. Its the easy sell.
And Mexican (not french) polka music IS popular here. half the stations here play that shit. Every construction site sounds like a goddam circus tent from hell.
murder will always run before baby birth. Don’t pretend they have the same sell-power on TV.
If you watch the news (actual news, not today show type talkshows), the order is very simple to follow and is almost always:
World Catastrophe
Local Catastrophe
World business news
Local local business news
World Politics
Local Politcs
Feel Good
They always leave with feel good because, the least number of viewers are watching at the end, and is why they don’t care if they bore them. The other reason, which is my own idea but somewhat true non-the-less, is that they need to let you down slowly after beating the ever loving hell out of your soul for the past 30-60 mins.
@edgar. under-represented, i would agree, but not that they are the largest. The problem is that all the groups are fracturing. There is no real “conservative party” or “liberal” or “democrat” or “republican”. The facade is being kept up, but frankly, its just an illusion. We, as a people, have become a parliamentary society, even though our government has not yet caught on. I think they are all misrepresented, some under, some over, and some just plain badly.
@donkey
I agree that there are more divisions now and perhaps that’s what vsloathe meant. To try to lump the varying degrees of liberals and conservatives into two parties is not really working.
However, it’s true that the demographic that identifies itself as conservative is the largest.
I diagree with the assumption you make about conservative radio being popular because they pander to fear. That’s just wishful thinking.
As far as cable news goes, Fox get’s one and a half times more viewers than cnn and msnbc combined, and they are the only cable news network that leans right.
I wish colmes was still on the air with hannity because I loved watching them go at it. I don’t really watch much tv these days but when I do I like to catch Special Report because of the panel at the end. They have some interesting commentators like Charles Krouthammer (sp?) and Juan Williams to keep it balanced. I think Juan Williams is a reasonable voice for the other side and he does a good job playing the reasonable liberal on Fox.
I think Rush is pretty good usually, I like my local guy Howie Carr a lot, and Michael Savage is excellent as I like his style.
For liberal radio I sometimes catch Ed Shultz and Ron Kuby.
Wow… Good to see the whole family is still here.
The left is still stretching into the realms of fantasy while the right is trying so hard to help them keep there feet on the ground.
I think a poll should be done to see how many voters, who voted Obama, now feel like it was horrible mistake.
I think the country feels much like a man who drank to much the night before and wakes up with a fat ugly chic in bed….
Well I disagree with the assumption you make about conservative radio not using fear to promote its agenda. That’s just wishful thinking.
See, I can dismiss anything you say without a second thought too. That doesn’t mean it’s helpful to the discussion.
The right is authoritarian. Authoritarians need a bogeyman and a scapegoat to keep the population in line. How else would the right keep the lowest portion of the middle class consistently voting against its own interests?
Yes, that’s right Trent. If you keep saying it, it might become more true! Religions have known this for years.
LOL so correct VS – just say it loud and long enough and it can become strong enough to move the bar. Natch, the Birthers. Punk’d, discredited, disgraced, even called loony by Ann Coulter – but they persist, knowing that they can create problems.
And that’s the deal: create problems. Don’t solve anything, don’t even make policy or try to make things better for the people, just make Obama fail. Say the lies loud enough and it will cause him trouble.
Horrible.
The left blames all of the nation’s problems on the right and panders to the largest voting base for the sole purpose of gaining and maintaining power.
Do you honestly think that PrezBO gives a flying damn about your problems?
Actually, yes. I’d lay odds that PrezBO has way more of the common-man’s interest at heart than GWB (certainly) but more than PrezDaddy and Raygun as well.
@Vsloathe
“See, I can dismiss anything you say without a second thought too. That doesn’t mean it’s helpful to the discussion.”
I listen to AM radio so that qualifies me to speak for myslelf, as an AM conservative radio listener. I don’t listen due to fear mongering or anything to do with fear.
The whole idea of fear in this regard is just ridiculous, barely worth commenting on. It’s just silly to reasonably think that FEAR sells the radio time. Just plain silly.
I can say that. I actually LISTEN to AM radio. I am one of those people you are assuming is being pandered to with fear. You assumption is untrue and if you really seek any understanding you would look beyond this strange fear fantasy.
Obama’s poll ratings have gone WAY WAY down! I checked a few of them today even though I don’t have much faith in polls. Only about %32 percent strongly approve of president Obama’s performance. That’s WAY down.
That’s because he’s dissin the bluedogs I think. He’s beginning to alienate the less radical wing of the democrat party. The economy is still way in the tank even though the first and second stimulus plans were passed. Terrible!
I think a lot of democrats are starting to regret the whole Obama situation, not that they would have voted for mccain though.
It also looks like the healthcare reform issue is starting to ignite grassroots awareness and demonstration. He’s going to be a one termer unless the republicans nominate a total asshole.
Obama has basically expanded Bush’s policies and people DON’T like it.
It depends largely on what polls you look at.
The most reputable polls I see say that people who voted for him approve in large measure. Those that didn’t, don’t. There is also a phenomenal amount of noise from the right on the health care and financial situation, it’s hardly a surprise that ratings have flattened. I speculate that it’ll be strong again once he puts the righties down and executes his agenda.
One can hope anyway
They’ve got articles at msnbc.com that are talking about how much his approval is slipping http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28208787/ns/white_house.
There are actually quite a few news stories on it today across the board. The polls, according to the stories I read today on msnbc, cnn and about 3 popular pollsters, said that pretty much every demographic is growing in disapproval re obama’s job performance.
Blacks are the only group that haven’t budged. The far left aren’t happy because he’s avoided the Single Payer fight and ‘pandered’ to bipartisanship. That’s the biggie but not to mention the general perception that Obama has done nothing but expand on Bush’s policies! Horror of horrors! LMAO!!!
The not so left Dems are a bit pissed at Obama for this whole healthcare thing. You know, those bluedogs.
The centerists think he’s trying unwisely to do too much too quick.
The folks on the right still don’t approve as one might have guessed anyway.
His approval ratings are between 50 percent and 56 percent. Honeymoon is OVER. Except for blacks, they love obama no matter what he does for some reason. I can’t understand why that one particular group is just hunky-dory with everything he does?
What is the logical reasoning for 70 percent of blacks to still strongly approve of Obama’s job performance? 70 percent? That’s more than double even the far left liberal approval rating!
Perhaps they are just behind ‘a brother’ and that’s it. Perhaps is purely racially motivated, in that demographic.
At any rate, Obama is getting beaten from pillar to post and is sinking like a led balloon as keith moon once said.
I cannot imagine a more horrific job than his. Miserable. There is no success or gratitude, no matter which direction you go – unless the country magically gets rich, in which case at least (your side) will claim that it’s your doing and you’ll be popular.
We’re only 200 days in – lets see what’s up in 2 years when things have really had a chance to be significant.
Even CNN – which, I’m sure we all agree is further left tha right – show’s that PrezBO’s grade for the 2nd 100 days has slipped from his first 100 days.
Only 18% now give him an “A+”, where 33% gave him an “A+” on his first 100 days.
