Politics:Giuliani big lead over McCain, blacks flock to Obama over Clinton
Black voters who once favored Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama are flip-flopping and Rudy Giuliani leads John McCain by nearly 2-1 in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll.
In December and January Post-ABC News polls, Clinton led Obama among African Americans by 60 percent to 20 percent. In the new poll, Obama held a narrow advantage among blacks, 44 percent to 33 percent. The shift came despite four in five blacks having a favorable impression of the New York senator.
On the Republican side, Giuliani has gained significant strength among evangelicals despite being pro-choice and a supporter of gay rights. Here's a New York Times story about conservative Christians' search for a compatible candidate.
When Republicans were asked to rate Giuliani, McCain and Mitt Romney on a series of attributes, Giuliani was seen as the strongest leader, the most inspiring, the candidate with the best chance of winning the general election, the most honest and trustworthy and the one closest to them on the issues. McCain was seen as having the best experience to be president, but only by a narrow margin.Giuliani faces potential problems because of his views on abortion and gay rights. More than four in 10 Republicans said they were less likely to support him because of those views. More than two in 10 Republicans said there was "no chance" they would vote for him.
According to the poll, Americans said they were less likely to "support a candidate older than 72 (which McCain will be in August, 2008, or a candidate who is a Mormon (Romney) than a female or black candidate.
If Hogar gets to try to prove his points by quoting the bible I should get to prove mine by quoting my grandfather.
Posted by jay on March 1, 2007 05:29 PM"BTW Hogar, quoting scripture doesn't in any way validate your viewpoints...."
It doesnt validate them for Hogar either. It straight up CEMENTS them as infalibly correct. Straight from the mouth of God. No discussion left.
God wants poverty
God wants wealth
God wants insurance
God wants to cover himself
"Fear is healthy with respect to avoiding danger"
And the danger being an eternity in damnation for not doing what the leaders of the church and the authors of the bible tell you to do....again...a wonderful tool with which to govern the masses.
BTW Hogar, quoting scripture doesn't in any way validate your viewpoints....
Posted by jay on March 1, 2007 12:27 PM"Which is why I could live with Guiliani over Hillary."
Bah. You could live with him over her because...hes a Republican. Pathetic.
As for the rest, in the simpelest terms, fundies who believe God is against abortion should do their damn homework and figure out HOW to have the least amount of the damn things, rather than pushing some emotional bullshit that won't do anything for their actual agenda...but....
fundies just arent that smart. They see a thing, they decide if its good or bad, and if its good, God wants it..end of discussion.
Notice, there is no "research a thing" in there at all. Its just emotion.
And I find it extremely funny that they deny evolution, because for the most part, MONKEYS make decisiosn without research, using emotion.
Fundies should spend less time reading the bible. Youve already read the damn thing numerous times. Try learning from something that wasnt written 2000 years ago by what amounts to uneducated savages.
Posted by JW on March 1, 2007 12:03 PMJay,
The message of the Bible is just the opposite. Fear is experienced when one places oneself in danger. Fear is healthy with respect to avoiding danger. Fear is not a factor when one is not in danger.
1 John 4:17-19 (NASB)
17By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world.
18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.
19We love, because He first loved us.
Or you could say that the men who wrote the bible use fear to keep the masses in check...but of course that's only valid if God didn't dictate the bible to his earthly secretaries....
Posted by jay on March 1, 2007 11:45 AMJay,
There is scripture which clearly indicates that people can so reject God that he stops trying to help them stop hurting themselves.
It is not something to celebrate, but it is a sober warning.
Romans 1
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on March 1, 2007 11:14 AM"It is also possible that God is willing to allow certain people stop reproducing for the good of society in the future."
Damn Hogar...that's out there buddy.
Posted by jay on March 1, 2007 10:34 AMThat is stupid fundies who think they know what God wants, even though its not in the bible.
Posted by JW on February 28, 2007 03:56 PM
JW,
I can only speak for myself, but I would never say that God wants me to help pass a law outlawing abortion. I can say with reasonable certainty that God does not want abortion to happen. It is also possible that God is willing to allow certain people stop reproducing for the good of society in the future. So the inability of well intentioned people to outlaw abortion may in fact be the better outcome.
There should not be any idea of a perfect world on this side of eternity. The Bible gives many examples of God allowing the better of two bad situations. The Bible does not support situational ethics, but it is realistic with regard to the sinful condition of man.
Which is why I could live with Guiliani over Hillary.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on March 1, 2007 10:29 AMInteresting that a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro stem cell research candidate is leading the Republican field. This tells me one thing...the right wing is in trouble. There is no way the christian crazies allow this guy to get the nomination...which leaves the three major candidates for the nomination as non-starters. Who else you got? Gingrich? Buchanan? Huckabee?
Could get ugly.
Posted by jay on February 28, 2007 08:31 PMDemocrats have refused to recognize unborn babies as victims in violent crimes.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE
That is very much a minority opinion. As a lifelong Democrat I would love to see the Republican nominee take that positon.
The sad thing is that in an effort to protect abortion, Democrats have refused to recognize unborn babies as victims in violent crimes.
Well, if abortion was a matter of legislation, there would Repubs for it too. They can grandstand all they want because they don't actually have to vote on it.
Posted by on February 28, 2007 04:39 PM"What they need to do is to define a person under the 5th amendment. The sad thing is that in an effort to protect abortion, Democrats have refused to recognize unborn babies as victims in violent crimes."
You know Hogar, I suppose I don't have a problem with that stance.
That said, I think it pretty sad that stupid fundies can't see the difference between policy that limits abortion, and policy that just kills more by killing the mother as well.
Ive read your quotes from the bible. Im prepared to agree that God doesn't like abortion. What I'm not prepared to do is say that God said "Legal Bans on Abortion" are the way to deal with it. That is stupid fundies who think they know what God wants, even though its not in the bible.
And again, the proposed policy of "right to life" people doesnt protect any babies, doesnt lower the numbers killed, and ramps up the number of women killed. Im unclear as to how that is a "Pro-life" agenda.
Posted by JW on February 28, 2007 03:56 PMSo, if they do overthrow this...you may endup with a decision that just says a woman has a right to an abortion...and regulation in favor of fetus rights is unconstitutional.
Posted by JW on February 19, 2007 05:08 PM
JW,
What they need to do is to define a person under the 5th amendment. The sad thing is that in an effort to protect abortion, Democrats have refused to recognize unborn babies as victims in violent crimes.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22577
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on February 28, 2007 03:16 PMWell dumbass, you can call my discussion of constitutional rights "rantings of an idiot" if you like. Doesnt say much about you as an American however. You may think our rights are irrelevant because of a miracle baby, I dont.
And btw,
"Amillia is the first child for Eddie and Sonja Taylor of Homestead. She was conceived by in vitro fertilization, which made it possible to pinpoint her exact time in the womb, and was delivered by Caesarean section."
See that part about "in vitro fertilization" Yea, that means they destroyed several "lives" to get this one "miracle" baby. Whatcha think about that wingnut?
McCain is a fool. He would do anything to get the wingnut vote. I'll never vote for this guy. (and that's a change)
Posted by It's Official on February 20, 2007 07:24 AMHe was for Roe Vs Wade before he was against it.
Boy is he going to look idiotic in the primaries.
Posted by McCain is John kerry now LOL on February 20, 2007 06:39 AMA less than 22 week fetus born prematurely just went home to mom and dad.
Kind of makes the rantings of idiots like JW irrelevant.
Posted by on February 19, 2007 09:10 PMI hate to tell you this Hogar, but the "legislating from the bench" aspect was about WHEN to CUT OFF a woman's right to abortion in favor of a fetuses rights.
In other words, there was NO legislating from the bench in regards to a womans right to an abortion. If they were to go STRICTLY by the constitution, a woman would have the right to an abortion right up till birth.
They arbitrarily decided on a time frame for fetus rights, which isnt in the constitution, because the "personhood" of a fetus is still up for debate.
So, if they do overthrow this...you may endup with a decision that just says a woman has a right to an abortion...and regulation in favor of fetus rights is unconstitutional.
Posted by JW on February 19, 2007 05:08 PM"I think it is terrible sad and counterproductive that McCain, a former centrist, has to whore himself out to the usual suspect at the base of the Republican party in order to have any chance at getting the nomination."
It will change. Unfortunately, we have had it so good for so long that we put ourselves in this position. Electing leaders based on unimportant issues. Stupid.
Again though, it will change. The bad part is that its going to take pain to do it.
Our world was changed by 9/11. Clinton new how bad the terrorist threat was, but he wasnt allowed to do anything about it. 9/11 woke us up (even if it didnt make us any smarter).
Wait till the supply of oil can no longer meet demand. When that happens, people are gona say "Abortion? Fuck abortion! What are you going to do about Energy supply!"
Hopefully we will be ready, but Im not betting on it. Im getting involved.
Posted by JW on February 19, 2007 04:54 PMPerhaps you should read the words of the Supreme Legislators themselves.
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/seamless/articles/roe/woodward.html
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on February 19, 2007 04:53 PM"I took time out of my reading to view the Gorefest. Most of my spare time this week is going to be spent skiing, so Lexus will wait another week or so."
Have fun on the slopes. Im currently reading the follow up to lexus, "The World Is Flat", a book called the Extreme Future, and your Case for Christ. The guy's writing style is driving me nuts, but Im making headway.
The movie you picked is now 7th on the cue.
Posted by JW on February 19, 2007 04:50 PM"I realize that there are many who disagree with me. But when you read the list of those who think the legal foundation for Roe v Wade is flawed you see that is spans the political spectrum. So the issue is not political, it is legal. '
For every person that is against Roe on legal grounds, you can find one that is for it (actually, more, especially those that actually matter like SC justices).
Your decision to side with the dissent rather than those who support the decision is certainly NOT based on legal issues. Its your misguided attempt to protect life.
And understand, your wish to protect life is not misguided because its immoral or stupid. Its misguided because the methodology you chose is so flawed, it actually goes against your stated agenda.
Posted by JW on February 19, 2007 04:46 PMJW and Common Sense,
I realize that there are many who disagree with me. But when you read the list of those who think the legal foundation for Roe v Wade is flawed you see that is spans the political spectrum. So the issue is not political, it is legal.
Common Sense,
I don't like bad legal decisions whether they are for or against me. I have no doubt that no matter what, abortions are going to be legal for the majority of Americans no matter what happens. MOST states will pass laws in favor of legalized abortion if it is struck down. There is nothing wrong with that. That is how the system is supposed to work.
The bottom line is that as a country changes, they have every right to change their laws accordingly, they are just supposed to do that through the legislative process, not the judicial process. So if you want the Constitution to specifically protect abortion as a right, you simply pass a law, or amend the Constitution. What is bad government is when unelected judges take it upon themselves to invent law out of thin air.
I took time out of my reading to view the Gorefest. Most of my spare time this week is going to be spent skiing, so Lexus will wait another week or so.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on February 19, 2007 04:32 PMI think it is terrible sad and counterproductive that McCain, a former centrist, has to whore himself out to the usual suspect at the base of the Republican party in order to have any chance at getting the nomination. Both parties are beholden to some degree to the whackjobs and the political puppets (and puppeteers)...but it's really kind of sad that a portion of the population gets their hopes up every cycle only to have the carrot pushed just a little further up the road. Wake up sheeple.
Posted by jay on February 19, 2007 04:14 PMHogar
If it can be said that Roe v. Wade has a flaw, it's that it stands on a shaky and uncertain foundation.
That being said, it still stands that:
(a) it was a 7-2 decision, not Blackmun against the world, like you portray it, Hogar.
(b) the majority of dissent was founded on philosophical concerns, not legal ones. Rehnquist and White, rather than limiting their concerns to the strictly legal issues, waxed poetic and philosophical in their dissent, demonstrating that their opinon was heavily influenced by subjective perspective, not objective detachment.
(c) the vast majority of the laws that Roe v. Wade supposedly infringed upon were enacted in the early 1800's, before modern medicine and technology. In all likelihood, the original laws were based heavily on the rather primitive nature of the procedure back then. These laws should have been reevaluated long before Roe v. Wade, and any that were judged to be archaic should have been rescinded.
Bottom line, Hogar, you're taking a literalist stance on the constitutionality of Roe V. Wade because it is in opposition to your mindset. Of course you want the letter of the Constitution to reign supreme in this issue - there is no explicit protection of abortion itself in the wording of the document. There's also nothing in the Constitution that says you have the right to watch TV, or go to the bathroom, or drive a car, or make entries to a political blog, but you do these things. They have no impact on anyone but you (depending of course on where you choose to go to the bathroom) and fall within the sphere of your own personal privacy.
It is the job of the Supreme Court to define and decide the nature and applicability of the law. Your complaints about legislating from the bench are asinine, and you would no doubt be silent if the Supreme Court chose to enact a mandate that would benefit the conservative cause in particular.
