Is there any doubt that some liberals are overreacting whining babies? Top recommended diary on dkos - Is there any doubt now that it is a coup attempt? 
. You look at it, and all you can do is shake your head. Is there any doubt that the person who wrote that is a lunatic a bit off? At least we don't get much of that craziness here :)
On the white baby making front - U.S. minority population tops 100 million 
with "Hispanics are largest and fastest growing ethnic population, census reports". Illegals are no doubt contributing to this. Unrelated to this story, when are we going to secure our borders? I heard something about an immigration bill that the Dems just created... Somehow I doubt there will be anything of value in there.
This is an Open Thread.
Comments :
You mean
You don't see what is really going on? I didn't know you supported Alberto Gonzales.
And here I thought you were paying attention.
:+)
Don't mess with Justice.
It is the economy, stupid.
I don't have to
support Gonzales to not agree with the fool who wrote the screeching nonsense.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
So you don't
support Gonzales? What word would you use to describe his actions and those of Karl Rove in this episode?
we don't really know
how involved Rove has been in this episode. I do think that Gonzales is an incompetent liar who should've resigned a while back.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I have a pretty good
idea how involved Rove was. He seems to have approved a list of US attorneys to purge. That's pretty involved.
You don't seem to grasp
that Gonzales and Bush are joined at the hip.
It is the economy, stupid.
Screechy? Yes.
Nonsense? No.
The diary is certainly hyperbolic and hyperventilating in style but it does hit upon a lot of critical aspects of how our government has been made even more corrupt in the last six years.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Lunatic is too rough a word
There on some on the right who are caterwauling too. For instance, Haystack's latest on RedState advocates overthrowing the government, but I would not go so far as to call him a lunatic.
Both wings are feeling a bit overwhelmed right now. But if it helps people regain their unabashed distrust of elected officials, I'm all for it. We seem to have the dismal tendency to want to be sheep following our favorite shepherd, forgetting that the path leads to the slaugherhouse.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Aw Ender
you're so charming ;}
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
yeah
I know :) Thanks!
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Minority population?
Buddy...we're almost all immigrants here. Even the Indians came over the Bering Straight many millenia ago.
Just because WASP's started the colonization doesn't mean they own it. America is much stronger for being the world mixing pot it is, even if that means we all have to learn other folks cultural norms from time to time.
ummm
minority has a very specific definition in America that has nothing to do with immigration. It means non-whites. I obviously have no problems with minority population growing, but I do have a problem with illegal immigrants crossing into the country without any background check whatsoever thus critically endangering our security.
I don't care whether they make us stronger, or whatever other pretty words you choose to put on it, but borders of a souvereign country must be protected if we want to actually be serious about preventing more terror.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
When immigrants were German
and Irish and French and Scandanavian we didn't have any immigration laws. All you had to do was get here and you could stay.
When my great great grandfather came here from Italy, Italians were viewed with scorn by the upper crust of American WASP society. A WASP marrying an Italian was considered intermarriage.
It's pretty laughable to think about that today. But when my Italian mother ran off to elope with my WASP father, his family was shocked. Of course, they're probably rolling in their graves now to know that the family name is now shared by people of Japanese, Cambodian and African descent.
And isn't it interesting that the same staid Republican society that once scorned Italians now looks to Rudy Giuliani for leadership?
qui tacet consentire
Not that I hold the beliefs that you mention ...
but I am not looking to Rudy Giuliani for leadership. Neither are a lot of others on my side of the aisle.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
News flash - When galaxies collide....
Did you all know that our very own Milky Way will collide and merge with Andromeda?
Well, the time frame gives us a step up. Let's just hope that by the time this comes to pass the human race has colonized other star systems by then.
And when it happens
it will all be Bush's fault.
Or Clinton's, depending on your leanings.
qui tacet consentire
I hope
we can keep the legend of GWB alive for that long.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Oh, this is a foregone conclusion, Ender.
The left are never going to let it drop!
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
when we finally merge with Andromeda
it will be interesting to see if GWB is still the worst president ever. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
In the spirit of negotiation and cooperation
If you guys promise to stop blaming everything on a Clinton (it HAS been almost 7 years since he left after all), then we promise to stop blaming a Bush for everything.......seven years later - OK?
:->
not much
has been blamed on Clinton in the recent years... I am pretty sure that anti-Bush hate has far surpassed anything my side had for Bubba. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
A quick seach
a search of the phrase of redstate.com for the phrase "bill clinton" turns up 4600 hits:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.redstate.com+%22bill+cli...