30% of those polled now give him an “F”, compared to 25% for the first 100 days.
C’mon, Perky –
Are you trying to tell me that, as “educated” as you claim to be, you are still expecting PrezBO to wave his magic wand and make SSM legal, eliminate health insurance companies, disarm Iran and South Korea, end the War on Terror, and fix the economy in 2 short years?
Do you also think that, because of him, you’ll “never have to worry about my mortgage or car payments” anymore?
YOU fell for the hype??
First off, you’re laughable with your “educated” bit. Don’t worry, no offense taken, given the source of the insult.
Second, who in the world ever said anything about any of the crap you just mentioned? I expect him to do his best working with Congress to try to get us real health care reform. I expect him to do his best to repair the damage the GWB did to our international reputation during his tenure. I expect him to try to bring a semblance of respect for the Constitution back. I expect him to face real threats head on and to not to sacrifice our best and brightest on a fools errand in a foreign land. He has a lot to do, but no more than he signed up for and what I hired him for.
And since you clearly failed civics and/or polisci, he has 4 years to give it his best shot, not 2. And if he’s reasonable at it, he’ll get another 4. I figure that it’ll take at least 2-3 before we’ll see any real result or lack thereof from his efforts.
Perfect example of my “ignorant” analogy…
All of those things you mentioned are real tasks for all presidents. What makes you think he’s any better at it than anyone else?
If you were paying any attention, you’d notice that my “2 year” statement has nothing to do with a presidential term. It has to do with the “timetable” that you mentioned in post #109.
roflmao: I’m ignorant, huh?
Well, I guess since name calling is about the only thing you’ve got left in your quiver, I understand your frustration. I’m pretty certain that you don’t read things, just look for keywords that you want to use in another post… kind of like a little kid that doesn’t really listen, he just is waiting for other people to stop talking so that he can talk again.
The current sea of angry malcontents, screaming loudly for their right to be dominated by the insurance companies must be really comforting to you.
@Perk regarding Obama undoing GWB damage.
He has actually been accused of expanding on Bush’s policies by his own party!
For instance Bush (closet liberal I think) started this whole socialization thing by bailing out the fat cats which Obama has continued to expand on.
Bush used the surge in Iraq to bring real closure to the war (despite obama’s criticism of the surge tactic) and now we are STILL in Iraq 200 days into Obama’s presidency. Further he took the bush idea of the surge (which was roundly condemned to fail, which it didn’t) and has applied the same strategy to afghanistan.
So Obama is in line with bush on the bailouts and the war, if not by word then by actions.
Bush and the Patriot act, oh boy. Obama has again followed the Bush trail on this one too.
Bush was behind the missle defense system to be placed in eastern europe, and obama is still on course in much the same way.
Bush didn’t speak one on one with Iran or NK and neither has Obama.
Obama has also done nothing (like bush) to secure the boarders.
The only thing that makes Obama different and more interesting than Bush is Joe Biden. I get a BIG kick out of Joe. He’s just an awesome gaff machine. Love him!
It’s just more of the same, no CHANGE.
I thought that PrezBO said that he was not going to run a “negative” campaign. What did he do during the last few months? Slam McCain. That’s it.
You want to talk “fear mongering”? PrezBO’s whole platform was the fact that he’s not Bush, and then he tried to portray McCain as “another Bush”.
The only reasons he was elected was that he’s not white, and he scared people into believing that Bush is bad.
Taller than the average white guy!
Passing bills faster than anyone can read them!
Spending money like a crack head that won the lottery, it’s….
SuperPrez!
Smashing down our troubled economy with a single hand! ‘smash’ ‘kaboom’
Building up relations with nations who hate us because of who we are! ‘zow’ ‘baam’
Growing our goverment larger and larger making communism look good!! ‘zow’ ‘blam’
He is unstoppable!!!
but wait… whats this….
NOOOOOOO!!
it’s his arch enemy, ‘Reality’
Reality is setting in quick!
delivering his devestating blows.
a left…aright…
it’s over…it’s all over…
superprez loses!!!
dont blame me… I voted McCain!!
Me too! 8)
@Trent
That reminded me of when Cassius Clay used to recite his poems before his fights. The most famous one being before the Liston fight.
While it’s true that it’s only been 8 months since president obama has been in office, it’s just incredibly ironic how in line he is with Bush.
Maybe the black helicopter people are right after all? You know, all those crazies who think there is no democrat or republican party. The crazies that think it’s all a big sham and other people are pulling the strings. You know the type I’m talking about.
Maybe it’s true. Bush was supposedly WAY on the right and obama was supposedly WAY on the left but look at what’s really happening. Obama is going along just like bush was. Sure there are some superficial differences but that’s it. The rhetoric is different but the course of action is the same.
The one big elephant in the room of course is the healthcare overhaul but I wouldn’t put that past Bush. If Bush had another 4 years I think he would have embarked down the same healthcare road.
If I were Obama I would have pulled the troops from Iraq asap and killed the patriot act asap. That would keep the base happy and would have delivered on the promises made.
See, after that presBO would have been negotiating his healthcare reform from a much stronger position. Right now the president is trying to sell this healthcare thing right after a few stimulus bills. Not good politically.
He should have taken the troops home and told the american people, “Now with the money we are no longer spending in Iraq, we can start to reform health care”
It would have been much better for him both politically and pragmatically.
yes all true edgar.
I think obama is trying hard not to make the mistakes of his predecessors. Wich, in its on volition, is probably wise. I just think the way he is going about it is very… inexperienced.
He spends a shit load of money with no thought on how we might pay it back.
I know he made a promise not to raise taxes, but i think it’s silly to ‘stick to your guns’ when your talking about being fiscally responsible.
He doesn’t want to lose popularity by going back on his word like GB senior.
On the other hand, he left himself no real way to pay back an enormous ammount of money, while STILL trying to spend even another ass load of money on health care.
Instead of trying to keep popularity he should do whats best for the country, not his popularity. I think this might have been a factor in why McCain didnt promise alot of rediculous ‘change’.
I think this type of job was probably best suited for someone like Romney. He gets in, does what he knows NEEDS to be done regardless of his own popularity, and gets out, never intending on a second term. Thats sort of romneys m.o.
(hope he runs in 2012, although it’ll be a tough choice between him or palin)
I think the money would have been better spent giving easy grants for small buisness across the U.S.
If it was easy to get a buisness grant small buisness would flourish across the country creating jobs AND revenue in taxes. THEN you could attack health care at the same time knowing there would be at least a little of that money coming back. I dont know…maybe incourage insurance benifits we these grants. alot more people would get coverage.
I suppose as long as were on the subject of where to save money… it might be wise to address the ILLEGAL immigrant problem.
Send em’ back home packin.
Creates more Citizen jobs for the us and it’s LEGAL immigrants. Maybe make it mandatory for everyone to speak english for the incoming immigrants.
Other countries like sweden make it mandatory you learn there language when coming in. (boy would that shorten the lines at the dmv)
All these little things effect the big budget. The amount of money thats spent on all the little things gets lost because we’re to busy looking for 1 BIG fix instead of fixing all the little things.
