« Scalia speaks | Main | "It was not, suffice it to say, his finest hour." »

Thinking Outside The Boxes

It's odd, where you can find insight.

A few days ago, my colleague Rick posted a truly remarkable political ad. That particular ad was cited all over the place, including IMAO, FrankJ's largely-humorous right-wing blog. And in the comments there, one of his readers -- John Morris -- said something that hit me hard:

But remember kids, we can't actually field an army or shoot the bastards.... yet. So long as the ballot box remains viable the cartridge box is out of bounds. SEIU, ACORN, etc. Note the exception being noted and take heed.

Damn. I've always been extremely sensitive to people screwing around with elections. I'm still angry over the 2002 phone-jamming scam the New Hampshire Republican party pulled, even though four guys went to jail and the party paid a hefty fine to the Democrats. I have a deep and abiding loathing for ACORN for their assing around with fraudulent voter registrations -- and, occasionally, actual voter fraud. And I am disgusted and appalled with the Obama/Holder Justice Department and their dropping of the charges against the New Black Panthers Party over their voter intimidation in Philadelphia in 2008.

After reading Mr. Morris' comment, though, I have to wonder if at least part of my anger over this is motivated by fear. Fear that should enough Americans lose their faith in the honesty of elections, they just might turn from the soapbox and the ballot box to the ammo box.

If there is one area where our enforcement of law must be borderline draconian, it has to be in maintaining the integrity of our elections. When incidents like the above happen, the punishment must be swift, it must be sure, and it must be severe.

In New Hampshire in 2002, the state GOP jammed the Democrats' "get out the vote" phones for 45 minutes on election day. As a consequence, four men went to jail and the state party paid a fine (to the New Hampshire Democratic Party) of $125,000. And I think that was too little.

On election day in 2008, members of the New Black Panther Party's "militia" stationed themselves outside a Philadelphia polling station, weapons at hand, and proclaimed that Whitey's day was over, that we were going to be governed by a black man, and whiteys better get used to it. As a consequence, one of them was forbidden to bring a weapon to a polling place until 2012.

I can't wait to see who shows up at polling stations in 2012. And what sorts of weapons they bring. After all, the door's been opened. Anyone can just walk in.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39399.

Comments (129)

If members of the BP show u... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

If members of the BP show up at polling places in 2012, they better be ready to stuff the ballot box, right now their man appears to have a snowball's chance in hell of getting re-elected.

Obama has been the best sal... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

Obama has been the best salesman for the firearms and ammunition industry EVER.

I had a long chat with an ammunition manufacturer's representative and he explained that the only time they stopped their machines in their 5 acre plant was to maintain them. Downtime was 1 hour out of 24 and they run them 24/7 and only shut down for 3 holidays.

He said that even with that production schedule they can't keep up with demand. People that used to go to the range and just buy a box now buy a case, and squirrel it away.

As an example, demand for .380 ammunition made it all but vanish from retail outlets everywhere and what little that appeared was bought on sight. Primers for reloading were also scarce. Prices followed demand with both firearms and ammunition although demand has slowed down somewhat prices have yet to follow.

Firearms sales can best be tracked by the demand put on the NICS system. If you dig up the information you will see that demand spiked starting shortly before the election and continued to be high throughout the first year of the regime. This of course does not take into account the firearms already in possession of the general public.

So yes, if Eric Holder and this regime continue to hold true to form you will see a continued erosion in the public's trust and this time it might end badly, far all involved.

I sincerely hope it never reaches that point, but if it does then you can count on it that the flash point was a politician gaming the electoral system in their favor.

Barack Obama's photo has be... (Below threshold)
twolaneflash:

Barack Obama's photo has been posted in every gun store I've been in for two years - he's the Salesman of the Year. The ammo boxes are full, and The Second Amendment solution is alive in The Constitution, as well as in the hearts of patriotic Americans. If that makes politicians fearful, then they must be doing it wrong. Yes, there are those of us who will reach a breaking point with this government if it stays on its present course. It's dissolution will be mandated by the phrase: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...". Do not think Americans will not kill each other by the thousands over political issues. We have done it twice. Perhaps The Tree of Liberty needs refreshing. Tyrants are deterred only by force and death. I will live free or die, but not alone.

What the dems need to recog... (Below threshold)
jim m:

What the dems need to recognize is that as they allow their surrogates ACORN, the SEIU, and New Black Panther Party to erode the public's confidence in the ballot box and as they pursue anti-freedom public policy like regulation of the internet they will leave what is now the majority of the country that is opposed to their policies no other choice but to take up arms against them.

We are a long way from this yet, but I do not see the dems as having any recognition that they have chosen this path. Every week it seems there is a new video of some dem or dem supporter roughing up a citizen.

Obama and holder are creating a society where law is a function of political affiliation and not justice. Once the people lose confidence that they have recourse in the courts or the ballot box there will be few avenues left to them. The dems seem to think this is some game where you do whatever it takes to win and there are no rules as long as you avoid getting caught and their idea of ballot security is not ensuring that there is no tampering or fraud but ensuring that the ballot count is on their side.

Nutjobs and blowhards. You ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Nutjobs and blowhards. You make me sneer.

A few True Believers may try something spectacular. And will have about as much lasting impact as the Symbionese Liberation Army.

Please, Mr Tea, post more articles like this one. It gives the Keyboard Kommandos of Kookdom a chance to froth, quote Jefferson on the "Tree of Liberty," and proclaim how tough they are, and how rough it's gonna be, as soon as they're "pushed too far." Hilarious.

Sneer all you want, Bruce. ... (Below threshold)

Sneer all you want, Bruce. What you seem to miss is that there is still a large group of Americans who actually believe in the statements made in the Declaration, and not in a nuanced way, the relevant sentence of which, in the present context, is this: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Those of us who believe in individual liberty and consequently in the limitation of the powers of government have been suffering the evils of collectivism and growing government powers for a long time, and under both parties. And I have no doubt that we will continue to suffer them a while longer. The reason Obama makes us afraid is more because by pushing so far, so fast, he threatens to awaken the latent anger of Americans who resent being caged.

As someone noted above, we've killed each other wholesale more than once, and it's not beyond the pale that it happen again. There is, in this sense, nothing special about America; like all other societies throughout history, if our civil sense of being opponents on the same sides dissolves into being enemies, then we will have a civil war. As long as the soapbox and the ballot box function, and we remain opponents with different means to a common end, with different expressions of common principles, there will just be bickering and arguing. The reason that the SEIU, and ACORN, and things like the Republicans' follies that JT noted and the Democrats' election fraud (Christine Gregoire, for instance, or the Florida 2000 attempts to count the ballots in any way that would make Gore win, and in no other way, and the rules be damned) -- these things all add up. And the reason that they are so bad is that they undermine the faith that we can work things out peacefully. No one, and I do mean no one, wants that to happen.

Your sneering is cute, but also inane and stupid. Deeply stupid, in fact, because it just goes that little microscopic way further of showing the rest of us that you care not one tiny little bit for us as countrymen, as members of the same civitas, except as tax slaves and rhetorical foils. It's not necessary that conservatives and libertarians win all the contests, as many decades of increasing collectivism without violence have shown, but it is necessary that everyone, on all sides, feels that they have a chance to be heard and, on critical issues, to fairly contest the outcome.

Bruce,Libs are all... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Bruce,

Libs are all diehard believers that W stole the election in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in '04 despite the fact that there was never any substantiation of that charge. Meanwhile conservatives have video of the New Black Panthers intimidating voters and the resignations of several career lawyers from the DOJ to say that obama and friends are playing politics with the ballot box.

Both the FTC and FCC have proposed regulating free speech in the form of regulating access to the internet and regulating journalism and providing government subsidies for the dead tree media and reserving First Amendment protection for MSM 'journalists' alone.

You can call it a fantasy, but when one sees that the political allies of the current president are given a pass for violence and threats at the ballot box and the same administration is proposing restricting Constitutional rights to those who support them most other people would be reasonably and justifiably concerned.

Excellent post Jeff Medcalf... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Excellent post Jeff Medcalf!

The only thing I'll say to ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

The only thing I'll say to Jim M is to remind him, once again, that he DOES NOT KNOW what "libs are all diehard believers" of. What makes this dude think he knows the inside of "all liberals" minds?

Very eloquent statement, Mr Medcalf, but claiming that only conservatives espouse the principle embodied in the Declaration is dishonest, historically ignorant, or both. Many of the 1960s New Left loved to quote from the Declaration and were guilty of the same kind of cherrypicking as the Tea Partiers are today.

You also amuse me by bitching about the "many decades of increasing collectivism" that you have been "suffering under." Perhaps you'd like to go back to the standard of living we all enjoyed before Roosevelt's New Deal, Truman's Fair Deal, Eisenhower's moderation (when top tax rates were 90%), Kennedy's New Frontier, Johnson's Great Society, and Nixon-Ford's continuation of the American Liberal Concensus? It seems to me that Reagan's attempt to turn back the clock to 1929 would suit some of you guys just fine. Those were the days, right? When white male Anglo-Saxon Protestants controlled everything?

You guys lost an election, fair and square. (No, Nutters, ACORN didn't steal ten million votes.) When the victorious candidate attempts to implement the policies he campaigned on, you start making threats, noises about the Tree of Liberty, and public proclamations of your firearms inventories.

I would have dearly loved to see Republican reactions to Democratic candidates in 2002 making ads in which the line "Gather your armies" was used in opposition to Bush policy. Ya think they would have called such ads treasonous? Ya think?

What makes me laugh are the comments in which it is implied that there will be violence if Obama pushes too far. as if these guys are about to become Popeye: "I've had all I can stands, and I can't stands no more!" These Armchair Patriots are no more likely to become revolutionaries than monkeys are likely to fly out of my ass.

Bring on the Republicans ra... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Bring on the Republicans racist hate mobs and their pitchforks, we libs will have our laser-guided love guns. Nancy Pelosi will be at the front of our ranks shaking her finger, drawing them into our trap. Harry Reid will be smiling broadly, having defeated the latest Tea Party asshat at the polls, and Sarah Palin will be dressed in a cheerleader outfit, showing off her recently purchased boobs and puffing on a joint.

Ok, childhood regression over. Hey, are there any adult bloggers left at Wizbang?

Those of us who be... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Those of us who believe in individual liberty and consequently in the limitation of the powers of government have been suffering the evils of collectivism and growing government powers for a long time, and under both parties.

