Wingnut Of The Day: Erick Erickson
Red State’s Erick Erickson says this will be the result of the Palin resignation (h/t Crooks and Liars):
I think the left and national media will be emboldened to ritualistically engage in the metaphorical gang raping of conservative politicians, particularly those who are female and have children. They’ll decide savaging Palin’s family drove her from office, so the sky’s the limit on the next conservative with kids.
So, let me get this straight: While claiming the resignation of Sarah Palin will embolden the left to attack conservative politicians, particularly women with children, Erickson is using said resignation to attack liberals, in advance, for what he thinks they might do.
Erickson notably referred recently to Supreme Court Justice David Souter as a “goat f*&king child molester.”
Sarah Palin is the Richard Nixon of our time.
“You don’t have -Sarah Palin- to kick around anymore.”
July 5th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Well just so I’m understood I’ll phrase this on Mr. Erickson’s level. This guy Erickson is apparently just another conservative skank sack of crap.
And he looks like one, too.
steve Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Those remarks are hurting the GOP. The age of pc,s,cable news and so forth is showing the GOP is out of touch with mainstream America.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:27 am
I am not sure what is incorrect about his statement. The left and the liberal media did exactly what he said to Palin and her family and in my opinion they will continue to do the same crap with any other conservative female who decides to run for office.
And I don’t see his response as an attack. Saying what you think MIGHT happen isn’t an attack the last time I checked. It’s called speculation.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
So if I were to say that you’re going to Hell where you’ll be drowning in burning pools of crap for the rest of eternity to pay for your crimes–that isn’t an attack. It’s just speculation.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Rocky
You say stuff like that everyday on this blog. Yes, it’s speculation because you don’t have a clue.
average james Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Is this guy a menber of ‘the Heritage Foundation’?
Perhaps at gold card level ?
Nutjob.
steve Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
blissful
If you run a red light and was pulled over for it ,that would be your fault. Palin has faults and every1 else has faults as well.
Lame duck excuse,the left wing media is like Flip Wilson saying the devil made me do it.
I have stated several times that Palin has talent. I don,t like her polices. Reagan in 75 and 76 was bashed by his own party,laugh at and no blessing from the media.
1980 came around and Reagan was like Stonewall Jackson. Palin could do the same. Alot of conservatives love her and lady has a strong following. That she should do the same as Regan by brushing up her faults and so forth.
Yes those remarks are hurting your party. I never said his remarks were incorrect. Vile,yes. Daily craze rants from neocons like that guy is showing your party is out of touch with America.
Don,t forget the craze rantings of the right wing media as well. I guess,THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT and i have no faults as in Palin.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
What does running a red light have to do with anything?
steve Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
As in fault blissful. As if all of Palin,s faults are by the media. As if the Devil Made Me Do It and i can see Russia From My Front Door.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Steve
It isn’t Palin’s “fault” that the media was obsessed with her down syndrome son, her pregnant teenage daughter, her marriage, her looks, her clothes, her hair, her glasses, her children, her children, her children.
Everything she SAID herself she owns. All the garbage and then some I posted above lies squarely on the shoulders of the left wing media and those who choose to make politics personal.
Epiphany Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Saint Sarah who has never said anything worth analyzing or criticizing because she can do or say no wrong. Saint Sarah, because she is so holy, does not have to take any responsibilty for the ridiculous things she says. It’s the devil allright. The media.
She is the one who because of her ambitions, exposed her pregnant daughter to the world after pushing abstinance programs and criticizing other families for the same situation her daughter was in. She used her children and baby as props, so much so, that she had Bristol’s fiancee Levi appear on stage with the family when there was absolutely nothing between them.
Meanwhile Hillary Clinton has been trashed for the last 16 years by the right wing media but that’s just fine and dandy.
Letterman and almost all comedians during the 1990’s and even after 2000 used Bill Clinton for material in a negative way and somehow we didn’t take offense at that. It was actually funny a lot of the time and it’s… comedy. We didn’t take it that seriously. But don’t dare do it about Saint Sarah. Did you know that Sarah is still a virgin? Yup. Immaculate conception.
Now let us pray…
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Epiphany
What she says has NOTHING to do with people attacking her children. Imagine the audacity of anyone “exposing” their pregnant teenage daughter the to the world. That NEVER happens to REAL families in REAL life. There has NEVER been another family ANYWHERE who has taught their children to wait til marriage only to find their son/daughter in a similar situation. GOD forbid.
Hillary was trashed by PLENTY of left wing media outlets who had chosen obama as their leader.
Letterman is left wing. BILL was at the CENTER of what happened. i don’t remember letterman using chelsea like he did Palin’s daughter.
EricG Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
BlissfulC – “I am not sure what is incorrect about his statement.”
“And I don’t see his response as an attack. Saying what you think MIGHT happen isn’t an attack the last time I checked. It’s called speculation.”
What is incorrect about his statement is that it is speculation based on partisan hate for the left and nothing more.
I think it MIGHT happen that with the endless unamerican, unintelligent bashing of President Barack Obama that the right wing will have their civic organizations dismantled by concerned citizens and never allowed to spread hatred and bigotry ever again.
It MIGHT happen that George W. Bush will be dragged from his home, on live TV, and then prosecuted for treason against the United States.
It MIGHT …
So what’s wrong with my statements?
Surely you find something…
And it’s all hogwash — Erick Erickson is a perfect example of a modern conservative. Biased, hateful, unintelligent, and a low-life.
Defending statements like this could only come from the right wing … only they defend idiocy and unpatriotic nonsense.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:55 am
The other side said the same about the right and the corporate media in the last two elections…big deal.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Big deal. Big deal. It’s never a big deal if you think the left smells like roses.
steve Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Yes the left is smelling like roses when you have Rush,Bachmann,Palin and others making craze statements weekly and daily.
Yes,the left has fault,but the left does not take baths in mud like the right side of things does.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
That’s rich steve. The left doesn’t take mud baths?? Uh huh. Keep telling yourself that.
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
steve Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Hahahahaha…… Denial and you have more than any1 blissful and I Can See Russia From My Front Door and alot of vodka as well.
I guess it,s the media fault.
EricG Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
BlissfulC – “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.”
Seems to me that just a few days ago I was debating if the recession ever really happened and if conservatives were ever in power in the past years or not.
Seems to me like denial is a strong factor keeping every conservative in America a conservative and not an independent or libertarian.
Only denial could make someone stick with a party that lied to the nation, bankrupted our economy and degraded our standard of law.
EricG Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
So if the media is owned and operated by biased liberals then why did the same bunch of reporters and journalists support the illegal occupation of Iraq?
How in heck did Dubya get so many votes in 2004?
How the heck does anyone not a liberal and a Democrat ever get elected at all in the past ten / twenty years of ‘drive-by’ media?
Maybe because Americans make up their own mind. No amount of Glenn Beck hatred or Sean Hannity lie or Keith Olberman spin — none of it can change the mind of a real American.
Mindless fools who repeat nonsense and believe that the ‘TV people are speaking to me!’ are the ones bought off by media bias.
And frankly if this was a problem for anyone it’s the conservatives. Their media is so twisted and hateful in it’s structure I question if anyone who subjects themselves exclusively to those formats is truly able to discern facts and make intelligent decisions for themselves.
—
“Wait! I don’t know what to think yet … it’s not time for Limbaugh to come on yet … when he finishes his show I’ll tell you what ‘I’ think about politics today.”
OldLefty Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
This is so bizarre.
The point is not that anyone thinks they smell like roses…the point is that both side claim they get a raw deal from the media.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Old
FACT: in the 2008 presidential election the majority of the media was squarely in the pocket of the left, because they are LEFT leaning.
FACT: never in the history of our country has a president in such BAD times enjoyed such rosy media coverage.
Will it change when things don’t get better?? Dunno.
steve Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Thank you OLDLEFTY.
OldLefty Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
FACT:The majority of FACTS reflected poorly on the right.
Do you want them to spin the facts to be more fair to the GOP?
FACT: GW BUSH enjoyed rosy coverage in 2000 and in 2004.
How about a weeks worth of Al Gore saying,”When you think of Love Canal, I’m the one who started it all”, and only printing the correction, “”When you think of Love Canal, a young high school student from Toone Tennessee is the one who started it all”, on pp 26, a week later?
How many reported the intention of the PNACers to “remake” the Middle East, starting with Iraq in 2000?
NYT and WaPo published Bush’s statement that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 on pp10 or deeper.
When the NYT would print Judith Miller’s articles that she got from Chalabi and Scooter, then the Cheney would go on MTP, and quote the NYT, never revealing that NYT source WAS Cheney.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Old
I have discussed this with you ad nauseum, except I’ve actually given you links where actual studies have been done by UNBIASED sources that indicate a total liberal bias during the last election and since his inaugeration.
OldLefty Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
blissfulconservative,
And, again, I’ve read the studies and shown you where they have been rendered fairly meaningless.
~ Some of that positive coverage was about evidence that the financial crisis was aiding Obama. “Recent economic woes have given Democrat Barack Obama a clear lead over Republican John McCain,” declared a story posted on AOL News on Sept. 24, citing a 9-point lead for Obama in a new Washington Post/ABC News poll.
Similarly, stories about the electoral map, swing states and campaign strategy were even more favorable (77% positive vs. 6% negative). These represent the most positive element of Obama’s coverage.
So, if a candidate is winning, and the polls show that, and the media report that the polls show the candidate winning, that counts as “positive” coverage.
~ Their methodology suggests that a purely factual news report about McCain trailing in the polls constitutes a “negative” report — as would a report debunking a McCain lie. . Debunking a lie isn’t “bias”.
Also, Examples of “negative” coverage of McCain :
On Sept. 24, he announced he was suspending campaigning to return to Washington to work on a rescue bill and advocated delaying the first debate, scheduled two days away in Oxford Mississippi. … [S]ome of the coverage depicted McCain’s decision-making in an unflattering light, such as a Sept. 26 CNN.com piece stating that “some fellow lawmakers said McCain hadn’t contributed much to the financial debate, and senior campaign advisors told CNN they believed it was politically crucial that McCain show up in Oxford, Mississippi.”
So, yes the media’s coverage of Obama WAS more positive, but so were the facts.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 2:38 am
FACT: never in the history of our country has a president in such BAD times enjoyed such rosy media coverage.
—-
FDR was crazy popular…and the economy was horrible…you may have heard of it, they called it the great depression.
July 5th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Being a woman(eyes winking)
Having a baby(anti-abortion under any circumstances)
ARE NOT THE ONLY QUALIFICATIONS TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.
NEXT TIME LET’S HOPE THAT SHE RUNS ON HER OWN IDEAS INSTEAD OF REPEATING TALKNG POINTS FROM SEAN HANNITY.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Being a man (on the cover of countless magazines shirtless) and having a rock star image
Having a wife and children
ARE NOT THE ONLY QUALIFICATIONS TO BE PRESIDENT.
