Are conservatives embarrassed?

[jon71]

Lately conservatives have been calling anything and everything socialist. I'm not sure what the balance is between them having no clue what socialism is and how it's different form communism or capitalism and how much of it is that they know but aren't honest enough to care. Either way it's so out there you would think they'd be pretty embarrassed by now. Back in the fall at some point John McCain tossed out the word "socialism" on the campaign trail. It was a gross exaggeration but while on the stump politicians of both parties speak boldly and use lots of exaggeration and rhetorical flourishes. It could have ended there. Instead of confessing to the sin of hyperbole, or even just letting it go without comment, the right wing decided to embrace the charge. They've spent most of a year now trying to make a ridiculous example of hyperbole look like a valid point. They were too embarrassed to admit to something as mild as hyperbole and so they keep digging, and digging, and digging, trying to make it look like they have a point. It's hard to think of any other example of this sort of thing. Ford claiming, repeatedly, that Poland wasn't communist comes to mind. The thing is that was one debate, not something Republicans kept at for most of a year, and believe it or not he was on better footing. He actually meant the Polish people, in their hearts, didn't embrace communism, it was foisted upon them. That's not what he actually said, more than once, and so he looked foolish, but it was mostly a matter of stumbling over his words. G. H. W. Bush's "thousand points of light" comes to mind. When he first said that it literally meant nothing, it just sounded good. It was after some embarrassment and some quick dancing that it was claimed it meant volunteerism and we now have the "points of light foundation". That's actually a good thing, a true example of turning a sow's ear into a silk purse. For our current issue of "socialism" conservatives still have a sow's ear they can't do anything with.
I guess I'm basically asking the forums conservatives, how embarrassed do you have to be before you're going to let this go.

[inudist]

A better question is why are liberals so embarrased to be called socialists? Liberals are trying to deny it and even trying to change the definition of the word.

If you are a socialist, then just come out and say it. Instead of saying what it is, they want to say what it is not and play word games to try to confuse the meaning of everything.

"Economically, socialism denotes an economic system of state ownership and/or worker ownership of the means of production and distribution. In the economy of the Soviet Union, state ownership of the means of production was combined with central planning, in relation to which goods and services to make and provide, how they were to be produced, the quantities, and the sale prices. Soviet economic planning was an alternative to allowing the market (supply and demand) to determine prices and production. During the Great Depression, many socialists considered Soviet-style planned economies the remedy to capitalism's inherent flaws – monopoly, business cycles, unemployment, unequally distributed wealth, and the economic exploitation of workers-
Wikipedia"

[LamontCranston]

Lately conservatives have been calling anything and everything socialist. ... I guess I'm basically asking the forums conservatives, how embarrassed do you have to be before you're going to let this go. No, I haven't. Yes, I do know the difference. No, I'm not embarrassed by public discourse.

Now a question for you Jon "get out of Iraq now" 71...

Are you embarrased that U.S. Marines are being killed in action every week in Afghanistan and that your Commander-In-Chief ordered an escalation without public explanation or a new resolution from his new Congress? Are you embarrased that your President ordered a missile stike in Pakistan killing everyone in a house and nearby and they weren't 100% sure who was there?

Let's talk about something that matters -- soldiers lives -- and not this what does the word 'socialist' mean? :mad:

[jon71]

No. I'm not embarrassed because Afghanistan actually matters. Iraq never had anything to do with 9-11, the taliban in Afghanistan did. Also considering we've been at war there for 7 years plus the fact that Pres. Obama campaigned on an orderly withdrawal from Iraq and an increased presence in Afghanistan, I'd say there's been a ton of public discourse. As for socialism we aren't anywhere close to it. For example when G.M. was taken over people on the right were calling that socialism. That's over already. It's either back out of bankruptcy or the date has been set for that, I forget which. Either way it was a temporary move and it worked. One more example of rhetorical excess.

[Bob S.]

David Leonhardt, a writer for the NY Times, seems to be comparing the US policies to Nazi socialist economic policy. I can't be too sure whether he is conservative or liberal, but considering he is lauding the policies of Nazi Germany, I can guess that he is a liberal.

The article can be found here (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/economy/01leonhardt.html?_r=3&ref=business).

As for being embarrassed, I am never embarrassed when conservatives fight for conservative policies. Socialism is what the Dems are trying to push through in terms of the public option for health care--and tried to do so with little debate. Obama wanted it presumably without much debate as he wanted it before the August recess. That doesn't embarrass me, it scares me.

Bob S.

[Boreas]

As for being embarrassed, I am never embarrassed when conservatives fight for conservative policies. Socialism is what the Dems are trying to push through in terms of the public option for health care--and tried to do so with little debate. Obama wanted it presumably without much debate as he wanted it before the August recess. That doesn't embarrass me, it scares me.

Bob S.

Is there somewhere I can learn more about Obama's proposals for healthcare in the US? I truly do not understand how anything made in America could be considered "socialist". I'd like to learn more about it.

I think that true conservatives pushing for true, sensible, conservative policies have no need to feel embarassed. Those neoconservatives (aka neoliberals) ought to feel some embarassment since what they propose is not true conservatism. Whenever anyone flings terms like "socialist" around as an epithet, they are not to be taken seriously.

[Mosquito_Bait]

This sums up the current level of the political debate.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nYlZiWK2Iy8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nYlZiWK2Iy8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Fitz1980]

David Leonhardt, a writer for the NY Times, seems to be comparing the US policies to Nazi socialist economic policy. I can't be too sure whether he is conservative or liberal, but considering he is lauding the policies of Nazi Germany, I can guess that he is a liberal.

The article can be found here (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/economy/01leonhardt.html?_r=3&ref=business).

Bob S.

Why would you assume that a liberal would laud the policies of Nazi Germany. The Nazis were right wing. They were authoritarian, they were against trade unions, they supported massive military spending & an offensive foreign policy, they used Christian rhetoric, were against homosexuals, tortured prisoners, told their people that liberals and Jews were secretly plotting against them.

[rajoo888]

All isms are under test, it was during two world wars countries had to alighn one way or the other-poor or rich. All countries around the world are equally rich, endowed by nature, but people who put it to economic use like to overact and become faster than the nature could replenish resources. This has been happening over about 2000 years, hastened when maritime activities in Europe got a fillip. Exploitation of resources outside their countries started making one more rich than the other, human labour became available as slaves, bonded labourers. In fact the whole world can be a peaceful place to live unmindful of artificial political boundaries if we can care and share. This in essence is 'socialism' this need not be confined to any one country. Communism came into existence due to high handedness of some religious zeolots. As Mahatma Gandhi professed 'rich' are the Trustees of the 'Poor' in the eyes of Almighty.

[Fitz1980]

A better question is why are liberals so embarrased to be called socialists? Liberals are trying to deny it and even trying to change the definition of the word.


Some liberals are socialist and they are fine with being called it.

Here's there website and their party platform:

http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/

Here's just a few.



1. We demand the immediate withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and oppose the creation of a widened Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

2. We call for worker and community ownership and control of corporations within the framework of a decentralized and democratically determined economic plan.

3. We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living.

4. We call for a full employment policy. We support the provision of a livable guaranteed annual income.

5. We call for all financial and insurance institutions to be socially owned and operated by a democratically-controlled national banking authority, which should include credit unions, mutual insurance cooperatives, and cooperative state banks. In the meantime, we call for re-regulation of the banking and insurance industries.

6. We call for a steeply graduated income tax and a steeply graduated estate tax, and a maximum income of no more than ten times the minimum. We oppose regressive taxes such as payroll tax, sales tax, and property taxes.

7. We call for the restoration of the capital gains tax and luxury tax on a progressive, graduated scale.

8. We call for compensation to communities-- and compensation, re-training, and other support service for workers-- affected by plant and military base closings as stop-gap measures until we reach our goal of creating a socialist society totally separate from the global capitalist economy.

9. We oppose the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization as instruments of capitalist oppression throughout the world.

10. We demand cancellation of Third World debt.

11. We call for a National Pension Authority to hold the assets of private pension funds, and a levy against corporate assets for any pension fund deficits.

12. We call for increased and expanded welfare assistance and increased and expanded unemployment compensation at 100% of a worker's previous income or the minimum wage, whichever is higher, for the full period of unemployment or re-training, whichever is longer.

13. We support a program of massive federal investment in both urban and rural areas for infrastructure reconstruction and economic development.

14. We support tax benefits for renters equal to those for homeowners.

15. We call for the elimination of subsidies and tax breaks that benefit corporations and all other forms of corporate welfare.


They're quite confused when a guy like Obama and his supporters are being confused with them by people too dumb to know the difference (yea, there I said it.) They know what they want and they know that Obama's not their guy because he's too pro business & too capitalist.


Liberals are trying to deny it and even trying to change the definition of the word.


Conservatives are the ones trying to change the definition of the word. Go check out the website of the actual Socialist Party, see if any of that sounds like Obama.

We resent being called Socialist for the same reason that you people resent being called fascist. The right in this country has been wrong on almost everything for the past 30 years, but most of them aren't fascist.

[Naturist Mark]

I think conservatives are confused. They see government spending money on social services and think social services ... hmmmm ... socialism. They see the name of the old USSR - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and think ... hmmm ... communism ... is socialism. They look at the name of the Nazi Party - The National Socialist German Worker's Party ... hmmm ... fascism is socialism. Thus in the conservative mind, every form of political-economic system is socialism. Communism is socialism, Fascism is socialism, Capitalism is socialism. EVERYTHING is socialism!

OK.... let's clear a few things up.

Government paying for things is not socialism. Government providing social services is not socialism. Those are both normal functions of a capitalist state - recognized as such since Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations and drove a stake through the heart of mercantilism. Specifically Smith outlined 3 broad areas of government responsibility, national defense, administration of justice, and those public goods which are essential to a free and prosperous society. The public goods Smith identified were infrastructure and education - things essential to both the public weal and commerce. In today's more complex world social safety nets are also essential to commerce. The example of private healthcare costs crippling our industries points toward the utility of providing social services within a capitalist system - they are part of the human infrastructure.

The Nazi Party - formally The National Socialist German Worker's Party, was originally a Worker's party (pro union party) until taken over by Adolf Hitler, he added the word "socialist" to the name in a gambit to attract more working class members, but from the beginning of Hitler's involvement the party was firmly (even homicidally) anti-union and anti-socialist and anti-communist. They finessed the inclusion of "socialism" in their name by saying they were against "liberal" socialism, their "version" of socialism had nothing to do with actual socialism, and consisted instead of a form of social Darwinism.

So what is socialism? It is an economic system where the means of production of goods is owned by the people.

Government buying goods - or services - is not socialism. As an economic system socialism can exist in either democratic or authoritarian political systems.

Authoritarian Socialism is Communism.

Liberal Socialism (not neoliberal) or Social Democracies are democratic states with free enterprise market systems and extensive social welfare systems in which certain key industries have been nationalized, but those states maintain private ownership of capital. Recently this has been referred to as Eurosocialism. Both modern Capitalist states and Eurosocialist states have mixed economies with both private enterprise and government sector industry, the difference being the relative balance between the two.

Conservatives will accuse progressives of trying to move the balance of the mixed economy in the United States closer to that of European States. And they have a point. But the point is not quite the indictment they make it out to be. To attribute any perceived policy as "socialism" doesn't make it anti-capitalist. Social Welfare programs - which are common to Capitalist and Socialist systems - are not socialist in and of themselves - they are not the means of production of industrial goods. But they do help support the industrial system - social welfare programs ultimately buttress capitalist enterprise. The social welfare state exists to support industry - capitalism - as much as any other intended benefit.

Perhaps Eurosocialism should be called Democratic Social Capitalism. It's benefit to capitalist enterprise has been well demonstrated in the aftermath of this past year's economic meltdown and the quick recovery of the Eurosocialist sector while we still flounder here in America. With their stronger safety nets many European citizens suffered no loss of health care, less deprivation from high unemployment rates, and were able to keep buying goods at a great enough level to revive industry and return their economies to positive growth. The recession is over in Germany, France and much of Scandinavia.

I'm not afraid of the "S" word, I just don't think it is used properly. Mostly it is used as an epithet - and grossly incorrectly at that.

I believe in private enterprise and private ownership of most property and commerce. I think there are things that government does better to the benefit of the public and of private enterprise, and there are things that government funds better but lets private enterprise provide. That's not really socialism, so lets call it Social Capitalism.

[Naturist Mark]

http://www.reason.com/UserFiles/cartoons/stantisgoploser.jpg

[jon71]

Why would you assume that a liberal would laud the policies of Nazi Germany. The Nazis were right wing. They were authoritarian, they were against trade unions, they supported massive military spending & an offensive foreign policy, they used Christian rhetoric, were against homosexuals, tortured prisoners, told their people that liberals and Jews were secretly plotting against them.


Sounds like George W. Bush to me.

[MoonShadow]

Great posts, Fitz and Mark! I hope many who are confused about what socialism versus communism are read them.

I find it amusing, actually, how words in our English language have their definitions changed by certain groups in an attempt to sway others' thinking. Sadly, lies work --- too well. Hence, my label of bubbaism.

[Fitz1980]

Great posts, Fitz and Mark! I hope many who are confused about what socialism versus communism are read them.

I find it amusing, actually, how words in our English language have their definitions changed by certain groups in an attempt to sway others' thinking. Sadly, lies work --- too well. Hence, my label of bubbaism.

They won't they never do. They'll either change the subject or ignore it and go back to the Obama board and post "why do you want socialism?"

It's called the big lie technique; repeat the big lie loud enough and often enough and more and more people will believe it. That's why the Town Hall protesters shout down the elected officials while they are trying to explain complex issues because they don't want to discuss complex issues with facts and figures. They want lies and appeals to emotions.

[Sanslines]

They won't they never do. They'll either change the subject or ignore it and go back to the Obama board and post "why do you want socialism?"

It's called the big lie technique; repeat the big lie loud enough and often enough and more and more people will believe it. That's why the Town Hall protesters shout down the elected officials while they are trying to explain complex issues because they don't want to discuss complex issues with facts and figures. They want lies and appeals to emotions.

Don't forget that the Bush team told us that deficits don't matter anymore. Now that Obama is in office , we are told that deficits matter - by the 'pubs!

The fact is that we can spend endless amounts of money and the rest of the world will subsidize our spending. If our economy collapses, the rest of the world falls into deep depression. Therefore, Obama literally has an open check book with an unlimited account.

[Fitz1980]

DOWN WITH SOCIALIST FIRE DEPARTMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=111256528714&ref=nf

Why should I pay taxes so that some illegal alien can pick up the phone and get a fire put out that he started with his meth lab?

You know who else was really into fire safety? Hitler; after what happened at the Reichstag.



http://www.haroldsleft.com/2009/08/socialism-of-firemen.html
Prior to the 20th century, many of the fire departments in major metropolitan areas were managed by "fire brigades". Independent organizations that were paid through insurance companies if the owner of that property could afford fire coverage (fire coverage in the since of actual firefighters, not fire coverage to insure stuff that may be lost in a fire). Shortly after the Civil War many of the major cities like Boston and New York began to make their fire departments government run, insuring everyone in the city was covered by its services. This is essentially socialism. An entire industry run by the government. Plus, most people today will never have to use the services of a fire department, which according to conservatives taxing people for services like fire departments is equivalent to theft. What's the reason we can't have good, affordable health care for all Americans? Because conservatives are terrified of one stupid word: Socialism. They are more concerned with a notion that most of them do not clearly understand, rather than what is really important; health care reform. I think that word keeps them up at night, it's like a some ghost that haunts their dreams... socialism, socialism.

Who cares if it is "socialism" (Which it isn't because that would require the government owning the hospitals, paying the doctors, making the medicines, etc. All of which no one is proposing). This should be about fixing the system, not trivial bogeyman words that are not even applicable to the situation. So, the next time someone tells you the the new public option is socialism, ask them how they feel about firemen.

[ki4kxq]

Why would we be embarrassed? What Obama is trying to shove our way is actually quite a mixture. No, it's not true socialism, but it has quite a few characteristics. It's not quite marxist, but there are elements of that too. Just to mix it up even more, there are glimpses of capitalism in there as well. However, that doesn't change the fact that the men he learned from as a young man were marxists and that is where Obama got his ideals.