Now keep in mind that this is one site, it only covers what redstate has said since the change from .org to .com (in July 2004 I believe it was).
Also keep in mind that this exclusively looks at the exact phrase "bill clinton" and not for any other variation that might have been used.
So he's been invoked by this particular name on just one website an average of 209 times per month.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Calling Karen Hughes
Is she not still on the payroll, in charge of communications? How come, at this stage of the game, we do not have
an American Arabic speaker on board our Arab news channel? This is ridiculous.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Mistakes were made
That's the theme song of the Bush crime family.
qui tacet consentire
I hate hate hate that expression.
I always explain to my students that passive voice isn't just poor writing, but a moral issue, as well (not always, but we have time to discuss this at length in class, including when passive voice is a good stylistic choice). It means that you take responsibility away from the actor and put the stress on the acted-upon, sometimes to the extent that you don't even mention the actor at all. As in, "mistakes were made". I'd circle that in a paper and write, in bold letters, "By whom?" Mistakes don't just "get made" on their own.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
:+) LOL
It is the economy, stupid.
Good for you!
It all depends
on one's perspective. If the specifics of Karl Rove's plans for a permanent Republican majority seem a subversion of democracy, then "coup" might be a word one would use. If you like the idea of a corporatocracy, then maybe the word is too strong. But in either case I think the use of "coup" to describe this is not lunacy. Perhaps overly dramatic.
ummm
overly dramatic is still a huge understatement. Coup is usually a forced takeover of government. Considering everything was done within the context of our laws and constitution and democracy and with full acquiescence of ALL branches of our government - there has been nothing close to the diarist's rant.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
hmmm......
I think that is part of the debate isn't it? Our constitution (particularly with amendments 13, 14 and 15 added) doesn't take lightly the idea of fiddling with voter rights. And that's what some otherwise rational people allege the US Attorney purge was mostly about.
lots of
unproven allegations floating around in all those stories. US Attorney purge on it's own has to do with removing attorneys who did not tow the political line and not with covering up some overthrow of the democracy. Come on.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I dunno...
When the conservative Chicago Tribune says the justice department is being turned into an arm of the Republican National Committee (link
) you kinda have to start using strong language to talk about it, even if you are a Republican.
And under Clinton it was
an arm of the Democratic National Committee. Nothing has changed. When you guys get you next President in office it will simply switch back.
I especially like the author's comment that the DOJ was being "usurped" by the Executive. That's a laugh. The DOJ is PART of the Executive and the appointments of the prosecutors has ALWAYS been done on a partisan basis. Let's just ignore history for our own convenience.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The DOJ's
responsibility is to enforce the law for ALL Americans, free of political taint.
Mission Statement
It is the economy, stupid.
And your
evidence for this is what? Career justice employees, many of whom are Republicans, disagree with this particular verse of "It's Clinton's fault." Here
is a decent discussion of this issue.
Unproven allegations.....
Hmmm. It hasn't reached the Court of law stage, so I guess you could say unproven if you only mean not accepted in a Court of Law yet.
To suggest that Comey's testimony has no basis of fact contradicts that it is the very same thing we've ALL heard from many of the "fired" US Attorneys. So, I feel confident that in this case, with multiple persons of high management office making claims that this Administration was indeed trying to restrict voting of those citizens who MIGHT vote against them did occur and can be claimed to be more than just an allegation at this point.
Of course, if you'd prefer to call all those US Attorneys, Comey, Deputy Attorney General Paul Mcnulty liars, well then, you may have a leg to stand on. Mumblypeg anyone?
voting should be
restricted to those eligible to vote. Other than that I am disinterested in discussing liberal conspiracy theories.
Dismissing those USAs is an ok topic and Gonzales should resign for lying. That's all.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Some things have not hit the courts.
But others have, and all the way up to the Supreme court. As I recall, the courts ultimately upheld everything that Bush has done which has been put before them to date...
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You really mean
everything
?
While it can seem grim
through one pair of lenses, we should take into account that this scandal has been uncovered, it is being investigated, and if illegal activities occurred I presume they will be punished according to our laws.
Crooked politicians will always exist. The fact of their existence is not in itself cause to fear for the republic. Which is where I think the dKos diarist is being too alarmist in how he's viewing the situation.
Which is also why I think Rudy is a very bad choice. He's not exactly admired for his ethics.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Crooked politicians
will always exist. Yes!
