Is there anything a Republican can do that would please the folks at the New York Times short of losing an election, resigning from office, or getting caught in a career-ending scandal?
You would think the gracious, post-election comments expressed towards president-elect Obama by folks such as John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-Minn.) would have been greeted with joy by liberal media members basking in the glow of their glorious victory.
Quite the contrary, as the losers in this election showed extraordinary class while demonstrating perfectly how those that come in second should behave in a civilized society, the Times' Jim Rutenberg found ways to spoil the moment in a piece slated for Sunday's front page (emphasis added):
Just a few weeks ago, at the height of the campaign, Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota told Chris Matthews of MSNBC that, when it came to Mr. Obama, "I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views."
But there she was on Wednesday, after narrowly escaping defeat because of those comments, saying she was "extremely grateful that we have an African-American who has won this year." Ms. Bachmann, a Republican, called Mr. Obama's victory, which included her state, "a tremendous signal we sent."
And it was not too long ago that Senator John McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, accused Mr. Obama of "palling around with terrorists."
But she took an entirely different tone on Thursday, when she chastised reporters for asking her questions about her war with some staff members in the McCain campaign at such a heady time. "Barack Obama has been elected president," Ms. Palin said. "Let us, let us - let him - be able to kind of savor this moment, one, and not let the pettiness of maybe internal workings of the campaign erode any of the recognition of this historic moment that we're in. And God bless Barack Obama and his beautiful family."
There is a great tradition of paint-peeling political hyperbole during presidential campaign years. And there is an equally great tradition of backing off from it all afterward, though with varying degrees of deftness.
But given the intensity of some of the charges that have been made in the past few months, and the historic nature of Mr. Obama's election, the exercise this year has been particularly whiplash-inducing, with its extreme before-and-after contrasts.
The shift in tone follows the magnanimous concession speech from Mr. McCain, of Arizona, who referred to Mr. Obama's victory Tuesday night as "a historic election" and hailed the "special pride" it held for African-Americans. That led the vice president-elect, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., to get into the act. During the campaign, Mr. Biden said he no longer recognized Mr. McCain, an old friend. Now, he says, "We're still friends." President Bush, in turn, also hailed Mr. Obama's victory, saying his arrival at the White House would be "a stirring sight." [...]
The presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin said she was hard-pressed to find a similar moment when the tone had changed so drastically, and so quickly, among so many people of such prominence.
"I don't think that's happened very often," Ms. Goodwin said. "The best answer I can give you is they don't want to be on the wrong side of history, and they recognize how the country saw this election, and how people feel that they're living in a time of great historic moment."
Actually, Doris, what you really mean is that this hasn't happened in the previous two presidential elections when Al Gore and John Kerry acted like sore losers on a school playground rather than men.
However, if you go back to 1996, you'll find that Bob Dole was extraordinarily gracious in defeat as was George H. W. Bush in 1992.
The problem, therefore, is clearly that folks on the left don't know how to be good losers, and, as a result, don't understand it when it happens.
'Tis a pity, dontcha think?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Noel
November 8, 2008 - 20:05 ET by Josh SNFirst, the greatest concession speech in history was Al Gore, Jr.'s. Bar none. End of story.
Second, considering what Bachmann said before, I simply don't find it plausible that she has come around as far as she says she has. Before she was saying Obama was dubiously anti-American, and that the Democrats should be investigated for being traitors. This week she is apologetic. Well excuse me if Senator McCarthy eating crow does not impress.
Thirdly, the true Program of President B. Hussein O. has been revealed, and you better rally behind the President or be declared an enemy combatant.
Word Up. Attica. No Jusice, No Peace. AnSwaR.
Was that speech before or
November 8, 2008 - 20:08 ET by BDWas that speech before or after Al Gore tried to disenfranchise me by throwing out military ballots?
Simple Fact
November 8, 2008 - 20:12 ET by Josh SNIt is a fact, incontrovertible, that the Bush campaign tried to throw out military ballots in Florida counties which were predominantly Democratic.
Poor lost Josh....do not
November 8, 2008 - 20:23 ET by bigtimerPoor lost Josh....do not give him any map to find his way out of the messes he gets in...watching him wander in his own wilderness is simply amusing...we need a regular clown here...and Josh is the best...lately.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Hahahahaa! The military
November 8, 2008 - 20:29 ET by BDHahahahaa!
The military voted like 80+% FOR Bush in that election. Therefore it was GORE who attempted to discount them. Bush would have personally DELIVERED the military absentee ballots to the polls if he had to to get them counted.
In the 2004 election the military voted something like 83% for Bush.
The latest, and undoubtedly inconclusive polls I have seen show the Military voting 70+% for McCain.
Therefore, WHO tried to disenfranchise me again?
Bush Campaign Lawyers in 2000 ...
November 8, 2008 - 20:39 ET by Josh SN... tried to stop absentee military ballots in Florida from being counted... if they were in predominantly Democratic voting counties.
Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, asked for all the military ballots to be counted, even if they were cast after election day.
Josh SN
November 8, 2008 - 20:47 ET by Noel SheppardJosh,
I'm beginning to understand why I've received so many requests for you to be banned as a troll: http://query.nytimes...
Be advised, you're close to losing your membership here. ns
Threats won't stop me from speaking the truth
November 8, 2008 - 21:24 ET by Josh SNI read an article in the print version of Vanity Fair which clearly stated that the Republican Party, in Democratic counties, tried to suppress absentee ballots, including military ones. There is no doubt in my mind that I read what I have stated I read.
Josh
November 8, 2008 - 21:27 ET by Noel SheppardJosh,
I don't care what you read. I even had the decency of providing a link to a liberal paper disproving your falsehood. If you can't provide a link proving your position, you should admit you're wrong. If you don't, I'll know you're a troll. After that point, your membership can be revoked at any time without further warning. ns
Noel
November 8, 2008 - 21:38 ET by Josh SNPlease.
Your article clearly showed that Gore lawyers were trying to discount absentee ballots that were in any way improper. That is a fact. If they lacked postmark, weren't signed correctly, et cetera, the Gore team tried to discount them.
But that is not, nor ever shall be, the same as saying the Bush team of laywers didn't try to discount absentee ballots, including military ones, in Democratic counties.
I grant that I am, at this time, unable to find a link to the story I read in print. For that reason, I shall not mention it again. That is not, as you surely know, the same as conceding I was incorrect.
§ Strike 3 Josh...
November 8, 2008 - 21:44 ET by TheSterHow many Newspapers did the recount??
They came up with the same Result??? Yes..Bush.
BTW...those people in front of the doors were not "citizens"...they were REPORTERS screaming to get in...FACTS.
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
Josh
November 8, 2008 - 22:04 ET by cocodrieThere was a young troll named Josh, whose head was filled full of mush. He thought he was smart but his brain was a fart, so all of his posts were a farce.
listen up josh
November 8, 2008 - 21:45 ET by candanceNext time look up your ammo before you make an assertion. Flapping your gums and then hoping you can find some proof is not very smart.
PS - If I catch you doing this trick again away from Noel's eyes I will consider you a troll and report it.
I'm a typical white person.
Your point is
November 8, 2008 - 22:29 ET by BDYour point is illogical.
Absentee ballots are overwhelmingly conservative demographically. Even in liberal strongholds, it would be normal to assume that for every maiden aunt Gore supporter visiting France, you would harvest two or three military votes which would trend heavily conservative.
Therefore it would be logical to assume Bush would have wanted to count EVERY absentee ballot even in the most liberal precinct.
josh may be right,
November 9, 2008 - 05:24 ET by AgnosticAnyone living in Florida at the time may recall that in the more liberal papers, St. Petersburg Times especially, and on news broadcasts there were articles that stated that the Republicans were trying to prevent votes from being counted during the recount process. The articles were couched in such a way that instead of laying out the fact that the Republicans were opposed to a recount the 'newsmakers' were trying to make the argument that the reason Republicans were trying to prevent the recount was to disenfranchise voters and it was often stated that among the votes that were to be recounted were military votes. Once again the Democrats and liberal media used the military for politics yet dismiss the military by not reporting that the military was voting overwhelmingly Republican.
§ I was going to add ....
November 8, 2008 - 21:38 ET by TheSterDave, Noel...beat me to it.
Darn!!
Yes...Ster is Speachless. Crap.
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
okay then josh
November 8, 2008 - 21:29 ET by candanceProve it. You can't just come on here flapping your gums in direct contradiction to the NY Times and expect us to believe you because you're just cool like that.
Bring some ammo or don't bother showing up.
Geez yall, this is really getting tedious. He's even more incorrigible than the prof.
I'm a typical white person.
Josh, unless you want to go bye-bye, I would strongly suggest...
November 8, 2008 - 21:32 ET by R D Helm...that you produce evidence to support your bizarre accusation that hails from a source other than Vanity Fair, which around here is viewed as the magazine version of Pravda.
You do realize, I hope, that many of the members of NB are military people, either retired or still active duty, and among those on active duty, many are currently serving in Ashcanistan, Iraq, and numerous other places around the world.
And for future reference, I am a Libertarian, not a Republican.
-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
And I'm an Aristocratic Republican with Democratic leanings
November 8, 2008 - 21:41 ET by Josh SNbut I don't see how that has ought to do with ought.
I am having a hard time finding the article online. That's why I've promised Noel I won't bring it up again.
You don't like Vanity Fair? Did you like Spy? Graydon Carter ran Spy and now runs Vanity Fair. I have a ton of respect for Carter.
What on earth is that?
November 8, 2008 - 21:43 ET by BlondeYour William Buckley imitation?
That is the funniest thing I've ever seen posted here.
Fakir!
Aristocratic Republican??
November 8, 2008 - 21:44 ET bylol
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
rofpmsl
November 8, 2008 - 21:48 ET by candanceAn aristocratic Republican with Democrat leanings? What the crap is that??
I'm a typical white person.
I've mentioned several times already
November 8, 2008 - 21:51 ET by Josh SNAbout the Oracle of the American Republic, Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu et la Brede.
He defined three major types of government, Tyrannical, Monarchical, and Republican, and two subtypes of Republican, Aristocratic and Democratic.
Josh
November 8, 2008 - 21:54 ET byis that like a 'country-club repub'? Do you have your plaid pants too?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
And your point would be?
November 8, 2008 - 21:55 ET by BlondeOh riiight....you got promoted from burger flipper to Ass't. Manager at the Burger King....so now you think you're an Aristocratic Republican.
Check.
um....yeah...
November 8, 2008 - 21:59 ET by candanceI've tried my darnedest to find a working definition of an aristocratic Republican and have found nothing more than references to old money politicians with blood ties to royal families in other countries.
So you're an old money Republican who entertains himself arguing with bloggers on NB.
Got it.
I'm a typical white person.
I said!
November 8, 2008 - 22:03 ET by Josh SNI recommend everyone interested in American politics to read Charles de Secondat's Esprit de Lois. He defines the term quite precisely. It means someone who believes in elections and moderation.
It is what George Washington studied for the 2nd Constitutional Convention, the one where they wrote the U.S. Constitution.
That and Blackstone.
I dated a girl named
November 8, 2008 - 22:08 ET by Ruths husband BenI dated a girl named Lois, once. She had a lot of Esprit, as I recall. And a Camaro.
RhB... LOL...much needed
November 8, 2008 - 22:29 ET by bigtimerRhB...
LOL...much needed at this time..heck to me Josh is just entertainment...real trolls that need to go are one's like NCguy, calling us racists here...now that is what angers me...
Josh is just fodder for a night like tonight.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
§ Hey!!! Josh is back!!! Noel, Blonde, Can, Dave,..U go First!!
November 8, 2008 - 22:21 ET by TheSterI will just hang out here....
Josh...I think you are a Masochist and like Bunny Suits!!!
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
oh my
November 8, 2008 - 22:00 ET byAbout the Oracle of the American Republic, Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu et la Brede.
this is a Monty Python skit isn't it? and the link goes to something called "Dumb Post"
again lol
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
yes its a Monty Python skit.
November 8, 2008 - 22:59 ET by katainkentyes its a Monty Python skit.
It all begins with "Ah, is this the right room for an argument?"
oh no this is the room for
November 8, 2008 - 23:11 ET byoh no this is the room for ridicule
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
my mistake perhaps this is
November 9, 2008 - 01:10 ET by katainkentmy mistake perhaps this is the room for Abuse.
arguments would be in 12a, just around the corner.
kata
November 9, 2008 - 01:13 ET by Noel SheppardThis isn't an argument! ns
N
November 9, 2008 - 01:17 ET byit most certainly is
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
no it isn't
November 9, 2008 - 01:23 ET by cocodrieno it isn't
No it isn't.
November 9, 2008 - 01:24 ET by Noel SheppardAn argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
not necessarily “The
November 9, 2008 - 01:34 ET bynot necessarily
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Thought this was abuse.
November 9, 2008 - 01:19 ET by cocodrieThought this was abuse.
I Was Here For A Discussion...
November 17, 2008 - 17:27 ET by Wildcatter1980...and a Monty Python routinue broke out.
--
Ignorance, our most costly commodity - paraphrased from Rush Limbaugh
→Monty Python
November 17, 2008 - 17:38 ET by Cool ArrowYou can't argue for free.
I prefer the term
November 8, 2008 - 21:59 ET by Ruths husband BenI prefer the term "doughhead".
cd, it means Josh here is seriously confoosed.
November 8, 2008 - 22:57 ET by R D HelmNot that that is any huge revelation or anything. :-)
-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
§ Josh..I think you are DRUNK or Stoned!! You are Losing it!!!
November 8, 2008 - 21:49 ET by TheSterOMG!! WOW!