Most of the people on this board are probably not socialists either, in the true sense of the word. Ya'll are mainly nanny-staters. That is my word and I am laying claim to it. Most of you think the government should tell everybody what to do, what to eat, what they can drive, (for the good of the environment you know), what kind of light bulbs we have to have, what kind of health insurance we are allowed to have and most importantly, what we should be paid.

For some reason, you all have lost the will to be freedom loving. You would rather have the government take care of your needs and provide for you the things you cannot get on your own because it's just too hard.

So no, I am not embarrassed at all to be a conservative. Actually, I am leaning much heavier to libertarian these days as so called conservatives have bailed on the principles. Like GW and his soft stance on illegal immigration, the huge drug program, his massive tarp bailout, and other attrocities. I would however be embarrassed to be one of those that have handed over their freedoms for a few crumbs from Uncle Sam. "Those that trade freedom for security deserve neither"

[Sanslines]

Given that state taxes and property taxes keep going up, I think that the federal government should pay for all of our state and local taxes.

[Sanslines]

For some reason, you all have lost the will to be freedom loving. You would rather have the government take care of your needs and provide for you the things you cannot get on your own because it's just too hard.



Right on! I want to be a Libertarian too! I want complete and total freedom to do whatever I feel like. I want to move next door to you and start open outdoor burning of tires and plywood. Who cares if I generate tons of toxic smoke that you inhale, get lung cancer, and die a horrible death. I don't care. I also want to start a garage plastics factory, generate tons of solvents that I will dump next to your water well. Who cares if you drink water laced with PCB's, benzene, etc, get liver cancer or leukemia and die a horrible death. I don't care. I certainly don't care if I drive by people who are dying from lack of health care. Why, I'll just turn a blind eye to them and tell myself that it is their fault that they don't pay for health care. Oh, and those homeless people living under an overpass down the street. Why I'll just tell them that it was their own stupidity that led to their homelessness. They must have done something stupid in order to have lost their jobs and wound up on the street. The list goes on and on.

Who cares about others. I certainly don't for I only care about myself and what's in it for me. Yes indeed, where do I sign up to be a Libertarian so that I can say 'screw the rest of society' just so long as I have my total freedom.

[ki4kxq]

Right on! I want to be a Libertarian too! I want complete and total freedom to do whatever I feel like. I want to move next door to you and start open outdoor burning of tires and plywood. Who cares if I generate tons of toxic smoke that you inhale, get lung cancer, and die a horrible death. I don't care. I also want to start a garage plastics factory, generate tons of solvents that I will dump next to your water well. Who cares if you drink water laced with PCB's, benzene, etc, get liver cancer or leukemia and die a horrible death. I don't care. I certainly don't care if I drive by people who are dying from lack of health care. Why, I'll just turn a blind eye to them and tell myself that it is their fault that they don't pay for health care. Oh, and those homeless people living under an overpass down the street. Why I'll just tell them that it was their own stupidity that led to their homelessness. They must have done something stupid in order to have lost their jobs and wound up on the street. The list goes on and on.

Who cares about others. I certainly don't for I only care about myself and what's in it for me. Yes indeed, where do I sign up to be a Libertarian so that I can say 'screw the rest of society' just so long as I have my total freedom.

That is where you are wrong. Study after study shows that conservatives and libertarians give by far more time and money to help the poor, the homeless, etc. Why? We understand that is what we are supposed to do with our time and money, that it is not for the government to take from us and help whom they see fit with our money. Liberals want the government to take from those who have and give to the have nots, yet when it comes to pulling money from their own pockets, they don't feel the need as a whole.

Talk about taking things to the ridiculous, not one conservative on here has said that there are no constitutional powers of the US government. How many times do we have to repeat it before you understand it and not throw out these ridiuculous claims.

Also, some of what you mentioned would be handled by the states and rightly so. That is truly constitutional. Great thing about freedom though as you descibe it. If we could truly do "whatever we want" as you stated, if you did move next door and start with that nonsense, I and the rest of the rednecks in Texas would have the freedom to send your butt packing back to where you came from.

See, we can both make ridiculous statements.

[Sanslines]

That is where you are wrong. Study after study shows that conservatives and libertarians give by far more time and money to help the poor, the homeless, etc. Why? We understand that is what we are supposed to do with our time and money, that it is not for the government to take from us and help whom they see fit with our money. Liberals want the government to take from those who have and give to the have nots, yet when it comes to pulling money from their own pockets, they don't feel the need as a whole.

Talk about taking things to the ridiculous, not one conservative on here has said that there are no constitutional powers of the US government. How many times do we have to repeat it before you understand it and not throw out these ridiuculous claims.

Also, some of what you mentioned would be handled by the states and rightly so. That is truly constitutional. Great thing about freedom though as you descibe it. If we could truly do "whatever we want" as you stated, if you did move next door and start with that nonsense, I and the rest of the rednecks in Texas would have the freedom to send your butt packing back to where you came from.

See, we can both make ridiculous statements.

You are living in the stone age. Back in those days, there were far fewer people and people had much more freedom to do whatever they wanted - good or bad.. This nation has endless examples of man exploiting the environement and nature. In the Adirondacks, in Northern New York State, greedy and reckless businessmen were clear cutting the forests all in the name of money and profit. The government stepped in, declared the region a state park, and put an end to the destruction.

Wiki:

Although sportsmen had always shown some interest in the Adirondacks, the publication of clergyman William H. H. Murray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._H._Murray)'s Adventures in the Wilderness; Or Camp-Life in the Adirondacks in 1869 started a flood of tourists to the area, leading to a rash of hotel building and the development of stage coach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stage_coach) lines. Thomas Clark Durant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Clark_Durant), who had helped to build the Union Pacific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Pacific) railroad, acquired a large tract of central Adirondack land and built a railroad from fashionable Saratoga Springs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saratoga_Springs) to North Creek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Creek,_New_York). By 1875 there were more than two hundred hotels in the Adirondacks, some of them with several hundred rooms; the most famous was Paul Smith's Hotel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Smith%27s_Hotel). About this time, the "Great Camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Camps)" of the Adirondacks evolved near Raquette Lake, where William West Durant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_West_Durant), son of Thomas C. Durant, built luxurious compounds. Two of them, Camp Pine Knot and Sagamore Camp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagamore_Camp), both near Raquette Lake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raquette_Lake), have been designated as National Historic Landmarks, as has Santanoni Preserve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santanoni_Preserve), near Newcomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb,_New_York), NY. Camps Sagamore and Santanoni are open to the public seasonally.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8f/AdirondackGuide.jpg/250px-AdirondackGuide.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AdirondackGuide.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AdirondackGuide.jpg)
An Adirondack guide (left) and his sport




In 1873 Verplanck Colvin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verplanck_Colvin) developed a report urging the creation of a state forest preserve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Preserve_(New_York)) covering the entire Adirondack region, based on the need to preserve the watershed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drainage_basin) as a water source for the Erie Canal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Canal), which was vital to New York's economy at the time. In 1883 he was appointed superintendent of the New York state land survey. In 1884, a commission chaired by botanist Charles Sprague Sargent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sprague_Sargent) recommended establishment of a forest preserve, to be "forever kept as wild forest lands." In 1885 the Adirondack Forest Preserve was created, followed in 1892 by the Adirondack Park. When it became clear that the forces seeking to log and develop the Adirondacks would soon reverse the two measures through lobbying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying), environmentalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalists) sought to amend the State Constitution. In 1894, Article VII, Section 7, (renumbered in 1938 as Article XIV, Section 1) of the New York State Constitution was adopted, which reads in part:

The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed.
The restrictions on development and lumbering embodied in Article XIV have withstood many challenges from timber interests, hydropower projects, and large scale tourism development interests. Further, the language of the article, and decades of legal experience in its defense, are widely recognized as having laid the foundation for the U.S. National Wilderness Act of 1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._National_Wilderness_Act_of_1964). As a result of the legal protections, many pieces of the original forest of the Adirondacks have never been logged: they are old growth.





Your beloved 'sportsmen' damn near killed off (through ignorance and outright stupidity) all of the great plains bison before a few caring individuals stepped in and saved the species:

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012570



While estimates of the buffalo's peak population vary wildly (anywhere from 10 million to 70 million), early 19th-century accounts abound with descriptions of single herds numbering in the tens of thousands, darkening the prairie as far as the eye could see. For the Plains Indians, the buffalo - North America's largest land mammal, with an average adult male weighing 1,800 lb. - represented an essential source of food, clothing and shelter.

But the inexorable push of settlers westward changed all that. The building of continental railways in both Canada and the United States provided easy access for anyone who wanted to shoot buffalo - and there was no shortage of takers. Commercial hunters killed the animals primarily for their hides, used to make highly coveted buffalo coats. They left behind carcasses that slowly decayed into piles of buffalo bones, making the prairie so white some said it looked as if it were covered in snow even in summertime.

In the United States, the decimation of the buffalo was part of a deliberate, and successful, effort to starve the Plains Indians into submission. As Geist recounts in his book, many high-ranking U.S. officials were explicit about their intentions. "The civilization of the Indian is impossible while the buffalo remains upon the plains," declared secretary of the interior Columbus Delano in 1873. Two years later, Gen. Philip Sheridan told a joint session of Congress that buffalo hunters had done more to settle what he called "the vexed Indian question" than the entire U.S. army. Sheridan urged the politicians to continue to support the hunters. "For the sake of lasting peace," he said, "let them kill, skin and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated."

The Canadian government didn't go after the buffalo quite so vigorously. But commercial over-hunting to supply the fur trade achieved much the same result. In both countries, the demise of an animal that had dominated the landscape for so long proved astonishingly swift - by 1890, only a few hundred head remained.

That might have been the end of the story but for a handful of individuals who captured odd survivors and started their own herds. Among them were two Montana ranchers, Michel Pablo and Charles Allard, who spent more than 20 years patiently assembling the largest collection of purebred bison on the continent (by the time of Allard's death in 1896, the herd numbered 300). In 1907, after U.S. authorities declined to buy the herd, Pablo struck a deal with the Canadian government and shipped most of his bison northward to the newly created Elk Island National Park. Two years later, all but 45 of the animals were sent to a larger facility in Wainwright, Alta., where they interbred with the larger, and equally threatened, northern wood bison. Most of today's purebred plains bison, including the Saskatchewan calves, originated with those few dozen animals left behind at Elk Island.
While human folly nearly destroyed the buffalo in the 19th century, the next 100 years served as kind of collective mea culpa. International wildlife conservation treaties came into effect. National, provincial and state parks were set aside as preserves for conservation herds. And bison hunting was either banned entirely or strictly controlled. Along the way mistakes were certainly made: some conservation herds have contracted contagious diseases, including bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis, and mass slaughters designed to contain such outbreaks proved extremely controversial. All the same, the North American buffalo is no longer on the brink of extinction: in Canada alone it's estimated there are now at least 1,500 purebred plains bison on public lands along with another 4,200 purebred wood bison (and 4,800 mixed-breed animals).

How many more examples of the results of your 'freedom' do I need to post???

[BinCo]

Great thing about freedom though as you descibe it. If we could truly do "whatever we want" as you stated, if you did move next door and start with that nonsense, I and the rest of the rednecks in Texas would have the freedom to send your butt packing back to where you came from.

But how would you do this if the state and local officials condoned what he was doing? How would you deal with it if the local officials told you to back off since his company employed hundreds of people? What if an entire industry existed because of his business? That's what has happened all over the country. Now, we, the next generation get to clean up the mess that these companies (with the public official backing) left us. We have several superfund sites in Colorado alone that are the result of a company doing whatever they wanted. How would you deal with a state rep telling you to know worry about him? After all, his company contributes far more in taxes and political contributions than you and your rednecks can come up with?

Put the foot on the other shoe and you can see how unchecked libertarianism is a bad thing.

Personally, I favor Capitalism. A well regulated capital market, but capitalism none the less. The "free market" is a myth. Try owning a business sometime and you will see that fact.

[MoonShadow]

Why would we be embarrassed? What Obama is trying to shove our way is actually quite a mixture. No, it's not true socialism, but it has quite a few characteristics. It's not quite marxist, but there are elements of that too. Just to mix it up even more, there are glimpses of capitalism in there as well. However, that doesn't change the fact that the men he learned from as a young man were marxists and that is where Obama got his ideals.

Most of the people on this board are probably not socialists either, in the true sense of the word. Ya'll are mainly nanny-staters. That is my word and I am laying claim to it. Most of you think the government should tell everybody what to do, what to eat, what they can drive, (for the good of the environment you know), what kind of light bulbs we have to have, what kind of health insurance we are allowed to have and most importantly, what we should be paid.

For some reason, you all have lost the will to be freedom loving. You would rather have the government take care of your needs and provide for you the things you cannot get on your own because it's just too hard.

So no, I am not embarrassed at all to be a conservative. Actually, I am leaning much heavier to libertarian these days as so called conservatives have bailed on the principles. Like GW and his soft stance on illegal immigration, the huge drug program, his massive tarp bailout, and other attrocities. I would however be embarrassed to be one of those that have handed over their freedoms for a few crumbs from Uncle Sam. "Those that trade freedom for security deserve neither"

What a bunch of bunk! I don't know of anyone here who has "lost the will to be freedom loving". And, I don't know of anyone here who thinks the government should "take care of" our "needs and provide" for us things we can't get on own. What do you mean "because it's just too hard"? Are you referring to healthcare. Healthcare as it is set up today is more than "just too hard", it's impossible. People CAN'T afford it no matter how many jobs they hold. Do you not "get it"?

"Nanny staters"? LOL -- that is too funny. I don't of anyone here who's that either; however way you are defining it.

Libertarianism will not work in our country. It is a fantasy to even think it would. You cannot have such a philosophy with so many people. It won't work.

[nimrod]

Most of you think the government should tell everybody what to do, what to eat, what they can drive, (for the good of the environment you know), what kind of light bulbs we have to have, what kind of health insurance we are allowed to have and most importantly, what we should be paid.

For some reason, you all have lost the will to be freedom loving. You would rather have the government take care of your needs and provide for you the things you cannot get on your own because it's just too hard.

You really need to stop the generalizations and change your perceptions of what it is to be liberal. I do not, nor do any liberal I know, want to be told by the government how to run our private lives. But that does not mean that the government should not stay completely out of our lives, they should protect us. Our government is made up, or should be, by the people, I think therefore it should protect all the people and not just itself. I am not sure how you can confuse the government protecting its people with making decisions for its people.

I know that I still love my freedoms, and I wish that I had at least one more. I would rather take care of my own needs and provide for myself, I feel better about myself when I do. But that does not mean I do not see the need for the help our government can supply.

You say you do not have a problem with giving to charities but want to decide exactly where your money goes, I do not have a problem with giving to the government through taxes if a portion of it will go to helping my fellow man instead of all of it going to weapons of war. I could be wrong but it seems that you want all your taxes to go to wars, or "national defence", and then insist that you have the right to own a gun to defend yourself because you do not trust someone else to do it for you.

Should I then label you a socialist because you want to pay taxes for the national defence? After all the military is government owned and runned.

[jon71]

Why would we be embarrassed? What Obama is trying to shove our way is actually quite a mixture. No, it's not true socialism, but it has quite a few characteristics. It's not quite marxist, but there are elements of that too. Just to mix it up even more, there are glimpses of capitalism in there as well. However, that doesn't change the fact that the men he learned from as a young man were marxists and that is where Obama got his ideals.

Most of the people on this board are probably not socialists either, in the true sense of the word. Ya'll are mainly nanny-staters. That is my word and I am laying claim to it. Most of you think the government should tell everybody what to do, what to eat, what they can drive, (for the good of the environment you know), what kind of light bulbs we have to have, what kind of health insurance we are allowed to have and most importantly, what we should be paid.

For some reason, you all have lost the will to be freedom loving. You would rather have the government take care of your needs and provide for you the things you cannot get on your own because it's just too hard.

So no, I am not embarrassed at all to be a conservative. Actually, I am leaning much heavier to libertarian these days as so called conservatives have bailed on the principles. Like GW and his soft stance on illegal immigration, the huge drug program, his massive tarp bailout, and other attrocities. I would however be embarrassed to be one of those that have handed over their freedoms for a few crumbs from Uncle Sam. "Those that trade freedom for security deserve neither"


Liberals are FAR more freedom loving than conservatives have ever been. We love freedom of choice concerning abortion. We love the freedom to read the books we want and watch the movies we want without censorship. We love to freedom and responsibility to marry the person we want regardless of gender. We want the freedom to choose our health care provider, including the choice of a govt. plan. You may be satisfied with only the freedoms that James Dobson and Pat Robertson are o.k. with you having but we libs demand more.