Libertarian dogma says that there's really no difference between the two major parties, but then you go on to use the phrase... "It's not necessary that conservatives and libertarians win all the contests,"

Libertarians should know that most conservatives will vote against radical and/or rapid change, but in either direction. That is, we'll vote to repeal the over the top healthcare law, but we'll also vote against privatizing our roads and highways.

Conservatives are pragmatic and seek proof that something works before we support it. Conservatives and Liberals form a yin yang symbiotic relationship that allows government to change with the times. Not by forcing change on the people, but changing as the people direct it. That's what government for the people by the people means. It doesn't mean either a static Libertarian or Progressive government where extremism is the norm.

Yes, libertarians can count on Conservatives to counter the Progressivism of the Obama administration, but it would be a mistake to assume Conservatives support Libertarian extremism.

clean up aisle 10, Bruce, s... (Below threshold)
epador:

clean up aisle 10, Bruce, see what happens when you let the kids out of the jump seat of your shopping cart?

I expect our 'reasonable so... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

I expect our 'reasonable sounding' Jay Tea, who seems only animated against violence when an old leftist radical from the 60's and 70's, such as Ayres was one of its principal advocates, will next be approving the message of Tea Pary favorite and gubernatorial candidate, Rick Barber, practically egging on an armed insurrection "gather your amies", against the socialist federal, Obama administration .

But be careful those 'who believe in evolution', like 'agnostic' Jay presumably, might be among the first victims to go summarily, when the Tea Party revolution comes. I suggest Jay is going to have to think pretty quickly outside the box, to justify this tenet of the Tea Party, which seems as fundamental and defining as their promotion of the right to bear arms (and use them).

Bruce your argument seems t... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Bruce your argument seems to boil down to two points: 1) we won so everyone should shut up and let us do what we want regardless of the laws of the land. and 2) we won by a decisive margin so those acts of vote fraud and voter intimidation aren't worth following up on and prosecuting.

I'm sorry Bruce, but a growing majority of the electorate is opposed to this president and his policies regardless of how many votes he garnered a year and a half ago. Also, nobody is alleging that Barry stole the election, but that there were outrageous acts of fraud and intimidation which have been objectively documented. DOJ career lawyers with histories of protecting minority rights are resigning because obama doesn't care about enforcing the law for ALL people, just his friends. You have clearly come down on the side of "if you can't prove it made a difference then it wasn't illegal". Remind me that the next time someone vandalizes your car. It still runs so STFU.

As for Lee, leading with the racist charge is just your disgusting level. Thanks for once again reminding us what a bigot you are and that all your charges are to distract from all the racist comments you made about Barry in the primaries.

A recent poll shows 25% of ... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

A recent poll shows 25% of the Tea Party members are motivated by racial bias.

Call me a bigot is you wish, I really don't care what you call me, but it's a fact that a significant percentage of the Tea Party are racists.

These are people who have seen their taxes go down under Obama, and yet they hate that black man so much they rise up and, as Jay illustrates, advocate a violent overthrow of the American government because of taxes.

They stood by silently while Bush took the Clinton surplus and ran up the national debt, but put a black man in the white house and the 25% of the Tea Party who are motivated by race stand up and bellow about the national debt.

They didn't mind when taxpayer billions were going to Haliburton, but when the dollars are going to their unemployed Americans they scream.

What's changed? There's a black man in the White House.

There you go again, Jim, te... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

There you go again, Jim, telling me what my argument boils down to.

I'll tell you what my argument boils down to, and it's not that you should shut up. It's a much narrower point: Those who oppose Obama and his policies should have worked harder and contributed more money to ensure his defeat at the polls. They should work hard and contribute money to defeat him in 2012.

What they should NOT do is advocate armed resistance to a legally elected government. Again, just imagine if a Democratic candidate for Congress had made this ad in 2002 in opposition to Bush policy. Hannity, Limbaugh, and every rube on Wizbang would have denounced the ad as treason-talk. Am I right or am I right?

Don't get me wrong. This guy has a right to say whatever he wants. And I have a right to ridicule him for it, and to ridicule those blowhards who proudly proclaim that they will "live free or die, but not alone" in response to it.

"A recent poll shows 25% of... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

"A recent poll shows 25% of the Tea Party members are motivated by racial bias...."

Could you please provide the specifics of this poll?

"Could you please provid... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

"Could you please provide the specifics of this poll? "

Sure. Thanks for asking. I posted the information another thread but Jay Tea erased it, so there's a good chance he'll erase it here too, but I'll just repost it again if he does.

A new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers. "The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"--25 percent, to be exact--"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters," says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race."

Surveyers asked respondents in California and a half dozen battleground states (like Michigan and Ohio) a series of questions that political scientists typically use to measure racial hostility. On each one, Tea Party backers expressed more resentment than the rest of the population, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology. When read the statement that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites," 73 percent of the movement's supporters agreed, while only 33 percent of people who disapproved of the Tea Party agreed. Asked if blacks should work their way up "without special favors," as the Irish, Italians, and other groups did, 88 percent of supporters agreed, compared to 56 percent of opponents. The study revealed that Tea Party enthusiasts were also more likely to have negative opinions of Latinos and immigrants.

These results are bolstered by a recent New York Times/CBS News survey finding that white Tea Party supporters were more likely to believe that "the Obama administration favors blacks over whites" and that "too much has been made of the problems facing black people." The survey also showed that Tea Party sympathizers are whiter, older, wealthier, and more well-educated than the average American. They're "just as likely to be employed, and more likely to describe their economic situation as very or fairly good," according to a summary of the poll.

Quoting http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/25/are-tea-partiers-racist.html Published April 26, 2010.

Quoting the Univesity of Washington web page linked above:

For instance, the Tea Party, the grassroots movement committed to reining in what they perceive as big government, and fiscal irresponsibility, also appear predisposed to intolerance. Approximately 45% of Whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy. Perceptions of Latinos aren't much different. While 54% of White Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be hardworking, only 44% think them intelligent, and even fewer, 42% of Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be trustworthy. When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.

That's racial bias.

Of course, if you're one of the racists you don't believe that thinking Latinos are stupid is a sign of racial bias, you think it's a fact and get all riled up when someone calls you a racist. Racists often don't realize they hold racially biased views, and they get very angry when you point out that they indeed are harboring racist viewpoints.

Read it quick before Jay Tea tries to hide the truth anduses his sock puppets to discredit the source.

Lee Ward keeps bringing his... (Below threshold)

Lee Ward keeps bringing his "25% of the Tea Party are raaaaacists!" bullshit, and always with the same two factors:

1) He never cites his source.

B) It's utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

He might -- MIGHT -- address point 1. He will NEVER do anything about point B, because he can't.

And if you really want to make him squirm, ask him why he's putting so much energy into ignoring/discrediting the 75% (by his fantasy numbers; I don't buy them at all) who aren't raaaaacists.

J.

"The data suggests... (Below threshold)
jim m:
"The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"--25 percent, to be exact--"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters," s

Sorry. I think this is the researchers seeing what hey want to see.

That people are considered possibly racially resentful does not by any stretch of the imagination say that they are racist. At that point I would argue the reverse case that nearly 100% of blacks are virulently racist because they are full of racial resentment.

Nobody would take the latter argument seriously. No one should take the former one seriously either.

Additionally Lee the study ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Additionally Lee the study does not show any link to what they purport to be racist views and the political aims of the Tea Party members.

Coincidence is not causality. Even you know that.

While a person may hold views of a group that are stereotyped and biased (such as yours about conservatives for instance) it does not mean that such an individual will act out that bias when they deal with persons of that group. There is often quite a difference between a person's private thoughts and public behavior.

These Armchair Patriots ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

These Armchair Patriots are no more likely to become revolutionaries than monkeys are likely to fly out of my ass. - Bruce Henry

Then you have nothing to worry about.

Bruce, no relation to Patrick, I take it?

1) He never cites his so... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

1) He never cites his source.

Jay's lying - I provided links above. Assuming jay hasn't deleted them... as of this comment they are still there.

B) It's utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The motivation of conservatives who are calling for violence against their fellow Americans is highly relevant. And I cited and quoted the poll because I was asked to.

"And if you really want to make him squirm, ask him why he's putting so much energy into ignoring/discrediting the 75% (by his fantasy numbers; I don't buy them at all) who aren't raaaaacists."

That's rich coming from the group of people who calls all Progressives "socialists". How many liberals are truly "Socialists"? Certainly a whole lot less than 25%.

The motivation of Tea Party members rising up in violence against their fellow Americans is relevant to this post -- just a truth that's a bit inconvenient. Notice that Jay doesn't deny deleting the proof of that. That's what he's been doing - he just declares it off-topic and deletes it.

A new survey by the Institu... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

A new survey by the Institute for the Study of Communism, Degeneracy & Perversion offers fresh insight into the political attitudes of Democrat sympathizers.

The survey found that 99% of Democrats are communists or fellow travelers, and that most enjoy a good fisting of a Friday night.

Gee, this business of cloaking long-held opinions with a pseudo-scientific cachet is fun!

When it comes to gays an... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.

How is this "racial bias?" It shows that those conducting the survey had a political agenda, and looked for confirmation of it.

In essence, their questions came down to: "do you support the hard-left agenda?" If not, then you're probably patriotic, you bastard.

"How many liberals are trul... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"How many liberals are truly "Socialists"? Certainly a whole lot less than 25%."

Really? So if you support socialist policies and oppose a free market system you are not a socialist? Why? Because you don't call yourself one?

Just because you reject the label doesn't mean you aren't one. Just like libs today reject the notion that the National Socialist Party was socialist (yes it was at the beginning before it veered off into insanity).

Bullseye, jim m. A... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Bullseye, jim m.

A lot of liberals dispute the "socialist" label, but want government control and/or ownership of business, a centrally-planned economy, redistribution of wealth, equality of outcome, and precedence of the collective over the individual.

Nah, that's not socialism.

The problem is that most of them are too stupid to realize that they're 100% socialist in views; they just don't like the word. But the word is apt.

Do you even read what you w... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Do you even read what you write, Mr M?

"Just because you reject the label doesn't mean you aren't one." I'm pretty sure that sums up just about everything Mr Ward has ever posted about conservatives/racism.

If you call every Democratic proposal a "socialist policy" and every call for regulation "opposition to a free market system", you might have a point. But they aren't and you don't.