Palin had MORE executive experience and STILL has more executive experience than obama.
Next time let’s hope that the dems have a candidate with HIS own ideas instead of repeating talking points from the LEFT.
steve Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
She can see Russia from her front door and the country of Africa and it,s the fault of the left wing media.
pierre Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Who is your president now?
Remember the visual of long walk in Berlin- He looked presidential, didn’t he;yet you criticised him for being “the One”.
Next time reject the Sean Hannity’s stupid tactics!!!- you may have a chance!!
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
So all it takes is to “look” presidential? I need some substance.
pierre Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Looking presidential helps- Look who is in the white house!!
And besisdes, the only substance the other side had came from Sean Hannity:
Palling around terrorist
make him look like muslim
he is anti-american
So next time, do not allow your candidate to be prepped by a single minded radio talk host.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Looks fade. I’ve heard a LOT Of folks who voted for him who aren’t getting what they thought.
pierre Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Not really!!
That is a promo of Fox news(sean).
Remember:
on nov. 5, 2008– the economy/ market meltdown
was caused by Obama.
24 hrs.post inauguration-”I want him to fail”.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Yes really pierre. I know folks personally who voted for him who are more than disenchanted with his performance so far.
Do you base all of your anti-conservative rants on Fox news? Broaden your horizens a bit.
pierre Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Did you vote for him?
If so are you having second thought now?
Decide for yourself!!
Remember: FOX DISTORT and YOU Must RETRACT
EricG Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
“Do you base all of your anti-conservative rants on Fox news? Broaden your horizens a bit.”
Do you base all your anti-liberal rants off MSNBC?
I am officially asking all conservatives to listen to their president when he ask you, yes you, to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh or other forms of highly partisan media (MSNBC & FOX).
Broaden your horizons. I promise you won’t morph into a liberal. And in the end you’ll be better off to understand the other side of the fence.
Or you just drown yourself in antiliberal nonsense and partisan leftism and Alex Jones theories and Dobbson Self-proclaimed God noise … or whatever.
Forms your own opinions, mine is always obvious.
But you never listen, and never watch … you’ll never know.
EricG Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
BlissfulC – “Palin had MORE executive experience and STILL has more executive experience than Obama.”
Hardly. Only someone misinformed or hateful towards Obama could possibly say such a thing.
Palin managed a tiny state with no divisions in the legislature and no major social issues upon which to base her office upon.
Obama came into the Senate and got right to work doing the most he could with his political capital.
Whatever opinions you have of Obama’s decisions as president the solid fact is that he is far more qualified in both action and in principals than Sara Palin to be president and a vast majority of Americans agree with me on this.
Sara Palin is part of the reason McCain lost the election. She is not ready for executive office and she has made that clear to everyone not bought off by biased baloney from the right.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
How many days was he in the senate? How many staffers had he managed prior to winning the presidency? How large of a budget did he manage? HOw many national guardsman had he been in charge of?
Palin managed a state AND the national guard WITH a budget. For how many years?
It is solely your opinion that he is more qualified in both action and in principle.
EricG Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Know anything about the Senate?
It’s pretty hard to get anything done as the ‘new guy.’ I think he made the right decision to run for president. I voted for him after all.
“Palin managed a state AND the national guard WITH a budget. For how many years?”
She did that by taking money away from the oil companies and sending out checks to all the people in the state that was the oil companies money … then she talked about Obama ‘distributing the wealth’ and went with this stuff I still hear about ’socialism.’
“It is solely your opinion that he is more qualified in both action and in principle.”
It is bad ettiqute to laugh in people’s faces … but:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
No, it’s not. He is the elected president right now … I know it’s hard to live in the real world but try it out.
Me and all the people who put him in office are the ones who ’solely’ hold this opinion.
And we made the right choice. The actions of Republicans is mounting proof that one of the two major parties has become corrupt and wholly made of ignorance and greed.
—
Tear down the president all you want. Real partiots know the facts and don’t suck up the corporate media figures … real Americans can think for themselves about Palin or Obama or whatever issue.
And yet you always literally repeat what I heard on the web, radio or TV.
I don’t believe that you are all in lock-step. That’s BS.
You’re all copying each other. And it shows.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Eric
I know he did squat while he was there. But I know it’s hard for you to live in the real world.
Economics 101….Taking money from a corporation who is doing business with people and giving it back to the people who are basically stockholders isn’t socialism OR re-distribution of wealth; However, taking money out of MY paycheck and giving it to YOU because you think you deserve it IS socialism and it IS redistribution of wealth.
You really should learn the difference.
I see you didnt’ answer my questions regarding how many staffers/national guardsmen he had been in charge of prior to taking office because it was squat compared to what palin did. SQUAT.
And yep, you and everyone else who voted for him needs to explain to the next several generations why oh why you were so selfish that you strapped them with debt they will never pay off because you couldn’t work for it yourself.
OldLefty Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
But taking money out of MY paycheck and giving it to CORPORATIONS because they promise it will trickle down, while providing golden parachutes to ceos and moving jobs to China for the sweatshop labor IS CORPORATE socialism and it IS redistribution of wealth from the bottom up.
And if I voted for Bush, I wouldn’t be talking about selfishness and future generations.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Old
I can’t believe you finally admitted that bailing out the banks, the auto companies and any other business by the government is CORPORATE socialism that the obama adminstration is continuing to shove down our throats.
Thanks for finally realizing that.
OldLefty Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
There is no admitting anything.
I have ALWAYS said that the bailouts AND the subsidies to corporations, AND the no bid contracts, AND the giveaways to the defense industry, AND private mercenaries in Iraq, AND Big Pharma was ALL corporate socialism.
Deregulating the financial industry for all these years, is what created a need for the bailout, IF it had been administered properly, which would garner MORE accusations of “socialism”, but so what?
Our system has always worked best in a combination of socialism and capitalism.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
But only socialism for those YOU see fit, right? You don’t want the corporations who create jobs to get help?
Private mercenaries in Iraq? You mean civillian contractors? MOST of those guys are former military who might not have a job otherwise.
When you say bailouts..I am assuming you disagree with obama’s omnibus pork and spend bill? Cuz it ain’t doing what they said it would.
Every post I have ever read of yours sounds 100% undeniably ANTI-capitalistic.
OldLefty Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
blissfulconservative,
“But only socialism for those YOU see fit, right?”
Isn’t that what you promote?
Many of the worse offenders create jobs in China, because the money is better for them.
But I’m SO glad to see YOU finally admit that what we have had was a system of corporate socialism, which socializes the risks and losses and privatizes the profits.
As for private mercenaries: many are not even Americans, many are from South Africa, Chile, and Yugoslavia.
Don’t forget the piece from Time:
“…Locals often mistake the guards for Special Forces or CIA personnel, which makes active duty military troops a bit edgy. ‘Those Blackwater guys’, says an intelligence officer in Iraq, ‘they drive around wearing Oakley sunglasses and pointing their guns out of car windows. They have pointed their guns at me, and it pissed me off. Imagine what a guy in Fallujah thinks’. Adds an Army officer, who just returned from Baghdad, ‘They are a subculture’.
(Time, 12/4/04; “When Private Armies Take To The Front Lines”; Michael Duffy).
I disagree with Obama allowing the banks to keep control while still not lending money, and I consider the stimulus an investment in America.
And nobody said it was going to do what it was supposed to do in a few months.
As for being anti capitalist, I am ‘100% undeniably’ ANTI-Laissez Faire predatory capitalism, 100% undeniably pro healthy, regulated capitalism with a strong safety net.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
In other words, you don’t want businesses to fail?
Predatory capitalism?? What do you consider predatory?
You ARE supposed to MAKE money, not break even or LOSE money.
The stimulus was a WASTE of MY money. If you want to give the government ALL of what you earn and let them give you back what they don’t use go right ahead. We are taxed out the yin yang now and enough is enough.
OldLefty Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
blissfulconservative,
I consider getting the government to lower the standards for subprime and allowing people presenting themselves as experts to reel people in, knowing that they will make money while the borrower doesn’t understand the terms , like when Bush said, “Freddie Mac recently began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers and create greater opportunities for homeownership. One of the programs is designed to help deserving families who have BAD CREDIT histories to qualify for homeownership loans.”, as predatory.
Offering free pizza and movies to jobless college kids, if they get a credit card.
Credit default swaps, when the traders and the insurers knew the assets were toxic.
Subsidizing BIG businesses so that they can put small ones out of business…….
For a start.
It has nothing to do with wanting businesses to fail, it has everything to do with wanting them to compete in a fair market.
And I believe that BUSH”S expenses were a waste of MY money.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Old
College kids who get free pizza and a drink for a credit card KNOW They can’t pay it off when they get it. And example of their parents teaching them they don’t have personal responsibility.
Predatory lending heighted under clinton. In fact, DEMOCRATS were some of the biggest backers for sub prime loans. Furthermore, the people who BAD credit histories who borrow more than they can pay for usually KNOW going into it there is no way in heck they can pay it back. AGain, no personal responsibility.
I still don’t know what you consider to be a “fair market’ if you are against larger businesses (which were once small and somehow miraculously GREW) putting weaker businesses OUT of business.
EricG Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
“You really should learn the difference.”
I know the difference between LIES and truth. And it’s a LIE created by partisan idiots who hate this nation and hate intelligence in politics in order to demean and degrade Obama.
Thing is … it’s 70+ years old. They were lying about this with FDR, lying about it with Johnson … and they are lying now.
“I see you didnt’ answer my questions regarding how many staffers/national guardsmen he had been in charge of prior to taking office because it was squat compared to what palin did. SQUAT”
I wasn’t aware that being in charge of people that you never actually told to do anything is proof of anything at all.
While you were tearing him down for working hard as a community organizer he was getting real on the ground experience. While Sara Palin mused about how she might know more Russian politics because she could see the shoreline…
The fact is that the PEOPLE decided that Obama was fit for office and I made my own personal decision as well. If it still burns that we do not support your conservative agendas as a nation any longer then that is natural. But don’t take it out on Obama, remember to respect the office…
“strapped them with debt they will never pay off because you couldn’t work for it yourself.”
So the wars cost NOTHING and when we actually try to repair the economy that was wrecked by the previous president … that is going to be bankrupting ME for years to come?
Doesn’t make sense. Purely political motives drive this opinion and not facts.
We don’t yet know if the Bush/Obama Fiscal Recovery will work or not.
But we do know that the war spending helped get us into the recession.
It’s all about avoiding blame for conservatives lately and it makes me lose any respect I held or was trying to foster in myself.
When people cannot take responsibility for their own actions, to me, they are not worthy of any form od respect.