If SuperPrez wants to be succesful he’s going to want to address all the little things. Stop wasting his time trying to court all of our enemies, and appease all his hidden financial backers.
Romney,Palin 2012!!!
It’s just….common sense!!
:popcorn:
I think it’s really interesting that people are more concerned his political leanings than him doing the right thing (like Perky).
Anyone wonder why he’s not going the polar opposite route from Bush? Maybe it’s because Bush was on the right track!
This whole “change” crap angered me because he was focusing on things that didn’t need changing (war on terror, health care), and ignoring the things that do (the deficit, gangs, cost of living).
Good point about illegal immigration Trent. Bush and Obama are on the same page once again, and mccain too for that matter.
@Nash
The “change” slogan was just a slogan. When these guys run for president they have a group of advisors and analysts who study how people react to the latest speech or debate. They look for certain words that seem to resonate well with people and strategically use those words over and over.
That’s how I think the “change” slogan came to be. Why so many people fell for the empty rhetoric I will never know.
If Obama get his healthcare proposal passed then that will be a taste the change he was selling but I doubt it will happen the way he wants now.
I think obama wants single payer but he’s trying to go about it in a sneaky way. People are starting to get the drift of what he’s trying to do and they are not happy about it.
With the 2010 elections coming up I don’t think obama is going to have the kind of momentum he needs to affect the change he was selling.
I don’t have much time at the moment to deal with all of this horsepoop, but one thing stood out from Nash immediately: “people are more concerned about his political leanings than him doing the right thing (like Perky)” … you’re so insanely wrong and deluded it’s not even funny.
It’s profoundly clear that you live in a tiny little bubble and have neither empathy or understanding for anything other than yourself and the way that you see the world. As do the vast majority of the current right wing, which looks nothing like the conservatives of old. You and your ilk have simply rationalized your selfishness – you have not centered on any kind of conservative philosophy. It is simply astounding to me, that you’d come to a private place of political discourse, where you are allowed to say whatever you want to say (within reason), are given pearls of data that you can research and get smarter, yet at that very forum you would proclaim that I don’t want to do the right thing. Do you even understand what America is about? Do you even get why this blog exists? Do you ever even try to understand what people of another opinion are saying, or do you simply read past their words, in a hurry to spout your crap yet again?
I am also deeply tired of you trying, over and over again, to take the moral high road with “the right thing” and “common sense” (Trent falls into this one as well). However, this just repeatedly validates what I am saying: that you view the world simplistically through the prism your own perspective, without care, understanding or empathy for any other perspective. This is the largest failing of the right wing, particularly one that would call themselves Christian or morally on higher ground. It is the largest fallacy and hypocrisy of your positions. You should try understanding the bible. Or the Torah. Or the Koran. or the writings of the Dalai Lama. Or hell, start simply with American transcendentalists, like Emerson. I think you would find that your righteous self interest just doesn’t fit in a world that has any notion of people other than YOU.
@ Change: it is true that all campaigns are rife with rhetoric. But a changing attitude is working it’s way, slowly but surely. The problem is not the lack of message, its the fact that the loyal opposition will do ANYTHING, not short even of harming our country and people, just to have him fail. Your heros, newscasters, politicians and pundits have all said so: you want him to fail no matter what. This is what is so disgusting to me: to allow him or the country to fail for your club called neoconservatism is horrible, near on treasonous. It is the very opposite of everything that we as a country should stand for.
@ healthcare: the major problem with healthcare is that PBO will not be able to satisfy anyone. It will not be far enough liberal, it will introduce government options which will piss off the looney right, it’s just a real problem. IMO he needs to get something significant done so that we can move towards a single payer system and eliminate the stranglehold that the insurance companies have on us and our lives. Lawyers need to be next.
Perk-
before we go any further… we need to bring perk back down to the ground where the rest of us stand.
do you or do you not approve of prezy’s spending habits?
LOL @ back to the ground: Trent, if Nash stepped out of his high-and-mighty position for half a moment and perceived his position from the perspective of others, I believe he’d be quite embarrassed. You boys are not standing on the ground and I’m the one being all wild and crazy. The positions are extreme and contrary to my political philosophy, spiritual alignment and personal sense of right and wrong. It is absolutely appropriate that I meet the bombast with what it is due.
Now, to PrezBO: I am disappointed that he is not more liberal, but this is not unexpected. If we wanted someone really progressive we should have hired Frodo, I mean Kucinich, instead. I think he’s doing an excellent job trying to navigate an extraordinarily difficult time. The righties are louder and more out of hand than anything I’ve ever seen (and I have enough years under me to have seen a lot). The recent equilibration of Barack to Hitler is just mind boggling, because it points to how flat out ignorant our people are about what is actually going on, and what Hitler was really about. He’s a bogeyman with a really bad name so the right just wants to hang that on PBO’s head. The worst part, is that people in the US seem to hear it and believe it.
@Spending habits: I do. First, because if you look at the numbers, job loss is down, spending is up, consumer confidence inched up slightly, housing starts and mortgage starts are up, car sales are up … if we’re going to go into debt for something, all of those things I can get behind. I’d ask you this simple question: since part of the reason the budget now looks so bad is that Obama had the guts to put GWB’s war on them (you do remember, don’t you, that the Iraq war has been “specially accounted” so that it is not part of the budget? So about 11BB per month has been floating out of the country without us really seeing the numbers?) I cannot get behind going into debt to kill people for the sake of our oil companies.
Similarly, if “health care reform” essentially means another way to put money into the pockets of insurance companies, I will be front and center against it. I am ABSOLUTELY about health care for the people, not more profit for the insurance industry. Which, to my way of thinking, is simply legalized craps and that house ALWAYS wins.
Having owned as many businesses as I have and having been reasonably successful in life, I can tell you with equivocation that it takes money to make money. We see AIG making a profit last quarter and they returned 6.4BB of the money that they borrowed from us. Do I see the investment we made as good? YES. The country is rebounding, lots of businesses did not go under (which, if you want to see a free fall, let AIG, GM, BofA and the like fail. Anarchy does not even describe what will happen).
Yell, scream, call him Hitler, say he’s destroying our country: but his motivations are to keep people working, to give them health care and to improve the perception of other countries about us again, so that if another situation like 9/11 were to occur, we could ask for help from our allies, rather than pushing every country that has meant anything to us in the past away. This costs money.
In the name of peace, health care and a revitalized economy (ie, success of our nation) I support the spending 100%.
@ Whoops, mistyped sentence: should be, that PBO had the guts to put the Iraq war on the books, not his guts LOL
@Perk
About the whole hitler and obama thing. The left was calling bush hitler all the time, and I mean all the time. That was also unjustified fear mongering don’t you think? Come on now, you talk about trying to see things from the ‘other side’ (re:nash) so let’s start now.
Let’s all take a big step forward together and admit that the left called bush hitler and the right called obama hitler and it’s just not applicable.
Let’s meet on some common ground somewhere and leave the truly silly partisanship behind.