And the National Socialist party might indeed have had its beginnings in the larger Socialist movement - before Hitler joined it, and veered it sharply rightward toward insanity.

Jay's alter ego saysin #25:... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Jay's alter ego saysin #25: "When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage..... How is this "racial bias?" It shows that those conducting the survey had a political agenda, and looked for confirmation of it."

He's trying to confuse the rubes.

The poll was measuring many biases among Tea Party members. One of those was racial biases, but other biases were tested as well.

Question the motives of the poll takers? 25% of the Tea Party members are motivated by race. It's obvious even without a poll, but since many conservatives have trouble believing that a poll was needed to measure and prove it.

It's one of the reasons you don't see "Tea Party" mentioned as often on Wizbang. Another inconvenient truth.

Jay Tea disappears and Jay Guevera pops up. It's very common on Wizbang. Jay is counting on you not noticing that either.

The survey was testing stri... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

The survey was testing strictly and solely testing whether respondents had liberal views. Period.

Q: "Do you worship Barack Obama as the Messiah, the Chosen One, who will lead the lefteous (can't say "righteous") to the socialist Promised Land, and whose baby you want to have if you're male, or to conceive and abort if you're female?

A: Yes -> "Well then you're a wonderful, delightful human being. Congrats!"

A: No, not sure, or don't entirely agree -> "You're a racist, sexist, homophobe."

Btw, I am not Jay Tea.

Blacks voted almost unanimo... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Blacks voted almost unanimously for Obama. Are they motivated by race?

Answer: hell yes. But that's OK, if you're a guilt-ridden liberal.

Bruce,I'm not sayi... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Bruce,

I'm not saying that every dem policy is socialist. I am saying that many of their policies are for example:

* Government control of industry if not de facto ownership

* Government control of the media (via subsidizing their MSM friends and regulating others and restricting their political speech. Any questions about that would be answered by reading the FTC publication on "reinventing journalism")

* redistribution of wealth (yes even many GOP legislators have fallen for this crap)

* Central control of the economy by determining what money will be spent in what industry (this has already started with obamacare and his intervention in the financial industry)

* Support of unions that demand that workers not be paid for the quality of their performance but for merely showing up. I'd cite the Boston Firefighter's contract that pays them a bonus for showing up sober as a particularly egregious example)

The push to regulate CO2 as a pollutant is a severe intervention into the market. The obamacare demand that every contractor receiving more than $800 for goods and services be given a 1099 is a form of government control over business transactions.

Dems for the most part support these and other policies that are inherently socialist. You can call yourself whatever you please, if you support these things you are a socialist. No further discussion needed

What jim m said.Li... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

What jim m said.

Liberals in general are too stupid to realize that they're socialists. I've lived in a socialist country for many years. I know socialist policies when I see them.

Perhaps your arguments woul... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Perhaps your arguments would be more convincing, Mr M, if they weren't posed in such an over-the-top manner.

ANY attempt by government to regulate dangerous practices, shady business shenanigans, or the foisting of unsafe products on an unsuspecting public have ALWAYS been called, by conservatives, an attempt at "government control of industry" or a "severe intervention in the market."

Such things were said about every reform, from Social Security to Medicare to the forty-hour week to the abolition of child labor to the minimum wage. These things aren't "socialist," they're common sense contributions to the general welfare.

I'm pretty sure, also, that most "libs" would be just as outraged as you are by public employees being paid to just show up. Nobody likes corruption, and being generally in support of the labor movement does not make one a "socialist," no matter how emphatically you pronounce "Period."

You may call people whatever name you wish, but calling them by your paranoid-fantasy name does not make them what you call them. Period.

"A recent poll shows 25% of... (Below threshold)
JJ:

"A recent poll shows 25% of the Tea Party members are motivated by racial bias...."

What percentage of the black votes that went to Obama were motivated by racial bias? Voting for a man BECAUSE he's black is racist, y'know.

Here's Jay Tea signing off ... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Here's Jay Tea signing off on a comment posted on another thread at 1:00 pm.

"Back to work...

J.

Posted by Jay Tea | June 19, 2010 12:49 PM

10 minutes later "Jay Guevera" pops up and starts commenting on this thread.

These Armchair Patriots are no more likely to become revolutionaries than monkeys are likely to fly out of my ass. - Bruce Henry

Then you have nothing to worry about.

Bruce, no relation to Patrick, I take it?

22. Posted by Jay Guevara | June 19, 2010 1:00 PM

And, as is Jay Tea's pattern, Jay's been repeatedly commenting here. 7 comments since 1:00pm, 10 minutes after Jay Tea signed off "back to work".

Coincidence? Sure, it could be, but it is exactly the kind of coincidence that was Jay's pattern of sockpuppetry on Wizbang Blue in years passed.

Investigation back them revealed that Jay Tea was using multiple sock puppets. At least 7 or 8.

ANY attempt by ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

ANY attempt by government to regulate dangerous practices, shady business shenanigans, or the foisting of unsafe products on an unsuspecting public have ALWAYS been called, by conservatives, an attempt at "government control of industry" or a "severe intervention in the market."

That doesn't mean they're wrong.

Government owns GM. Government owns Chrysler. Government owns AIG. Government is dictating to BP how and to whom it should allocate its resources. No "government control of industry" or a "severe intervention in the market" here. No sir.

shady business shenanigans, or the foisting of unsafe products on an unsuspecting public

Enough about the Oilbama campaign. Barry's got enough to worry about.

Bruce,I disagree w... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Bruce,

I disagree with your straw man argument categorically. At no time did I say that any government regulation was wrong. I work in a very heavily regulated industry. I would not characterize the majority of those regulations wrong or overly burdensome given the valid concerns involved. There is a difference between sensible regulation and government control.

When the government regulates carbon emissions to the level that fast food restaurants would qualify for requiring an emissions permit from the EPA we have crossed that line.When government will determine what hospitals can do what procedures and how many (something called obamacare) we have gone too far.

As for libs being outraged that people are paid for just showing up I call Bullshit! Show me the libs outraged at public employee unions. Show me the libs militating to get merit pay for teachers in opposition to the unions. They simply aren't there in any meaningful numbers. In fact there have been far more numerous examples of libs standing in the way of such things.

I'm not Jay Tea, you fuckin... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

I'm not Jay Tea, you fucking moron.

Righ, JJ. Too bad for your ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Righ, JJ. Too bad for your side the Democrats didn't nominate Hillary Clinton. She would have got a WAY lower percentage of the black vote.

Because the McCain-Palin ticket was so clearly pro-black. And historically, African-Americans vote for Republicans in droves.

Such things wer... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Such things were said about every reform, from Social Security to Medicare to the forty-hour week to the abolition of child labor to the minimum wage. These things aren't "socialist," they're common sense contributions to the general welfare.

No, they're not. Social Security and Medicare were not reforms, they were social programs. Failed social programs that are driving various polities into bankruptcy. If you're much under 60, you'll never see a dime of either one.

The 40-hour work week is bullshit too. In academia I routinely put in 80 hour weeks, especially when I was humping for tenure in the physical sciences. No exaggeration. Lots of people - including virtually all executives, which I've also been - put in more than 40-hour weeks.

Child labor laws? Designed to promote employment among adults, just like mandatory education.

Minimum wage? More bullshit. Why not raise it to $50/hr? The high school kids at Burger King - the major beneficiaries - would be thrilled. Except that they couldn't get jobs. Their labor isn't worth $50/hr.

I'm pretty sure, also, that most "libs" would be just as outraged as you are by public employees being paid to just show up.

Outraged, perhaps. But what would they do about it? Fire the miscreants? Not with a union in place. That's the problem.

Bruce,The issue is... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Bruce,

The issue is not would blacks have voted for Clinton. The issue is how many Blacks voted for obama in both the primary and general election for the primary reason of his race. The answer is found in the fact that far more voted for obama than historically voted democrat and more blacks voted in general.

Why is it that libs cannot confess to the racial bias on their side yet claim that it exists even where it has been shown to not be there. (CBC members who have yet to produce that video of people calling them the N word)

Lee,"if ... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Lee,

"if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites," 73 percent of the movement's supporters agreed, while only 33 percent of people who disapproved of the Tea Party agreed. Asked if blacks should work their way up "without special favors," as the Irish, Italians, and other groups did, 88 percent of supporters agreed, compared to 56 percent of opponents.

That survey shows racist really are:
So blacks are too stupid, lazy to achieve on their own without help from their white liberal masters.

So you, Mr M, decide when r... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

So you, Mr M, decide when regulation has "crossed that line," and everyone who supports this regulation or that one, that you think is too excessive, is a "socialist, period." Right?

When you make blanket statements about "all libs," Mr M, are you referring to politicians, or just liberal voters such as myself? Because, I assure you, people are people and nobody supports cheating the taxpayers, by union members or anyone else.

But you already knew that, since you're the one who can read minds well enough to pronounce on what "all libs" believe, or what "Obama really means" when he says something.

And one more thing: What is the difference between the government determining "what hospitals can do what procedures and how many," and an insurance company dictating the same? The fact that the insurance company bureaucrat is totally unaccountable, or the fact that huge profits are the driver of his decision (as opposed to the welfare of the patient)?

Retired Military has alread... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Retired Military has already done a superb job of showing that by his own standards Lee is a racist. His comments denigrating obama's character and intelligence during the primary at this point can only be ascribed to his racial hatred. He would not consider any explanation from his opponents nor should we accept anything but a confession from him.

Of course there is an alternative explanation but it is not any more flattering: Lee is simply bent on winning by any means possible. If it means attacking someone's character without regard to the merits of the attack then so be it. If it means lying so be it. If it means election fraud and intimidation then so be it. As long as it benefits his side he's for it.

Mr. Ward, we do not care th... (Below threshold)
Maddox:

Mr. Ward, we do not care that Obama's skin is black, we are concerned that his heart is.

Right, Mr Guevara. SS and M... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Right, Mr Guevara. SS and Medicare weren't reforms, just social programs. Whatever. They were still opposed by conservatives.

Conservatives have opposed every meaningful measure to improve the general welfare. They opposed the abolition of slavery, child welfare laws, compulsory education, Social Security, Medicare, the Civil Rights movement, the minimum wage, the 40-hour week, even the EPA.

Know why liberals don't try to get the minimum wage raised to $50/hr? Because that's ridiculous. Of course Burger King workers shouldn't earn $50/hr. Neither should they earn only $2.00/hr, but that's what Burger King would pay them if it could get away with it. A low but realistic minimum wage is only common sense, no matter how hard diehard libertarians try to pretend the Invisible Hand would take care of the issue.