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
bawahahahhaah
November 8, 2008 - 21:50 ET by Blondebut I don't see how that has ought to do with ought.
If you think that makes you aristocratic, dude, go back to screen writers school or somesuch.
Funniest thing I think I've ever read here, Mr. Aristocrat!
We need a better class of troll, here. (But this one is hillariously stupidly totally insane).
you know blonde
November 8, 2008 - 21:53 ET by candanceYou gotta say, this is the funniest thing we've seen since Black Tuesday. I haven't laughed this much on NB in a long time. :p
I'm a typical white person.
I know can....
November 8, 2008 - 21:56 ET by BlondeTheatre of the absurd, redux.
Gotta run....Gat's are back on....be back later.
Keep up with this bizarro troll though....can't wait to see what idiot thing it comes up with next.
Cd..Blonde..READ above!!!
November 8, 2008 - 22:03 ET by TheSterI made a Funny.
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
§ Can..You Gotta save this Thread!!!! For your Forum!!!
November 8, 2008 - 22:12 ET by TheSterIf You don't...I will...
THIS IS HISTORIC..WE FROZE A TROLL..THANKS NOEL TO MAKE HIM CHOKE...
THE PROS GOT HIM AGAINST A WALL!!!
YES....BLONDE, CAN, ET ALL NAILED JELLO TO THE WALL...
THIS THREAD MUST BE SAVED...I'm laughing my ass off still,...
WoW!
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
§ Blonde..I wore Plaid Shorts once...
November 8, 2008 - 22:01 ET by TheSterAm I Fancy???
Ohhhh oooohhhh...I put A1 STEAK SAUCE ON MY BIGMACK!!!
Yeah....I did It !!! Eat that Josh!!!
...well...half slid onto my plaid shorts....
MOM yelled at me...even though I'm 42....I had to wash my own shorts....I hate Josh for making me do my own Laundry!
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
§ ALERT!!! JOSH IS JUMPING THREADS!!!!
November 8, 2008 - 21:52 ET by TheSterI'll go after him!!!!
Awwww....Screw it. Josh will POP up...
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
Soon to be banned troll,
November 8, 2008 - 22:02 ET by R D HelmYou publicly accused the Bush administration of employing lawyers to suppress the votes of the men and women who were actively serving at that time, many of whom were directly in harms way.
I find this to be a ludicrous charge, given that in 2004, the overwhelming majority of the members of our military thought rather highly of George W. Bush. I am also quite sure that most of them still do.
Futhermore, as someone who comes from a huge military family, one member of which was an elected govenor of a state, I find your pitiful little charge offensive in the extreme.
We here know from a myriad of very credible sources that Albert Gore Jr. employed a sh*tload of lawyers to attempt to disqualify the votes of many thousands of our citizens who were serving this nation abroad as members of our military.
To me, this fact alone makes Algore lower than the lowest whalesh*t on the human hierarchy.
I would strongly suggest that you find equally credible sources to support you highly unlikely claim, or promptly remove yourself forever from our midst, as your credibility here is less than zero.
-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
Fiction. Military votes
November 8, 2008 - 20:50 ET by BDFiction.
Military votes are dependably Conservative which is why the Gore campaign attempted to have them discounted.
Exactly BD.... Virginia
November 8, 2008 - 21:42 ET by bigtimerExactly BD....
Virginia was another perfect example with the control by the dems...we all know this is done routinely in a lot of states...
It is has been beyond disgraceful, deplorable and despicable to put it politely...the very people that make sure we have the right to vote.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
With the notable (read: racist) exception...
November 8, 2008 - 23:58 ET by Cortillaen... of blacks in the military declaring they'd vote for Obama over McCain by better than 6 to 1. Oh, but us whities are the racists. Feh.
www.daybydaycartoon.... Proving that conservative comedy is very real.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
wow josh
November 8, 2008 - 20:59 ET by candanceJust wow. You are even stupider than I thought you were yesterday.
I'm a typical white person.
ballots
November 8, 2008 - 21:41 ET by bmoviesA full 19 hours after it began, the nightmarish battle over Duval´s military ballots came to an end. When the canvassing board announced that the ballots of 149 soldiers, sailors and airmen had been disqualified, a pair of jubilant Gore lawyers actually exchanged high-fives for their victory against America’s service personnel.
"A Republican, visibly shaken by this sight, demanded to know how they could celebrate the disenfranchisement of U.S. military personnel risking their lives around the world. One of the Gore lawyers glibly replied: ‘A win´s a win.’"
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/5/8/225831.shtml
§ JOSH IS A CUT AND PASTE HACK!! BUSTED!!
November 8, 2008 - 21:27 ET by TheSter§
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
Josh
November 8, 2008 - 23:29 ET by JeffWeimerThere were numerous ballots in Florida that were disqualified because they didn't have a postmark. Mail from a hostile fire zone is mailed free back to the states, it's a nice gesture. However, these ballots were disqualified at the behest of the Gore campaign purely because the conventional wisdom is that military ballots tend to favor Republicans. Here's my reference, including the very memo by Mark Herron adn a partial list of military voters disqualified by the Gore team: http://republican_st...
Now show me yours, for this "fact, incontrovertible". If you can't, quit making things up.
And quit being a sore winner. Nobody likes a sore loser, but you guys can't even WIN graciously.
Shh, they don't like
November 9, 2008 - 03:03 ET by TexasOptimistShh, they don't like hearing the facts.
I am a conservative who is willing to think for himself.
Shh, they don't like
November 9, 2008 - 03:25 ET by Dan The Man 2Shh, they don't like hearing the facts - Don't mind facts TO, in fact I changed my views a scant 4 years after I voted for Carter. I imagine a good number of Obama voters will change their minds also if they also look at the facts. I also looked at the facts about God and the Bible about 18 years ago and it has guided me further to understand the evil that are Democrats.
You are at best misguided and at worst have such an open mind the contents have since vacated the premises.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
§ HELLO!!! Josh!!! I Found YOU!!!
November 8, 2008 - 20:08 ET by TheSterLet's Play!!!
I WILL BE WITH YOU ALL NIGHT!!!
WHERE DO WANT TO START!!!
JOY!!!
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
Didja Watch the Video?
November 8, 2008 - 20:13 ET by Josh SNWe can talk about Obama's true, scary plan after you watch the video to which I already linked, but will link to again here.
josh
November 8, 2008 - 20:30 ET by TN MomAl Gore had me with his concession speech.
Lost me with his 'I Urge Civil Disobedience' speech...kinda had a 'Bill Ayers' ring to it.
§ No..Josh. Your AV High School Videos Don't Work Here.
November 8, 2008 - 20:39 ET by TheSterPlay with the BIG DOGS....or Stay ON THE PORCH.
I'M IN THE YARD> > COME PLAY WITH ME!!!
I already asked you Twice!!!
BRING YOUR IDEAS (TOYS) ...
LETS SEE WHO WALKS AWAY...
CAPS ON PURPOSE...CAUSE I LIKE'em
U 'BETCH YA!!
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
WARNING
November 9, 2008 - 14:17 ET by SQL_SamJust an FYI - I hit the link and it tried to download something on my pc - be warned!
yawn
November 8, 2008 - 20:31 ET by candanceI'm a typical white person.
Josh...
November 8, 2008 - 20:35 ET by Ascended Conservativelet me ask you a question regarding Obama and anti-American sentiments. you would agree with me that what it means to be an American is to believe in the constitution and its supporting documents, right? i mean, afterall, we have become the world's lone superpower (maybe not in the near future) due to, in part, our constitution and the like, right?
if so, how do you explain that Obama actually believes that the constitution is flawed? that the Framers got it wrong and more "spread the wealth" clauses should have been in the document. if you don't believe me, here's a link:
http://www.worldnetd...
logically, it follows that Obama does not support the constitution in its entirety. Not supporting the constitution in its entirety can be defined as anti-American; therefore Obama is anti-American. Q.E.D.
also, is it very presidential to rip on elderly ladies and call women pigs? to me, that is VERY unpresidential. Obama et al. have really dropped the expectation of presidential behavior during his campaign and he continues to do so...
-ascended conservative
"Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Palin"
Everyone who wants to amend the Constitution is anti-American?
November 8, 2008 - 20:53 ET by Josh SNThe people who want an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage are anti-American?
Carl Schurz, I believe, said "My country, right or wrong. When right, keep it right. When wrong, set it right."
Oddly, neither Schurz, nor Decatur, were naturally born Americans.
The Oracle of the American Republic wrote "The Spirit of Laws," a book which clearly indicates that moderation is the principle of what we call a representative democracy. It is simply immoderate to have some people earning billions a year, and paying a lower overall tax rate than people who make 90,000/year.
It is, dare I say it, immoral to tax speculation at a lower rate than perspiration.
I believe it is perfectly accurate to say the Warren court wasn't as radical as it might have been, simply because it didn't sign on to the redistributionist tenets of America's more radical ideologues. That's plain on its face true, right? The Warren Court was not as radical as it might have been.
Since Bush took office, and, to a degree, when Carter, Reagan, George Herbert and Clinton were President, the rich have gotten richer. It is simply immoderate.
Such immoderation is perfectly suitable in a monarchy or tyranny, according to Charles de Secondat, but inappropriate in a Republic. The rational solution is to tax the rich at a higher rate than the poor, just as the 1st Congress did with its tariffs (e.g. madeira vs. rum).
A more radical Republican would say, naturally, that equality is a goal, not absolute equality, but the kind of equality which nurtures the highest Republican spirit.
If some of this seemed mysterious, I can't recommend highly enough that you read Esprit de Lois. The 1970s edition is horribly abridged. One came out in 2000 which is quite nice.
§ JOSH IS A CUT AND PASTE HACK!! BUSTED!!
November 8, 2008 - 21:27 ET by TheSter§
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
Okay, so let me understand
November 8, 2008 - 21:13 ET by SmartypantsOkay, so let me understand this. Al Gore tried to steal an election from GWB, one which his side of the aisle to this day does not acknowledge Bush legitimately one, but good old Al gave a great concession speech? Al Gore himself has made many comments as to the "illegitimacy" of Bush's win in 2000. He was and is a sore loser, and the operative word is "loser".
Face it, Josh, Democrats for the most part do not know how to be gracious--in victory or defeat. By and large, it is just not part of their nature to be humble. When you believe that you know all the answers, that you are inherently more intelligent than anyone else in the room, graciousness takes a back seat.
Jeb Bush thought it was a great speech, too.
November 8, 2008 - 21:26 ET by Josh SNJeb is probably one of those commie-symp-pinko Republicans, you think?
It was a great speech.
Smarty
November 8, 2008 - 21:28 ET by BlondeJosh is (and leftists in general) Doctor Demento.
Poor souls.
JOSH IS A CUT AND PASTE HACK!!! BUSTED!!
November 8, 2008 - 21:25 ET by TheSter§
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
Al Gore,
November 9, 2008 - 01:44 ET by IamTinmanAl Gore with a family history of political service, the support of the outgoing president, 8 years as vicc president and with the support of the MSM and the chinese fundraisers couldn't manage to beat some dumb texan whose father only lasted one term. Not only that he couldn't even manage to carry his home state.
Al Gore is half the man his father was and he was no great shakes.
How much pain they have cost us, the evils which have never happened.
Thomas Jefferson
A reply to Josh SN
November 9, 2008 - 04:06 ET by Ted ClarkeHello there Josh SN,
Thank you for sharing your views. It's always good to get different perspectives of things.
But I want to disagree with you on a few points.
First, When you say that Al Gore's concession speech was the greatest in history, "bar none", I think that this is patently not true. Why? Because Gore didn't mean a word of it. He believed Bush cheated. He has always subscribed to the lie that Bush stole the election and that he, Al Gore, was the true President of the United States. How can it be the greatest concession speech "bar none" when he never really conceded?
Second, you have blatantly distorted Bachmann's words. She never said Obama was "Anti-American". She specifically said that he held "Anti-American" views. Don't you understand how these are distinctly different?
When Obama says that he wants to "fundamentally transform America", isn't that view, by definition, "anti-American"? It certainly isn't pro-American. How can it be when the whole point of it is to say that America is fundamentally wrong?
If you refuse to accept this as an anti-American view, then try this one on for size: Obama is on record bemoaning the Constitutional limits placed on the federal government as being a fundamental flaw that our founding fathers had overlooked. He described these limits as "negative rights" and pondered what steps could be taken by judges to circumvent them. Obama wants to legislate from the bench in a way that empowers the government to disempower us. He is totally unimpressed with the fact that The U.S. Constitution was specifically designed to prevent such expansion of governmental authority. To me, it's a given. Obama's view is profoundly anti-American because it puts the essence of American liberty in the crosshairs.
How about his plan to "spread the wealth around"? He has openly said that the collection of taxes should not be merely for building roads and funding the military etc. He said it should also be a tool for "social justice". In other words, he wants the government to take money (and property?) from one group of people and give it to another. This is not an American ideal. The French put a premium on equality, not us. The heart of our American philosophy is liberty and Obama wants to ditch it. If this is not an anti-American idea, I don't know what is.
Other examples? He doesn't want America to have its own language or its own unique culture. He doesn't want to strengthen and define our borders. He wants "multi-culturalism" to pressure us into denying the goodness of our own ways. He wants to bankrupt the U.S. coal industry and have electricity bills "skyrocket". He wants to "end" the Iraq War and not win it. He wants to dictate to radio stations what they can and can't broadcast. To Europeans, he describes himself as a "Citizen of the World" rather than as "an American". These, and many more, are arguably "anti-American" views.
How about this? After he won the election, Obama said,
"Now we know that America is truly a good country."
So, I guess that means that before his victory, Obama was never quite sure if our country was good or not. Or maybe it means that a McCain victory would have meant that America is truly a bad country. Either way, it means that Obama feels that America requires vindication. Forget about all the good our people have done throughout the world. The liberation of captive nations? The invention of life-saving technologies and medicines? Humanitarianism? Charity? The true spread of wealth and freedom? American exceptionalism? None of these things mean anything. The goodness or badness of our country hinges on one man...."The One". Obama and Obama alone can vindicate us. Can you not see that this view is profoundly anti-American?
And think about that guy who killed himself by jumping off a bridge. His suicide note read, "Obama...Take care of my family, please." This guy studied Obama well and took his lessons to heart: He thought, "I'll get out of the way and let the government take care of my family." We, on the Right, take the pro-American stance: "Government, YOU get out of the way and let ME take care MY family!"
And one final point. A very American ideal comes from Martin Luther King who said that we should not judge people by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. This election, as designed by Obama and his puppets in the media, rejected King's dream outright. The content of Obama's character became a non-issue. His allegiances or blindness to the vilest of anti-white, anti-Semitic and anti-American influences were repackaged as rude, racist "distractions". And his skin color became his most attractive and effective selling point. It trumped everything. He basically took MLK's dream and ripped it to shreds and then tossed it out....Hmmm. Not unlike those American flags that Obama's people stuffed into garbage bags. As stage dressing, they functioned well, but beyond that, what good were they?
Thanks for taking the time to read this, Josh. Take care.
Is there anything a
November 8, 2008 - 20:20 ET by R D HelmIs there anything a Republican can do that would please the folks at
the New York Times short of losing an election, resigning from office,
or getting caught in a career-ending scandal?
Sure there is. They could all have been aborted either prior to, during, or (thanks to the efforts of Barack Hussein Obama, among others) after they were born.
-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
Dave
November 8, 2008 - 20:21 ET by Noel SheppardDave,
Yeah, but how do you fit that into a good lead...hmmm? :-) ns
Noel,
November 8, 2008 - 20:48 ET by R D HelmLOL-Well, you could have gone this route:
Aside from being aborted prior to, during, or just after having been born into this world, is there anything a Republican can do that would please...
Or a slightly milder approach might be:
Aside from having never been born into this world, is there anything a Republican can do that would please...
Or the ever popular, among our leftist friends anyway, as they so often threaten to, yet somehow never quite manage to carry through with it:
Aside from committing suicide en masse, is there anything [the] Republican(s) can do that would please...
:-)
-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
Maybe McCain should have
November 8, 2008 - 20:51 ET by motherbeltMaybe McCain should have come out and said:
Well, we tried to warn you, but you wouldn't listen. You had your chance. Now we're stuck with him. The country is going to go to Hell in a handbasket.
I would have preferred such
November 9, 2008 - 09:51 ET by GrannyGrump42I would have preferred such a speech.
Something like, "I sincerely hope that Senator Obama was elected despite, rather than because of, his record, his associates, and his socialist aspirations. I can not disguise the fact that I believe that our nation chose wrongly in electing this inexperienced and unproven man. But respect for the electoral process -- an ideal that, I must note, the President-elect's supporters do not embrace -- requires me to conceded with dignity and grace."
"I can only pray, frequently and fervently, that Senator Obama only meant a fraction of the things he has said. I can only pray, frequently and fervently, that our country can recover from this blind and foolish embrace of such a man."
Josh I have missed you how
November 8, 2008 - 20:21 ET by dark_dsJosh I have missed you how are you doing bro ..... life is it good? all your posts have convinced me that I need to return to my socialist roots ....I have spent the last few days rethinking everything including my former opinion that you have acted like an ass on this site .. now I know that you are a true prophet .. your intellectual superiority is truly something I yearn to achieve .. I now know you are a truth seeker... that you only are trying to help people of lower intelligence ..... your statement that there are no good republicans is an example of tolerance and pure thinking ... your vision and grasp of the world knows no bounds .. 5 days after Mission Accomplished ....you are the man guide us into the bright shining new day Josh
Today
November 8, 2008 - 20:35 ET by Josh SNToday was about the neatest, bestest day ever! I'm optimistic tomorrow will even be better.
I would love to vote for a Republican. I never knew one that I liked.
Hardly my fault that most of them are either war hawks or pander to the anti-scientific, instead of making rational Keynesian arguments about shrinking the size of government, and don't try to <censored> the poor to do it.
um, josh sweetie....
November 8, 2008 - 20:41 ET by candanceRepublicans are supposed to be, by definition, pro-military, against global warming, and all about shrinking the government. It puzzles me for you to say you want to vote for a Republican as long as they are not like that.
That's as absurb as saying you'd like the color red if it weren't so reddish.
Please stop pretending to be interested in smaller government. All of your actions speak otherwise.
I'm a typical white person.
Sez You
November 8, 2008 - 20:56 ET by Josh SNI'd say Republicans are for less government. The pro-military stuff is actually completely incongruous with the "no standing army" principle of the American Revolutionaries. Completely. No way around it. No standing army.
I don't know what you mean by "against global warming" but the Republican party has a long history, and many current elected officials, who deny the science. What could be dumber? I don't know.
"No standing armies" is a
November 8, 2008 - 21:01 ET by BD"No standing armies" is a fiction. The founding fathers had a desire to have no LARGE standing armies but understood the need for an army.
In fact, all able bodied men of the period were required to have access to a dependable firearm to serve in the militia in each of the several states.
What this means is the founders desired a military capability, just not at the federal level but rather the state level.
The US soon learned that armies indeed function BETTER at the federal level due to greater span of countol and flexibility, while maintaining the ability for states to provide manpower.
Name one war we have fought with out a federal army?
BULL PUCKEY
November 8, 2008 - 21:05 ET by Josh SNHere is Thomas Jefferson on the subject, from the U. Virginia website.
A larger selection of quotes, whose authenticity I can not vouch, is here.
§ Josh..READ ABOVE>>>>
November 8, 2008 - 21:09 ET by TheSterLet's Play.
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
Gee, then why did the
November 8, 2008 - 21:15 ET by BDGee, then why did the founding father authorize federal armies all through the period?
Hmmmmmmm......
Research "THe Legion" in the American West as led by General Anthony Wayne.
Also, please research the Whiskey Rebellion and the desire by our president at the time to have General Daniel Morgan lead the US Army into Western Pannsylvania.
I would also ask that you research the construction of the coastal defense network begun during the federal period.
For fun, please look up Edgar Allen Poe and his military service in the federal army during the tail end of the federal period at Fort Moultrie.
You can find comments from one or two founders who dsicuss the issue, but in reality, the founders found it necessary to create the federal army and keep it functional all throughout.
You are missing the facts
November 8, 2008 - 21:31 ET by Josh SN"For the time being, Washington retained the force facing the British at New York and discharged the rest of the continentals. After the British quit New York, he kept only one infantry regiment and a battalion of artillery, 600 men in all, to guard the military supplies at West Point and other posts."
George Washington dismissed almost the entite military. Who wrote this? Some liberal website? I can't say for sure, but the quote is from a .mil website.
You obviously didn't know what the American Revolutionaries did with the military in the early days of the Republic. I have to wonder why you talked about it.
Your post concurs. The
November 8, 2008 - 22:41 ET by BDYour post concurs. The founding fathers DID maintain a federal force. What size is immaterial. (600 men being a significant force for the time period on the North American continent where.)They found value in its existance.
Actually, I studied the US Army's history during the federal period.
JOSH IS A CUT AND PASTE HACK!!! BUSTED!!
November 8, 2008 - 21:24 ET by TheSterSter.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
COMMIE NORTH CAROLINA doesn't believe you
November 8, 2008 - 21:07 ET by Josh SN"...that the people have a Right to bear Arms for the Defence of the State, and as Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and that the military should be kept under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power." -North Carolina, in its Declaration of Rights, 1776
Have you read the Federalist Papers? Have you read #39? Have you read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? The culprit was always the military. The military destroys the liberties of the country.
At least that is what James Madison believed. And William Gibbon. And lots of others.
§ Ok .."Have you read"...I love that Josh...NO!!! WHY???
November 8, 2008 - 21:15 ET by TheSterJosh ...why has the Majority of "stupid" people NOT read what you are Flinging out here???
Why Josh???
Public Education????
Why Josh???
What Happened???
Ball back in your court.
Josh...Answer these Questions....
OR I'LL HUNT YOU DOWN UNTIL YOU DO.
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
§ JOSH..Here We GO!!! Define Pro-Military. Define Pro-Death.
November 8, 2008 - 21:07 ET by TheSterNow Josh...I know the only reason you are here is to instigate the LOCALS...so don't BS me...I have Inside Info on the Lib Sites...
I know your Play Book.
I read 4 Lib sites...Before I hit my own Site...NB.
If you want to do a Circle Jerk...YOU GO FIRST!
Yes...I'm Hostile...Yet Amused....
Start with the above Questions....IF YOU DEVIATE....Well...let's see what happens....
Ready????
Let's PLAY!!!
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
Hi
November 8, 2008 - 21:31 ET by Dexter the BeagleSo Washington didn't feel that we needed standing force at West Point, or on the frontiers, to protect against indians, protect trade and encroachments from our neighbors? He didn't say, "Altho' a large standing Army in time of Peace hath ever been considered dangerous to the liberties of a Country, yet a few Troops under certain circumstances, are not only safe, but indispensably necessary." Hmm sounds like he was for some type of standing army. Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, writes on how having a standing army is part of entering the modern world. Jefferson, Hale and others were not, however they were for a well armed militia and population, "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson, 1803.
From a .mil website
November 8, 2008 - 21:32 ET by Josh SN"For the time being, Washington retained the force facing the British at New York and discharged the rest of the continentals. After the British quit New York, he kept only one infantry regiment and a battalion of artillery, 600 men in all, to guard the military supplies at West Point and other posts."
*
November 8, 2008 - 21:42 ET by R D Helm*
Sure, RD
November 8, 2008 - 21:56 ET by Josh SNHere is the .mil link discussing how George Washington dismissed all but 600 members of the military.
BEFORE IT WAS EDITED, the comment above asked for a link from a .mil website which showed that George Washington reduced the size of the military to 600 people in uniform.
Josh
November 8, 2008 - 22:21 ET by MightyMouthOnce you reply a poster cannot edit his post.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
If you are so
November 8, 2008 - 22:37 ET by R D HelmIf you are so intellectually inhibited as to not be able to recognize the dangers this country faces today vs. those it faced in the 1700's, then I have to ask an honest question:
Are you even remotely intelligent or sufficiently educated enough to be participating in this environment?
And as it appears your entire knowledge of history could be written on a postage stamp with a fat marker:
Had this nation only maintained a 600 man army on Dec 06, 1941, there is a fairly good chance, no, make that a 100% probability, that the mindless drivel that you would be posting here today would be written in either Japanese or German, depending on which end of the country you hail from.
(Of course, had the majority of the U.S. population at that time been anywhere near as ignorant as you, this site would not now exist.)
And no, my "edited" comment above was asking for evidence to support your claim that George W. Bush had attempted to interfere with the counting of the absentee ballots of our men and women serving our nation abroad.
-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
yea and?
November 8, 2008 - 21:50 ET by Dexter the Beagle"First. A regular and standing force, for Garrisoning West Point and such other Posts upon our Northern, Western, and Southern Frontiers, as shall be deemed necessary to awe the Indians, protect our Trade, prevent the encroachment of our Neighbours of Canada and the Florida's, and guard us at least from surprizes; Also for security of our Magazines.
Secondly. A well organized Militia; upon a Plan that will pervade all the States, and introduce similarity in their Establishment Manoeuvres, Exercise and Arms.
Thirdly. Establishing Arsenals of all kinds of Military Stores.
Fourthly. Accademies, one or more for the Instruction of the Art Military; particularly those Branches of it which respect Engineering and Artillery, which are highly essential, and the knowledge of which, is most difficult to obtain. Also Manufactories of some kinds of Military Stores."
Washington's own writing May 1783, I can cut and paste as well,
Link, Please
November 8, 2008 - 21:55 ET by Josh SNAre you saying the .mil website is filled with lies, or are you saying George Washington's claims about what he'd do didn't match what he ended up doing?
Dude, I have tried to be respectful of you with my posts
November 8, 2008 - 22:14 ET by Dexter the BeagleSo, don't attempt to put words in my mouth. Secondly, I agreed that after the revolutionary war Washington did release a majority of the continental army. The writings of which I referenced were his discussions about what to do after the war. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s6.html
Then don't edit away your question after I answer it
November 8, 2008 - 22:17 ET by Josh SNThat doesn't seem "respectful" to me.
George Washington cut the military to 600 soldiers as President, according to the link I provided. Regardless of what he wrote he'd do, or what the exigencies of the Whisky Rebellion prompted him to do.
Josh, once you reply to a comment, the commenter can't edit it.
November 8, 2008 - 22:22 ET by R D Helm-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
§ Dave!! Should we keep or BOOT Josh???
November 8, 2008 - 22:36 ET by TheSterJosh...You LOST ALL Credibility here...
Josh...You Starve for Attention...
Josh...We will now hold a VOTE in front of YOUR FACE!!!
Posters!!! YES OR NO on Josh???
Lets have Josh make his CASE! WHY SHOULD YOU STAY?
GO JOSH! NOW!!!!
PS: DO NOT TRY TO POST AWAY FROM HERE...IT WILL HURT YOUR CASE.....
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
Ster... Please calm down
November 8, 2008 - 22:37 ET by bigtimerSter...
Please calm down for the evening.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
§ ok. FINE.
November 8, 2008 - 22:46 ET by TheSterYou are the Master.
I like Puppies in Baskets!!
I also like Kittens in Furry Bonnets!!
I like the color Purple!!
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
Bt...I'm Getting BORED.
November 8, 2008 - 22:49 ET by TheSterSter has no time clock....
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
really dave
November 8, 2008 - 22:36 ET by candanceNow Josh has resorted to making up stories about you editing posts? That's just high school stuff.
Unbelievable.
I'm a typical white person.
cd,
November 8, 2008 - 22:46 ET by R D HelmYeah, and if there is anyone on this site that fully understands and appreciates the inability to edit a posted comment once it has been replied to and thus "locked in," it is most certainly yours truly. LOL.
-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
§ JOSH..MAKE YOUR CASE TO STAY HERE!!!
November 8, 2008 - 22:40 ET by TheSter§
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
here
November 8, 2008 - 23:58 ET by Dexter the Beagle"On September 24, 1783, four days after the signing of the Treaty of Paris formally ended the war, Congress directed General George Washington to discharge "such parts of the Federal Army now in Service as he shall deem proper and expedient." For the time being, Washington retained the force facing the British at New York and discharged the rest of the continentals. After the British quit New York, he kept only one infantry regiment and a battalion of artillery, 600 men in all, to guard the military supplies at West Point and other posts." Fine, except that Washington didn't become president until 1789. " In August 1789 this force amounted to about 800 officers and men. All the troops, except the two artillery companies retained after Shays’ Rebellion, were stationed along the Ohio River in a series of forts built after 1785." Same article as you are "reading". Washington's writings from 1783 that I quote (21:50ET response) are in regards to what he thought was the best solution for the union. I see no conflict in what this article says, and Washington wrote.
JOSH..MAKE YOUR CASE TO STAY HERE!!!
November 8, 2008 - 22:39 ET by TheSter§
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
JOSH..MAKE YOUR CASE TO STAY HERE!!!
November 8, 2008 - 22:38 ET by TheSter§
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
When you say Keynsian, do
November 8, 2008 - 20:47 ET by BDWhen you say Keynsian, do you refer to an argument by John Maynard Keynes? Because a "Keynsian" argument to shrink government is at best a conundrum.
It is like saying a Hitlarian policy is to protect jews, or a Maoist argument is to reward the rich.
Perhaps you meant to discuss a Freidman argument?
Keynesianism
November 8, 2008 - 21:00 ET by Josh SNPardon me while I school you.
John Maynard Keynes argued that the government should be counter-cyclical. When the business cycle results in economic contraction (like now, or 1929-32), the government should grow, and when the economy is growing, the government should not grow. Obviously, we need government to, say, stay flat instead of growing at the rate of inflation.
The modern Republicans want to shrink government regardless of the economy, just as the modern Democrats want to grow it, regardless.
I, of course, am far more nuanced. I want to increase the number of people employed by the FBI, CIA, DIA, et cetera, but I want to reduce the amount of power they have.
It would be nice if a Republican let people's personal and religious lives be their personal and religious lives, instead of wanting the government to look under everyone's skirt before a wedding to make sure there is one man, and one woman. Talk about Big Government! Talk about offensive.
Oh, Sarah Palin wanted that!
Schooling not
November 8, 2008 - 21:06 ET by BDSchooling not necessary,
A Keynsian argument is that growth should be spurred by increased governmental spending without spending contraction upon growth.
You sir, are no John Maynard Keynes
November 8, 2008 - 21:08 ET by Josh SNCOUNTER CYCLICAL. Read it and weep.
Keynsian....such ancient theory
November 8, 2008 - 21:15 ET by BlondeKeep pretending though.
The pseudo-intellectualism of the left is breath-taking in its absurdity and stupidity.
LOL Josh
November 8, 2008 - 21:18 ET by candanceI see you've abandoned the military discussion in the hope of lower hanging fruit over here.
Too bad, so sad.
The government does not create wealth, it simple takes away from the market and then does a song and dance to put that money back in. Such ideas might be popular among Bush and McCain, but not among Republicans in the true sense.
nuance = fancy Democrat term for "all over the place"
I'm a typical white person.
§ You, Sir , are a Cut and Paste!!! I Just BUSTED YOU!!
November 8, 2008 - 21:20 ET by TheSterJosh is a PU$$Y, and a HACK!!!
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
Is that how it's done?
November 8, 2008 - 21:23 ET by BlondeWho knew?
JOSH..HACK CUT AND PASTE..BUSTED!!!
November 8, 2008 - 21:21 ET by TheSterNO DEBATE !!!
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
I just have to jump in here, Josh
November 8, 2008 - 21:56 ET by Cape ConservativeYou just might think about getting down on your knees tonight in prayer and give thanks to those "war hawks" and our military who are fighting to protect YOUR right to spew the stupid garbage I've been reading so far on this post!
Good night - off to bed - and to say MY prayers and ask God to guide us through these next few years of having a novice at the helm of our GREAT country!
I am going to have to disagree
November 8, 2008 - 21:59 ET by Josh SNFor starters, I'd be praying to myself, since I was a United States Marine, and my father was a flyer in the Air Force during America's war in Viet Nam.
I don't want to pray to me or my dad, so you'll forgive me.
But, in point of fact, I can't even come close to imagining a scenario where the WMD-less Saddam Barack Hussein, dictator of Iraq, could have stopped my free speech. Therefore, our military did not, in this particular case, preserve said freedom.
I will say yet again, and it
November 8, 2008 - 20:23 ET by GregEI will say yet again, and it cannot be proven, but had Obama lost, this piece would be about how to quell the riots that are continuing to take place in the streets of America, a full 4 days after the election, by thousands of people who are unable to control themselves over the "injustice."
Plain and simple.
Exactly!
November 8, 2008 - 21:58 ET by Cape Conservative.
Never Ends
November 8, 2008 - 20:24 ET by Elian GonzalezAh, this farce continues. I was hoping the election would bring an end to the bib-dribbling and spoon-clanging from the liberal media, but apparently, based on the fawning coverage of "The Office of the President-Elect" (I've never heard of this before), I see we're all in for four years of spittle-flying invective.
Totally
November 8, 2008 - 20:28 ET by Josh SNUndoubtedly someone was paid to make "Office of the President-Elect" signs. Geesh!
At least the Bush administration never paid anyone to make "Western White House" signs. What? They did? Oh.
Josh... ....go fetch! I
November 8, 2008 - 20:34 ET by bigtimerJosh...
....go fetch!
I just threw you a bone...go get it boy...you'll get a treat if you do your job.
You are really way over-paid cradle to grave Soros fella'.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
§ Bt..I found Josh!!! My B!tch....
November 8, 2008 - 20:43 ET by TheSterI already called the puss out...
Lets see what I get...
Hehehehe.....
Ster.
I am a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but only way off to the side.
Oh please, Ster!
November 8, 2008 - 20:46 ET by BlondeDemonstrate your superior technique for all to see.
Like the capital letters....and the chasing around.
I'm watching my Gators for a while...I'll come back later and see how badly you've bollixed this up.
Gosh!
November 8, 2008 - 20:40 ET by BlondeI believe George W. Bush was ACTUALLY the President at the time.
D'oh!
Keep it up, trollboy.
Wow! J took time out from watching her beloved Gators...
November 8, 2008 - 21:01 ET by R D Helm...to pop in here put a swift boot right into the globes of Josh here.
Hey Josh, I guess it really does suck to be you. :-)
-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
Because Bush was President...
November 8, 2008 - 21:10 ET by Josh SNThat means it is OK to have taxpayer money spent on signs that say "Western White House" and put them around the Crawford Ranch of George Walker? Really?
Just checking, you are a Republican?
Does the sign serve a
November 8, 2008 - 21:17 ET by BDDoes the sign serve a useful purpose? I would say it does, at least as much as the sign in front of our gate saying "Fort Huachuca."
So whats the prob?
I thought the point was that "Office of the President-Elect"
November 8, 2008 - 21:35 ET by Josh SNAnd "Western White House" don't actually exist.
I was being non-partisan by saying both signs were dumb, and a waste of money. You say Bush's signs are AOK and Obama's (not bought with taxpayer money) are bad.
Guess what?
November 8, 2008 - 21:38 ET by BlondeYou thought wrong.
Go figure.
Que?
November 8, 2008 - 22:00 ET by Josh SNCould you please point to the proof of the existence of a "Western White House?" I am sure the Constitution doesn't mention it, but I don't always follow these new-fangled contraptions you Republicans invent.
Where in the Constitution
November 8, 2008 - 22:53 ET by BDWhere in the Constitution is the White House discussed?
The White House is maintained by the Executive Branch based upon appropriations from congress and as such, the President could dictate whatever he so chooses.
He could make the HQ of the Executive Branch as a submarine in the Potomac for all that it matters.
sometimes HQ is Airforce
November 8, 2008 - 22:56 ET bysometimes HQ is Airforce One
just saying
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
BD... ...That was a
November 8, 2008 - 22:58 ET by bigtimerBD...
...That was a SHACK!
Heheheee..
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Danke Sehr!
November 9, 2008 - 06:57 ET by BDDanke Sehr!
Hey, how do you know the
November 8, 2008 - 23:04 ET by msh1973Hey, how do you know the sign was paid for by our taxes? Could have been a gift or someone's handy work. I'm just sayin.
Gosh, you think?
November 8, 2008 - 21:18 ET by BlondeWhat a clever little troll you are.
Of course they'll continue
November 9, 2008 - 09:54 ET by GrannyGrump42Of course they'll continue to fawn! Imagine how the Beatles fans would have responded if Paul McCartney had moved in next door to them. That's the degree of jubilation among the MSM. Did you really think they were going to take pictures of him down off the doors of their lockers when he got elected?
maybe
November 8, 2008 - 20:30 ET by katainkentmaybe at this point it would be more challenging to find news that is actually news.
The New York Trash? This
November 8, 2008 - 20:39 ET by TN MomThe New York Trash? This is the same biased paper that sat on the John Edwards adultry story, and published a made-up adultry article on McCain.
TRUE Story: since I've canceled all my 'news'paper subscriptions, I didn't have anything to clean my windows with...I found an online site that sells un-printed newspaper which cleans really well. The best part? You dont end up with smut (ink) on your hands!
Obama's own VP gave him harsh criticism during the campaign
November 8, 2008 - 20:39 ET by RpeggioBiden himself said Obama wasn't experienced to be President, not a position that leads itself to on the job training. He said Obama was dangerous and naive when he voted to not fund the troops. Hillary made similar harsh comments about Obama during the tough election period. That's just the way it is during elections....and afterward you kiss and make-up, move forward graciously and if you're an American first, you get behind your new President and support him.
So this NY Times reporter is a shameless partisan idiot.
I have not ran into one happy Obama Troll
November 8, 2008 - 20:41 ET by lareeEvery Obama Troll or Supporter, I run into is unhappy, and still bashing McCain and Palin, as if the election is still going on. Is this a side effect of the "training" or is this what makes up Obama's support. The people who are unhappy, no matter what the outcome of an election, that turns out in their favor. I don't get it? Why can't they be happy their candidates won?
Did they figure out too late, the joke is on them? Look they bombed the stockmarket with CRA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...they can't solve anything without cooperation from the Private Sector. Anyone notice it looks like folks are taking their money out of our Market, and moving it to Markets, that are not hostile to the Investor. Has the Left shot itself in the foot? How long before the infighting finishes them off? I mean when they don't have the Republicans to blame, they will turn on each other. They are already getting even with Joe Lieberman, he must have known he was gambling with his seat on Homeland Security, by supporting John McCain. In the meantime our enemies are in their club houses sharpening their knives.
laree...regarding your
November 8, 2008 - 20:59 ET by bigtimerlaree...regarding your first sentence...the left cannot help themselves...they ran against Bush for 8 yrs...they are terrified of Palin...besides that the left are never happy people...ever.
More companies will be leaving this country..we are in for more regulations and taxes ect...
I'm just so tired of what they get away with via the msm politically...the unions think the are going to gain...I think not, I know about their secret ballot votes ect...we are in for so much trouble on down the road.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
BT,
November 9, 2008 - 02:13 ET by IamTinmanThey are still running against Bush even after the campaign has been decided. My guess is that 4 years from now when Barack finds himself in a fight for his political life after the economy really tanks he will still use "W" as the excuse for his pathetic performance.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson
Today I had the best day of my life
November 8, 2008 - 21:02 ET by Josh SNThe last two months have been increasingly great and better and better.
There, you have "met" an Obama supporter who is happy.
ROFLMAO... ....Gosh
November 8, 2008 - 21:36 ET by bigtimerROFLMAO...
....Gosh Josh...
Who could of guessed...
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Correction in your English
November 8, 2008 - 22:08 ET by Josh SNThat would be "who could have guessed."
In truth, the young women love me, and I love that, and today they especially did, and I love that especially.
Josh...How much did you
November 8, 2008 - 22:17 ET by bigtimerJosh...How much did you have to pay?
Bet more than you're worth...
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
from a former post
November 8, 2008 - 22:32 ET by cocodrieThere was a young troll named Josh whose head was filled full of mush. He thought he was smart but his brain was a fart so all of his posts were a farce.
!
November 8, 2008 - 22:15 ET by jefflebowskithere are lots of Obama supporters who are happy.....and gay.
They won't be happy in a year...but still gay. Hope that helps
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Gracious GOP very,very,very
November 8, 2008 - 20:46 ET by TN MomGracious GOP very,very,very Displeased with the NYT!
bin Laden is sending his Obama congratulations
November 8, 2008 - 20:54 ET by Lame CherryWhat difference does it make in people are being civil in politics as bin Laden is threatening the Mahdi pretender.
Oh to be a Muslim now that Obama is here. One can just feel the peace breaking out.
Obama
sold the United States to Muslim mafia operating the Middle East
counterfeit trade for 300 million in donations. No word yet if Patrick
Fitzgerald is going to require the Kenyan native heading the Democratic
Party to repay all of that illegal money before or after Fitzgerald
slaps the cuffs on Obama, but it surely will bankrupt the Democratic
Party.
That 300 million will be most expensive in a whole lot of
Islamocommunists demand that comrade Obama bare the Jew's necks for the
coup de grace for helping Obama steal the presidency.
Big problems
in this arise as the Jews most likely won't like to die and Rham
Emanuel probably won't be as easy of a sell out like David Axelrod to
Jews. I mean it is one thing for George Soros to be booting Jews out of
Georgia and making treaties with Hamas driving Jews from land, Axelrod
having Obama speak at Hitler's favorite Nazi monument, but just wiping
Jews from the planet as was in the Obama Islamocommunist contract might
just be a big much for Rham Emanuel.
But what does one do when one does not pay up to communist Muslim thugs?
I suppose Nuke em Barack could nuke the Middle East.
I suppose Barack the peacemaker could scare the Israeli secularists to blow up the Muslims with nukes.
I
suppose said Islamocommunists in Syria and Iran have figured this all
out and is why Syria has Russian nukes in their harbors and Libya is
joining the nuke club too to protect themselves just like Iran is
polishing off it's Dr. Khan nukes to lob into Tel Aviv and that place
called New York City when Obama doesn't pay up.
That probably is
why Mr. bin Laden, the guy Obama said he is going to be Rhambama over
in hunting bin Laden down with a knife in his teeth, a grenade on this
belt a Jeremiah Wright g dam America on his left doing an OJ Simpson
dance on Obama, of course bin Laden is ordering Obama to get US troops
out of the Middle East.
Obama doesn't do that on January Obama plus on presidency and bin Laden turns loose his holy war on a fellow Muslim.
There
is now a Pan Muslim from Africa, the Middle East, that nice little
Kosovo enclave in Europe and millions of Muslims there, Africa, then
Pakistan, into Asia Indonesia who all now think Obama is their shiek.
Problem
is there mullahs, clerics, shieks, aytollahs, presidents for life all
going to figure out here in about 2 seconds their Muslim brother is
looked at as the Mahdi leader and that tends to not set well with
tyrants dictating mandates.
President Bush 43 went out of his
way to respectfully not antagonize Muslims. What do Muslims now think
that Barack Obama has as his Chief of Staff Rham Emanuel whose family
was categorized terrorists by Muslims.
Liberals did a whole lot of screaming about Muslim sensitivity under Bush 43 and how there were a billion Muslims to deal with.
Why
is it that liberals have not quite figured out that the west is one
click away from an Islamic holy war in the nearest and dearest possible
terms in a former Muslim by the name of Hussein has either renounced
the un renouncable in Islam becoming a Christian or this Muslim on day
plus Obama one having infidel troops on Islamic soil has a Muslim
American pitted against 1 billion Muslims.
The Israeli state
bombs Muslims. It is Rham Emanuel's fault. America bombs Muslims it is
Rham Emanuel's fault with that worse than infadel Obama.
Mahdi Obama has arrived and strangely the biggest antagonists are going to be Muslims.
I'm
so glad those 7 out of 10 American women with jungle fever for Obama
put him into office, so when this explodes they will be reminded the
blood is on their hands or will it be their panties in having aborted
most of the Middle East and several western cities in multitudes dead
for this sexual interlude with Barack Hussein Obama.
The Islamocommunists are coming.
agtG 270
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
NOEL SHEPPARD
November 8, 2008 - 22:10 ET by Josh SNI am a problem, but a guy who says Obama sold America to the Islamic mafia isn't? Really? Really?
Funny, Josh,
November 8, 2008 - 22:19 ET by R D HelmI didn't see the7th century illiterate barbarian horde sending accolades to George H.W. Bush, nor George W. Bush, either, upon their respective elevations to the presidency.
Why are the leaders of the most murderous "religion" on Earth sending their congrats in bucket loads to Barrack Hussein Obama? Hmm?
-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
What makes conservatism look bad?
November 8, 2008 - 22:45 ET by nicholas nicklebyI've been called a troll because I've offered opposition to some of the ideas that some people here take as self-evident, and I've never really taken offense because I've always understood that this is not a site most people come to for debate; most (but not all) regulars come here to learn about the latest instance of something that they already know about (liberal bias).
But I've also watched as people have said the craziest, most prejudicial things against women, non-whites, and non-Christians, and no one has ever called these people trolls, not that I've seen. No one has ever stood up and said, "This is the kind of stuff that makes the conservative movement look misogynist, racist, and religiously prejudiced." Note: I'm not interested in arguing this point; I don't think conservative thought is necessarily any of these things. But it sure would help if some people started pointing out how wrong these sorts of comments were.
And maybe I should start doing so, too; I've previously commented on some misogyny and what I thought was a drop of anti-Semitism, but I've never expressed proper outrage over the sort of thing that Dave says here. But then again, who would listen to me? Instead, here's some McCain supporters shouting down an Islamophobic McCain supporter: http://www.youtube.c... -- I've posted it before, but it's so good, I thought I'd post it again.
nicholas
November 8, 2008 - 23:02 ET by MightyMouththat link doesn't speak to the real problem with Obama, which is he is a socialist. Who cares about the muslim aspect of Obama? The socialism is what NB'ers focus on (IMHO).
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
But Dave said...
November 8, 2008 - 23:13 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi MM,
I don't expect you to explain away, support, or take a stand against everything that every conservative says.
But if you're bothered by Obama as a socialist, then shouldn't you take a stand against Dave's prejudice against Muslims--at the very least, because it distracts you from the real issue of Obama's socialism? I mean, he makes you look bad--you want to discuss the issue, and there Dave is spouting some really vile things about a whole class of people--some of whom share your economic conservatism!
So, most NBers may care about socialism, as you say, but everyone who cares about that should be helping us focus on the issues by calling out Dave's prejudice for what it is--a thought that is stupid, out-dated, and useless to your political cause.
Hi back Nicholas...
November 9, 2008 - 00:08 ET by MightyMouthWhy do you insist that NB'ers are a monolithic block? Dave has his views, I have mine. I share some of his and he(not speaking for him) share some of mine. To me that is a distraction from the real problems of BHO. He was and is the wrong man for the most important job in the world!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I said you didn't have to make excuses for others
November 9, 2008 - 00:23 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi MM,
In fact, the first line of my post said that I don't expect you to speak for every conservative--not even for Dave.
Actually, the first person to make a general statement about NBers was you, when you said, "The socialism is what NB'ers focus on (IMHO)."
So, in fact, you're the one who sort of brought up the idea that NB posters are a monolithic block.
Now, for what I said: I wasn't asking you to apologize or explain away or support Dave's position on Islam; I only pointed out that his position doesn't help yours--as you said, it's a distraction. So, if you care about conservatism, I think you should tell Dave that his sort of prejudice doesn't belong here.
(I could tell him that myself, but then it would be just a whining liberal whining about whiny political correctness. You, however, have the opportunity to help the conservative movement by focusing on the issues and making it clear to people that conservatism doesn't mean racism, sexism, and prejudice. The people who come here may know that last part, but, as I said elsewhere, if you want to win elections, you can't just preach to the choir.)
Nice try..
November 9, 2008 - 01:26 ET by MightyMouthBut Dave pointing out Obamas documented Muslim leanings does not require rebuke from NB. But it does bring into question BHO loyalties. I think you will find that BHO is not prepared for what he has been elected to. He is a man child and without his handlers will be reduced to stoopified stuttering at the first challange he faces. But you need not respond, time will tell, and I may be wrong about the Messiah <rolls eyes>
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Not quite what I was saying MM
November 9, 2008 - 10:50 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi MM,
I agree, time will tell about Obama--but Dave's comment wasn't about Obama. It was a general accusation against a large group of people that has very little basis in fact. (I would be surprised if Dave knows any Muslims or has ever read a book on Islam that wasn't written by someone who had a vested interested in painting Islam as dangerous.)
I'm not saying NB should formally rebuke Dave--I think the conservative community should. I think you guys should stand up and say, "Dave, you're wrong." I mean, here's a quick test for how intellectually honest a person is: are they as willing to call out the same problems on their side (when they happen) as they call out on the other. So, I've seen people here talk about the racism of Obama and the Democrats--let's see you make sure that that sort of racism does not thrive among conservatives.
»→ Thanks Nicholas
November 9, 2008 - 10:56 ET by Cool ArrowThanks for identifying the racism of the left and warning us to ensure we don't follow their lead.
Good morning Nicholas
November 9, 2008 - 11:20 ET by cocodrieIf ever a murdering rapist comes to your house, invite him in, give him a cup of coffee and discuss with him what he plans to do to you and your family.
Nick, if I may
November 9, 2008 - 11:01 ET by BlondeI think you totally misread the meaning of Dave's original post.
Try this on for size. Dave merely meant that Ahmadinijad (an avowed Jihadi) never sent President Bush a congratulatory letter upon his election, but immediately sent one to President Elect Obama.
As for the rest of your post, bah! There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with being against an enemy who has sworn to kill you, which of course, the jihadis have. You're trying to twist Dave's statement into an irrational hatred for all muslims. You owe the man an apology, and the rest of us too for trying to yet again tell conservatives how we should think and act.
Finally, I agree with Noel. You are obviously intelligent, but you just can't help yourself from baiting people here, so I'll just go along with Noel and refrain from engaging with you in any meaningful dialog.
Dave's original post was:
November 9, 2008 - 11:37 ET by nicholas nicklebyI didn't see the7th century illiterate barbarian horde sending
accolades to George H.W. Bush, nor George W. Bush, either, upon their
respective elevations to the presidency.
Why are the leaders of the most murderous "religion" on Earth
sending their congrats in bucket loads to Barrack Hussein Obama? Hmm?
See, in the first paragraph of Dave's post, Dave didn't mention any particular leader by name--he associated the congratulations that Ahmadinejad sent to Obama as coming from "7th century illiterate barbarian hordes." (Particularly ridiculous to call Ahmadinejad "7th century" because he's got a degree in civil engineering.)
In Dave's second paragraph, he refers to Islam as a "religion" with those quotes. I don't know what he thinks Islam is, since those quotes would seem to show that he doesn't think it's a religion.
So, Blonde, while I understand why you might want to defend Dave as not being prejudiced, here he is denying that Islam is a religion and claiming that the "7th century illiterate barbarian horde" sent its congrats to Obama.
Now, note what he doesn't say--he doesn't ever say "jihadi"; he doesn't ever say "Islamofascism" or "militant Islam" or "fundamentalist Muslims." Dave doesn't make that distinction at all--he just lumps all Muslims together (as if all Muslims followed Ahmadinejad, which is ridiculous since he's not even the Supreme Leader of Iran!).
So, I agree with you on this part: there's nothing wrong with taking a stand against people who are your enemies. But when you can't distinguish between your enemies and other people because they share the same religion, then you're prejudiced. (And, as I've said before, if you try to make fun of Muslims as backward, then you won't be prepared for the authentic technological threat posed by the Jihadists who are a certain segment of the Islamic world.)
Anyway, I wonder how fast this "Nick is baiting people" meme will take to spread, but look at the facts: Dave posted something hateful and prejudiced, and I called him out on it. I didn't start the conversation--I wasn't baiting him. I pointed out how bad it is for conservatism that prejudice doesn't get called out. (Though it does happen, as in that video I posted of McCain supporters chasing away another McCain supporter for distributing prejudiced flyers.)
Later, Nick
November 9, 2008 - 11:41 ET by BlondeIf you want to be that obtuse, be my guest.
*throws up hands in disgust*
Later. Like nevermore.
Nicholas
November 9, 2008 - 12:01 ET by cocodrieAll muslims follow the koran. The koran requires them to kill all christians and jews in the most violent manner.
history questions
November 9, 2008 - 12:37 ET by nicholas nicklebySince, as you say, the Koran admonishes death to Christians and Jews, why were Jews protected under Muslim rule in Spain in the Middle Ages? Why were Christians welcome to study at the Muslim-controlled universities during that time? Why were the Jews only expelled from Spain after the Christian Reconquista?
Well, I hate leading questions, so I'll answer: the idea that the Koran accepts war against infidels as righteous is only one side of the story, and has been disproven by the many historical periods in which Muslims lived together peacefully with Jews and Christians (and even sometimes Hindus). For a modern example, you could look at the Muslim majority country of Indonesia, which has a flourishing democracy now, and respect for all religions.
Nicholas
November 9, 2008 - 12:47 ET by cocodrieRead the koran or quran, whichever you prefer to spell it. There you will find the core beliefs all muslims are required to practice.
darn transliterations!
November 9, 2008 - 13:05 ET by nicholas nicklebyhey Coco, It's a transliteration, and I've never seen an argument for why one spelling should be preferred, so I think both Koran and Quran and Qu'ran are correct.
As for the core beliefs, there are five pillars of Islam: testament of faith, prayer, alms-giving, pilgrimage, and... fasting. (Thank you, social studies class.) Jihad is mentioned in the Koran--it means "struggle" though, not war, and many later commentators have separated out greater Jihad (struggle against your own baser instincts) and lesser Jihad (struggle against the world). I don't even think Sufis accept the second in any practical way. (This, however, I did not get from social studies class, but from private study and talking with my Muslim friends.)