Where is the change? What did obama change? I still say that he is following in Bush’s footsteps and that’s not ok for me. You might be surprised to hear me say that Bush was not my man but listen to me…
Bush was a closet liberal! Don’t tell me he wasn’t because he definitely was. The whole bailout thing, the immigration thing, the dubai ports scandal. He’s a liberal. Not TOO liberal but not a conservative either.
Obama and Bush are both just lukewarm, watered down centerists. Working pragmatically within the scope of their party but not holding on to any real principles imo.
You are hiding it pretty well perk but I bet you are STEAMING mad about how non liberal obama is in some respects.
@ Hitler: I disagree – I never saw a poster with Bush and an Adolph mustache (although I will concede that there probably was one somewhere).
I personally have said that we have become a corporatocracy and fascist as a country (which, to a great degree we have been and still are) but have not said Bush was Hitler. (Note also that people associate “fascist” with death camps – this is inaccurate. You probably know this Edgar, but Trent and Nash should go see the definition of Fascism. Although I stray from it normally, Wikipedia has done a nice job with this particular topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
And it is fair to say that Bush leaned more towards the dictatorial and monarchic rather than democratic, with his hard pushes to increase executive privilege and capability, limit executive oversite and even his statement back in the early days of his presidency – “A dictatorship would be a lot easier. So long as the dictator was me.” Bush and Cheney *really* worked hard to do exactly what they wanted to without Congressional oversite or control or judicial assessment of their actions. Frankly, that’s why they’ve got the trouble that is brewing now – many people believe that they drastically overstepped the bounds of what the Executive branch is Constitutionally allowed.
The personal attacks right now are being specifically used to paint PBO with the worst parts of Hitler natch: Obama is like Hitler because he wants to kill off old people and children like Palin’s baby?” Are you kidding me? Can we not agree that those assertions are simply horrible and inaccurate bombast? And fundamentally different than what I assert the Bush administration was up to?
And let’s at least put things on a balanced scale: Bush took us into a war on false premise, which caused the death of more than 5000 of our service men and 500,000 Iraquis – the majority of which, most certainly just innocent collateral damage. Obama wants to insure every human in our country so they have health care. Would you really put the two on equal footing? Or equate PBO for that sort of behavior?
@ Change – Edgar, please. At the very least we can look back on what Bush did and say it took 8 years. To really assume that change would be here and done in the first 6 months of a presidency is just silly. Obama is going to succeed and fail, succeed and fail many times over the next many years. Hopefully he’ll have 8. Then we can see if he made good on his promises. But to say “See! There’s no change!” at this point is just a distraction.
@ non-liberal: well, steaming mad would mean that I had expectation that he was that liberal. I would have liked to imagine it, but throughout the campaigns it became obvious that he is more centrist than liberal and that is frustrating to me, but again, hardly unexpected. Where I am steaming mad is that he is playing the middle and laying down as if he is far left – FFS, the right just won’t let him have any peace at all and he seems to sit quiet in bipartisan contemplation. I think ALL of the Dems need to grow a pair and work to move the center bar of our political theater back to the middle, rather than letting the loonies keep it pegged so far to the right.
I’d like nothing more than for the Dems to throw back at the Repubs what they’ve been taking for the last 8 years. The problem is that Live And Let Live and By Thy Brother’s Keeper just doesn’t play as well as “That person is the reason for your lot in life” and “That person is evil and wants to kill old people.” Worked well for Goebbels, Newt and his cronies have learned well.
“We see AIG making a profit last quarter and they returned 6.4BB of the money that they borrowed from us. Do I see the investment we made as good? YES. The country is rebounding, lots of businesses did not go under”
Thank god for GWB.first time i see you admitting you are happy with what GWB has done. Congrats Perk… your finally coming around.
Perk feb 20th
“Our government needs careful and vigilant oversite. We should not spend or waste any more money than we absolutely have to … but we need to get back to the essence of why we have a government in the first place.”
And now look. Over spent for the next decade (or two)
I wonder wich president will inherit not only losing wars in the middle east, but a horribly depressed economy, a massive deficit, health care wildy run amuck and out of control (probably and most likely causing way more trouble than anyone can possibly imagine), illegal immigration probably reaching all time highs….
THIS is the road we are on. THIS is what you support. THIS is the change you wanted so badly.
Going forward with our country is much like driving a car where as the windshield has been blackend, so that you cannot see through it, the side windows have been tinted very dark, making it VERY hard to see much at all, and the rear window is the only clear view we have.
GWB may have taken us off roading and got us lost, But Obama has the wheel now and his soloution is’nt to change direction… but rather to put his pedal to the floor to see what this baby can do.
He is not helping anything.
That does not mean his intentions arnt that of a good nature…(although who really knows) but great countrys arnt built on good intentions perk.
I’ve read some sniits of you guys bickering like ladies about whos smarter and this and that. I kindly remind you that this country has gone up AND down, in the in the hands of brilliant men. LOTS of brilliant men, watching over lots of other brilliant men.
One man does not rule this country like a monarchy. If there are bills that pass that are not good for the country,then there are supposed to be other brilliant good men (and women) to make sure they do not pass. all this arguing about left and right. I’m really starting to think that there is no such thing. It’s either good for the country or bad.
Right now the things that are being passed (bailouts, big spending) they are BAD.
this is common sense.
(espeacially for someone who prides himself on the fact that he has had success in buisness ownership. I’d think you be more of a capitalist)
@@ Hitler: I disagree – I never saw a poster with Bush and an Adolph mustache (although I will concede that there probably was one somewhere).
The left was calling him Bushhitler all the time. There was more than just one picture of bush with a hitler mustache out there somewhere. Just google Bush Hitler and you’ll see.
Google bush hitler and you’ll see the image results, tons of suggestions related to the search and tons of left wing rhetoric from between 2003 to 2008.
TONS OF IT.
You’ll find all the loony lefties with their little bush hating blogs but you will also find the main stream media with examples of bush hitler comparisons. Lots and lots and lots of it. Mustache and everything.
So if I understand you correctly you think the left didn’t really attack bush with the hitler comparisons like the right is doing to obama. So disagree with my earlier statement.
That to me is unreasonable. The left clearly, loudly and unanimously vilified bush and made egregious comparisons to hitler all the time.
Now I’m not going to cast judgment on the left for doing that but at the same time it can’t be denied truthfully. I mean, you can dance around it and try not to admit it but that doesn’t change anything really.
It just makes YOU seem unreasonable. You want to know why people like Nash (I probably shouldn’t speak for nash but…) don’t read the little “Golden Nuggets of Data” that you provide?
It’s because you come across as completely unreasonable. A fanatic.
Why is this blog here? Is it just for you and your buds to fist bump and hoot and holler about conservatives?
I think not. I think this blog is here because you really want honest debate and the uncovering of the truth. A path to some kind of enlightenment even for just a few. Am I wrong?
But how are you ever going to get anyone to listen to you if you seem unreasonable and fanatical? If you just want to have your friends read your blog posts and give you a high five then that’s one thing.
But, Perk, if you really want to engage the other side you need to appear reasonable. I’m not saying you need to pretend to compromise your principles just to be more persuasive.