What is the differ... (Below threshold)
jim m:
What is the difference between the government determining "what hospitals can do what procedures and how many," and an insurance company dictating the same? The fact that the insurance company bureaucrat is totally unaccountable, or the fact that huge profits are the driver of his decision (as opposed to the welfare of the patient)?

A couple of comments:

People in private industry are far more accountable than government workers. Private industry has to compete for business, if they do not provide good service and value for the money spent the customer goes elsewhere. Government workers are almost never fired, if they do not perform well the answer is to spend more money to hire more of them in hopes of providing better service. The reality is that in government jobs poor performance is rewarded by greater funding. Private industry it is the other way around.

As to insurance companies determining who will have what that is not the case. In government health care the government determines what will be spent and on what procedures. When the budget runs out the treatments stop. In Canada that means a limit to lifesaving cancer treatments and surgeries. I am speaking from knowledge gained from speaking with Doctors in Canada who have complained hat they have plenty of patients but cannot treat them. In their system there is no alternative if the government does not fund it. You cannot pay for it yourself. That is common throughout the world of socialized medicine.

In our system if your insurance won't pay or if you have no insurance hospitals have other ways of providing you service. They actually have people whose job it is to seek out charitable funding. The patient can also seek alternative funds by drawing on their own resources or those of family.

I would cite the fact that 97% of Americans diagnosed with Prostate cancer survive it. That is far and away in excess of the number of people with insurance. In Great Britain the number is 77%. They have universal health care but their cancer survival rates are ar below those in the US.

Which system is more fair to the patient? The one where he dies or the one where he survives? Apparently you and your lib friends have decided that it's the one where he dies. Very sad.

A new survey by the Univers... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

A new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers. "The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"--25 percent, to be exact--"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters," says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race."

Ahh Yes, the "data suggests" scientific analysis.

Kinda like the ol' hockey stick graph "suggesting" the reality of global warming.

Once again academics try applying objectivity to the subjective and call it science. Of course we don't get to see all the background info to include sample population, actual questions asked, etc (you know, all the requirements for a poll to be "scientific")

As a former academic, degreed in the physical sciences, I get a chuckle out of these "polls". Especially when done by an organization who's existence requires the poll to show a specific result.

Sorry, Mr M, but your Canad... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Sorry, Mr M, but your Canadian doctor friends have misinformed you. You can, indeed, buy private insurance in Canada, as you can in Britain and France.

The argument that insurance companies must compete is something of a canard. If I work for a company that contracts with Blue Cross to administer my health insurance, and I'm unhappy with how Blue Cross treats me, what shall I do? Threaten to take my business elsewhere?

Conservatives have... (Below threshold)
jim m:
Conservatives have opposed every meaningful measure to improve the general welfare. They opposed the abolition of slavery, child welfare laws, compulsory education, Social Security, Medicare, the Civil Rights movement, the minimum wage, the 40-hour week, even the EPA.
Sorry Bruce somehow my rema... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Sorry Bruce somehow my remaining text got deleted after the blockquote.

Conservatives have opposed every meaningful measure to improve the general welfare. They opposed the abolition of slavery, child welfare laws, compulsory education, Social Security, Medicare, the Civil Rights movement, the minimum wage, the 40-hour week, even the EPA.

You are a terrible liar Bruce:

You asy that conservatives opposed abolition? Lincoln was a Republican you dolt! Jefferson Davis was a democrat. Jim Crow laws were passed by democrats. Anti-lynching laws were successfully filibustered by democrats. The civil rights act was filibustered for something like 57 days by democrats.

Conservatives oppose minimum wage increases not because they are against people making a decent living but because they know that it increases unemployment particularly amongst the poor and the young.

Conservatives are for social security reform because they acknowledge that it cannot remain solvent for those paying into it now. Dems are for continuing on the current unsustainable path and screwing those paying into it now.

Conservatives were for reforming welfare and getting people off. Dems are for keeping people trapped on welfare. I'd remind you that Bill Clinton signed the welfare reform act and it was a success.

You are either a terrible liar or very ignorant. You choose. It makes no matter to me.

Bruce I have worked for any... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Bruce I have worked for any number of companies that took employee complaints about insurance very seriously and even changed their insurance companies based on that feedback. Sorry you are not so fortunate.


The fact that you can get private insurance does not mean that a government funded hospital can treat you. That is the way it is elsewhere. The Hospital for Sick Children routinely runs out of funding for bone marrow transplants. You can wait till next year if you're still alive. Also, the size of the pool determines cost of insurance. The fact that it exists does not mean that it is affordable to anyone.

"Mr. Ward, we do not car... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

"Mr. Ward, we do not care that Obama's skin is black, we are concerned that his heart is."

I understand that. Even though some conservatives paint all Democrats as "Socialists" I understand that is just the broad brush at work.

I understand not all conservatives are racists. Just 25% of those that identify as Tea Party members, according to the survey. If you're not one of those - good on you!

It must be remembered that ... (Below threshold)
OLDPUPPYMAX:

It must be remembered that the founders went to the "ammo box" over a tax on TEA!! How much have actual Americans put up with over the past 5 decades or so? Just slightly more than a tea tax, right? I seriously doubt any Black Panthers will be at my relatively-small-town Kentucky polling place in 2012. But one thing is for DAMNED sure...should they or the SEIU or any other leftist, thug group make an appearance, they had better be VERY well armed.

Not that Lincoln was a grea... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Not that Lincoln was a great conservative. He was for restricting freedom of speech and the free press and actively worked to silence critics in the media. That's pretty much the province of dems today who cannot tolerate diversity of opinion or dissenting views.

Funny how just a couple of years ago dissent was the highest form a patriotism and now the same people call it sedition.

I understand not a... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
I understand not all conservatives are racists. Just 25% of those that identify as Tea Party members, according to the survey. If you're not one of those - good on you!

Even if 25% of those that identify as Tea Party members are racists it's incorrect to say that 25% of conservatives are racists. Lots of those who identify as Tea Party members are not conservatives.

Likewise, not all democrats are liberal. I know some union guys who vote 100% Democrat but who are far from being liberal either financially or socially. They vote Democrat because of the party's pro-union stance. The same for immigrants who want the U.S. to water down (liberalize) its immigration laws so that more of their friends and relatives can come to the U.S., yet many of these immigrants are financially and socially conservative as well as being Christian.

Yes, democrats can point to a long list of changes that most people now agree are good, but there's also a long list of hair brain schemes that never passed into law thanks to republican opposition. The nuclear freeze and open boarders are just two and I hope cap and trade can join that list. The two party, yin yang, system works and either party having complete power for too long leads to disaster. The American people instinctively know this and often favor split government. You may see that again this November.

Re # 57: That's a ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Re # 57:

That's a good point, Mr Lorry. Your last paraagraph, anyway.

Re # 52:

As usual, Jim M, in your haste to call me a "liar," "you dolt," and "very ignorant," you reveal your pathetic lack of knowlege regarding history, or even basic political theory.

You DO know that "Republican" isn't synonymous with "conservative" and "Democrat" is not synonymous with "liberal," don't you, Mr M? Oh, wait, dumb question, OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T. Especially in regard to 19th and 20th Century history, the party of racist conservatism was indeed the Southern wing of the Democratic party. I've never denied that, indeed I've given you this lesson before. You're welcome, even though you didn't retain it.

Only a simpleton would conflate the 19th and early 20th Century Southern Democrats with modern liberals. Either a simpleton, one who mistakes ME for one, or a "terrible liar," who should be ashamed of himself in either case.

Bruce Henry.The mo... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Bruce Henry.

The modern conservative was the classic Liberal .
The liberal believed that individuals regardless of birth had rights. That these rights came from God and not government. The name was taken over and perverted by Communist progressives and so the name was changed to conservatives which believed in limited Government.

Democrats favored Slavery.
Jim Crow. It was Democrats that segregated the military and the Federal Government. It was Democrats who imposed the minimum wage to keep blacks and women from getting jobs that white males wanted.
You point to social Security and Medicare both programs which are bankrupt and failures which have stolen trillions of dollars of American treasure. Medicare denies coverage to more Americans each year than any private insurance program. Planned Parenthood was started to control population of undesirable primely black and asians.
People speak of Row v Wade as great liberation for Women. However they ignore the fact that Incest, Rape and Health of the mother were allowed in Texas. What was wanted was Abortion on demand and which community suffers the most from abortion Blacks. Who makes money off the abortion of Black Babies Planned Parenthood.

They were Black Colleges before turn of the 1900 yet if you listen to White Liberals young black is smart enough to get to college without white help.

Bruce H, Lee Ward
I believe in the American Dream. That through hard work, dedication and personal responsibly any person can achieve success.
MLK said to judge someone by content of character not by color of skin. All Liberals do is judge by skin color. They are racist and sexist. To deny that simple fact is to deny who they are. They prejudge everyone by skin color and sex.


Lee, on that other thread o... (Below threshold)

Lee, on that other thread of the Baron's, you dug up something I said 18 months ago on another site in an attempt to make a point that was utterly irrelevant -- and you still failed.


By Wikipedia:

In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum or blog to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a New York Times article claims that "sockpuppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one's self, allies or company."[2]

With the exception of the time I mocked you and Glenn Greenwald by using his own sock puppet identities, and the pseudonym I occasionally use here purely for entering caption contests, I have never used multiple identities at the same time on any site. Never. Not once.

And the Glenn Greenwald thing, I still stand by as funny as hell. I'd do that again in a heartbeat. I was delighted to have the chance to remind everyone of what an ass he is.

Nor do I create false identities "to praise, defend, or create the illusion of support for one's self, allies, or company."

As I explained to you before, there really isn't an accepted definition for what you accuse me of doing -- creating a new online identity to evade a ban. Why don't you take it up with Charles Johnson and see if you can come up with a term? I think a variant of "troll" would probably do.

You're entitled to your own opinion, Lee. And you're certainly entitled to your own reality and definitions. But you don't have the right to impose them on others, and demand that they obey your dictates.

Especially not here. Not by a long shot.

Which means, by definition, that I am not "Jay Guevara." Which is a name I find somewhat clever, but slightly distasteful -- Che, hero of the left, was a sociopathic, mass murdering monster. It must be fun to tweak the leftists a little over it, but I don't think I'd do it.