I would almost welcome some half-assed attempt to ban abortion by first repealing Roe v. Wade. The end result would be a better founded resolution, based on modern day evidence and precedents, which would be proof against all but a Taliban-style religious coup.
Go ahead and try. At best you'll get handed a 5-4 defeat by the Supreme Court...although I think it would more likely be 6-3.
Posted by Common Sense on February 19, 2007 04:09 PMJohn McCain has reduced himself to a Republican clone.... one who merely grabs the RNC/Karl Rove / Fox News fax each morning and parrots it. He is the same as Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Laura Ingraham - any of these self-centered, hate-filled Righty propagandists.
Posted by Pokey Reese on February 19, 2007 03:58 PMI used to love John MCCain.... back when I believed he was true leader who stood up for what was right, not whatever the GOP platform told him to support. I have lost most of my respect for this man, because in the past 4 years he has flip-flopped on virtually all issues, and is now clearly a GOP lemming instead of the true leader he once was.
Posted by Bigg Dogg on February 19, 2007 03:55 PM"I look around and I don't see anyone who could even shine Reagan shoes, so I hope for someone who will at least appoint judges who MIGHT do the right thing and judge the law."
Hogar,
Are you done with Lexus yet? Clinton did just as much good economically.
The other stuff is just your feeling. You feel that roe v wade was a bad interpretation, so you like to read and post sources that agree with you. There are plenty of people, including Sandra Day O'connor, who disagree with you. And the fact is, Roe has been challenged and upheld, even with new "conservative" judges. If you and the critics who agree with you were correct, and Roe was actually "Indefensible", it would have been struck down.
Your continued focus on this one issue does the country a disservice. We have to stop focusing on these "Olive Tree" issues as a matter of national, or even state politics. They need to be personal. Thats what American freedom is all about. The lexus issues are the ones we need government to deal with, and this "refocus" needs to happen NOW.
Unless, of course, you want to go to war over petrol based resources with China and India. Or you like thinking about China and India being the new world power while America fades. Or if you would love a world where petty dictators like Chaves and Amenidinignaaberwhaky have power over American just because they have oil. If those are things you would enjoy, keep focusing on abortion and gay rights, and voting accordingly.
Posted by JW on February 19, 2007 03:43 PMIf Roe v. Wade were really bad, it wouldn't have lasted so long. Posted by Common Sense for President (yeah, that'll be the day) on February 19, 2007 03:14 PM
Common Sense,
The only reason that no one has taken action against Roe v Wade, is that they are in support of legalized abortion, and that fact overrides their distaste for the decision. Below is a snippet from the Wiki on Roe v Wade, and it cites numerous supporters of abortion who are non the less critics of the legal grounds for the Roe v Wade decision. WHEN Roe v Wade is struck down, I am sure that most states will pass abortion laws supporting it and there will probably be anouther decision which severely limits the states rights to ban it, but this time with a decision that will actually be based on sound legal principles.
William Saletan, for example, has written that "Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference."[21] In a 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal, Professor John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision which "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."[22] Ely added: "What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure."
Similarly, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe has noted that, "One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."[23] Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox wrote: "[Roe’s] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations.... Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution."[24]
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has criticized the court's ruling in Roe v. Wade for terminating a nascent democratic movement to liberalize abortion law.[25] Likewise, legal affairs editor Jeffrey Rosen[26] and Michael Kinsley[27] say that a democratic movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights.
Legal analyst Benjamin Wittes has written that Roe "disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply".[28] And Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who "loved Roe’s author like a grandfather" wrote: "As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible....Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."[29] Liberal law professors Alan Dershowitz,[30]Cass Sunstein, [31] and Kermit Roosevelt[32] have also expressed disappointment with Roe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
In other words, is this still your primary issue, or have you discovered that there are others which are much more important to the continued prosperity of America?
Posted by JW on February 19, 2007 03:00 PM
JW,
A Supreme Court that does not create law out of thin air is a court that will help prevent the government from doing things that are harmful to the country. It is the one area, where I believe my vote can actually accomplish something. In the past 50 years, I think that Reagan was the only president who was actually good for the country and accomplished far more good than bad during his presidency. I look around and I don't see anyone who could even shine Reagan shoes, so I hope for someone who will at least appoint judges who MIGHT do the right thing and judge the law.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on February 19, 2007 03:16 PMAmerican Indian:
No, these fellows are descended from those folk who settled from Europe, and preceded the butchers you speak of. The majority of the atrocities you mentioned were committed about 100 years after the era of the founding fathers.
I might add that many of the atrocities committed against the Native American race were done in the name of the Christian God. I guess that makes it OK, right?
Hogar:
If Roe v. Wade were really bad, it wouldn't have lasted so long. It's only under attack because of the latest wave of the Christian Insurgency. It's not a matter of the people being against it, like you say, Hogar. It's a matter of the vocal minority deceiving, inciting, and rousing the rabble into a raving mob that tramples the opposition. That's not democracy, that's mob mentality. That's the kind of government the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect us from.
Question for ya Hogar,
What if he hadnt done this, but his opponents were for isolationist regulatory economic agendas?
In other words, is this still your primary issue, or have you discovered that there are others which are much more important to the continued prosperity of America?
Posted by JW on February 19, 2007 03:00 PMRoe v Wade is bad law, and the issue should be decided by the states. Hurray for McCain, I can now support him if necessary.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on February 19, 2007 02:42 PMAre those the same founding fathers who came across the sea and nearly exterminated us?
Posted by American Indian on February 19, 2007 02:09 PMSome quotes from some of our Founding Fathers:
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
"When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." - Benjamin Franklin
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?" - John Adams
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - Treaty of Tripoli, 1797
As for the righties you mentioned, JW, just because they're not as demented as Yosemite Shrub, that doesn't mean they won't continue to pander to their adoring God Nazi voter base. And for the lefties, I really hope that they can lay down the foundation for some real positive change...but I won't hold my breath.
Anyone who puts partisan politics first and the issues second (or third, or fourth..) isn't fit to run this country anywhere but into the ground. Unfortunately, like you said, that's the kind of person that gets the votes. That's what happens when the generations that are raised to value popularity above all else grow up and start voting.
Posted by Middle of the Road for President on February 19, 2007 01:28 PM"He can't be that decent if he's shamelessly pandering to the Valium Voters, JW."
If he wants to get elected, he has no choice. I really don't blame him for this. He MUST do it because hes a Republican, and the American people are so stupid that A) Hardcore Dems won't vote for him no matter WHAT he says, and B) He's MUST get the hardcore Republican's to vote for him, which means he has no choice but to pull this shit.
Realistically, Im still really happy about the perspective candidates in '08. Clinton, Obama for Dems (I could live with either, but Clinton would rock) and McCain, Guliani, or Romney for Repubs (I could live with any).
NONE of them are GW kind of stupid. NONE of them are GW kind of fundie. NONE of them are GW kind of "Im gona git you cause you tried to kill my daddy!".
Posted by JW on February 19, 2007 01:15 PMHe can't be that decent if he's shamelessly pandering to the Valium Voters, JW. Like I said, my respect for him (what little is left) is eroding quickly.
Abstinence-only doesn't work. You can't raise an entore generation to have no honor, and then expect them to abide by the honor system. No matter how brainwashed or mentally dominated the Conservatrivials think their children are, they are experimenting with sex at the same rate as the rest of the teenage population...they just brag about it less.
Posted by GOP = Gullible Old People on February 19, 2007 12:19 PMLOL, Death Cult. Church of Satan.
You fundies are so stupid its lucky breathing is automatic.
like I said, there is Clinton, running around talking about stuff that matters (healthcare, education, energy).
And there is poor McCain, trying to cater to the fundies who think gay rights and abortion are the central issues facing the nation. Poor bastard. Its ruining a decent man, and you dipshits are ruining a great country.
Posted by JW on February 19, 2007 12:01 PMYou're right, I.D. Abortion isn't as sanctified as accusing innocent people of witchcraft and torturing them to death, or burning villages to the ground on a raping/killing/looting spree. I.E., church sanctioned activities.
Abortion wouldn't even be such a widespread thing if not for the efforts of the church to suppress birth control. If the pregnancies could be prevented, there would be no reason to abort.
Posted by Tomas de Torquemada for Attorney General on February 19, 2007 11:54 AMThere he goes again attacking the death cult's holy sacrament.
Better be careful what you say Senator on the anniversary of the first execution of a heretic in England by burning at the stake. (1401) The current church of Satan members (liberals) might try the same.
Posted by the innocent dead on February 19, 2007 11:47 AMI still have a shred of respect for McCain, even though he's flip-flopping like a mad bastard.
This is just another ploy to rally the voter base that you can count on to vote your way, if you put enough of a religious spin on it.
Pushing an abstinence-only agenda while suppressing contraceptives is like spending like mad while cutting taxes...you're sabotaging your own efforts that way. Neither one makes sense logically, but you can get people to vote for it if you know what buttons to push during your Sieg Heil speeches.
Posted by Someone Other Than McCain For President on February 19, 2007 10:57 AMSux to be McCain.
Clinton is running around talking about healthcare, education, and energy.
McCain is stuck pandering to fundies who are so ignorant they dont even have a policy that will work on their major issue.
Posted by JW on February 19, 2007 10:48 AMV for Vendetta
This is another interesting movie about how British Parliment was taken over by a Dictator, using media propaganda and FEAR of terrorists to maintain control.
It was astonishing to see the parallels. There was a party guy who even looked like Cheney
People know whats is really up with the Neocon party
Posted by I saw another great movie on February 19, 2007 06:13 AMJW,
I also watch Keith Olbermann, and find him to the the articulate evil twin of an amalgamation of Bill O'Reilly and Steven Colbert.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on February 15, 2007 02:34 PMJW,
On a numerical basis, his attacks on the left definitely outnumber his attacks on the kook right, he does attack the far right as well. I would say that his center point is definitely right of center, but he is not an apologist for the right.
He attacked the Westboro Baptist Church with their God hates fags and other tripe that they peddle wherever they can.
http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html
I think the one area where he performs a public service is to attack judges and politicians who either fail to properly sentence child molesters, or block the passage of tougher laws against child molesters. He has been very instrumental in putting pressure on state legislature to pass Jessica's law. For that reason alone, I give him some slack on some of his other antics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica's_Law
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on February 15, 2007 02:23 PM"...and meanwhile, you, with your calm, discerning and provident posts are helping, right?"
I spent time trying. Now I know you cant do shit on a blog. Though I did manage to get Hogar to read "the Lexus and teh Olive Tree." He flat out WOULD NOT even consider the knowledge when it came from me on a blog but hes picking it up now.
If I were a nationally sindicated journalist with an audience of millions I would be alot more inclined to try to fill people in. Its your moral duty as a journalist.
On a blog though, I tried, and now I just dispise them for not being responsible citizens of America, and taking their vote for granted to such an extent.
"He doesnt help the situation in this country (ignorant fools who think they know something because they heard a politician, or Bill say something about it). He EXACERBATES the problem."
...and meanwhile, you, with your calm, discerning and provident posts are helping, right?
Hogar,
Im not watching that clown any more than Im wasting my time on Keith Oberman.
My post was about his 'Talking Points" transcripts on Foxnews.com.
I will waste the 5 min to read that. And Ive yet to see him attack the far right.
That said, if you say he does, Ill buy it.
Right, Left, libertarian, democrat, republican...whatever. The guys an idiot. He doesnt help the situation in this country (ignorant fools who think they know something because they heard a politician, or Bill say something about it). He EXACERBATES the problem.
Posted by JW on February 15, 2007 12:31 PMJW
I am not a fan of O'Reilly, but I think you have not watched him enough. He only attacks the far left, and even the far far right. He has no problem with moderate views from either party. He is a Libertarian, but he is also often a chauvinist and he can be extreme in his response if he does not like a persons manners. He really goes off on someone who will not answer his questions, but tries to simply read their playbook without engaging in a dialogue. But he has Al Sharpton on all the time and has no problem with his positions, and is always respectful of him, because Al will answer his questions, as well as give his opinion.
I saw some clips from the upcoming 1/2 hour news hour that starts Sunday at 8PM on Fox. I looks like it will be funny.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on February 15, 2007 11:53 AMLiberal media bias denier.
Posted by on February 15, 2007 09:13 AMO reilly is a joke. My dad and I had an arguement about whether hes a wingnut or not. In the end, I had to just admit, I though he was because I heard it was so...not because I knew from my own experience. There is NOTHING I hate more than realizing Ive made a decision based on something someone else told me so...I started reading O'Reilly on foxnews.com daily.
Hes a wingnut. Everyone he disagrees with is from the "Far Left" or has a "Far Left Agenda". Ive never seen him say "This kind of Centrist Ideology" or even "This kind of moderate Left thinking" Nope, its always always always...FAR LEFT.
And thats the definition of a wingnut. Someone so far right, anything (including moderate right, centrist, etc.) to the left is "Far Left".