But you should be able to admit that the left was ALL OVER bush/hitler and that it was wrong, just like it is now to compare Obama to Hitler.
You need to appear at least reasonable in order to get the other side to listen. And you need the other side to listen in order to affect some kind of change.
In order to get the other side to listen you need to create an environment where the other side wants to be receptive to your ideas. Think about it.
@ GWB and AIG – It’s funny how one of the few things he did that were good for the country was to socialize a business. “Against all my better judgement” he said. Hmmm. It would seem that since capitalism failed us, government intervention was the only way to fix it. Curious, huh. That must really piss you off.
@ change I wanted – will you please stop it. The first change I wanted I got: the elimination of the Republican administration and a Democrat in office. Now whether he shows himself to be progressive or liberal is an entirely different story. But FFS Edgar, if we weighed all of GWB’s presidency on his first little bit, all there’d be is that he let us take the largest continental terrorist attack in our history… when he was forewarned and did nothing about it. Then, when alerted that we were under attack, he sat and read My Pet Goat to a bunch of elementary kids. Well done.
@ he is not helping anything – you and I must clearly live in a different universe. If you don’t see anything getting better, I feel sorry for you. My clients, my stocks, my savings, general attitudes all map the same: things have probably bottomed out and are beginning their long slow climb. Now whether this is in direct relationship to his stimulus or it is simply that people feel better having him in as president, that, history will need to tell – but the road we are on is WAY Better than the road we were on with GWB. Even you must admit that.
@ bailouts = bad: What, exactly would you suggest? Let the largest corporations in America fail? Either you can’t see the potential calamity of the failure of those businesses, or really ARE a fascist if that’s the way you think. Survival of the economic fittest? Sorry man. The Constitution *specifically* spells out peace, tranquility, general welfare – not get what you can and get out. The more I read you, the more you actually fit the description at Wikipedia. That’s too bad, but unfortunately typical lately.
@ Hitler: Then let’s just go here: Bush deserved what he got, both in PR and infamy. It is no surprise that he is one of the most loathed presidents that we’ve ever had. Let Obama make his bed and we’ll see what he gets as well. All presidents get to be judged on their performance, not prejudged on your armchair quarterback notions of what is “Common Sense.”
@ Me a fanatic, me unreasonable: Really? So you read back on this thread and see me as unreasonable? “If I want to address the other side then you need to appear reasonable…” now that’s the laugh. I want healthcare for everyone, your side sees that as immoral or evil. I don’t support a man that took us to war on a lie and you’d call me un-patriotic. I support our people via bailouts that, although they will cost me and my kids money, will help our country get on square footing again. You’d prefer to have it all fail and let God sort them out.
And I’m the one that’s unreasonable.
I don’t need to “appear” reasonable at all. I’m quite reasonable, and when people actually listen or debate questions, there is honest, earnest learning. The right wing has no desire AT ALL to be reasonable – it is their way or the highway. The only ones that have been reasonable have been the Dems, and they are paying for it in dissatisfaction polling. Your notion of “reasonable” is what is to be questioned.
Your statement, “in order to get the other side to listen…” means that I need to be another brainwasher, like Fox. It is actually YOUR responsibility to listen and learn, not mine to convince you. The nature of intellect is for you to be open minded and evolve … not to have new ideas shoved at you until you “get them.” However, that does fit the current picture of selfishness from the right – it’s all about you. “Come convince me. You need to modify your way so that I’ll listen.” Bah.
If facts about the current state of affairs are not convincing enough then there is no discussion. If you cannot empathize others’ positions or perceive the world from any perspective other than your own, there is no discussion.
PrezBO is a hypocrite.
His campaign specch was all about balancing the budget, reigning in spending, etc., and what does he do?
First his “spendulous” package is basically speding $1000 just to make $1.
Then, he supports bailout/government takeover of the banking and auto industries. Mo Money.
Some will say that he is “getting results”, but at what price? He’s spending worse than the congressional republicans that he complained about!
As for AIG and the auto industry –
let ‘em fail! It’s it the government’s job to prop up every business venture that fails?
All that Ford and GM need to do is get rid of those damn unions, and then that could afford to produce cars that can compete with the imports.
“Balanced scale” my Aunt Fanny.
That statement is more slanted than the Continental Shelf.
So, to actually balance the statements…
War is war. Period. We all acted on the best info that we had at the time, we liberated an opressed country while ridding the world of an evil dictator. Currently, the US Armed Forces is a volunteer force, and the overwhelming majority of those serving in those forces proudly support the coalition effort. PrezBO supported the troop surge and saw its results.
The war has not gone perfectly. No war has. However, the current results are better than if we had done nothing.
And, the only thing that PrezBO is “insuring” is that the government will take over your health care. Sure, I would love to pay less premiums and not be dropped when I need it most. However, I see no guarentee that the government’s plan is going to solve that problem. I actually see government bureaucrats deciding when and if I am supposed to have certain procedures done. I also see the elimination of choice.
I’m starting get get worried about your self image Nash. You’ve used the word “hypocrite” to describe others so many times now that I think you may be projecting. But that’s for another time.
I cannot comment on your first part, because it’s just so untrue on silly that it does not warrant comment. You need to look at facts and what is actually happening, not what the noise makers are saying. The facts are all around you. “Let em’ fail.” Your lack of compassion or understanding is breathtaking.
Now, at “War is war.” You are an “End justifies the means” kind of guy, that much is certain. I am not. Just because the troops support what they are told to do, does not make it the right thing to do. I would expect no less from the absolutely fine men and women that populate our armed services. But the civilian leadership has a responsibility to NOT put them in harms way unless absolutely necessary – and war in Iraq was not necessary. History has proven this time and time again, there’s no need to go on here.
You are a curious dichotomy Nash. You have no compassion or empathy for our businesses or our people – yet you seem overjoyed that we are rebuilding Iraq. Are you actually American? Do you not see the problem here? Or is it that only feel that SOME life is sacred? Why is it that you are so pleased to try to pump up “American Security” by building schools and providing healthcare in Iraq, but are not only unwilling, but loathe to do the same here?
@Perk
“Me a fanatic, me unreasonable: Really? So you read back on this thread and see me as unreasonable? “If I want to address the other side then you need to appear reasonable…” now that’s the laugh. I want healthcare for everyone, your side sees that as immoral or evil.”
In your haste you have missed the point. You don’t understand.
It is not your take on the issues that appears unreasonable to me. It’s not that you are for healthcare, it’ not that you were against the war, it’s not that you support the bailouts.
You have misdirected my criticism.
What happens when you come to a debate with an open mind and the other side appears to be totally unreasonable? Your mind no longer wants to stay open.
I’m just saying that if you appear to be unreasonable no one will listen.
Now I understand the vsloathe and NB will say that you are reasonable and I’m just being difficult. Fine.
But they are not the ones you are trying to persuade to see things your way. It’s me, nash and trent who you are trying to convince.
So what is it exactly that makes you appear unreasonable to me? The hitler thing. You complain bitterly that Obama is being compared to hitler but you first deny that Bush was compared to Hitler roundly. Then you justify those comparisons afterward.