[Naturist Mark]

Here is an evolving rant I've run across in several forms on the intertubes:

<blockquote>Some questions for the Teabaggers against Healthcare

since you see yourself as representing America, how 'bout you explain this to me

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.

You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed by the Bush administration.

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed and took away many of our Constitutionally mandated rights.

You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war and didn't include that cost in the Bush budgets.

You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn't get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos.

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.

You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city drown.

You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.

You finally got mad when.. when... wait for it... when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.

Seems like illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all ok with you but helping other Americans... well screw that.

That about right? You know it is. So how 'bout you go sit in the corner, shut your pie hole and figure out what happened to screw up your mind so completely.</blockquote>

[MoonShadow]

Spot on, Mark!

[Fitz1980]

You finally got mad when.. when... wait for it... when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.


That's not it. They got mad when a brown man with a foreign sounding name and the most leftist agenda of any president in 30 years (making it just slightly to the right of most of the rest of the western world) won the presidential election.

[inudist]

Here is an evolving rant I've run across in several forms on the intertubes:

<blockquote>Some questions for the Teabaggers against Healthcare

That about right? You know it is. So how 'bout you go sit in the corner, shut your pie hole and figure out what happened to screw up your mind so completely.</blockquote>

Well, well, well, look at who is angry here?? Liberals thrive on anger as it is apparent here. It is sad that someone is so angry that they spend hours on end stewing and thinking of stuff like that to say.

It is pretty apparent to me that conservatives are more well adjusted, happier, and charitable than liberals, but that is just a generalization.

Are you sick and tired of this anger and hatred all of the time? Consider becoming a conservative! Really, it's not that bad.

[Lord Drakkus]

Are you sick and tired of this anger and hatred all of the time? Consider becoming a conservative! Really, it's not that bad.

Or just stay out of political discussions altogether. It's great for the blood pressure!

[Naturist Mark]

It is pretty apparent to me that conservatives are more well adjusted, happier, and charitable than liberals, but that is just a generalization.

I'm guessing you haven't gone to any town hall meetings ... or watch Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck ... such calm, happy, well adjusted guys ...

[ki4kxq]

But how would you do this if the state and local officials condoned what he was doing? How would you deal with it if the local officials told you to back off since his company employed hundreds of people? What if an entire industry existed because of his business? That's what has happened all over the country. Now, we, the next generation get to clean up the mess that these companies (with the public official backing) left us. We have several superfund sites in Colorado alone that are the result of a company doing whatever they wanted. How would you deal with a state rep telling you to know worry about him? After all, his company contributes far more in taxes and political contributions than you and your rednecks can come up with?

Put the foot on the other shoe and you can see how unchecked libertarianism is a bad thing.

Personally, I favor Capitalism. A well regulated capital market, but capitalism none the less. The "free market" is a myth. Try owning a business sometime and you will see that fact.

I own two businesses. I have spent most of my after military life as an entreprenuer, not an employee.

[ki4kxq]

You really need to stop the generalizations and change your perceptions of what it is to be liberal. I do not, nor do any liberal I know, want to be told by the government how to run our private lives. But that does not mean that the government should not stay completely out of our lives, they should protect us. Our government is made up, or should be, by the people, I think therefore it should protect all the people and not just itself. I am not sure how you can confuse the government protecting its people with making decisions for its people.

I know that I still love my freedoms, and I wish that I had at least one more. I would rather take care of my own needs and provide for myself, I feel better about myself when I do. But that does not mean I do not see the need for the help our government can supply.

You say you do not have a problem with giving to charities but want to decide exactly where your money goes, I do not have a problem with giving to the government through taxes if a portion of it will go to helping my fellow man instead of all of it going to weapons of war. I could be wrong but it seems that you want all your taxes to go to wars, or "national defence", and then insist that you have the right to own a gun to defend yourself because you do not trust someone else to do it for you.

Should I then label you a socialist because you want to pay taxes for the national defence? After all the military is government owned and runned.

Again, the constitution mandates the federal government to provide for our national defense. The federal government is supposed to only protect our citizens from outside forces so that they can either succeed or fail on their own. It is not supposed to pick winners or losers. It is not supposed to try to guarantee equal outcomes.

[Fitz1980]

Well, well, well, look at who is angry here?? Liberals thrive on anger as it is apparent here. It is sad that someone is so angry that they spend hours on end stewing and thinking of stuff like that to say.

It is pretty apparent to me that conservatives are more well adjusted, happier, and charitable than liberals, but that is just a generalization.

Are you sick and tired of this anger and hatred all of the time? Consider becoming a conservative! Really, it's not that bad.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bxvunbIWNyI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bxvunbIWNyI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Yea those are some really well adjusted people there. I try to stay out of "liberals are like this, conservatives are like that" arguments because they get nowhere and usually make the person who started it sound like an idiot. Your side has Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh & Glenn Beck. The Holocaust Museum shooting, The Unitarian Church shooting & the murder of Dr.Tiller were all conducted by people for expressly conservative political reasons. I can't think of a single case of a murder conducted for liberal political motives in the past few years. There are left wing nuts like the Animal Liberation Front, which has engaged in arson and vandalism but I don't know of them taking any lives. You've got people showing up at Town Hall meetings shouting down speakers because they don't even want any discourse. You've got people stockpiling for what they assume will be a new civil war and you're the well adjusted ones.

[ki4kxq]

Here is an evolving rant I've run across in several forms on the intertubes:

<blockquote>Some questions for the Teabaggers against Healthcare

since you see yourself as representing America, how 'bout you explain this to me

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.

You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed by the Bush administration.

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed and took away many of our Constitutionally mandated rights.

You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war and didn't include that cost in the Bush budgets.

You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn't get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos.

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.

You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city drown.

You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.

You finally got mad when.. when... wait for it... when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.

Seems like illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all ok with you but helping other Americans... well screw that.

That about right? You know it is. So how 'bout you go sit in the corner, shut your pie hole and figure out what happened to screw up your mind so completely.</blockquote>

In every single recount, Bush won. It's been 9 years, your guy lost, get over it already.

If Cheney had really allowed energy company execs to run our energy policy, we would be drilling in ANWAR, offshore, and building nuclear power plants like sane people.

By the rules of determining who is actually a covert agent, Valerie Plame was not a covert agent but a desk jockey who was already known as a CIA employee. This from the woman who wrote the covert guidelines. Besides, it was Robert Novak, a reporter that broke the story.

I wasn't on these forums then but I absolutely agree and did at the time that the Patriot Act was in large unconstitutional. It is nothing more than reactive feel good legislation that is done too often by our government.

Go back and listen to sound bites from Bill Clinton, Hillary, John Kerry, and dozens of other legislators. They are all recorded as believing that there were indeed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Saddam would use them. Bill Clinton during his term said there would have to be a regime change in Iraq to protect the US and others. So no, I don't mind that we went into Iraq and neither do 10's of thousands of Iraqi's now that they are free.

Defense and war is one of the few things that the government is supposed to spend our tax dollars on.

I as a Marine was disappointed in my fellow soldiers. However, what troubled me the most is the press and others putting these photos in the market while we still had troops on the battlefield. I wonder how many American lives were lost because of retaliation. Those soldiers were punished as they should have been, but the actions of those that gleefully published these photos because they hated GW are inexcuseable.

Sorry, I know people that have been waterboarded, it is not torture. Unpleasant and scary, but not torture. Neither is a cold room, loud music, false images, etc. If you want to know what torture is, why don't you go check out some of the countries that have held Americans.

Not only have 10 billion dollars disappeared in Iraq, but from medicare, medicaid, welfare programs and just about everything the government puts it's hand to. And you want them to run healthcare?

Actually, they weren't Americans. They were foreign nationals living in the US. In some cases, yes Americans were involved, however, they were calling folks on the terror watch list in countries that train and harbor terrorists.
But in the end, they did to agree to get wiretaps ahead of time.

As I'm sure you didn't get mad when Bin Laden was handed to Bill Clinton while he was still in office and he refused to give the go ahead. I wonder how many lives would have been saved if he had done his duty instead of chasing his intern around the desk?

Yes I was angry when I saw the conditions at Walter Reed. Again, another reason to keep the government out of healthcare. Sanslines and yourself are often touting the VA as a wonderful system. Most vets I know including myself won't set foot in a VA hospital. Some are ok, but nowhere near as good as the private sector hospitals.

The city was let down by it's mayor and the governor of Louisiana. They had days to prepare but did not. Buses sat flooded out because the mayor had refused to use them to evacuate residents. Residents are also to blame because again, they had days to take action but did not. The Mississippi coast was hit just as hard and suffered just as much damage, however, their government leaders were competent. That is the difference.

How many times have I posted on these forums my anger at GW and some of the things he did. Did you not read or listen to conservatives in print and radio the anger for the first bailout. That was insane as far as I am concerned. I also voiced my displeasure when he signed the medicare prescription drug plan, when he refused to enforce our border laws and numerous other things. Not only here, but to my representatives as well. I voted for the libertarian candidate for senate in 2008 because John Cornyn voted for the first bailout.

So no Mark, I will not go and sit in the corner and shut up. I will continue to fight when I see people try to institute policies that are not only unconstitutional, but very well may bankrupt this country. Not only will I not shut up, I will continue to fund with my hard earned dollars those that seek to replace the folks in power now.

And look who's talking about lies and corruption. I guess since the lawmakers in DC refuse to read the bills they are voting on, they think we won't either. Well we have and we know that most of what they are trying to sell to the American people are outright lies. Yep, they say things about the healthcare proposal that either they know are untrue or they just are too stupid to read.

Corruption... let's see. Chris Dodd with others taking sweetheart loan deals, Blogo, Nancy Pelosi's family business getting sweetheart deals, Obama's senate replacement and his issues with pay for play, Jack Murtha and his shady dealings, plus the numerous people Obama nominated for positions who couldn't be bothered with paying taxes, including the one that now heads the IRS. Yeah, that's pretty rich Mark. Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

[nimrod]

Again, the constitution mandates the federal government to provide for our national defense. The federal government is supposed to only protect our citizens from outside forces so that they can either succeed or fail on their own. It is not supposed to pick winners or losers. It is not supposed to try to guarantee equal outcomes.

I will not go into the arguement of what is in the constitution again, that has been covered and you still have your own iterpretation of it.

I come to the conclusion that you feel that it is okay to be socialist has long as it is in the constitution. If it is not then and only then you feel that it is a socialist policy that we should not have. Are schools in the constitution? What about police and firemen, should we abandon them because they are not protecting us from outside forces? After all crime in the states are not an outside force. If your house catches fire is that an outside force? Not outside of the US as you imply. Maybe you can broaden what you consider to be an outside force, not just foriegn nations and ideals. I consider an illness, fires, crime, violence, basically anything out of my control an outside force.

Where did you come up with the idea that liberals think that the government should guarantee equal outcomes, or pick and choose who wins and looses? I know that it is imposible to guarantee equal outcomes, but it seems at times that the government is already trying to pick winners and losers by not having the guarantee of equal chances. I know that is a hard guarantee to make because not everyone has equal capabilities.

[inudist]

Or just stay out of political discussions altogether. It's great for the blood pressure!

Best advice I've heard yet!

"Yea those are some really well adjusted people there. I try to stay out of "liberals are like this, conservatives are like that" arguments because they get nowhere and usually make the person who started it sound like an idiot. Your side has Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh & Glenn Beck. The Holocaust Museum shooting, The Unitarian Church shooting & the murder of Dr.Tiller were all conducted by people for expressly conservative political reasons. I can't think of a single case of a murder conducted for liberal political motives in the past few years. There are left wing nuts like the Animal Liberation Front, which has engaged in arson and vandalism but I don't know of them taking any lives. You've got people showing up at Town Hall meetings shouting down speakers because they don't even want any discourse. You've got people stockpiling for what they assume will be a new civil war and you're the well adjusted ones."

Sorry, but I was actually trying to inject a little humor here, responding to what I thought was a humorous liberal rant. Lighten up Fitz!!!

I guess these political threads are a "no fun zone". What was my maladjusted mind thinking???

Should I be embarrased about this????

[Mosquito_Bait]

A big part of the present problem is that the Republican Party has become dysfunctional. I'll attribute this to two main factors.

1. There is presently no clear leader of the Republican Party. The result is that certain radio talk show hosts are able to act as though they speak for the party.

2. The Republican Party has lost its way. When I first started voting, I considered myself a fiscal conservative and voted Republican. Now I see the choice as between "tax and spend Democrats" and "cut taxes and spend more Republicans". The only part of the traditional Republican agenda that is still intact is the religious conservative part, which I was never comfortable with.

[jon71]

And ki4kxq just illustrated the dishonesty/denial that conservatives live in. I get the impression she actually believes all that from her last post even though those claims have been completely and undeniably shot down. As long as conservatives can't or won't deal with the real world they'll remain on the fringes. Honestly while I think the Republican party will start a comeback in 2014 I think conservativism is dying and will never come back. Ki4kiq just illustrated why.

[Naturist Mark]

In every single recount, Bush won. It's been 9 years, your guy lost, get over it already.
Wrong (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=216793&postcount=119). The Supreme Court stopped the ongoing count of those ballots that had never been counted - the so called "undercount". It was NOT a recount. There never was any official recount. But the Newspaper Coalition did do a complete recount of the entire state over the next 8 months, and their results show that Gore won the election in Florida no matter what standard was used to accept or reject ballots.


By the rules of determining who is actually a covert agent, Valerie Plame was not a covert agent but a desk jockey who was already known as a CIA employee. This from the woman who wrote the covert guidelines. Besides, it was Robert Novak, a reporter that broke the story.Wrong. Robert Novak is one of several reporters to whom the White House leaked Valerie Plame Wilson's (http://bluehorde.blogspot.com/2007/03/laffair-plame-it-doesnt-end-with-libby.html) covert CIA identity. Valerie Plame was still under covert status (http://bluehorde.blogspot.com/2007/03/laffair-plame-it-doesnt-end-with-libby.html). Her NOC (Non Official Cover - meaning she did not have diplomatic immunity and had no protection from being arrested when travelling overseas) was as a principal officer of Brewster Jennings & Associates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster-Jennings_%26_Associates) - ostensively an energy consulting firm, but actually a CIA front company whose employees - CIA operatives - did important work in running down nuclear weapons and WMD proliferation - including Iraq, Iran and the exposure of Pakistan's AQ Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan) network that sold nuclear weapons technology to Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

By burning Plame, the White House also burned Brewster Jennings & Associates, and exposed all its overseas operatives, their contacts, and families to arrest and retaliation by foreign powers, mafias and terrorist networks. Unofficial reports are that the fallout was extensive - including the assassination of at least one CIA agent (http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2005/07/was_cia_agent_e.htm).
I wasn't on these forums then but I absolutely agree and did at the time that the Patriot Act was in large unconstitutional. It is nothing more than reactive feel good legislation that is done too often by our government.
The Patriot Act was a wish list of police state powers that was prepared long in advance of 9/11. It was rushed through Congress without any of the legislators even knowing what all was in it. There were two Senators who were alarmed by the rush and wanted to do some due diligence first - Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. By odd coincidence that is precisely when Anthrax letters are mailed to the offices of ... Senators Daschle and Leahy. Requiring them to vacate their offices for several weeks, and effectively shutting down any opposition to the swift passage of the bill before it could even be printed out to allow staff members to read it.

Go back and listen to sound bites from Bill Clinton, Hillary, John Kerry, and dozens of other legislators. They are all recorded as believing that there were indeed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Saddam would use them. The Bush Administration knew perfectly well that Saddam had no WMD's and was no threat. Iraq WMD timeline of lies (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=51489&postcount=16)

I know people that have been waterboarded, it is not torture. Unpleasant and scary, but not torture. Bull****. Waterboarding was considered a War Crime when the Japanese did it to American POWs. In 1901-1902 the US court martialled US soldiers for waterboarding Phillipine insurgents. A US soldier was court martialled for waterboarding a North Vietnamese POW in 1968. A Journalist (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808) and a Radio Host (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/olbermann-mancow-intervie_n_207963.html) who were both skeptical that waterboarding is really torture both learned it is indeed really torture when they had it done to themselves.