And Jay Guevara has also stated that we ain't the same person.

I think I need to send an e-mail to my colleagues. You're losing what slender entertainment value you ever had, and I think I'll inform them that I no longer wish to protect you should they decide to ban you. You've already been banned from at least four of my colleague's articles; I wonder how long it'll take for someone else to decide they've had enough and make it site-wide.

Like it was before.

Hell, if they ask me nicely, I might do it personally.

And if I do, Lee, I'll make certain to publicly announce it. Whenever I take that kind of action, I make damned sure I get the full credit for it.

J.

...and your comments STILL ... (Below threshold)

...and your comments STILL have nothing to do with the topic of the piece -- the integrity of the electoral process, and its importance.

Why am I not surprised?

J.

Bruce you VERY conveniently... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Bruce you VERY conveniently tar modern conservatives with the actions of racists who are the direct forebears of today's democrats and SOME OF WHOM STILL SERVE IN CONGRESS!

TO simply hide behind that truth and smear conservatives as racists when the dems have in the senate a man who belonged to the KKK and filibustered the civil rights act is despicable.

If you do not want to acknowledge the fact that the dem party has been behind EVERY significant measure of racism in this nation then fine. But do NOT go and lay that mess at he doorstep of conservatives when the very people who are responsible for those deeds are still in office and bear the name DEMOCRAT!

Bruce while were at it I'll... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Bruce while were at it I'll remind you that Robert Byrd was elected to he US Senate while he ran on and ANTI-Civil rights platform.

You want to call old racist dems conservatives and call modern conservatives racist. It doesn't wash when you have men like Byrd serving in the Senate and voting for obama's agenda.

Bruce,You call me ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Bruce,

You call me a simpleton for conflating Southern dems and liberals when all I was doing was laying the charge of racism at he door where it belonged, the democrat party.

You on the other hand are the fool who has called fairer and better a health care system that historically has resulted in poorer health care and more death that our current system.

Who's the simpleton? Or are you just the liar that I suggested earlier?

Jay Tea lies again: "Wit... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Jay Tea lies again: "With the exception of the time I mocked you and Glenn Greenwald by using his own sock puppet identities, and the pseudonym I occasionally use here purely for entering caption contests, I have never used multiple identities at the same time on any site. Never. Not once."

Total bullshit. I caught him at it.

I caught him using multiple identities at Wizbang Blue - around 7 or8 as I recall.

Jay points to a narrow description and then lies through his teeth. He's conveniently avoided the primary definition of 'sockpuppet' which appears on the very same Wikipedia page that Jay linked to...

Oh wait. He didn't link to it, did he?

Lol - here's why, here's what it says:

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person,[1] like a ventriloquist manipulating a hand puppet.

In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum or blog to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a New York Times article claims that "sockpuppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one's self, allies or company."[2]

The current usage has extended beyond he original definition, but that doesn't preclude or redefine the first definition.

And Jay knows that, he's just incapable of being honest about it, so he intentionally doesn't provide a link -- so you can't see he's lying.

>A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community.

That is still a valid definition of sock puppet and Jay has indeed used sock puppets for the purpose of deception. After he was banned at Wizbang Blue for using sock puppets to hide his identity he returned and used sock puppets and another IP to circumvent the ban.

And he used so many sock puppets that I lost count.

And here today, Jay Tea lies and says he didn't. And its a lie he's repeated over and over again. He's a pathological liar - he apparently needs to lie when telling the truth is so much simpler and well, honest.

Here is Jay Tea being outed... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Here is Jay Tea being outed for using sock puppets at LGF:

Jay Tea from Wizbang just sent me a long ranting diatribe, after I exposed him as trolling LGF under the name 'BunnyThief'. This guy is a flat out kook. I read the first sentence and filed it in the abuse folder.

And here is Jay being outed for using the sock puppet "bunnythief" and also the sock puppet "Hamish" on Wizbang Blue.

Another of Jay Tea's sock puppets on Blue was "John Galt" -- if that sounds familiar it's because Jay has used the "John Galt" sock puppet here on Wizbang also.

He's a pathological liar.

lee weirds - poll quote -... (Below threshold)
Marc:

lee weirds - poll quote - "When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage."

Didn't see the elephant in that room did you?

That being the number of Tea Party members who claim to be christian.

As such they most certainly would be opposed to adoptive parents being gay or be in favor of gay marriage.

Or.... are you attempting to say all christians are biased?

BTW, what of the 15-20% of Tea Party members who identify themselves as Dems, are the racists also?

"BTW, what of the 15-20% of... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"BTW, what of the 15-20% of Tea Party members who identify themselves as Dems, are the racists also?"

Judging by the dems history they will probably be found to account for all the racists in the Tea Party.

Right, Mr Gueva... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Right, Mr Guevara. SS and Medicare weren't reforms, just social programs. Whatever. They were still opposed by conservatives.

And quite rightly too. They're both broke. We cannot afford either one. It would be a nice reform to give everyone a pony too (it's for the children!) but we can't afford that either.

Bottom line: you can't spend money you don't have. Not indefinitely. Regardless of how nice it would be, or how wonderful your motivation. Liberals have in each case done the equivalent of maxing out their credit cards to buy their kids fancy sports cars. ("They deserve a nice car!") The problem is that the end of the month has now arrived, along with the credit card bill. Now the pain begins...

Social Security and Medicare are Ponzi schemes, nothing more. They will - and are now - going the way of the USSR.

They opposed the abolition of slavery

Pardon fucking me, but who opposed the abolition of slavery? Hmmmmmmmm? The fucking Democrats did. Who founded the KKK and perpetrated its atrocities, initially to resist Republican Reconstruction era policies? The fucking Democrats did. Who segregated the federal workforce? The fucking Democrats did. (Woodrow Wilson - look it up. Southern Democrat, President of Princeton University, then President of the US.) Who opposed the abolition of segregation? The fucking Democrats did. Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Bull Connor - all Democrats.

Who sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce desegregation? Dwight Eisenhower. Republican.

child welfare laws, compulsory education, Social Security, Medicare, the Civil Rights movement, the minimum wage, the 40-hour week, even the EPA.

Who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Hmmmmmmm? Democrats. Don't believe it? Here are the votes by party:
The original House version:
• Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
• Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:
• Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
• Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version:[
• Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
• Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
• Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
• Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Fact.

Another fact: the well-known Republican Robert Byrd filibustered passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Mr M, you can think whateve... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Mr M, you can think whatever you like. "Conservatism" has a meaning distinct from party labels, as any 9th grader knows. I've gone over this so often with you and other mouthbreathers here at Wizbang and elsewhere that it's grown tiresome.

Your response is always the same. "But...but...Byrd!"

Byrd was elected when racism was still cool in West Virginia. As times changed, so did he. Is he still a dinosaur? Yeah. Does he still have a lot of prejudices you might find in any 90-something white guy? Sure does. Does he sometimes blurt out racist nonsense? Yup. Does he represent liberalism? Hell, no. And you know it, so who's dishonest?

There was a time when there was such a thing as a conservative Democrat. Still is, if you ask a Blue Dog. But there is no such animal as a liberal Republican anymore. You know, men like Jacob Javits, Nelson Rockefeller, Everett Dirksen, Bob Packwood, Lowell Weicker, Dwight Eisenhower.

Why is that? Some grew ashamed of the "Southern Strategy" in which the GOP adopted naked or nearly naked racism in a bid for white Southern votes. Some died. Others were run out of the party by extremists such as yourself.

But if you take nothing else away from our exchange today, please please please educate yourself on the history of liberalism vs conservatism in the 20th Century. See, Democrats, especially the Southern wing, were once "conservatives," and Republicans, especially those from the West and Midwest, were once "liberals." It was in all the papers at the time.

You dolt.

Marc: "BTW, what of the ... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Marc: "BTW, what of the 15-20% of Tea Party members who identify themselves as Dems, are the racists also?"

How very "Jay Tea" of you - got a link to back up that lie?

I didn't think so. Just felt like lying? Good troll!

Lee Weird,What pre... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

Lee Weird,

What precisely does your rantings in #66 have to do with the subject of this thread?

Other than buttressing claims of your incredible stupidity, that is.

They opposed th... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

They opposed the abolition of slavery, child welfare laws, compulsory education, Social Security, Medicare, the Civil Rights movement, the minimum wage, the 40-hour week, even the EPA.

As pointed out above Social Security and Medicare should have been opposed.

The minimum wage should also have been opposed; there is no need for it. Everyone should be paid for what his labor is worth - to others. Period.

Know why liberals don't try to get the minimum wage raised to $50/hr? Because that's ridiculous. Of course Burger King workers shouldn't earn $50/hr. Neither should they earn only $2.00/hr, but that's what Burger King would pay them if it could get away with it.

But $50/hr is what Burger King workers would try to get paid if they could get away with it. You see the symmetry? Too low a wage favors employers (if they could find employees, which they couldn't) at the expense of workers. Too high a wage favors workers (if they could find jobs, which they couldn't) at the expense of employers. What is the appropriate wage? The one that is high enough that it's worth workers' while, but low enough that it's worth employers' while. Econ 101, really.

Here's a bonus question: suppose we doubled everyone's pay tomorrow? Paradise, right?

Bruce,Havin... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Bruce,


Having grown up in Illinois I am familiar with the now extinct animal referred to as the conservative democrat. Note that I believe that you have deliberately obfuscated the differences between liberal and conservative and dem and republican for your own purpose. I believe that you have without merit or cause determined arbitrarily and without evidence that all dems who have been the source of slavery, lynchings, jim crow and opposition to civil rights at every turn must be conservatives.

Granted I would say that by today's standards everyone alive in 1865 would be considered conservative. You chose to use this fact to conveniently and without cause ascribe racism to your opponents. It's a cheap and dishonest tactic.

I have made the claim that the inheritors of the racists of history are today's dems and that we have active evidence currently serving and supporting the dem platform. Evidence in the persons of Robert Byrd, who has voted for the president's agenda and who filibustered the civil rights act. Yes he has said that it was a mistake, but it is difficult to determine whether it was a mistake because it has damaged his political career or if it was a mistake because it was wrong. Given his speech habits and free use of the n word to describe people I would say the former rather than the latter.

As to people like Bob Packwood being run out of the GOP, by racists I seem to recall that he was forced to resign because he was trying to force himself on female staffers.

I am understanding hat dems expect AND receive sexual favors from their female staffers but in some circles this is still considered bad form.