So it’s ok to call bush hitler because he deserves it. But it’s just disgusting to call obama hitler because he’s a liberal democrat.
You can be on one side or the other OR you can be reasonable and admit that neither president deserves that kind of vilification. You chose to pick sides.
Again, it’s not the issues but rather your tone and bias that makes you appear to me to be unreasonable. You must be a fanatic if you can justify comparing bush to hitler. I can’t reason with a fanatic as is evident right now.
It’s too bad, really too bad. There is so much discussion that we could enjoy if only you were just a little bit reasonable. Unfortunately your passion remains unchecked and your bias clouds your judgment to the point that reasonable dialogue with you is out of reach.
So I guess this is just a food fight blog like the rest of them.
http://imgur.com/5RkJK.png
That is all.
What???
How much is the “Spendulous Package” going to cost your children? Is the benefit worth the cost, or are you just wishful thinking again?
Why didn’t we bail out Circuit City?
What we need to do is bail out the small businesses, who employ the most people. Give them tax breaks.
I don’t think we should bail out companies just so that they can continue to pay their top execs big bonus money.
Still, the best way to help the American auto industry is to get rid of the unions.
That is you opinion.
Again, they are rid of Saddam and are having free elections. They will be a much better nation when they are up and running 100%.
I didn’t say any of that. I am all for ridding Iraq of all of the America-hating sentiment and neutralizing the threat.
Friggin’ great VS. Incredible.
@ Edgar re. my tone or bias: What exactly is reasonability? I find none from the right, regardless of what data I provide, or is provided by people on the other side here? I simply say that I did not personally see a Bush with an Adolph mustache, but concede that there certainly must have been some? What more is that except the truth? Then after being slammed back by you on the same topic, I simply descend to the same level: OK, if Bush got it he deserves it. Obama will get what he deserves as well. FFS, how is that all not reasonable?
See, therein lay the problem: real reasonability is in front of you folks all the time: you do no pick it up. That’s why this argument will probably go on forever – regardless what is said, (the macro right-wing you) will not listen or even be open to the possibility that things are not the way you perceive them. You see us (BD, VS et al) questioning Obama you see us questioning the health care reform – it’s happened within the last 20 posts a few times just with me. There is no concession, no thought, no openness or discussion from your side.
I reject the notion that I am the one that is unreasonable because the argument comes from an unreasonable source.
Perky, ever since Trent showed up and Edgar has been posting more, not only has this place started to make more sense, but you have lost even more credibility.
Perk, you are prejudiced and bigoted.
You lump “the right” together as if they all thought the same way, or as if they were all wrong. BTQW, When I say “the left”, I am referring to the media.
And, just because the “data” says what you want it to does not make it reliable or factual.
Absolutely. Looking at the value of the nations 401(K)s in the last month, the beginnings of a dropoff in lost jobs, increase in consumer confidence, mortgage starts, houseing starts etc etc I see the investment starting to pay off nicely. Considerably more than the investment in Iraq is paying off.
@Circuit City: I am actually not in favor of bailing companies out. I am in favor of making sure, in the future, that companies are never again allowed to become so big that they are systemic: that their failure would be so catastrphic as to be the catalyst for a really, really bad financial situation. When that is remedied, I will no longer support bailouts. The bailout was not for AIG: it was for me, for my mother in law, my family – it was to protect as much value as possible so that people that no longer have incomes will still have some savings left.
It would have been better for them to exercise their own effort for freedom, as our founding fathers did, than for us to be building a nation for them. History has shown time and time again that this is not a good plan. Iran & the Shaw immediately comes to mind. When Iraq actually has free elections, and then they choose to elect a hard-line religiously fundamentalist regime that is distasteful or a stated enemy of the United States, we will then reap what we have sown. If they really wanted a western-style democracy, they should be fighting for it themselves. Instead, we decided, based on OUR picture of right and wrong, to get rid of Saddam whom, although absolutely horrible, was far from the worst despot in the world. What did he have that we wanted so much more than, say, North Korea or Angola or in Darfur (Sudan) or Somalia or Ghana or Zimbabwe? Control of strategically desireable oil reserves. It suits the United States if there is a western-style democracy there that we can impose our wishes upong their resources. You really believe we went in there for peace, prosperity and the furthering of the American way, huh?
Ah, yes. We will bomb them into loving us. It worked in Vietnam. It worked for the Russians in Afghanistan. It worked for England in India. It worked for the Dutch in South Africa. I could go on, but you get the picture. You cannot “war” someone into loving you, nor can you eliminate hatred for you by trying to kill people over there. Do you not think that in the 500,000 Iraquis we’ve killed there’re no families that will now hate us forever, and that we have not created generational enemies in places where there was simply apathy before? It belies a particularly small perspective if you believe that you can honestly “cut the cancer out” of the world that doesn’t agree with you. Is it so difficult to understand that if you kill the family member of someone, that person may hate you for the rest of their life … perhaps even become militant in that effort? I think of my grandmother who, till the end of her days, despised anyone with “slanted eyes” because what those damn Japs did to us. She hated the Chinese because they had slanted eyes, even thought they were an ally in WWII, because she could not see the difference. You really believe that we can kill our way into eliminating anti-American sentiment?
It is unfortunate that you use the term, “neutralize the threat” rather than, “kill lots of people.” Because that is what it is. And lots of innocents die in that process. Your words tend to make me believe that you are OK with this, so long as it happens “over there” and not over here. But I’d love to hear from you, in your vast knowledge of people and their perspectives, how you think killing lots of people over there is going to make them like us and “rid them [sic] of America-hating sentiment.”
@ this place making more sense & perks’ lost more credibility
roflmao:
@ prejudiced and bigoted:
roflmao: It’s a fair cop. But only against ignorance and stupidity, which is why your opinions are so utterly loathsome to me. Of all words used to describe me, I’d have to say that “prejudiced and bigoted” would have to be just about the furthest from the truth that could be conjured up. But hey man, whatever makes you sleep at night. roflmao:
Oh, and BTW, re. “And, just because the “data” says what you want it to does not make it reliable or factual.”
I understand. The right today has no need or love of facts or data. The daily stream I get from American Thinker makes that plainly clear. I understand that your natural knowing is considerably more important that reality.
Ha @ “nature of knowing”.
I don’t really “know” anything, but there are quite a number of things about which I’m convinced because of the evidence for them.
That could be a fundamental difference in the way that we view reality as opposed to how our dear right-wing commenters do.
Indeed VS, I think you’re spot on – in fact, the difference between “knowing” and “convinced” articulates a primal difference: where the right wing “knows” and therefore cannot be convinced (a faith based reality), you have been convinced because you critically think. Thus is the problem between Liberals and Conservatives today: where there is openness to discussion, new ideas and concepts for us (the very definition of being Liberal), there are none to Conservatives whom already “know” what “the right way” is.
How to get them to think and analyze, eh?
WHERE did I say that?
“Peace Through Strength”.
There are a group of misguided, Charles Manson types that are so deluded that they think a God is telling them that the whole world should be Islam and that they should kill Americans.