Posted by JW on February 15, 2007 08:46 AMThere is a great movie about how a conservative right winger named Murdock took over hundreds of news papers, and media outlets like Fox news . Its called OutFoxed
The reporters tell how they are being pressured to push the conservative point of view. to supress news from Iraq, Bill O reilly and Hannity is given more time on air. The opposing view point is deliberately cut off.
The Media is now one big propaganda machine. It no wonder the public got confused.
Posted by Saw a great movie on February 15, 2007 04:28 AMI think you will be surprised at how many conservatives have fingered certain people or groups - or maybe you won't be surprised - but I was a bit shocked to see so many people responding honestly.
Posted by David (R) on February 13, 2007 12:56 PM
David (R)
Here is how my top ten lined up with the survey.
My Survey
1 1 Cons. lead. silent big GOP
2 3 Ilegal corruption Foley etc.
3 4 spec. int. buying votes
4 6 Cons. media silent big GOP
5 - Border security missing?
6 5 Mainstream media influence
7 13 K Street lobbyists
8 10 Rep. cand. blunders
9 7 T. Stevens bridge to nowhere
10 9 Dennis the menace Hastert
We're rooting for ya Sarah. Exercise those rights!
Posted by on February 14, 2007 09:10 AMI'm trying to get pregnant so that I can have an abortion.
Posted by Sarah Silverman on February 14, 2007 09:07 AMWell KAY Dubya,
If you didnt buy the WH's bs about Iran, all I can say is...
Every dog (idiot) has its day.
Posted by JW on February 13, 2007 06:35 PMAnd, apparently, you can NOT believe it and STILL be ridiculously stupid. Thanks JayDub!
Posted by KW on February 13, 2007 03:30 PMYou had to be rediculously stupid to think Iran was funding and equiping the Iraqi malitias.
They all use KALASHNIKOVS and RPG's you morons! Russia is doing it! We need to attack THEM!
Posted by JW on February 13, 2007 03:11 PMAt least someone has got the balls to stand up to the war rhetoric about Iran
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17129144/
Posted by jay on February 13, 2007 02:06 PMHere is a personal invitation to all of you, regardless of party affiliation, to head over to the Conservatives Betrayed website at:
http://www.conservativesbetrayed.com/survey_2607.php
and to select the top 10 reasons that the current Republican Party has betrayed conservatives. Just select your 10 without reviewing the results first, because I think you will be surprised at how many conservatives have fingered certain people or groups - or maybe you won't be surprised - but I was a bit shocked to see so many people responding honestly.
Posted by David (R) on February 13, 2007 12:56 PMNot only is the neo-con experiment over....Mitt doesn't have a prayer because the country doesn't put a mormon in the white house in 2008. 2108 maybe....but not this go around.
Posted by jay on February 13, 2007 11:31 AMToday's joke of the day: Mitt Romney. He's on TV today talking about "transforming Washington".... that's right, a dyed-in-the-wool neoCON talking about changing Washington from what it is now.... HILARIOUS!!!!!!
Posted by Bigg Dogg on February 13, 2007 11:09 AMYup, unbelievable...NK produced no nukes during Clinton's years, produced at least a dozen after W shut off the aid and the wingers still can't come to terms with the fact that Clinton wasn't involved. The "axis of evil" has done quite well under King George...I'll bet they'd be happy with a third term.
Posted by jay on February 13, 2007 11:08 AMJay,
I thought the funniest thing about this diplomatic solution to NK was that it reads almost exactly like what Clinton did, and all the wingnuts blame him for NK's nuclear abilities.
Of course, Clinton's agreement with NK was better for the environment, but who cares. Global Warming is a myth that we can't do anything about anyway.
Posted by JW on February 13, 2007 10:39 AMAnon, sorry your pea brain couldn't comprehend what I was saying. It doesn't surprise me though, as your still stupid enough to support this adminstration and prez.
Why don't you, Ben, Michael etc... go sign up for the Army and put your money where your mouth is. If you support these criminals go to Iraq and now Iran and fight and die for them. Otherwise, you STFU you hypocrite.
Posted by am 760 on February 13, 2007 10:33 AMThis morning NK agreed to curtail nuclear production for the return of aid. Aid that BushCo decided to cut off when they took office....giving NK 6 years to build bombs. Well done. Great plan. Can I get off the bus now.
Posted by jay on February 13, 2007 09:03 AMJW,
I have to say that I never really believed that the Republicans would be dumb enough to attack Iran...but I admit that you're bringing me around. I see more and more monkeys dancing to the beat of the next needless war drum.
Staggers the imagination.
Posted by jay on February 13, 2007 08:54 AMYet another example of why we shouldnt even TRY diplomacy with Iran.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/13/nkorea.talks/index.html
Posted by JW on February 13, 2007 08:43 AM2:47 :
Yep, I was born and raised on the border life. Gotcha.
To: I'd like to know:
So would I. How do you know that this "paragraph" that was omitted even existed? Your source?
Posted by Ben on February 12, 2007 05:26 PMhttp://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/12/navarrette/index.html
Posted by on February 12, 2007 03:51 PMThe country is going to hell. No one can stop the flow of illegal alians. Who do they think they are? The Israelites crossing the Jordan? How did it get in their head that this is their promised land? This is my promised land. I was born here. Keep out!
Posted by righteous righty on February 12, 2007 03:29 PMThe RMN printed a syndicated column about Tom Tancredo and ommitted this paragraph:
"Trapped in his own xenophobic world, Tancredo believes his own rhetoric. He told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview that in a poll conducted by The Miami Herald, 70% of the people who responded supported him. My office consulted the Herald about the alleged Tancredo poll, and they told us there was no such poll."
Why would they do that? It seems like if you are going to pick up a syndicated column that you should print the whole thing. Granted this makes Tancredo out to be a lying fool but shouldn't it have been printed?
Posted by I'd like to know on February 12, 2007 03:24 PMBen, that's what I meant with the Arizona reference. It wasn't white man or even legal immigrants who shot these people. It was rival smugglers... Other illegals. Just thought a warning to other illegals was in order so they won't try and blame the USA for getting shot during the commission of a crime (illegal border crossing).
Posted by on February 12, 2007 02:47 PM1:43 - This is what you get with unsecure, open borders, benefits in any form in the U.S. for illegal aliens as enticements for illegal entry , tolerance for law breaking, greedy corporations and bleeding heart enablers who want to feel good about their humanity. The victims and their families can add and thank liberals, religious groups, greedy corporations utilizing slave labor, hispanic racial identity groups and pandering politicians for these deaths.
Posted by Ben on February 12, 2007 02:34 PMBarrack Obama is officially in the race now, so watch the Rightys line up to call him names. Laura Ingraham, who continually refers to Hillary Clinton as "Hitlery", will undoubtedly start calling him "Barrack Osama", if she hasn't already been doing that. His name SOUNDS like a terrorist, so he MUST sympathize with terrorists, right? That's how Righty-Hate radio, and it's lemming audience, operates
Posted by Bigg Dogg on February 12, 2007 02:26 PMBen, youre stupid.
Posted by JW on February 12, 2007 01:43 PMHere's what happens if you try to enter illegally through Arizona.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0210napolitanoside0210.html
Posted by on February 12, 2007 01:43 PMJw,
No thanks for the San Francisco values.
You need back on the meds. Anger and hearing dialogues in your head. Nice.
Try some plain old common sense. If I put things in a story could you understand? Most children would be able to see the inherent falseness and lack of moral, economic, historical and common sense that illegal immigration brings.
"But if either of you think it's beneficial"
Thats the thing you stupid freak. Both Jay and I know there is not enough info for decent cost/benefit analysis. We both KNOW there isnt enough info to say its beneficial, or not.
JW-"There isnt enough info for decent cost/benefit analysis."
Ben-"Stupid liberal! There is no benefit!"
JW-"There isnt enough info for decent cost/benefit analysis."
Ben-"Stupid liberal! There is no benefit!"
JW-"There isnt enough info for decent cost/benefit analysis."
Ben-"Liberals dont even tell you there isnt enough info for cost/benefit analysis"
JW-"Ben, you are one stupid SOB. I feel sorry for your parents. They must have slapped you till they got arthritis, and it still didn't help."
jay. you sound like Bush, and just as credible on illegal immigration et al.
Again, just come right out and use the "R" word. Then it is official.
Posted by Ben on February 12, 2007 01:22 PMlol...Ben...you're a perfect poster child for your cause. I especially love how you claim to win an argument you never made in the first place. Rove would be proud.
Posted by jay on February 12, 2007 01:19 PMJw, you better let jay know this C/B.
He is resorting to using race and racial inuendos to disparage. This means he has no place to go, he loses. You use profanity. Liberal hate speech from both of you.
But if either of you think it's beneficial, let's just open up that old border, no need for smoke screens, just good old amnesty.
Posted by Ben on February 12, 2007 01:06 PM"Hence a Cost/Benefit analysis is objectively non-existent. Liberal open-borders crowds don't even bring that up. Get a clue."
Youre a total fucking moron. How many times did I say EXACTLY that to you? Waste of space.
Posted by JW on February 12, 2007 12:49 PMI want to congratulate the Dhimmicrat(ic) Party for their equal opportunity Prezidential campaign.
You got your newMexican Governor, your half-white Illinois Senator, you got your all-female New York Billary, your class warfare slick haired trial attorney millionaire and whom have I missed?
Nice. /sarcasm
Immigrants = legal status-citizen
Resident alien = legal status-noncitizen.
Illegal alien = Illegal presence in country.
If you didn't want my attention why blog to me?
Cost/benefit? How could it be calculated when we don't even know the numbers of illegals here?
Hence a Cost/Benefit analysis is objectively non-existent. Liberal open-borders crowds don't even bring that up. Get a clue.
We know which side of your bread is buttered. Remember your blog that there were 6 million illegals. You are definitely suspect.
Again, why indulge you.
Posted by Ben on February 12, 2007 12:37 PMI don't want your attention at all Ben...in fact my original post was intended to placate you so you wouldn't hijack yet another thread with your illegal immigration rants. We get it...you think immigrants are the cause of and solution to all of life's problems. Great. Gotcha. You're in good company.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/06/klan.report.ap/index.html
See JW for yet another definition of Cost Benefit Analysis by the way.
Still patiently waiting.
Posted by jay on February 12, 2007 11:45 AMjay, since you want my attention:
No benefits, unless you count the negatives as benefits. As stated before, the liberals would be tooting that horn of how beneficial illegals are. I take it you have strictly racial motivation, because you do not know what you are talking about
in regards to illegal aliens and illegal immigration and financial ramifications. Do the research on cost/benefit yourself or just go in the blog archives and reread my past data. You just keepin smoking that Mexican weed that you get from your "cool" illegal alien source. You ain't in Kansas anymore.
"So if you don’t believe me tell me EXACTLY what Bush’s strategy is and how it is supposed to work. "
1) An end to the policy of De-Baathification. This policy was stupid when Bush pushed it down the Iraqis throats, and it remained stupid untill he proposed doing away with it (though he did blame it on Iraqis, which was lame). De-Baathification basically disenfranchized every Iraqi with Government experience, Public Works experience, Military experience, and political experience. In short EVERYONE in Iraq who knew how to get things done. This has exaserbated the problems with getting Iraqis trained, public services back in working order, and turned a huge amount of well trained military types into insurgents. Re-integrating these people back into the future of Iraq will go a long way towards lowering the level of violence, and getting basic services and government fixed.
2) Oil Revenue Sharing- Sunni's are resorting to terrorism in Iraq for several reasons. An end to De-Batthification attempts to remedy their political fears. Oil Revenue Sharing will help with their Economic fears.
3) An end to protection of certain Militas- Al-Sadr's milita is perhaps the worst of the bunch, and up to now, it has been protected by Maliki. Going after militas, WHOEVER they may be, will go a long way to lowering the violence in Iraq.
All of these things DO require Iraqis to take some responsibility. If they don't, there is NO strategy that will work. This is not blaming them. Bush screwed up. But Bush screwing up does not mean Iraqis have no responsibilities. If these programs are going to work, the Iraqis MUST make them work, every bit as much as the USA must help them.
Partitioning Iraq may be another answer, it may not (without Oil Revenue Sharing, partitioning Iraq isnt going to work either).
I know Bush is unpopular, but you can't let your dislike of the guy rule your decisions on things he says. Use logic to think, not emotion.
And just a question here; how many of you people screaming that Bush's plan won't work, blah blah blah...How many of you actually read the Iraq Study Group's report?
Posted by JW on February 12, 2007 11:23 AMBen you won't have debunked anything...at any time...until we see the often requested but never produced Cost Benefit Analysis from you.
Still waiting patiently.
Posted by jay on February 12, 2007 11:22 AMBush has failed all of us by not adapting the strategy in Iraq. His current strategy of wait and see is just embroiling us in a civil war. To win this war we need a real leader that will see that Iraq needs to be partitioned to get peace and we need to start the partitioning and leave. So if you don’t believe me tell me EXACTLY what Bush’s strategy is and how it is supposed to work. Otherwise he is an ineffective buffoon that is just waiting on the next guy to take the fall because he is clueless on how to win. PARTITION IRAQ AND WE WIN THIS YEAR!!!! GET IT???? This isn’t a partisan strategy. This is a winning strategy because I love the US more than the Republican Party image. I just wish a few of you GOP yahoos loved our country more. And to think you would question others patriotism. Get with the program and quit attacking your fellow Americans GOP, you are doing more damage than the terrorist and you have killed more Americans now.
Posted by on February 12, 2007 11:09 AMYou said Mexicans, that time not me. But that is where the majority of mind-blowing numbers of illegal aliens come from daily, annually and decade upon decade. It will be a future problem in the U.S.A.
Fault lies everywhere on illegal immigration, but most squarely on our government. If you and others wish to continually try and enable, or downplay the negative magnitude of illegal immigration, I will continually disable and debunk.
Yup, you got it Ben.
It is all the Mexicans fault.
Posted by jay on February 12, 2007 09:57 AMDoes anyone care to add up all of the bad debt the City of Denver racks up with "loans" to minority ethnic groups who have no intention of paying back said loan?
Hicky is caught up in the swell of racial preferences and affirmative distraction and saddling the taxpayers with the cost of these gifts. Now we have a funding crisis - big surprise.
Posted by on February 10, 2007 01:10 PMOh. So now John-boy Hickenlooper's waiting for his carefully orchestrated "brain trust" media campaign to convince us that we need higher property taxes? After he's reelected, Hizzoner will throw in his 2cents worth about higher taxes being necessary, yada, yada. . .notice he WON'T say ANYTHING until he has the next election in the bag.
WAKE UP, PEOPLE!
Now's the time for a NEW LEADER to emerge for Denver who will work with what we've got, (it's called efficiency, folks) and NOT RAISE PROPERTY TAXES. Eliminate any and all cushy j-o-b-s and invest that pile of "emergency money" wisely so IT GROWS--minus what they waste for crony city pork projects.
GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL, and will continue that way until we get someone in office who will work for ALL the people, with government efficiency foremost--not just his/her cronies.
Posted by on February 9, 2007 11:17 AMCouldn't believe Ken Salazar had the chutzpah to pander to hispanics and give his speech in spanish after the state of the union address. AND to everyone else who keeps blathering about how" hispanics" et al were here "first" may I remind you that there were plenty of OTHER people "here before hispanics?" How about Native Americans, DOH. Notice Salazar didn't deliver any speeches in Algic Amerindian, Navajo, or Apache, or Iroquois, etc.? GIVE ME A BREAK.
Posted by on February 9, 2007 11:09 AMam 760- Do you even see the conflicting perspective in YOUR statement :
"I have no desire to what a bigger piece of the pie and I don't have a chip on my shoulder. I love what I do and wouldn't change anything. I do dislike the fact that after 21 years of service in this field I still get paid like shit, while the CEO's of the world make 300% more than typical working class folks. "
If you dislike the fact that you are underpaid or "like shit", GET ANOTHER JOB or STFU. Don't begrudge somebody else their coin.
KW and AM 760,
You do realize that you are using the same agruements that have been around since Reagan don't you? The only thing thats changed about your arguements is the statistics you use. The basic arguements are the same.
Do you think anything BESIDES the statistics have changed? Think maybe your arguements are out dated?
And Chris, you vote for who you want but understand, your definition of "Traditional American Values" are not the same as everyone elses. Since "Freedom" is the #1 traditional value, you may have deal with the fact that other Americans have as much right to THEIR values as you do. Youre a proven fundie, and therefore Im not holding out alot of hope that you will understand what I just said, let alone agree with it. Thankfully, even when groups of people like you get together and manage to pass a law, the Constitution protects the rest of us, and our God given rights.
KW, talk about making assumptions. I have no desire to what a bigger piece of the pie and I don't have a chip on my shoulder. I love what I do and wouldn't change anything. I do dislike the fact that after 21 years of service in this field I still get paid like shit, while the CEO's of the world make 300% more than typical working class folks.
PS i'm not a nurse and I'm not whinning. I'm pointing out problems w/ the USA so we can make it better for everyone.
Why is it when people on the left point out discrimination or problems of various kinds were always accused of whinning or hating america.
It has to do w/ making the country as great as it can me, not just for me but for everyone.
Is regulating corporations pollution standards whinning or is it helping the country. Your way off base on what I stand for and what I work for, so keep you assumptions to yourself.
Why have no Dems signed on in defense of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean? The special prosecutor said that they misled/lied to members of Congress who were investigating their convictions (10 and 11 years in jail). These two were railroaded to make friendly with Mexico. The illegal alien drug smuggler (750 lbs.) who got shot in the ass gets immunity, is arrested again smuggling dope, still immune, and is now suing the U.S. taxpayer for 5 million. Are any of you Democrats going to write your reps about this travesty of justice? Tune in to
Lou Dobbs @4:00 on CNN
I like Rudy Giuliani and I'd support him in a second. But my favorite is Mitt Romney. He has the values and clarity to face the Jihadist enemy and protect traditional American morality at home. There are two wars going on now--one cultural and one abroad. We need a commander in chief for both and Mitt fits the bill.
Posted by chris on February 8, 2007 04:40 PMam 760 you're a secular progressive socialist. You're full of "class" envy. You may have chosen a career to help people but your comments here sing out your desire for a bigger share of a pie you chose not to help bake. You want more money, change careers. I surely wouldn't want a nurse taking care of me if they had a chip on their shoulder like you. The world owes you nothing. Decide your path, take it and quit whining.
Posted by KW on February 8, 2007 04:24 PM"DOW was stuck at 10,000"
That has got to be the stupidest take on the economic boom of the 90's I have ever heard.
You do realize that we still havent gotten back to "Stuck at 10,000" when you factor in inflation right?
See, I can ask stupid questions too. Of course you dont. Youre an idiot.
Posted by JW on February 8, 2007 04:14 PMReally KW, I guess facts that I pointed out like the discrepency in CEO's salaries increases compared to average workers, and the fact that the average workers savings rates are at an all time low, or that foreclosures are at an all time high meaning middle class people are losing jobs or can't make ends meet, shows there is no class struggle.
And by the way the little bit more you may be making isn't that being eating up in higher gas prices in both your cars and homes, higher health insurance rates, etc...Did you figure that in your equation.
PS I went to college and decided I would rather help the sick than be rich so I work in health care and have no desire to be a CEO.
Am 760 - I like the way you assume I must be a "stockbroker" to be doing well. Newsflash you classist, I'm a middle class working stiff just like most americans. I work hard, expect NOTHING for free, leave charity to the churches and keep the payments current on my student loans.
As long as you keep looking thru those "haves and have nots" glasses you'll never see beyond your narrow minded, simplistic viewpoints. The only class struggle in America is in your mind. Work hard, get a few degrees and maybe someday you too can be a CEO. That's what I'd do if money was what I worshiped.
Posted by KW on February 8, 2007 03:59 PMWhat's the real estate appreciation rate at now KW. Its declining for the first time in years. At least w/ Clinton it was increasing not decreasing. Also whats the savings rates for most people, did you see that article a couple days ago. Its the worst since 1933.
As I said, Im no economic wiz, I just go by what I see and right now the haves are doing a lot better than the have somes or have nots. CEO's salaries up 300% while average workers up 5-10% I believe is what Jim Webb stated.
You are probably an investor so repubs are the right party for you. I have to work for a living so they are not so good for me.
And maybe if the Bush admin. would have heeded any warnings, like, "Osama determined to strike in the US", or the other 100's of warnings he received, we wouldn't have had the terrorist attack and the economic collaspe that happened. But all you stock broker and white collar workers are doing well, while the middle class gets #$%$##. And w/o a strong middle class this country would just be another 3rd world country. But hey its working for you and the top 5% so keep up the good work KW.
Plane-Gate Update:
Looks like Pelosi is now claiming sexual discrimintation as the reason for not getting her big party plane. That's what she's claiming on MSNBC.
This keeps getting better and better!
Posted by on February 8, 2007 03:21 PMam 760 wrote: "Clinton did not create the mess were in. Under Clinton everyone did better"
Did I miss something? DOW was stuck at 10,000, real estate appreciation less than 5% a year, 9% prime mortgage rates, my federal tax liablity increased 7 straight years to eat up my raises, auto loans 8-10%, higher unemployment rates, collapse of dot.com, multiple terrorist attacks both here and abroad.
What country were you living in am? I'm MUCH better off in the last 4-5 yrs than I ever was during the Clinton reign.
Posted by KW on February 8, 2007 02:55 PMam 760,
I don't understand your use of foreclosurer rates to demonstrate a bad economy.
Historically, whenever there's a housing boom, the bust will follow and foreclosures are an inevidable part of the process. This last boom has resulted in a huge increase in the total number of homeowners (ever) so the number of foreclosures will also increase. You have to look at the % of total homeowners in foreclosure to see the real picture.
While the actual number may be high, the % is actually quite low.
Posted by on February 8, 2007 02:43 PMClinton did not create the mess were in. Under Clinton everyone did better, the rich got richer the middle class and poor did better.
Its not a republican conspiracy, its just their Standard Operating Procedure. Give tax breaks to the rich and corporations and say the "trickle down therory" will make everyone better. Well thats just a myth.
Record deficits, unwarranted tax cuts and no government accountablity has created this mess. Bush rides the coat tails of Clinton as far as any postive economic policies/results that are still benefiting us all, i.e. record home ownership, which has now turned to record foreclosures under bushs lead.
Anyway, I'm not an economic major, Im in health care so Im sure you have much more knowledge in that area than me.
Im also not a stauch democrat, I just see them as protecting the people more, whereas the repub party looks to protect corporations more, i.e. no mandatory pollution standards because it cuts profits, or not signing the Kyoto agreement because it might hurt profits and thats more important than having clean air and water for the repubs.
"I think she was trying to point out the huge discrepency in our current economic policy, where it lets the rich get richer and the middle class stays stagnant or loses ground."
Better get used to it. Go back to school if you are in a job market that is threatened by globalization. That trend just isnt going away. Governments have already tried the kind of protectionist policies that Pelosi is talking about, and it ends up being worse, because they cause the whole economy to drop, and not just a little.
And BTW, this isnt some Republican conspiracy to aid the rich. This is the price that has to be paid to remain competitive in the global market place. In fact, if you really want to blame someone for putting us in this position, blame Clinton. Bush has basically ridden his coatails so to speak, by reaping the benefit of economic policies Clinton put in place. Really, all Bush has done is give people tax cuts and go on a freaking economic spending spree. Hes taking all the credit, because he can point to his tax cuts and people still think thats all you have to do to spur the economy, but Clinton's policies regarding trade have WAY more to do with the strenght of our economy. All Bush has done is put a little more in peoples pockets, and push the value of the dollar down by over spending.
Again, Im waiting for someone with some sense to come along and talk about solutions that do not slow the economy. Right now, the only ones I know of are Education, Re-Education, and Continuing Education.
Posted by JW on February 8, 2007 11:37 AMBen, I agree that anyone who is here illegally should not receive any government benefits, period. So if Pelosi is saying my taxes are going to go to illegal immigrants I, like any common sense american, would be against that.
I think she was trying to point out the huge discrepency in our current economic policy, where it lets the rich get richer and the middle class stays stagnant or loses ground.
The right keeps touting how good the economy is. Yeah if your a CEO or rich or an invester. But for those in the middle class, savings are at an all time low not seen since the Great Depression in 1933. Did you see that article 2 days ago. And home foreclosures are at their highest rate in years.
These are indicators of how the middle class is doing. The stock market does not reflect how the middle class is doing, so to use that as your criteria for saying the economy is doing great is BS.
I knew it wouldn't take long for one of you righties to bring up the Pelosi plane situation. What about the 9 million dollars that this adminstration lost in Iraq. Kinda pales in comparison to the plane issue, but not to you hard core righties who can find nothing wrong w/ the current adminstration.
Every day another story comes out about how this adminstration is ripping off the american taxpayers yet no one on the right holds them accountable. Just standard operating procedure.
In time this adminstration will be found out to be the most corrupt and dishonest admin. in the history of this country.
Now that the dems are in the majority and can investigate things the truth will finally come out and all you bush supporters will look even more ridiculous.
But that is not the goal, I just want an honest, open government that is held accountable whether it be dems or repubs and right now we don't have that.
I saw it. And yes, I thought the timing was funny.
They do have to test that stuff now and again though.
Posted by JW on February 8, 2007 10:08 AMAnyone notice the ICBM test launch targeting the Marshall Island test range? They certainly don't do that kind of launch very often and even less often with an actual target on the ground. Just curious if anyone has thoughts on the timing.
Posted by jay on February 8, 2007 09:06 AMdamn you commie mooonbat lefties are dumb as a bag of rocks
Posted by insults solve nothing on February 8, 2007 08:48 AM""Progressive" is a euphemism for anti-capitalistic agendas. Why can't they just admit it?"
Unfortunately, that seems to be the way it is. I would call myself "Progressive" but I am certainly NOT anti-capitalism. Progressive shouldnt mean this stupidity of protectionist regulation. You can be "Progressive" in dealing with the inate inequities WITHOUT being a complete idiot (IE: pushing policies that claim to help the middle class, and actually just slow the economy for everyone).
Increased education funding is a "Progressive" way to handle this issue. It doesnt slow the economy (which is REGRESSIVE), and it makes our citizens more competitive in the global market place (that is PROGRESSIVE). Retraining adults to compete in a different job market when their jobs are destroyed in favor of more economically competitive new jobs is PROGRESSIVE. Throwing a bunch of money at a guy who just lost his job instead of helping him acquire new skills for a new job is "STUPID".
We do need saftey nets for our people. We dont need a welfare state, or a society ruled by the market place alone.
Ballance people. This "Right" vs "Left" crap is getting old. They are both right, and wrong. Come to the center. We've got the best of both, and none of the BS.
Posted by JW on February 8, 2007 08:36 AMdamn you rightwingnuts are just dumb as a bag of hammers
Posted by on February 7, 2007 10:15 PM"Progressive" is a euphemism for anti-capitalistic agendas. Why can't they just admit it?
If you believe in Socialism and Robin Hood income redistribution, just say so. All that energy that goes into inventing nice sounding terms like "progressive taxation" and "income equality" is a collossal waste of time.
But don't you DARE try to take away the jumbo jet Pelosi wants to ferry her family and donors all over creation.
Posted by on February 7, 2007 07:54 PMam 760 This quote from Pelosi sounds exactly right as well?
" For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help( huge tax increases on middle class America's earnings and investments) along with millions of unemployed minorities."
Why are illegal aliens figured into this equation on taxes from my family's investments? Is this fair for middle class Americans, or any Americans for that matter?
So you see nothing wrong with that last paragraph, just blinded by your "progressiveness" and "openmindedness". Scary. If we have any more of this kind of liberal "intelligence" , this country is definitely on the way down.
Ben,
Please post a link. Not that I distrust your wingnut stupidity or anything, but Id like to read it for myself. I have a hard time believing Pelosi is that INCREDIBLY stupid, especially when the source is some idiot wingnut known for being INCREDIBLY stupid.
That said, AM760, IF (thats a big IF) Pelosi said all that stuff, she is DUMBER THAN DIRT. I understand the principle and morality of income redistribution. It speaks to the inherent unfairness that is owners getting wealthy of workers breaking their backs for pennies...
That said, it simply WILL NOT WORK in this day and age. We could afford that kind of crap in the slow cold war world. In the lightning fast world of globalization, the product of that kind of protectionist thinking will be one thing; bad times for everyone. Yes, the middle class is shrinking . Yes the rich are getting rich. But the result of this kind of "Progressive" (BS tag if Ive ever seen one) protectionist bs is that investors bolt to less regulated economies, because they give superior returns. In the cold war, the American Government and the Soviet Government could push the rest of the world around. In the super connected globalized world, even the US Treasury Secretary bows to the will of investors, otherwise known as the electronic herd.
It aint fair. It aint nice. But its life.
A far better way for Pelosi to cater to the true "Progressives" would be to push for increased spending in education, both for our youth, and for adults. That makes us more competitive. That gives people who lose middle income jobs to globalization new skills to get new, decent paying jobs.
This regulating the "Rich" with taxes designed to protect the middle class of America will result in a stagnant economy, and MORE job loss, with out any new ones created, and lowered standards of living ALL AROUND (save for the rich, who can just invest in India, or China, or Asia, and hide their wealth in the Camans).
emerging
asian
hedge/mutual funds
Posted by on February 7, 2007 05:45 PMHB, I agree, it was a totally irrelevant issue that wasted tax payers millions of dollars. But the righties keep using it and than don't hold their own party accountable. Unbelievable.
And Ben, Pelosi sounds exactly right. Most middle class people don't have the extra income to put into stocks so only those w/ extra income/the rich, are the ones benefiting from the stock market. Sorry if her idea of more economic equality hinders your profits.
Posted by am 760 on February 7, 2007 05:06 PMOoops -- that should be oil prices not oil stocks.
Posted by history buff on February 7, 2007 05:01 PMThe WSJ says the stock market is poised to head upward because the Dow and transportation stocks are both at record highs, which means the rally is about goods being delivered, not paper manipulations. But WSJ has some warnings as well. There are many bears who have to cover short bets which will melt the market upward. Also, the market climb likely will be driven by latecomers who will get burned after the market peaks. Also, corporate debt is high and could slow down the drive, and oil stocks and interest rates are unknown variables that could adversely effect expectations. Still, I'd look for some good buys if you got the money to invest.
Posted by history buff on February 7, 2007 04:45 PMIf you have stocks and bonds, you might want to consider what will possibly happen in the near future. Pay particular attention to the statement she made in one of the last paragraphs of this message.
WHAT HAS SHE BEEN SMOKING?
Nancy Pelosi condemned the new record highs of the stock market as "just another example of Bush policies helping the rich get richer". "First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class".
She went on to say "Despite the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq our economy is still strong and
government tax revenues are at all time highs. "What this really means is" that business is exploiting the war effort
and working Americans, just to put money in their own pockets".
When questioned about recent stock market highs she responded "Only the rich benefit from these record highs. Working Americans, welfare recipients, the unemployed and minorities are not sharing in these obscene record highs". "There is no question these windfall profits and income created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those dollars redistributed to the poor and working class". "Profits from the stock market do not reward the hard work of our working class who, by their hard work, are responsible for generating these corporate profits that create stock market profits for the rich. We in congress will need to address this issue to either tax these profits or to control the stock market to prevent this unearned income to flow to the rich".
When asked about the fact that over 80% of all Americans have investments in mutual funds, retirement funds, 401K's, and the stock market she replied "That may be true, but probably only 5% account for 90% of all these investment dollars. That's just more "trickle down" economics claiming that if a corporation is successful that everyone from the CEO to the floor sweeper benefit from higher wages and job security which is ridiculous". How much of this "trickle down" ever get to the unemployed and minorities in our county? None, and that's the tragedy of these stock market highs."
"We democrats are going to address this issue after the election when we take control of the congress. We will return to the 60% to 80% tax rates on the rich and we will be able to take at least 30% of all current lower Federal Income Tax taxpayers off the roles and increase government income substantially. We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the a mount the rich can invest."
When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as "Americans"
A Bush spokesperson responded to this interview by saying "Mrs. Pelosi has set a new standard for the spin business".
Unbelievable! May the Good Lord have mercy on us.
Clinton supposedly lied in deposition about an irrelevant issue in a case that was thrown out of court for lack of merit. Good grief! The whole thing was financed by a bunch of commie right wing a$$holes, so what do you expect?
Posted by history buff on February 7, 2007 04:27 PMSo since sex isn't a crime why did it even go to a grand jury than? And I ask again, where is the right when it comes to holding Bush and his cronies accountable for numerous lies/crimes that have been much more disastorous to the US than an affair. Give me a break and wake up. Why do you defend this moron and his rubberstamp party?
Posted by am 760 on February 7, 2007 04:17 PMam 760 - No, sex isn't a crime but LYING TO A GRAND JURY is. And a huge mistake for a president.
Jay - Glad you got a laugh out if it. It was done sort of tongue in cheek. Been kind of a slow around here today so I used your post to troll for some action. ;^ )
It worked too. Look at the new arguments hitting the board.
Posted by KW on February 7, 2007 02:16 PMyou mean she would have gotten to shoot him for putting her and her contacts in danger?
Posted by on February 7, 2007 02:11 PMMaybe Libby should've invited Plame into the oval office and settled everything right there.
Posted by on February 7, 2007 02:07 PMHaving an affair w/ a willing adult is not a crime, so why in the hell was Clinton impeached. Its his personal life so who the #$%$ cares and why did it even go to court.
Bush on the other hand lies about WMD's, the threat from Iraq and gets thousand of our brave soldiers killed for a lie. He puts america into more debt than it ever has been, while still giving tax cuts to the rich and contracts out to his cronies, Halibutrion, KGB, GE, defense contractors, etc...
Yeah pretty much the same thing.
What a bunch of hypocrites you on the right are. Its not illegal to have an affair, it is illegal to lie a country into war. But where is the accountability from the right on any of this?
Posted by am 760 on February 7, 2007 02:01 PMThe Libby case is more about power than breaking the law. If you want to punish a real crime, then the five Supreme Court Jusices who voted to end the recount in Florida should be in prison. Probably the saddest day in the history of the Supreme Court. Scalia, Rhenquist, Thomas,. Kennedy and O'Conner.
Posted by history buff on February 7, 2007 01:58 PM"lying in court "
VS
"lied to the Grand Jury "
Yes. I belive both are called Perjury, provided they do it under oath.
Posted by JW on February 7, 2007 01:56 PMThanks for the Rovian post KW....always good for a laugh.
If Scooter had just told the truth about Cheney outing Plame to him he wouldn't be in this mess...but then again...someone has to fall on the political sword and he took it like a man.
Posted by jay on February 7, 2007 01:44 PMAn nonelected public official lying in court about something he said, or may have said, oh wait, yes he did say it...
VS
The President of the United States of America, elected by its citizens, lied to the Grand Jury about having sex with a volunteer worker at the White House.
Yeah, pretty much the same thing.
Posted by KW on February 7, 2007 01:32 PMLying in court is still a crime yes?
It was for Clinton at least...should it not be for the Bush Administration as well?
Posted by jay on February 7, 2007 01:12 PMSo how did he remember that he forgot it and then relearned it?
I think we need a law that says you cannot be charged with having a faulty memory about something that was not a crime to begin with. I find it absolutely ludicrous that Libby was charged even though no one else is charged with a crime.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on February 7, 2007 01:04 PMOn grand jury audiotapes played at his trial yesterday, Scooter Libby claimed he learned about Valerie Plame’s CIA identity from Vice President Cheney, “forgot it, then learned it again” from Tim Russert “a month later.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/07/libby_said_he_forgot_relearned_agents_id/
Apparently it's not that Scooter lied about Cheney outing Plame...it's just that he has Alzheimers...
Posted by jay on February 7, 2007 11:03 AM"Jay - Not really. Too much effort in the research. I'm not conceding the count but I appreciate your candor in acknowledging that bad politicians are thick on all sides. Research all and trust none!"
Well now Im confused. This doesnt sound like your normal stupidity KW. This sounds like someone who uses their brain. Whats confusing me is the part about "bad politicians are thick on all sides" when all you do is bash "liberals" and "democrats".
Oh well, guess Ill just go with it. Since you are pushing research, check out what Clinton did during his presidency. NO!! Not the immoral personal stuff you already know about and hate the guy for. Check the stuff he did that actually MATTERS. And when I say "Matters" I don't mean matters to your moral sensibilities. Im talking about his economic policies. Of course, you are going to have to do MORE research to understand why they were so damn smart. Maybe even read a book or two.
NO! Not more Anne Coulter! No freaking Al Franken either.
I agree David...but I don't think Salazar and Kerry's bill goes far enough. I would like to have seen a clause stating that the offending members of Congress also have to retroactively pay back their salaries from the time of their first indiscretions forward....
Posted by jay on February 7, 2007 08:17 AMam 760, you are out in left field there if you think Olberman is the only liberal slash progressive on that media list. Looney meet toon.
Posted by on February 7, 2007 07:32 AMIf we look to Congress to be a moral compass, we're all in big trouble:
http://www.wwco.com/~dda/criminals.php
Seriously though, I am very pleased about the recent bill sponsored by Salazar and Kerry that will take the lifetime retirement pension from a Congressperson convicted of a crime, of which there are many.
Posted by David (R) on February 7, 2007 07:14 AMJay - Not really. Too much effort in the research. I'm not conceding the count but I appreciate your candor in acknowledging that bad politicians are thick on all sides. Research all and trust none!
Posted by KW on February 6, 2007 07:04 PMI just thought it was humorous...our Congress isn't what I would call morally muscular.
Still wanna do that 50 years back experiment and see which party got more convictions? Neither is pearly white...but I already know which party takes the convict cake....
Posted by jay on February 6, 2007 06:34 PMJay - I thought you wanted to compare R & D congressman with ARREST OR CONVICTION OF A CRIME, not how many were accused of AN EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR (morally wrong but not crime, ask Clinton). Your link is a gossip column at best.
Try searching: REYNOLDS DEMOCRAT SEX CONVICTION and you'll get the 1995 story.
12 CONVICTIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE, PARDONED BY CLINTON AFTER 6 YEARS AS HE LEFT OFFICE FOR SEX WITH AN UNDERAGE PAGE.
ps - "comedyontap" isn't the best link for facts. Thats worse than quoting wikipedia!
Posted by KW on February 6, 2007 06:01 PMHere's some info after a 10 second google search...looks like you'd lose that bet KW
http://www.comedyontap.com/features/congress.html
Here's your only hint to the 1995 Senator - His last name is Reynolds and he was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault. I'm sure you can find the rest.
If we go back 50 yrs then we must include teddy in the arrested column.
Posted by KW on February 6, 2007 05:21 PMBlowbermans a FAR left idiot. If he's not then why the low ratings. If FoxNews was so overtly right wing then either the majority of the US is also or else Fox wouldn't have become the top rated cable news channel in a short 10 yrs.
If your looking for FAR left media there isn't a lot. Just mostly left media.
So I guess your majority finally showed at the mid term elections last year. Where were they in 2000 or 2002 or 2004?
And remember, when your candidate(s) don't win an election, deal with it like an adult rather than whine and accuse the winner of corruption. Take a lesson from the Republican defeat in '06 (no whining!)
Posted by on February 6, 2007 05:11 PMKW
You missed that discussion. It happened back in 1973. You aren't anywhere near the facts.
Posted by history buff on February 6, 2007 05:08 PMI believe around 1995 a dem congressman was convicted for having sex with an underage page and was sentenced to 20 yrs. Clinton pardoned him on the way out after only six yrs. FOR A SEXUAL PREDATOR! Not a sexual "text messenger" that the press made the top story for practically a month (Foley). How much press coverage did the dem congressman get and the actions of Clinton?
Now thats a sick congressman, an even sicker president and liberal left leaning press if I've ever seen one.
There's another congressman who was suppressed for his actions but never charged, about the same time as the other. One with a boy and the other a girl. If you need details... google it. It's all there.
And remember. These are facts, not opinions or rumors.
Posted by KW on February 6, 2007 05:02 PM3;39 to scared to google, Who owns the media.
Keith Olberman is the only person on your list I would consider a progressive/liberal.
Do any of the other speak truth to power the way he does, NO. Amy Goodman is the other progressive, the rest on your list is BS.
And yeah us darn dems are just not the majority are we, see last election bozo.
KW...I'm calling complete bullshit on that one buddy.
Just to clarify and quantify...let's take the administrations over the last 50 years...sound good?
Posted by jay on February 6, 2007 04:27 PMAnd thru all that media spin the dem still out number the reps in convictions. Who was it that Clinton pardoned again as he left office. DO the research.
Posted by KW on February 6, 2007 04:23 PMNo amount of liberal media spin could account for the number of Republicans that have gone to court and/or prison in the last couple of years.
The truth hurts, I know...the GOP is officially the party of Geriatrics On Parole.
Posted by on February 6, 2007 04:17 PMLooks like the new SecDef is already hedging his bets.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17006899/from/RS.1/
Why isn't this the last chance? If they've got something up their sleeve that we haven't tried yet, why aren't they deploying that new method immediately?
Stall, Stall, Stall.
Won't be too long until it's someone else's problem
Posted by jay on February 6, 2007 04:03 PMam 760 wrote:
"You probably haven't noticed either but right wing opinion/editorials outnumber the left at least 2 to 1 in all major news papers."
You may want to try:
NY Times
Wash Post
Boston Globe
LA Times
Denver Post?
Those are all at least 2-1 in favor of left/lib view... Just to name a few.
If your looking for far left TV you're outa luck except for NBC but even they aren't FAR left (yet). You see nobody's putting up the money for that, not enough people watching. Kind of like that Air America bankruptcy problem they had trying to do the radio thing.
Posted by on February 6, 2007 04:00 PMam 780 - What? Media is mostly right wing??? All the left has is Blowberman??? (he's a severe left wing loon)
Here's the real list of liberals on TV:
Matt Lauer, Chris Mathews, Meridith Viera, Keith Olberman, Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer, Tim Russert, Kate Snow, Elizabeth Vargas, Brian Williams.
This list could go on a lot longer!
Obama is a smoker...
Posted by Truth out on February 6, 2007 03:38 PMWhat's up with the astronaut chick?
Posted by jay on February 6, 2007 03:34 PMGoogle, Who Owns the Media, and than Google PNAC and educate yourself righties.
Posted by am 760 on February 6, 2007 03:15 PM"Why all the anger and insults in your post? Off your meds again?"
Stupid people who can vote piss me off. If you were just stupid, that would be one thing. But youve been given the right to vote, and dont understand the responsibility that goes with it, making you a problem.
Hogar,
I agree with all that. Again though, we were discussing the benefit America gets by taking the best of other cultures and making it our own. You said you thought the majority of what were are getting these days is bad. Even with the truth of your last statement, I disagree. Even illegals are not violent criminals in the majority. Most of them bring a desire to work hard in exchange for the benefit of being in America. Whatever you belive the economic impact of illegals is, their cultural tendency to accept hardwork in order to prosper is something many Americans could use, rather than expecting their cut of the American pie for nothing.
"Al Gore president,
John Kerry vice president.
It won't get much better than that. "
Hey look, I like Al for his work on the Environment and all, but lets not get carried away. Id have to see his economic platform before I went voting for him. Thats the problem with most Dems. Their economic policies suck. These guys I hear now are all talking about "Stopping the Shrinkage of the Middle Class." And hey, thats admirable. The problem is, their "Ideas" on how to do that would leave us worse off than before. You CANNOT go BACKWARDS and start regulating. It hurts the economy worse than the middle class shrinkage. If they had half a brain, they would be talking about increasing education spending, and adding in Re-education for adults who lose their jobs to globalization. That makes sense. Regulating the economy in some misguided attempt to save the middle class will just slow it down.
nope, i guess we will just have to continue to put up with the christian crazies shooting doctors, stopping life saving research and beating gay people to death
does not feel good to be painted with a broad brush does it?
Posted by on February 6, 2007 03:12 PMWasn't Newt part of the group that put together the PNAC, Project for a New American Century, which is the play book for neo cons. I don't mind real republicans but neo cons aren't republicans. They are want to be dictators, i.e. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, etc...
Posted by am 760 on February 6, 2007 03:10 PMNewt, give me a break, you might as well put up rush limpbaugh.
Posted by am 760 on February 6, 2007 03:06 PMYep...and we can't seem to be able to weed out even the most extreme elements of Christianity either....might just be a fact of life in a society as open as ours.
Translation:
I guess we're going to have to keep putting up with those crazy Christians going around cutting peoples heads off.
Ben, where can I find some of that liberal media. Its called corporate media because a bunch of rich white republicans own the 5 major media outlets.
Besides Keith Olbermann, all you have is a bunch of right wing propagandists on TV, Bill Oreilly, sean hannity, scarborough country, lou dobbs, Faux News and the list goes on and on. So please tell me where I can get a liberal point of view on TV. You probably haven't noticed either but right wing opinion/editorials outnumber the left at least 2 to 1 in all major news papers.
Al Gore should have been the president in 2000 and will be in 2008 if its not stolen again.
Could you imagine how much progess our country would have made in alternative energy and combating global warming had this man not been cheated of the presidency.
Beside that, there would be no unjust war in Iraq and al-queda would have been destroyed by now, and our nation would not have the biggest debt in its history. But you rethugs keep voting for those neo cons, because of the gays, guns, God and aboriton issue.
Conservative = close minded, highschool diploma, regressive.
Liberal= open-minded, college educated, progressive.
Al Gore president,
John Kerry vice president.
It won't get much better than that.
"I was refering to the fact that we seem unable to weed out even the most extreme elements of radical Islam coming into our country"
Yep...and we can't seem to be able to weed out even the most extreme elements of Christianity either....might just be a fact of life in a society as open as ours.
Michael,
I think Newt will make a strong showing. He's done a great job (like Buchanan) of putting on a very centrist mask for the past several years. The problem is that quotes never die...and both of those guys were hatchet men for the far right for too long not to get dirty. Their laundry isn't going to look good on TV. I'm not saying they aren't viable candidates at the basic level...but politics these days is about ELECTABILITY....which is why I think HIllary has an uphill climb ahead of her.
JW,
I was refering to the fact that we seem unable to weed out even the most extreme elements of radical Islam coming into our country, and the fact that the vast majority of those coming into the country are illegal and many of those are involved in crime. Just look at the spread of MS13. They have been labled the most dangerous gang in the world by the FBI. How can we be so incompetent that we allow 50,000 of these thugs into our country?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on February 6, 2007 02:52 PMJay -
I may have the red paint can a little too close........true. But I am anxiously waiting for a real conservative to step up and MY MAN is Newt. I can hear you screaming now about him leaving his wife and such while she was on her death bed. I say, bring that on all day. Compared to the morality of our last Dem POTUS, Newt gets a pass. Plus, Newt scores high with conservatives and also he has a Ph.D. in history and is a much published author, lecturer, and expert on all things political and govt wise. So the standard liberal playbook about attacking the GOP candidate on stupidity, ignorance, and no education will be rendered impotent. I like the odds.
you got it ben
it be all them damn mexicans fault
all our problems would suddenly be fixed if we could just get rid of 'em
Posted by on February 6, 2007 02:39 PMJW - if your mouth slowed down long enough for your brain to catch up you might actually make a coherent statement once in awhile.
Why all the anger and insults in your post? Off your meds again?
Posted by KW on February 6, 2007 02:38 PM For clarification:
Immigrants = legal status, citizens.
Resident Aliens = noncitizens with legal residential status.
Illegal aliens = Persons illegally in country.
Now if the liberal media would only do some investigation into the proper use of these definitions from the U.S. government agencies ie. (ICE).
Oh, but they have their agenda to attend maintain.
Posted by Ben on February 6, 2007 02:36 PMJW,
For the record, I don't think any of those guys would make bad candidates either...except maybe Romney...which is probably exactly why the right wing won't allow any of them to make it to the finals.
"You really think the country elects a 72 year old flip-flopper, a pro-gay marriage/pro-abortion/pro-stem cell adulterer, or a mormon?"
Its funny, but I like all those guys. If it came down to them vs Hillary or Biden, I might even have a hard time deciding, and for once it wouldnt be because I thought either one might ruin the country.
Then again, its way to early for me to be worrying about their platforms, so they all could change my mind very soon...
Posted by JW on February 6, 2007 02:28 PMActually Michael, we're only a year out from Super Tuesday...so it's not all that early...although the rhetoric is going to get pretty old by the time the primaries come around.
You really think the country elects a 72 year old flip-flopper, a pro-gay marriage/pro-abortion/pro-stem cell adulterer, or a mormon?
I think you might be huffing too much red paint there buddy.
Posted by jay on February 6, 2007 02:22 PM"Ability to be easily fooled isn't a quality I seek in any politician, let alone one running for president."
So, you didn't vote for "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...you dont get fooled again" Bush? I bet you voted for him twice. You should change your name to FOS. And get this straight, Im not pointing out your hypocricy because Im some Democrat shill. Im pointing out your hypocricy because being a partisan hack, youve got your brain turned off half the time, and should quit showing us examples. I dont know if Ill vote for Hillary, but not voting for her for the same reasons you ignored when you did vote for Bush is seriously stupid. If you werent turning your brain off half the time, youd take a look at her actual platform. Not saying you would support her, but you could come up with reasons not to that werent completely moronic. If I vote for who ever the Republican candidate is, it will be because I like their platform better than the Democrat's, rather than because Im a stupid footsoldier who only thinks for 1 of every 2 minuets.
"By bad I mean those who do not believe in the rule of law."
Ok, but we were discussing the affect of immigration on the USA, and you were saying the majority of the cultural aspects we were picking up from immigrants were bad. I do not think that Islamofascists represent the majority of influence from outside cultures on America. Similarly, I dont believe criminal cultural traits are what we are getting in the majority from other cultures.
I think that the USA's abillity to take in people of disperate culture and assimilate positive aspects from those cultures is still one of our great strenghts.
"Im not afraid of Asia. Our Asians will beat their Asians any day."
Posted by JW on February 6, 2007 02:19 PMKW,
I'd rather have a competent, intelligent leader than one who is plugged into the Washington political football game...but again, that's just one guy talking. For all intents and purposes...if W had actually ran a successful business or hadn't run Texas' economy and environment into the ground or wasn't a puppet for the larger neo-con power base he might have been a decent candidate...except for the intelligence thing of course.
As Barack just threw his hat in the exploratory ring...I"m willing to give him the time to put together some stances on the issues that face our country. His website has some interesting vids on a few of his viewpoints if you're interested. I just picked up The Audacity of Hope...I"ll let you know how it is...
http://www.barackobama.com/
Posted by jay on February 6, 2007 02:14 PMMcCain, Giuliani, and Romney are all moderate/centrist conservative Republicans and all liberal on most social issues - paticularly abortion. Pretty acceptable to a national electorate considering the front runners for the Dems who all appear left or far left at this early stage - Obama, Edwards, Biden, Hillary.
This is the first election since 1952 where we do not have a Pres or VP running and the field is wide open in both parties. I guess that is why all the early (TOO damn early!!!) attention on this election. Let's get ready to RUMMMMBLE!!!
Jay - I do see a large diference between serving in public office at a state level vs federal. Its a completely different ballgame. Obama is still a rookie at the fed level.
The other problem I have with Obama is... what is his platform? Most politicians develop and discuss at least a basic platform before announcing an intention to run for such a high office.
Posted by KW* on February 6, 2007 02:08 PMYou're right, Reagan sure screwed the pooch when he signed IRCA into effect.
So, 1:34, what's the real solution? Arresting, convicting and deporting every illegal immigrant in the US at taxpayer expense, meanwhile untold billions of dollars are pouring into Iraq to fight a problem that feeds itself, all without raising taxes???
Posted by on February 6, 2007 02:04 PMKW,
12 years public office vs. 13 years public office....I guess I don't see that much difference...unless you count being a cog in the political machinery in Washington as useful experience for a good president:)
I personally would prefer someone who hasn't been corrupted by the Capitol Hill system, but that is just one guy talking...worked for Clinton
Posted by jay on February 6, 2007 02:00 PMIn order to demonize someone for lying about marital infidelity (Clinton), while worshipping someone whose lies about al-Qaeda and WMD got over 3,000 soldiers killed (Bush), you'd really have to hate the first person.
Posted by on February 6, 2007 01:56 PMJay wrote - "Obama has no more or less experience than did JFK."
JFK - PT boat commander and decorated hero (for real, not Kerry style), WWII.
Elected to congress in 1947, served 13 yrs between both the house and senate until becomeing president in 1960.
BHO - Attorney, elected to Illinois state legistlature 1996-2004, elected US Senate 2005 - present.
Comparison results:
JFK had 13 yrs in congress at the US level and Obama has 2 (6 if you add his state level service.
Winner: JFK
Posted by KW on February 6, 2007 01:54 PMI don't hate anyone, including Democrats. I pity their ignorance. And yours.
Posted by on February 6, 2007 01:36 PMUnfortunately, Jay, that argument won't work against a bunch of people who are perfectly happy to hate someone solely because he or she is a Democrat.
Posted by Fae Victus on February 6, 2007 01:35 PM1:23 needs to refresh his feeble mind about what happened in 1986 when the last big amnesty for illegal aliens was tendered.
History teaches us how not to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Amnesty (or regularization or documentation or path to citizenship in Demospeak) is the wrong solution.
Since propagating the slur racism is all you have to offer, you have joined all of the ignorant emotional dolts who seek to relive the mistakes of 1986.
Obama has no more or less experience than did JFK.
Posted by jay on February 6, 2007 01:32 PM"Yet in an age when George W. Bush can be elected president, who can complain when someone like Obama is treated as a plausible presidential candidate? After all, Bush had no accomplishments to speak of, political or otherwise, when he was more or less handed the governorship of Texas, in much the same way a feudal duchy might be turned over to the ne'er-do-well son of a prince."
From RMT writer , Paul Campos
Does that mean that if Obama gets nominated, the Repub party will campaign with the slogen: Don't elect another unknown, don't elect another Bush. Of course, the Supreme Court may tell us the Repubs win no matter what the electorate might do.
Posted by history buff on February 6, 2007 01:26 PMBy fueling the immigration debate in such a way that encourages a sweeping anti-immigrant attitude, you fuel the same cause served by the KKK. They're capitalizing on people like you who are against any sort of compromise on the immigration issue. It may not be what you intended, but it's what's happening.
Posted by on February 6, 2007 01:23 PMya right. now they will pump Rather full of formaldehyde to do the story on how racism is rampant amongst Rebuplicans who use the word articulate.
Posted by PeeDiddy on February 6, 2007 01:19 PMHypocrisy from Democrats is the norm. That is why the "outrage" was held over for Bush when he used the same word that Biden uttered regarding Obama. It seems that the usual racial politicians and erstwhile civil rights hacks interpreted the same description in the context of the speaker's political affiliation.
That is your Democrap Party.
JW,
By bad I mean those who do not believe in the rule of law. Those who follow the Islamic interpretation that all who are not Muslims do not have a right to live. Those who come into our country but refuse to obey the laws that conflict with their religious system, and seek to overthrow through violence our entire system of laws, and replace it with Sharia. If they come in an work within the system to change it legally, I have less of a problem with it, but I think it would be better to filter extremeists out of the immigration pool. I have no problem with diverse cultures, but in general the creation of ghettos is not a useful thing. I am glad that parents did not locate us in a ghetto from our home country, as it made assimilation easier and more beneficial.
Hey, all you racist border fanatics:
Check out what all your false hype about immigration is supporting:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/06/klan.report.ap/index.html
Posted by on February 6, 2007 12:39 PM
I am an immigrant. So I resent your very ill worded post. Racism is something that is repulsive to the vast majority of Americans. Immigration is a more controversial issue, yet one that the clear majority of Americans support. Border enforcement has nothing to do with either racism or immigration for the majority of Americans. Border enforcement is necessary for the security of the country as well as the enforcement of a fair immigration policy.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on February 6, 2007 12:47 PMHey, all you racist border fanatics:
Check out what all your false hype about immigration is supporting:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/06/klan.report.ap/index.html
Posted by on February 6, 2007 12:39 PMWe lost in 2008 wrote:
"Hillary has already promised she would end the War. Looks like no hope for Republicans in 2008."
Would that be the war she voted FOR or the war she said she was TRICKED into voting for? Ability to be easily fooled isn't a quality I seek in any politician, let alone one running for president.
Posted by KW on February 6, 2007 12:30 PMHey 10:50...I know of no Dem or Rub that wants open, unsecure borders...that's a myth propagated by the far right wing puppet masters....cut your strings. As far as raising taxes....yes....the spending spree over the last six years has resulted in record debt and deficits which are going to have to be paid for.... Were you not paying attention when every sane economist (including Greenspan) was screaming that we were going to have to raise taxes to pay for all the deficit spending?? Simple economics my man...we can either keep the tax cuts that didn't pay for themselves or balance the budget and pay the national credit card bill...you choose which option you like better.
As far as "tucking and running" from people that "shows force" towards this country....sorry....that dog just won't hunt. Iraq wasn't threatening, had no way to threaten and wasn't building means to threaten us. Al Qaeda? You betcha...maybe we should have stayed in Afghanistan instead of giving it back to the Taliban to go into Iraq...what do you think?
Posted by jay on February 6, 2007 11:24 AMTruly sad to see that we have morons in this country like 10:50... simple-minded naivettes who believe whatever the Righty media spoon-feeds them. Too bad people don't look at track records and THINK before making up their minds about something. As far as 10:50 goes... put your money where your mouth is, moron. Show us any credible proof that any of those foolish incorrect comments about Hillary are true. You are obviously blind to facts.
Posted by Bigg Dogg on February 6, 2007 11:20 AMhow is it again that iraq was a threat to the us?
Posted by on February 6, 2007 11:02 AMJust get me elected and I'll get everything straightened out. You know like, higher taxes, open borders, tuck and run from anyone that shows force toward this country.
YEEEEHAAAAA!!!!!
Posted by Hilary Clinton on February 6, 2007 10:50 AMSo filibusters are unconstitutional to stop inappropriate appointments to the supreme court....and come on....Harriet wasn't a good choice from the get go....but filibusters are okay to stop DEBATE on the WH's handling of the Iraq war. You know which political movement was famous for squashing dissent and any discussion that may endanger their stance on the political landscape?
Posted by jay on February 6, 2007 08:52 AM"The problem is that lately we have been better at bringing in the bad parts of other cultures, which is toxic to our country and it will kill us if we don't get a handle on it. "
Hogar,
What "Bad parts" are you talking about? Morally? Or policy?
The problem I have with the "moral" part is that this is a free country. While we do have some obvious norms based on upholding the rights of our citizens, the moral issues become more ambiguous. I know that you are very Christian, and have therefore developed your own morals. However, in many ways, I question whether your morals are "good" for everyone. I know they are good for you. And I support your ability to make those moral decisions for yourself, and your family. I am not in support of you making those choices for others. So, when you say "bad parts" I wonder if they really are "bad", or just different from your particular morals, and therefore not necessarily "bad" for society as a whole.
If you are talking about "bad policy" being brought in, I would be very interested to hear just which ones you are talking about. For my part, it seems that we have been in a conservative rut for the last 6 years, pushing a war policy externaly, and a "dissent is un American" internal policy. I do not agree with the internal policy AT ALL. Our external policy needs to ADD other facets in my opinion. However, I do not see a large affect comming from internal sources that hold external cultural values. Additionally, I feel it is the "conservative" policies that are damaging this country. We have been talking about the massive changes the global finance system is going through. By its very definition, a "conservative" policy is unable to adapt to those changes.
Of course, I have not even touched on our fiscal policies, but I do not feel they have been affected by other cultures. I feel they are a product of American politicians, for the context of this discussion at least. Certainly you could argue that outside cultures have an affect on our fiscal policies, but that is a different arguement.
Posted by JW on February 6, 2007 08:45 AMBesides, bringing in the good parts of other cultures has been a strength of this nation since we got our first immigrant.
Posted by JW on February 5, 2007 04:59 PM
The problem is that lately we have been better at bringing in the bad parts of other cultures, which is toxic to our country and it will kill us if we don't get a handle on it. The problem is that the Postmodern thought has destroyed the ability to distinguish between good and evil (unless you are talking about Christians and Republicans).
I guess those filibusters that the Republicans railed against so vehemently in recent years are back.
Posted by jay on February 5, 2007 07:11 PM
Jay,
I have no problem with filibusters with regard to unilateral actions within the Congress. Congress can decide just how screwed up they want their own processes to be in deciding how they pass their legislation. What I cannot believe that we allow is for Congress to unilaterally alter the Constitutional patterns of Congressional interaction with the Executive branch. The Constitution clearly defines the times that Congress needs a super majority with regard to interactions with the Executive branch. For Congress to unilaterally impose there own standards for super majority votes, and even worse keeping things holed up in committee on judges is UNConstitutional.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on February 6, 2007 08:15 AMIraq is still the big concern. As long as we keep losing troops, the polls go lower for Bush, McCain, and the rest of the GOP.
More troops, or less troops we are still losing Americans by the day. Democrats look to take the WH. Too bad no Republican has taken a stand to section off Iraq and cut our losses.
Troops have already made comments which sound like they are digusted by the fact that they take a town. The insurgents melt away into the population and then return. Its obvious we cant fight the population there.
Hillary has already promised she would end the War. Looks like no hope for Republicans in 2008.
Posted by We lost 2008 on February 5, 2007 08:25 PMUpdate on the vote for the resolution against escalation.
Vote was along party lines except for Lieberman who voted for the filibuster and Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Norm Coleman (R-MN) who voted against it.
4 Senators including McCain did not vote.
I guess those filibusters that the Republicans railed against so vehemently in recent years are back.
Posted by jay on February 5, 2007 07:11 PMHistorically, Americans have followed the flag during wartime by supporting the President and the troops, and making our best effort to support our national resolve. Unfortunately, our current leader lied about conclusions drawn from "top secret" documents, and manipulated the data that was released to form a false impression about the situation in Iraq. The Democrats are patriotic Americans, and even though they have a duty to rein in a careless foreign policy, at the same time they should show some deference to the executive branch because the President is the Commander in Chief, and it is his responsiblity to conduct the war and our foreign policy.
Besides, the President says he favors bi-partisanship, so if the Democrats show the same, somehow they defeat their own position? You can't have it both ways.
Posted by history buff on February 5, 2007 06:53 PMBut FB...why should it be this hard to get the Republican Administration to do the right thing?
Why do we have to overcome a filibuster?
Are you saying that we should cut the funding for the troops as a show of opposition to George's vietnam-style plan for escalation?
Posted by jay on February 5, 2007 06:38 PMJay,
You fail to see my point... it's not just the Republicans!!!
Most Democrats refuse to take stands either... or more would back Sen Dodd.
Instead they jabber and fail to take real opportunities to oppose the President.
Like I said, I agree with McCain, their opposition lacks intellectual honesty.
They could have blocked Patreaus' nomination, but they didn't. Hell, when they weren't even in control of the Senate they blocked Bolton's appointment to the UN for far less reason.
Tell me Jay, why can't they get enough support for Dodd's proposition when it calls for exactly what you claim the American people, the Joint Chiefs and the generals on the ground want???
Because they don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the President in any meaningful way.
Posted by Freedom Baby! on February 5, 2007 06:17 PMKeep rationalizing the incompetence FB...seems to be your specialty. General Fallon is set to replace Abizaid (an outspoken opponent of escalation...indeed the reason he was fired). Fallon's views are what matter as he will be in charge of the ground war.
GRAHAM: And you would support sending more troops to accomplish that goal?
FALLON: I don’t know how many troops are going to be necessary to effect the outcome that we want. But General Petraeus, in my conversations with him, indicated that he believes he needs these troops now, to get moving…
GRAHAM: And if he said he needed more, you would support him?
FALLON: I don’t know, sir. I haven’t been there yet, and I’m not in a position to make that judgment.
GRAHAM: Well, it’s his judgment about 21,500, does it make sense to you?