Nicholas
November 9, 2008 - 13:22 ET by cocodrieThe beliefs you present are the public declarations of the Imams [or whatever name you wish for the leaders] not the orders given in the koran to believers. I will look up the direct quotes for you later. In a few minutes I have to cook a wascally wabbit for my dinner.
NN
November 9, 2008 - 14:51 ET by Noel SheppardNN,
Your days of reading a transliterated Haggadah at Pesach are being exposed. Couldn't you read the four questions in Hebrew? :-) ns
depends on your definition of read...
November 10, 2008 - 09:45 ET by nicholas nicklebyI can make out words in Hebrew, I just don't know, um, what they mean.
But with soon-to-be-arriving nephew, I won't be the youngest anymore!
Shhh, they don't like to
November 10, 2008 - 03:52 ET by TexasOptimistShhh, they don't like to have to think hard for themselves! ;-)
I am a conservative who is willing to think for himself.
Knickers
November 9, 2008 - 11:16 ET byI mean, here's a quick test for how intellectually honest a person is: are they as willing to call out the same problems on their side (when they happen) as they call out on the other.
sorry to see this will be your last post here, being the honest person you are -- you no doubt, will have all your time filled calling out the racism at Kos and Media Matters.
That is of course assuming you are intellectually honest oh well no need look into it since we'll all see your basic dishonesty if you continue posting here.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
haha
November 9, 2008 - 11:48 ET by nicholas nicklebyoh, botg, you don't know how much time I have--I could be posting here and there in my copious free time. But, as previously stated, I don't go to DailyKos, so I can't speak for them, but there is racism of all sorts in almost every political party, from the racism of low expectations to the racism of expecting other people to be racist.
(There's a funny few strips in Doonesbury right now where a bunch of white soldiers keep telling a black soldier that he must have voted for Obama, and the black soldier says "why would you say that?" and the white soldier gives a reason that has nothing to do with race.)
But then there's prejudice that's really to see--it's when someone makes a blanket statement about a whole group of people, as Dave did here. This isn't "the prejudice of low expectations" or anything other than just plain old prejudice. Now, I pointed this out this time not because Dave and I have differing political ideas (which I assume we do), but because it's such an obvious bit of prejudice, and someone should take a stand against it when it's this easy to see. And I've presented two reasons why people should take a stand against it--because it's bad for conservatism and because misunderstanding Islam could lead to military problems (for instance, calling Muslims "7th century" under-estimates the use of technology by Jihadists).
And yet, though Dave has reiterated his prejudiced beliefs, no one has said anything to him yet--only to me. So, while I'm off policing the left (and believe me, people on the left love to argue with each other about this stuff), would someone step up to the plate here and tell Dave what they think of his prejudice?
(yawn)
November 9, 2008 - 11:50 ET by Free Stinker(yawn)
free -- I see your yawn,
November 9, 2008 - 11:55 ET by Jack Bauerfree -- I see your yawn, and go all in with 40 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzees.
Wake me up when he go goes.
beware the pharisees who
November 9, 2008 - 12:05 ET bybeware the pharisees who bind up obligations and yet touch them not with even their pinkies. HYPOCRITES and thieves are they.
You talk of intellectual honest and lie while doing so? Go clean your own room child and don't come back until you can be truthful with us.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
oh brother
November 9, 2008 - 12:42 ET by nicholas nicklebybotg, as previously stated, you don't know what I do when I'm not here (or even what I do while I'm here in other windows/tabs), so it seems ridiculous on your part to claim that I'm being hypocritical. You, meanwhile, have not put any (public) effort into correcting Dave's prejudice. (I don't know, you might have sent him a private message.) So, you tell me to clean up my room (meaning, I suppose, the liberal blogosphere), although you don't know for certain that I don't do that; but at the same time, you don't put any effort into cleaning up your own.
I don't want to get into a "you're a hypocrite--no, you're a hypocrite" sort of argument. But if you wanted to show your good faith, you should start cleaning up the prejudice here. (Unless, of course, you don't see that prejudice or you support it, in which case, you could argue a different position, rather than arguing that I should be policing the liberal blogosphere.)
So, Nicholas, you find my above posted comment "outrageous?"
November 9, 2008 - 00:25 ET by R D HelmIn what way?
Okay, lets analyze my "offensive" comment a little closer, shall we?
Perhaps it was my reference to the "7th century illiterate barbarian horde" that you find objectionable. Fair enough.
The "religion" of Islam, which incidentally was fathered by a murderous pedophile, was founded in the 7th Century AD. The majority of its adherents throughout the fourteen centuries since have been decidedly illiterate-so much so that even today, this religion's Imams, who are supposedly respected leaders, are self-professed illiterates themselves.
Perhaps my use of the term "barbarian" troubles you?
Well, when the stated purpose of this so-called "religion" is to either subjugate, tax into oblivion (Google "Jizya") or to kill all infidels (non-believers) I have trouble coming up with a more appropriate term.
After all, this "religion" openly advocates the sexual molestation of children, using children as human bombs to murder other innocent people, as well as the liberal use of dull, rusty swords to behead those who do not see things the way they do.
It doesn't get more barbaric than that.
As for the balance of my "offensive" comment, I would ask for proof that the Akhmedinnadinnerjackets of the world sent the same accolades to either of the Bush's that he sent to Barack Hussein Obama.
The truth is insensitive.
Deal with it.
BTW, I could not care less how conservatism appears to the rest of the spineless, wussified world. Most of the rest of the world is on the verge of living under Sharia Law due to their collective ignorance and ineptitude.
Why, as someone who loves true freedom, would I wish to subject myself to that?
-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
Yes, Dave, I do find your comments prejudiced, out-dated
November 9, 2008 - 00:57 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi Dave,
I suspect my opinion has all the value of luke-warm spit to you, but here goes:
a) "7th century"
If you actually want to take the jihadi threat seriously, you have to deal with the fact that many people who follow Islam are not stuck in the 7th century--they use the internet, at least. I'm not going to say anything else about the use of science and technology in the Islamic nations, just this one point: if you think Muslims as a group are stuck in the 7th century, then the militant Muslims have a big advantage.
b) "illiterate"
If you know your history well enough to know that Islam began around the 600s, then I assume you know that, while most Europeans were living in post-Roman Empire squalor, Baghdad was a center of learning, and that many of the books in the Western canon have only passed down to us because of Muslim scribes and commentators.
c) "barbarian"
While our modern idea of Islam has a lot of terrorist baggage connected to it, I can't think of any major ideology that hasn't got blood on its hands--from Christian crusades (my favorite is probably the 4th, where the Crusaders conquered and sacked Christian Constantinople) to Stalinist gulags to Hindu violence against Muslims and Christians. (Very likely Unitarian Universalists don't have any blood on their hands--but even Scientologists have been known to hound people and make their lives miserable.) Now, just because some Christians killed people (sometimes in horrible ways), do you think that all Christians are barbarians? I should hope not--so why do you feel comfortable blaming a whole religion for the actions of small groups within it?
d) "horde"
This I don't find offensive, so much as ridiculously out-dated. You sound like Max Nordau in 1895 warning about the degeneration of interracial marriages, or Teddy Roosevelt around 1900 saying that white people have to have more kids or else we'll be gone. (And yet, white folks--still here!)
So, all in all, yeah, I find your prejudice a little off-putting, to put it mildly, and, as I've said before, if you don't care to win elections, than you should feel free to say what you want--but you're going to lose votes from everyone who doesn't already agree with you, including all the possible conservative Muslim votes you might otherwise win. (And remember, religious Muslims tend to be conservative in many of the ways other conservatives are.)
Anyway, I'll leave you with something Judah Benjamin said when challenged in Congress: "It is true that I am a Jew, and when my ancestors were receiving their Ten Commandments from the immediate Deity, amidst the thunderings and lightnings of Mt. Sinai, the ancestors of my opponent were herding swine in the forests of Great Britain."
...many people who follow Islam are not stuck in the 7th century
November 10, 2008 - 02:44 ET by R D Helm...many people who follow Islam are not stuck in the 7th century--they use the internet, at least.
Yes, and throughout history they have also used swords, firearms of all descriptions, bombs, missiles, jet fighters, and some are even in possession of nuclear weapons (Pakistan) but that doesn't mean their basic MO, not to mention their overall mentality, is not still cemented squarely in the 7th Century.
..if you think Muslims as a group are stuck in the 7th century, then the militant Muslims have a big advantage.
Correct, as they have one quality that the civilized world essentially lacks: patience. They will eventually prevail in their quest for world domination for this reason alone.
Baghdad was a center of learning..
Yes, it once was. However, learned Muslims are no longer encouraged in Islam, as they long-ago turned their backs on scholarly pursuits.
Many, but not all historians attribute the world's decent into the Dark Ages with the fall of the Roman Emperor Agustulus in the late fifth century, as we have all been taught that the invasion of the former empire by Germanic, and other barbaric tribes, as well as the spread of Christianity, are what brought about this sad, ignorant stretch of human history.
I don't buy this version of events.
I believe the true descent into the Dark Ages began some three centuries later, when the Islamists essentially declared war on the West. The disruption of well established trade routes that resulted from the Islamic invasions of North Africa and other regions was devastating to the economies of the time, particularly the European ones.
That situation did not correct itself until European explorers finally ventured out and found safe routes around the areas controlled by the adherents of Islam, whose refusal to do business with "infidels" was one of the reasons so much of the world economy went down the tubes to begin with.
I find it not a little interesting that the economies of much of the North African region have not recovered to this day.
Read Mohammed and Charlemagne, by Henri Pirenne. He makes an excellent case for his assertion that the rise of Islam was what truly triggered the Dark Ages.
I also take issue with your assertion that Islam preserved a great deal of history for the future of mankind. I believe the bulk of the knowledge obtained during the Classical period was preserved by the Catholic Church. There is evidence to support this.
As for the past histories of Hinduism, Christianity and Buddhism (you left that one out) which in many areas was quite bloody, they have one thing in common that has always been lacking in Islam: They have all managed to mature. Islam hasn't, and shows no signs of doing so in the foreseeable future.
As one who has read more History than I can remember, I feel the use of the word "horde" is entirely appropriate. I have often referred to the German invasion of Russia as a move by the Hitlerite horde. Sorry if you find the term outdated, as I feel it fits the Islamists to a "T."
Perhaps their most recent effort to subjugate what remains of the civilized world doesn't quite match the speed and ruthless efficiency of the Wehrmacht that made it to within sight of the Kremlin spires, but their ultimate affect will be far more devestating.
Western civilization is losing this war, and losing it badly. Europe is literally becoming Eurabia right before our eyes. The Islamists have essentially re-taken most of Africa and many parts of Asia, and are now making practically uncontested inroads into North and South America. By the time most realize what is happening, it will be too late to do anything about it.
I personally do not view Islam as a legitimate religion. I consider it to be nothing more than a murderous political movement disquising itself as a religion.
I will hold that view until I see Muslims the world over rise up in opposition to the tactics of their more "fanatical" followers. To date, their silence speaks volumes. As such, I will continue to believe that all Muslims are in silent support of their uncivilized and dicidedly barbaric actions.
-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
hearts and minds
November 10, 2008 - 20:01 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi Dave,
You are, of course, free to maintain your opinion, and heck, even share it--but there are a few quibbling details I have to point out.
First, you say that Islam has never matured as a religion, that Muslims are stuck in a 7th-century mentality--but you also agreed with me when I said that Baghdad was a center of learning (as were the universities of Al-Andalus before the Reconquista). So, rather than argue that Islam has never matured, I think you would be more intellectually coherent if you argued that Islam has regressed from a high point (reached during the Middle Ages). Now, of course, I disagree with you on that, but that position would at least be less contradictory than your current position that Muslims have never moved beyond the 7th century and that Baghdad used to be a center of learning in the Middle Ages. Dig?
Second, I think it's an interesting hypothesis that European learning collapsed due to trade disruption by Muslim armies (I hope you bring that hypothesis up when people here argue against trade embargoes as effective tools when dealing with rogue states), but I don't entirely buy that idea. If I agree that Islamic forces stopped trade to Europe and that this left Europe economically disadvantages, that doesn't entirely explain the widespread illiteracy. Now, you might argue that, people who have less money have less time learning, which is true, but we also have historical examples of places that were pretty poor and that retained a high-level of literacy--Jewish shtetls in the Pale, for instance. To say that Europeans lost the ability to read Latin because they could not buy silks from Asia seems to be a somewhat torturous way to go about explaining it.
(However, I may be reducing this argument to an absurd level, and if you wanted to argue that things were more complex than that, I would be glad to hear an explanation of how it was more complex. Or I could read Pirenne, which, from a short review I just read sounds interesting.)
As for the preservation of knowledge, yes, there is evidence that... what was the name of that book, that the Irish saved Civilization? Yes, sure, other places kept ancient learning alive, sometimes by copying books they could not read. However, I was not arguing that you owe a debt to the Muslim world because they transmitted this material to us--look back at where I mentioned this issue: I wasn't arguing that other places/groups didn't preserve earlier knowledge, I was only pointing out how wrong you were to declare that Muslims are illiterate. (And, unlike certain groups that copied books they could not read, the Muslims are famous not only for transmitting those books, but for commenting on those books; and those commentaries--like Avicenna's--were often printed with classic books, and have a long history of being read during the Renaissance.)
As for whether Islam has matured, I'm not entirely sure I agree. As I said, we have at least one fully functioning, Muslim majority democracy that respects religious difference: Indonesia (though, curiously, it only recognizes 6 religions). If that's not a sign of maturation, than I don't know what you would accept as such a sign--and we don't even have to look into "the forseeable future" as you say--it's there right now!
As for your use of the word "horde," perhaps it was the fact that you referred to the horde sending congrats to Obama that made it extra-ridiculous. I haven't heard any name other than Ahmedinejad mentioned here, so it seemed like you were collapsing the image of one man (who has a doctorate in civil engineering) onto the image of the horde (which was popular around the turn of the century). What could possible be ridiculous about that? (Oh, other than the fact that Ahm. isn't even the Supreme Leader of Iran, hte other thing that makes that claim ridiculous is that Islam is not a monolithic religion but has several different sects.)
Anyway, Dave, we could argue history all night, and we could argue the future all day after that, I'm sure, but this is what it comes down to: if you can't tell the difference between the enemy who is willing to do you harm, the enemy's associate who might give aid and succor to the enemy, and someone who merely looks like the enemy, then you're going to lose the war--because, whatever else you do, you're going to bomb the person who only looks like the enemy, and eventually everyone will turn into the first--the enemy willing to do you harm. That's how you lose a war for hearts and minds.
How's that for a history lesson?
oh, and about Ahmedinejad
November 11, 2008 - 14:49 ET by nicholas nicklebyRemember when I said that he doesn't speak for some sort of pan-Muslim world--that, in fact, he doesn't even speak for all of Iran? Well, here's an article about how he's involved in a political fight at home because of his letter to Obama. ( http://www.iht.com/a... ).
Yours is the best post I
November 10, 2008 - 03:49 ET by TexasOptimistYours is the best post I have seen on these boards in a long time. You make a point I agree with completely... that Republicans must sever their links with the anti-intellectual wing. As long as the GOP caters to identity politics, it is doomed to failure. Obama wisely positioned himself as a "postracial" candidate, one who challenged the old identity politics of the Democratic party. What a moment in American history!
I am a conservative who is willing to think for himself.
TxOpt
November 10, 2008 - 06:07 ET by AgnosticThe Republican Party is no longer conservative as it exists today. This being true does not change the fact that both party dice up the population into target groups for voting garnishing purposes. This is done by race, income levels, voting history, etc..., but to accuse the Republicans of this is dishonest and the vehemence which you display in your choice of words displays a level of incivility that neither party should wish to be associated.
The Democratic Party deliberately divides out victim groups to leverage their ‘victim hood’ for votes and you say nothing of this practice.
The Democratic Party uses the victim hood of the above mentioned groups to suppress the opinions of the majority while most of the party is not part of the victim group themselves and this you do no speak against.
The Democratic Party has positioned themselves as the caretakers of this victim groups for 40 years and Hollywood has done more to create an atmosphere of acceptance in the nation than their duly elected representatives. If the Democratic Party had any intention of helping those people they carve out of the electorate under the label of ‘victim’ then they have had ample opportunity having run Congress and therefore the budget and legislation for approximately 75% of the last 52 years.
I am not sure by what you mean as the anti-intellectual wing of the Republican Party but if may hazard a guess it is the so called ‘Religious Right’. Are you suggesting that ‘Freedom of Religion’ should be done away with or that one religious view in inferior to others and therefore has no place in politically minded people. Some very intelligent people as well as some extremely liberal thinkers have been religious and some even Christian Fundamentalist. Religion is no sign of the ability to lead other than giving those who follow their religion a moral compass, certain strength of conviction and a place to turn when they need to organize their thoughts.
I don’t advocate religion but I do advocate using those tools we have in life to help us get by and become the best person we can become. If a religion helps you to do this then nothing should be said against it. Religions are not intolerant as long as they allow people to choose for themselves; people are intolerant and infuse that trait into their religion.
Not only are the terrible
November 8, 2008 - 20:55 ET by d1carterNot only are the terrible losers, they are even worse winners.
changing your mind is legal but...
November 8, 2008 - 21:36 ET by nicholas nicklebyNoel,
I notice you didn't bold the part where the reporter remarked on McCain's gracious acceptance speech or Biden's own 180degree turn (McCain isn't recognizable as my friend/McCain is my friend)--you know, the part that slightly undercuts your outrage over the NYT scoffing (only) at GOP flip-flops.
That said, I think there have been quite a few really sudden changes, mostly on the conservative side, that don't make sense; for instance, Bachmann saying that he may be anti-American (before the election) to her saying that she was extremely grateul that an African American won (after the election). That should raise everyone's eyebrows--either she didn't really mean her warning about his anti-Americanism before (because if she meant it, wouldn't she still be issuing that warning, like some of the commenters here have been doing?) or she's decided that she should just go along to get along (which again, raises questions about her sincerity and committment to her stated beliefs).
Or, for an example of a pre-/post-election switcheroo that may hit a little closer to home, Brent Bozell said before the election (on Fox & Friends, Oct. 27) about Obama:
But when you go through the entirety of the campaign saying the kind of things that you're saying in the debates, where on, for every question, you've got a redistribution of wealth answer, where you've got socialism, where you've got the government controlling every aspect of life.
So, here Bozell seems to be saying that Obama's answers were all socialist; though Bozell goes on to make the point that the word "socialism" was not used, he makes it clear that Obama had all these socialistic answers "through the entirety of the campaign."
Then, on Nov. 7th, on America's Newsroom, Bozell goes on to say that Obama does not have a mandate to enact his left-wing and--dare I say it?--socialist agenda because
Barack Obama ran as a Reaganite and won over the fiscal--the public as a fiscal conservative.
So, there's another example of someone saying one thing before the election (Obama has socialist answers for every question), and saying quite another after (Obama ran as a Reaganite), which should, again, raise people's eyebrows--after all, is it possible to run as a Reaganite socialist? I wouldn't think so, but maybe Bozell can answer that question for me.
listen nick
November 8, 2008 - 21:39 ET by candanceThis is very simple....
Obama took Reaganite rhetoric about massive "tax breaks" for 95% of Americans and twisted it all around to apply to socialism. Pretty clever trick.
As for Bachmann and the rest being gracious, what did you *want* them to say? Obama's a jerk and we're mad that he won? They sucked it up and found some classy things to say about the winner.
The left proves once again that they're all about love and unity...looking for any tedious thing they can find to complain about conservatives.
No class, all crass.
I'm a typical white person.
Well, why not?
November 8, 2008 - 21:58 ET by nicholas nicklebyHey CD,
First, about Bachmann and other flip-floppers: I agree with you that a certain amount of class would lead people to recognize the historic nature of this election, and a good example of how to do that would be Palin's pitch-perfect response: a) this is historic, and b) God bless the Obama family.
But the problem isn't so much what they're saying now, as what they said when the election was still going on. For instance, Palins's remark that Obama pals around with terrorists: I've pointed this out before, but if Palin meant Bill Ayers, then why say the plural, "terrorists"--could she name a second one?
My point is that it's hard to be gracious after losing without making it look like all your dire warnings before losing were just meant to score political points. I mean, people were warning us that Obamamay have anti-American sentiments and pals around with terrorists--but now we're all supposed to get along?
As for Bozell, he was speaking extermporaneously (note the slight bobble in the second quote), but if he meant to say that Obama wrapped socialism up in Reaganite rhetoric, he could have said so himself. What he said (before the election) was that Obama had socialistic answers to the questions--not Reaganite answers. Bozell could have made that case: that Obama was hiding his true politics behind Reaganite rhetoric.
But that's not what he said. According to Bozell one day, Obama had socialist answers; according to Bozell the next day, Obama had Reaganite answers.
but if Palin meant Bill
November 8, 2008 - 22:08 ET by motherbeltbut if Palin meant Bill Ayers, then why say the plural, "terrorists"--could she name a second one?
that would be Bernadine Dohrn...his wife.
one more time nick
November 8, 2008 - 22:12 ET by candancePalins's remark that Obama pals around with terrorists: I've pointed this out before, but if Palin meant Bill Ayers, then why say the plural, "terrorists"--could she name a second one?
Here's another one: Bernadine Dohrn. And don't even get me started on Raila Odinga.
I mean, people were warning us that Obamamay have anti-American sentiments and pals around with terrorists--but now we're all supposed to get along?
Answer me truthfully - if Bachmann said she still believed Obama was a danger to America, would you not be calling her out as a sore loser? She would probably be censured for undermining the president's office.
he could have said so himself
Perhaps as a Republican I was able to know what Bozell meant and perhaps as a lib you looked for a way to spin his words as something else.
I'm a typical white person.
ha!
November 8, 2008 - 22:29 ET by nicholas nicklebyShe would probably be censured for undermining the president's office.
Dude! He's not president yet. Anyway, as the article pointed out, several conservatives have not retracted their original statements; is there something wrong with standing by your opinion? I've said it before (if not here, then elsewhere), I support people's right to change their mind--but I also support people's right to be correct the first time around.
As for Bozell's comments, you could argue that, as a conservative, you have a clearer idea of what he meant. My only comment on that would be that it's politically suicidal to only preach to the converted--at least when the converted are not the majority.
As for Bernadine Dohrn being the second terrorist, zing! That's a good answer on your part--a good answer, but not a great answer, since it would seem to stretch the definition of "palling around" beyond all bounds since Dohrn and Obama met, correct me if I'm wrong here, once, at her house. (And if she meant Odinga, or Khalidi, or Wright, or Farrakhan, or Mao, or Stalin, or Lenin, or Marx--well, she could have said them, couldn't she?)
Nick do you have Obamas log
November 9, 2008 - 00:23 ET by dark_dsNick do you have Obamas log book to actually know it was only one time for Dohrn? you know I find it interesting that my sister who is toatally dependent on an entitlement program and very legit poor told me today she voted for Mc Cain because she found Obama a liar and his associations very troubling .. this is a person who cant even afford cable so she hasnt even watched fox to come up with her conclusion .. hell I havent even spoken with her regarding this election ... if there ever was a person I thought would be a Obama supporter it would be her and she finds the man questionable .. I was actually surprised when she told me this
Help continue the hate!
November 8, 2008 - 21:47 ET by SlicksterIf you act before midnight tonight and help us continue the hate by buying just one copy of the NYT we will send you free of charge sexually explicit pictures of a Sarah Palin look alike which you can your friends can made up lurid fantasies about.
NN
November 8, 2008 - 23:15 ET by Noel SheppardNN,
See, this is why I vowed not to bother interacting with you, because you're intellectually dishonest. And, it's really a shame because you're clearly a bright guy, and the two of us should have marvelous discussions that set the example here for how right and left communicate.
Instead, you first poked fun at what I bolded as if I was trying to mislead readers by cherry-picking. If that was the goal, NN, I would only have quoted what I wanted to. Both items you referred to are in my text, or didn't you notice? You're actually nitpicking what I bolded? What a farce!!!
Furthermore, you should zip up that fly please, because your sources are showing again. Get this idea about Bozell's comment concerning Obama running as a Reaganite from Media Matters http://mediamatters....? Maybe you should have cut-and-pasted from their article, and cited it rather than just stealing from them.
Maybe more important, you might have at least either watched the entire video, or read the transcript, for they got this quite wrong which they normally do. Bozell's point was indeed that Obama is as liberal as they come, but by promising tax-cuts, he was running as a Reaganite. Obama went out of his way spending HUGE amounts of money on ads trying to prove that his tax-cuts would be better for America than McCain's.
THAT'S the Reaganite point, NN. How'd you miss that?
Or, did you really understand what Bozell meant, but dishonestly posted the MMA view so as to antagonize folks here -- maybe even me?
After all, there's only two options: either you knew what Bozell meant, and chose to post the MMA position to antagonize people, or you never actually read the entire transcript or watched the video and therefore just posted their nonsense without checking its veracity.
Either way, despite your intellectual capacity, I continue to distrust your motives. ns
I've been called worse, but I appreciate the compliments, too.
November 9, 2008 - 00:08 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi Noel,
Of course I used Media Matters, in the same way I used HuffPo, Washington Monthly (which is actually where I got the tip-off on this story--I think, actually, that they're very sharp in their analysis, but I don't want to send your blood pressure through the roof, so: use with caution), FactCheck.org, and FiveThirtyEight (but not DailyKos, because they're a little too loose for me).
I don't see the problem in my use of a left-wing news source (er, I suppose "news source" would be shorter, less redundant), but I did watch the whole video as given there, rather than just read the short blurb they gave of it, and Bozell does say (before the election) that Obama's campaign had socialistic answers, like redistribution of wealth--which is not a Reaganite answer, and Bozell does not try to claim that it is spun by Obama as a Reaganite answer. Though Bozell does point out that people weren't calling this socialist, he in no way labels this as Reaganite rhetoric--until after the election.
Just to double-check, I watched the whole video of Bozell's appearance on Oct. 27th, and he never mentions Obama spinning socialism as Reaganite rhetoric. I stand by this point: if Bozell had wanted to say, on the 27th, that no one in the media was calling it socialism because it was dressed up with a Reaganite rhetoric to distract people, he could have said that. (He never does mention the tax cuts on the 27th, only "redistribution of wealth.")
(Again, while "tax cuts" might sound Reaganite, "redistribution of wealth" does not--and, correct me if I'm wrong, but the first time Obama mentioned Reagan, it was Nancy, after the election. It's not like Obama wrapped himself in Reagan's name/legacy. Obama ran as a someone who would cut taxes for most Americans, but Reagan stands for a lot more than just cutting taxes, yes?)