Once again Bruce you string together bad history and outright lies to try to make your point. You still have yet to answer me why it is that you prefer people to die for your position on health care.

If I have to tell you idiot... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

If I have to tell you idiots one more time about this simple historical fact I might lose it.

If I have to remind you morons over and over that, at the time, being a Southern Democrat meant you WERE a conservative, I can't fucking help you.

Once more, you uneducated buffoons, DEMOCRAT IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH LIBERAL, and REPUBLICAN IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH CONSERVATIVE. Indeed, throughout most of our history, when it came to matters of race, the roles were reversed! It was only as Roosevelt, then Truman, slowly embraced the Civil Rights movement, and the Humphrey wing of the Democratic party gained ascendancy, that white racist Southern Democrats either fled the party and joined the GOP, or changed their spots and remained Democrats.

Nixon's Southern Strategy just accelerated the process.

So while you're googling up vote counts, Mr Guevara, go ahead and google up some internal history of both parties. Get back to me in a couple of days. I'll accept your apology then.

#71 Lee Ward,<... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

#71
Lee Ward,

A couple of weeks ago, I pressed you on precisely this type of claim by YOU - and produce a link. You responded that you didn't need one, it was your opinion.

So jim m doesn't need a link, by "Lee Ward" standards.

See, Democrats,... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

See, Democrats, especially the Southern wing, were once "conservatives," and Republicans, especially those from the West and Midwest, were once "liberals."

Nice try, comrade. Word play is always entertaining. You're shifting back and forth from "conservative" meaning "wanting to maintain the status quo" to "conservative" meaning "those favoring individuals over the state."

Were those trying to maintain the Weimar Republic against the NSDAP conservatives, then? Were those trying to preserve communism in the USSR "conservatives?"

And are "liberals" actually liberal? "Liberal" originally meant "opposing monarchy and favoring the individual over the state." Present-day liberals favor the state over the individual. "Conservative" meant "favoring the monarchy and aristocracy." The only aristocracy I see in the US are liberals - e.g., the Kennedys and Hollywood shitheads.

Let's clean up the Augean stable that is your thought process. "Liberal/conservative" is meaningless, as demonstrated above, because whether one favors change or not depends on the current system.

A more valid taxonomy intellectually is between those who favor the individual over the collective, and those who do the reverse.

I'll accept your apology... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

I'll accept your apology then.

Bruce, suck my dick. Probably not your first.

lee weird - "I didn't... (Below threshold)
Marc:

lee weird - "I didn't think so. Just felt like lying? Good troll!"

Intellectually lazy asswipe, "whatsamater" are you both too lazy to look and/or too disingenous to acknowledge reality you're well aware of?

OH WOW! I was off by a whopping 2, count'em, 2%!

"The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic."

And given 40% are either dems or independents how many by your "logic" are racists?

"as Roosevelt, then Truman,... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"as Roosevelt, then Truman, slowly embraced the Civil Rights movement, and the Humphrey wing of the Democratic party gained ascendancy, that white racist Southern Democrats either fled the party and joined the GOP, or changed their spots and remained Democrats."

Really?

Explain then how it is that with racists having long since fled the dem party to join the republicans, the dems were still responsible for filibustering the civil rights act and how it was that the GOP voted for it in significantly higher numbers.

Oh that's right, you belong to the side where 'truth' has nothing to do with 'fact'. sorry that actual history gets in the way of your narrative, but saying doesn't make it so.

Your dishonest attempt to dismiss disgusting racists who have long inhabited and who still inhabit the dem party doesn't wash with fact.

Lee, you continue your epic... (Below threshold)

Lee, you continue your epic failure.

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person,[1] like a ventriloquist manipulating a hand puppet.

Note the emphasis.

And "John Galt?" Never used that one here.

Wake me when you get done with your paranoid delusions.

Oh, Marc? You forgot the Wee Lard rule. There are no such things as "mistakes" when you argue with him. Get the slightest fact wrong, and you are a lying liar.

J.

You're a "little bit right,... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

You're a "little bit right," there, Mr Guevara, in that the definitions of liberal and conservative have changed some over the years.

I was thinking more of the liberal/conservative definitions of today. It's my contention that the age-old meaning od conservatism is closer to the modern meaning than the age-old meaning of liberal is to today's definition.

When I use the term "conservative," I mean those who oppose change and favor entrenched interests as the "way it's always been," as CONSERVATIVE white Southern Democrats did in the 19th and early 20th centuries. As do the Tea Partiers, constantly whining about wanting "their" country back, as if the hard-fought gains by Progressives and minorities had been granted on sufferance. As do the anti-healthcare crowd, staring at a system that's screwed us all for years and hollering "It ain't broke!"

Oh, and good luck winning elections on an anti-Social Security and anti-Medicare platform. What's that? You're not going to emphasize to seniors that SS and Medicare are, in your opinion, "bad ideas?" That's good, because you're dead in the water trying to screw with Medicare.

BTW, I got a little heated with the "idiots and morons" thing. Sorry. I shouldn't have said that.

"As do the anti-healthcare ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"As do the anti-healthcare crowd, staring at a system that's screwed us all for years and hollering "It ain't broke!""

Frankly I would settle for you explaining why a 20% higher death rate for prostate cancer in the UK and a 6% higher death rate for cancer of all kinds everywhere in the world outside the US should be considered superior?

I know. You don't like facts and you won't answer my questions since you have avoided answering twice already.

Marc lies: "BTW, what of... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Marc lies: "BTW, what of the 15-20% of Tea Party members who identify themselves as Dems, are the racists also?"

Marc, after being slapped around for lying: "The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic."

Oh, so you did lie. There's a big difference between 20% ad 13%, isn't there?

So why didn't you just say 13%?

Oh yeah, because you model yourself after Jay Tea the Troll King.

Jim, go back and look at th... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Jim, go back and look at the chronology. The Roosevelts, especially Eleanor, rather tentatively embraced the nascent Civil Rights movement. Truman integrated the military in 1948, the same year a young mayor of Minneapolis, Hubert Humphrey, made a stirring call to arms at the Democratic National Convention, putting a Civil Rights bill in the platform. That convention suffered a walkout by conservative white Southern Democrats, led by Strom Thurmond, who formed the Dixiecrats and later joined the GOP.

Throughout the late 1940s, the 1950s and the 1960s, Liberal Republicans allied with Northern Liberal Democrats to push for Civil Rights legislation, while conservative Republicans, like Barry Goldwater, joined with conservative Dems like Stennis of Mississippi and Russell of Georgia to oppose it.

These things are facts. I was a child in the 1950s and 60s and I remember some of them first hand. Smearing modern day liberals like me with the tar of racists like Stennis, Thurmond, and yes, Byrd is not only insulting, it's flat-out ignernt, as we say down here.

You can attempt to revise history if you like, but don't expect me to swallow whoppers like those you've told here.

Bruce, you omitted one name... (Below threshold)

Bruce, you omitted one name. What happened to that Robert Byrd guy?

J.

You seem to be laboring und... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

You seem to be laboring under the illusion, Jim, that I must submit to cross-examination, and answer your inane questions on demand.

I simply don't accept your statistic, and since you are apparently no better at linkylinky than I am, I don't see the point of us playing "Cite Your Favorite Statistic."

There are arguments to be made both in favor of "Obamacare" and against it. I acknowledge that. But we had a years-long debate on the matter, and it passed. Try to repeal it after the next election if you like. Knock yourself out.

But you can't repeal history, Jim. You either, Mr Guevara. And party labels have meant different philosophies over the years, as, again ANY 9TH GRADER KNOWS. But not, apparently, you two.

See comment # 85, Mr Tea.</... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

See comment # 85, Mr Tea.

Jay Tea tries again to lie ... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Jay Tea tries again to lie his way through an argument. Having been slapped around for selectively quoting and not providing a link, Tea resorts instead to selectively bolding what he wants you to believe, hoping you'll ignore what isn't bolded.

Jay Tea's most recent attempt to mislead reads as...

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person,[1] like a ventriloquist manipulating a hand puppet.

But that isn't the only definition, is it?

Jay Tea can't tell the truth, it's just that simple.

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage...

Jay Tea has used multiple online identities for the purposes of deception. He was banned and he used these fake ids to get around the ban, using a new IP address as well. He was banned from Wizbang Blue, and he was banned from DU, he was banned from LGF - and in all three instances he returned to those sites using sockpuppets.

Feel free to bookmark this comment. A few weeks or months from now you won't be able to find it. It will have been deleted.

Periodically he'll admit it. And periodically my comments on this subject are erased several days later as Jay attempts to hide his tracks.

Apparently Jay thinks he can lie and delete his way clean of this. I can't help but wonder if someone tipped off Contentions to Jay Tea's sockpuppet ways. He sure left there in a hurry - not so much as a signing off blog post before he left.

He's incapable of admitting the simple truth, and he'll lie again and again trying to avoid the truth. That's a pathological liar.

If you can find it, "The Wa... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

If you can find it, "The Walls of Jericho: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell, and the Struggle for Civil Rights," by Robert Mann. 1996, by Harcourt Brace and Company.

A pretty good recap of the legislative history of the Civil Rights bills, 1957 and 1964.

(Sigh) Lee, the topic of th... (Below threshold)

(Sigh) Lee, the topic of this article is that it's a bad thing to screw around with elections. Tell you what -- you go back to your own blog, write up your "Jay Tea is a big old poopyhead" piece, and I'll come over and comment on it there.

Oh, that's right. You had a blog. You ran it into the ground, drove off your colleagues, and then got fired when the owner pulled the plug. So then you slunk back here, where you were banned before, and started up your old bullshit games again.

Can't keep to the topic? Feel free to leave. I'm finding myself tempted to help you there.

And I have NOT altered or deleted any of your comments in... jeez, at least a couple of weeks, if not longer. As I said, if I had, I'd not only admit it, I'd brag about it.

Keep to the topic, or leave. With or without assistance.

J.

I read and re-read # 85, Br... (Below threshold)

I read and re-read # 85, Bruce. Still can't see any reference to the former Klansman who was still tossing around "nigger" as recently as the George W. Bush administration, and is still the Democrats' choice to be in the presidential line of succession right behind Pelosi.

J.

Comment # 85:"Smea... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Comment # 85:

"Smearing moden day liberals like me with the tar of racists like Stennis, Thurmond, and, yes, Byrd, is not only insulting, it's flat-out ignernt, as we say down here."