FALLON: I will better be able to give you an informed answer when I understand the situation better.
FALLON: I cannot tell you with any degree of accuracy what percentage of troops or what the numbers are that are effective. And I believe that this is pretty judgmental. It’s pretty subjective, in my opinion, my experience. And it’s one that I am very anxious to gain an appreciation for from our ground commanders.
I’ve always been someone who felt more comfortable in smaller numbers of very effective capabilities than a large number of — whatevers — decorating the landscape. So we’ll be really interested in trying to find out where we really stand with these forces.
Now...I ask again...why is it so hard to get the Republicans to respect the opinions of the Joint Chiefs, the generals on the ground and the will of the American people???
Wait, who exactly voted to approve the appointment of General Petraeus who, in his testimony before the Senate, said he believes the President's plan will work? In fact, Patraeus was specifically picked by the president because of his advocacy for the troop surge. Yet there was not a single dissenting vote???
So, Jay, the Senate listened to a General who said he was for the troop surge and voted him to the top post in Iraq. They DID listen to the expert!!!! And then voted unanamously for him...
Posted by Freedom Baby! on February 5, 2007 05:45 PMFunny I didn't hear anyone willing to play politics with troops well-being except the Republicans. Weird huh?
Again...why is it so hard for the Republicans to listen to our own military experts and heed the will of the American people?
Posted by jay on February 5, 2007 05:23 PMJay,
From the Washington Post:
"Democratic divisions were also on display, with the most ardent antiwar voices pleading for more dramatic action. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) tried to amend the nonbinding resolution with firm legislative language capping troop levels in Iraq at January levels, around 137,500. But the Dodd amendment was defeated, 15 to 6, with five Democrats joining all Republicans in opposition."
It's not just Republicans blocking REAL opposition to the troop surge. Sen Dodd introduced a legislative measure that WOULD HAVE CAPPED the number of troops in Iraq, as similar measures did in the 1970s with troop levels in Vietnam. But 5 Democrats on the committee blocked that measure because they're afraid to stick their neck out that far.
But many Democrats are unwilling to back anything resembling a real opposition to the plan.
Like I said, way to go Harry! Way to heed the will of the American people!
Posted by Freedom Baby! on February 5, 2007 05:19 PM"A safety net is appropriate so long as people are not encouraged to fail because the net is so comfortable that it beats trying to succeed."
I think its better to make the net too comfortable than not comfortabe enough. The net is no good if people hit the ground before it arrests their fall. And unfortunately, there will always be people who seek to get by on what they can get for free. Since nothing is perfect, I say we go a bit overboard, rather than not going far enough. In the end, those who have the tools to make it will still be fine. But, you also cant go too far. Its that damn balance again. Not a welfare state, but not completely at the mercy of the free market.
Posted by JW on February 5, 2007 05:03 PMHey FB, you are absolutely right that the measure won't stand up to the expected Republican filibuster...but honestly....what does it take to get the Republicans to do the right thing in Iraq? Why does it have to be this hard to get them to listen to our own military folks?
Posted by jay on February 5, 2007 05:03 PM" view it as a bad thing, as there are more bad things outside the US, and therefore I think a one world government would result in a net loss for the US."
Ahhh, but we are the ones exporting the "globulization" phenomena. We will take in far less than we put out. Besides, bringing in the good parts of other cultures has been a strength of this nation since we got our first immigrant.
Posted by JW on February 5, 2007 04:59 PM"We must heed the results of the November elections and the wishes of the American people," said Majority Leader Harry Reid.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Right, so with a shockingly low 49 votes, Mr Reid is a FAR 11 votes shy of getting a consensus opposition to the President's plan for Iraq on even THIS spineless non-binding referendum.
McCain is right, this an "intellectually dishonest" half-measure designed to score political points without eliciting any real change.
Way to go Harry!
Posted by Freedom Baby! on February 5, 2007 04:57 PM"I would not make a categorical statement regarding one world government, but the Bible seems to indicate that it will happen."
You're killin me Smalls
Posted by jay on February 5, 2007 04:26 PMHogar- Beware the 'central' government become the 'one world' government also known as the 'new world order'.
Posted by Sign a Name on February 5, 2007 11:40 AM
I would not make a categorical statement regarding one world government, but the Bible seems to indicate that it will happen. I don't think there is much that I can do to avoid it whether it is a good or bad thing. I view it as a bad thing, as there are more bad things outside the US, and therefore I think a one world government would result in a net loss for the US.
JW,
I have no illusions of us regulating a global economy, but I am concerned with the effects of the cold hard brutality of the global economy, and think that it is appropriate for government to prevent the harm to those who can't make the grade from going beyond a certain point. A safety net is appropriate so long as people are not encouraged to fail because the net is so comfortable that it beats trying to succeed.
What alternative do you propose, Hogar? Insular xenophobia? Cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world so we can decline into economical and social degeneracy...
Posted by on February 5, 2007 02:30 PM
I am not an isolationist. The problem with progress, is that sometimes the weak and infirm get left behind. I do not believe in a survival of the fittest philosophy, but neither do I want government to shield people from reality. There needs to be a balance in our society, where private charity is properly encouraged to help those who can't keep the pace without creating a welfare state.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on February 5, 2007 03:52 PMWhat alternative do you propose, Hogar? Insular xenophobia? Cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world so we can decline into economical and social degeneracy, and eventually be annexed by some other country that has been keeping up with global trends better than we have?
Posted by on February 5, 2007 02:30 PMHogar,
Keep in mind, the idea is not that central government "Regulates" as the old model would have it.
The Government has to "Regulate" by keeping things flowing. They do this by making the rules stick. The rules don't limit legitimate business. They limit ILLIGITIMATE business. We are the model for this currently. Other countries need to get up to speed because they still have cronie capitalism, or lots of corruption.
I am just fininshing the book, and there was a great quote from Greenspan that I think relates to your statement about how much globalization has altered the game;
"I have learned more about how this new international financial system works in the last twelve months than in the previous twenty years."
Posted by JW on February 5, 2007 12:25 PMHogar- Beware the 'central' government become the 'one world' government also known as the 'new world order'.
Posted by Sign a Name on February 5, 2007 11:40 AMJW,
I find it interesting that globalization has actually increased the need for legitimate government to protect the weak from the strong. I am going to have to think long and hard on the possibility that globalization has so altered the game that there are aspects of the game that can only be handled by a central government and the idea of limiting that government to the degree that made sense 200 years ago will never be applicable again.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on February 5, 2007 11:09 AM"No other nation provides such a wide and deep array of services if you happen to fall on tough times. "
I would argue this. There are several countries that provide better livings via social services than we do.
"As for your argument about a safety net makes you want to try harder a second time - I would disagree for many. When you know you do not have to work or even try to succeed, that the "govt tit" will be there to suckle you, then what motivation is there to aspire for more?? This is something discussed and analyzed a lot."
Unfortunately, it seems to be either "republican" or "democrat" analysis. And they are both full of crap. The Republican stance is crap because they go to far with the "Sink or swim" dogma. The Democrats are full of crap because they go to far with the "nanny state" that will take care of you crap.
Again, its about ballance. The saftey net needs to be there to catch you, and give you a hand getting back up. It doesn't need to coddle you for the rest of your life.
That said, pretty much everyone knows about the process that leads to revolution. When the middle class isnt big enough, and the separation of wealth gets to big, the lower classes rebel. Globalization is going to FOSTER that separation of wealth, even as it breeds opportunity the likes of which we have never seen. There MUST be some support for what Friedman calls "The left behinds, the turtles, and those who simply can't." IF the seperation becomes to large, there will be reprecussions.
"The biggest impression the Lexus and the Olice Tree has made so far is to realize that the free market can be overly efficient and it does need the protection of laws to prevent it from exterminating the weak."
Exactly. And your Wal-Mart example is another way that the market helps this on its own, but....
Again, we need some govt. saftey net. Look at places like Rawanda. There was no government saftey net. That was a place ENTIRELY regulated by the market. Do you think the people of Rawanda would have liked to pay some taxes in exchange for government services like police and military?
Again, this is about ballance, and that is why I absolutely LOATHE the dichotomy we are faced with by our political system. It breeds not only missinformation, but emotional decision making.
Posted by JW on February 5, 2007 10:27 AMJW,
The biggest problem with a government safety net, is that there is not enough accountability and there is no incentive to be efficient. I believe that the government should provide tax incentives for private enterprise to provide the safety net. I think that will spur the sort of innovation and competition that makes the private market so effective in other areas.
Look at the effect that the $4 prescription offering from Walmart is having on the cost of medicince. They did that without any government incentive.
The biggest impression the Lexus and the Olice Tree has made so far is to realize that the free market can be overly efficient and it does need the protection of laws to prevent it from exterminating the weak.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on February 5, 2007 10:13 AMJW - We have a safety net, a HUGE and GROWING one. And I have no problem with having one, with restrictions and oversight. We have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Unemployment Insurance, Aid to Families, all sorts of programs for almost every special interest and person with a disability or alleged flaw. The list is incredibly long. And this is all GOVT sponsored and TAX payer funded. I have not even mentioned the huge amounts of $$ available from private charities and "faith based" groups - like churches. No other nation provides such a wide and deep array of services if you happen to fall on tough times.
As for your argument about a safety net makes you want to try harder a second time - I would disagree for many. When you know you do not have to work or even try to succeed, that the "govt tit" will be there to suckle you, then what motivation is there to aspire for more?? This is something discussed and analyzed a lot.
"The only "cure" for poverty is wealth and success - NOT entitlements or social welfare programs."
True. But you still need a saftey net. It actually spurrs competition. If people can fail and know that there is a net that won't let them be screwed for life, they are more likely to take the chance. In silicon valley, for instance, this net is private. People actually find it easier to raise capital for a second start up than it was to get investment for their first go round. Why? Because, having failed once gave them knowledge, and investors believe that knowledge is key to success.
Yes, the market needs to be unregulated. Yes, we need to allow the cream to rise to the top. But as with most things, ballance is essential. You can't just leave people to the untender mercies of an unregulated market. You can't regulate the market to redistribute wealth and have it perform as well.
You need opportunity for both success, and second chances.
Posted by JW on February 5, 2007 09:45 AMmikey there is no need to rationalize your baseless opinion that edwards theory of two americas does not exist
you are a hack and we do not expect much from you
Posted by on February 5, 2007 09:41 AM"The poor you will always have with you" Matthew 26:11
Posted by Jesus on February 5, 2007 09:32 AMYou could say that our generals on the ground, Colin Powell and the Joint Chiefs don't know what they're doing.....your president certainly is...
It is okay to admit that you were wrong to vote for Bush
Posted by jay on February 5, 2007 09:30 AMJohn Edwards is building a new 26,000 sq ft "home" in Chapel Hill NC. The estimated cost is about $6 million. This is fine and I have no problem with it. But I would prefer if Mr. Edwards woud please stop with his tired and awful "2 Americas" rhetoric. It is quite obvious which America Mr. Edwards lives in, but perhaps he should focus on the fact that in America you can be born in a mill town with not a lot of money (which he was) and become a wealthy and succesful man.
Why does the left (many) so often think that we can throw money at poverty ($4 TRILLION since LBJ's war on poverty 40 years ago and we still have poor people) and that will cure it or eliminate it? The only "cure" for poverty is wealth and success - NOT entitlements or social welfare programs.
"Our best military minds". Funny, they are only the best cause they agree with you, but the ones that dont are not the best..........
Nothing more then a liberal partisian hack you are Jay. never met a liberal ideology you didn't like.
Posted by on February 5, 2007 09:26 AMSo when this latest in a series of escalations fails in 6-9 months...can we finally start listening to our best military minds and begin a phased withdrawal to a position of support?
Posted by jay on February 5, 2007 08:54 AMBlunt guy- You know after careful consideration, you are right. It is nice to see an intelligent, clean cut Black Man, since most of us are in prison for beating their ho's, drinking 40's and selling drugs.
To point out the obvious, Biden's comments were right on mark. Obama does make an effort to sound intelligent and is clean cut and would not dream of being seen in public wearing bling.
Compare this to Jesse Jackson who never met a topic he wouldn't try to rap about (his 1988 comments about "Smiles, Styles and Profiles" comes to mind), and Colin Powell who was accused of trying to "Sound White" by other blacks.
Biden is also talking about partitioning Iraq, which i think is the only way out of that mess.
Posted by Blunt Guy on February 5, 2007 08:04 AMFunny, Republicans are not falling over themselves to get face time and spit soundbites about Biden the way goofy Democrats feigned outrage at the Senate candidate who made a bad joke about an indian guy.
Posted by Pux. Phil on February 4, 2007 09:55 PMHow any Democrat could not recognize the tremendous double standard with which the press and their operatives dealt with the "Macaca" nonsense-word comments by a republican as opposed to the overtly racist comments made by Biden essentially proves the existence of a liberal mass media and a hypocritical Democratic party for softballing the issue.
Posted by Liberal Hypocrisy on February 4, 2007 09:44 PM