What are we supposed to do? Invite them to a “Beer Summit” and sing “Kumbaya”??
Because I MEANT “neutralize the threat” -
by removing the dictator, remove any warfare capacity, and helping the country become free.
First of all, you misquoted me.
Secondly, it’s like any other mission that the US has been involved in. We help someone gain liberty, and we create a world community.
Then Pelosi, Reid and PrezBO are acting VERY “Conservative” as of late.
It all goes back to common sense.
For example –
It is smart to cut the military budget and shrink our armed forces (like Clinton), or build up the military to best eliminate a threat (like Reagan)?
It is best to build up the military.
Is it smart to appoint a Justice that practices racism?
No.
Is it smart to complain about the deficit while plunging us deeper in to debt with bailouts, spendulous packages, and government health care??
No.
How exactly, do you propose we do that then? When you “remove the dictator” and “remove any warfare capability” (which means you’ll be facing resistance) and “help the country become free” it means you need to put down those that oppose you. Since you are not for having a beer summit and singing Kumbaya, you must clearly be in favor of killing the opposition. Fucking say it man. Don’t candy coat it. It that’s your position, then man up and look it in the face.
They’re not conservative, just politicos and probably piss me off as much as you. No-Guts Pelosi and Mr. Rogers as the heads of house are like having a squishy lump of bread as your commander. Horrible. They need to either grow a pair or be thrown out.
Ever heard the term “Surgical Strikes”?
The USA bombs strategic areas where weapons are stored, intelligence is gathered, etc. As far as I know, the idea was to capture Hussein and Bin Laden. I am not sure if the order was to kill them.
The idea was to bust up Al Qaeda by stopping the money flow and disrupting their hideout, and maybe capture them in the process.
Answer this –
You’re in downtown Phoenix, and you come face-to-face with an Al Qaeda member that wants to kill you. Are you going to try to tell me that you wouldn’t try to get him before he gets you?
As for Reid and Pelosi, they piss me off because they seem like incompetent liars, drunk with power and hell-bent on moving this country in the wrong direction.
They piss you off because they’re not simply doing the exact opposite of what President Bush did.
ROFLMAO at “Surgical Strikes” – you’ve read way too much Tom Clancy Nash … either that, or you just are OK with collateral damage.
Al Qaeada was not in Iraq. Never were. The group called Al Qaeada there now is self named and not affiliated, although they are of the same mindset. And certainly, by now, there’ve been some communications (just a wild guess). But make no mistake: it was our intrusion on that land that created the hatred that brews there now. WE CREATED IT by killing their innocents. Surgical strikes my ass. Did you even watch the news and see the kind of carnage we wreaked upon that land? I’d wager that you never watched Fahrenheit 9/11, but that would be an excellent thing for you to actually SEE what collateral damage and the results of said “surgical strikes” create.
BTW – Osama hated Saddam almost as much as us because he presided over a secular country and allowed infidels to trample upon their holy land.
Regarding Phoenix: you’re absolutely right. If someone threatens me directly, enters my house, assaults my wife or children they will most certainly die. Why would you assume it would be any different in Iraq? Do you honestly think that we only went into the homes of “bad guys?” So, GI Joe comes running into your house, screams to get down, holds your wife and kids at gunpoint, then discovers, “Whoops, wrong house.” And your buddy gets the same treatment. You don’t think you’re going to probably spend the rest of your life hating the assholes that frightened and almost shot up your family?
And you’ve covered another rub: No one from Iraq was here attacking us. There was no one up my street or in my house. There was no one from Iraq at all. The world was with us in a hunt for Osama in Afghanistan. The world was WITH US Nash. We squandered that good will and empathy when we decided to go sack another country under the LIE that it was in response to 9/11. You’ve covered it perfectly, now let’s see if you have any capability for reflection: can you not see your very example, turn it around to be from the perspective if innocent Iraquis, and understand why we have not quelled the “anti-American hatred” and in fact fanned the flames? Do you not see that Bush was Osama’s greatest marketing and recruitment tool?
@Reid and Pelosi: “drunk with power” Hmm. I dunno about that at all, they’re rather just impotent IMO. And “hell bent on moving the country” I disagree – I think they’re hell bent on keeping their jobs. If they were hell bent on moving the country, we’d have something going on. Their stipulation and acquiescence just pisses me off.
@perk
You are kind of bigoted in your thinking. You do lump people together kind of like Archie Bunker but in your own way.
For instance you remarked about how liberals base their world view on the scientific method or critical thinking, but conservatives (like nash) have a faith based world view.
Are you aware of the fact that nash is not faith based what so ever? He is an Atheist!
Atheists don’t have a faith based world view.
So you’ve lumped Nash in with ‘the others’ without pausing to think about the actual person you are talking to.
Don’t you see what’s wrong with that? It’s unreasonable. That’s like saying that ALL black people are the same with out regard to the individual.
You say, “conservatives do this…” and lump all conservatives together. That speaks volumes about your own world view. You are unable to make any kind of distinction or appreciate any kind of subtlety.
That is unreasonable and that’s what I’m talking about. See, it’s not about the issues.
You have a dualistic world view. IT’s always these “Other People” who are the problem. All conservatives are one way in your mind. If you could only overcome your prejudice and your fanatical unchecked passion, then you might actually be crafty enough to be persuasive.
Until then you will probably, imo, remain ineffectual in your persuasive arguments.
Are you just debating or are you trying to conduct a persuasive argument?
Do you write your comments just so other liberals can read them and say, “Right on man!!” or are you trying to conduct a persuasive argument. Probably the first.
A persuasive argument takes much more tact and subtlety. It takes more talent as well. It also takes a measured approach which is probably the reason you avoid a persuasive argument, instead being content to just quarrel.
Faith, Edgar, particularly in this context, means the suspension of critical thought and blind acceptance of an idea or person. It actually means the same in the context of religion: you need to suspend critical thought to allow for the possibility of God – you need to have faith that things are simply That Way. In this context, faith, and how I describe Nash is spot on – he has faith that his right/wrong, his notion of common sense, his notion of patriotism, his notion of of what actually happened in Iraq, is notion of whether or not oil was involved in the decision to go to Iraq must *all* be faith based, because the facts tell a different story. If you critically think through those issues, you can’t come to the same conclusion. Ergo, it takes a lot of faith, or belief, or trust to simply suspend critical thought and allow those things to be the truth.
“Bigoted in my thinking” – Well first, given the description you’re using, that is certainly the pot calling the kettle black since you lump liberals progressives, commies, socialists and all American haters into the same bag. So back the truck up.
But let’s look at the definition of bigoted and see if that really fits. The Princeton library defines it as, “blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others” while the Wikipedia is a little more verbose with, “A bigot is a person who is obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his or her own religion, political party, organization, belief, or opinion, especially one who regards or treats those of differing devotion with hatred and intolerance.” Finally, dictionary.com says, “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.”
All we have talked about, it seems, for the last 9 bazillion posts is for Nash to try to see the world through another’s perspective, rather than simply his own. His notion of “common sense” is the only correct one and that the Muslim world is filled with “Manson types” just waiting to kill him.