Now, on to the parts where I say you're right: you're right, the comment about the bolding choice is a cavil, but I did want to point out that the paper does call McCain's speech gracious (rather than call it a flip-flop), and it does identify Biden's actions as a flip-flop--it's not totally partisan. If it comments on more Republicans changing their tune, well, that's because more Republicans are changing their tune. If we want to discuss whether this is actually news, I would say it's probably not, so if you want to say they're biased by writing this in the first place, that I would also agree with.
And I understand the vow not to get involved anymore. I thought, after the election, I was done. But still, I do like arguments, so, here I am. But, while I may be a contrarian at heart, I'm not purposely trying to antagonize people. I come here quite a bit actually--more than is healthy for my blood pressure!--but I only write when something seems especially wrong, and never just to start a fight, I hope.
Nicky my man,
November 9, 2008 - 02:56 ET by IamTinmanYou have just made it incredibly clear that you are just a slightly brighter Josh. You pop in here to yank peoples chains and get a response. Not much intellectual variety on the left these days?
You are obviously bright enough to know that the gamut of conservatism runs, just like the left, from the center to the extremes. Like most, I would have to write a small book for example explaining how on some issues I'm a libertarian, some cconservative and a few (GASP) I have liberal leanings.
I have no responsibility for anyones writing on NB, only my own and that holds for even trolls like Josh. I don't hold you to any accounting for liberal rants either.
One last thing. Please if you want to retain any credibility, don't use Huffpo as a "news site". That's just too much!
Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
Thomas Jefferson
lower stakes
November 9, 2008 - 11:06 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi Ian,
I don't know if I'd say there's not much intellectual variety on the left, but right now, post-election, it at least feels like the stakes are a little lower for the moment--different priorities on the left can, for the moment, take a breath (except maybe for the CA organizing against Prop 8).
I mean, I know people on the left who are disappointed in the pick of Rahm Emanuel because he's not all that left. Obama, himself, has a number of centrist policies (like, for one, not supporting gay marriage) that don't make others on the left happy.
Really, I think there are a variety of leftist, progressive positions that don't always mesh. (Thinking historically, one could point to the post-Civil War battle over suffrage for white women/black men: some white women who had been strong for emancipation and the dignities of African Americans were saying really vicious things about how they should get the vote rather than black men.) But now, post-election, I think it's time less for action, more for reflection.
Anyway, if you want to reflect on your own brand of political thought, I'm all ears. That's actually one of the reasons I started coming here: to hear people say, in their own words, what they believed in, rather than judging from polls/elections (how many times have you heard someone say they held their nose while voting for McCain?) or what pundits say.
(But in all fairness, there was one time I said something that was not meant to start a conversation and that might have been read as a provocation: it was when Obama was elected, and I posted simply "USA!" a few times. I didn't expect that to start an intelligent discussion, I just wanted to say how I was feeling. But I did think it was funny that someone responded that they had never heard anyone chant that at an Obama/DNC event--which is funny only because a lot of people were chanting that at the Tuesday night rally on the news, and even at the Dem. Nat. Convention. So, it's true: sometimes I'm not here to see what people will say to certain things, but rather just to point out what they might have otherwise missed.)
The old gray lady is just
November 8, 2008 - 21:55 ET by ConservativeRexThe old gray lady is just that. Let the NYT continue to wither and die on the vine. The only people who give a crap are all in Manhatten, and I don't mean Kansas.
Now to Josh, I was going to rebut him but I thought better of it. The only thing I will bring up is; all the nitwits on all of the alphabet networks saying the polls were closed in Florida when clearly the Panhandle county's polls were still open (they are in the Central Time Zone). A lot of military in the Panhandle along with a bunch of Republicans.
Futhermore, it's not like the democrats don't have a history of suppressing the military vote, they tried to do it in Virginia this year. The dems know better then everyone else they don't now, nor will they ever have, the military on their side. Facts are as they say, facts.
Military support
November 8, 2008 - 22:18 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi CR,
I did hear that, counting veterans, military personnel favored McCain over Obama 3-to-1, but according to this write-up at the American Conservative ( http://www.amconmag.... ), currently serving soldiers were donating overwhelmingly to Obama (6-to-1); in addition, GOP membership for senior military declined from 60% in 2003 to 47% in 2007; also, it looks like a lawyer in Obama's campaign was involved in getting Virginia to accept the military absentee ballots (according to this article in both Army Times and Air Force Times: http://www.armytimes... ).
So, while McCain probably benefitted from counting absentee ballots, he may not have benefitted from them as much as previous GOP candidates, and it seems that Obama's campaign helped make sure those votes were counted.
yeah nick
November 8, 2008 - 22:25 ET bythere lots of strange things involving Obamas 'donations' both domestic and from overseas
i really don't think you want to look too closely, the MSM didn't (there's a hint in itself)
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
we're not talking anonymous donations here
November 8, 2008 - 22:34 ET by nicholas nicklebySorry, Botg, if you want to make the claim that some conspiracy out there is a) stealing soldiers' names to make donations in their names and/or b) reporting those donations in to polling firms--well, you need to show some evidence of your, frankly, wacky conspiracy theory. Also, McCain's donations lists showed some irregularities. I'm not saying that "irregularities" are okay--they should be rooted out of the sytem. I'm just pointing out the gap between an irregularity and a conspiracy to make donations in soldiers' names.
lol knickers
November 8, 2008 - 22:42 ET byyou got that from my post?
all i said is it's better for you not to look too closely at the money Obama received. You really think enlisted military have spare cash around to 'donate'? Also we know that in active mil the support was/is like 80/20 against Obama and yet the money is different? Why such a difference?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
that's gotta sting
November 8, 2008 - 22:51 ET by nicholas nicklebyThe report tracked donations of $200 or more. It found that 859 members
of the military donated a total of $335,536 to Obama. McCain received
$280,513 from 558 military donors.
Among soldiers serving overseas at the time of their donations, 134
gave a total of $60,642 to Obama while 26 gave a total of $10,665 to
McCain. That was less than the amount received by Republican Ron Paul,
who collected $45,512 from 99 soldiers serving abroad, the report said.
Man, even Ron Paul got more support! ( http://www.usatoday.... ) An educated guess says that the military split was not 80/20--in fact, the most generous split was 3-to-1, not 4-to-1. But as I said above, even that might not be entirely accurate, as military personnel seem to be leaving the GOP in droves--from 60% in 2003 to 47% in 2007. (They may still have voted for McCain, but it's clear that these are people who were not thrilled with the GOP.)
there is another aspect to this...
November 8, 2008 - 23:16 ET by MightyMouth...the majority of people in the military are in the Obama demographic between 18 and 28. These kids were brought up in the MTV and Nintendo generation. Which means they were spoiled (by my generation btw). In other words they don't know the real Reagan GOP. All they know is the diluted version.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
so knickers
November 8, 2008 - 23:20 ET bywho is giving them the money to donate?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Let's analyze these numbers
November 9, 2008 - 00:18 ET by JeffWeimerThere are approximately 1,380,082 personnel on active duty (as of Aug 2007 http://www.infopleas...), not including reserves. So it's stretching it quite a lot to extrapolate from these numbers you cite. They certainly reflect the same quality of support seen in the rest of the nation.
As for leaving in droves - dropping from 4 to 1 to 3 to 1 is still a sizable majority of support. Also, we in the military are not immune from the same motivations that brought Obama to victory (http://www.militaryt...). The overwhelming support for Obama throughout the African American community probably had a greater effect on the relative loss of support for Republicans in the military than in the rest of society, as the percentage of African Americans in uniform is higher overall, roughly 20% instead of 13% overall (18-44 year olds http://www.defenseli...).
Concur: I heard military
November 9, 2008 - 07:06 ET by BDConcur:
I heard military personnel in uniform that had previously expressed support for conservatism say that they would vote for Obama simply due to racial reasons.
We will see what happens when the racial novelty wears thin next time.
Nickolas Nickelby: Would you
November 9, 2008 - 07:03 ET by BDNickolas Nickelby:
Would you not thinkit highly unusual that a demographic element that votes in high proportion one way, gives so much more money the other?
For one thing, career military personnel are not known for contributions to political campaigns. So this pattern of behavior is "suspect."
Not entirely suspect--after all, everyone is doing it
November 9, 2008 - 11:18 ET by nicholas nicklebywell BD, I agree with you in theory--a change in behavior might be suspect; but on the other hand, in practice, I know a lot of people who have changed their behavior for this election. I mean, how many conservatives who voted Bush in '04 went for Obama in '08? How many people who have never given their money or their time for an election donated both this time around?
As I pointed out, the military vote this time around was not so overwhelmingly for the GOP as it has been in the past; and I have seen pictures of Veterans for Obama groups where these veterans who have given so much were giving even more by working the phones for an Obama victory.
So, yes, this pattern of behavior is out-of-the-ordinary, but it seems to fit with the rest of the election, which was out-of-the-ordinary itself. (I mean, did Dole staffers try to tear down Kemp post '96?) If more military personnel were giving more money and voting for the Democrat this time around, that would probably just mean that they are in-step with the rest of the country.
Nicholas: THe fact that
November 9, 2008 - 12:09 ET by BDNicholas:
THe fact that three quarters of the military demographic goes one way, followed by the fact that the same demographic overwhelmingly funds another leads to some significant questions.
1.) Why would the 8% of additional voters who switched from Republican to Democrat for this election effectively dump twice as much money into the pot than the rest of the demographic combined? Are they simply RICHER and can afford it? Highly unlikely since few military personnel serve in order to become wealthy and thus be able to afford the $2000 contribution.
2.) Since officers are more likely to be able to afford higher contributions, why would the pot be larger since officers are even more conservative than enlisted men in the demographic?
3.) Since junior enlisted soldiers who make the least trend to be the most liberal in the demographic, how could that putative group afford the $2000 contribution?
4.) While black soldiers are represented in all levels of the force, they are slightly MORE represented in the enlsited ranks than theya re in the officer ranks and thus less likely to afford the contribution at the limit listed.
With these questions listed, it becomes apparent that something unusual occurred with contributions to the Obama campaign that bears scrutiny.
your logic is good, but your numbers aren't quite
November 9, 2008 - 12:51 ET by nicholas nicklebyHey BD,
If we were talking about millions of dollars, I would understand your suspicion, but we're not (also, the donations list does not track donations over $2000, but over $200--significantly less, and much more in the range of possible donations).
As for why soldiers would turn away from McCain and offer time, money, and votes to Obama, that's probably a personal decision that I couldn't speak to. But here's a story about a lifelong Republican (he voted for Reagan and Bush 41) who was turned off by Bush 43 landing in front of a "Mission Accomplished" sign when the war was clearly not over ( http://www.courant.c... ). I'm not sure this is indicative of a big shift away from McCain, but it does answer the question of why this one person gave money and voted for Obama.
new info
November 10, 2008 - 19:02 ET by nicholas nicklebyInteresting idea a friend ran by me today, which I thought was related to the question of the military: while veterans voted 44% for Obama (3% higher than for Kerry), that still does not keep up with national trends, so veterans by and large still vote for the GOP.
But besides McCain, and with Hagel retiring, how many GOP members have military backgrounds? According to this report ( http://www.politico.... ), 10 new military Veterans have been elected to office in the last two election cycles--but they've all been democrats!
Um, FDR?
November 8, 2008 - 22:24 ET by Josh SNWhen FDR won in 1940, he got over 98% of the vote in South Carolina and more than 95% of the vote in South Carolina in 1940.
The Democrats didn't do as badly, before Viet Nam, as you suggest.
Your point?
November 8, 2008 - 23:03 ET by BDYour point?
it was those FDR TV ads from '29
November 8, 2008 - 23:34 ET by:)
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Stand up Chuck!
November 9, 2008 - 00:23 ET by MightyMouthGod love ya!...
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM lol
November 9, 2008 - 00:30 ET by TheAssessorOMG.. that makes me lol every time. Thanks for posting it MM.
It's America, not Omerica
My pleasure TheAssessor...
November 9, 2008 - 00:41 ET by MightyMouthcan you imagine the gaffe fest we will witness in the next four years!?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Mighty... ...LMAO... Tha
November 9, 2008 - 00:33 ET by bigtimerMighty...
...LMAO...
Thanks for the laughter at the end of the evening for me pretty quick..of course the msm ignored that ..if Palin had said that at a rally... Katie Bar the Door....
Replay ad nauseam...on all networks...24/7.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
All this tripe reveals is
November 9, 2008 - 09:21 ET by katiejanethat Rep at least try and be gracious when they lose -unlike whiney-hiney Dems.
>President Bush, in turn,
November 9, 2008 - 09:41 ET by GrannyGrump42>President Bush, in turn, also hailed Mr. Obama's victory, saying his arrival at the White House would be "a stirring sight."<
Very stirring. I can feel my stomach stirring already.
Perhaps Say It Differently, But...
November 9, 2008 - 09:57 ET by Wildcatter1980I might have said "gracious" instead of "good," however, the sentiment is still correct.
I'm thinking back to the posts this week regarding the so-called anger of the conservative right yet as we have seen time and time, again, the anger is on the left. Even now, they continue to display their contempt for those who would oppose them in the political arena.
I cannot imagine be so consumed with hatred of someone else's ideas and points of view. Anyone who thinks that issues such as partisanship and race have now fallen by the wayside are going to be in for quite a rude awakening.
--
Ignorance, our most costly commodity - paraphrased from Rush Limbaugh
Adding salt to the wound
November 10, 2008 - 12:06 ET by Mary Louise TurnerFor many years, the liberals have proven themselves time and time again to be bad winners and worse losers. Instead of congratulating Mr. McCain and Co. for showing grace in defeat, this NYT jerk decides to add salt to the wound. No wonder the journalism profession is regarded with the same contempt as used car salesmen.