Does that help, Mr Tea?

Bruce HenrySo Wood... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Bruce Henry

So Woodrow Wilsion and FDR were conservatives ? I think not. It was a good try

Are you drunk, Mr hcddbz? W... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Are you drunk, Mr hcddbz? What the fuck are you even talking about?

Bruce,I think you'... (Below threshold)
Senor Cardgage:

Bruce,

I think you've just passed the NC state requirements for certification in Special Education.

"There are arguments to be ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"There are arguments to be made both in favor of "Obamacare" and against it. I acknowledge that. But we had a years-long debate on the matter, and it passed."

I seem to recall obama reneging upon his promise to let people read the bill before passage. To now declare that we or anyone debated he substance of the bill for a full year is yet another outrageous lie. Your just full of them today.

I see that you are unwilling o answer the question. It has nothing to do with obamacare. It has everything to do with your stating that the current system is unfair. Again I ask: How is a system where more people survive disease unfair? How is a system where more people die unnecessarily of disease in any way better than ours? You cannot answer those questions and you have avoided them at every turn.

I notice now you also have backed off on Bob Packwood neglecting to admit to the egregious double standard that forces a conservative to resign for trying to kiss a staffer and yet a dem retains office after far more serious offenses. (I could cite many examples such as running a gay house of prostitution, etc)

Well, damn, Bruce. I should... (Below threshold)

Well, damn, Bruce. I shoulda used CTRL-F. My apologies.

But Byrd is the President Pro Tem of the Senate, elected every term by the Democrats since 2006. If they didn't want to be associated with him, they didn't have to vote for him for that slot.

As long as he holds that elected position, the Senate Democrats who keep electing him can't hide from his record.

And I misspoke in another place. Byrd wasn't just a Klansman, but a Kleagle -- a Klan leader.

J.

Be the whole Byrd thingie a... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Be the whole Byrd thingie as it may, Mr Tea, surely YOU are not so stupid as to insist that liberal=democrat and conservative=republican, and that this has always been so.

Or are you?

Again, Jim, not your witness on the stand in court. But your parsing every sentence is fucking tiresome. I will engage with you on healthcare only so far as to point out that cancer is not the only disease that people die from, and that, while we enjoy good medical care here on average, many other industrialized countries have longer life expectancies, lower infant mortality rates, and lower rates of mortality from many NON-cancer maladies. Plus their industries are free from the burdens of ensuring workers' health, and their people have a greater ability to change jobs without undue stress.

That's the years-long debate I was referring to, you hairsplitting imbecile. Health care reform passed, and if you want it repealed, elect your majority and have at it.

My whole point in commenting on this piece was to ridicule the ChuckNorrismanlymen at the top of the page who thought the "Gather your armies" ad was, like, totally awesome. If I had known I was gonna have to teach a remedial history class to a bunch of willful boneheads I would have kept quiet.

Bruce Henry.FDR d... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Bruce Henry.

FDR detained Japanese- Americans and took away their property without due process for no other reasons than they were had Japanese blood. Pretty much racist if you ask me.
FDR opposed anti-lynching laws and like the minimum wage which kept black workers unemployed.

Woodrow Wilson Segregated the Federal work force and the Military , said of the RACIST Film Birth of a Nation that it was sad but true.

So again I ask you if they were conservatives Democrats or Liberal progressives?


Bruce,About your b... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Bruce,

About your book recommendation: I think you can do better than a book written by a dem Senate staffer.

Yeah, I'll believe a history of how non racist the dems were written by a dem. No bias there.

Be the whole Byrd thingi... (Below threshold)

Be the whole Byrd thingie as it may, Mr Tea, surely YOU are not so stupid as to insist that liberal=democrat and conservative=republican, and that this has always been so.

In the here and now, Bruce, it's a fairly good rule of thumb. The liberal Republicans (Specter, for example) and conservative Democrats have adjusted themselves pretty well. (Lieberman's an exception -- he is still a staunch liberal on most issues, but he's still blackballed.) Byrd was a Democrat in good standing while he was a Kleagle, and has been ever since.

Embrace Byrd, embrace his entire history. And electing him President Pro Tem is, like it or not, is embracing him.

And I only bring up the fossil rat bastard whenever the Democrats' backers try to... er... "whitewash" their own sordid history on racial matters.

J.

"many other industrialized ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"many other industrialized countries have longer life expectancies, lower infant mortality rates, and lower rates of mortality from many NON-cancer maladies."

Infant mortality rates are widely acknowledged to be noncomparable due to the fact that many nations do not consider still births in the data and many actually consider children who die days even weeks after being born as still births. This also effects life expectancy. Additionally, life expectancy has more to do with genetics and lifestyle than it does medical care. To claim that or health care system is inferior due to facts unrelated to healthcare is another evidence of your ignorance.

read this:
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers

Unlike your citations it is actually a scholarly paper which examines the very lies you just wrote. We lead the world in survival for cancer and most other causes of death. Our health care system is far better at delivering health care than any other. Libs like you have espoused this bullshit for years and you have never once offered any evidence that our health care system is not the best yet you continually denigrate it.

You and your peers often bring up BS like life expectancy or the discredited WHO rankings that relied on non-medical assessments of economic equality to determine quality of health care.

Go educate yourself and spare me the time of trying to do it.

...and that reminds me, Bru... (Below threshold)

...and that reminds me, Bruce: what does the 60's civil rights struggle have to do with people assing around with elections today? Is it because that's the last time the Left can claim to have held the moral high ground, and been on the right correct side of a major issue?

J.

"s it because that's the la... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"s it because that's the last time the Left can claim to have held the moral high ground, and been on the right correct side of a major issue?"

They were on the right side of the civil rights struggle right after their filibuster failed. Ever since then they have been the sole champions of racial equality if you listen to them tell the tale.

Thread derail somewhere Aro... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

Thread derail somewhere Around post 10 or so...

JT, if you could ban the attention whore bigot do so.
He's become as much fun to poke with a stick as a dead horse.

Anyone is insane who harbor... (Below threshold)

Anyone is insane who harbors any delusions as to the integrity and/or honesty of any level of America's electoral process, its systemically corrupted machinery, also at every level, long long long owned, operated and controlled by "Democratic" potty activists. Add the effect of the formation of a political cartel between the Democratic and the Republican Parties a hundred and fifty years or so ago and generations of "Democratic" potty-activist-controlled gerrymandering and you have a process in which gangs of corrupt career politicians, some of them permitted to wear RINO suits, select their "voters" -- and the voters select no-one.

This compared to the elections in every other Western nation and/or state, in which, in a simple process scrutinized by the representatives of every participating political party, the votes are counted at every polling place, the results forwarded to a similarly well scrutinized central location where they are tabulated and the results announced.

And then there is the business of "voter" registration, which in America, every election cycle, sees the votes of several millions of criminal aliens and/or felons and/or the long long dead etceteras cast and counted. And the consequential "election" of scores of "Democrats."

Like I said, anyone is insane who harbors any delusions as to the integrity and/or honesty of any level of America's electoral process

Jay,You want to kn... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Jay,

You want to know about election Fraud just look atBoss Tweed and Tammany Hall, The Illinois democratic party. Hell look at Bush v Gore where the Dem kept counting till they got the numbers they wanted.

It the reason that BHO backed Iranian elections corrupt machines need to stick together.
Will American wake up or will the Bread and Circus crown keep getting their government hand outs and watching American Idol?

Only time will tell.

No matter how many times it... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

No matter how many times it is pointed out, Jim M still can't grasp the difference between "the Left" and the historical Democratic party. And this hcddbz character is hopeless.

Or maybe Jim CAN grasp it, but is too stubborn to admit he said something so blindingly stupid, so he is forced to double and triple down. In either case, he should be ashamed of himself.

But I bet he's not.

Here's the story ONE MORE TIME:

LIBERAL Republicans in the Senate, like Javits and Dirksen, joined with LIBERAL Democrats like Humphrey, to support the Civil Rights bill. CONSERVATIVE Republicans, like Goldwater, joined with CONSERVATIVE Southern Democrats like Stennis, Long, Russell, and, YES, Byrd, to oppose it.

It's real fucking simple. There used to be liberal and conservative wings in both parties. Nowadays, we still have the Blue Dog Democrats, but liberal Republicans are pretty much a thing of the past.

And, in the Civil Rights story, it was CONSERVATIVES, of both parties, who opposed it, and LIBERALS, of both parties, who supported it.

So sputtering, "But...but...but...Byrd was a Kleagle!" DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. Got it? Jesus, you guys are fucking blockheaded.

And Bruce, I repeat myself:... (Below threshold)

And Bruce, I repeat myself: the only relevance your point has to the here and now is that it is the LAST time the liberals were on the correct side of a major issue. No wonder you want to keep reliving your glory days; you went from that to 40 years of utter and complete failure.

J.

Oh, I don't now about that,... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Oh, I don't now about that, Mr Tea.

Liberals were on the "correct" side in wanting to end the Vietnam War before it pointlessly cost any more lives than it already, pointlessly, had.

Liberals were on the "correct" side in establishing the EPA (signed into law by the not-liberal but pragmatic Nixon) and it has been liberals who have been the environmentalists ever since.

Liberals have been on the "correct" side of the Gay Rights movement. Nowadays most Americans agree that gay people are fully human and deserve individual rights, even if many still don't go so far as to support full marriage equality. Forty years ago, gay people were considered disgusting perverts; nowadays they're not, because of liberals.

Despite some lingering debate, the liberal viewpoint that the War in Iraq was at best a mistake and at worst an adventure based on lies is pretty much mainstream. However, after almost 9 years, the liberal opinion that Afghanistan was the "good war" is coming under some stress, I'll admit.

Liberals have been on the "correct" side of any number of issues. But I will concede that "liberal" has become a dirty word. This I attribute to, among other things, conservative success in hijacking symbols of patriotism like the flag, the military, etc. And the witting or unwitting compliance of the corporate media (the same media that conservatives laughably refer to as the "liberal media.")

That's "I don't KNOW about ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

That's "I don't KNOW about that," not "now."

I will add that liberals st... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I will add that liberals started the modern Women's Rights movement. Nowadays, it is true, there are many conservative women who are leaders in their fields. But they wouldn't be where they are today without liberals like Steinem and Friedan in the 1960s ans 70s.

Let's see, Bruce... Johnson... (Below threshold)

Let's see, Bruce... Johnson was the one who escalated the shit out of the Vietnam War, but kept the reins tight enough to prevent any hope of real victory. Nixon finally ended it.