Not only have 10 billion dollars disappeared in Iraq,
The 10 Billion was not "wasted" or "spent foolishly", it was stolen. According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm?loc=interstitialskip) the actual total may be $23 Billion. The Greatest Fraud in US History (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-fraud-bigger-than-madoff-1622987.html)

but from medicare, medicaid, welfare programs and just about everything the government puts it's hand to. And you want them to run healthcare?Compared to the private health insurance business, Medicaid and Medicare are shiny beacons of efficiency. 98% of every dollar they receive is used to provide health care. The insurance companies keep between 15 and 40% as administrative costs - and profits.

Actually, they weren't Americans. They were foreign nationals living in the US. In some cases, yes Americans were involved, however, they were calling folks on the terror watch list in countries that train and harbor terrorists.
But in the end, they did to agree to get wiretaps ahead of time.Actually, they WERE Americans (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/01/hbc-90004257). American citizens - including journalists - were wiretapped in order to listen in on calls they might make to noncitizens. And of course whomever else they happened to call. They had a lot of fun making tapes of the sex talk (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5987804&page=1) between US soldiers overseas and their spouses at home. And there was more than one program - not just the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program".


As I'm sure you didn't get mad when Bin Laden was handed to Bill Clinton while he was still in office and he refused to give the go ahead. I wonder how many lives would have been saved if he had done his duty instead of chasing his intern around the desk?Just because ABC put this into a highly fictionalized TV movie doesn't make it true - we called Path to 9/11 (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=121881&postcount=32) a fakeumentary. In fact, Clinton made several attempts to kill OBL - remember the Sudan "milk" factory? But the one time in which they had a very good chance to take out Bin Laden they couldn't because he was "entertaining" visiting Arab dignitaries and we would have wiped out half of the UAR royal family (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm) - our military ally.
Yes I was angry when I saw the conditions at Walter Reed. Again, another reason to keep the government out of healthcare. Sanslines and yourself are often touting the VA as a wonderful system. Most vets I know including myself won't set foot in a VA hospital. Some are ok, but nowhere near as good as the private sector hospitals. Walter Reed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reed_General_Hospital) is NOT a VA facility.
You information about the VA is seriously out of date. VA health care is among the best in the world - it has the highest rate of satisfaction from its clients and has among the best outcomes due to its aggressive emphasis on preventive care. And the VA does it for less per patient than your insurance company.More Here (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=236474#post236474)

The city was let down by it's mayor and the governor of Louisiana. They had days to prepare but did not. Buses sat flooded out because the mayor had refused to use them to evacuate residents. Residents are also to blame because again, they had days to take action but did not. The Mississippi coast was hit just as hard and suffered just as much damage, however, their government leaders were competent. That is the difference.Heckava job Brownie.
Again, Bull****. Governor Blanco (http://www.snopes.com/katrina/politics/blanco.asp) was begging for FEMA to mobilize BEFORE the hurricane even hit, and hourly afterwards. It took over a week. Bush was on vacation ... again. Playing guitar and going to John McCain's birthday bash. In order to shock him into paying attention (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4765058.stm) Bush's own staff had to put together a DVD (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287434/print/1/displaymode/1098/) of the horror stories playing on cable news to get an oblivious Bush to understand that there was an emergency. The fact that FEMA was not up to the job was entirely the result of decisions by George Bush. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_09/007060.php) And just now I ran across this (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/rape-and-pillage-new-orleans-how-shad) and this (http://www.gregpalast.com/expert-fired-who-warned-levees-would-burst/).

So this is the conservative worldview. A firm belief that they are never wrong and never have to say they are sorry. A stubborn insistence on a fairytale version of history and an alternate reality where black presidents must be illegal aliens, where imaginary 'death panels' plot to pull the plug on grandma, where seniors are told that the government is going to take over medicare and steal their guns, where Senator Ted Kennedy is lucky that we don't have government health care because it would refuse to treat his brain cancer - even though Senator Kennedy has government health care, they live in a world where wanting all American citizens to have the same health care that Senator Kennedy has is the same as what the Nazi's did.

“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” - Stephen Colbert

[Bob S.]

Boreas: "Is there somewhere I can learn more about Obama's proposals for healthcare in the US? I truly do not understand how anything made in America could be considered "socialist". I'd like to learn more about it."

To be specific, Obama has no plans. He is letting the leaders in Congress do all of the writing, but the leaders in Congress are generally on his political mindset.

Fitz: "Why would you assume that a liberal would laud the policies of Nazi Germany."

Not lauding all of the Nazi policies, just the same policies that are comparable to what Obama and his Congressional leaders are doing.

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

I don't even want to go back there.

You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.

Oh, every party has its bed partners.

You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed by the Bush administration.

I was upset, but if she was already a known employee of the CIA..

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed and took away many of our Constitutionally mandated rights.

I was very upset. I am upset when any right is taken for any reason. Obama is still keeping some of the policies open.

You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

I trust those in office to know much more than I do and not necessarily tell us the reasons

You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war and didn't include that cost in the Bush budgets.

You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.

I am mad when govt money is spend irresponsibly no matter where it goes.

You didn't get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos.

I was very upset about what the photos showed. Whether the photos should have been posted is also a question. I would not want cover-ups, but I also think we should take care of these kinds of problems internally.

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

I have my definition of torture, others have theirs.

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

This is one program, I believe, that Obama is continuing. It is a very sketchy program.

You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.

I am upset that we haven't caught him, but you can't just say that people are not upset at a non-event.

You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.

I am sure most people were disgusted at the conditions are Walter Reed. Why assume that conservatives were not upset?

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city drown.

Many major US cities have been let down. It is not solely the US government who is responsible for the cities. The cities have their own govts and their state govts to deal with them well before the US govt gets involved. Primary responsiblity should go to the local and state govts.

You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.

I am furious that the deficit got so high. Are liberals upset that Obama and the Congressional Dems are raising it even higher?

You finally got mad when.. when... wait for it... when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.

They already have that right. No one who is sick is turned away from any ER. I will try to make a Health care message to be posted this weekend for what I think is the problem with health care costs and how to fix them.

Bob S.

[Sanslines]

Yes I was angry when I saw the conditions at Walter Reed. Again, another reason to keep the government out of healthcare. Sanslines and yourself are often touting the VA as a wonderful system. Most vets I know including myself won't set foot in a VA hospital. Some are ok, but nowhere near as good as the private sector hospitals.


You obviously have no experience with a VA hospital and feel comfortable condemning the many dedicated people who work at the VA facilities. My friend ( a war veteran) suffered from liver disease and then from terminal colon cancer. The teams of doctors and nurses at the San Diego VA Hospital treated him to the best of their abilities and went above and beyond the call of duty. Thankfully, during his illness, he did not have the buden and worry of dealing with insurance companies and wondering if some of his tests and procedures would be cancelled because some insurance company decided to save money.

You are very uninformed about your condemnations of the VA system and can't even understand one very basic and simple fact. That fact is that the VA is the ONLY system that is uniquely and specially qualified to treat those who hae been injured or damaged in battle. A very important part of the VA are the numerous veterans groups that actually help and support each other as each veteran is facing their illnesses. My friend had a drinking problem that was due to a large extent by being sent to the front lines and experiencing the horrors of war. Only other combat troops who have experienced such horrors can truly understand and offer the genuine compassion, understanding, support, and help to other comrades who have experienced such horrors. Yet you condemn the VA as 'just another wasteful government program'. Perhaps you were mollycoddled when you were enlisted but I can assure you that others were not and absolutely need and appreciate everything that the VA has done for them. Your comments definitely do not speak for or represent other vets.

[Sanslines]

They already have that right. No one who is sick is turned away from any ER. I will try to make a Health care message to be posted this weekend for what I think is the problem with health care costs and how to fix them.

Bob S.

Sending people to a hospital emergency room for most situations is the WORST and MOST EXPENSIVE OPTION. Doctors who work in the ER are trained and specialize in emergency medicine. They are NOT primary care physicians who are able to offer follow up or long term care. They treat the emergency and they refer the patient back to their primary care physician (if they have one). There is a HUGE difference between what is medically considered an emergency and what is not. Many medical problems would never have become an emergency had the patient had access to a primary care physician who could have prevented or treated the medical problem (at MUCH lower cost) before it even became an emergency.

[jon71]

Sending people to a hospital emergency room for most situations is the WORST and MOST EXPENSIVE OPTION. Doctors who work in the ER are trained and specialize in emergency medicine. They are NOT primary care physicians who are able to offer follow up or long term care. They treat the emergency and they refer the patient back to their primary care physician (if they have one). There is a HUGE difference between what is medically considered an emergency and what is not. Many medical problems would never have become an emergency had the patient had access to a primary care physician who could have prevented or treated the medical problem (at MUCH lower cost) before it even became an emergency.


You're right. The fact is that people who rely on emergency rooms only for their medical care don't live as long as people who have fuller options. Emergency rooms as great for emergencys but lousy for everything else. Take me for example. I have Crohns disease. How would I use emergency rooms if I didn't have insurance? I'd either be untreated or go to emergency rooms when I had the worst flare ups. The cost would be very high and since (in this hypothesis) I couldn't afford insurance I wouldn't be paying it, the taxpayer would be stuck with it. I'd be suffering physically and society would be suffering economically. That's far too common in America today. This isn't to say my completely happy with Blue Cross/Blue Shield. They've already dropped one medicine I had been on to save themselves some money pushing me to a cheaper but less effective drug. The doctor wants to try something different now and I'll find out tomorrow if it'll be covered. I've already decided that if possible I'll get on the govt. option as soon as I can. Those "govt. bureaucrats" will work for me far better than the insurance companies ever thought of doing.

[inudist]

2. The Republican Party has lost its way. When I first started voting, I considered myself a fiscal conservative and voted Republican. Now I see the choice as between "tax and spend Democrats" and "cut taxes and spend more Republicans". The only part of the traditional Republican agenda that is still intact is the religious conservative part, which I was never comfortable with.

I absolutely agree with this 100%. I am not a card carrying member of any political party but consdier myself a fiscal conservative. I'm actually more leery of the religious right trying to control people's freedom, than a far left big government. I'm all for cutting taxes, but the government also needs to cut spending accordingly like everyone else has to. That is where REAL reform is needed in our government.

[nimrod]

I'm actually more leery of the religious right trying to control people's freedom, than a far left big government.

I have never understood the "left wanting big government" that the right keeps complaining about. I have posted to someone else before that is not what I want.

Now I would not consider myself "far" left, but there seems to some confusion between wanting the government to protect its people and big government. We have seen what unregulated companies are capable of. Regulating companies from screwing over as many people as possible is not the same as the government running the business or making decision for the company on a day to day bases. It is not telling the company how to manufacture its products but making sure that what the company is making is safe and done in the safest way possible.

[LamontCranston]

I have never understood the "left wanting big government" that the right keeps complaining about. I have posted to someone else before that is not what I want.

Now I would not consider myself "far" left, but there seems to some confusion between wanting the government to protect its people and big government. We have seen what unregulated companies are capable of. Regulating companies from screwing over as many people as possible is not the same as the government running the business or making decision for the company on a day to day bases. It is not telling the company how to manufacture its products but making sure that what the company is making is safe and done in the safest way possible. You make a good point about labels and generalizations. When I think of the left and big government, I think about the Roosevelt New Deal policies and our progressive tax system. Entitlements are things the government and tax payers will always pay for with no relief and a growing burden. I don't want more policies like that.

However, consumer protection is a good thing, as are labor reforms. Just look back at the dangerous factory work and mining company treatment of labor from 100 years ago. I wouldn't want to go back there either.

The problem is where government programs never end or grow into a monster --

The federal income tax is a good example. It was forbidden in the US Constitution, then Amended so we could "tax the tiny fraction of the extremely rich." Look at your paycheck today.

The public school system has merit: reading, writing, and arithmetic make for a productive populace. No question. Except now we're paying for some committe's idea of healthy lunches, artificial turf on the football field and passing out condoms to 12-year olds.

Or labor laws so a company is severly penalized for killing, maiming, cheating, and descriminating. Good stuff. Except now we've got people retiring at 45 years old with full salary and full benefits.

I don't have an answer to any of this. The U.S. and State governments are just too big and burdensome, the debt service is crushing and it's not sustainable.

[MeBNude]

I think a large problem on both sides of the debate is that we are trying to label people and movements with a single word... i.e., conservative, liberal. This is nothing more than stereotyping and completely beside the point since that doesn't get to the issues. People are loading too many emotions into a single word.

On the other hand, as a "flaming" liberal, I find it uneducated and laffable when proponents of positions and philosophies more conservative than mine call all liberals "socialists."

–noun 1. an advocate or supporter of socialism.
2. (initial capital letter) a member of the U.S. Socialist party.

I don't support "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." Not at all. On the other hand, I do believe that for all of the taxes that I pay on my good work and busienss accumen, my government owes me more than I get, and if I have more than others, I'm willing to help them out or have the government help them out, too.

[Skinview]

The public school system has merit: reading, writing, and arithmetic make for a productive populace. No question.You commie pinko! Since when does the government have to run our education system? There shouldn't be a public school system.

LamontCranston is a socialist! - I thought you might enjoy the novelty of the label. ;)

[Skinview]

The Bush Administration knew perfectly well that Saddam had no WMD's and was no threat.Mark, I usually think you are one of the more reasonable liberals here, but this is a wacko fantasy dreamed up by partisan loony left conspiracy nuts. Virtually everyone thought Saddam had WMDs.

[Skinview]

Right on! I want to be a Libertarian too! I want complete and total freedom to do whatever I feel like. I want to move next door to you and start open outdoor burning of tires and plywood. Who cares if I generate tons of toxic smoke that you inhale, get lung cancer, and die a horrible death. I don't care. I also want to start a garage plastics factory, generate tons of solvents that I will dump next to your water well. Who cares if you drink water laced with PCB's, benzene, etc, get liver cancer or leukemia and die a horrible death. I don't care. I certainly don't care if I drive by people who are dying from lack of health care. Why, I'll just turn a blind eye to them and tell myself that it is their fault that they don't pay for health care. Oh, and those homeless people living under an overpass down the street. Why I'll just tell them that it was their own stupidity that led to their homelessness. They must have done something stupid in order to have lost their jobs and wound up on the street. The list goes on and on.

Who cares about others. I certainly don't for I only care about myself and what's in it for me. Yes indeed, where do I sign up to be a Libertarian so that I can say 'screw the rest of society' just so long as I have my total freedom.You confuse libertarianism with anarchism. They are not the same. If you pollute a libertarian's water well and poison him, he will sue your butt in a government court until you are pennieless, assuming the libertarian Attourny General hasn't thrown your butt in prison for assault, reckless endangerment and vandalism. Libertarians don't tolerate people harming other people, which is why they want a powerful government judiciary to defend people's lives, liberty and property, like government is supposed to.
And a good libertarian donates to charity, so homeless people don't have to live under bridges.

[Skinview]

Libertarianism will not work in our country. It is a fantasy to even think it would. You cannot have such a philosophy with so many people. It won't work.This country has been essentially libertarian for most, or all, of its history, and it has worked quite well. Despite many deviations, we are still a libertarian nation.

[Fitz1980]

The public school system has merit: reading, writing, and arithmetic make for a productive populace. No question. Except now we're paying for some committe's idea of healthy lunches, artificial turf on the football field and passing out condoms to 12-year olds.


What's wrong with a healthy lunch? I only graduated 10 years ago but the lunches weren't fancy or expensive. In fact they were pretty cheap and nasty, but they satisfied all of the neutritional requirements of a balanced meal.

School sports are a good topic that's not discussed enough. We spend lots of money, that could otherwise go to actual education, on the football team and stuff like that. Players who can barely read are passed on through, often thanks to pressure from the administration. It continues into college but since the average college athlete never makes it to the pros they're left with a worthless degree since they never actually learned anything.

And what's this about passing out condoms to 12 year olds? Sounds like a straw man argument to me. A straw man is where instead of arguing against something real you make up your own version of it and argue against that. Sex education is a good thing but thanks to the big push for abstinence only sex education (promoted by people who said that sex-ed was "giving condoms to 12 year olds") we had an upsurge in teen pregnancy and teens getting sexually transmitted diseases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man




Or labor laws so a company is severly penalized for killing, maiming, cheating, and descriminating. Good stuff. Except now we've got people retiring at 45 years old with full salary and full benefits.

I'm sure that you can give us an example of this happening in real life, otherwise it's just a straw man argument.

[Sanman]

I agree 100% with Skinview on this one. This country was indeed founded on libertarian principles, and we would do good to return to thie philosophy. My liberty ends where yours begins. So long as someone doesn't violate the life, liberty, or property of another person, we should be free to do as we wish. Government should only be involved in national defense, enforcing contracts, and punishment of those who commit fraud, theft, murder, etc.

[Sanman]

What's wrong with a healthy lunch? I only graduated 10 years ago but the lunches weren't fancy or expensive. In fact they were pretty cheap and nasty, but they satisfied all of the neutritional requirements of a balanced meal.

Fatty fatty fatty get your school lunch here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA2F1DguUQU

An example of the school lunch menu where I live...
Hamburger, macaroni & cheese, dinner roll...
What the crap kind of "nutritionally balanced" meal has 3 or more bread products? Oh yeah, and a cookie desert (sugar and flour). That makes 4 bread products. Also sickening is you can get a free extra cookie if they have too many that day, but even one piece of fresh fruit must be purchased at additional cost.

[Fitz1980]

Fatty fatty fatty get your school lunch here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA2F1DguUQU

An example of the school lunch menu where I live...
Hamburger, macaroni & cheese, dinner roll...
What the crap kind of "nutritionally balanced" meal has 3 or more bread products? Oh yeah, and a cookie desert (sugar and flour). That makes 4 bread products. Also sickening is you can get a free extra cookie if they have too many that day, but even one piece of fresh fruit must be purchased at additional cost.

Ahh yea, I'd heard about this. They didn't have anything like it when I was in school but that's often thanks to the free market and big business. Schools have been increasingly letting companies like McDonalds, provide for their school lunch program, replacing the previous idea of a square meal (as defined by the Federal nutrition guidelines) for lunch. Same with the soda machines, sure soda is not good for you but the school can make money from the machines.

[jon71]

Mark, I usually think you are one of the more reasonable liberals here, but this is a wacko fantasy dreamed up by partisan loony left conspiracy nuts. Virtually everyone thought Saddam had WMDs.

The intelligence reports going to the White House conclusively rejected the notion that Saddam had WMDs. To say Bush cherry picked the intelligence is being kind. If one guy who left Iraq ten years earlier and had a grudge against Saddam claimed there were WMDs Bush accepted that over all the agents in the field who said otherwise. The "virtually everyone" who thought that Saddam had WMDs were just people assuming that no President would lie about such things. It wasn't that people had reason to actually believe that, they simply knew that Bush was receiving intel and mistakenly thought he'd be honest about it. We now know that there were no CREDIBLE reports of WMD's in Iraq from the intelligence community and Bush knew this.
This isn't the core of the thread but it certainly is another source of deep shame for conservatives.

[Sanslines]

You confuse libertarianism with anarchism. They are not the same. If you pollute a libertarian's water well and poison him, he will sue your butt in a government court until you are pennieless, assuming the libertarian Attourny General hasn't thrown your butt in prison for assault, reckless endangerment and vandalism. Libertarians don't tolerate people harming other people, which is why they want a powerful government judiciary to defend people's lives, liberty and property, like government is supposed to.
And a good libertarian donates to charity, so homeless people don't have to live under bridges.

Oh I see. Libertarians want to dictate their freedoms to others and then pass laws, prosecute, and jail those who engage in activities which encroach upon their personal freedoms. Doesn't sound like a very fair or free system to me if Libertarians need such a strong government to protect their self designated freedoms.

[Mosquito_Bait]

Mark, I usually think you are one of the more reasonable liberals here, but this is a wacko fantasy dreamed up by partisan loony left conspiracy nuts. Virtually everyone thought Saddam had WMDs.

The UN weapons inspectors stated very strongly that Saddam did not have WMDs. The French president stated very strongly that Saddam did not have WMDs. I chose to believe our president. I trusted that he had better intelligence data than the French or the UN. I trusted that our president would not "cherry-pick" the intelligence reports to paint a false picture. I trusted that he would not try to build a case for an invasion without knowing that there was a genuine threat. I remember listening to statements made by the French president and thinking that he would surely feel like a fool when our troops found WMDs. After the invasion, I remember hearing news reports about schoolyards being dug up and searches for certain tractor trailers. It took several months for the reality to sink in that there were no WMDs. I felt misled. I felt that the whole invasion had really been about settling old grudges. The CIA director took the blame, but I suspect he was only trying to give his bosses what they wanted. There is a saying, "The fish rots from the head."

[Sanslines]

This country has been essentially libertarian for most, or all, of its history, and it has worked quite well. Despite many deviations, we are still a libertarian nation.

As the population continues to increase, and more and more people live side by side, more andmore laws are passed to control human behaviors that were one tolerated and acceptable. Read some of the articles about the "Libertarian Fantasy" and you will find that Libertarianism is more of a idealized fantasy and philosophy then a reality.

Libertarian Fantasy:

"One point of dispute, though, is that to me the idea of state committed to neutral and effective administration of justice around laissez faire lines seems like an illusion. The alternative to reasonably effective democratic institutions and a viable left-wing political movement isn’t free markets but the capture of the state by large economic interests as during the Gilded Age or, indeed, the Bush administration." "..........Government must select policies and regulations that take into account local history and conditions. Government must experiment and correct its own mistakes."

http://theamericanscene.com/2008/01/24/the-libertarian-fantasy

[LamontCranston]

I'm sure that you can give us an example of this happening in real life, otherwise it's just a straw man argument.In your strident effort to show how you are better than I, you missed my point. :rolleyes:

[MoonShadow]

This country has been essentially libertarian for most, or all, of its history, and it has worked quite well. Despite many deviations, we are still a libertarian nation.


Yes, it WAS and history has shown over and over that it didn't work.

Who do you think would offer any standardizations in Truth in Lending laws, water, sewer, production of and distribution of electricity, fair employment practices, police protection, fair employment practices, intellectual property protections, education, building codes, clean air and water protections, health and safety protections in the workplace, in the workplace standards to prevent exploitation of employeees, and this list could go on for a long time.

How many could afford "contracts" for the above? And why is property rights more important than food and shelter? Government is inherently accountable for its actions; whereas, private monopoly providers (which you would have in a libertartian society) does not.

We wouldn't have the size our government is today if we, the people, were accountable and responsible for ourselves and when I say, people, I include private business. We're not being accountable and responsible and neither is many big corporate conglomerates. Instead, you would have 20 private utility companies competing for your business. Can you imagine? This is just an example, but very real in a libertartian society? What would poor people do who could not afford police protection? In a libertartian society, you would have to find your own protections and what would the guidelines be? You set up a contract? Millions of others would have to set up contracts? How would such a guargantan pile of contracts be handled?

Another example, what about the chemical and pharma industries. Who would force them to follow any sort of standards regarding disposal of their toxic wastes?

You cannot have a black and white idealistic philosophy in this world today. That is what libertartianism is; idealism.

It didn't work for us back in history and will never work now or in the future.

[MoonShadow]

I agree 100% with Skinview on this one. This country was indeed founded on libertarian principles, and we would do good to return to thie philosophy. My liberty ends where yours begins. So long as someone doesn't violate the life, liberty, or property of another person, we should be free to do as we wish. Government should only be involved in national defense, enforcing contracts, and punishment of those who commit fraud, theft, murder, etc.

How are you not free to do as you wish?

Government enforcing contracts? That's not libertarian?

[Naturist Mark]

How are you not free to do as you wish?

Government enforcing contracts? That's not libertarian?

Under libertarianism government regulation is unneeded. Because people can punish bad behavior in the marketplace and courts.

Of course, not if we have "tort refrom".

[MoonShadow]

Under libertarianism government regulation is unneeded. Because people can punish bad behavior in the marketplace and courts.




Criminy, just thinking about this in the real world is a horror of horrors! The current court system is overloaded now. Imagine the court system needed to handle all the bad behaviors in an unregulated world.

[johnniep1]

The fact of the matter is that the National Republican Party has not had an
original thought in, at least, the last 30 years. Instead of adding some-
thing constructive to the national discourse, the GOP has, quite pathetic-
ally, continued to repackage its same hackneyed proposals and false rheto-
ric as something new. During its existence, the Republican Party has always been and remains only one thing-a rich white man's Party.
Nothing about the GOP has changed. The same thieves who robbed the
Federal Government blind from 1/2001-12/2008 are still pulling its strings.
We still hear BS from Dead-Eye Dick Cheney while he criticizes the President,
despite all of the destruction that can be traced back to him, Carl Rove is
still a major figure in GOP politics. Newt Gingrich continues his attempts at
impeding the Obama Administration.
In truth, the Republican Party only exists for its own self-interests, that
being, its collective personal financial portfolio and the personal financial
portfolios of its composition. I think W. Bush and Dick Cheney had other
interests in mind than the "common good" when they ran for the White in
2000.

[Sanslines]

Under libertarianism government regulation is unneeded. Because people can punish bad behavior in the marketplace and courts.

Of course, not if we have "tort refrom".

Right.......so instead of using government regulation to prevent abuses and tragedies (such as environmental catastrophe) in the first place, Libertarians want to come in after the fact with a means to punish those that they consider wrongdoers.

Libertarians live in a fantasy world where they only exchange one means of controlling human behavior with another and can't seem to grasp that doing so eliminates the real freedoms that they so claim to cherish.

[BinCo]

A few notes. Libertarianism is not what this country was founded on. I suggest anyone who thinks that should read a few more books on the founding fathers. Liberty is what this country was founded on. Personal liberty, not the "I can do anything and you can't stop me" liberty being bandied about as Libertarianism. Today's libertarianism would create a larger divide between the haves and have nots. How? Simple, there is no need for regulation or fair trade or equality or any other laws that stand in the way of the "free market". That same free market that would permit a large store like Wal-Mart to come into a little town and sell at a loss for enough time to drive all the competition out of business, then jack up the prices. The Libertarian ideal of being able to do as you please on your property. Poisoning the well goes a little far, but putting up a 10 story apartment building that ruins the lives of the neighbors doesn't. Neither does selling my 500 acres to put up a private correction facility. You can't prove that it ruined your life, so you as my neighbor are screwed in the Libertarian world. Certainly having public input to private property changes is as against the Libertarian principle as you can get.


If you think you are being infringed on today, you need to look a lot deeper into our past. Almost every state prior to 1775 had laws on the books that were enforced to keep out people of opposing religions. Virginia had to make a law stating that if a Jew was shipwrecked they were NOT to be shot on sight, but removed to a nearby state. Maryland had mandatory tithing that supported the Presbitirian church and your taxes paid to build more churches. Massachusetts had laws against Quakers. etc, etc, etc.

When you complain about public education keep in mind that as late as the civil war many men signed with an X because we did not have mandatory public education. The founding fathers were home schooled and then went to be privately tought by professors and then went to colleges, but the average person

[Fitz1980]

In your strident effort to show how you are better than I, you missed my point. :rolleyes:

And what was your point. You were talking about handing condoms out to 12 year olds and 45 year olds retiring with full benefits and I asked for examples as the sound more like straw man arguments.

[Skinview]

Oh I see. Libertarians want to dictate their freedoms to others and then pass laws, prosecute, and jail those who engage in activities which encroach upon their personal freedoms. Doesn't sound like a very fair or free system to me if Libertarians need such a strong government to protect their self designated freedoms.

Umm, is this supposed to make sense? Are you opposed to laws against murder, and the prosection of those who break that those laws? This is unfair to you?

[Skinview]

The French president stated very strongly that Saddam did not have WMDs.The Russians were also opposed. And do you know which two countries had billions and billions worth of contracts with Iraq? Yup, France and Russia. Also notice that almost all Iraqi weapons systems were French and Russian. They were in each other's pockets.
Saddam's own generals thought that Iraq had active WMD programs. Saddam later said that he wanted the Iranians to think he had WMDs.
Has everyone forgotten that he had tried before to get the bomb? After he kicked out all the UN inspectors, everyone expected that he was doing it for a reason. After that, we couldn't really tell what he was actually doing, but most figured he was up to no good.

[Skinview]

Yes, it WAS and history has shown over and over that it didn't work.

Who do you think would offer any standardizations in Truth in Lending laws, water, sewer, production of and distribution of electricity, fair employment practices, police protection, fair employment practices, intellectual property protections, education, building codes, clean air and water protections, health and safety protections in the workplace, in the workplace standards to prevent exploitation of employeees, and this list could go on for a long time.

How many could afford "contracts" for the above? And why is property rights more important than food and shelter? Government is inherently accountable for its actions; whereas, private monopoly providers (which you would have in a libertartian society) does not.

We wouldn't have the size our government is today if we, the people, were accountable and responsible for ourselves and when I say, people, I include private business. We're not being accountable and responsible and neither is many big corporate conglomerates. Instead, you would have 20 private utility companies competing for your business. Can you imagine? This is just an example, but very real in a libertartian society? What would poor people do who could not afford police protection? In a libertartian society, you would have to find your own protections and what would the guidelines be? You set up a contract? Millions of others would have to set up contracts? How would such a guargantan pile of contracts be handled?

Another example, what about the chemical and pharma industries. Who would force them to follow any sort of standards regarding disposal of their toxic wastes?

You continue to confuse libertarianism with anarchism. Privately owned and publicly regulated utilites are within libertarian ideals. So are laws against polluting the environment, and having a police force.

[Skinview]

A few notes. Libertarianism is not what this country was founded on. I suggest anyone who thinks that should read a few more books on the founding fathers. Liberty is what this country was founded on. Personal liberty, not the "I can do anything and you can't stop me" liberty being bandied about as Libertarianism. Today's libertarianism would create a larger divide between the haves and have nots. How? Simple, there is no need for regulation or fair trade or equality or any other laws that stand in the way of the "free market". That same free market that would permit a large store like Wal-Mart to come into a little town and sell at a loss for enough time to drive all the competition out of business, then jack up the prices. The Libertarian ideal of being able to do as you please on your property. Poisoning the well goes a little far, but putting up a 10 story apartment building that ruins the lives of the neighbors doesn't. Neither does selling my 500 acres to put up a private correction facility. You can't prove that it ruined your life, so you as my neighbor are screwed in the Libertarian world. Certainly having public input to private property changes is as against the Libertarian principle as you can get.


If you think you are being infringed on today, you need to look a lot deeper into our past. Almost every state prior to 1775 had laws on the books that were enforced to keep out people of opposing religions. Virginia had to make a law stating that if a Jew was shipwrecked they were NOT to be shot on sight, but removed to a nearby state. Maryland had mandatory tithing that supported the Presbitirian church and your taxes paid to build more churches. Massachusetts had laws against Quakers. etc, etc, etc.

When you complain about public education keep in mind that as late as the civil war many men signed with an X because we did not have mandatory public education. The founding fathers were home schooled and then went to be privately tought by professors and then went to colleges, but the average person

Oh yes, there were many violations of personal liberty in the early years of the US. Remember slavery? But the ideals set forth in the Revolution, and the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are libertarian. The American philosophy is libertarian, despite countless deviations. It never was perfectly libertarian, but it is very libertarian if you compare the US to the rest of the world. There are some things that we are less libertarian than other countries, but overall, we are the most libertarian.

[Sanslines]

Umm, is this supposed to make sense? Are you opposed to laws against murder, and the prosection of those who break that those laws? This is unfair to you?

This is what the Libertarians are all about. I am pleased that you think that they make no sense and (by implication) live in a fantasy world.

[jon71]

The Russians were also opposed. And do you know which two countries had billions and billions worth of contracts with Iraq? Yup, France and Russia. Also notice that almost all Iraqi weapons systems were French and Russian. They were in each other's pockets.
Saddam's own generals thought that Iraq had active WMD programs. Saddam later said that he wanted the Iranians to think he had WMDs.
Has everyone forgotten that he had tried before to get the bomb? After he kicked out all the UN inspectors, everyone expected that he was doing it for a reason. After that, we couldn't really tell what he was actually doing, but most figured he was up to no good.


Actually just before the U.S. invasion he let them back in. Diplomatic and economic pressure was finally working (a lot of which did not come from the U.S.). Bush rather hastily started the war then. If Saddam coopereated much more then Bush would lose the fig leaf of a "reason" he had for war and Bush was desperate to invade. His '04 campaign was already built around the idea of being a war president and Afghanistan wasn't producing the headlines he needed. Saddam cooperating was Bush's worst nightmare.

[riptidenj]

I note the wide spread phenomenon of "Blue on the Outside but Red on the Inside". Voters
in erstwhile Blue states have approved bans on gay marriage-or the reaffirmation of traditional marriage, if you prefer, they have voted for tax and spending limitations, term limits, all sorts of things that are usually seen as "conservative issues".
Each side has its own form of hypocrisy. True, many erstwhile conservatives are hypocrites when it comes to family values, but how many "leading" liberals have been exposed as tax cheats? Then we have Eliot Spitzer, a liberal exposed as a hypocrite on family values. Although many liberals would argue what goes on between consenting adults is their business and nobody else's.

[Skinview]

Actually just before the U.S. invasion he let them back in. Diplomatic and economic pressure was finally working (a lot of which did not come from the U.S.).Oh, yeah, the massive army that arrived on his doorstep had nothing to do with it. Sure. Right. And then after they turned around and went back home, he would continue to be all sweet and nice and abide by the peace treaty his generals signed in 1991. Sure.

[Skinview]

This is what the Libertarians are all about. I am pleased that you think that they make no sense and (by implication) live in a fantasy world.

You didn't answer my question:

Do you think laws against murder, theft, rape, assault, fraud, vandalism, etc. are unfair? Is being in favor of such laws is "living in a fantasy world"?

[marko486]

No way am I going to get involved in this pointless debate, however I did want to recommend this libertarian paradise for your next vacation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

[BinCo]

Oh yes, there were many violations of personal liberty in the early years of the US. Remember slavery? But the ideals set forth in the Revolution, and the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are libertarian. The American philosophy is libertarian, despite countless deviations. It never was perfectly libertarian, but it is very libertarian if you compare the US to the rest of the world. There are some things that we are less libertarian than other countries, but overall, we are the most libertarian.

Sure. That's like saying that all Christians are honest and good people because they're Christian or that all Muslims are bad because they are Muslim. The ideals and philosophies are there. They are just selectively applied to the situation at hand by the individual.

You also must remember that in the days of the Revolution we had a little something called COMMUNITY. People looked out for each other and helped each other with an implicit understanding that it is a reciprical society. Barnraising, crop harvests and various other duties were part of the lives of the people. There was an acceptance that if my house burned down, others in the community would help me bring in the crops or rebuild my house or give my children a place to live while we rebuilt. The perverted Libertarianism of today would toss people out to the cold with a "it's your problem, not mine" attitude. There will always be individuals who want to help and those who don't, but Libertarianism is one of the political ideals that really is a one for one and all for none philsophy.

[BinCo]

No way am I going to get involved in this pointless debate, however I did want to recommend this libertarian paradise for your next vacation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

I love it! How about Haiti. Warm beaches, white sands! Mmmmmmmmmm

[jon71]

You didn't answer my question:

Do you think laws against murder, theft, rape, assault, fraud, vandalism, etc. are unfair? Is being in favor of such laws is "living in a fantasy world"?


Such obvious things like those major felonies are something that liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and other can agree on. No group has a monopoly on agreeing with the obvious.

[jon71]

Oh, yeah, the massive army that arrived on his doorstep had nothing to do with it. Sure. Right. And then after they turned around and went back home, he would continue to be all sweet and nice and abide by the peace treaty his generals signed in 1991. Sure.


Diplomatic and economic pressure was working, it had nothing to do with "being nice".

[Naturist Mark]

Oh yes, there were many violations of personal liberty in the early years of the US. Remember slavery? But the ideals set forth in the Revolution, and the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are libertarian.


Actually that is not libertarian, that is "liberal", in the original sense.

[Naturist Mark]

I'm not talking about all conservatives, but there is a large degree of correlation between being a self identified conservative, a Fox viewer, and being completely misinformed or just plain in denial of reality.

Keep Government Out of Medicare
According to Public Policy Polling (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_819513.pdf)j:
39% of all Americans responded that the government should "stay out of Medicare,"
59% of self-identified conservatives and
62% of McCain voters hold that view.
Barack Obama is a Muslim
11% of Americans believe Barack Obama is a Muslim,
17% of Republicans and
19% of white evangelicals believe it.
Barack Obama Was Not Born in the United States
58% of Republicans do not believe (28%) or were unsure (30%) that President Barack Obama was in fact born in the United States.
10% weren't sure if Hawaii is part of the United States
Government Death Panels Will Euthanize My Grandma
45% said it's likely the government will decide when to stop care for the elderly
75% of Fox viewers believe that is likely
Obama's Health Care Plan Will Cover Illegal Aliens
72% of Fox viewers believe this.
Obama's Health Care Plan Will Pay for Abortions
69% of Fox viewers believe this.
President Obama Raised Taxes on Working People
even though that facts show that Obama has cut taxes for 98.6% of working households.
Believed by the entire "Tea Party" movement.

The numbers are not in yet for these new ones just now getting around:
Obama's Health Care Plan Will Use Voter Registration Rolls to Discriminate Against Republicans
I'm NOT making this up (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/ama-smacks-down-rnc-claim-that-dems-want-to-ration-care-for-republican-voters.php) ...
The Swine Flu Vaccine is a Plot by Obama to Commit Genocide Against America
Yep. Somehow, Wingnuts Have Decided Swine Flu Vaccine Will Lead to Genocide (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/141666/somehow,_wingnuts_have_decided_swine_flu_vaccine_w ill_lead_to_genocide/)

h/t to Perrspectives (http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001601.htm) and Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/141666/somehow,_wingnuts_have_decided_swine_flu_vaccine_w ill_lead_to_genocide/)

Addenda: It was pointed out to me that I didn't clearly state that every one of those beliefs printed in bold is provably false. They are not true.

[Fitz1980]

The Republican Party Is Turning Into A Cult



http://progressivenation.us/2009/08/19/the-republican-party-is-turning-into-a-cult/
Something strange has happened in America in the nine months since Barack Obama was elected. It has best been summarized by the comedian Bill Maher: “The Democrats have moved to the right, and the Republicans have moved to a mental hospital.”

The election of Obama — a centre-left black man — as a successor to George W. Bush has scrambled the core American right’s view of their country. In their gut, they saw the US as a white-skinned, right-wing nation forever shaped like Sarah Palin. When this image was repudiated by a majority of Americans in a massive landslide, it simply didn’t compute. How could this have happened? How could the cry of “Drill, baby, drill” have been beaten by a supposedly big government black guy? So a streak that has always been there in the American right’s world-view — to deny reality, and argue against a demonic phantasm of their own creation — has swollen. Now it is all they can see.

[Skinview]

Actually that is not libertarian, that is "liberal", in the original sense.

Its the same thing. The only reason libertarians don't call themselves "liberal" is because the meaning of the word underwent a major change.

[Skinview]

Diplomatic and economic pressure was working, it had nothing to do with "being nice".

Years of diplomatic and economic pressure resulted in nothing until the Army showed up.

[jon71]

Years of diplomatic and economic pressure resulted in nothing until the Army showed up.


Flat out untrue. Saddam was caving. Bush had to rush at the end to get the war he wanted because his fig leaf of a reason was disappearing.

[Skinview]

Sure. That's like saying that all Christians are honest and good people because they're Christian or that all Muslims are bad because they are Muslim. The ideals and philosophies are there. They are just selectively applied to the situation at hand by the individual.

You also must remember that in the days of the Revolution we had a little something called COMMUNITY. People looked out for each other and helped each other with an implicit understanding that it is a reciprical society. Barnraising, crop harvests and various other duties were part of the lives of the people. There was an acceptance that if my house burned down, others in the community would help me bring in the crops or rebuild my house or give my children a place to live while we rebuilt. The perverted Libertarianism of today would toss people out to the cold with a "it's your problem, not mine" attitude. There will always be individuals who want to help and those who don't, but Libertarianism is one of the political ideals that really is a one for one and all for none philsophy.

Your perception of libertarianism is just plain wrong. Individuals voluntarily helping their community is exactly the kind of thing that a responsible libertarian would participate in. That is what libertarians favor over government forcibly taxing us and then creating a massive beurocracy (never could spell that word) that inefficiently impliments a program that does something that sounds nice and produces counterproductive results.
Libertarians oppose the mentality that nothing will get done if the government doesn't do it. Private charity is the alternative to the nanny state.

[Sanslines]

The Libertarianism FAQ

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html

After reading the above link, it is obvious that Libertarianism is fantasy based upon an ideology that has been proven in so many instances NOT TO WORK in the real world. It is a toy of political theorists. Libertarianism should be restricted to philosophy textbooks.

[Sanslines]

Private charity is the alternative to the nanny state.

Private charity has been overwhelmed by the current economic downturn. Private charity can not keep up with the needs of the vast numbers of people. Libertarianism conveniently neglects this fact and would no doubt have no answers when the reality sets in - massive hunger and other critical unmet needs.

If people do not want government to grow larger, then people need to stop giving government and excuse to do so.

[Fitz1980]

The Libertarianism FAQ

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html

After reading the above link, it is obvious that Libertarianism is fantasy based upon an ideology that has been proven in so many instances NOT TO WORK in the real world. It is a toy of political theorists. Libertarianism should be restricted to philosophy textbooks.

Reminds me of those tea party protesters and their trumpeting of the gospel of Ayn Rand. The thing I found funny was that for years people on the right have accused liberals of doing "dangerous social experiments" by letting gays marry, allowing women in the millitary or giving people access to health care. Now these people want to undo 150 years of social progress in this country and return it to some idealized fiction of how things were in the 1800s and we're the ones into dangerous social experiments?

[MoonShadow]

You're spot on, Fitz and Sanslines.

There is no possible way, Libertartianism, will work in this country (or any country today). It would end up being chaoic anarchy!

[Skinview]

Myself, I am not a libertarian purist. I think that there are some positive things about having a social safety net, although as Reagan once said, it should be a net, not a hammock. But such things are the perview of state governments, and not something our ignored Constitution allows the Federal government to do.

That said, it had been the case that welfare was causing more damage to society than good, and its horribly inefficient.

And, Moonshadow, America was not a chaotic anarchy before FDR and LBJ got elected. Private charities provided for most of the poor. There used to be a sense of personal responsibility for the welfare of your neighbors that has been replaced by the feeling that the government will take care of all the problems. Private charitable institutions that once existed are gone and fogotten.

[marko486]

Ahh the good ole days. Working in the mines for the uber rich was character building to say the least.

[Sanslines]

And, Moonshadow, America was not a chaotic anarchy before FDR and LBJ got elected. Private charities provided for most of the poor. There used to be a sense of personal responsibility for the welfare of your neighbors that has been replaced by the feeling that the government will take care of all the problems. Private charitable institutions that once existed are gone and fogotten.


Wow, I didn't know that you are THAT old and remember what life was like back in the 1800's.

[MoonShadow]

And, Moonshadow, America was not a chaotic anarchy before FDR and LBJ got elected. Private charities provided for most of the poor. There used to be a sense of personal responsibility for the welfare of your neighbors that has been replaced by the feeling that the government will take care of all the problems. Private charitable institutions that once existed are gone and fogotten.

Criminy, Skinview, there is no way -- repeat -- no way public or private charities today could take care of the poor. There are too many poor people in this country -- just this country --Further, this IS a government by the people and if my tax dollars are used to help the poor, the needy, the hungry, I support it. Why don't you?

[Naturist Mark]

There used to be a sense of personal responsibility for the welfare of your neighbors that has been replaced by the feeling that the government will take care of all the problems. Private charitable institutions that once existed are gone and fogotten.

1) The majority of people give to charities more today than in the past (with the caveat that everyone has taken a hit during the current economic disaster - including charities). One notable exception is that giving by the very wealthy - who have traditionally been the largest givers in total, drops steadily as taxes on the very wealthy are decreased. Still, those less well to do have remained generous despite their lessor means - over 70% of American households regularly make charitable contributions. This is the golden age of charity.

2) WE ARE the government. It is OUR government. It is US. One of the ways we take personal responsibility for our neighbors is through our government.

3) Many of the past 'charitable' institutions were government run. Including "county homes" and many orphanages. One of the progressive breakthroughs was the invention of welfare, which allowed for mothers to care for their own children at home rather than have to turn them over to the county home due to poverty.

[NudeAl]

...., America was not a chaotic anarchy before FDR and LBJ got elected. Private charities provided for most of the poor. There used to be a sense of personal responsibility for the welfare of your neighbors that has been replaced by the feeling that the government will take care of all the problems. Private charitable institutions that once existed are gone and fogotten.

Seriously?? Are you on crack? May I remind you that America, as well as the entire world, was in the DEPTHS OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION when FDR was the president. We are talking forclosure city, Wall Street types jumping out of buildings, Grapes of Wrath stuff here, my own family lost the family farm in the Dust Bowl of Oklahoma and packed all the kids into an old jalopy and headed west to pick crops in CA. There were NO SAFETY NETS and no one wanted them they were burned out of the shanty towns when they stopped for more than a couple of days.

As for LBJ he did a lot of good trying to bring the South into the twentieth century kicking and screaming and lynching the whole way. LBJ was the President during the freedom marches and if it weren't for him ol' Wallace would have kept those kids out of school and we would still be facing segregation and Jim Crow laws. Sometimes it is the DUTY of government to do the right thing no matter what.

By the way the Salvation Army just celebrated it's 130th year here in Spokane WA and they're still going strong.

[LamontCranston]

WE ARE the government. It is OUR government. It is US. One of the ways we take personal responsibility for our neighbors is through our government. Right Mark. Keep our eyes on the ball.

As Abraham Lincon put it in his Gettysburg Address --


...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Notice his references to sacrifice and God. Those are two things that seem missing these days... We need to resist the temptation to rewrite the words "by the people, for the people" as "by someone else, for me.."

[Sanslines]

3) Many of the past 'charitable' institutions were government run. Including "county homes" and many orphanages. One of the progressive breakthroughs was the invention of welfare, which allowed for mothers to care for their own children at home rather than have to turn them over to the county home due to poverty.

Where are the fathers of these children and why are they not forced to support their children?

[Naturist Mark]

Where are the fathers of these children and why are they not forced to support their children?

Many were doing the best they could under difficult circumstances with little or no help or sympathy from their 'betters'. Many were dead. Others were the scions of powerful families and thus immune to the force of law. Others were rapists. Still more were working for food, or in jail, or away at sea or fighting in foreign lands. We didn't invent hard times.

[BinCo]

Where are the fathers of these children and why are they not forced to support their children?

Many of them are on the run because they can't earn enough to eat themselves. The system is really screwed up when it comes to father support. It depends on the judge as to how much a man has to pay in child support. If he can't get a job bringing home more than $1200 a month and the judge awards $1000 a month in child support, where is the incentive to work? It really sucks. Then you have some moms that live with their boyfriend as a husband but will not marry him in order to collect that child support. The system needs to be aware that not all men are scums. Some want to have time with the kids, but mom moves them away or refuses to let them see each other. Then to have her demand anything from him seems pretty one sided. My P.O.S brother in law is one of them. He gets a job and his paycheck vanishes with back child support after a few months, so he quits and find a new job. I can see why he gets depressed about it. He would have to work for free for years to pay back his child support. The take any tax returns from him and he tries to make due.

I read an article a few years ago about a Marine who was ordered to pay 125% of his pay in child support. Being a full time Marine he was not allowed to get a second job. The judge didn't care.

You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

[Naturist Mark]

Many of them are on the run because they can't earn enough to eat themselves. The system is really screwed up when it comes to father support.

Actually, we were talking about the days before welfare ... when desperate parents who didn't have family to back them up had to turn their kids over to "the county home" or orphanages - this was before the modern system of welfare to keep families intact, and foster homes for wards of the state were fully developed.

[Skinview]

Actually, we were talking about the days before welfare ... when desperate parents who didn't have family to back them up had to turn their kids over to "the county home" or orphanages - this was before the modern system of welfare to keep families intact, and foster homes for wards of the state were fully developed.
And the days before multi generational welfare queens. Not that I am opposed to government assistance, but typically when the government does something, it is horribly inefficient, ham fisted, and often has worse side effects. For a long time, the welfare system created more poverty than it relieved, and was a factor in the destruction of the American family. It has since been reformed, but welfare should be a warning about what can go wrong when the government steps in. Its also another reminder that allowing the states to experiment can cause less damage that one giant Federal screw up.

[Skinview]

Seriously?? Are you on crack? May I remind you that America, as well as the entire world, was in the DEPTHS OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION when FDR was the president...So? I didn't say that there wasn't an economic disaster, but thats not the same thing as "anarchy".

[Skinview]

Criminy, Skinview, there is no way -- repeat -- no way public or private charities today could take care of the poor. There are too many poor people in this country -- just this country --Further, this IS a government by the people and if my tax dollars are used to help the poor, the needy, the hungry, I support it. Why don't you?
I do. But the goverment has a talent for screwing things up. Simply replacing the huge welfare bureaucracy with a negative income tax would be a big step forward.

But there are several things to keep in mind:

1. Wefare creates more poor people. No wonder there are more today.

2. Poor here are pretty rich by world standards. As one immigrant from India once said "I want to live in America, where the poor people are fat."

3. Many poor people manage to watch cable tv.

4. Poor people need jobs more than they need money. If you weren't taxed to provide welfare, you would be spending that money on something. Whatever that is, someone would have to be employed to provide those goods and services. So do you want to employ people to make things that you want with your money, or would you rather pay someone to hand out the small faction of your money that the government uses to feed to the welfare bureaucracy?

[jon71]

I do. But the goverment has a talent for screwing things up. Simply replacing the huge welfare bureaucracy with a negative income tax would be a big step forward.

But there are several things to keep in mind:

1. Wefare creates more poor people. No wonder there are more today.

2. Poor here are pretty rich by world standards. As one immigrant from India once said "I want to live in America, where the poor people are fat."

3. Many poor people manage to watch cable tv.

4. Poor people need jobs more than they need money. If you weren't taxed to provide welfare, you would be spending that money on something. Whatever that is, someone would have to be employed to provide those goods and services. So do you want to employ people to make things that you want with your money, or would you rather pay someone to hand out the small faction of your money that the government uses to feed to the welfare bureaucracy?


By no stretch of the imagination does welfare create poor people. People are poor before they go on welfare. A majority of welfare recipients are on it for less than one year in their entire life. Over 70% are on it for less than two years of their entire life. Most of the remaining less than 30% actually have jobs while they recieve welfare, just low paying jobs. After that you have to look at people with serious disabilities. It is not "a way of life" like some on the right claim. By and large it is a great success and does just what it is intended to do, give people a temporary way to get by until they find a job or find a better job.

[Sanslines]

Many were doing the best they could under difficult circumstances with little or no help or sympathy from their 'betters'. Many were dead. Others were the scions of powerful families and thus immune to the force of law. Others were rapists. Still more were working for food, or in jail, or away at sea or fighting in foreign lands. We didn't invent hard times.

Funny how the same set of circumstances also pertain to women and yet women for the most part do not run away from their children.

There were always periods of hard times and yet during past times we did not have the explosion of deadbeat dads that we do today.

There certainly are deadbeat moms too but the majority are dads.

When you bring a child into this world, you have a responsibility to raise that child as best you can. You do not do what some of these guys do, which is to run around like a dog in heat impregnating one woman after another.

[Sanslines]

For a long time, the welfare system created more poverty than it relieved, and was a factor in the destruction of the American family. It has since been reformed, but welfare should be a warning about what can go wrong when the government steps in. Its also another reminder that allowing the states to experiment can cause less damage that one giant Federal screw up.

The problem is not welfare in general. The problem has been the obvious misues of welfare, coupled with other societal problems.

Welfare was never meant to be a substitute for work. Yet, with the current economic situation, it has become that to a certain extent.
In the best of times, due to our growing population, our economy needs to create at least 125,000 jobs per month. This is our most pressing problem - creating meaningful work that produces something. We then need to reform welfare programs to allow for a sensible transition from welfare to work. As it stands now, many who are on welfare are also on other programs such as Medicaid. If they begin work, they loose all of their benefits, including Medicaid. If they become sick, they would be required to reapply for Medicaid and might wait up to a year or more (if they qualify). The real fear of losing such a valuable benefit is enough to keep many from pursuing work. Honestly, why would anyone want to work like a dog for minimum wage and with no benefits when they can stay at home and collect from the government?

[Sanslines]

Hunger Hysteria: Examining Food Security And Obesity In America

Conclusion

Contrary to the claims of poverty advocates, the major dietary problem facing poor Americans is too much, not too little, food. Public policies should be directed toward encouraging the poor to avoid chronic over-consumption, exercise more, and reduce intake of foods rich in fat and added sugar.

Facts

Eating Too Much, Not Too Little

Thus, the government's own data show that, even though they may have brief episodes of reduced food intake, most adults in food insecure households actually consume too much, not too little, food. To improve health, policies must be devised to encourage these individuals to avoid chronic over-consumption of calories and to spread their food intake more evenly over the course of each month to avoid episodic shortfalls.

Yet most proposed policy responses to food insecurity call for giving low-income persons more money to purchase food despite the fact that most low-income persons, like most Americans, already eat too much. Such policies are likely to make the current situation worse, not better. One commonly proposed policy, for example, is to expand participation in the Food Stamp program. Participation in the Food Stamp program, however, does not appear to reduce food insecurity. Households receiving food stamps do not have improved food security compared to similar households with the same non-food stamp income who do not participate in the program. Moreover, participation in the Food Stamp program does not appear to increase diet quality. Compared to similar households who do not receive food stamps but have the same non-food stamp income, households receiving food stamps do not consume more fruits and vegetables but do, unfortunately, consume more added sugars and fats.

While the Food Stamp program has little positive effect on food quality, considerable evidence indicates that the program has the counter-productive effect of increasing obesity. For example, a recent study funded by USDA found that low-income women who participate in the Food Stamp program are substantially more likely to be obese than women in households with the same non-food stamp income who did not receive food stamps. Over the long term, food stamp receipt was found to increase obesity in men as well. While other research has failed to confirm this link between food stamps and obesity, the possibility that this program has harmful effects remains quite real.

Developing a rational policy on nutrition and poor Americans will require dispelling common misconceptions concerning poverty and obesity. For example, one common misconception is that poor people become obese because they are forced, due to a lack of financial resources, to eat too many junk foods that are high in fat and added sugar. According to this theory, poor persons struggle to obtain sufficient calories to maintain themselves and are forced to rely on junk foods as the cheapest source of calories, but because junk foods have high "energy density" (more calories per ounce of food content), these foods paradoxically induce a tendency to overeat and thereby cause weight gain.

One problem with this theory is that junk foods are not a particularly cheap source of calories. For example, soft drinks are high in added sugar and are generally associated with weight gain, but as a source of calories, brand name soft drinks such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi are often more expensive (in terms of calories per dollar) than milk. Snack foods such as potato chips and donuts cost two to five times more per calorie than healthier staples such as beans, rice, and pasta. Families truly seeking to maximize calories per dollar of food expenditure would focus not on junk and snack foods but on traditional low-cost staples such as beans, rice, flour, pasta, and milk. These foods are not only less expensive but actually have below-average energy density and therefore a lower potential to promote weight gain.

In reality, poor people are increasingly becoming overweight for the same reason that most Americans are becoming overweight: They eat too much and exercise too little. Like the rest of America, the poor eat too many high-fat foods and foods with added sugars, but they do this for the same reason the average American over-consumes these foods: They are highly palatable. While it would be desirable for poor people (like all Americans) to drink fewer soft drinks and eat more broccoli, simply expanding the Food Stamp program would not accomplish that goal. What is required is a very difficult effort to change food preferences.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm1701.cfm

[Naturist Mark]

Texas Responds to Obama's attempt to "Indoctrinate" school children with the SOCIALIST message of "study hard and stay in school."

The Lies of Texas Are Upon You (http://www.moorethink.com/2009/09/04/the-lies-of-texas-are-upon-you/)

http://static.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2009/09/marcmurphy_2e438.jpg

Glue? Check. Protractor? Check. No. 2 pencils? Check. Insane reaction to president's back-to-school speech? Check. (http://mediamatters.org/columns/200909040044)

<div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/32698485#32698485" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></div>

[Fitz1980]

Conservatives March on Washington.


http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/feature/2009/09/12/protest/
Stepping in to the crowd there felt, at some times, like stepping into an alternate reality. It was a reality in which provisions establishing "death panels" really can be found in healthcare reform legislation, where President Obama is a Marxist and a Fascist, where the majority was represented by these protesters rather than the voters who elected a Democrat president and gave him an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress less than a year ago -- it was a reality where the D.C. Beltway had been shut down due to an influx of 1.5 million people, almost three times more than the entire population of Washington.

Even some of the protesters with more mainstream ideas didn't want to be associated with the crazy nuts.


"I just wanted to let you know there are some normal people here to protest government spending," she said. Identifying herself as part of a local chapter of the College Republicans, she added, "We're not all nuts. I just wanted to let you know that."

She was right, too. Not everyone at the protest was "nuts," not by a long shot.

There was Linda Raileanu, for instance, who carried a sign reading "Nurses against Obamacare." A registered nurse who told Salon she had more than 20 years of experience working, in part, in Philadelphia hospitals, Raileanu said she was there because she worked with physicians and nurses who were against the Democratic proposals for healthcare reform and were "very upset Obama's giving the perception we're for it." She wanted to represent them, she said. But she did participate in that alternate reality a bit. Though she'd worked to provide end-of-life counseling, she told Salon she was against the provisions in the bills going through Congress that would provide coverage for people who choose to receive such counseling because she believed it should be done by professionals, not bureaucrats. (No bureaucrats would be involved in the actual consultation.)

But a protest is always a flash point for crazy lunatics.


And there was the other woman who pulled me aside. She had come down from Germantown, Pa., she told me, but she, too, declined to give her name -- for fear of Obama's "snitches," she explained.

"I studied Nazi Germany, I read the story of how they took over," she told me. "From the very beginning I heard it with Obama ... I've studied the camps. That's why people are here, because they're afraid of the death camps that are coming." The woman also said she believed liberals had "voted for a hijacker ... voted for al-Qaida," but said she understood, because they hadn't known, and she was ready to forgive them if they woke up to the situation.

Much like Glen Beck and the other commentates in the right wing echo chamber, they're so extreme it's hard to parody them.


The atmosphere and the slogans were, in places, extreme enough that four liberals who'd come to parody the protesters were having no trouble slipping in unnoticed, even cheered. This despite the four -- Jack Neville, Julian Brunner, Tushara Ekanayake and Marina France -- carrying signs like one that read "A whole lot of white people here today" and another that asked "Where's the proof?" and showed an image of Obama's certification of live birth. Ekanayake's sign warned of gay Muslims -- it should have been a tip-off, except that he was also carrying a photo of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a rising star in the Republican Party, and telling people he was Jindal's nephew. That, he said, had allayed suspicion.

And of course a very realistic grasp on history; of course what would you expect from people who think that Genesis is a literally true record of history.


"It's such an example of group think," France said of the crowd at the rally. She made a good case, too, pointing out yet another way in which the reality on the Mall Saturday differed from the one beyond it. One of the more popular themes in protesters' signs was a theme Beck has been harping on lately, the alleged proliferation of so-called "czars" like the drug czar in the Obama administration. Many of those signs linked the presence of those czars to Communism -- it was unclear if any of the protesters holding them were aware of the real history of Russia, in which the Communists overthrew and replaced the czars.

[Fitz1980]

Does anybody else see the irony?


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/16/tea-party-protesters-protest-dc-metro-service/

Protesters who attended Saturday’s Tea Party rally in Washington found a new reason to be upset: Apparently they are unhappy with the level of service provided by the subway system.

Rep. Kevin Brady called for a government investigation into whether the government-run subway system adequately prepared for this weekend’s rally to protest government spending and government services.

Seriously.

A bunch of people protesting government spending are now pissed that a tax payer funded transport system didn't put more trains on for them.

[jon71]

Does anybody else see the irony?



A bunch of people protesting government spending are now pissed that a tax payer funded transport system didn't put more trains on for them.


Remember, these are the same people who want to keep govt. out of medicare.

[Illinois59]

The whole D.C. public transportation system should have been shut down on the day of the march in support of the Teabagger's aim of lowering government spending. After all, these socialistic ideas of the government being involved in your day to day life (including getting from one place to another) must go. Right?

[LamontCranston]

Nah... I'm still not embarrassed.

It occurred to me though that Rep. Wilson jumping up with his "you lie!" remark may have been VERY clever (or not). He said it at the point in the speech where the President said we're not covering illegal immigrants with the new health care plan.

So, of course, now if we do cover illegal immigrants (a likely outcome it seems...) there's this great video clip with Obama, Biden and Pelosi all in the same frame and a follow-up censure vote in the house. I don't give the man (Rep. Wilson) credit for being that bold and forward thinking but we'll see. We'll see.

Remember G.H.W. Bush with his, "read my lips, no new taxes" speech? It came back to bite him.. :D

In other news... I rode the DC Metro system to work every day for a few years and always had to buy a ticket. Has that changed? What do you mean by government run? Metro Pass sales don't cover expenses anymore?

Can't *any* business run itself without handouts from Uncle Sam??? :eek:

[Naturist Mark]

Nah... I'm still not embarrassed.

It occurred to me though that Rep. Wilson jumping up with his "you lie!" remark may have been VERY clever (or not). He said it at the point in the speech where the President said we're not covering illegal immigrants with the new health care plan.

So, of course, now if we do cover illegal immigrants (a likely outcome it seems...)

Likely? It was ruled out from the beginning.

The only federal bills that provide free medical care for illegal immigrants were passed by Reagan in 1983 when he mandated that Emergency Rooms cannot turn anyone away, and GW Bush in 2003 when Republicans added a rider to the unrelated Medicare part D bill that had the Federal government pay for part of the cost of emergency care for illegals.

Every version of the "public option" includes a prohibition against enrolling anyone who is not in the country legally. That is a dead simple thing to enforce, since you would have to provide a valid Social Security number to enroll.

Republicans argue that illegals would be able to get the "affordability credits" that help pay for private insurance. But again, those credits would be administered by the IRS, and could not be issued to someone without a valid Social Security number. Illegals who use fake social security numbers and/or taxpayer IDs to work are paying into the IRS coffers, but are unable to file returns and claim credits. The whole argument about illegals getting government insurance or government funding for private insurance are total fluff. Just not true. Or to coin a phrase: You Lie!



In other news... I rode the DC Metro system to work every day for a few years and always had to buy a ticket. Has that changed? What do you mean by government run? Metro Pass sales don't cover expenses anymore?
And the "public option" would be funded entirely by the premiums paid by those who enroll in it, unlike the private insurers who will be subsidized by "affordability credits" - tax dollars. Interesting, no? The "public" plan would use only private funds, the "private" plans will get government money. Which one is the evil socialist plan again?

Can't *any* business run itself without handouts from Uncle Sam???
No

Every business depends on the social, economic and physical infrastructure provided by government. From courts that enforce contracts, to fire and police protection, to regulators who prevent their financial institutions from ripping them off (oops, we stopped doing that for a while), to the basic public education of their employees and customers, to the roads they and their suppliers and customers travel and ship goods on, to the military that prevents foreign powers from taking over or destroying them and their markets, and on and on.

So no, not a single business can run itself without the all the protections, services and "handouts" it gets from government. Not a single one.

[NudeAl]

So? I didn't say that there wasn't an economic disaster, but thats not the same thing as "anarchy".

No but my definition of anarchy would have to include calling out federal troops to disperse crowds of protestors and enforcing martial law as they did during The Great Depression. It would also include mobs carrying our vigilante justice against migrant people whos only offense was being poor and in their town. It would also explain the rise in popularity of both communism and fascism in this country during that period. But then maybe my definition is different from yours.

[Fitz1980]

Chalk another one up for the "fair and balanced" "news reporters" at Fox News. Today they took out a full page ad in the Washington Post with a picture of the recent 'tea party' protest in Washington D.C. and the caption "How did, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN miss this story?"

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/105636/original.jpg

At first I didn't know what to make of it, as I saw the tea parties all over CNN when they happened. Than I remembered something that happened this summer. When the Iranian protesters used twitter, myspace and facebook to spread the word and organize several some BBs that I post on got inundated with posts from conservatives saying "the tea party protesters should have used twitter so the mainstream media couldn't shut them up." I found that one strange, since the tea parties back in April were all over the media too. I'm assuming that when they didn't result in a national tax revolt the right wing echo chamber started saying that it was because the media participated in a conspiracy of silence so that no one would hear about them. I'm assuming that this was more of the same.

The best part of Faux New's ad is that the background picture that they used to accuse CNN & the rest not covering the story was a picture from CNN's own tower camera.


<object id="flashObj" width="486" height="412" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9/6555681001?isVid=1&publisherID=769341148" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=40937443001&playerID=6555681001&domain=embed&" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9/6555681001?isVid=1&publisherID=769341148" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=40937443001&playerID=6555681001&domain=embed&" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

[Sanslines]

Well ki4kxq was at the 9-12 rally in DC but hasn't given us a status report yet. We are all stil waiting with baited breath for her report.

[Naturist Mark]

Well ki4kxq was at the 9-12 rally in DC but hasn't given us a status report yet. We are all stil waiting with baited breath for her report.

She may still be waiting at the subway station ...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kgahREunqFU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kgahREunqFU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Sanslines]

She may still be waiting at the subway station ...

Why would she wait at a subway station? She doesn't believe in government funded services.

[Fitz1980]

Why would she wait at a subway station? She doesn't believe in government funded services.

Perhaps she's in this video somewhere. Warning it kinda lags, so let it load a few minutes ahead before watching.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lUPMjC9mq5Y&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lUPMjC9mq5Y&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[gmoney]

I sense some resentment of these tea parties from you guys on here...

Why the hate?
Average Americans taking a stance that enough is enough(anti-gov) is something you should be proud of as AMERICANS.

What is it that you truly want in this world?
Is it gov control of everything?

[jon71]

I sense some resentment of these tea parties from you guys on here...

Why the hate?
Average Americans taking a stance that enough is enough(anti-gov) is something you should be proud of as AMERICANS.

What is it that you truly want in this world?
Is it gov control of everything?


These people are not average Americans, they are the lunatic fringe. The govt. has a job to do and those of us who are sane want to see that job done well. Mostly though it's just that the teabaggers are so off the wall and loony who can resist making fun of them.

[gmoney]

These people are not average Americans, they are the lunatic fringe. The govt. has a job to do and those of us who are sane want to see that job done well. Mostly though it's just that the teabaggers are so off the wall and loony who can resist making fun of them.

Thats where you are wrong. They are average Americans.
The far right religious are not the type to protest. The ones I know don't like any confrontation.

[Sanslines]

These people are not average Americans, they are the lunatic fringe. The govt. has a job to do and those of us who are sane want to see that job done well. Mostly though it's just that the teabaggers are so off the wall and loony who can resist making fun of them.

You are right ....they are NOT average Americans. They clearly represent the fringe element of our society. They run on emotional outbursts - NOT fact backed information. They appeal to the uninformed and ignorant among us.


Durbin, Schumer: Town Hall Protesters Are "Birthers" "Tea Baggers," And "Fringe" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/04/durbin-schumer-town-hall_n_251077.html)


The angry-mob style protesters who have infiltrated town halls around the country are the non-organic product of "tea-baggers," "birthers," and the conservative fringe, two Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday.
Speaking outside the White House after meeting with President Obama, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Chuck Schumer of New York both dismissed the significance of boisterous protesters who have been interrupting Democratic lawmakers' events.

"It is a small fringe group," Schumer told the Huffington Post, "and if we let a small group of people who want to monopolize the conversation and not listen to the facts win, you may as well hang it up."

"These town hall meetings have been orchestrated by the tea baggers and the birthers to just be a free-for-alls, make a lot of noise, go on YouTube and show discord," said Durbin. "I mean that is what they are determined to do. But that is not going to accomplish what we need to accomplish: real health care reform."

The most recent example: A news conference held by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)'s at Utica, New York's Union Station was interrupted on Tuesday (http://www.wktv.com/news/local/52441737.html).

"You're lying to me," said Don Jeror as he loudly interrupted Hoyer. "Just because I don't have sophisticated language, I can recognize a liar when I see one." [...]
After yelling from the same group of people about corporate taxes being too high, Hoyer said those numbers were just as high during the Bush administration. [...]

Finally, after about five minutes of interruptions, Hoyer finished his address.

Durbin was asked if he was worried that the protests would have the desired effect, namely persuading vulnerable lawmakers to buck the president's health care agenda. He projected calm. "Most of them are grown-ups in politics, and they know that when they look at a crowd and say: 'these folks aren't even from here' ... A handful of folks are determined to disrupt these meetings," Durbin said. "That shouldn't stop us from what most Americans want to see us doing."

The remarks made by the two Senate Democrats reflect the overall message (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/04/obama-and-dnc-try-turning_n_250890.html) coming from the White House and Democratic Party. Asked during the press briefing on Tuesday whether he thought the town hall protests were fabricated chaos from the insurance and private health care industry, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded: "Some of it is, yes."
"In fact I think you have had groups today, Conservatives for Patients Rights, that have bragged about organizing and manufacturing that anger," Gibbs said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/04/durbin-schumer-town-hall_n_251077.html

[Naturist Mark]

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh116/sjhyphenrdotcom/091809brittcolor600.jpg (http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/09/16/jimmy-carter-racism-charge-triggers-next-us-race-debate/)

[gmoney]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/04/durbin-schumer-town-hall_n_251077.html
That says it all right there. there is no fair or balanced reporting from them. totally far left...
Please give us a break..

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh116/sjhyphenrdotcom/091809brittcolor600.jpg (http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/09/16/jimmy-carter-racism-charge-triggers-next-us-race-debate/)

So that's not funny but claiming Palin didnt have her child or even Letterman making his terrible comments (in reference to her and family)was OK?
Again give me a break, none of this crap is one sided...

[gmoney]

Yea this is so much change aint it? Talk about more of the same...
You sure hate it when its from "not your side"

[gmoney]

Doesn't seem like anything new to me with these protesters,

ITS MORE OF THE SAME PEOPLE, Please Realize that!

[Fitz1980]

So that's not funny but claiming Palin didnt have her child or even Letterman making his terrible comments (in reference to her and family)was OK?
Again give me a break, none of this crap is one sided...

What terrible thing did he say? Joking that her daughter's baby-daddy was A-Rod rather than that scumbag Levi Johnson, who even Palin admits is a scum bag.

[Naturist Mark]

Doesn't seem like anything new to me with these protesters,

ITS MORE OF THE SAME PEOPLE, Please Realize that!

Only it is different.

Nobody today is saying that criticism of the president or his policies is unpatriotic or unAmerican - like they did say about the critics of president Bush. What some, like Jimmy Carter, are saying now is that there is more than a little bit of racism behind some of the dissent. If you can't see how that is different, you must be wearing blinders.

[MoonShadow]

Only it is different.

Nobody today is saying that criticism of the president or his policies is unpatriotic or unAmerican - like they did say about the critics of president Bush. What some, like Jimmy Carter, are saying now is that there is more than a little bit of racism behind some of the dissent. If you can't see how that is different, you must be wearing blinders.

I think it is more than a "little bit of racism behind" a lot of this dissent. I think it is a key point for so many bubbas.

[MoonShadow]

Perhaps she's in this video somewhere. Warning it kinda lags, so let it load a few minutes ahead before watching.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lUPMjC9mq5Y&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lUPMjC9mq5Y&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Criminy! Truly sad that these bubbas can't even converse with any factual information or ANY information for that matter.

[Sanslines]

I think it is more than a "little bit of racism behind" a lot of this dissent. I think it is a key point for so many bubbas.

Obama answered the questions about racism well. He will not be sidetracked by side issues and clearly wants to keep the focus on health care reform where it should be.

[Bob S.]

Regarding the birthers, remember there were birthers who were claiming McCain was not eligible to be president since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Had he won, the Dems would be the ones out there.

Now about Jimmy Carter's comments, he seems to be saying that he himself is a racist as he grew up in that area. Was racism behind Joe Wilson's outburst? No, it was frustration and rudeness.

The arguments against the health care that the Dems are trying to push through Congress are substantive and focus on policy rather than race. In fact, how can race even be a part of it when Obama has nothing to do with the writing of any bills? He is putting everything into the hands of Congress.

With refards to race, we have seen how poorly Obama has handled the issue. Sure, he does good with talking about it, but when he was forced off script, he mishandled the situation by claiming ignorance regarding what happened with Skip Gates, but chiding the police for acting "stupidly." This led to the Beer Summit, so where is the invite for Wilson and Carter?

Is racism out there? Of course. It is evidenced on all sides but calling attention to it only when it is egregious or obvious is better than just throwing it out there in generalities.

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

Regarding the birthers, remember there were birthers who were claiming McCain was not eligible to be president since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Had he won, the Dems would be the ones out there.

Perhaps what you don't remember is that when the talk about McCain not being eligible because of his birth in Panama (he was actually born in Colon Hospital (http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/mccains-bc.jpg) in Colon - the Capital city of Panama, just outside of the Canal Zone - interestingly that makes him a citizen of Panama as well as the US), that line of debate was cut short by a Senate resolution (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2008/05/01/clinton-obama-sponsor-mccain-citizenship-bill/) that flatly stated that John McCain is a "Natural Born Citizen" of the United States. Who were the senators who sponsored that bill?

Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and Barack Obama (D-IL).

In fact, the resolution was slightly incorrect. It does not matter if McCain was born on a US military base, since he was the child of a US citizen (two in fact).

And there you have the difference. When groundless questions about John McCain's eligibility to run for president were raised, it was Democrats - including his probable opponents - who quashed that issue.

Had the shoe been on the other foot, the Republicans would have done the same, right? ... oh ... wait ... hmmmmm

[Fitz1980]

Regarding the birthers, remember there were birthers who were claiming McCain was not eligible to be president since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Had he won, the Dems would be the ones out there.


There are lunatics on both sides of issues. "9/11 Truthers" come to mind as well. The difference is that right-wing-nuts are fed into by a very organized well funded propaganda machine masquerading as a news organization. 9/11 conspiracy nuts have some internet documentaries and a few celebrities talking about it. Charlie Sheen & Rosie O'Donnell have voiced 9/11 conspiracy theories. O'Donnell was promptly fired from "The View" after her outburst. Bill Maher has repeatedly told 9/11 Truthers to stop asking him to raise this ridiculous conspiracy BS, which resulted in several of them attending one of his broadcasts and yelling about "building 7" and the like. Bill called them nut-cases and threw them out. On the other hand you have people like Hannity, Rush and Beck stirring them up.

[Naturist Mark]

For those interested in the question of the Constitution's "natural born citizen" requirement, it was not defined in the Constitution, but in practice it has simply meant that the president was a citizen from birth - not naturalized.

In 1968 George Romney (Mitt's dad) ran for the presidential nomination, even though he was born in Mexico to American parents.

In 1964 Barry Goldwater ran for president even though he was born in Arizona before it was a state.

In 1980 Lowell Weicker sought the Republican nomination for president. He was born in Paris, France to US parents.

In 1829 Chester A Arthur was born in Quebec while his US citizen mother was visiting relatives. His birth was later recorded (as was the custom at the time) in his parents home town in Vermont. At the time his father was an Irish citizen (British subject). He was definitely a British citizen by jus sanguinis (due to his father's British citizenship) and probably by jus soli (born in the British territory of Quebec), but was still a US citizen because of his mother's citizenship. Although there were questions about his place of birth, his citizenship status was never revoked and did not prevent his presidency.

They are all citizens under the concept of jus sanguinis by blood - as long as they are the child of a US citizen. Jus sanguinis was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1857 in the Dred Scott case - when applied to black slaves - but that decision was later invalidated.

Simply being born on a US military base does not make one a US citizen according to the State Department (unless at least one of the parents is a citizen): <blockquote>"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."</blockquote>

[Sanslines]

Regarding the birthers, remember there were birthers who were claiming McCain was not eligible to be president since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Had he won, the Dems would be the ones out there.

Now about Jimmy Carter's comments, he seems to be saying that he himself is a racist as he grew up in that area. Was racism behind Joe Wilson's outburst? No, it was frustration and rudeness.

The arguments against the health care that the Dems are trying to push through Congress are substantive and focus on policy rather than race. In fact, how can race even be a part of it when Obama has nothing to do with the writing of any bills? He is putting everything into the hands of Congress.

With refards to race, we have seen how poorly Obama has handled the issue. Sure, he does good with talking about it, but when he was forced off script, he mishandled the situation by claiming ignorance regarding what happened with Skip Gates, but chiding the police for acting "stupidly." This led to the Beer Summit, so where is the invite for Wilson and Carter?

Is racism out there? Of course. It is evidenced on all sides but calling attention to it only when it is egregious or obvious is better than just throwing it out there in generalities.

Bob S.

Jimmy Carter has always discussed what it was like growing up in a racist South. His comments must always be taken in proper perspective. Carter bases his comments concerning racism on many people surrounding him who were indeed racists.

The arguments against health cae reform are nothing more then criticisms and attacks against any major modification to the status quo. Those who are launching the attacks offer no substative solutions of their own that will resolve the myriad problems that have existed for many years.

Obama would be very wise (and is wise) to avoid digressing to debates and discussions about racism and is best served by staying focused on health care reform issues. Distractions add nothing to resolving health care issues but are just another weapon in the arsenal that those who wish to kill health care reform will use.

[jon71]

Thats where you are wrong. They are average Americans.
The far right religious are not the type to protest. The ones I know don't like any confrontation.


The far right religious and otherwise protest more than anything else. They're so far out of the American mainstream that's pretty much the only tool that they have. With only token exception public officials (wisely) don't take them seriously. Maybe you know a few stay at home types but that's the exception, not the rule.

[jon71]

As far as the "truth" movement while I certainly don't believe that Bush had specific detailed foreknowledge of the 9-11 attack he was given more general warnings that Al Queda was planning an attack which he blithely ignored. It's obvious that the right is trying to get people to focus on the most extreme sliver who claim specific foreknowledge and distract the public from what's known in that Bush had no interest in national security and ignored the warnings he did have. In addition to that there is an unavoidable question of competence.

[Naturist Mark]

I am NOT making this up!

Conservatizing the Bible (http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bible.html)

Conservative Bible Project (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project)

http://bp3.blogger.com/_r-eenQe7-2s/RyUBwxGtwgI/AAAAAAAABe4/GXtKEOkN5QU/s320/jesus_general_republican.gif

[jon71]

I am NOT making this up!

Conservatizing the Bible (http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bible.html)

Conservative Bible Project (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project)

http://bp3.blogger.com/_r-eenQe7-2s/RyUBwxGtwgI/AAAAAAAABe4/GXtKEOkN5QU/s320/jesus_general_republican.gif


They're committing blasphemy, among other things.

[Illinois59]

Re-writing the Bible to fit the right-wing agenda? A re-write of the Bible to fit any political agenda is something no Christian would consider.

[Boreas]

Wow Mark. That is unbelievable. And using the King James Version as a base "model"? Does that mean the KJV was the original manuscript? :rolleyes:

[nimrod]

I thought those on the conservative side believed that the bible was the true word of god and undisputable proof of gods exsistance.

I started to laugh as I was reading it then thought about the consequences of their actions and those that would actually believe that their interpretation is the "correct" one, and started to wonder where they would put in their version that it is a fact that Jesus and god actually hate liberals and all they stand for.

[Naturist Mark]

Here are some parts of the New Testament that will have to be excised or altered for the Conservative Bible:<blockquote> * Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. [Matthew 5:9]
* Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [Matthew 5:39]
* I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you; [Matthew 5:44]
* If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her. [John 8:7]
* Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. [Matthew 7:1 & 2.]
* Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy [Matthew 5:7]
* But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. [Matthew 6:15]
* Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. [Luke 12.15.] Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 19:23]
* You cannot serve both God and Money. [Matthew 6:24.]
* Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. [Matthew 22:21]
* Love your neighbor as yourself. .[Matthew 22:39]
* So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you. [Matthew 7:12.]
* If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. [Matthew 19:21]
* But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13&14.]
h/t Jesus is Liberal (http://www.jesusisaliberal.org/)
</blockquote>That Biblical Jesus is a real thorn in the side of Republican Jesus ...

[sdcal]

Regarding the Bible rewrite, if the conservatives are rejecting the "liberal" teachings of Christ, such as "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek", then why don't they just throw out the new testament completely?

It seems like they want to return to the old testament preaching of "an eye for an eye" and the like. So wouldn't it be simpler to convert to Judaism?

[Bob S.]

I am a Jewish conservative who looks at the Bible as a series of partially historic, partially mythic stories intended to narrate a moral code. Some stories are purely mythic, some have a mixture of historical fact mixed in with the mythical to form allegories.

Bob