I submit that he fits the definition quite well.
I’d also argue that if I were so desperately clingy to my opinion and utterly intolerant of others opinions, I would not have a blog so that we could discuss things. Or perhaps I’d have a blog, but just not let you talk.
You see, the challenge is that Liberal personalities are, by definition, open to new ideas. Again, to the dictionary: “favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.” is the contemporary bent, but a more broad definition describes Liberal as “open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.”
By contrast, there are not that many interpretations of the word “conservative” – it runs quickly to religion or mathematics – but the most broad and pertinent definition I see is, “disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.” By definition, pushing against the agents or the actions of change.
I am no bigot, Edgar. I am deeply opinionated and studiously supported in those opinions, but unlike your parties, I listen, reevaluate and shift as things require them or situations evolve. I learn and adapt. That is not the nature of conservatism.
Now, at the notion of, “I will remain ineffectual” – well, if you gauge my success on convincing you, Nash and Trent, then it is true- I am woefully inadequate. However, if you were to be a fly on the wall of my inbox and discussion of lurkers and friends, you would find me to be considerably more effective. In fact, you might be quite surprised at what people take away, having read our discussions.
Lastly, don’t lecture me on tact or subtlety, you are neither an expert or practitioner. And if I really wanted to avoid a persuasive argument I’d not have this forum for discussion, because I’d already know it all and have no need to work through ideas with other parties. If you are left to attacking my debating style then clearly, you no longer have any arguments about the topic at hand to offer.
@Perk
“Now, at the notion of, “I will remain ineffectual” – well, if you gauge my success on convincing you, Nash and Trent, then it is true- I am woefully inadequate. However, if you were to be a fly on the wall of my inbox and discussion of lurkers and friends, you would find me to be considerably more effective. In fact, you might be quite surprised at what people take away, having read our discussions.
Lastly, don’t lecture me on tact or subtlety, you are neither an expert or practitioner.”
I didn’t lecture you on tact and subtlety, I merely mentioned them in regards to persuasive arguments.
“And if I really wanted to avoid a persuasive argument I’d not have this forum for discussion, because I’d already know it all and have no need to work through ideas with other parties.”
So this IS a persuasive argument. Got it.
“If you are left to attacking my debating style then clearly, you no longer have any arguments about the topic at hand to offer.”
Don’t get all upset perk, I was honestly trying to offer real constructive criticism. That’s all.
Look, I’ve been commenting here for a long time now but I’ve realized that when you get a little wacky, I have to wait until you normalize a little bit.
When you are in the, “Call GWB a Nazi” mode there’s no talking to you. You’re completely off the deep end. I have to wait until you’ve cleared your head man.
How am I supposed to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is trying to justify comparing Bush to Hitler? Really now… That’s like the Black Helicopter people and it’s just wacky.
Perk, how are you going to attract any serious debate? If I’m going to debate someone I first consider their willingness to listen to me. Will they weigh what I say carefully or will they be unwilling to listen? How reasonable is this person I’m going to debate?
I wonder how much effort I should put into a debate with a guy who defends those who compare Bush to Hitler. It’s like debating those people who think 911 was an inside job. Those people who talk of the One World Order and the Illuminati and all that crap. The Rothchilds…you know what I mean.
They are unreasonable and sometimes you are unreasonable like them, so I will feel free to lecture you on it.
Until I see that you are being reasonable I will just read and enjoy and chime in here and there, but refrain from seriously debating you.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that justifying the Bush/Hitler comparisons just totally undermines your credibility imo. It really, really marginalizes you and makes you look extreme and fanatical. Like Bobby Fischer in his later years.
Perk –
There IS proof that Al-Qaeda was set up in Iraq and Saddam was funding them.
“Farenheit 9/11″??
Are you kidding me?
There is NO WAY that ANYTHING from that fat slob Michael Moore could be considered “evidence”. He is an entertainer. Period.
No there isn’t. Produce evidence if there is.
Ah, but at least he never claims to be otherwise. It’s telling that you would even choose to mention Michael Moore’s weight. What a petty little person you must be.
Perk. I think your intentions are well (im speaking of your liberal views) theres no doubt. and for this i comend you.
but i think you have to understand that we cant (as a country) make everyone rich and take care of everyone until they’re 105 with health care social security welfare unemployment and all the other goody plans we have.
Now I’m not insinuating that these plans are bad. (could definetly be controlled a lot better for more efficiency though)
What I’m saying is… If everyone is on all these plans, and no one is working, then the country goes bankrupt and we ourselves will be in need of aid from other countries.
these plans were built with good intentions, but end up supporting drug addicts and alcoholics or just plain lazy people. (very unamerican)
We need these plans to run properly BEFORE we attempt any crazy ideas about implementing a universal health care plan.
This country is getting sucked dry by all the losers who want to take advantage! (including ILLEGAL immigrants)
We have to plug the dam before all the water leaks out.
“disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.”
yes perk. Conservatives like to take the ‘slow and carefull’ approach rather than the liberal ‘fast and reckless’ approach. Wich by the way is EXACTLY what Obama is doing.
All the working people who work 40+ hours week dont have time to pay attention to all the politcs. Therefore cannot make educated decisions when it comes to voting for whats right for the country. INSTEAD what we get is all the suckers ,taking advantage of all of the generous plans america has to offer, voting for whats best for THEM.
THIS is a major factor in why our country doesnt work well. THIS is why the media has such influence. People dont know where else to turn for the information. The media USED to have more credibilty…now it’s just a joke.
and as far as pelosi and reid…
)
I seem to recall a certain Perk ( might have benn a different perk…
blaming Bush for choosing his lackies. and i beleive the implications that were given (if not out right stated) was that if those idiots were whom bush had chose then he was also an idiot for having chosen them…. HMMMMMMMMM
“There is NO WAY that ANYTHING from that fat slob Michael Moore could be considered “evidence”. He is an entertainer. Period.”
I’ll agree here…He IS a fat slob, perk.! I dont think there is any debate there!!
Dumb question… how do you get the comments to appear in the little blue boxes (somewhat computer illeterate)
There IS proof that Al-Qaeda was set up in Iraq and Saddam was funding them.
This should do, for starters…
http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info
Fantastic Nash!! How wonderfully this highlights the pure partisanship of the democratic party.
Brilliant! I have a funny feeling the libs here will just fluff it all off, though.
They’ll just deny it’s validity and coninue insulting the conservatives.
(it’s just there way)
Yep.
My money is on Perky posting some comment about how that website must be a partisan, Fox News-type website, and then try to assert that his sources are the actual “truth”.
Anyway, it’s all there in black and white with citations.
Can you point me to the place on that page that contains the information you’re talking about? I saw nothing about Al-Qaeda while reading it (though if you peruse the LoC from time to time like I do, you’re probably also convinced that there never really was an “Al Qaeda”, or at least not one as organized as the MSM would like us to think).
Just FYI, Saddam had a number of militant jihadists (you could call them Al Qaeda members, as the distinction is not really big enough to mention) executed simply for being in his capital city. The last thing he wanted was US trouble. After all, we put him in power.