As a party, Republicans refuse to admit their wrongs and ignorances.
I wish it were not so but this the real world, not proganda hour.
Responsibility falls to the Republicans for the state of the nation and they are such disgraceful and plain communistic shills that they blame Democrats and Obama and liberals … just like racists blaming the blacks and jews for all the problems of society. Disgusting frauds!!!
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Real on the ground experience?
So, you want to marginalize being in charge of the national guard? Hmmmmm.
“When people cannot take responsibility for their own actions, to me, they are not worthy of any form od respect”
I agree. That is why I am totally against bailing people out. That’s why I am against Freebies. That’s why I am against the government taking money I earned and passing it around to joe shmoe down the street.
A LOT Of things helped get us into the recession…but this attitude that blowing money on crap (pet projects) is going to get us OUT of a recession is backwards at best.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
“just like racists blaming the blacks and jews for all the problems of society. Disgusting frauds!!!”
I’ll agree with this. Can you agree racism flows both ways????
EricG Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
“Can you agree racism flows both ways”
Yes, it does. Not everyone on the left agrees but I see it. The part that enrages me that many people want to say that one racism jusitifies the other.
” That’s why I am against the government taking money I earned and passing it around to joe shmoe down the street.”
It’s all in how it is done. I’m not for ineffective welfare programs and ‘hand-outs’ or anything like it. But I support social programs. The right wing often makes it ‘all or nothing’ on that issue thus everyone who knows the facts gets shouted down by the Reagan-era nonsense of ‘welfare queens’ when it just doesn’t pass mustard to say we need to cut programs altogether.
We send wealth to Iraq, and that doesn’t bother any conservatives. We spend of fiscal future on another nation and not one peep. But we spend money on Americans and the gates open up…
I don’t like the bail-outs. But if we didn’t do anything we would be screwed right now. But as to how it was done … they pretty much ripped you and me off, I’m not going to say otherwise.
“Where is the money, Bernackie(?)”
“I don’t know.”
–
What bothers me is that Obama is contining Bush Fiscal Reform Policy and the conservatives call him a ’socialist’ for it but when Bush started doing it they called him ‘president.’
after the Supreme Court ruled Bush won in 2000.
The time has come to be Americans. To be a nation united.
That means no more more ’socialist’ labels and no more summary logic about presidential policy.
It may be too high a bar to demand. Most these media figures make their money off screaming about liberal conspiracy theory and if they admit we are all Americans their precious ratings would fall down.
Mine remains a cry for sanity from the left to the right.
EricG Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
“So, you want to marginalize being in charge of the national guard?”
When you state that as a piece of credible evidence of experience in office but she never did anything with the national guard.
Just because you’re sitting there with something on the books doesn’t mean you gained any vast experience in the matter.
If she had some shinning example of using the national guard in some incident I wouldn’t say it this way.
But in terms of comparing Sara Palin and Barack Obama, on almost any level, is just no comparison at all.
July 5th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
1) Politics have gotten too ugly in the US
2) Sarah couldn’t handle it
3) We should all be thankful she didn’t make it into national office, as she probably would have faced even tougher challenges than coming up with the name of a newspaper when asked
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
1)politics HAVE gotten too ugly in the U.S.
2)Sarah could handle attacks on HER
3)I don’t know ANY mother who would want to continue a job where her children are the constant targets of out-of-line over the top personal attacks. NEVER (not even the clinton’s) have a set of kids had to deal with such crap simply because their mother decided to serve in public office.
We’ll see if people leave her family alone now. I doubt it. They need someone to kick around to take the spotlight off what really matters.
pierre Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
If kids are your only platform(anti-abortion),
that platform should be challenged- don’t you think?
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
pierre
That was NOT her only platform and being anti-abortion does NOT open up the window for personal attacks on the candidate’s children.
PERIOD.
pierre Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Personal attacks have been part of the game for a long time.
You only complain when you are on the loosing end.
Some talk show host(sean) make their living to promote only personal attacks.
Um Cara Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
I don’t know ANY mother who would want to continue a job where her children are the constant targets of out-of-line over the top personal attacks. NEVER (not even the clinton’s) have a set of kids had to deal with such crap simply because their mother decided to serve in public office./b>
Yea, Chelsae was attacked, when she was 13 as I recall. I remember Rush made some ‘joke’ about her being ugly as a dog (just what ever 13 year old girl needs to hear). And I guess McCain did some comedy stylings on how ugly she was as well.
That said, the attacks against Palin’s daughter were horrible, I got into more than one disagreement on this site over the relevancy of discussing her. Palin certainly could have helped by not thrusting her in the limelight so much, so I question how much she really cared about the attacks (I think they helped Palin more than hurt her) – but that does not excuse the attacks.
Palin’s cynical use of her children did not endear her to me, and I really don’t think that has anything to do with her leaving office. Don’t know what the real story is, if I had to bet – I’d put my money on The First Dude’s home building activities….
We’ll see.
Um Cara Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
LOL, didn’t mean to YELL
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 2:41 am
such poor etiquete…I’m disgusted with you.
EricG Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
“I don’t know ANY mother who would want to continue a job where her children are the constant targets of out-of-line over the top personal attacks.”
So quitting like a coward is now acceptable to Republicans and conservatives?
Okay. That’s great.
Next the conservatives will approve of disrespecting others, oh wait they already do … next the conservatives will approve of communist tactics, oh wait they already do …
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Quitting like a coward?? You mean, putting your family first? Hmmmmmm.
In other words, women who choose to leave a job for a multitude of reasons because they feel it benefits their family are cowards?
Talk about disrespecting others. You and many of your party fellows hold the gold medal for that one.
EricG Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
No, I mean quitting like a coward. Because that’s exactly what she did. Nobody will suddenly stop all evil and cruel stuff they do to her just because she is out of office.
Running away from your problems won’t fix them.
She has a year and half left to serve for the people who voted her into office. Only in conservative thinking could walking away from your responsibilities be called ‘family values.’
Next time things get hard for one of her kids at a job they take … they can always look to what their mom did as gov. Just walk off and let the chips fall where they do.
It’s pathetic how biased and disingenuous you are about this. You are so in love with Palin that you are literally blind to all facts or you seriously think that shirking responsibilities is part of being a good leader.
“Talk about disrespecting others. You and many of your party fellows hold the gold medal for that one.”
Not true. You should listen to the radio sometime. Also if you compare me to this partisan fool Erick Erickson I am a true American and he is a communist piece of trash who hates this nation.
The left does a good amount of attacking. Don’t take me wrong. But when do the right wing haters stop to poitn out that we are all Americans and we all have different views and nobody is ‘coming to get you’ or ‘coming for your family’ or ‘your gun’ or ‘your Bible’ and so on…
The right wing disrespects Americans not in their opinions but in the fact that NONE of them ever level with their audiences about the TRUTH of politics.
So people believe this stuff spread around on the O’Reilly Factor and it spurns me to just skip the niceness and call all conservative fascist pigs because as much as you are a fascist pig I am a socialist.
I AM AN AMERICAN! I WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS NONSENSE! AND NOR SHOULD YOU!
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Eric
People like you won’t leave her alone. How many posts on this blog alone have been about Palin?? For someone who is so unqualified and minute in the political arena you sure do talk about her an awful lot.
Maybe you need to think about that.
“Only in conservative thinking could walking away from your responsibilities be called ‘family values.’”
Hmmmm…I guess aborting children constitutes family values?
Have you ever left a job? I can agree I was surprised she is leaving early on the one hand….but on the other as a mother I can see why she would do it. NO job is worth what her children have been through the past year.
It is absolutely rediculous and everyone who has trashed those children should be ASHAMED. YOU included.
EricG Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
“People like you won’t leave her alone.”
Now that she resigned from state office and apparently is leaving all politics … this is probably the end of all I have to say about Sara Palin. She is in the public sphere, I don’t get the point. Is there some special excuse for her alone that makes it so people cannot comment on her and the things she says? *cough* *communism* *cough*
“For someone who is so unqualified and minute in the political arena you sure do talk about her an awful lot.”
You just determined for yourself how qualified I am to comment on politics and I accept your assessment, for you.
Now everyone else gets to make their own assessment, for themselves. That’s called being an American.
“Hmmmm…I guess aborting children constitutes family values?”
Only a conservative could randomly interject the abortion issue into everything and every discussion in an attempt to offuscate the real issue.
The abortion debate is whole other thing and if you dig around in memory you might have read me say that I don’t have the typical viewpoint on the issue. I want to seperate the issues of public policy and philosophical debate over personhood and conception.
“It is absolutely rediculous and everyone who has trashed those children should be ASHAMED. YOU included.”
When did I trash children? You have a knack for putting words in my mouth and I never once did this to you. Not once.
I am the guy who says things like:
One abortion is one too many.
I just want to fix it with real solutions and not throwing young women in jail. You have to be pretty cold inside not to care to counsel young people on the dangers of sexual acitivity. You have to be pretty heartless to want to send in the state to strong arm mainly poor families to take care of children that you yourself would not personally care for.
I am on the damn absolute road of the angels on this one!
How many homeless people have you taken into your home?
Have any coats? Maybe more than one?
How many children are you willing to adopt?
We need you to take about three, maybe more, since the only solution to the serious problem facing our society is to lock people up.
Get signed up for an adoption agency before you promote antiabortion agendas.
flap Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 12:04 am
“I want to seperate the issues of public policy and philosophical debate over personhood and conception.”
Should we have separated that when slavery was legal? “I personally believe black people are humans, but it’s philosophical. Let’s keep slavery legal and work for solutions….” It’s nonsensical, just like saying ALL abortions should be legal. It should be greatly restricted and in late-term cases, outright banned. There’s no reason why we should allow killing of our own children in our enlightened society.
“You have to be pretty heartless to want to send in the state to strong arm mainly poor families to take care of children that you yourself would not personally care for.”
That justifies killing? Perhaps we need to justify killing children that are ALREADY born to families who can’t take care of them. Is there any substantive or logical difference? Are you heartless because we can’t kill that 2 year old that is making it hard on a single mother? How is that different? Young personhood in both cases.
“Get signed up for an adoption agency before you promote antiabortion agendas.”
I could say that you need to join the military to be against wars you think are wrong or something like that. Recognizing the FACT that personhood exists in a late-term fetus should be pretty obvious, but lots of libs either ignore it or think it’s not important to protect nascent life. With libs constantly up in arms about supposed “illegal wars” that kill people and capital punishment that kills people, you’d think they would also be for preserving THE most innocent life around.
Lily Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Blissfulconservative, let me make sure I have this straight. You think it’s ok, even a good thing that she resigned for the sake of her family and keeping them out of the media spotlight?
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
lily
let me make sure I have this straight. You think It’s NOT okay that she resigned if it is for her family’s sake even though you and others criticized her for running for VP BECAUSE she had a family?
Make up your darn mind.
Lily Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Make up my mind about what? This is my first post on the subject. I asked you a question. Are you incapable of answering it?
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
I think I answered your question indirectly. If she did it for her family I absolutely have NO problem with it whatsoever.
This may be your first post on this particular topic…but I am pretty sure you have commented on palin and her family before.
Lily Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Ok fair enough. So resigning for the sake of her family is good, shows she’s a good mom and puts her kids ahead of her own agenda. I have no problem with that either. I wonder if you’d agree though, that if she decided to run for, say POTUS or VP, that that would put her children under even more intense scrutiny, and would probably be rather bad for them? Some might even think it would be putting her agenda ahead of her family.
And just like Erick Erickson, this is not intended as an attack. I’m merely speculating.
EricG Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
You should be a politician, Bliss.
That was some A-Grade question-dodging.
Pelosi and Hillary Clinton would be proud.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Lily
Tell me WHY her kids should be under MORE scrutiny when her kids aren’t running for office?
Should be put obama’s kids in the spotlight?
Lily Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Should? I don’t think they should. I said I think they would. If you’ll read my post again, I’m sure you’ll be able to catch where you made your mistake.
And by the way, what’s your answer?
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Why WOULD they be under more scrutiny since they aren’t the ones running for office? Because she is a conservative?
And to answer your question she should be able to run for office WITHOUT fear that her children will be put through the meat grinder. There is no reason for it whatsoever.
Does YOUR family get scrutinized when you apply for a job? Would you want someone raking your kids over the coals because you want a job?
The kids should be OFF limits. PERIOD. They have no bearing on it whatsoever.
Lily Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
You’re saying the media has been unfair to her children. I won’t disagree. But stop being so defensive and think about it. If the media are being too critical now, do you think they would be less so if she were to run for president?
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Lily
I’m not being defensive, I answered your question. Did you answer mine? I asked you WHY /WOULD her kids be worried about more scrutiny?
It seems you are more worried about arguing with me over “do you think they would be less so if she were to run for president” than actually being outraged that children are treated the way the Palin children are treated by the media.
Lily Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
You said: “WHY /WOULD her kids be worried about more scrutiny?”
Because that’s how the media are. Do you really think they’d let up on her or her children is she ran for president? And you are being defensive if you can’t even look at this rationally.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Lily
What is irrational about wanting to know WHY children of SOME candidates are nailed and others aren’t?
Should be put obama’s kids in the spotlight? Biden’s? What about chelsea?? Wanna put her back into the spotlight?
Heck no I don’t think they’d let up on her. She is a conservative female.
Now tell me WHY they won’t let up on her kids but obama’s kids get a free pass?
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Children of politicians should be OFF LIMITS PERIOD.
Lily Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
“Children of politicians should be OFF LIMITS PERIOD.”
Calm down. No one’s arguing with you. And I don’t know why they won’t let up. What I do know is that it would be 10 times worse if she were running for president. Again, stop being so defensive.
Lee Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
As Lily stated, I don’t think anyone here is arguing that children of politicians should be fair game.
However, its disingenuous to suggest that Conservative’s or Conservative women are unfairly targeted.
The reality is that Conservatives often make a centerpiece of their positions and policies ’strong families with traditional values’ etc. Therefore since showing hypocrisy is a standard winning tactic in our political system, this is why these people will have that part of their lives scrutinized so closely versus a gay liberal candidate preaching legalize marijuana etc
Personally, I don’t think human mistakes made by a candidate should automatically mean their political positions are non-credible. However, this is the political game we support and to maintain that Conservative women are unfairly targetted is simply to ignore the reality of how this works.
July 5th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
The GOP sure loves to play the victim card, don’t they? I wonder if anybody remembers the swiftboat attacks on war hero John Kerry?
pierre Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Jerome corsi is still looking for the birth certificate in order to have an interview with Saen Hannity.
July 5th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
You want to say the GOP loves to play the victim card in the same breath you complain about the swiftboat ads? I think the veterans who disagreed with kerry’s account were just as much a war hero as he was.
pierre Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
No, those veterans got payed to attack just like sean hannity.
Don’t get bamboozle by the “great american slogan”.
TDro319 Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Gimme a break, Bliss. You’re whining about poor St. Sarah Palin getting trashed, but yet you forget your own party did the same thing to Kerry.
And those “swiftboaters” were paid to make those false (yes, they were false) accusations about Kerry’s service. These swiftboat veterans probably also had an envious axe to grind.
EricG Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I want to throw those ’swift-voters’ out of the country. Won’t happen but they are not worthy of being in this country. People who work to destroy credibility in the course of an election based solely in lies and slander … worthless, unamerican, disgusting people.
I hope they find some sanity some day and realize how twisted and evil they have been.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
You mean like the people who said Palin’s son was really her grandchild? Or the ones who made fun of McCain not using the internet?
You talk out of both sides of your mouth. It just so happens the side you usually talk out of is totally partisan.
You want to throw out veterans who fought for YOUR freedoms because you disagree with their political beliefs?? Very telling. VERY telling.
TDro319 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
If anybody knows about total partisanship, it’s you Bliss.
The veterans who were paid to LIE about an American hero lost their respect. Am I grateful to our veterans who fought for OUR freedoms? Yes. Do I disagree with their slandering a fellow veteran for cold hard cash? Yes.
BTW, you said; “…who fought for YOUR freedoms…”. They didn’t fight for yours? And you accuse other of “throwing our veterans out”?
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
TDRO
That’s probably the 10th time you’ve said that. No doubt you think I am a partisan since you surely are.
TDro319 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
“No doubt you think I am a partisan since you surely are.”
Right back at you. I dare you to prove that I’m partisan.
July 5th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Bliss:
In all of the above comments, you’ve used the existence of a “Left Wing” in USA, and “Left Wing/Liberal Media”.Can you clarify for me what this Left Wing is, and how you identify “Left Wing” institutions in the media?
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Karthik
Maybe you can tell me how you and most others who post here identifies NON left wing institutions?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
I ask you a question and the answer is a question?
Please answer my question first.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
How do I identify left wing media?? If they ALWAYS or MOSTLY portray liberals in a positive light and don’t offer a differing point of view.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
“How do I identify left wing media?? If they ALWAYS or MOSTLY portray liberals in a positive light and don’t offer a differing point of view.”
Always or Mostly.
How do you identify these 2 statistics?Do you read every piece posted on every media institution?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
“…liberals in a positive light and don’t offer a differing point of view.”
1.Who are “Liberals”?
2.What would qualify as a statistic for the media institution offering a “differing point of view”?
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Do you? How do you identify what you deem right wing media?
Maybe you should just google studies indicate a left wing media bias and see what pops up.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Karthik
I am not wasting my time with a game of cat and mouse.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
“Maybe you can tell me how you and most others who post here identifies NON left wing institutions?”
To answer your question:
The entire sample set of Media in America constitutes non left wing institutions.
There exists no such thing as a Left Wing in America. There exists only Center-Right America and Far Right America. Semantically speaking,anyone Left of Far Right could be SEEN as Far Left, if you buy the ideology of the Far Right. That is a commonly used tactic by members of the Far Right to evade accountability for their actions.
Having said all that:Unlike you,I will give a far more concrete definition of Far Right.
The Far Right is the set of people who’s moral compass and judgement is guided primarily by religious beliefs. Wherever there is a “gray” area, religion guides the thought process,decision making of people who are in this set. And, wherever there is a tradeoff between social moral values, the moral values preferred are in accordance with the ones recommended by religious beliefs.
Bliss:
With this definition, I dare you to point out one Media Institution that is NOT Center-Right OR Far Right.I dare you to prove the Far Left exists in USA.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
You are the ONLY person I know who does not believe there is a far left. So, you can start your own group I guess. The party of deniers.
Well then, I guess if the FAR RIGHT is guided by religious beliefs the far left is guided by the opposite. NON religious beliefs?
And what, exactly guides the far left in the gray areas of decision making? A magic 8 ball?
Which moral values are preferred for those who AREN’T religious when there is a tradeoff between social moral values??
You don’t have to dare me to do anything. DO some actual research and you will see that studies have shown a positive correlation between the media (not just print media) and a positive left leaning slant.
I dare you.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
“And what, exactly guides the far left in the gray areas of decision making? A magic 8 ball?”
To answer that,you will have to clearly define what characteristics guide decision making of people in “THe Far Left”.
I defined Far Right. I will also Define Center-Right. They are people who will NOT be guided purely by religious beliefs in the above tradeoffs.
What guides them?I dont know. It varies from person to person.
I come from a country where the Far Left EXISTS. You have NO CLUE about what the Far Left is.I dare you to define the Far Left, the way I defined Far Right.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
“The party of deniers”
What kind of crap is this Bliss?Where did I bring in political parties?
“Which moral values are preferred for those who AREN’T religious when there is a tradeoff between social moral values??”
Where did I bring in people “being religious”?You used those words.Not me.
If someone sold you a line that being religious constitutes weighing your decision making in the above manner, sorry to say, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.
“You don’t have to dare me to do anything. DO some actual research and you will see that studies have shown a positive correlation between the media (not just print media) and a positive left leaning slant.”
You will need to define “Left”. Can you put a few coherent sentences together to define what the “Left” is?
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Some groups considered to be far left do not wish to govern within the current framework. They don’t love the America I grew up in. They want to change it completely.
Some do not want God anywhere in the public realm, PERIOD.
The term far left has been associated with ideologies such as communism, socialism, social anarchism, anarchist communism, left communism, Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, and some branches of feminism and green politics/environmentalism (see below).
They don’t want anyone but the government to own a gun and they believe in communal living (what’s your is mine and what’s mine is yours and so forth and so on). They want to take the money I earn and spread it around.
There are of varying degrees from country to country. I guess your cultural/social/religious or lack thereof upbringing would influence whether or not you think something is right or left. Your argument that there is no FAR LEFT is bupkus.
Far left is PETA and the activists who blow up corporate labs in the name of the environment and animal rights. They want to tell me how much water I can use, what kind of light bulbs I should buy, what kind of care I HAVE to drive and what I should eat and feed my kids. They believe people like George Tiller was a hero. They spit on our soldiers and do not want a strong national defense. Basically, they blame America for every evil in the world and give us no credit for all the good we have done and continue to do.
In political terms: the radical or progressive socialist spectrum (government run healthcare, banks, businesses, etc etc ) Government in EVERY aspect of your life. The bigger the better.
From democratic underground:
the Far-Left is shrill. Too often they portray anybody that doesn’t see things their way as someone who just hasn’t seen the light. Walking in the “darkness”. Because of this righteous thinking, there is a tendency to look down on people with whom they disagree and call them “sheeple” and such.
Ironically, this occurs on a daily basis.
OldLefty Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
blissfulconservative said,
“Some groups considered to be far left do not wish to govern within the current framework. They don’t love the America I grew up in. They want to change it completely.”
The same is true of the far right.
What is the difference?
Actually, it is like a circle, where they become the same thing if they get their ways.
My belief is that the conservative media refers to everyone the disagree with as the “far left”.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Old
And you could say the same thing about the far left. They refer to everyone who doesn’t think exactly how they do as neocons, cons, far right wingnuts, far right, extreme right, etc etc etc
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
“Some groups considered to be far left do not wish to govern within the current framework. They don’t love the America I grew up in. They want to change it completely.”
1.Where do you have the evidence that these groups dont love America as it exists?
2.Do you seriously think anyone other than you KNOWS the America “you grew up in”?
“Some do not want God anywhere in the public realm, PERIOD. ”
And so?There have always been people who did NOT want GOD anywhere in the public realm, and people who did. Your point being?Wanting GOD
not in the public realm is Un-American?Unpatriotic?
“Far left is PETA and the activists who blow up corporate labs in the name of the environment and animal rights. They want to tell me how much water I can use, what kind of light bulbs I should buy, what kind of care I HAVE to drive and what I should eat and feed my kids. They believe people like George Tiller was a hero. ”
Wonderful: Do you not see the inherent contradiction in your position on What you should eat and feed YOUR kids, and your position on people like George Tiller?
“They spit on our soldiers and do not want a strong national defense.”
I will mildly skip over the spitting part.Do you have any evidence for that?
To the part I want to ask you:If you want ME to pay for YOUR security, by your definition of “Left”:
“They want to take the money I earn and spread it around.”
I dont want to pay for the “strong national defense” because your definition of strong national defense does not in my judgement enhance my security.By this definition of yours,when you want me to pay taxes to pay for your desire for “strong national defense”, you put yourself in the FAR LEFT:Taking MY money and spreading it around.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
karthik
I know plenty of people who knew the America I grew up in. You said you were from another country, correct?
I have wasted a half hour and so far I still have YOUR opinion that you think is gospel.
Thanks for solidifying that last paragraph I wrote. I am finished discussing this with you.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
“I have wasted a half hour and so far I still have YOUR opinion that you think is gospel.Thanks for solidifying that last paragraph I wrote. I am finished discussing this with you.”
Thank you.You just confirmed what I wrote many days back: You dont do any thinking by yourself, you just listen to News Sources from the Fox News conglomerate, Rush, and perhaps a couple others, and accept that as truth.
You dont even begin to realize:
Your definition of Far Left is self contradictory.
By Your definition, EVERYONE in America lies on the Far Left.
I gave a pretty clear partitioning.
You can NOT define Far Left in USA without contradicting your own definition, because it does NOT exist.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
karthik
I defined it, you don’t agree with it. Not agreeing with something doesn’t indicate you are right it simply indicates you don’t agree.
But pat yourself on the back a few more times if it makes you feel better.
OldLefty Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
blissfulconservative said,
“And you could say the same thing about the far left. ”
………………………………….
You just did,
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Old
Do you believe there is a far left and a far right?
OldLefty Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
blissfulconservative
OF course there is:
And there is the Marijuana Party, the Moderate Party, the Objective Party and the Modern Whig Party
If we speak of left and right, perhaps they can be called the up and down?
The Z axis?
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Just making sure. karthik doesn’t think there is such thing as a far left.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
“Do you believe there is a far left and a far right?”
That was NOT what I asked you.
I asked you to make a definition of Far Left in USA that is NOT self contradictory in the sense it will include EVERYONE, over the set of ALL issues.
The definition I gave for Far Right applies across all countries.
By the way: The definition you gave for Far Left has some substance, in between.But it ended there. You twisted the meaningful substantive portion into an interpretation that makes no sense, and is self contradictory.
If you havent lived in a country where Left Wing Political Parties exist, and actually get votes, you wont know this(and good for USA that they dont exist in USA: Bad for its citizens, because anyone on the Far Right can (try to) evade accountability by pointing at the (non existent) Evil of the “Far Left”…and fellow Far Right citizens will buy that).
Since it appears like I managed to pick your brain, here’s another one for you:
Are “Far Left” and “Far Right” measures of a position in opposite directions on the same dimension? Is it possible that someone can be both “FAR LEFT” and “FAR RIGHT” ?(This is a trick question: Will see if someone here finds the answer with a reasonably correct logic)
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
You did say there was no far left.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
“You did say there was no far left.”
Yes. There is No Far Left political party of reasonable following, or Media Institution with reasonable sized readership in USA.
This is by the definition of “Far Left” which I am willing to buy.
This definition was partly included in your giant message, some of which had substance, but bulk of which was self contradictory(and therefore came across to me as religious rambling).
If you go back and read your posting, you will see the segment which had substance. You will also see that there is NO Political Party of reasonable sized base in USA that fits that segment. That is the commonly accepted definition of “Far Left”. Which exists in many other countries with substantive base.
Lee Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Far left should apply to something like communists, similarly ‘far right’ should apply to something like a monarchy/KKK etc..
Using exaggerations has particularly become a staple of bitter right-wing supporters (although yes, to a lesser extent its done by the left too).
It’s ridiculous though.. All you have to do is take a policy that has some slight relation to socialism (such as nationalizing a bank) and its completely blown out of proportion and painted as ‘far left/socialism’ nonsense.
It would be like me stating government support for Christian groups means we have turned into a religious theocracy. Utterly absurd, partisan drivel that gets tiresome to listen to.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Couldnt disagree with a word you said,Lee.
Exactly the point I was trying to put across to blissful.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
NO, YOU said there was no such thing as FAR left in this country. I gave you some examples and you disagreed with them.
Good Lord.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
“I gave you some examples and you disagreed with them.”
Wrong.I pointed out your definition is self contradictory.
I gave you my example of the need for “Strong National Defense”.
You are socializing the cost of maintaining “strong national defense” across those who feel or ARE secure enough already. That makes YOU a socialist, a FAR LEFT person.
By your definition, EVERYONE in USA belongs to the Far Left.
I didnt disagree.I asked you to give me a definition that isnt self contradictory, and clearly partitions a sizeable group, which can be associated with a mainstream political party of reasonable size, or media outlet of reasonable size, as “Far Left”.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 7:52 am
regardless if it’s socialist..a strong national defense actually has a constitutional mandate.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Guido:
“regardless if it’s socialist..a strong national defense actually has a constitutional mandate.”
Did the constitution state WHAT constitutes “strong national defense”(SND)?
That is a matter of judgement.
Your judgement on what it takes to achieve SND differs from mine.
So if you want me to pay for meeting what it takes to meet YOUR judgement of SND, you are SOCIALIZING the cost of YOUR definition of SND.So, do we end the debate here, and admit we’re ALL SOCIALISTS by YOUR definition of SOCIALISM?
July 5th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Alan,
Wingnut?
How about scumbag of the day.
That would be you and Hanity and all the other scum-bags who would enjoy nothing more than to watch democrats and republicans engaged in vicious attacks against each other.
That would improve your political and economic capital and then you don’t have to do the investigative journalism that has, in the past, brought under scrutiny the scalawags, liars, thieves, and other bums who try to run our congress and white house.
You are a sad excuse for an journalist. You’re just like the rest, another political hack.
July 5th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Alan said: So, let me get this straight: While claiming the resignation of Sarah Palin will embolden the left to attack conservative politicians, particularly women with children, Erickson is using said resignation to attack liberals, in advance, for what he thinks they might do.
K: Uh, no. But then I’m not sure you’d understand if it was explained to you, Alan. The man is opining that the Left will use similar tactics to attack other Conservatives. And, since the Left attacked Palin until she amassed half a million in legal fees, yes, we have an example of what they’ve already done and no reason to believe they will stop. Do YOU think they will stop?
Daddio Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 8:16 am
If a tactic worked once it will be used again. Erickson was just stating a fact that happens over and over again. In sports. In politics. In backyard games.
You go with what got you the results you wanted until they find a way to stop you.
So, I agree with Erickson. The left will continue with such tactics as long as they get the results they want.
OldLefty Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 8:29 am
It worked for conservatives for years.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 8:44 am
damn copycat liberals.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:38 am
“And, since the Left attacked Palin…”
K:Again, do you understand what “Left” means?Left is a giant misnomer in the US context.
Call ‘em the Liberals,I’ll handle that. They are liberals. But from Liberal to Left is a ridiculous extension, and I’ll have to call you on that.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 9:00 am
KARTHIK,
HUH? Or maybe KREGG wrote exactly what he meant…that the “left” attacked Palin while giving some amount of courtesy to the “liberals” who didn’t stoop to the attacks on her children.
By the way…I’m still waiting on your “proof” that you value all human life equally…
I’m also still waiting on your “proof” that I called Tiller a killer…
Any your “proof” that you’re not a raging pedophile.
Given up on those?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 9:28 am
I had a busy 4th of July weekend.Need time to do the above research.Will get to it.
I dont have any proof that I can demonstrate on this forum to show that
“I’m not a raging pedophile”.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 9:46 am
hmmm…well, using your own “proof positive” criteria…it’s okay to assume that you’re a raging pedophile until you prove otherwise. How’s that?
OR…maybe you shouldn’t assume the worst in people…then require proof otherwise. See what kind of trouble it can get you in?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 10:03 am
“it’s okay to assume that you’re a raging pedophile until you prove otherwise. How’s that?
”
Make any assumption you want about me,how do I care?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 10:28 am
KARTHIK,
Make any assumption you want about me,how do I care?
Perhaps I thought you might care…because you are very comfortable making ridiculous assumptions about other people…call me crazy…
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 9:40 am
“Or maybe KREGG wrote exactly what he meant…that the “left” attacked Palin ”
Or maybe some loonies attacked Palin’s children, who are being wrongly labelled “Left”?
The main point of my message was:Bunch of folk using the terminology “Left” to refer to liberals. Thats patently a misnomer. By Any definition you can give for “Left”,my simple proof above shows that almost everyone in USA would be a LEFT LEANING SOCIALIST. Most “Conservatives” stand for “Strong National Defense”(SND),which SOCIALIZES the cost of SND over those who differ with them on what it takes to achieve SND.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 9:56 am
KARTHIK,
If you wouldn’t label the “loonies” as “left” (which is defined as the fringe liberals, same as “right” is defined as fringe conservatives)…what would you call them, then?
Newsflash…National Defense is a US Government responsibility…paid for with tax money. Who else would be in charge of SND, if not a central government authority? Asserting that “conservatives” stand for socialism because they favor SND is disingenuous and blatantly incompetent.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 10:02 am
“Asserting that “conservatives” stand for socialism because they favor SND is disingenuous and blatantly incompetent.
”
I asserted that conservatives favor THEIR DEFINITION of SND versus Mine, and want ME to pay for THEIR definition of SND.
Tell me why do you expect my definition of SND to coincide with yours?If it doesnt, why wouldnt you leave me alone to take care of my defense needs?Why make me pay for YOUR needs?Its legal,constitutional,sure.But its ALSO SOCIALIST.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 10:07 am
“If you wouldn’t label the “loonies” as “left” (which is defined as the fringe liberals, same as “right” is defined as fringe conservatives”
Loonies are Loonies.
(Far) Right is (Far) Right.Conservatives are conservatives.
Right does NOT equal Conservatives.
Loonies does NOT equal conservatives.
Loonies does NOT equal liberals.
Liberals does NOT equal loonies.
Conservatives does NOT equal loonies.
And finally…
Left does NOT equal Liberals.
Liberals does NOT equal Left(the contrary to this is the patently absurd contention of many people here, that I was contesting).
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 10:25 am
KARTHIK,
why wouldnt you leave me alone to take care of my defense needs
Of course you have the choice to take care of your own defense needs…you can either buy a gun or leave the country. Seems pretty easy to me.
However, for all of your blathering, you forget that both Dems and Repubs agree on our current SND…implying the conservatives have the monopoly on what SND means is, again…”disingenuous and blatantly incompetent.”
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 10:36 am
“However, for all of your blathering, you forget that both Dems and Repubs agree on our current SND…implying the conservatives have the monopoly on what SND means is, again…”disingenuous and blatantly incompetent.””
How do I care that Dems and Repubs agree?I disagree with the definition of SND given to me.You want me to pay for it anyway. That IS SOCIALISM by YOUR Definition.
“Of course you have the choice to take care of your own defense needs…you can either buy a gun or leave the country. Seems pretty easy to me. ”
So the land belongs to those who agree with you on the definition of SND?How about the land belongs to those who agree with ME on the definition of SND?How about YOU leave the country if you cant pay for your own SND needs?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 10:46 am
KARTHIK,
I disagree with the definition of SND given to me.You want me to pay for it anyway.
Welcome to the USA where we elect our government officials to act on behalf of the people.
You’re whole SND argument is asinine and pedantic. But since you’re continuing with it…what is YOUR definition of SND and how is the entire US not in line with it?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 10:51 am
“However, for all of your blathering, you forget that both Dems and Repubs agree on our current SND”
Jared:
Since you used some strong words, I’ll call you on that:”disingenuous and blatantly incompetent”
Where do you get the above sweeping generalization anyway?That both Dems and Repubs “agree on our current SND needs”?
The only things Dems and Repubs agree on the above topic is probably at a very broad,high level.For all I can see, there is no agreement on the specifics.
Your assertion that Dems and Repubs agree on the above generalization is disingenuous, blatantly incompetent(to use your words).
Further, your attempt to make a generalization is part of an old tried and tested debating tactic to suggest I am unpatriotic to disagree with the definition of SND given to me by you:The “Mass” as defined by you agrees with your definition,by your assertion(of course,without any proof from you), and that makes me “unpatriotic”. Further, it takes away my right to contest ownership over MY money, and makes YOU the owner of MY Money to pay for YOUR definition of SND?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 10:52 am
“what is YOUR definition of SND and how is the entire US not in line with it?”
First of all,show me that the entire US is not in line with my definition.Show me that the entire US or even the bulk of the US is in line with your definition.
Bulk of the US is patriotic. But there is no evidence you have shown to prove that the bulk of the US agrees with your definition of SND.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:02 am
KARTHIK,
this is me scratching my head as a result of your ridiculous arguments…
It’s pretty apparent the Dems and Repubs agree on the Strategic National Defense plan as there are no movements to amend/alter it.
The only things Dems and Repubs agree on the above topic is probably at a very broad,high level
Which makes perfect sense considering “strategic” means “broad, high-level”. Politicians don’t have a need to be involved in the “specifics” of the plan as that responsibility is delegated to the Pentagon and our Generals in charge.
Your assertion that Dems and Repubs agree on the above generalization is disingenuous, blatantly incompetent
No…it’s the truth.
I never said you were unpatriotic…not even close…there you go making your unfounded assumptions again.
The taxes levied on your income is not “your money”…it’s the Government’s money.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:06 am
KARTHIK,
show me that the entire US is not in line with my definition.
Uh…that burden of proof is on your shoulders…not mine.
But there is no evidence you have shown to prove that the bulk of the US agrees with your definition of SND.
Um…just throwing this out there…and let me know if you’re confused…could it be because there’s no public debate about SND, KARTHIK? C’mon, man…you’ve got to do better than this…
You sure do like proof, don’t you…but only when it’s a counter argument. Where’s the proof for your argument?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:09 am
“Which makes perfect sense considering “strategic” means “broad, high-level”. Politicians don’t have a need to be involved in the “specifics” of the plan as that responsibility is delegated to the Pentagon and our Generals in charge.”
Actually,the high level you’re talking about is different from the high level I was talking about.
For example,at a high level, the Dems and Repubs agreed to get into Iraq(and I disagreed).
At a high level, the Dems and Repubs DISAGREED on when to get out of Iraq(and I agreed with the Dems there).
At a level higher than the above, the Dems and Repubs agree on where fundamentalists threats to the US external to the US originate. At the same level, the Dems and Repubs DISAGREE on how to handle the above threats. If you dont realize these disagreements, you havent been digesting the results of Elections 2008.
The people of USA very well knew Obama’s intentions on how to handle the terrorist’s threats, at a high level.They knew it differed from The Repubs. They voted for him. Get it?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:11 am
“You sure do like proof, don’t you…but only when it’s a counter argument. Where’s the proof for your argument?”
I dont need to prove the bulk of USA agrees with my definition of SND, because you’re asking for MY money.Am defending MY money.You got to prove me that BULK of the people agree with your definition, if you want me to pay for it WITH CONSENT.Otherwise, you can continue SNATCHING it as you’ve been doing.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:22 am
KARTHIK,
Actually,the high level you’re talking about is different from the high level I was talking about.
Unbelievable. You’re just getting yourself in deeper and deeper…we’re talking about SND, correct?
The different parties may have disagreements on the prosecution of our SND (this would be the “tactical” portion of our SND)…but not on our SND itself.
“Get it?”
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:24 am
KARTHIK,
Ah…deflection…poor form.
You require proof from me…but are unwilling to provide proof yourself. Childish.
Otherwise, you can continue SNATCHING it as you’ve been doing.
Again…what are your suggestions? How is the current SND different from how you think it should be?
wait…Lemme guess…I’ll have to wait a week or two for you to formulate your answer…
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:32 am
“You require proof from me…but are unwilling to provide proof yourself. Childish.”
So I require proof that my money is mine, and my demand for accountability requires me to account for MY view on what bills are required?
Let me do this.
I will start supplying you cable service.No other cable service provider is allowed to exist(That assumption is required to Replicate the situation of government being the only provider of “SND”).
I charge you 2000$ per month. You think, hey the bill should be only in the range of 80$ a month.You need to prove that the bill needs to be in the range of 80, rather than me proving that it needs to be in the range of 2000$?And You dont have the right to refuse this service?Welcome to slavery.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
KARTHIK,
If I didn’t already engage you in circular debate, then this would surprise me…but the fact that you’re willing to continuously twist my comments to make me look ineffective is wearing thin…
That assumption is required to Replicate the situation of government being the only provider of “SND”).
Who the hell else is going to provide SND, KARTHIK? WHO?!
And You dont have the right to refuse this service?
You absolutely have the right to refuse this service…where does this “slavery” thing come from, huh? You’re not a slave to citizenship…you can leave any time you want. You’re not a slave to SND…you can leave any time you want. You’re not a slave to the TARP or stimulus…you can leave any time you want.
But you won’t leave, will you? Because for all of your whining…you realize that you have it pretty damm good here in the good ol’ USA. Vote the way you want to vote, believe the way you want to believe – both which are rights afforded every US citizen – neither of which are afforded to “slaves”.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:40 am
What’s the story here? Everyone knows…or should know…that both parties dig up the dirt on their opponents during a campaign…however, I do have to admit the MSM went into uncharted territory with Palin’s kids…no denying that.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Not like the right did with Clinton’s and McCain’s kids.
I think the she may well has put her kids out there in away that was “uncharted territory”.
Anyway, the whole “media issue” is a red herring.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 10:00 am
OLD LEFTY,
What exactly is the “red herring” here? What, exactly is the cover up?
Yea….the left has the high ground on the issue of kids in politics…
pfft.
OldLefty Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Nobody said anything about a “coverup”, just that I don’t think anyone puts much stock in the, “for my family” bit.
And there was no “uncharted territory”, here that wasn’t mutual.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 10:42 am
OLD LEFTY,
Perhaps “cover-up” was the wrong choice of words…but still doesn’t detract from the “distracting” element that you claim.
Yeah…suggesting one of Palin’s babies is actually her daughter’s and “incest” are absolutely uncharted territory…unless you can refresh my memory here.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 10:55 am
“Welcome to the USA where we elect our government officials to act on behalf of the people. ”
I am aware of where I am.Which is why I try to hold them accountable for every penny they demand from me.I’d be a slave like many others (including you), if I chug along and accept every bill I am charged for, under the heading “SND” (Or any other heading, for that matter).
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:07 am
KARTHIK,
funny…I don’t remember your outrage for the 787BILLION dollar “stimulus” package…or the 1.3 TRILLION dollar budget.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Because,I paid for the SND plans against my consent,first. Taking things in Chronological order.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Bottom line: As long as you accept any bill from the government under ANY Heading(SND,TARP,whatever) without holding every penny accountable, you are and will remain a slave.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:17 am
KARTHIK,
Did you support the TARP or stimulus?
Still waiting on your explanation of how the current SND differs from your own.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:22 am
“Did you support the TARP or stimulus? ”
No I do not.
I dont believe it will work,on its own.
“Still waiting on your explanation of how the current SND differs from your own.”
Actually the definition of SND given by Obama agrees with mine. He is doing the perfect thing to minimize terrorists threats to USA. Terrorists threats can not be eliminated. The only thing the POTUS can do within his power, is to minimize the risk keeping in mind the costs, as well.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Jared: I said:
“Take on irreconciliable enemies, when forced into a confrontation, or preemptorily, depending on the significance of the threat”
You Said:
“so, you agreed with the Bush doctrine, then…interesting.”
No I dont. The people of Iraq werent enemies of the US, leave alone irreconciliable.Where do you get these twisted interpretations from?
The Bush Doctrine created enemies out of nowhere,In and Outside Iraq.Muslim hatred for the USA has directly increased as a result of Iraq 2003.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
KARTHIK,
The US went into Iraq because of the threat of WMDs. We can argue all day long about whether the intel was accurate, but that is reason the US went into Iraq.
Afghanistan was due to extremism – preemptive attacks on “irreconcilable enemies”.
Muslim hatred for the USA has directly increased as a result of Iraq 2003.
According to whom? You? HA!
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:30 am
KARTHIK,
What an incredibly weak answer. Obama’s diplomatic tour of the world doesn’t minimize the terrorist threat…and his direction of the “surge in Afghanistan” certainly doesn’t minimize the threat…and his continued funding for the war on terror doesn’t minimize the threat…and his extension of the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq doesn’t minimize the threat…
So…what exactly is Obama doing that is the “perfect thing to minimize terrorist threats to USA”?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:36 am
“What an incredibly weak answer. Obama’s diplomatic tour of the world doesn’t minimize the terrorist threat…and his direction of the “surge in Afghanistan” certainly doesn’t minimize the threat…and his continued funding for the war on terror doesn’t minimize the threat…and his extension of the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq doesn’t minimize the threat…”
This doesnt minimize the threat…how? Where do you get this “doesnt minimize the threat” from?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:40 am
“So…what exactly is Obama doing that is the “perfect thing to minimize terrorist threats to USA”?”
The way to minimize threats according to my judgement is:
1.Take on irreconciliable enemies, when forced into a confrontation, or preemptorily, depending on the significance of the threat.
2.Actively prevent fence sitters from becoming Enemies. Work WITH people,rather than AGAINST people. Create win-win situations, where interests conflict between nations. Standard Business Negotiation strategies.
Obama’s Afghanistan Policy fits in with 1. Obama’s Iraq policy fits in with 2 (to a limited extent, because BushCo (or should I say CheneyCo) have done a lot of damage there).You can fit in the rest.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:49 am
We are still IN Iraq and Afghanistan. What strides has he made with Iran? What about North Korea?
And on #2…who has he PREVENTED from becoming an enemy exactly? And what win-win situation has he created?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:54 am
“who has he PREVENTED from becoming an enemy exactly? And what win-win situation has he created?”
No Nation that was a enemy of the US has turned into a Non-Enemy of the US, as yet.
To turn an enemy into a non-enemy requires a lot of effort. His effort is going in the right direction, and indications are that they are having mixed results. They seem to be working in some situations, and not,in some others(NK being the obvious example of 1 such situation).
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:57 am
“And what win-win situation has he created?”
Iran is the best example.
It comes as no surprise to me that Ahmedenijad wants to talk to BO(after the Iran “elections”).
If the people of Iran want democracy, freedom, they should claim it. It may be bloody, but from historical experience, only freedom that is earned is valued.
The US has no business forcing democracy on Iran(or anyone), how much ever of a sham democracy they run
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
KARTHIK,
This doesnt minimize the threat…how? Where do you get this “doesnt minimize the threat” from?
Well, for those of us in tune with reality…muslim extremists still hate us.
Where do you get this “does minimize the threat” from?
Oh, yeah? Just your opinion? Well, isn’t that something?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
KARTHIK,
The way to minimize threats according to my judgement is:
1.Take on irreconciliable enemies, when forced into a confrontation, or preemptorily, depending on the significance of the threat.
so, you agreed with the Bush doctrine, then…interesting.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
KARTHIK,
You just don’t know when to quit…do you?
Iran is a “win-win” situation? Wow! Keep on dreamin’.
How ’bout Venezuela, then…is that a “win-win” situation as well?
Or Syria, or Hamas, or Bolivia? Win-win?
July 6th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Things like …”suggesting one of Palin’s babies is actually her daughter’s and “incest”,
was never part of any legitimate news outlet, anymore than McCain’s “black baby” or the jokes about Chelsea, (Rush Limbaugh and John McCain).
I can refresh your memory about Sarah, women and the media, though:
“Fair or unfair—and I do think that it’s a more concentrated criticism that Hillary gets on so many fronts; I think that’s unfortunate. But fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it, really. You have to plow through that and know what you’re getting into. I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton and to her experience and to her passion for changing the status quo. But when I hear a statement like that coming from a women candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn’t do us any good. Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country, I don’t think it bodes well for her, a statement like that. Because, again, fair or not fair it is there. I think it’s reality and it’s a given, people just accept that she’s going to be under a sharper microscope. So be it. Work harder, prove to yourself to an even greater degree that you’re capable, that you’re going to be the best candidate. That’s what she wants us to believe at this point. So it bothers me a little bit to hear her bring that attention to herself on that level.”
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:16 am
OLD LEFTY,
You’re kidding me, right? Here’s a lead from a “legitimate news outlet” regarding the suggestion of an incestual relationship between Todd and his daughters:
The assignment editor for the Times: “He very well could be. Admittedly, there is no evidence of that, but on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. And these are just some of the lingering questions about Governor Palin.” (emphasis mine)
Giving me a statement concerning the skeptical eye on women candidates doesn’t improve your position…it only implies closer attention is paid to female candidates over male candidates.
OldLefty Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
JaredfromTexas said,
“You’re kidding me, right? Here’s a lead from a “legitimate news outlet” regarding the suggestion of an incestual relationship between Todd and his daughters:
The assignment editor for the Times: “He very well could be. Admittedly…….”
…………………………………………………….
That was from Saturday Night Live, and she appeared on that show AFTER that skit:
“The assignment editor for the Times, portrayed by actor James Franco, responded: “He very well could be. Admittedly……..”
And I gave you a quote of Sarah Palin criticizing Hillary for whining about the media.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 9:51 am
OLD LEFTY,
OK, I’ll give you that…but explain away the Daily Kos or Democratic Underground propogating the rumor…almost immediately after Palin was introduced as McCain’s running mate.
Lemme guess…not “legitimate news outlets”?
Regardless…left-wing nutjobs acting as “political pundits” attacking the kids of a candidate in a way that no one has seen ever before.
OldLefty Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 10:23 am
JaredfromTexas,
I have to go out for awhile, but all I can find, (from links from Townhall, etc) are to POSTERS, not the actual op ed people from Daily Kos or Democratic Underground.
I once spent almost two hours arguing with someone about Daily Kos’s “anti Semitic” pieces, only to find that the comments that I was given as examples were ALL made by a poster who was banned from Daily Kos for anti Semitic comments.
I think if Hillary or Obama had put their kids out there in the light of family values, and they had the same kinds of problems, we would see the same ugliness from the most vicious posters.
We saw enough about Hillary and Mccain’s daughter when he ran in the 1999 primary.
You can be quite sickened if you read comments from the right or the left about the deaths of both Tony Snow AND Molly Ivins.
I know that the left leaning sites were struggling with free speech v banning some of the uglist comments about T Snow……I have no reason to assume the other side did do the the same when Ivins died.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:52 am
“Well, for those of us in tune with reality…muslim extremists still hate us.
Where do you get this “does minimize the threat” from?
Oh, yeah? Just your opinion? Well, isn’t that something?
”
Of Course Muslim Extremists still hate us. There will be people who need to hate other people to justify their existence. But the correct approach to security is to ensure OTHER people who are NOT Muslim Extremists DONT join their ranks. What CheneyCo and BushCo have done is directly cause many MORE to join the ranks of Muslim Extremists(who hate the USA).
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
KARTHIK,
Who has joined the ranks of muslim extremists because of the Bush Admin? You keep saying that…but you fail to identify who.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
“Who has joined the ranks of muslim extremists because of the Bush Admin? You keep saying that…but you fail to identify who.”
Lot of people in Iraq. Unfortunately,they dont walk around with a “I Hate the USA” poster. They build revenge plans a la OBL.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Lot of people in Iraq.
Really? That’s all you’ve got? Weak, at best. There is absolutely no concrete way to tell if the recruitment efforts in Iraq are facilitated by the US involvement. If that were the case…then you could say the other 21 countries involved caused the ranks of muslim extremists to swell…couldn’t you?
July 6th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
“Iran is a “win-win” situation? Wow! Keep on dreamin’. ”
Of course.If Ahmedenijad chooses to take on Israel, Israel can and will defend itself. They have been armed sufficiently already(by the US).It still makes no sense for the US to intervene in a hate driven attack by Ahmedenijad on Israel,god forbid that happens.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
KARTHIK,
At what point did Bush imply the US would intervene in a confrontation between Israel and Iran?
Of course we would condemn Mahmoud’s ridiculous comments against Israel…but that doesn’t even come close to “intervention in a hate driven attack…”
Clarify, if you please.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
“At what point did Bush imply the US would intervene in a confrontation between Israel and Iran?”
And Where did I say my comment was referencing the Bush policy on Iran?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
KARTHIK,
If not Bush’s administration…then whose?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Who said it was about Obama’s policy vs a prior administration’s policy?
Have you watched Fox News since November?
I recall atleast 3 references(Hannity for certainty,and others also who I find hard to name), where they were putting forth the view the US must “actively intervene to restrain Iran,to protect Israel,and interfere in Iran’s (Iran’s dictator,rather) choosing its destiny vis a vis Israel.”, and by machinations of their diseased minds,interpreting Obama’s policy of “talking to Ahmedenijad” as directly conflicting with those goals.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
KARTHIK,
Have you seriously stooped to quoting commentators as fodder for your argument…gimme a break!
News flash…news commentators do NOT dictate US foreign policy.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
“Where do you get this “does minimize the threat” from?
Oh, yeah? Just your opinion? Well, isn’t that something?
”
As I said,Muslim extremists still hate us.Obama has taken many steps to try cause their ranks to not grow in size. I believe pretty much everything in life has a cause-effect relationship, though cause is usually a complex non-monolithic entity.I believe from what I’ve seen so far, that Obama’s actions will fructify in the above goal,if they havent already started bearing fruit.This is all hypothesis(as is a counter): The only true measure is the size of Extremist groups who hate us.Time will help find statistics if their size grows inspite of Obama’s policies.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Finally, you admit your suppositions are entirely opinion. Good job! I knew you could do it!
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
As is yours. Except, you continue to want me to pay for your suppositions.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Except, you continue to want me to pay for your suppositions.
negative…I only require proof when the same is required of me.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
“Except, you continue to want me to pay for your suppositions.
negative…I only require proof when the same is required of me.
”
So you’ll support a bill that reimburses me for the taxes I paid for the Iraq war because BEFORE the war started itself,I perceived no threat to my or my SND needs from Iraq,and documented it then?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
KARTHIK,
Sure, I’d support a bill that reimbursed ALL Americans for taxes paid.
But the difference between you and me, obviously…is that I value ALL Americans equally and am not interested in my own repayment…unlike your selfish ambitions.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
“KARTHIK,
Sure, I’d support a bill that reimbursed ALL Americans for taxes paid.
But the difference between you and me, obviously…is that I value ALL Americans equally and am not interested in my own repayment…unlike your selfish ambitions.
”
That makes the difference between a thief and a civilized free human being.
A thief wants to pay for NOTHING,including the services he takes.A civilized free human being gladly pays for the services he uses or consents to support,but only those.
I will gladly pay taxes for the 911 service,for police forces, for maintaining the legal system, and for supporting a national defense force.I have no problems paying my dues.Unlike you,reimbursing all Americans for taxes paid,and YET seeking to use Government funded activities such as the above listed ones.
A thug is a thief who uses the authority of power to enforce slavery on a freedom seeker.
Am done for now,got a job to do.See you later.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
KARTHIK,
I will gladly pay taxes…for supporting a national defense force.
As long as the national defense force prosecutes the SND the way you want them to, correct?
I’m still waiting on WHO you think should conduct this nation’s SND, if not the US Government.
Unlike you,reimbursing all Americans for taxes paid,and YET seeking to use Government funded activities such as the above listed ones.
Wait…we were talking about the Iraq War…how in the world did you twist my rebuttal to mean ALL Americans should be reimbursed for all taxes? Oh, yeah…that’s your modus operandi.
A thug is a thief who uses the authority of power to enforce slavery on a freedom seeker.
Like I’ve been saying all along…if you feel so oppressed by what you feel is “thuggery”…then leave! No one is keeping you here…no one is forcing you to be a “slave” to the government. If you feel so adamant that your rights as a “freedome seeker” are being violated…then go! But you’ll be back…where else can you propogate this drivel?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
“Wait…we were talking about the Iraq War…how in the world did you twist my rebuttal to mean ALL Americans should be reimbursed for all taxes? Oh, yeah…that’s your modus operandi. ”
If you will agree on the principle that I am entitled to be reimbursed for taxes on government expenses that I dont support(such as the war in Iraq), I will obviously extend that principle to everyone, on every taxation item they dont support.I didnt hear your agreement on the above principle, though.I dont support the stimulus,I dont support the Iraq war. You dont support the Stimulus, you support the Iraq war(for hypothetical argument). I get reimbursed for both line Items I dont support, and you get reimbursed for the item you dont support. Deal?
“Like I’ve been saying all along…if you feel so oppressed by what you feel is “thuggery”…then leave!”
Why should I leave because you are a thug?Because you’re a freeloader who wants YOUR definition of SND funded out of my pocket?Its as much my country too as yours. And what you’re asking for is my money,not yours or the government’s.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 9:43 am
KARTHIK,
Oh…my….god…
Are you slow?
This is your statement:
So you’ll support a bill that reimburses me for the taxes I paid for the Iraq war
NOWHERE did you elude that you wanted reimbursement for ALL taxes for programs you don’t support, KARTHIK. This statement was ENTIRELY about the Iraq war…which is what I based my statement on. STOP trying to twist my comments to fit your argument. I’ll call you out on it every single time.
Why should I leave because you are a thug?Because you’re a freeloader who wants YOUR definition of SND funded out of my pocket?
Wait…I’m a thug because I disagree with your screwed up version of what SND should be? Get a grip and come back down from your high horse, buddy. the ENTIRE US is funding SND…not just you…what makes you think YOU are special enough to not pay taxes on what YOU feel are inappropriate/mismanaged gov’t programs, huh?
I’m still waiting on WHO you think should be in charge of SND…do you need a couple of weeks to come up with an answer to that one?
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Also,I notice there is no sign of a buy-in from you Re:my definition of the true measure of a successful foreign policy for SND; Re: Making non-enemies out of enemies,etc.
A fat lot You’ve learnt from J.C, I dare say.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Huh?
I’ve already responded to your measure of a successful foreign policy regarding SND. I’ve said it sounds a lot like the Bush foreign policy…except the “group hug” thing. I’ve also discredited your overt assertion regarding “CheneyCo’s” erosion of US/Iraq relationships…
I hope that you’re not referring to Jesus Christ when you post “J.C.”. If so…you should take a peek in the mirror and take the “plank out of your own eye”.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
“I’ve said it sounds a lot like the Bush foreign policy…except the “group hug” thing.”
I’ve shown you the difference. Bush was not willing to talk to Iran,Obama was, and is.
“I’ve also discredited your overt assertion regarding “CheneyCo’s” erosion of US/Iraq relationships…”
Discredited?I missed the evidence.
“I hope that you’re not referring to Jesus Christ when you post “J.C.”. If so…you should take a peek in the mirror and take the “plank out of your own eye”.”
I am refering to Jesus Christ of course.Obama’s foreign policy is in accordance with J.C’s principles, on the topic of to how to manage people who “hate you”. What you call the “The group hug thing” isnt a new concept, was invented ages back. Just that you missed that sermon or skimmed over it, to the segments that people talked to you about.Or maybe, you need to hate someone to justify your existence.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
KARTHIK,
Bush was not willing to talk to Iran
That’s a lie…do some homework before posting, please.
You asserted that “CheneyCo’s” agenda made Iraq an enemy of the US. That’s utter and complete nonsense…even you know better.
I don’t need to hate people to justify my existence…I hate stupidity, but I don’t need it to justify my existence…I hate whining, but I don’t need it to justify my existence…I hate accusatory blathering, but I don’t need it to justify my existence…
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
“Bush was not willing to talk to Iran.”
I just did a google search on Bush talk ahmedenijad.
I got a dozen+ articles saying AHmedejinad was willing to,CHALLENGING Bush to a debate.
I didnt see a single article saying Bush was asking Ahmedenijad to talk.
Where do you get this “homework”?
“I hate stupidity, but I don’t need it to justify my existence…I hate whining, but I don’t need it to justify my existence…I hate accusatory blathering, but I don’t need it to justify my existence…”
And I am glad to say,I hate none of the above.I am glad to say there is no room in my heart to my consciousness, for hatred of any sort.Not to suggest it makes me a “better” human than you, but it helps me sleep well,and I am very happy,at ease with who I am.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
KARTHIK,
Good God, man…Mahmoud challenged Obama to a debate…big deal? What comes from a debate between two people who are unwilling to be swayed from their positions?
Bush was more than willing to talk with Mahmoud…IF certain conditions were met beforehand…same thing Obama is now saying. Catch up, will ya?
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I don’t see how having a debate with someone like mahmoud would benefit the U.S.? Talking to the guy legitimizes the insanity.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
“Bush was more than willing to talk with Mahmoud…IF certain conditions were met beforehand…”
Pull out to me an article saying so.Through google if possible.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
karthik
Here’s one;
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/07/bush-willing-to-talk-with-iran-after-all/
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
BLISS,
Thanks for your help…I got distracted for a moment.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
No problem
TDro319 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Karthik:
Don’t forget to read this part:
“Just a few months ago, Bush was calling Barack Obama’s willingness to meet with Iran ‘appeasement’.”
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
TDRO
Don’t forget all the quotes obama has made that are EXACTLY What BUSH said regarding the economy, iraq, ETC ETC ETC.
Don’t throw stones if you live in a glass house.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Don’t forget Gitmo either.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
TDRO,
Oh, how quickly you’re willing to spin the information to fit your argument.
Bush made that comment after Obama indicated he would meet with mahmoud “without preconditions”…thereby giving credence to Mahmoud’s hardliner stance on Israel, the holocaust, the US, etc.
Now, Obama is saying that “without preconditions” isn’t the same as “certain conditions must be met”…HAHAHAHAHA…politicians…gotta love ‘em!
OldLefty Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
JaredfromTexas,
Actually, the NYT piece said,
“If elected president, Senator Barack Obama would meet with Iran’s leaders and offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.”
Meeting with and regime change are different.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
OLD LEFTY,
What does that quote have to do with anything? The discussion was whether or not Bush was as willing to meet with Mahmoud as Obama is.
Turns out both Bush and Obama was willing to meet with Mahmoud as long as certain conditions had been met.
But you’re right…”meeting with” and “regime change” are different…Good for you!
TDro319 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
“Don’t forget all the quotes obama has made that are EXACTLY What BUSH said regarding the economy, iraq, ETC ETC ETC.
Don’t throw stones if you live in a glass house.”
Who’s throwing stones? I simply told Karthik to remember to read a part. I seriously think you have a reading comprehension problem (no surprise there).
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
TDRO:
I read that part.
I wasnt really looking for a “Gotcha” moment.
Maybe Bush said 1 thing, and changed his “Position”, whatever. Dont care. Did he do anything to talk with Ahmedenijad?8 years of GW Bush,zero talks to show for.Obama,0.5 years,zero talks to show for.We’ll see what he has to show for in 4 years.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Here’s a second one:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229311,00.html
OldLefty Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Hate to post and dash, but didn’t Bush say it only after Obama got traction with the idea?
Remember the headline: CBS Bush Iran Policy Moving Closer to Obama’s
By Kyle Drennen (Bio | Archive)
July 16, 2008 – 15:09 ET
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
See Jared’s statement above lefty.
OldLefty Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
So what?
Things have changed a lot now that there is now violence in streets.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
OLD LEFTY,
In a 1 Nov ‘07 article, the NYT indicated that Obama would meet with Iranian leaders “if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.”
i.e….with conditions…
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Old:
“Hate to post and dash, but didn’t Bush say it only after Obama got traction with the idea?”
Fair enough.My memory also says the same. But I find it hard to dig out the chronology of what happened then.
In any case, GWBush’s willingness to talk to Ahmedenijad et al is shown by the statistics of 8 years.Zero talks with above mentioned group.Conveniently labelled Axis of Evil to justify their empty report card on this score..
I really dont care.Possibly Ahmedenijad is a madman with whom talking is pointless.Possibly ditto for NK etc. But I know I am not making my country any safer,or myself, by NOT making an attempt to talk and find common ground, and am doing exactly the opposite.So,am all for the sound bytes given by Obama, but time will tell whether they are merely sound bytes or are supported by intent.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 9:31 am
KARTHIK,
GWBush’s willingness to talk to Ahmedenijad et al is shown by the statistics of 8 years.Zero talks
As I stated before, this statement is blatantly false.
karthiks030977 Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
TDRO:
“Obama,0.5 years,zero talks to show for.We’ll see what he has to show for in 4 years.”
I’ll correct myself on that.Forgot Obama has already talked to Chavez.Reinforces my belief that his sound bytes werent merely sound bytes,but will see how other aspects of his policy on this unfold.
Kregg Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
The ignorant left criticizes that which it knows not…
July 6th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
“The ignorant left criticizes that which it knows not.”
The radical right just makes crap up, routinely. And in fact the whole radical rightwing platform is based on pure fantasy. Beginning with the so-called “bible.”
July 6th, 2009 at 5:10 pm