But Nixon was pretty damned liberal.

The women's movement started long before 40 years ago, so that doesn't count.

Gay rights? There's a conservative argument in favor of them -- the "it's nobody's business, so let's leave the law out of it" -- that I've subscribed to for years and years.

And I wouldn't say the right "hijacked" patriotic symbols. Rather, they picked them up after the liberals deliberately threw them away. Remember on September 11, 2001, the New York Times had an article on William Ayers, showing him stomping on a US flag in an alley? That was a nice little followup to the flag-burning and whatnot that the liberals did in the 1960's.

But again, Bruce... we're talking about the here and now. The oldest incident I cited was 2002. Why do you want to bring up stuff from decades ago?

Unless you wanna correct me, I'm gonna stick with my "it was the last time the liberals were on the correct side of a major moral issue." You've challenged that explanation, but since you haven't offered an alternative, it's still the best one on the table.

J.

You see it your way, Mr Tea... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

You see it your way, Mr Tea. I'm sure it's a comfort to you.

Nixon ended the Vietnam War under pressure from liberals. Granted, it was under almost exactly the same terms as he could have got in 1969, and about 20,000 American and a million Vietnamese deaths later, but he did, indeed, end the war.

Under pressure from liberals.

Yes, there's a conservative argument in favor of gay rights. Well, not exactly. There's a LIBERTARIAN argument that it's nobody's business, so let's leave 'em alone. Modern Bush-type conservatives, especially of the Christian-right variety, not so much. And "leaving 'em alone" doesn't do much to advance equality.

As I said, the liberal viewpoint that gays are equal members of society, not disgusting perverts, is the mainstream view nowadays.

Because of liberals.

While you are correct that the Women's Rights movement started long ago, it was given its modern impetus in the 60s, 70s, and 80s by women like Friedan and Steinem.

That Sarah Palin and other conservative women now call themselves "feminists" is due in large part to them.

And you may have a point about the Left throwing away the symbols of patriotism. If I had been an advisor to "The Left," I would have advised them not to trash the flag, etc., in the 60s. And some 1960s liberal politicians advised just that, even while agreeing that the Vietnam War must end. So, yeah, "the Left" pretty much shot itself in the foot on that score. So that's ONE for you, Mr Tea.

But hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

...and its relevance to the... (Below threshold)

...and its relevance to the topic at hand, Bruce?

...I thought not.

J.

It's true that we have stra... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

It's true that we have strayed far from your original topic, Mr Tea. After a hundred and something comments, that tends to happen. I apologise for my part in leading this thread so far astray.

But I couldn't just lie down and take it when idiots like, well, you know who, refused to admit that the conservatives and liberals of the 1950s and 60s belonged to both parties.

As I said, I originally joined this thread just to snark on the JohnWayne wannabes who were so enamored of the ridiculous "Gather your armies" ad.

But it's funny how you gleefully participate in a discussion until you run out of arguments, THEN start asking for relevance. Quite funny.

Actually, Bruce, it's more ... (Below threshold)

Actually, Bruce, it's more of a matter of reacting before I fully think things through. I have a very, very poorly developed "please don't feed the trolls" gland. I tend to read the absurdities (and, in Lee Ward's case, the outright lies and paranoid fantasies) and react to them before I catch on to their diversionary nature. It's not something I'm overly proud of, and am working on it, but it's a hard thing to overcome.

Fortunately, Mr. Ward is getting closer and closer to pulling a Kevorkian here, so that ought to help.

I'm not excusing myself for my role in the hijacking, nor am I really pointing too many fingers -- but I figure someone's gotta stand up and note what's happening. Might as well be me as anyone else.

J.

Well, again, Mr Tea, I don'... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Well, again, Mr Tea, I don't "hijack" threads on purpose. Others' comments just kinda provoke me and I go from there. So I apologise again for my part in going this far astray.

That's appreciated, Bruce. ... (Below threshold)

That's appreciated, Bruce. I don't think I actually accused you of being the perpetrator, and if I did imply that, I didn't intend to.

Now, you wanna go back to the actual topic at hand? Got anything to say about the matter of people screwing around with elections, and possible consequences thereof?

J.

I'm agin it.... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I'm agin it.

Bruce so FDR and Woodrow W... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Bruce so FDR and Woodrow Wilson were not part of the Historical Democratic party?

Was the Historical Republican party not formed in direct opposition to Slavery?


As someone has stated you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

No matter how many... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
No matter how many times it is pointed out, Jim M still can't grasp the difference between "the Left" and the historical Democratic party.

If the Democratic party is not liberal or "the Left" then liberals or "the Left" have no accomplishments they can claim. You can't have it both ways. You can't cherry pick only good things Democrats have accomplished over the years and distance yourself from the bad things. If you could than any conservative can play the same game and claim only the good things Republicans have accomplished over the years and say the bad things were really done by liberal Republicans.

Just as being conservative is not the same as being libertarian, being liberal is not the same as being progressive. Like a disease, progressivism destroys the (host) political environment it flourishes in. Fueled by emotions, progressivism runs down the track of good intentions until it arrives at poverty and tyranny.

Bruce"Liberals wer... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Bruce

"Liberals were on the "correct" side in wanting to end the Vietnam War before it pointlessly cost any more lives than it already, pointlessly, had."

Actually we were winning the war, the propaganda created from folks like John Kerry was one of the best morale boosts for North.
The antiwar protests helped the North as well as Hanoi Jane.

The Tet offensive was militarily a disaster.

Also dont forget about the 2 million folks that were killed after we withdrew. Those deaths can be laid squarely at the feet of the libs.

Speaking of race Lee<... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Speaking of race Lee


Posted by Lee Ward on wizbangblue

"Oh, sure they do -- at least Barack Obama's chosen mentor for 20 years does, and Barack probably doesn't even realize the extent to which he himself has become a racist bigot as a result of 20 years of indoctrination into an idealogy that hates America. "


Sure you didnt get some of the indoctrination after Hillary lost the Primaries Lee?

....

"Think about it: can you imagine any Presidential candidate, in any context, describing anyone as a "typical black person?" Or a "typical Asian person?" Worse, what Obama said was that the "typical white person" views others of different races with fear and suspicion. Obama appears to be digging himself in deeper and deeper.
• Yeah, think about it. Think about a "Great Uniter" who says "typical white people" are racist bigots.

"

You sound like your hero there Lee.


"He's stereotyping white people as he says "we have to break through it" -- well, start anytime Barack, or do you just not get the fact the you and people like you of any and all colors are the problem."


Damn Lee. Are you sure you are not one of those racist teabaggers you keep talking about.

"And how in the world can a stereotyping bigot like Barack Obama "steer us though it" - when he can't even see it within himself as he's talking in the radio interview embedded above? "


Damn Talk about stereotyping bigot. Are you sure you werent talking about your self there LEE?

Lee you sure seem fixated on race for some reason.

And you seem fixated on Mr ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

And you seem fixated on Mr Ward, RM.

Get a hobby, dude.

BruceMy hobby is p... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Bruce

My hobby is politics.

As to getting a hobby, this is my 3rd post on this thread. You have what? 10 or more? Maybe you should look at the timber in your eye before pointing out the twig in mine.

I have always had a penchant for calling BS BS.

Why are you so interested in protecting Lee Ward? Is it because you are two similar souls?

Or do you feel the need to help a fellow lib out when he is so woefully out of his depth?

Is he making your guy Obama look bad?

As to getting a hobby, this is my 3rd post on this thread. You have what? 10 or more? Maybe you should look at the tree in your eye before pointing out the twig in mine

I'm pretty sure it's more t... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I'm pretty sure it's more than 10, RM. It was hot as hell here the past couple days. I've mostly spent 'em inside.

As for you vs Mr Ward, I just find it amusing that you stalk him on EVERY THREAD. You trashtalk the poor sap before he ever shows up, and on many threads where he doesn't make an apperarance at all.

It reminds me of the time I pissed you off and you stalked me, posting "SCREW YOU" in all caps for weeks. At least you relented after I apologised for offending you. I'm pretty sure there's nothing Mr Ward can do, short of disappearing altogether, that would make you let up. In fact it might be weeks before you notice he's gone, given your penchant for "saving him the trouble" of commenting.

That's what I meant by "getting a hobby," RM. Obsession is unhealthy. I'm concerned for YOU, not Mr Ward.

BruceThanks for yo... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Bruce

Thanks for your concern but it is unfouneded I assure you.

If you notice the posts last night were probably the only ones I made on Sat and Sunday.

Lee Ward strikes a nerve. The military has names for people like him, civilians may recognize them. Cheeseeaters, brownnosers (Lee's has his nose so far up Obama's ass that he can tell what Obama is eating for breakfast before the butler brings it in the room). I have never been able to stand them. And in Lee Ward's case it is worse because he has nothing to gain by doing it.

As I stated in a previous thread. He was for Hillary and got stuck with Obama as a candidate. Got it. Republicans feel the same way towards McCain. And that is fine. If you recall I stated I would never vote for McCain but I did anyway because I saw him as the least worst of 2 possible choices.

But to go from outright hatred to undying devotion is ridiculous. You cant believe someone is totally incompetent one minute and then take up his flag for him the next and be sincere. I have no doubts if Hillary had won the nomination and gotten elected anytime anyone on this site would have mentioned Obama Lee would have been right there talking about him worse than anyone.

His unbridled accusaations of racism are so far out there it isnt even funny. The man is delusional. And when you take into account what he has said prior to Obama getting the nomination it is past laughable when he accuses someone of racism. Maybe you should peruse the wizbangblue archives for yourself.

I have no doubt that if daffy duck had won the democratic nomination than Lee would be up there calling us racists against ducks if we spoke about how we didnt like his policies.

BTW I dont stalk (you or him). I simply believe in being preemptive.

If you notice Lee has toned down the racial accusations somewhat (but not nearly enough). Maybe even he realizes just how ridiculous they sound.

If you also notice you and I have had differences in the past (one main one notably) but that issue has been resolved. We at least have civil discourses now.

You cant have a civil discourse with Lee. Nor a rational one. As soon as he runs out of talking points the race card gets played.

As I stated above I call BS BS. It didnt make me the most popular person with my chain of command some times but my soldiers always knew that if you wanted something straight they could come to me. Lee is BS personified. Call it a flaw in my character but I doubt I will change after 50 years.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy