Why the Media Feminists Hate Palin
AIM Report | By Cliff Kincaid | September 30, 2008
Evidence of her striking a chord with ordinary Americans is already starting to emerge.
Columnist Marc H. Rudov calls them the “fascist feminists.” These are the feminists in the media and elsewhere who detest Sarah Palin because of her role as a successful wife and mother and defender of the unborn. Palin’s decision to have a Down syndrome child, when 90 percent of these children are being aborted in the womb, has proven in dramatic terms not only that there are articulate pro-life women in America but that there are women who will take a leadership role on “culture of life” issues of concern to millions. And this one could be vice-president of the United States.
It could be the story of our lifetimes, something that could be historical in nature and a lesson for generations to come.
With the Palin pick, a loving and caring pro-life mother has been offered to the American people and especially young women as a role model in the political arena. An article distributed by Catholic News Service noted in a headline that Sarah Palin is a politician who “lives her truth” and “walks the walk.” Don’t expect to see any stories like this in the secular “progressive” media.
The feminists and their allies in the media, who treat abortion as a human right, when abortion destroys basic human rights, are on the defensive. Their vicious attacks have already generated a backlash in her favor. But the controversy goes far beyond Palin and the fate of those, now some 40 million, who have lost their lives through abortion. What will we as a society do with the increasing numbers of elderly Americans with health problems? Will they be directed into a national health care plan that rations care, treatments or medicine?
Meanwhile, the culture war is back, and it is clear that most of the controversy over Palin is being driven largely by feminists in the media. On MSNBC, a lesbian feminist, Rachel Maddow, is leading the assault. She is the latest addition to the far-left lineup at this poor excuse for a cable “news” channel.
“This intragender war marks the official unmasking of fascist feminism,” Rudov writes in his insightful article on the Newswithviews.com website. Palin “rose from hockey mom to state governor without affirmative action,” he notes, and has “proved publicly that women can succeed without being victims.”
What’s more, notes Rudov, “Sarah Palin has achieved success while expressing love and admiration for her husband, anathema to the misandrist underpinning of fascistic feminism.”
The Rights Of The Disabled
Beyond her role as a pro-life mother who loves her husband, Palin is a reminder to the feminists that what they are screaming for in the battle for the right to “choice” is not only a human life but in many cases a disabled child, one of the most innocent and defenseless among us.
As George Will noted in a column, “Eugenics by Abortion,” abortion of Down syndrome children has become part of an insidious quest for a “disability-free society.” Will has a personal interest in this debate and has written about the ongoing attack in America on a whole “category of citizens”—those with Down syndrome. The elderly could be the next in line. After all, why else did Democratic Party moneybags George Soros initiate a $45- million “Project on Death in America” and promote euthanasia and assisted suicide?
Palin is a target and possibly in harm’s way because she is being perceived as someone who can take a bold stand against George Soros and his nightmare vision and turn the country around on such critical issues.
The Palin Phenomenon
Evidence of her striking a chord with ordinary Americans is already starting to emerge. Consider what happened in Washington County, Pa., when Palin and McCain traveled through on a campaign appearance.
KDKA’s John Shumway reported: “A local couple unexpectedly got to meet Vice Presidential Candidate Gov. Sarah Palin and GOP Presidential Nominee Sen. John McCain during their visit to Washington County last weekend. They share something in common with Palin. They also have a child with Down syndrome. In a sea of smiling faces at Consol Energy Park, Kurt and Margie Kondrich, along with their daughter, Chloe, caught the attention of the candidates.”
Margie was holding a sign that said, “We (Heart) Kids With Down Syndrome.”
McCain and Palin left the bus and met with the family. “They just came up as warm as could be and said ‘Hi’ and they thanked us for coming,” Kurt Kondrich said. Palin asked if she could hold Chloe.
Later, Palin brought down Trig, their child with Down syndrome, from the bus. “I got to see him,” said Margie. “It was very emotional for me but I was very proud of him and my daughter and I kissed him on his chubby little face. I actually told her that her son was beautiful and that they would all be fine and it’s a lot of work but they are very blessed with having a child with Down Syndrome.”
In addition to KDKA, this story was on the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity radio programs, and reported by Glenn Beck and National Review online. But it didn’t get much coverage in the liberal media because it would have helped humanize, not demonize, Palin. The hatred is showing through, but it is not having the desired effect. Instead, people are reacting with admiration for a woman who has demonstrated compassion and love in her life.
“We feel very blessed that God has allowed us to be a loud voice for kids with Down syndrome,” Kurt Kondrich told AIM.
If you go to the LoveandLearning.com website, you can learn more about how parents are caring for and educating their disabled children. The language and learning development materials help children with Down syndrome and other special needs reach their potential. Kurt and Margie Kondrich tell part of their story there, too, and there is a picture of Kurt holding Chloe.
Columnist George Will’s Story
George Will wrote about his own son, Jon, navigating Washington’s subway system to use his season tickets to the Wizards basketball games. But when he was born in 1972, Will recalls, “a time when an episode on a network television hospital drama asserted that people with Down syndrome could not be toilet-trained,” the hospital geneticist “asked Jon’s parents if they intended to take him home.”
Will added, “That question is, surely, no longer asked when Down syndrome babies are born. But there are modern pressures to prevent such babies from being born, pressures that include the perfection-is-an-entitlement attitude of some expecting parents.”
In order to counter the demands for abortion in these cases, Will mentions a bill, the Prenatally Diagnosed Condition Awareness Act, whose purpose is “to increase the provision of scientifically sound information and support services to patients” receiving positive test diagnoses for Down syndrome, spina bifida and other conditions.
The bill, currently known as S. 1810, is bipartisan, and was introduced by Sen. Sam Brownback. But it has few co-sponsors. The House version, H.R. 3112, has only a few as well. The measures get no significant media attention because they raise ques-tions about whether abortion is truly the right “choice” in those cases.
All that they are asking for is more information in order to make an informed judgment. Isn’t that what “choice” is supposed to be all about?
AIM IS DOUBLE-TEAMED ON C-SPAN
AIM editor Cliff Kincaid was on C-SPAN on Saturday, September 6, talking about media coverage of the campaign. They double-teamed him, with “progressive” Faiz Shakir and former NBC News journalist Marvin Kalb arguing that Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin should start going on shows like NBC’s “Meet the Press” to prove she’s worthy of the nomination. Kincaid said that would be a trap and politically suicidal.
The announcement has since been made that Governor Palin will sit down with ABC’s Charles Gibson and other media stars. Democrats will be counting on the media to spring a trap on the Republican vice-presidential candidate and make her look like an ignorant buffoon on some issue or another.
“Okay, Governor,” Gibson could say to Palin, “who is the president of (insert the name of some obscure country)?” And when she fails to come up with the right answer to one of a dozen or so questions, this will be blown up by Gibson and the rest of the media into another “scandal” about whether she’s prepared to be vice-president. The game plan is obvious.
But nobody should underestimate Palin, a journalist herself before she went into politics. She should be able to handle any barbs sent her way. More than most, she should understand the journalism “profession” and its liberal bias.
The Soros Connection
On C-SPAN, Kincaid noted a couple times that, rather than being a media “watchdog,” as he was advertised, Shakir is a former researcher for the Democratic National Committee. He is now with the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress, which includes people from the Clinton Administration, the John Edwards campaign, and various other Democratic Party offices.
Most of Shakir’s presentation consisted of questioning Palin’s record and beliefs and expressing a desire for more intense media scrutiny of her. This is the Obama campaign’s new line of attack, which is being faithfully echoed by the media.
If the McCain campaign decides to “Let Palin be Palin,” she should be able to handle the media sharks. It might even be amusing to see her put the liberal attack dogs in their place.
However, Kincaid’s point was that she should avoid some of the programs. He did agree that she may want to consider going on C-SPAN, where the moderators have a reputation of being more even-handed and there is a commitment to letting people speak in complete sentences.
While going on the air with Charles Gibson is a calculated risk, there is absolutely no reason for Palin to jump into the water with the media sharks from NBC News, a network that has increasingly been viewed as being solidly in the Obama camp.
A Rasmussen poll found that 51 percent of the people believe that reporters are trying to “hurt” Palin. Twenty-four percent said the stories made them more likely to vote for McCain. The backlash has begun. If Gibson gangs up on her, his reputation will also suffer. This will be a critical test.
Palin said in her convention speech, “…here’s a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.”
People at the convention chanted, “NBC, NBC,” in protest over the channel’s biased coverage.
On C-SPAN, Kalb tried to suggest that Palin and the Republicans were trying to score political points by attacking the media. Kincaid said that the Republicans were just trying to defend themselves, and that they had every right to do so.
The Smears Begin
Kincaid also noted that the feeding frenzy was sparked by the Democratic website the DailyKos, which falsely claimed that Palin faked her last pregnancy and that the child wasn’t really hers. Shakir had spoken at the organization’s yearly convention, a fact he eventually conceded after prodding. The DailyKos is what started the liberal media’s preoccupation with her family life, and the pregnancy of her daughter.
Kalb talked as if the Constitution somehow required that she go on “Meet the Press.” This is complete nonsense, of course. In this day and age, the media consist of much more than little-watched Sunday talk shows. These programs are remnants of the old liberal media.
One caller to C-SPAN said Palin should go on “Meet the Press” when Obama agrees to face a grilling on the Rush Limbaugh radio program. That sounded fair. The call was a reminder that Barack Obama had been very reluctant to go on “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News. In the first installment of that interview, O’Reilly managed to force Obama to concede, in effect, that his judgment about the effect of the U.S. military troop surge in Iraq was just wrong.
According to Michael Calderone of Politico, the McCain campaign was initially getting about 80-100 requests a day from news organizations for Palin interviews. Is she supposed to comply with all of those? Nonsense.
It is clear that the media elite won’t be satisfied until she appears on all the shows that they deem important and appropriate. Those are programs, not surprisingly, dominated by liberals.
You can’t please the liberal media. Consider that some commentators say that, as a candidate, she won’t have enough time to spend with her kids. At the same time, they want her to spend more time answering questions on their shows and giving media interviews. It is “gotcha” journalism designed to lure her into a trap. This fact is as obvious as their liberal bias. No matter what she does, she loses.
Kincaid pointed out on C-SPAN that Biden has been a regular on the Sunday talk shows and journalists still won’t quiz him about his history of plagiarism. If you’re a Democrat in good standing with the liberal media elite, you will be treated deferentially, as Biden is.
In addition to plagiarism, Biden also has a record of making off-color remarks about people of color. He even made offensive comments about Obama himself, declaring him bright and clean. Still, the media stand in awe of his “foreign policy experience,” when in fact he avoided military service with a series of deferments, and his experience consists mostly of talking in the Senate and visiting foreign countries at taxpayer expense.
On Sunday, September 7, in what was billed as “his first Sunday morning interview since accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination for Vice President,” Biden went “one-on-one” with Tom Brokaw and was once again spared any embarrassing questions about his shameful history of plagiarism, which many members of the public are still not familiar with.
Interestingly, Biden was quick to tell Brokaw that Palin has an obligation to appear on his program. It sounds like a set-up. And it is.
Jonathan Beecher Field, an assistant professor of English at Clemson University, wrote a very interesting piece recently for InsideHigherEd.com about Biden’s “track record of intellectual dishonesty.” This is what plagiarism is all about.
Referring to the plagiarism in Biden’s career, he said that while he would vote for Obama, “Biden’s dishonesty matters to me in two ways. It suggests something of Biden’s character, indeed, in a realm more relevant to doing his job than was John Edwards’s philandering to his. The other reason is selfish. Now that Barack Obama has deemed a plagiarist worthy of the vice-presidency, it becomes more difficult for me to make the case in the classroom that plagiarism matters. More broadly speaking, Obama’s choice has made it harder for me, and for my colleagues across the United States, to defend the principles that form the foundation of scholarship.”
Why don’t the journalists on “Meet the Press” and other shows bring this up? It’s because they favor the Obama/Biden ticket and don’t have the intellectual honesty of Professor Beecher Field.
Equal Treatment?
Kincaid suggested that Palin go on some of these liberal shows only after the reporters demonstrate their even-handedness. For example, ask Barack Obama about his communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, and ask Joe Biden about the plagiarism that not only ended one of his runs for the presidency but which interrupted his law school days when he was caught plagiarizing then.
Another topic for Biden could be his alleged Catholicism. Biden wears this on his sleeve. He hopes it will attract votes. It was brought up briefly on “Meet the Press.” Biden claims to accept church teaching that life begins at conception but he votes to allow the destruction of that life through abortion. This might be seen by many as another example of a lack of intellectual honesty and integrity that exposes him as a phony Catholic.
Mike Barnicle of MSNBC did a story about Biden, highlighting that he was an “Irish-Catholic” and a man of the people who rides a train. But Barnicle didn’t mention Biden’s clear disagreement with Catholic Church leaders on abortion policy. The Barnicle story also ignored Biden’s plagiarism, which is really not a surprise since Barnicle himself lost a job at the Boston Globe because of plagiarism.
This curious fact helps us understand the media double standard. How can Brokaw ask Biden about his plagiarism on “Meet the Press” when one of his colleagues, Mike Barnicle of NBC sister network MSNBC, was exposed for plagiarism?
The media pretend that they have high standards, but it is a double standard designed to benefit Democrats. The public is waking up to their political games.
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
notice the quote above bears no mention to theology. it puts the abortion issue squarely on science. brilliant.
Don’t Republicans have, as one of their core values, the REDUCTION of govermental interference in a person’s life? Why should the state have anything whatsoever to do with legislating this issue? The opposition to abortion comes largely from Christians. Pointing to science doesn’t make the argument any less religious. Does anyone need to point out that all cultures have abortion measures, even tribal people? Just because the practice doesn’t sit well with the Christian conscience doesn’t mean the state has to ban it. The whole idea is, frankly, utopian. Will this somehow banish a zone of violence and brutality, or will it simply displace violence onto some other part of women’s experience? Do you believe that women won’t become pregnant? They won’t attempt illegal abortions? Terrified boyfriends won’t try to harm them, or even kill them? Of course violence and death will exist. And what happens to children of mothers and fathers who can’t afford to raise them? Will Republicans fund programs to help them? This whole thing seems pretty badly thought out.
Some other things the “insightful” Marc Rudov has said:
—“Most American women are as shallow as” the characters on “Sex and the City.”
—Hillary Clinton “is not called a B-word because she’s assertive and aggressive; she’s called a B-word because she acts like one.”
—On the downside of a woman president: “You mean besides the PMS and the mood swings, right?”
—If “the woman is complaining that the man doesn’t work enough around the house,” it may be because “she said ‘I do’ at the altar and ‘I don’t’ in the bedroom.”
Rudov has written a book called “Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables.”
You sure you want to vouch for this guy, Cliff?
Sure, libs. You don’t like the message so you go after the messenger. I don’t know who this Rudov guy is, but what he says in this article makes sense. Thank you, Mr. Kincaid.
http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
Jewish and Republican?? Oy gevalt
I’m just pointing out that Rudov clearly has issues with women and wondering if this is a person Kincaid really wants to get involved with, let alone consider an “insightful” person. I’m just reporting facts; Kincaid needs to decide what to do about it.
There’s abortion and then there’s partial birth abortion. Somehow I can’t equate the two. Is one lesser than the other? Most certainly the government has a duty to protect it’s citizens. A child nearly out of the birth canal and full term must be every bit human as the rest of us right? Then what about a newly fertilized egg? The point here is without regard for moral authority and respect for God’s law
opposition to life means exactly what it implies “life” Whether newly concieved or full term. However, from the outside looking in, partial birth abortion is genuine murder…end of story. America isn’t a theocracy but instead a democracy. So by and large if taken up for a vote it is decided that the unborn as well as “born” can be terminated, what about those who occupy the nursing homes, the disabled, generally anyone who cannot care for themselves???What’s the difference? Why do I sense pro death with the democrates i.e.against capital punishment yet pro abortion. What is the yard stick for them in determining right from wrong? All I can say is someone coined the phrase ” Liberalism is a mental disorder” and they are so correct
You know, I’m not a liberal, but I know a lot of vets who’ve returned from Iraq and I now have to wonder about labelling something a pathology. Our convention had, dispite my hopes to the contrary, a decidedly militaristic undertone. That also reflects a culture of death, does it not? The “born” are certainly being terminated. It’s weird that we’re talking so much about unborn termination and not the termination of lives that are already fully realized, educated and imaginative. What about the war? I’ve been trying to wake up fellow Republicans to the paradoxes of this, but they don’t seem to understand.
Well, now the truth is finally out. Women can’t be satisfied even when they get what they say they have always wanted! A woman may soon be Vice President of The United States AND maybe, in four years, President! Now that their desire is SOoooooo close to coming true, they are unhappy again?!? Get her in office first, then work on the other issues. It’s time to start thinking rationally, not emotionally. And don’t be wooed by Mr. O-bama and his charms. This man is dangerous, he and his wife are definitely Racist against white and other people, AND, I suspect that he has a “Blue Turbin” in his closet just waiting for him to put on IF he should become President! Now IS the time to T H I N K, not be emotional.
Please do not confuse these “Feminazies” as women. They are the priests of the Godless who use the unborn as their sacrifice. A true woman is what you see in Sarah Palin, a mother and a human being who loves life and wants the best for all living. One the other hand we have the priest of the Godless who want to kill the unborn, the elderly and all but their evil selves.
As for those who die or are injured for the defense of our country David, they are adults who show their love for their country in volunteering to serve their fellow man by laying their lives on the line. Those who have served understand this. Those who believe in the True God serve.
Marc Rudov is a pundit, and a sort of comedian if you will, that LOVES to shake up women with the PC disease. Rabid feminists hate him - and the people that are “fascist feminists” really hate him. He purposely acts like the classic male chauvenist pig around such people because it drives them crazy - berserk. Other pundits tend to look shocked and just shake their heads with a smile on their faces - they can’t believe that in PC America someone has the guts to stand up to the rabid feminists as that is just so un-PC.
The fact that abortion is a political issue at all lies somewhere between unnecessary and disconcerting. We all have different opinions, but of course, since abortion has become a political issue, it’s fraught with disinformation, exaggerations, omissions, etc.
The bottom line, however, is that abortion does not belong on the floor of the House, nor the Senate, nor in the White House. It begins and ends with the mother, and whether or not she chooses to remain pregnant.
i would describe myself as pro-life, however, pro-life and pro-choice are not mutually exclusive. Insomuch as laws are concerned, women have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies; in the same sense as consenting to sex, deciding to treat (or not treat) a medical condition, etc. i say this at the same time as i hope that with the right to choose, people do the right thing whenever possible, and choose life. However, if there is one thing history has taught us, morality cannot be legislated. People have been performing abortions practically since the dawn of human history, and you can bet we’ll continue to do so, for better or worse…
This article doesn’t use one citation or example of “liberal journalism”. Not one quote. The only direct reference to particular source is “On MSNBC, a lesbian feminist, Rachel Maddow”(real classy by the way). Plenty of references to conservative articles and viewpoints, but what does that have to do with the title of this column? My guess is that Cliff never got an A on any college papers because he never addresses “Why the Media Feminists Hate Palin” other than “her role as a successful wife and mother and defender of the unborn.” Yeah…right.
My favorite part is “Democratic Party moneybags George Soros.” How ironic.
Please try harder next time.
“Those who believe in the True God serve.” This is really what it is, isn’t it? There’s no mistaking that this is what the fringe Right believes—that our military is somehow God’s avenging force. The Left fears that this is true, they say it to our faces (I bear the brunt of these arguments as a middle-of-the-road Republican, so I hear it all the time). Liberals trumpet this idea in the media and then we say they’re crazy. How can you possibly say this is true? The whole idea is sick. How can you possibly call yourself a Republican? This is dementia.
This is the result of years of political and ideological indoctrination in colleges and universities. American people are so traumatized that they are afraid to stand for what is right and now they accept uncritically what the intolerant Left spew. The idea that abortion is a constitutional right is the most successful hoax in history. That legal tapestry is antiAmerican and goes against the true meaning of the Constitution. By labeling “Christian right” to bible believing Christians who love God and this Country and live and decent and civilized life, the anti-America left has been successful to deceive the American people into making them believe that Christians are “facists.” Only an ignorant can believe such a lie.
Now we are in a critical moment in America where the cesspool of filthiness embodied in the Democrat party and its servants, the media and Hollywood, attack viciously to those who defend the live of the unborn. Our Government is based on the premisse that all authority comes from God the source of life, happiness and justice.
People have been murdering each other since the beginning of time maybe we should make that legal too.
The idea that a women has a right to do what she wants with regard to her body is laughable. When are the Democrats going to start pushing to decriminalize prostitution? The killing of another person because of your lack of responsibility or judgement does not constitute a civil right.
Equating abortion with troop deaths is equally ignorant. Troops are volunteers who are paid for their service. Killing a defenceless baby is murder.
If the state has no business dictating abortion law then how do they have any business dictating any civil rights law?
I’m sick of these middle of the road whishy washy can’t make up my mind stooges. The military is one of the few things the federal government is actually supposed to take care of. The only thing that the fringe right believes is the same as the fringe right founding fathers believed. Limited role of govt. and States rights. Let the people decide what is legal or illegal not some judge.
@Caesar Arevalo: Actually, you’re quite wrong, my friend. Our government is not based on the premise that all authority comes from god—as that was precisely the premise the English monarchy (as well as the Spanish, the French, et al.) was based on, and which the American revolutionaries rejected. The framers of the Constitution were largely Deists (a philosophy popular among intellectuals at the time, wherein god was a ‘watchmaker’ of sorts—he created the universe and set its rules in motion, but took no active role in its events, especially the affairs of men). Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc. were very quick to point this out—that the federal government draws its authority from the people.
“Equating abortion with troop deaths is equally ignorant.” If you are referring to my post, I’m not making an equation.
“The only thing that the fringe right believes is the same as the fringe right founding fathers believed. Limited role of govt. and States rights.” The fringe right makes produces statements about god directing the military. Did the founding fathers talk about this? And if they were really like the fringe psychopaths masquerading as Republicans around this board, get me out of here.
“By labeling ‘Christian right’ to bible believing Christians who love God and this Country and live and decent and civilized life, the anti-America left has been successful to deceive the American people into making them believe that Christians are ‘facists.’” I agree. But when the VP pick seems drawn from the crowd of people who make fringe statements, where does that leave the rest of the country? Caught in a “Holy War” between Christian- and Islamo-fascists. I believe in god, but I don’t think he’s directing the troops, or saving companies, or doing anything for pipelines.
Read Righting Feminism by Ronnee Scrheiber, published in May 2008 by Oxford University Press. It describes how the fanatical, fundamentalist Christian, far-right has hijacked the terminology of feminism for its own ultra-conservative purposes.
Sarah Palin is a not a feminist. She is a decoy for a virulent form of anti-feminism.
Regarding her line in her speech at the convention that parents of kids with specials needs will have a friend in the White House if McCain is elected: she cut Alaska’s budget for special needs children from about $8 million to $3 million. She also cut funding for aid to pregnant teenagers.
One of her mentors is the violently anti-feminist Phyllis Schafley, who helped defeat the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970’s.
Palin believes in male domination, militarism, teaching Creationisim in the schools, no sex education or else abstinence-only sex education, and that human beings have not contributed to global warming. She is to the right of the Cheney/Bush administration on environmental issues. As governor of Alaska, she sued the EPA to stop it from placing polar bears on the endangered species list (due to the loss of Arctic ice due to global warming.) She wanted to ban books in the town of Wassilla when she was Mayor. The town librarian opposed her, and the town sided with the librarian, against Palin.
She is not by any stretch of the imagination just an average hockey mom. She is backed by extremely wealthy foundations which have been plotting to get ultra-right-wing women into office for many years. She has been groomed for national office for a long time.
Sorry, misspelled author’s name.
Ronnee Schreiber:
Righting Feminism
Oxford University Press, May 2008
Eowyn and David Goodis (BS in drag?):
Hey guys, thanks alot, we love ya! Every day that Obama, and his MSM supporters, and his minions (that’s you guys), attack Palin, we win. You started on the first day she was announced, and the attack dogs came out before you knew a thing about her - and every single day since then you have got nastier and nastier, and made up and spread more lies - maybe you are like Bill and lie so much now you have lost the ability to even know that you are lying. But it works, so please please keep doing it.
The race was tied, and us Conservatives were really in the dumps because it looked like the end, because Obama was going to be the next president and he would put the last dagger in what is left of America that you guys haven’t destroyed yet. Then McCain announced his pick of Palin - and walaa - you guys pounced. Before we even knew anything about her, we were thinking we might have a keeper, because when the leftist shrills are so mean and nasty, we know that something has happened that upset your apple cart. Then we heard her speak, and we learned the details about her, and you trashed her even more - and even trashed her family and spread lies about what she has accomplished - and then we KNEW we had a keeper.
And then the funniest thing happened, the more you guys trashed the more the polls went up for the McCain-Palin ticket. And more and more people saw the Obama ticket for the sham it is, and every day more and more run away from your side and run to our side.
Obama got a tiny little bump after your coronation, you know the one with the Greek columns where they annointed the Gods of leftism. All that pageantry and just a little bump. And then we had our convention, Obama’s bump disappeared, and in a shortened mini-convention because McCain cared about the people of Louisiana and what they were going through while Obama campaigned and ignored them, Palin and McCain told us what was their vision. And Obama and you, you attacked some more.
And every day since then while you shrilled and lied and called her a pig, we get a bigger bump in the polls, and now we are really ahead. Heck, the groups that have always leaned towards the Democrats are now leaning towards McCain.
So please just keep up your lies, your deceit, and your nasty mouths cuz every day, we get stronger and you get weaker. But I REALLY think you should get paid for campaigning for McCain. When he and Sarah Palin are in the White House, he will sure owe all you Obama minions a debt of gratitude for helping him get there.
Great work, guys! What was that joke last night about a pig with lipstick Osama was telling, that broke up his audience and made them laugh and clap? I wonder though, how many in that audience thought - that’s just a low blow - something someone from the low road would do and say? And they will be in the polls tomorrow and now be supporters of McCain?
Dear Jack Hansen:
While it seems Mr Sullivan has tired of frying you with his magnifier, I see you haven’t taken the lesson to heart. Please, take your medications and try to refrain from spending so much time reading this site. It’s just no good for your heart.
Spend more time in prayer and reflection on your mortality and prepare yourself for that time when God’s magnifier will be directed on you.
God bless and guide you.
As long as something makes Cliffy’s delusional point, it matters not what this person said, says, believs or preaches. Oh, but you can’t use that against him, that’s his sole domain (removing any and all context and ignoring that which does not bolster his imaginary point).
Remember, Cliff worked for a gun and drug dealing felon that lied to Congress.
The Brotherhood must have been reading some where else. Who is Cliffy?-
Jack Hansen has a great point. The liberals are in self destruct mode and even their VP choice has indicated that he wants to reconsider being the number two target.
Blackhat,
I agree that abortion should not be a political issue, nor should it be a ‘woman’s issue’. It is a human, legal and moral issue.
We part company on the rest of your post, however,
The time to decide whether or not you want to be pregnant is before your consent to sex. It is always a possibility and if you are going to engage in sex, be man and woman enough to take the responsibility.
I dislike euphemisms, like pro-life or pro-choice. If you have to think up words other the true words to describe an act, etc., then something is wrong.
If you think someone should have the choice to have an abortion - that’s pro-abortion. If you think abortion is wrong, then you are anti-abortion. If someone thinks it’s is OK to do something then you are pro that something, whether it is ever done, or whether you ever do it.
If we believe in either side, we need to be willing to be honest about what we believe.
Abortion is not just a moral issue - for some of us it is - but it is a legal issue. For many years it was considered illegal and even today you can be charged for killing a fetus in some states and killing a pregnant woman and fetus can get you charged with First Degree Murder in some states because of two deaths.
Yes, abortions have been done since forever. They were also available before Roe v. Wade and in Texas for sure. They were done by doctors in hospitals and recorded as a D&C;. The mantra of the coathanger in a back alley hadn’t be true for a long time - or at least not necessary.
The difference is, before Roe v. Wade, you had to be willing to take a bit of a chance to get an abortion and you and the doctor were the ones responsible for it. What the law did was make all of us in society a part of the killing of babies.
When you are pregnant, you body is not your own. If you are a decent person, you put the welfare of that baby before your own. You modify your eating, what you drink, stop smoking, exercise, take vitamins, etc.
How does a person who has an adopted child support the right to abortion. If they look at their child do they ever shudder to think what they would have missed had their child’s birth mother chosen abortion?
What do you tell your subsequent children, if you have any, or do you tell them?
What do you tell your present children, if you have any, or do you tell them?
It almost seems like the mindset is that children are like busses, if you don’t catch this one, another will be along.
Msr. Reitmeyer:
I was referring to the lovely passages attributed to the previously attribution:
Some other things the “insightful” Marc Rudov has said:
—“Most American women are as shallow as” the characters on “Sex and the City.”
—Hillary Clinton “is not called a B-word because she’s assertive and aggressive; she’s called a B-word because she acts like one.”
—On the downside of a woman president: “You mean besides the PMS and the mood swings, right?”
—If “the woman is complaining that the man doesn’t work enough around the house,” it may be because “she said ‘I do’ at the altar and ‘I don’t’ in the bedroom.”
Rudov has written a book called “Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables.”
“Who is Cliffy?”
Gee, maybe the delusion ‘author’ of this, in another series of twisted and paranoid ‘articles’ that can ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS RUBBISH.
Remember, Cliffy worked for a gun and drug dealing felon that lied to Congress. It would make for a great ‘article’ on this site. If one were to use “Cliffy’s” method, you could tie him to just about anything (selling drugs that end up in the bloodsdtreams of innocent suburban youth, who then go commit crimes to get more drugs, or maybe even Cliffy’s favorite imaginary enemy: COMMUNISM!) Just how much cocaine did you get from Ollie, Cliff, more or less than a kilo?
thank you lady texan for your wise comments. I have a brilliant and wonderful daughter-in-law who was adopted at the time she was born, so I am now wonderfully blessed because of it. She and my son already have a wonderful son, but they adopted a precious little guy from Russia whose parents did not want him because he was born with spina bifida. He had corrective surgery as a baby and is excellent health, living in Florida. What a blessing he is! People should be responsible for their own actions. What a loss for the world if Helen Keller had been aborted, or Ray Charles or others. All lives are precious!
To many of you:
I am no longer much concerned about the AIM website. Both its nonsensical op-ed pieces and most of the comments that follow are so detached from reality that they aren’t even amusing. Instead, they inspire only my pity. The paranoia and conspiracy-theory mentality that permeate both strongly suggest deep fear of a future which is rushing inexorably toward all of us. As always, we humans are advancing into the unknown. But the influence of technology, medicine and ever-greater amounts of wealth generated by the global economy have combined to speed up historical change and make its impact ever more powerful with each passing year.
So, an amount of trepidation is hardly unwarranted. What saddens and disturbs me, however, is that the worries I read about on this website are so insignificant. Fear of a multi-racial, multi-cultural American society, fear of an African-American president, fear of conspiracies and manipulations by powerful but invisible elites, fear of ideologies long since are dead and burried are all irrelevant to the really serious questions facing us. What are those?
Without attempting to put them in any order, they include 1) a previously unimaginable increase in the human lifespan sometime in the next thirty-fifty years; 2) the development of artificial intelligence both superior to that of human beings and capable of creativity; 3) human genetically-engineered evolution (as opposed to natural selection) leading to a man made successor to Homo Sapiens; 4) the possibility - only now dimly foreseen - of travel faster than the speed of light; 5) the philosophical implications of present and near-future discoveries in astrophysics; 6) the development of non-nuclear explosives more powerful than thermonuclear weapons, most likely from the application of anti-matter; 7) simultaneously, the harnessing of anti-matter to provide previously unimaginable amounts of cheap energy; 8) radical changes in climate and weather patterns, far beyond what has already happened; 9) the creation of so much wealth and plenty as to eliminate global poverty, hunger and deprivation of any other kind; 10) the total elimination of physical labor through robotics.
These are only some of the matters that should concern you. Instead, so many of you are walking into the future backwards, while you look behind into a past rapidly receding into the mists of time. Because you are unaware of what lies ahead of you, you are about to be smashed on your head - metaphorically - by a rod of iron.
And yet you worry about me blogging under a pseudonym, as if you and this website is of any import - save as useful for a psychological experiment of mine some weeks ago. (You see, I once was involved in the development of what the military calls psyops. I continue to consult on that. So, I dabble in it from time to time.)
May God have mercy on you in your pathetic ignorance.
Brian R. Sullivan
BS, you said your nasty bye yesterday, and your sorry ass is back today saying bye again. B Y E!
Now go take your meds, and maybe you will remember we don’t need another bye today or tomorrow.
As a college professor, I’ve never understood this notion of“indoctrination” at the university level. What exactly does it mean? That there is some special curriculum aimed at inculcating a particular set of values into students? I know that conservatives like Allan Bloom have argued that teaching works from the accepted Western canon (Homer, Dante, Shakespeare) helps uphold a set of values unique to our society, but, as someone who specializes in and teaches most of those texts, I can assure you that a) they constitute a widely diverse set of ideological positions (Dante’s love of imperial monarchy, for instance, vs. Melville’s—thoroughly radical—contempt for the imperialism of American commerce) and b) taken together do not, in any way shape or form, produce a coherent statement about Western culture—unless you want to advance the idea that Western culture is profoundly neurotic. As to opening the canon to marginalized writers—women, people of color—or at the very least teaching their works alongside the rest, such a democratic vision would be thoroughly endorsed by Whitman, or Emerson, or Thoreau. I suspect that the majority of commentators on this issue simply haven’t read many of even the primary texts of the Western canon; much less the others that various thinkers have put forward as works that should join their ranks.
The other statement I hear senselessly repeated is the idea that colleges and universities are filled with “tenured radicals” who advance Left-leaning agendas. While these people can be found on any college campus, one can also find plenty of faculty who are anti-intellectual, or ideologically conservative, or apolitical, or lazily rehashing material from twenty years ago, or just teaching composition, etc. All of them have their fans. Many of the campus radicals actually display a high level of intellectual rigor, as do many of the campus conservatives, which helps create a very rich atmosphere for students, and this is the point of the college experience. I get the sense from many people who talk about “indoctrination” that students simply aren’t being indoctrinated into the “proper ideas.”
Speaking to a Right-leaning conservative, I’d say that the real academic enemies, aside from Darwin, are Galileo, Copernicus, and Einstein (who happened to believe in god). I don’t believe these figures will be banished from the curriculum anytime soon. And for those worried about an “anti-military” stance of professors my age (40), you would probably be better off blaming M*A*S*H.
Jack, I could kiss you. Thanks for thinking of me.
Brian Sullivan,
Fear of an African-American president?
I would say more like a fear of a far-left African-American president with ties to unrepentant terrorists and racist, anti-American ‘reverends’.
Put a Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Mychal Massie, Alan Keyes on the ballot, (all of whom are several shades darker than Obama), and they’ll have my vote along with, I’m sure, most of the more conservative bloggers in this forum.
It’s always about politics, not color or gender.
Hillary Clinton has refused to be an attack dog for Obama. She said after the Palin selection that McCain, at the RNC, made no reference to equal pay for women. But the truth is, actions speak louder than words, Hillary. He picked a woman for a running mate!
In the article, “Does Obama pay women less than men?” (Hot News, June 30, 2008): (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/30/does-obama-pay-women-less-than-men/)
“Yet Obama may have a fair-pay issue of his own. According to Fred Lucas at Cybercast News Service, women on his (Obama’s) staff made $6,000 less than men on average.”
It also says, “Obama wants to have women get paid on an equal basis as men, which makes sense to me. He should start with himself rather than siccing the federal government on the private sector. As with change, clean politics, and leadership, Obama talks the talk while McCain walks the walk.”
We invite Hillary Clinton to vote for Sarah Palin, whom I’m sure Hillary is well impressed. Your vote, Hillary, will say to all, “Yes we can.” A vote for McCain+Palin will validate all you have said in favor of women’s rights in the workplace and equality. Validate yourself.
Down with Obama. Long live America and American values!
shorter ladytexan:
SEX IS FOR PROCREATION ONLY YOU ANIMALS!!!
“Jack, I could kiss you. Thanks for thinking of me.”
Was that a typo David? Didn’t you mean “... thinking for me…” (or demanding the authority to dictate what I can read here)?
“‘Jack, I could kiss you. Thanks for thinking of me.’
“Was that a typo David? Didn’t you mean “… thinking for me…” (or demanding the authority to dictate what I can read here)?”
Have you been following the thread at all? Jack and I occupy very different sides of the issues under discussion (though I wonder if we share the same musical tastes—Louis Armstrong’s Hot Fives and Sevens, anyone?). In fact, I bet he would shudder to think we were on the same page, much less than be the dictator of my thoughts.
Your comment seems transcendentally confused. Maybe you should do a little more reading, and a little less attacking.
Pardon me: In fact, I bet he would shudder to think we were on the same page; not to mention the notion that he’s the dictator of my thoughts (where would that put him?.
pizcaj—So you want the guys doing the “shuck and jive?” Or just “Who Dat Man?”
Pizcaj,
Alan Keyes - in a New York minute. He has always been someone I admired.
Walter Williams, pretty good as well, although I’m not as familiar with him.
Clarence Thoms is not bad either.
Anon,
<<<<shorter ladytexan:
SEX IS FOR PROCREATION ONLY YOU ANIMALS!!!>>>>>>
You wish wish that was what I said.
I have never heard so much complaining because it has been suggested that people be adult enough to accept responsibility for their actions.
Sex does not always have to end in procreation, but there is almost always the possibility. Be adult enough, human enough, to accept those reponsibilities.
We should always be responsible for the results of our actions. Such weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth when someone suggests that.
Mistating what I said, won’t change a thing.
David,
One thing I hear that is taught on campuses is the economic theories. The ‘labor is just another commodity’, and ‘a person who works with his hands should not be paid much’, that labor should be able to move freely around the world ignoring the sovereignty of countries.
That’s where the ‘isms’ are taught. That capitalism is wonderful, although what they are touting is corporatism and globalism. That’s why when someone suggests our trade with China is not good for this country and many of it’s people, we hear ‘isolationism’ and ‘protectionism’.
When we suggest perhaps we should not be spending billions maintaining military bases all over the world and do some protection of this country, we hear ‘isolationism’.
Well, China is at our back door, China and Mexico are getting very friendly, China is building aircraft carriers (it seems they promised they would never do that), China owns both ends of the Panama Canal and it is being reworked to allow larger ships, Chavez seems to be getting stronger despite our machinations down there and is inviting Russian aircraft to come and ‘train’ down there, Bolivia is tossing our ambassador out because they say we are encouraging riots down there. (Say it isn’t so, we’ve never done that before.)
And I will mention, once again, and think of it in light of the above information, we have 30-50 million foreigners here illegally and many of them are Mexican or South American, we also have a fair number of Chinese here illegally. Think they are all just here ‘looking for a better life’. What if just a small percentage are here for other reasons?
Maybe it might be time to think bringing our military home to protect us is not all that ‘isolationist’ after all.
When a country that was a strong, economically, as this country now has for it’s largst employer, a discount retail store that sells cheap, shoddy, Chinese merchandise - we are in trouble.
When we no longer manufacture enough to care for even our basic needs, we are in trouble.
When a foreign country, a communist country (remember when they were our enemy) is even being used to manufacture some of our military supplies - we are in trouble.
Isolationism? Common sense.
David Goodis,
I can’t help you, my friend, if your idea of a legitimate Black American can only be defined as being a left-wing radical such as yourself.
ladytexan,
A lot of things are taught on campuses. Economic theories, sure. Lots of them are taught. In the Business Department you might learn Micro- or Macroeconomics, for instance, but that’s not my field. I’m not sure what’s meant by the idea that “isms” are taught. “Feminism?” Yes. “Marxism?” Yes. Principles of “Capitalism?” Yes. All of these things are taught. Is it fundamentally evil to teach these things? I suppose that depends on your point of view. Again, I think what gets sold on these boards as “academia,” “college education” and so forth is just a caricature of the real thing.
I have to say I have a very hard time understanding the pejorative use of the term “Left-wing radical” here. Some people may as well be spitting out the word “devil.” There’s some misplaced idea that somehow the educational system is corrupting your children. How? By exposing them, for instance, to “Left-wing radicals?” How many of you actually know what the content of a “Left-wing radical’s” course amounts to? If it contained books by Marx, or post-Marxian philosophers, would that be inherently bad? Some of you, I think, might say yes. Now, dialectical materialism happens to be one of my areas of specialization, and I have to tell you that Marxists are just as concerned as you are that the culture’s traditions are being liquidated, or have disappeared altogether. The only difference is being that a number of people on this board argue that “liberals” and “liberal education” are somehow the cause, and Marxist thinkers ascribe the problem to our current economic system.
Take a ride down to your local Wal-Mart. Then consider how many local stores went out of business shortly after Wal-Mart arrived. Think about the ways in which capitalism has replaced local cultures with an anonymous (if shinier, more profitable) monoculture, and all the destruction that industrial processes have wreaked on the environment. Think about our current forms of work and the splintering effect they have on families, on their schedules, on the relationships between parents and kids. The way people are forced to relate to each other according to their ability to earn. Now put this together with the technologies that divorce people from reality, along with the vacancy of the culture those technologies create and transmit. Every single day the culture produces the same kinds of identities, and the media engenders the same sorts of attitudes in people to no conceivable end. Look across these boards: the same phrases are repeated and repeated, the same stale notions, manufactured, on both sides, by a media that is neither wholly conservative nor liberal; is it mechanical, artificial, a continually glowing pulse. How is it possible that “liberal ideas” alone have produced this existence? How is it possible that “conservative beliefs in America” can somehow heal this? Much “Left-wing radicalism” attempts to diagnose the same problems that plague the people on this board. But unfortunately the damage is done. What we have now is a system of integrated world capitalism that lacks a single unified center. It is neither American, nor European, nor Asian. You and I are opposed to many of the same things. I would prefer traditional cultures, and music that isn’t processed, and education that creates active learners, and a public that reads instead of being passive receivers of information. I just think you’re pointing your finger at exactly the wrong things. The problem is bigger, more systemic, than some binary notion of “liberal/conservative.”
I don’t hate Palin because she had a child with Down Syndrome. I hate her because she believes that every woman should make the choices she did. I hate her because she supports abstinence, and when that doesn’t work (which it NEVER does), she takes away choice to have the baby. Nice job at supporting the future women of America. And especially nice for females who are raped or molested and have the horrible misfortune of getting pregnant. Even in that case it’s not allowed. I’m personally pro-choice because I think any woman should have the right to choose. But if the government wants to control my uterus, whatever. However, in the case of rape or incest? No. Just absolutely not. That’s just horribly wrong and that’s why feminists hate her. She’s a hypocrite… a woman who clearly hates women to have no compassion under even the most extreme and horrible situations.
“You know, I’m not a liberal, but I know a lot of vets who’ve returned from Iraq and I now have to wonder about labelling something a pathology. Our convention had, dispite my hopes to the contrary, a decidedly militaristic undertone. That also reflects a culture of death, does it not? The “born” are certainly being terminated. It’s weird that we’re talking so much about unborn termination and not the termination of lives that are already fully realized, educated and imaginative. What about the war? I’ve been trying to wake up fellow Republicans to the paradoxes of this, but they don’t seem to understand.”
Oh, this is so true that it’s scary. I guess it has more to do with who the death is serving. Apparently, if it is under the guise of serving the country, then it is all well and good.
David,
OK, I am in agreement with you about 95% here.
If I ever gave the impression I had an faith in the idea of lib/con or rep/dem, I have done a very poor job of expressing myself.
Assuming any of us really had a clue what liberal or conservative means these days, no one is totally one or the other. Goodness, we have minds, thoughts all our own, why do we deny them by locking ourselves into some mythical idealogy.
I agree this country is being cloned.
The isms bother me when they are wrongly tacked to an idea or action and when they are used incorrectly, as with Ron Paul’s ideas.
The economics that I get ‘taught’ are in support of global economics and in support of the idea that human beings are not important, countries are not important, ethics and morals don’t matter - only profit, etc.
You know, though, I don’t get as much of that as I did - say 6-8 years ago. I wonder if all those people who were sure because they had an education and they would always be in demand and always make a good salary, still are. Actually, I hope they all still have good jobs, or better jobs and maybe they just rethought the idea.
I’m not afraid of Communist China as an idealogy as much as I am as an economy. They are fast becoming THE superpower, in every way, while we slide down the register.
When I talk about Communist China, it is an attempt to point out the fact that people are really hitting hard on Obama as a Communist - and he may be. At the same time, they are voting for all the Republicans who have put the sweet trade deals in place that has made China the powerhouse it is.
At the same time, they are worshipping at the alter of so called free trade, that is making China the powerhouse it is.
At the same time, they are spending their hard earned dollars on cheap Chinese geegaws that won’t last - making China the powerhouse it is.
As far as education, as public education, I don’t think it is liberal as much as simply attempting to destroy, for lack of a better word, our belief in our country, the role of parent in a child’s life, even moral values that should be left to the parent to teach.
I once saw an article that was attributed to Stalin (some Russian leader). The gist of it was that Russia would not have to fight this country militarily. All they had to do was teach away their belief in country and God, promote drugs and promiscious sex and they could simply walk in and take it over.
Whether that came from STalin or not, it is a prophecy that certainly is possible. It should have included rampant materialism though.
OK, again if I left the impression I believed in lib/con, I must have lost it somewhere.
So what do we point the finger?
Ariel,
Abstinence works every time it’s used. Nothing works if it isn’t used. I’m not sure we can truly claim that abstinence works any worse than our sex education has.
Have you heard of aspirin for birth control? It will work as well.
The time to make that choice is before you have sex - not after. To suggest that human beings are not capable of controlling themselves, taking precautions or taking responsibility for the results of their actions, puts humanity in a very poor light.
Realistically, how many women become pregnant because of incest or rape compared to the overall number of abortions?
‘horrible misfortune of getting pregnant’. That almost sounds like somehow something was thrown on her and she became pregnant through no action of her own.
I can’t equate life with misfortune. A baby may be inconvenient, life changing, tough to care for, a surprise, but misfortune?
ladytexan, I’m not sure what to make of that Russian prophecy. And I don’t know where to point the finger, but I do believe ethics must begin to guide all our country’s dealings. That’s the only thing that makes sense in a global economy—an awareness of the consequences that might befall environments, societies and minds by the choices Americans make. We must see that these three spheres are related. We have to abandon the notion of “only individuals matter” and reframe our thinking in terms of “organism plus environment.”
In my creative writing classes I tell students that when they’re writing poems, they have to discover a form for the piece. And what, I ask them, is a form? I finally realized that form is “a complex relationship between a subject and its environment.” Think about this for yourself. A person is born with traits that are inherited, or a soul, etc, things that themselves cannot change. But the form that person takes, their psychology, their attitudes, their outlook, and so on, represents “a complex relationship between those traits and the environment.” We can extend this thinking outward to take on so many different things.
Now, to take up a question you asked about free market dealings, I worry a lot about a neoliberal economy. Free dealings might be good for profit, but it also creates a market entirely without ethics. Which can be destructive in all three ecologies (minds, societies, environments). You’re right: “rampant materialism” should have been listed as one of the evils.
Senator Joe Biden proudly proclaims that he was beaten with impunity by his older sister as a youth. This is the same sister that raised his two sons after his wife and daughter were killed in an auto accident.
Biden has often claimed that the Violence against Women Act is the greatest achievement of his career. Yet he fails to recognize the role women play as perpetrators of violence against men and children. Hundreds of studies show that women commit acts of domestic violence as often as, or more often than men. It’s a well established fact that a child is more likely to be killed by the mother than by the father, a neighbor, an acquaintance, a stranger or a sex offender. Many studies also show that lesbian women physically attack their intimate partners at least as often as heterosexual men.
As a result of Biden’s Violence against Women Act, the federal government pays states to create laws effectively requiring that innocent men be removed from their homes and families without even an allegation of violence, with no legitimate standards of evidence, when a woman makes a claim that she is afraid.
Elaine Epstein, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association (1999), has said “the facts have become irrelevant… restraining orders are granted to virtually all who apply. Regarding divorce cases, she states “allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage”. According to Epstein, who is also a former president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association, restraining orders are doled out “like candy” and “in virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had.”
State restraining order laws are starting to fall because they’re unconstitutional. The federal law behind them, written by Joe Biden, is likely to fall as well, not because it isn’t popular, but because it is clearly unconstitutional.
There is a rapidly growing activist community dedicated to addressing this issue. One of the focal points of this community is the Glenn Sacks blog, http://www.glennsacks.com .
Supporting Documentation Follows (if it isn’t blocked by the anti spam filter)
Here are some of the facts regarding Biden’s abuse at the hand of his sister. During senate hearings held on December 11, 1990, Biden testified to the abuse.
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0503roberts.html
This is the senate hearing transcript.
http://thenononsenseman.com/Media/BidenViolenceSenateHearing_1990.pdf
This recent CDC study indicates that women between the ages of 18 and 28 initiate reciprocal violence against their intimate partners about as often as men. It also indicates that women initiate non-reciprocal violence against their intimate partners more than twice as often as men.
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a
Here is a link to a bibliography of over 200 studies indicating that women are as violent as men in their intimate relationships:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
According to the US Department of Justice, women also abuse, neglect and kill their children at significantly higher rates than men. Here’s some of the data on child homicides.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/figure4_2.htm
Research clearly indicates that lesbian battery is at least as common as heterosexual battery.
http://www.glennsacks.com/domestic_violence_a_2.htm
http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianhealth/a/DVFactsMyths.htm
Cathy Young reports on the Elaine Epstein quote and the broader issue at Salon.com here:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/10/25/restraining_orders/
and provides in depth analysis here:
http://www.iwf.org/files/50c58dda09f16c86b2c652aa047944f6.pdf
NJ DV Law Overturned Amid Epidemic of False Allegations
New Jersey’s domestic violence statute has recently been found unconstitutional. The New Jersey Attorney General is taking this case to the state’s Supreme Court.
The New Jersey Law Journal reports that Judge Richard Russell of Ocean City made the following remarks on tape during a judicial training session regarding the issuance of restraining orders.
source: http://www.fathersandhusbands.org/NJ_Rights_1.pdf
“If I had one message to give you today, it is that your job is not to weigh the parties’ rights as you might be inclined to do as having been private practitioners. Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.’ “
A new municipal judge attending the training session stated “The statute says we should apply just cause in issuing the order.” “You seem to be saying to grant every order.” Russell quickly replied, “Yeah, that’s what I seem to be saying.”
The article is full of comments from Russell and his colleagues that are equally inflammatory.
Perhaps you think Russell should have been disbarred for instructing judges to ignore the constitution. In doing so, he violated his greatest responsibility as a judge in the most blatant way possible. Perhaps you think he should have gone to prison.
Russell now serves on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s State Domestic Violence Working Group, the Executive Committee of the State Bar’s Family Law Section, and the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Family Practice Committee. He currently is the chair of the court’s Child Support Subcommittee.
Given a recent ruling declaring New Jersey’s domestic violence statute unconstitutional and given the imminent Supreme Court challenge, the truth regarding the real practices that are being used to separate men from their children and their homes must be heard.
David,
I like the way you said that.
You know when I talk about globalism, I mostly talk about it’s effect on this country and it’s people.
The fact is, I’m concerned about the effect of this on the poorest people of the world. To some it may seem great that families can now move into cities and work at the factories, sometimes sweatshops. The idea is at least they are making some money.
What do they loose? Many times they loose their culture, their extended families, their roots and I do believe in roots.
They are also vulnerable to criminals and diseases that exist in the cities.
We used to drive through El Paso, Texas, quite often in visiting Phoenix. The US is separated from Mexico by a sagging chain link fence. You can see the houses on the other side. There are neighborhoods that don’t look too bad, but there are also small, shacks crowded together hanging on a hillside sometimes. These are people who came from the interior to work at the factories on the Mexican side.
Many of these are the Indians from the interior - some of them do not even speak Spanish. When my husband talks with some of these Indians, he really has to get his hands to moving around and he works very hard to find the few words in Spanish they use, or kinda Spanish.
Are these people’s lives better? I don’t think so and I think they paid a very high price.
I am not sure why they don’t go home, except they are like a lot of us, the money they are making has a tight hold on them.
Corporations are raping and pillaging the poorer nations. That shouldn’t happen.
There are stories of the World BAnk making loans to countries that will never be able to repay them, when they can’t the resources of the country are sold off to big business. There is a thought that this was planned.
David Goodis, what you don’t seem to understand or don’t want to is that Republicans believe that one of the government’s primary responsibilities is to protect life from violence. So,please, stop with the sophistry.
You know one thing about all these posts that should become apparent - we should not label each other.
Many democrats are very much against abortion, as many republicans support it.
I do agree those supporting this President and the war seem conflicted.
Death is death and all people are God’s children. Jesus did seem to put the welfare of children up there as pretty important, but I believe he cared for adults as well.
The deaths I speak of are not just our soldiers - they aren’t the only ones dying over there. There are untold numbers of Iraqi civilians dying, innocents - including children - including children in the womb.
Is being miles way and lobbing bombs to kill children and unborn children forgiveable, but not an abortionist’s suction machine?
That goes the other way for those who support abortion, yet find fault with the war.
That’s why so many things should not be put in the political arena - and exactly why it is.
That’s why people should not be labeled - and exactly why they are.
Not labeling people is part of the PC disease, and besides, the liberals, have no problem labeling us, in fact, it is all they do. Think of all those posting here from the left - it is all they do is label - and they are not even nice about it. Labeling them back, to me, is legitimate. Besides I try not to make generalities about a group unless they are apt to the group, but when labeled by the left by a nasty poster, I will always label them right back for exactly what they are.
Yes, you got that right, the left says do not label, yet that is all they do. Just as the left yells tolerance, and as you can see from left posters here, they are the most intolerant people America has ever produced. In fact, it is the best way to figure out if the person is a lefty; if they do it, but say don’t do it, then you probably go a leftist. Do what I say, no as I do!
Jack,
No labelling is far from a so-called liberal idea - have you read the posts?
I see as much intolerance from the so-called right as I do the so called left - or liberal/conservative.
You do realize when you label someone or some action as either liberal/conservative, you have automatically made it acceptable to 50% of the voting public and automatically unacceptable to the other 50%.
That gives the politicians the total freedom to do as they like. The only people they have to be concerned with is that very small sliver of ‘unaffiliated’ voters.
Do you think every so called liberal/democrat is pro abortion? Anti-war? Do you not think that many of those soldiers in Iraq are Democrats - regardless of what the ‘other side’ says, there are many Democrats in the military.
Do yo think every so called conservative/republican is anti-abortion? Far from it - not in idealogy and not in practice. How about the war? Not hardly. There are plenty of conservatives who see through the flim-flam of ‘fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here’ - and leaving the border wide open.
So go ahead and label everyone one thing or another. That way we never have to actually discuss things and find a meeting ground to perhaps elect better politicians. That way the parties can continue with the stranglehold they have. Thay way they can perpetuate the destructive things, blurring of our borders, nasty trade deals, globalism, big government, more control, illegal immigration, and, yes, the war (they talk a good game, but they act another way) , that both sides of the one party system seems to want.
That way we don’t actually have to talk to people about what they really want and feel, we can simply dismiss them, out of hand, by looking at the lable we have applied.
That’s what we have been doing for several decades now -
‘How’s that working for us?’
Just to elaborate on what you’re saying, Jack…
We on the Right are labeled as Nazis by the radical elements of the Left, but who’s been advocating the right to kill babies in the womb for any reason (medical reasons, as they call it) up to the point of a baby being partially delivered during the 9th month, and in the most gruesome manner? You would have to travel back in time to a Nazi concentration camp to find that sort of barbarism.
That’s part of being a ‘progressive’?
I would say it’s more of being a ‘regressive’.
I would also recommend that Conservatives abstain from speaking at college campuses, to avoid getting a pie thrown in their face from a member of the ‘freedom of speech and diversity’ crowd.
I just wish that David Goodis, who offered his mature commentary on my list of black conservative dream candidates [“the guys doing the “shuck and jive?” Or just “Who Dat Man?”] in countering Mr. Sullivan’s accusation of us “fearing an African American president”, that he would just try to open up his mind.
His apparent racist, one-dimensional view that ‘legitimate’ Black Americans can only be of the far-left, angry, paranoid, anti-American variety, shows that he would have made a fine plantation owner back in the day. In fact, he could have enlisted the help of Jessie and Al to help ‘keep them all in line’.
But I’m going to lead by example, and show David that I’m willing to be open-minded about his outlook on black conservatives.
For instance, if I’m on the streets and happen to see a couple of blacks dressed and acting like Amos and Andy, I’ll assume that they’re on their way to a Project 21 meeting, and will ask them if I can tag along, so that I can shake hands with Mr. Massie.
pizcaj,
I understand both of you regarding labelling. I know the temptation to fire back with a label if you have been labelled.
The fact is, we are none of us all liberal or conservative or right wing, left wing.
We have independent thought - it just that we are not exercising it too well the last few decades.
By labelling ourselves or someone else right or left, we are deciding that we already know exactly how they feel about everything. That’s not possible.
We also just might be spending time convincing ourselves we believe in some ideology, when we do not, because our ‘side’ believes in it. Maybe just going along with something we believe is wrong, because the party needs our support.
We are cutting ourselves off from any possibility of getting together and discussing things. Perhaps finding common ground on some issues and getting them fixed.
Again, remember the politicians, different sides have been in power off and on for 50 years, and look where we are. The things that truly harm us are going right along.
Why not open our minds and try to find common issues and make SOME changes. The rate we are going - nothing is going to change - for the better anyway. The politicians, both sides, are going to continue on their march to globalization. Because that is their goal.
@ladytexan: i agree with you. It’s far too easy—and obstructs intelligent discourse—to simply call someone a name. It’s a gross oversimplification, and really is no different than simply telling someone to shut up.
The most divisive thing in American politics today is the fact we tend to cling to lines drawn in the sand long ago, that now are in the wrong place. Most of the time, when i debate issues with my dyed-in-the-wool conservative family members, we find that (after an often lengthy and sometimes heated argument) we actually agree fundamentally.
When it comes down to it, we have more in common than we think—but we have pundits and propaganda fanning the flames of division, rather than promoting any kind of productive unity. Also, the seeming disregard for truth (call it political correctness, call it what you will…i call it a spineless lack of integrity), and unwillingness to potentially offend anyone, or perhaps that people are far too easily offended…
ladytexan is absolutely correct when she says nothing is going to change for the better at the rate we’re going. Why is that? Because the same people are pulling the strings of both parties—and yes globalisation has everything to do with it.
If you’ll allow me to drop an anecdote quickly:
My grandfather’s is quite the classic American Dream story…he was born to a poor family in Nebraska, grew up during the Depression, but worked hard all his life and ended up retiring from an upper management position at a major corporation with a pension and retirement benefits. He holds an earnest belief in the kind of work ethic that got him where he is, and i have tremendous respect for that, so it pains me to tell him that the rules by which he lived his life are quite different now. These days, it’s extremely unlikely that any major corporation will allow an employee, regardless how ‘loyal,’ to retire with benefits like my grandfather did. More likely, as happened to a co-worker i once knew, you will be laid off shortly before you become eligible for the benefits you were promised when you signed on.
Whether you choose to believe me or not, one of the fundamental aspects of capitalism is that it requires a steady supply of cheap labour. In a global economy, this aspect alone trumps any loyalty major corporations have to their country of origin. Why hire Americans—who demand a wage high enough to live even a modest American lifestyle, plus the outlay of workers comp, medical benefits, etc. (in order to remain a competitive employer)—when you can outsource labour to places like Bangladesh, where workers are thrilled to be making cents on the dollar, and you don’t have any of the other overhead. Better yet, why not report Bangladesh as your base of operations, in spite of the fact you’re an American company? That way, you can avoid paying those pesky American taxes. Meanwhile, you’re selling your products in America, taking advantage of the lucrative economy, but don’t have to pay your fair share back into it.
If you ask me, if there’s a single most damaging parasite to this country, it’s this. Plus, these people are lobbying the government to ensure their activities may continue. Years ago, people expressed concern that the Mafia had infiltrated the government. Guess what? It’s worse…
Well that sure should bring discussion to an end LadyTexan. And just as I figured the LEFT immediately endorsed your proposition. Too bad they will never play by those rules, but the RIGHT, Conservatives and Republicans are expected to follow these rules and the left will point it out each time you flub up the rules as they gleefully go their merry way slamming us as if the rules never existed. I then think of that liberal campfire song - Kumbuyaa, or however it is spelled.
It reminds we of three wars we fought with at least one arm tied behind our backs. We compromised (as LadyTexan is really advocating) in the first one and the Korean peninsula is still divided, and the ENEMY is still alive and well in the north creating all sorts of problems for the south and the entire world - though he may croak it seems soon, but another tyrant will take his place. Then we really had our hands tied fighting another “civilized” war in Nam, and we all know what happened there, the left run up the white flag of surrender and then when the GIs came home they spit on them. And now in Iraq we have the left trying to pull the same crap.
Playing civilized LadyTexan, while fine and great, and I’ll admit is the RIGHT thing to do, is just what the enemy wants. While that may to many be the wrong word to use - enemy - it is the truth. We are in a fight for the heart and soul of America, and the right has been losing that war for 40 years. We are essentially on a late battlefield of that war, and we can continue to play by the rules the left wishes us to play by, BUT they will not play by those same rules.
Because they play by a different set of rules, that the ends justify the means, and they will lie, cheat and steal to get their way, just as they have done and been successful doing all these years. I will give them NO quarter, as I have learned they will give me none, as has been a painful lesson so many times. The meek will not inherit the world, the civilized will be beaten and slaughtered.
Of course, LadyTexan, no one is wholly Conservative and wholly liberal, or whatever “label”. But those labels do put sides into a general area of belief sets. For example, Ron Paul’s supporters and Conservatives really have more things in common than they have differences, but a couple of those differences are quite glaring - and therefore the great divide between the two camps. Senator Lieberman and Democrats have most beliefs in common, but he is pro-Iraq War, a Henry Jackson Democrat in that respect, and the left hates his guts because of it. First they tried to run him out of the Senate, and he ran as an independent and still won. Now when he stands with the other real supporter of fighting the Islamofascists where they are rather than in our streets, they will probably run him out of their “side” of the Senate and force him onto the Republican side, where he is to the extreme left of many there. That is how glaring to them is the issue of losing the war, as they really want to run up the white flag of surrender, and he abhors such a thing.
So, LadyTexan, by all means play by your rules, if you wish, and while I agree that it would be great if everyone played by the same set of standards and that it IS the right thing to do, the political reality is that the left started this nastiness, and they will continue to play by the nasty in your face way of doing things, as has been amplely shown on this very post site.
And because they will, and I am in the fight to win, I will give it back to them as down and dirty as they give it to me. And mind you, that is the key here, they do it and then I do it back in return - and it ALWAYS commences with them.
The nastiness of their ways was once again shown last night to me, when in trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, they really wished me to come to great harm by accusations that were not true, and they knew it, but they just loved trying to put me in a position where I would squirm.
And let us also think of how they have treated Sarah Palin. Everything they so-called hold dear in their PC beliefs they have broken to beat on her and her family, as they hate her so much, wish her harm, and want her brought down. Man, that must take a whole lot of courage on her part to face those slinky felons when she knows that they have nothing but ill will planned. In here first MSM interview, the contempt just rolled off the tongue of Gibson. Just as the contempt for us rolls off the words of most of those that post here from the left.
And I am going to answer them with the same disdain and contempt - since it seems to be the only way to do it - play by those rules they have imposed on the discussion. Though I have tried to use humor to make fun of them many times so I do not have to use that way - but last night that humor was turned around and used against me.
The ENEMY, and sadly that is who they are now, as that is how they see us, is fighting to win, and if we are to win we must be just as nasty. I wish I could harness the energy they show in their hate against us to fight the Islamofascists and the illegals problem in this country. Both problems would disapear in a short period of time, and America would be the better for it. But they hate us and coddle them, and that is a mark that shows the problem we have between the two “sides.”
“... can outsource labour to places like Bangladesh, where workers are thrilled to be making cents on the dollar…”
Can you think of a better way to help the poor of the world than to give them a job so they can EARN their keep? Would you rather burn the wealth of this country on creating welfare states overseas? Your whine makes absolutely no rational sense blackhat.
Trade is about giving value in return for value. THAT’s what Capitalism is about.
I think you are confused. The founders rejected that idea that the king’s authority comes from God. However, they never rejected that the idea that all authority comes from God. Both concepts are mutually exclussive. You claim that the founders were deists, which historically is not true. Not even Franklin, whom many consider deist, was actually a true deist. As a matter of fact, even Jefferson wrote that he was a Christian.
The same is true with the source of authority. Our founders did not want to create a democracy, but a republican form of government, which is outlined in the Constitution clearly. This is the key to understand our form of government.
Hamilton says in The Federalist # 1, “this country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties , should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.” The government comes from the people, but the authority comes from God.
ladytexan,
You’re so correct with your reference to ‘party bunker mentality’ with the electorate. I’m sure, for example, that many moderate Democrat voters are not happy with the dangers of having open borders, yet they’ll still pull the lever for the Democrat on the ballot simply because they always voted Democrat. Same goes for Moderate and Liberal Republicans, simply because they will never vote Democrat.
However, labels to me, when used correctly and without malice, are a very useful political tool.
After all, it was labels that took me out of my ‘Republicans are good’ mentality that I had up till around the mid-1990’s.
For example,I had previously ‘rationalized’ H.W. Bush’s broken ‘no new taxes’ pledge as a sign of ‘momentary’ weakness that resulted from perceived pressures he was receiving from the Democrat congress…an unfortunate mistake that he wouldn’t make again if capable of turning back the clock.
Little did I know at that time, that he was a Rockefeller Republican and a globalist. It was only recently, thanks to the Internet, that I came across one of his addresses to Congress calling for a ‘New World Order’.
Then after seeing the Republican establishment, along with the Democrats, and with the full support of right-wing talk radio, enact those disastrous ‘free trade’ agreements, and how viciously the Republican establishment went after Buchanan when he won New Hampshire in ‘96, I had gotten out of my Party mentality and voted for U.S. Taxpayers candidate Howard Phillips in ‘96.
(By the way, your statement to Jack….. “I see as much intolerance from the so-called right as I do the so called left” is validated by the political ‘piling on’ vilification that Buchanan suffered from his own Party that year.)
After voting for Buchanan in the 2000 primary, I held my nose an voted for Bush in the general election after Buchanan dropped out of the race because I was didn’t want a continuation of the Clinton era in the White House with the election of Gore.
(Had I known how bad Bush would turn out to be, I would have voted 3rd party again.)
In 2004, after seeing Bush stretching out the conflict in Iraq and refusing to close the borders after 9/11, I voted for Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka.
So because I was able to attach various benign labels to political figures such as neocon George Bush in 2004, Moderate Republican Bob Dole in ‘96 (I didn’t know of the word Neocon then), Conservative Republican Pat Buchanan, etc., it’s helped me to sift out various elements within my own Party who I felt were hurting the country, before casting my vote.
I read David Goodis’s post to you (#42) in this thread, lamenting the ‘pejorative use of the term Left-wing Radical’, which was a subtle reference to me giving him that label (in #41) after he made a childish remark in (#39), all of which is summed up a few posts ago by me.
The reason for my calling him a left wing radical was to differentiate him and his ilk from the more mainstream element of the Democrat Party who, I feel, don’t approve of things such as throwing pies at people they disagree with, Geraldo saying he’d like to “spit in the face” of Michelle Malkin because of her disagreement with him on illegal immigration, racist and profanity filled insults that were e-mailed to Malkin and which she posted in one of her more recent books, the Crucifix in urine ‘art’ exhibits, Julianne Malveaux wishing, on a national talk show, that Clarence Thomas dies of a heart attack, etc.
I guess I differ from you on the idea of ‘death is death’. For example, Tookie William’s death by lethal injection to me, is far different from the deaths of those he murdered with a shotgun at point-blank range with no provocation.
Your statement…“Again, remember the politicians, different sides have been in power off and on for 50 years, and look where we are.”, in my opinion is not totally true.
I have yet to see a true Conservative president and Congress in that time period.
As far as Reagan, he was a noticeably better mainstream Republican than the other Republican presidents, but I would hesitate in labeling him as a Conservative.
A Conservative would never have nominated Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court, would have made some attempt to get us out of the UN, and wouldn’t have granted amnesty.
As a good mainstream Republican president though, Reagan fulfilled his mandate of cutting taxes and made most of us feel proud of being Americans.
I wish we were given a chance to experience both a Conservative president and Congress enjoying the same size Conservative majorities in the House and Senate that Democrat presidents such as Carter and Clinton enjoyed. Clinton had it all in his first two years of his first term.
So because labels helped me to identify John McCain as a neocon globalist, there is no way I can support him. The icing on the cake was when he addressed, thus legitimizing, La Raza.
Chuck Baldwin is my pick.
pizcaj,
Despite being a conservative Republican for most of my adult life I’m tempted to vote for Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party as well. The reason is quite simple; I believe that both major parties have little but disdain for the Constitution. As Benjamin Franklin said, those who would trade essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.
Now I’m not against change, but in a democratic Republic under the rule of constitutional law it’s not the providence of judges to legislate whether from the bench or for Congress to involve the Federal government in much of what can’t be justified by the Constitution. Even though many programs might be good and well intentioned, there’s a clear manner in which to change the Constitution to allow such programs thru the amendment process. As Karl Marx said, the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.
But what concerns me is whether or not a Constitutional Republic can survive Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, particularly if they gain a 60 seat senate majority. Furthermore, most likely the next president will have the opportunity to appoint 2 or more supreme Court justices. Just look at the damage the SCOTUS did in ending property rights in America thru the Kelo Decision. Without property rights can we truly have political rights? What would John Locke say? Would judges appointed by a Pres. Obama favor the SCOTUS Heller Decision on the 2nd Amendment? And might we not face further Balkanization with an eventual western Aztlan and an eastern Caliphate? What of a further erosion of the freedom of speech, assembly, right to speedy trial, counsel, and other aspects of the Bill of Rights that we seem to take for granted? Haven’t the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts, largely unread by and even unavailable to much of Congress before passage, done sufficient harm?
At the same time you’re correct about the Republican Party being controlled by neoconservatives. I see them as slow motion globalist liberals (not quite as socialist as liberal Democrats) with a desire to bring democracy, not a republican form of government, to the world, even by force if necessary. As has been said, democracy is one of the worst forms of government as it often degenerates into mobocracy and then gives way to an authoritarian form of government. By the way, while Sen. McCain may be a globalist, I’m not sure he’s a neoconservative, although he’s no conservative for sure. But I’m convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Sen. Obama is a liberal Democrat socialist, and that’s not meant as a pejorative but as a means of describing his political worldview in a shorthand manner.
By the way, as much as I appreciate some of Patrick Buchanan’s views, I can’t help shaking the feeling that he’s somewhat of an America first isolationist without a real appreciation of the threat radical Islam poses to Western Civilization in general and the US in particular. Unfortunately for Europe, it’s already in the initial stages of Dhimmitude so as to avoid Dar al-Harb under Islam’s view of Mar al-Islam.
Caesar,
I believe that our Founding Fathers believed all authority came from God, including that of the King. Clearly Genesis 9: 1-7 tells us government is established by God and Romans 13: 1-7 tells Christians we are to be subject to government. However, I think they believed that the King of England had rejected God’s admonitions on ruling and therefore had forfeited his right to rule over them. Thus in addition to listing their principles for dissolution of the political bond with the Crown they also presented a list of grievances to back it up. So while the King’s authority came from God, the King had broken the link and therefore the Founders felt they were within their right to rebel. Would you agree?
By the way, don’t many of the same grievances that the Founders described between the Colonies and the Crown exist today between the States and the people, and the Federal government?
Why do you need a label on someone to know if you want to vote for him/her. Can’t we just say, ‘I agree with them, I think they will be the best one to run this country?”
No we haven’t had a conservative nor democratic President in a long time. That’s not the point. The point is, we have had the same people making decisions for a very long time. Check out the incumbency rates. Whether we call them Dem/Rep or Orange/Purples, it matters not. They are the same people who have gotten us in this mess. Yet we continue to support them based on whether they are Oranges or Purples. Each with his/her own cheerleaders and pep squads.
Isn’t anyone tired of being had by these people?
In our lives, we work with, got to church with, hire, work for, sell to, buy from, serve on committees with people who do not share our every belief. Yet we do manage to get together and do the things we need to do.
I did not suggest any rules. I am suggesting that we stop being guided by their rhetoric and begin to think for ourselves.
I’m suggesting that in this country we truly have more things on which we agree than on which we disagree. Perhaps we might disagree on how to achieve those things, that’s what you talk about and work out.
Helen and I disagree totally on this war and on this President. We agree on illegal immigration. We disagree on how to solve the problem. She thinks writing lawmakers will work, I think there are other actions that will work. So why can’t we get together and both write letters and both begin putting our money where our mouth is concerning the employers of these illegals. Wouldn’t that be better than our just sitting around and calling each other names while the politicians give this country away to illegals? That’s not a compromise - it’s working together.
We can work together on issues we can, or we can be stubborn and demand everyone agree with us all the time - and each demand the entire pie. While we are arguing over who gets the pie, the politicians will either have it eaten or given away.
You know in a republic (which we do not have, but should) or a democracy, everyone doesn’t get what they want every time. The idea is that we all hash things out, give a little, take a little, and have a decent country. If one side always got everything they wanted, we would no longer have a democracy or freedoms.
While I didn’t suggest compromise, many things in life won’t work without it. Not many things that involves more than one person will work without compromise. Think marriage————-
So is ‘winning for our side’ more important than our country and our children’s future? No party will ever ‘win’ - but even if we do, we may very well have lost our country.
I am really tired of hearing “liberals” (fascists) talk of a womans right to abortion. It is simple, murder to a child because that mother and father did not want to take responsibility for their act. in case of rape and incest, I ask you, was the child at fault or the perpetrator of the act. Abortion in a fascists view is always the way, adoption is not even in their view, but they can preach anti-war everyday and all day, but a childs life is off limits.Isn’t this an oximoron? They take to the streets with violence against war (duh) They want to question someone with true love who keeps their child? It all boils down to accepting responsibility. we sent war criminals in Nazi Germany to be hanged for experimenting on people,killing children and aborting babies, we are no better. Angle that peaceful fascists.
@anonymous: i shouldn’t be replying to your post in the first place—posting as ‘anonymous’ implies you’re unwilling to put any shrift behind your own arguments—but for the sake of the discussion:
i suppose, ‘anonymous’ that your argument would be the same with regard to the European colonisation of Africa (c. 1890). The European powers (principally Belgium) sought to justify their their presence there, saying they were serving the noble purpose of bringing ‘civilisation’ to the ‘savages.’ Of course, as Joseph Conrad wrote, the reality “...was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind…”
Never believe that capitalism, simply by being capitalism, has at all times a benevolent purpose. Watch the documentary Life and Debt, about Jamaica, and how so-called ‘free trade’ sabotaged the economy, and the creation of ‘free zones’ essentially stripped the country of its sovereignty and right to self-determination…then tell me globalisation is a good thing.
As palatable as it seems to say corporations who outsource their labour are ‘helping the poor,’ that’s not the reality—outsourcing is aimed at saving a buck, nothing more. Besides, as this happens to be a conservative forum, i think at least a few people would agree with me that American companies ought to be employing American workers, before they—as you would say—‘philanthropically employ the poor’ overseas.
@Jack H Hansen: Your tone is reminiscent of an angry extremist. Usually i wouldn’t got after that, as doing so borders on ad-hominem, but i’m pointing it out because it severely diminishes your credibility. i think, should we be having this conversation in person, you’d literally be screaming…
You say you believe ladytexan’s sentiments as to the merit of compromise are correct—that compromise is the right thing to do—but because ‘the enemy,’ as you say, wants compromise, as well, that’s reason enough to be unwilling to compromise. Do you have any idea how ridiculous, arrogant and foolish that sounds? That’s like a 7-year-old telling their parent, “Just because you told me to, I won’t!”
Regarding your comments about fighting wars “...with at least one arm tied behind our backs,” what do you mean, exactly? The wars you speak of we had no business fighting in the first place. They were profoundly wasteful expenditures of resources, effort, and most of all, human life. Iraq is no different. It was a pointless ruse based on lies and disinformation, and in all likelihood, vast ulterior motives.
Also, just to clear up a few things: ‘Islamofascism’ is a pitiful term, utterly devoid of legitimate meaning. It’s propaganda—an effort to equate ostensibly Muslim extremists with Nazism and Italian Fascism. In truth, only the latter two share anything in common.
Oh, and i hate to be nitpicky, but ‘kumbayah’ is a Christian song from the 1930s—hardly a ‘liberal song.’
“... outsourcing is aimed at saving a buck, nothing more ...”
Exactly! Savings for both the producers and the consumers. Efficiency and productivity are hallmarks of Capitalism.
The other examples you spun as “capitalism” were in fact colonialism, a less-obvious form of slavery.
Re: “free trade” the unfortunate fact is that what is touted as “free trade” is nothing more than agreements between politicians on how badly they will screw each others’ country through tariffs and subsidies in the name of nationalism and protecting votes ..er jobs.
“... as you would say—’philanthropically employ the poor’ overseas. ...”
I have said no such thing. Don’t put your words into my mouth!
I would be last to argue that Capitalism’s purpose is to achieve the altruistic goal of lifting others out of poverty. That is one fortunate consequence of Capitalism, not the goal. The goal is freely exchanging value for value as determined by the rational self-interest of the participants in the trade, NOT by their governments.
It is exactly government interference in markets and trade and the corrupt “crony capitalism” deals between corrupt politicians and corrupt businessmen that are the real problems. You confuse symptoms with the disease.
@anonymous: i apologise if i misquoted you. Your exact words were:
“Can you think of a better way to help the poor of the world than to give them a job so they can EARN their keep?”
Yes, indeed. Far more efficient than slavery is a system in which the slaves are paid just enough that the masters don’t have the responsibility of feeding them.
You’re absolutely correct that colonialism is essentially slavery, however, it doesn’t seem you agree that outsourcing (which is accomplished via ‘free-trade’ legislation) is de-facto colonialism. This is particularly true when ‘free zones’ are established (the name comes from their being outside the legal jurisdiction of the host country). The people who work there often labour in sweatshop conditions, and are frequently barred from leaving the compound. Also, the products produced within the free zones are specifically made for export, and not available to the people of the host country.
If the goal of capitalism is, as you say, “...freely exchanging value for value as determined by the rational self-interest of the participants in the trade…” i think its safe to say this falls drastically short of that.
“... it doesn’t seem you agree that outsourcing (which is accomplished via ‘free-trade’ legislation) is de-facto colonialism. ...”
Correct. I do not agree that seeking best value without regard to national borders constitutes colonialism. I also disagree strongly with your attempted characterization of outsourcing as slavery.
Slavery is involuntary labor: nothing could be more different from the free and voluntary competition among the citizens of those countries for those jobs which are often among the best paid and which often represent a significant step-up from the dead-end subsistence jobs those folks had previously.
“... This is particularly true when ‘free zones’ are established (the name comes from their being outside the legal jurisdiction of the host country)...”
Your statement is wrong and misleading in the context of attempt to paint outsourcing as slavery.
It is particularly true that ‘free zones’ phenomenally increase the wealth of ALL their inhabitants/citizens. They are the closest examples of true Capitalism there are. Certainly they are closer to true Capitalism than the crony capitalism we have in the US. You need only look at Hong Kong and Singapore for the proof.
Roberto Benitez,
From reading your previous posts, I definitely know of the Conservative perspective you’re coming from, and that your heart is in the right place.
However, I think you may be putting too much confidence in McCain’s judicial nominee prospects, should he get in. Remember, he voted to confirm former ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer to the Supreme Court, while at the same time forming the Gang of 14 with Ted Kennedy to block various conservative nominees of Bush from getting onto federal benches.
His record speaks for itself.
He also shares the same warped, class-warfare tax strategy as the Democrats by saying that the majority of tax cuts should go to the bottom 10 percent of society, not realizing that the bottom 10 percent don’t pay any taxes. He’s also against getting rid of the Estate Tax. It’s that punitive outlook he has concerning the job producing elements in this country by over-taxing and over-regulating them that contributes to the massive downsizing’s we’ve suffered through.
His pandering to the racist, America-hating La Raza was a pathetic display of weakness in front of the world and validates his unending quest of granting amnesty and further destroying our sovereignty. I’m already ashamed of him because of this act, and he’s not even been elected yet.
Technically, you’re probably correct in McCain not being a neoconservative. I think they were supposed to be former Democrats from the 1960’s who didn’t like the sharp left turn their Party had taken, so they, unfortunately, came into our Party. However, the neocons and globalist’s share the same basic attitudes on the role of government and of our national sovereignty.
The cheapening of innocent life in this country will get worse because of McCain’s support of embryonic stem-cell research, which is an issue I could never bend to. My only justification for ending an innocent life is rape, and life of the mother.
As far as Buchanan’s isolationist views?...I totally agree with them. The best way to keep us safe, is to bring our troops home from abroad and use them to protect our borders. Besides, the more we meddle with other countries internal affairs, the more we’re resented.
It’s kind of like when you see a couple on the street fighting with each other, and if you get involved to calm things down between them, they both turn on YOU. Once you leave the scene, however, they go right back to bickering and fighting with each other.
I know the thought of an Obama presidency is scary, but unfortunately, the ‘lesser of two evils’ approach to voting will be futile. This is because the lesser evil will know that they got in by default, and thus will have no incentive to change their destructive ways of governing, and of stabbing their base in the back.
I just could not live with myself if I voted for this man.
BlackHat aka Brian Sullivan: I have never said that liberals compromise as that has been against their religion for a long time now, unless they are forced into the position, and unless they are getting much more in return than what they are offering. Now Republicans have compromised, even when they were in power, and almost every single time they were then knifed in the back by the Democrats they compromised with. The perfect example of that is Bush Sr, that after saying “read my lips, no new taxes” he compromised with the Democrat Congress and allowed a tax increase and then they didn’t even come through with what they had promised, and then turned around and in the next campaign used his very words against him.
As for my tone - I have had it with the left, you ARE the enemy, the nastiness out of your mouth, and nastiness of your actions is beyond anything in the history of America - and I have nothing but contempt for you as people because of your way of treating people that disagree with you. I see America as really close to the days of the opening shots of the Civil War, we are divided into two wholly different camps, we have so little in common any more.
And as for credibility, BlackHat, you have had NO credibility on this site for so long, you should be grateful that anyone even bothers to respond to despicable people like you. You are an example of what is wrong with America, and the nation would be better if you did not exist. Down and dirty enough for you???
@anonymous: Do you even know what you’re talking about? Do you know what a free zone is? i think if you did, you would think differently, and we would probably agree.
As i said earlier, watch the documentary “Life and Debt” by Stephanie Black. It’s about how Jamaica, after being sloughed off by England, its economy desperately struggling, was duped into taking out IMF loans, the conditions of which were a series of so-called reforms, one of which was free trade. The exposure to a global economy all but killed the Jamaican fresh milk industry (imported American powdered milk is cheaper), as well as the banana industry, as it was suddenly forced to compete with Del Monte and Chiquita.
Roger Ebert writes, in a review of “Life and Debt”:
“One scheme to help the Jamaican economy, the film says, has been the establishment of ‘‘free zones,’’ fenced-in manufacturing areas where workers are paid $30 a week to assemble goods which arrive and leave by container ship without legally being on Jamaican soil. Labor unions are banned, working conditions are subhuman, strikers are forced back to work at gunpoint, and paychecks are taxed for health and retirement schemes that don’t seem to exist. The Hanes clothing division of Chicago’s Sara Lee company was one of the beneficiaries, until, the movie says, it pulled out to find even cheaper workers elsewhere.”
The same thing is going on in China, Malaysia, Bangladesh, India, et al. That doesn’t sound like something that “phenomenally increase[s] the wealth of ALL their inhabitants/citizens,” to me. However, if this represents the “closest examples of true Capitalism there are,” then i guess freedom and capitalism are mutually exclusive, and you can count me as anti-capitalist.
@Mr. Hansen: First of all, i don’t know why you are accusing me of being a pseudonym for “Brian Sullivan,” calling me ‘despicable’ or talking about the “nastiness of [my] mouth,” because in my posts here, i have consistently refrained from personal attacks nor, other conduct unbecoming respectful debate.
You, on the other hand, continue to spew slander, invective, and unabashed hate toward anyone who dares disagree with you.
Frankly, it’s people such as yourself—totally unwilling to tone down the rhetoric (not to mention the volume) for the sake of rational discourse, who thrive on confrontation and cling to a divisive, “us against them” mentality—who are responsible for the kind of polarisation that incites civil wars, as you pointed out. Based on your words themselves, you are an extremist; a hard-liner with very few relevant things to say.
Blackhat,
I agree with your post.
I have heard similar stories about small countries and IMF loans. When the country defaults, as the loaner knew they would, the vultures come in to take control of the resources of the country.
The problem with labels again. This may not be colonialism, may not be slavery. I certainly hope it isn’t capitalism. I know it is wrong. That’s a label I can clearly attach.
This doesn’t usually end up making things better for the people who work for these corporations.
It is also not necessarily true that the US gets cheaper goods as a result of offshoring and outsourcing.
When people were working in this country and making a living wage, they could support their families, pay taxes, give to the community, educate their children.
When they are either out of work, or must take a lower paying job, then social services takes up the slack. It can be unemployment insurance, food stamps, subsidized healthcare, free lunches for kiddos, subsidized housing, etc. All of that falls on the shoulders of the rest of the taxpayers.
Most of the products, as in clothing, household goods, etc., are cheaply made, shoddy merchandise. It is not quality and must be replaced over and over again. Shoes bought for kids at Wal Mart seldom last to be passed down, or until they outgrow them. The same for other clothing at Wal Mart.
Household goods are cheaply made and do not last. It looks good to be able to fill you cart there, but that cart has to be filled often, because the merchandise just won’t last.
It isn’t just Wal Mart either. I don’t really do much shopping, but needing a dress for a special occasion, I began at the level just above Wal Mart, and was astounding at the cheap quality. As I moved up to ‘better’ stores, I found the exact same clothing, cheaply made, different label. In the better stores, they looked better as they were displayed better, lighting better, music better, etc. The fact is, it was junk.
My Mother, as poor as we were, would have laughed in the face of any retailer attempting to sell something of that poor quality.
The price of the product is not totally reflected at the check out stand. All the things must be added to that price.
That goes for all these ‘cheap’ products we are supposed to get by labor othe illegals as well.
Also, outsourcing of customer services and such has made us vulnerable to theft, etc. I’m pretty sure I know of one instance that some foreign customer service people were trying to scam an older gentlemen regarding an insurance policy on his wife.
They first told him it was lapsed. He told them it had paid up insurance, they said it didn’t. He was in his 80’s, had just lost his wife and just gave up. My husband called and asked, they gave him the same song and dance. He finally asked to speak to a supervisor who attempted the same, but my husband spelled out the facts, they then told him, the claim had been paid. Bottom line, he gave them 5 days to pay the man’s claim, and it was overnighted to him.
That was one case, and it wasn’t the insurance company, as they absolutely cannot operate that way. I’m thinking these people might be trying that and if they can, simply cut the check, cash it and the insurance company is no wiser. It was not much, $10,000, but that’s pretty good money in some parts of the world. Think if they did that a few thousand times.
These people have access to every bit of your financial and medical history.
My goodness, I’ve won lotteries all over the world, and all I have to do is give them my bank number.
I knew an older lady, a retired college professor, who fell for this. They wiped out her bank account.
These people do not operate under our laws, and I don’t know what is being done, but I suspect nothing.
In the future, those who search for and resell ‘collectors’ items and antiques will have slim pickings from this era. Outside of maybe the cheap procelian kitty cats, there won’t be much that lasts.
What exactly is an isolationist? The ones accused of that, Buchanan and Paul, have simply said we need to act in the best interests of this country and it’s people. That doesn’t preclude trade. I have never heard either of them say that.
Trade needs to be fair and beneficial to this country - not just corporations.
As for bringing back the military - what in the world is wrong with that? Why should we have bases all over the world. The idea that we must defend Europe. Hey, Europe’s doing pretty well, on their own. Let’s let them spend some of their money. That’s not our job.
Imagine the money that could be saved by bringing them home. Think of the costs of transporting people, etc. around the world. Think of the money that is spent in these foreign countries for these bases, purchasing supplies there, the money put in the economy hiring locals to work there, and the money the personnel spends there. All that could be going into our economy instead or in some instances just not being spent.
Again, Russia is ‘training’ in Venezuela, much of SA is angry with us, Mexico is not our friend - never has been. We now have from 20-50 million people - mostly from those areas, in our country illegally. I’m thinking we would be better served if our military would be placed on our borders and posted here at home. To borrow from Ms. Martha, ‘It would be a good thing.’
Some of the ideas posted here is the economics I think is being taught in colleges and it is contrary to the good of this country. It’s really good for corporations and politicians.
blackhat:
I misunderstood the term you used. I thought of “free trade zones” like Hong Kong and Singapore where there are no import duties, tariffs, or other barriers to restrict the free trading of their inhabitants with all comers.
Oh, by the way you need to check your premise about China. Outsourcing of manufacture to China and the Chinese government’s selective adoption of the policies and philosophy of Milton Friedman have resulted in the greatest uplifting from poverty and creation of wealth on the planet in recent history.
The Chinese have brought over a billion people to the middle class economically speaking over the last 15 - 20 years. That’s nothing short of astounding and has vividly demonstrated to the communist rulers the utter failure of their previous attempts at implementing a command economy and the virtue of Capitalism. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Chinese drop all political control of their economy in the next 30 years, unlike the US which is going in the opposite direction.
As to the IMF and Roger Ebert, well neither have credibility with me.
blackhat and ladytexan:
You’ve brushed the truth about IMF. Earlier articles here about the United Nations brought out similar opinions.
The IMF, World Bank, and UN are simply bodies which have an altruist, collectivist, statist agenda. They aim to force all productive wealth creators to become slaves of those who do not create wealth.
None of those bodies have ever achieved anything other than creating dependence in developing nations on the “free lunches” provided by the developed nations (i.e., taxpayers).
Yes, it has resulted in a huge transfer of wealth from the people of the US to China.
It has resulted in the largest communist country on the planet soon becoming the largest military and economic power on the planet.
Does sound like a good things for this country.
Wonder what they will demand in return for our debt? Which state - or states? Our oil resources? Our water resources?
<<<<<It wouldn’t surprise me if the Chinese drop all political control of their economy in the next 30 years, unlike the US which is going in the opposite direction.>>>>>>>>
It would surprise me. The US economy is fast being controlled by China -
Rational Discourse - BlackHat? MOST of what you bring to this site is lies, you know they are lies, and you are looking for a reaction so you can argue over something you know is not true. You are not looking for rational discourse, you are looking to fight with people you can never have a rational discussion with because you disagree with them.
When you are trying to scam us here, I just call it as I see it, Brian. And I do not have to play nice with con artists. You do not like people that frequent this site, in fact you probably hate them, and that sure shows with the “labels” that you give the people here - since labels is the big PC thing here right now - and your contempt when you do this tells everyone, including ten cent idiots, that you have no respect for opinions you disagree with. If you are looking for politeness and kissy face, go argue with your buddies at the Daily KOS - their tone would blow my tone out of the water anyday.
@anonymous: The quote from Roger Ebert is a synopsis of the documentary i referred to earlier, “Life and Debt.” His description of the film was not an opinion, but an observation. His opinion means about the same to me as it does to you.
@Jack H Hansen: Your tone reminds me of an acquaintance who gets ridiculously drunk and flies into fits of rage, threatening people who don’t agree with him. As i said, your tone is that of an extremist…a hateful, angry, misanthropic individual. This is the last of your posts i will reply to, as your comments don’t warrant a response, and there are people here who seem interested in a productive debate. You, my esteemed friend, are not. Why don’t you pour yourself a scotch and take it just a little bit easy.
ladytexan,
In response to your first sentence from #62;
Believe me, I don’t blindly rely on labels to help me decide who to vote for. Even though the media gave Bush the ‘Conservative’ label during his first term, I knew better because I watched how he legislated, and ultimately concluded that he was a globalist. That is why I voted 3rd party in that election.
The “My parents were Republicans, their parents were Republicans, and by golly, I’m voting Republican” mentality out there, is definitely all too common unfortunately….the same with Democrats.
I certainly agree with you that a critical mind in determining political choices is the most important rule to follow.
Your implication that the various factions within today’s Republican party should work together is logically impossible, in my opinion.
How does a Republican voter who firmly believes in foreign intervention, UN participation, and supporting undeclared conflicts with other nations, come to any common middle ground with a Republican who believes in isolationism?
How does a pro-abortion Republican work things out with an anti-abortion Republican?
Also, what’s there to make of, in a hopeless scenario where Republican presidents routinely defy the will of the majority of their electorate and refuse to secure our borders? They ignore us.
The whole concept of a philosophically divided party working together is an oxymoron.
The Conservative faction within the Republican party is all but non-existent..they’ve been rejected.
No, ladytexan, the only solution is the creation of a third party. Otherwise, you’ll set yourself up for a lot more frustration.
violet,
To expand on your comments about the hypocrisy of some supporters of abortion on demand… For the life of me, I can’t understand the mentality of those who hold candlelight vigils on the eve of executions of murderers who knowingly committed heinous crimes, and their support of murdering the most innocent among us through abortion on demand.
Roberto Benitez,
Your statement: “By the way, don’t many of the same grievances that the Founders described between the Colonies and the Crown exist today between the States and the people, and the Federal government?” - is so on target.
In fact, I believe that right now, we are in the same position as the colonists were Before fighting the American Revolution.
That is the most obtuse arrogance I have ever seen Brian, whoops BlackHat. I remmeber when you first came onto this site, you leftist criminal. You have absolutely NO authority to say anything about anybodies tone, while you sanctimonously shake your liar finger at them after what has come out of your yap. I talk to you this way because of what I know exactly what you are all about.
You may have just had a reasonable discourse between yourself and LadyTexan, and I am glad for that, but one reasonable discussion does not change the person that you have more than shown that you are. Your arrogance has no bounds. And thank you, I am happy that you are not going to reply to me again, now if we could just get you to take your sorry ass off this site and go back to your fellow felons at Daily KOS? No such luck for us I suspect! Adios Brian
Pizcaj,
I didn’t mean to imply you relied blindly. That was in response to your saying you recognized some as neo-con and Buchanan as something else, etc. I’m just wondering why they needed a label?
Perhaps you meant you recognized them as having that particular philosophy?
Not meant to be nasty.
As to working together, boy I’m not making myself clear.
Again, in our life, we all have to work with people with whom we do not agree on everything - some we don’t agree on much of anything. Situations - jobs, churches, schools, etc., put us in a position we must work together for whatever we need to get done.
I do not know what exactly an isolationist is - as used here. I don’t think I have heard anyone, even semi-mainstream express ideas that would fit my description of isolationism. Putting this country first, is not islationist, in my mind.
I wasn’t suggested we work together, on the things on wish we disagree - but on the things on which we do agree.
Actually, I wasn’t talking necessarily about working with Republicans only, but everyone.
There are a lot of people out there who care what is happening, but don’t see the parties doing anything - I am one. The only difference, most of them don’t get on the internet and complain.
So we don’t agree on foreign policy, maybe we can agree on abortion and work toward that.
We have enough problems in this country, big ones that need fixing. For instance, surely we can agree to disagree on the war and get down to business and fix the illegal problem - maybe?
Now that would be a big step for mankind.
Abortion?
Government abuse of power?
Welfare?
Education?
Taxes?
We are going down the tubes and someone has greased them.
Now we can continue to declare we will work with no one except those who agree with us 100% on everything and therefore nothing gets done and the politicians have free rein.
Or we can agree that we won’t agree on everything - maybe only a few things. So find those few things on which we do agree, work very hard to fix them. At least that will be some things getting fixed.
The way we are going, fighting, name calling, refusing to even discuss things, simply is giving the politicians carte blanche to do as they wish.
Same old question - How’s that working for us?
We can sit around and think up all kind of reason why we can’t/shouldn’t do something, or we can work together on the things we can agree.
Surely, it is apparent to everyone with two cells sparking that the politicians are not going to do what is best for this country, without we make our wishes known in a big way. It is a cinch we can’t get good candidates for our vote, but voting is not the only way to participate in a free society.
Pizcaj,
I missed the part about the third party.
Actually, I was talking about working outside politics. Many things can be done without involving politics, as in being in the same party.
While I would really like to see a third party, I’m thinking we’ll see that when we are actually brave enough to vote that way. That’s all it takes, but we have to give up the apron strings of the parties.
This would be a perfect time to do it. Just me, but this election, more than any other, proves nothing will change - for the better - with either of these men. Whatever way we vote, it is wasted. So why not try the third party?
I just saw a Mccain ad and it is apparent he makes no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, but I’m thinking it is aimed more at illegals because he’s talking about ‘legislation that is fair’. He calls them ‘symbols of hope’.
So think we will get anything done about illegals under McCain? Anything right, that is?
I agree with Violet also. The hypocrisy regarding abortion and the death penalty is very telling. But then the hypocrisy between the war and abortion for those anti-abortionists is apparent also.
I support the death penalty - in theory. It’s the knowledge of the skullduggery in our judicial system that gives me pause when truly implementing it.
Seeing how things work in a courtroom, I’m not sure I could ever vote for the death penalty. I would sit there wondering what had they kept hidden from the jury, or how much did that expert witness get paid. No way would I agree with the death penalty when the main witness against was a participant in the crime who talked in order to get a lesser sentence.
Roberto,
‘When in the course of human events—’ keeps running through my mind.
Jack H Hansen,
While I’ve no love for Brian or BlackHat, or whatever pseudonym he goes by, other than Christian love, I must take issue with your characterization of him as a as criminal or felon just because you believe he’s a blooming leftist. Perhaps you care to state what statute he’s violated and been convicted of?
As for the rest of the tenor of your post I won’t argue with you. 
Let me just say I try to encourage the concept of the loyal opposition, not that leftist liberals would concede the same. Yet I also will admit that with partisan demagogues like BS it’s often hard to fathom them as loyal to the common weal considering their penchant for prevarication, self aggrandizement, and hubristic condescension towards others who disagree with them.
Already all too many leftists are counting their chickens before they hatch and letting it be known that in addition to their legendary reputation for being poor losers, particularly after 2000 and 2004 with their claims that Bush stole both elections along with the Mexican election, they will also be poor winners, hoping to force an impeachment of Bush and Cheney before the inauguration or a war crimes tribunal after it. No doubt they’ll also want Gulags for conservative Republicans.
Roberto, for what they want America to become, and how they wish to make sure everything we stand for to be broken and ruined, yes, I do see them as little better than criminals and felons. I could add the word traitors to America, and a traitor to me is even worse than a criminal or felon. They have far to many times enjoyed what they are about and any reasonableness I had for the left is long gone now. BS and his many manifestations, doing his social experimenting on us as he called it should convince you that there is little good to be found in these people. They seem to love to contemptiously put those that have Conservative views down as some kind of inhuman creature, and sorry, Roberto, but the majority of Americans held the same views I hold today 20 and 30 years ago - where today they act as if we are some sick diseased villians and only there way is the right way, and we should be viciously shut up. So yes, criminal and felon is apt in my mind. They may not be breaking any statute laws, and perhaps thats the sickest rub of it all, but their behavior is worse than just nasty.
Pizcaj,
I must point out Sen. McCain has never voted against a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court or federal courts. The issue of the “Gang of 14” wasn’t over a vote on Bush’s nominees, but whether or not the Republican majority in the Senate should eliminate the Democrats’ right to filibuster such nominees. McCain’s contention was should Republicans do so they might find themselves on the receiving end of such a restrictive policy in the future. He was right.
I’ve no illusions the Democrats of today wouldn’t resort to the tactic of denying the minority of the right of the filibuster. If it weren’t for a Republican president and an election coming up they’d do it in a heartbeat. That’s also why they want a 60 seat majority in the Senate. Even if they don’t achieve a super majority, if Sen. Obama wins I’ve no doubt we’ll see Pelosi and Reid try to restrict not only Republicans in Congress but also in the media and on the airwaves thru the use of the Fairness Doctrine, a new Community Standards Doctrine, the Feingold-McCain campaign finance laws, the 501(c)3 IRS regulations and new Hate Crime laws.
By the way, during Ginsburg’s confirmation hearings in the Senate she refused to answer questions about her personal views on most issues or how she’d decide certain hypothetical situations as a justice. She also refused to discuss her beliefs about the limits and proper role of the courts. By those standards today I’d say a nominee shouldn’t be confirmed. Of course Thomas, Roberts, and other conservatives did answer such questions and received hell from liberals. And then there was Judge Bork. Ginsburg was confirmed by a 96 to 3 vote while Roberts was confirmed by a 78 to 22 vote with all 22 negative votes cast by Democrats who split evenly.
Generally speaking, a president is considered to have a right to appoint judges who share his philosophical values, except by leftists of course who expected that Bush should nominate “moderates” if not “liberals” by some strange logic. But why would you consider it strange that Sen. McCain voted to confirm Pres. Clinton’s appointee who’d served 13 years on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit? Or do you think conservative or Republican Senators should’ve opposed every appointment made by Clinton? Again, Sen. McCain’s reasoning was valid. It’s just too bad that many liberal Democrats don’t feel the same way. Consider the number of currently open nomination by Bush for the administration and the courts the Democrats have refused to act on. You know they’re waiting for an Obama win to fill them. Perhaps there should be a constitutional amendment requiring the Senate to allow a president to fill all vacancies before the end of his term by forcing them to allow an up or down vote on nominees.
However, Sen. McCain has explicitly said he would appoint judges who were constitutional constructionalists. Are you saying he’s lying about that? I don’t think so but then politicians often make promises they don’t keep.
With regard to the Estate Tax, in 2011 it reverts to the 2001 rates with a 55% rate. McCain wants a permanent 15% rate with $5M/10M exemptions for singles and couples respectively while Obama favors $3.5M/$7M at a 45% rate. Although it will never affect me I favor no estate tax as taxes on individuals shouldn’t be handled like a value added tax. But then I also favor a flat tax if we have to have income taxes at all. Progressive taxation that thru federal, state, and local income taxes take over 25 to 30% I see as not much better than theft. If we constrained the Federal government to its duties as enumerated by Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution our taxes would be much lower, provided we could keep local and state bureaucrats honest.
By the way, when did Sen. McCain say that the majority of tax cuts should go to the lowest 10% of society? I think Bush once said the lowest 10 to 15% but I hadn’t heard of McCain saying that. He did object to Bush’s first tax cut because it was too tilted towards the wealthy and there weren’t enough cuts in government spending. The second time he opposed Bush he was worried about the continued costs of an open ended war. I believe those were reasonable stands even if I do favor tax cuts generally.
As for stem cell research, Gov. Palin is against embryonic stem cell research or ESCR. You imply that McCain is in favor of full fledged ESCR but that’s misleading. He supports using embryos that would be discarded or permanently frozen, not the creation and harvesting of new embryos. Like you I find even that problematic and even if we said we’d only use those about to be discarded I would have little trust that researchers would comply with such guidelines. And with the fact that no diseases have yet been cured by use of ESC but have been by adult stem cells I would think that those supporting ESCR would change their stand. But alas, for them to do so would mean acquiescing to the pro-life position that even embryos are human in an early stage of development. This is something the pro-abortionists won’t tolerate. By the way, as a T2 diabetic with serious complications I stand to gain from stem cell research but I’ll be damned if I want to kill human life at it’s beginning so I could get better.
Pat Buchanan is so much the isolationist that he seems to believe we were wrong to get involved in WWI and II. It’s his belief that Hitler would’ve been satisfied with just reassembling the old German Empire in Europe, wouldn’t have gone after Britain or the US, had no desire to eliminate the Jews in Europe, and didn’t persecute the Jews till late in the war due to American involvement. On those scores I think he’s fatally wrong. It’s as if he hadn’t read Mein Kampf. Furthermore, I doubt his understanding of the threat of radical Islam or that we’ve been at war with it for about 30 years. Whether we like it or not, we can’t crawl into a hole and withdraw from the world. Should Europe succumb to Islam, and I believe it’s on the road to doing so, and should we abandon the Middle East and our ally Israel as Buchanan proposes we’d be in a world of trouble. There’s no way the US could stay a technological country without critical materials from around the world. And if you think China, Russia, or a Pan Arabic Nation wouldn’t use trade, particularly in critical minerals and petroleum as a weapon against us, then I have some swamp land in Alaska I’d like to sell you.
Yet all in all, I’m tempted to vote for Chuck Baldwin. My contention is that if we say we shouldn’t vote for a 3rd party in a crisis then when should we? When all’s well and there’s no need? It’s my belief that we no longer live in a democratic REPUBLIC under the rule of Constitutional Law. Ask people which of the amendments in Bill of Rights is still intact save the 3rd, even despite the SCOTUS Heller Decision? If our politicians show no compunction to restore constitutional government, and I see no evidence of that other than lip service, then I believe the American people will have to dust off the Declaration of Independence and take it to heart with a vengeance if they’re to avoid the fate of what Benjamin Franklin said about those who’d trade essential liberties for temporary security.
Jack H Hansen, I couldn’t agree with you more that all too many partisan Democrat liberals’ conduct is contemptible, or as you put it so well, worse than nasty. And as they smell blood, they’ll get worse.
Brian Sullivan claimed to be a Marine officer, a claim I found offensive as he certainly was unable to conduct himself as officer and a gentleman. Yet he’s so typical of arrogant and elitist liberals. And despite his alleged claim to be a devout Catholic it seems he felt no need for honesty or humility.
But I will still try to advocate that we conservatives take a higher road. Both for conservatism and for a republic, how we oppose an opponent is just as important that we do oppose one. It’s not an easy burden and I admit to failure at times. But I’ll get up and try again.
about abortion and sex, think of it this way. Your 16 years old, still in highschool and are raped. You find out that your are pregnant BUT by law you cannot get an abortion. What do you do? you have this baby that you cannot take care of.It has a miserable life and more then likely mental issues because of the standard of living it was brought up in AND it is the baby of a rapist. i know all this is harsh but obviously some people writing comments need to read this. What happens when the right to have an abortion gets taken away? Back alley coat hangers are back in style. and that’s a terrible thing. When you have a baby your body is still your body no matter what. You are an incubator for another life that you NEED to take care of, and if you know that you are unable to provide this baby with a decent life and are incapable of being a proper mother due to mental illness or physical illness or whatever, then it is your responsibility to find an alternative, which isn’t always abortions. Some women abuse the right to have abortions which is why there is a limit. You are still ending a life. So do not ridicule women who have abortions, its hard enough for them already to know that they cannot take care of a child and had to “kill” they’re baby. And it is a woman’s choice. The day that men start to give birth is the day that they have a say in the future of abortions. Get rid of abortions and you’ll have abandoned babies in dumpsters, crime will increase, and you’ll all be complaining about the terrible mothers that women are. Yes they’re are some people out they’re who have sex as much as they breath but that’s they’re choice. don’t try to force your beliefs of abstinence on them. Mistakes happen, i know, i was one. People told my mother to get an abortion, my single mother, and she didn’t.She was 18/19 and had the choice to have an abortion and she didn’t. And she is a great mother. So not all women have abortions, its not the fact that abortions are available that its being abused, its the women, the individuals, who treat abortions like its an everyday thing. And also with Palin, you expect women to be happy just cause there is a female up there? The female needs to be smart and make sense. A uterus and breasts aren’t enough. Feminists don’t like people to force they’re views on them, in-fact most people don’t.
ladytexan and others who obviously don’t understand either economics or the philosophy of Capitalism:
Please educate yourselves. Here’s an excellent series of videos which make economics very easy to understand:
http://www.ideachannel.com/product_info.php?cPath=21_121&products_id=362
Roberto: I agree, I will try to take the high road again, but that is awfully hard sometimes. It does get easier to be down and dirty in return for what they say, but I will try to hold my tongue in answering their lies and smears.
I have been watching all the talk about 3rd Parties and Chuck Baldwin. And while I agree more than most might think, as I am sure not in the tank for McCain. In fact, until he added Sarah Palin onto the ticket, I was still undecided. We have all heard what we can expect from Obama, and while McCain is from the far left of the Republican party in many matters, and votes far to often with the left, because of the threat of the LOSS permanently of our Republic with Obama, I am going to stand w/McCain and the Republican party one more time.
Now is not the time to take votes from McCain, and aid Obama in winning, and losing America forever. I do not look forward to another American Revolution, and I fear we are on the threshold if Obama is successful, so because of that, I believe we would be most wise for the betterment of America to give this “maverick” a chance. I can say this about McCain, I believe he is not only for tax cuts, but also for cutting the size of government. I think we should give him the chance, and the Republican Party one more chance. And if McCain sells us out as has W too many times, then I will be in the arms of the third partys quickly so we can have strength before the 2012 election.
And this is from a man whom illegal immigration is a BIG deal. I have thoroughly opposed McCain and amnesty and worked hard through grassroots organizations such as Numbers USA and grassfire to end these law breakers coming illegally into our country. Besides it has always been my belief that McCain if he is so strongly for keeping the terrorists from coming here to America, then he would thoroughly seal our borders, and not keep leaving them wide open. I also agree that McCain has NOT got it yet. BUT I do know that Obama has not got it and does not plan to ever seal our borders, and in fact, under a President Obama, I believe he will bring Muslims to this nation in numbers as high as the illegals coming here from south of the border. And that will set us on an irreversable slide into what is happening in Europe. In my lifetime I can see a Europe controlled by Muslim Islamofascists, and that can not happen here.
It is my hope that Palin will assist us in getting McCain to see what illegals from south of the border are doing to harm America rather than seeing them as good - she is against illegals, or at least that has been her stand up until she became the VP nominee. I believe she will help us to become energy independent and help steer McCain even more in that direction, and it is my hope she will get him on the side of the American people on illegals.
So I am in the camp of McCain-Palin, and the Republicans - ONE MORE TIME! But hell hath no fury like a voter scorned, and God help the Republicans under McCain if they sell us out again as has Bush far too often.
arc,
With all due respect - the back alley coat hangars ideas are fearmongering. Certainly, it probably happened - but it hasn’t been necessary for a very long time.
Abortions have been available for many years. They were done, in hospital, by a doctor, and euphemistically reported as a D & C. This was going on many years before Roe v. Wade.
Also, let’s ask ourselves how many, truly how many, abortions are done because of rape or incest.
This kind of talk is the reason we cannot come together on this subject. People continue to simply repeat fallacies.
Learn the facts, think about the real world.
Personally, I don’t ridicule women who have abortions. I do not for a moment believe that women have abortions without emotional pain for the rest of their lives - to say nothing of the health problems that can come from an abortion.
In the case of rape, no matter what happens, a baby is killed. We have to keep that in mind.
Keep in mind also, that abortion is not the only answer in this case. There is adoption.
The point is, before Roe V. Wade, that was handled. It was handled, in private, with the girl, the family and the doctor. Which is the way it should be. The parent has to weigh their child’s welfare against a baby yet unborn.
Another thing, abortion is not just a ‘view’. It is the destruction of a life.
Every law that is made is forcing that ‘view’ on the rest of us. To force abortion to be legal means that I live in a country where unborn chilren are allowed to be destroyed. I share in that guilt.
Abstinence works everytime it’s used. Sex education in school is not working too well either - so I’m finding it strange that abstinence is taking all the hits here.
So many problems in this country today are caused by the idea that sex carries no responsibility and that frequent engagement in this is an absolute necessity.
Anon,
It isn’t that I don’t understand capitalism.
It’s that I understand that is not what is at play here.
The same tiring and old opinions on abortion do nothing to save the slaughter of the innocent.
A pregnant woman has another human being in her body so it isn’t just her body. Further, the human being in her body is also part of the father. The father has no say, no rights about the fate of that human being. And that is not considered discrimination? Please.
There is no comparison between abortion and lives lost in war. Aborted babies have no say in the matter. Those going to war make that choice. Their mothers don’t make it for them.
Radical feminism has done more to harm women, children, families and societies than all the wars in history combined because it has decided only women have rights and only women deserve liberty and freedom.
No civilized society will last when women believe killing their own children is liberation and gives them power and satisfaction.
The Roman circus has been revived only is more vile, more sadistic, more perverted and more destructive than it was in its origins and the blood of the only truly innocent will cover the world and smother it.
I feel like as a woman, I have let every unborn baby in this nation down by being silent in my early years. I like so many thought that our government would never let this happen. The radicals in this nation who are the small percentage have dictated to the majority what we will accept and if we do not like it, we are sexist,bigots and hate mongers; The feminest don’t speak for me,but the really young girls are being raised with this mind set; It is brain washing at its best.This body is not mine to do with as I please; If that were so, why are we putting murderers in prison and executing them if we can make a choice as to what we want; just let the prisoners out of jail.What about those who did not want to be murdered? Abortions are murder whether it is acceptable to say or not and I am really sick of the excuses being made. Society now has an excuse for everything they do, that is why there is no accountability in this nation. It is pure selfishness in a society of the me generation; I came from the 60’s era, if it feels good do it, now look what that did for us; When I go on social security, the generation that would have been working to pay for our social security is gone because we killed them and when my children are in their 60’s, there will be nothing for them because ofthe policy of if it feels good, do it. this is not a purely ethical phenomenon,but financial as well.
Roberto Benitez,
First, thanks for bringing up McCain-Feingold. I knew I was leaving something out in my list of reasons for not supporting McCain. Also, don’t forget his support of Al Gore’s phony man-made global warming con game.
Also, his bogus claim of opposing Bush’s tax cuts because of it not having enough cuts in federal spending, was just his way of undermining Bush in order to spite him, in my opinion, because of his losing the Republican nomination in 2000. The fact that he shares Bush’s globalist philosophy of foreign entanglements, his 100 years in Iraq quote, and being on board with the global warming hoax, all big time money sucking endeavors, proves this.
It was during the 2000 primaries that McCain said the following concerning candidate Bush’s proposed tax cuts -
“I don’t think the governor’s tax cut is too big – it’s just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans – and that’s not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. … Gov. Bush wants to spend the entire surplus on tax cuts. I don’t believe the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans should get 60 percent of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10 percent should get the breaks. … I’m not giving tax cuts for the rich.”
So besides parroting the Democrat class-warfare line, he thinks that lowest 10 percent of income earners actually pay taxes.
I definitely agree with you, Roberto, about enacting a flat tax. Don’t hold your breath though that the Republican establishment would go along. Dick Army gave it his best try during his tenure with only a small handful of Republicans jumping on board.
The ‘gang of 14’ that McCain formed with Ted Kennedy was another example of pulling a spite job on Bush, in my opinion. It was a totally unnecessary move on his part, considering the fact that the Democrats were unfairly abusing the filibuster laws in a grand scale fashion to snuff out most of Bush’s more Conservative appointees.
All this, while not condemning the Democrats for their obstruction.
‘Taking the high road’ in dealing with the Democrat congress’s dirty tactics would result in the ‘road to failure’. Your wise suggestion of (“a constitutional amendment requiring the Senate to allow a president to fill all vacancies before the end of his term by forcing them to allow an up or down vote on nominees”) is a great solution.
However, I feel that until such an amendment is instituted, the Republicans should use the same grand scale filibustering tactics, should they get their majority back. To me, that’s not going down to their level since we have a past history of playing by the rules.
Hardball, is the only thing Democrats understand.
The notion that McCain would ‘appoint judges who were constitutional constructionists’ is an oxymoron, considering McCain-Feingold and his votes for confirming Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer.
He’ll say what he has to in a tight election.
It’s great when you point out Governer Palin’s position against stem cell research, but I doubt she’ll have much influence with someone of McCain’s stubborn and arrogant nature. In fact, I don’t particularly care for his nebbish, duplicitous, passive-aggressive way of conducting business. That self-satisfied, smug smile that he’s taken on since his 2000 loss gives me the creeps.
When I speak of my desire for isolationism, it’s in regards to our military being brought back from all over the world to primarily protect our borders.
I’m against economic isolationism, however, we should get out of NAFTA, GATT, etc., and put an end to the unfair trade imbalances we’ve suffered from.
As far as Buchanan, if you refer to his book, “Day of Reckoning”, on page 69 he says that WWII was a just war. He claims, though, that we fought it for national, and not ideological reasons.
For example, he points out that America did not go to war with Japan because she was fascist, rather because of their attack on Pearl Harbor. Also, that we didn’t go to war against Germany and Italy until Hitler and Mussolini declared war on us.
As far as Buchanan’s attitudes of Hitler’s ‘real’ intentions, you’ve got me curious. I’ll do some research on it and will get back to you.
On a final note to both you and Jack Hansen -
If we’ve survived a Carter and Clinton presidency, we’ll probably survive an Obama presidency. Look who came into office after Carter lost, and look what happened in the ‘94 mid-term elections during Clinton’s first term when he had both Houses.
Also, since the Democrat Party has taken a sharper turn to the left, be prepared to see more Obama and Hillary-like candidates being put forth in the coming years. You’ll find yourself forever trapped in a vicious cycle of voting ‘the lesser of two evils’.
This is what the Republicans count on.
I’m not sure we can survive an Obama presidency - in fact, I’m pretty sure we are going to come out the other end as something different from what we are now.
The fact is, we are something far different now than what we were when Pres. Bush was elected.
The lesser of two evils is exactly what BOTH of them are counting on - and have for decades.
I hope we have ‘coming years’. That might give us some time to get our act together and forget about Dem/Rep and begin thinking in terms of honorable, capable, human beings who want this country to survive.
While i’m planning on voting for Obama, i’m not a victim of the “Obama Fever” everybody talks about. As far as ‘surviving’ an Obama presidency, there isn’t any doubt in my mind that we will—whatever happens in November. Whether McCain or Obama, i really don’t believe much is going to change—and that’s both for good and for ill. After the Bush years, it should be readily apparent that this country can weather some pretty monstrous calamities. i hate to sound so indifferent, but that seems to be the reality. One might say that Americans are addicted to status-quo. We generally don’t like change, for better or worse. We like familiarity—whether represented by fast food and Starbucks, or the fact that it seems like Washington is always ‘business as usual,’ inasmuch as it affects us directly.
For my part, i hoped that the Sept. 11th attacks themselves—not even counting the calamitous legislation that came in their wake, nor the wars, for that matter—would be a momentous enough slap in the face wakeup call that everyone who has sat complacent for so long would start to give a damn about what goes on in government; that they would start asking questions as to why we do the things we do, at least foreign-policy-wise, or at least make people scratch their heads and wonder why it seems their vote matters less and less, or that we continue to pay higher and higher taxes, yet get less and less for them. The litany continues, but i’ll keep this brief. Instead of asking questions and demanding answers from our so-called leaders (OUR employees, after all), a massive propaganda campaign of fear and submission was injected into the American consciousness—a ploy to keep the populace so addicted to status-quo that a certain queasy, terrifying dope-sick begins to creep in whenever we have the opportunity to shift our course.
As T.S. Eliot said, “This is the way the world ends / Not with a bang but a whimper.” When America falls, as all empires do, it won’t be like the WTC. It won’t crash to the ground spectacularly. In our complacency, America will succumb to atrophy like a sick old drug addict.
Blackhat,
I hope you are right and I am wrong.
I don’t think it’s because the people like status-quo, I think it’s because they don’t want to face the very scary truth that it doesn’t matter which candidate they vote for, we are on the skids.
They don’t want to think about it, worry about it, do anything about it - because the feel helpless. Voting makes them feel they are doing something - I hope they are.
I talk to my son, ill wife and 3 young children, a new business. He tells me, “Mom, I know you are probably right, I just can’t think about it right now, I have 3 kids, a new business and I do most of the housework.”
You would probably get some version of that from a great many people.
Exactly! Most people have their lives, and the ever-increasing number of demands on one’s time, and with that, politics (at least any active role in it, besides idle conversation) takes a backseat—it’s something that seems like “such a long way from here.”
It’s worth reminding oneself that the government of the United States has remained the same since the drafting of the Constitution; that after the historic election of 1800’s unprecedented peaceful transfer of power between political parties, there has been no actualised threat to the structure of the system itself, save the Civil War (and even then, the seceding states did not have plans to overthrow the national government itself). Now, if you compare this to a country like France, for example, there are people still living who remember watching Nazi convoys rolling through the streets of Paris, and seeing swastikas hoisted over buildings in place of the French flag. Similarly, there are even more people still alive who experienced firsthand the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and watched what civil liberties they enjoyed under the Shah suddenly disappear overnight…
The list goes on, of course, but my point is that in these countries, people are far more likely to take to the streets in protest, or drop everything and take political matters into their own hands—because the scars left by occupation or political tumult are so close; so fresh in the collective consciousness. You’ll see students in the streets or entire industries on strike due to what might seem like a minute change in policy.
Had America likewise been a battlefield of World War II, or had the Cold War not been so cold; had Americans seen armies marching through the streets of their hometowns, i doubt people these days would be so complacent.
When people tell me “You don’t realise how good you have it,” i’m apt to agree, despite that these sentiments are usually followed with, “Stop complaining.” i’m fully aware that i live in the richest country in the world, and that i enjoy more creature-comforts, as well as freedoms, than probably the vast majority of people on earth. My grandparents lived through the Great Depression, and World War II after it. They sacrificed, they saved, and they worked hard. From what i see of the habits of my generation, my grandparents are an altogether different breed. That breed, i’m sorry to say, is a dying one. One day, my grandfather and i were talking—having a similar discussion as we are now—and he mentions that the biggest mistake his generation ever made was that, out of an earnest desire that their children wouldn’t have to bear the hardship they did themselves, they went and spoiled them rotten. Now, my generation is one of entitlement. We seem to think we should have everything we want, because somehow (by birthright, perhaps?) we deserve it. As a direct result, methinks, the present economy has all the symptoms of the Great Depression, which was never supposed to happen again. Now, it very well might, and as the Democrats and Republicans bicker back and forth about whose fault it is, it’s become pretty clear to me that the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the thousands of Americans that put their obsession with lifestyle ahead of their actual means by which to live it—people buying houses and cars and furniture and plane tickets, concert tickets, etc. entirely on credit, and without the real income to back it up.
i took an economics class several years ago, while at the same time working for an insurance broker. Between what i saw happening at work, and comparing it with the more theoretical material in class, it disturbed me, to say the least, to see the way things were going. People stacking financing on top of financing on top of financing. Young couples buying $700,000 condos, paying the mortgage payments with a Visa card. The trend starts developing that there is so much ‘imaginary money’ being exchanged for real property/products, and the time it takes for the ‘imaginary money’ to be actualised in real dollars continues to lengthen exponentially, that eventually the period between when services or goods are rendered and payment is completed surpasses the human lifetime.
Greed, speculation, and moreover, the belief that one can ‘get rich quick,’ rather than working hard over a period of time to get where one wants to be has set this country up for failure. The people at the top are making reckless investments, and offering deals ‘too-good-to-be-true’ to people lower on the economic hierarchy. Essentially, they’re playing financial Russian-roulette—but with the gun instead pointed at the heads of renters, the working poor, and others who end up the victims of their schemes. Several people i’ve known have been evicted from their apartments for no fault of their own, but because their landlord was speculating real estate, and ended up losing their building in the recent mortgage crash.
Now, here in San Francisco, landlords often require extensive information about potential tenants’ bank account balance, etc.; ostensibly to determine that person will be able to pay rent consistently. No background information of that sort is required of landlords by tenants—meaning that if your landlord is a financial disaster area, the lease you signed essentially means nothing, and you could find yourself moving a lot sooner than you planned to.
<center>* * *</center>
Anyway…i apologise for the lengthy tangent, but my point is that lifestyle obsession, addiction to comfort and appearing of a certain status in society, and the extent of financial recklessness that has come along with it leaves very little time for people to be concerned with matters “way off in Washington,” which have become increasingly convoluted, to the extent that John Q Citizen feels it’s pointless to try and wrap his head around all the intricacies, and how they affect him directly. Also, the precariousness people feel financially catalyses the duck-and-cower response when fear is used to cow the populace in other contexts. “Not only are you afraid of losing your house, and the fact that you have no health insurance, but now terrorists want to kill you, too.”
Feminists are fascist (“columnist” Rudov’s “...the misandrist underpinning of fascistic feminism.”)???
Fascinating! I want to thank AIM for creating an endless supply, fresh every day, of excellent comedy material.
September 9 at 1:39 pm | #1 | Link
“We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb.”
“Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being ‘chooses’ to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.”
Cardinal Egan