But these guys seem to be setting historical precedents on more than one front.
That is alarming.
It is the economy, stupid.
Very much so
I don't remember us ever having such a batch of unashamed crooks in power.
It's going to take more than a couple of years to fix, so it's important that (1) the Dems keep Congressional majorities through at least the 2008 elections, and (2) you hold them as accountable for their acts of corruption as well, lest they fall prey to the same temptations of power.
The real enemy is corruption, regardless of its party.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
What I find fascinating...
...is that all the corruption and scandals all interconnect. As if there were a nucleus of corruption polluting everything around it and the investigations have been slowly winding in and in toward the center.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
umhmmm
The interconnectedness. So how can we tie in the Abramoff scandal here?
I find equally fascinating the war between the idealogues and the longstanding civil servants within the power structure. As in Addington v World.
It is the economy, stupid.
Agreed except
I am not sure the word "coup" is dramatic enough.
It is the economy, stupid.
:)
The irony that France
is a bright spot in the news for the conservative hardliners.
Nicholas Sarkozy has pledged to be a leader in the fight against global warming.
It is the economy, stupid.
I have been saying for years
that I think this country may actually be heading into a civil war some time in the (relatively) near future. I haven't ever put a time frame to it but I wouldn't be surprised if it occurred in my son's lifetime.
I don't have specific reasons to cite as to why. It is just more of a feeling, I guess, based on the observations of the people and the world around me. Based on what I know about the segments of society that I am most familiar with coupled with what I see happening in the world of politics.
Bill Clinton's reign of terror was the wake up call for me. I am sure that Bush 43 is the wake up call for anyone who would be on the other side of the fight. The ever decreasing level of civility in public debate is also a symptom. Look at the conversations between myself and Tlaloc if you doubt me on this point.
In the article that Ender referenced the author mentions that the tide may be turning, that perhaps things will subside. This is not the case. It is true that the balance of power has once again started to swing to the left, but this will only stiffen the resolve of those on the right. This will eventually lead to an even greater backlash of fury and tensions. I don't care who the next Democrat president ends up being, they will be excoriated even worse than Clinton and Bush have been.
I actually believe that the preaching of the "intolerance of intolerance" (as well intentioned as it may be) is a reasonable example (but by no means the only one) of what is driving all of this. As the left continues to demonize the right and to force their beliefs and values onto the right, the people on the right are going to continue to push back for their own beliefs. As the tensions grow eventually something will snap and the civil war will be upon us.
We were seeing the signs of what I am talking about under Clinton. White separatists who just want to be left alone being harassed and having their family members murdered. Religious groups being targeted on trumped up and in some cases falsified charges and eventually being incinerated in their home because they refused to submit to the will of the left. They refused to let the left dictate their beliefs and how they were going to live.
Now, I am not arguing that the beliefs of Randy Weaver or the Branch Davidians or others like them are mainstream or even correct. Whether they are or not is irrelevant to the point of this discussion. What is relevant is that they had they own belief systems and that they were willing to fight to the death for them.
These incidents are only the tip of the ice berg. These groups represent the extremes of the right, and as such they represent the first signs of what is to come if the left continues to try and push their beliefs onto the rest of us.
The people on the right are willing to fight for their rights, if need be, as these examples show. As the tyranny and the oppression sought by the left touches ever more portions of the right we will see more Ruby Ridges and Wacos since the left is willing to fight for their beliefs as well, and as these same examples show.
Look at the resurgence of the militia movements after Waco and Ruby Ridge if you doubt that the right is willing to fight. Obviously the Oklahoma City Bombing was a crime and a tragedy, but even that has ties to the oppression of the left at Waco.
Another American civil war? It is not as far fetched as you might think.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
That's nice.
What was it that you were saying about how you aren't a biggot or a racist?
It is the economy, stupid.
Please tone it down...
Feel free to address specific points in his post, but let's try to avoid sweeping generalizations (or implications) about commenters, thanks.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
thanks Brendan
that was fairly blatant.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Umm, where in there is there anything
that implies I am a racist or a bigot?
But thanks for illustrating my point.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
There isn't
You are a saint.
Promoting a civil war is just peachy idea.
So in your war fantasy am I the enemy? Should I feel threatened?
It is the economy, stupid.
how is he promoting it?
Is predicting and promoting the same thing? Are you serious?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yes.
I will refrain from the conversation, okay.
It is the economy, stupid.
I do not claim to be a saint.
As I have pointed out many times I am not religious, but rather more of an agnostic.
It is not a fantasy as a recognition of a reality. Are you the enemy? That is up to you, but most likely you would not be on my side of the fight.
Not at all, for it is not I who would be coming for YOU, but rather the other way around.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Give me a break
You can /do say think/ whatever you want with or without my approval.
To think that I would come after you is a bit of a reach there. Your imagination is getting carried away.
It is the economy, stupid.
I generally agree
though I am not nearly as alarmed yet. I've always felt that the encroachment of left wing thought, and repressive socialist ideals will potentially eventually progress too far.
This is why I view Ayn Rand as such an incredible visionary. Her prophetic prose paints in extreme terms the eventual results of the Leftist thought. We are heading there but we are nowhere near the point of conflict.
Individuals still have enough freedom to break through, achieve, create and think for themselves.
The ideals of common good, social responsibility, political correctness, and ever-increasing forced non-discrimination are all examples of Leftist social control ruining our country and if not stopped will eventually lead to a conflict.
Fortunately we are far away from it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Gentlemen
I think this deserves a diary of its own. There's quite a bit of discussion buried in GoRight's comment. We'll lose the ability to refer back to it easily if its in an open thread.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
I agree
GoRight - write up a diary on the topic or something :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I will copy it over to a diary then.
But I actually don't feel like having to defend any of this as it doesn't matter. This is how I feel, and this is what I believe is coming, and further discussion isn't going to change that. I merely offer it up for your consideration.
I know that there are a lot of people on the right who would resonate with this perspective. Maybe not all, but a lot, depending on how centrist you are.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You'll have to defend some of it
after all, this is Swords Crossed.
But I was thinking more that there are some valid points to explore, you know, together. . .
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
I will participate.
I agree that there are points that can be discussed, but in actuallity most of them have been discussed to death already. We have each made our own personal decisions on how we view them individually.
This was just meant to be a stream of consiousness reply and not a rigorous treatise on the subject. View this more as my statement of where I (and I believe many others) have come done on each of these points and how we feel about what they mean.
Internalize that to whatever level and in whatever way you want.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
you don't have to do it
if you don't really feel like discussing much of it.
Maybe I would eventually write up my thoughts on it as well.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Good idea
"On the coming revolution" -- someone wanna start it up? GoRight?
Wish I'd read OSC's book...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Like I said ...
I have not put a timeframe on it but would not be surprised if it occurred in my son's lifetime. The exact form of it is unknown.
In case it was not obvious in my prose above, my main point is that the Ruby Ridges and the Wacos and the Oklohoma Cities are indicative of what is to come. Obviously these are all fringe groups, but who do you expect to start reacting first other than the fringe groups?
The point is that as the noose continues to tighten more and more groups will reach their breaking points and eventually we will have a civil war.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
uh huh!
quote
tightening around....
It is the economy, stupid.
Clarification.
Now you seem to be showing your bigotry, because I never meant what you seem to think I meant. Although I can understand the historical perspective that may have lead you down that path ... I apologize for a poor choice of words but in my defense I wasn't even remotely thinking of the context of racial bigotry. None of my post is meant to defend or even address the issue of racial bigotry.
The "noose" in this case is referring to the strangle hold that the left is attempting to put on the personal freedoms of those on the right. So "as the noose continues to tighten" means "as the left continues to push their belief system onto everyone else (and thereby oppress ever larger numbers of people on the right)".
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
No problem.
I was performing a full GoRight with a half twist. Because I see this issue to have a shadowy agenda.
The strangle hold on personal freedoms of those on the right????
Which personal freedoms of yours specifically are being threatened??? Please elaborate.
You can carry a gun. You can have free speech. So what's the problem?
It is the economy, stupid.
Neither of these would be the case
if the liberal agenda went unchecked...
And I would argue that both have been infringed already. We can play lots of fancy word games but this is how I feel and so it is not a point of debate, but a statement of fact as far as I am concerned.
McCain-Feingold is a clear infringement of free speech, although the courts apparantly don't agree. Luckily for me, I get to decide what I consider to be infringing ME.
There were gun laws being proposed as recently as a few weeks ago.
Eternal vigilence is the price of freedom.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
YET you still own a gun
and you still speak your mind. You are a free man.
You are manufacturing problems out of thin air.
McCain-Feingold isn't about individual speech. It is about groups falsely presenting as individuals.
It is the economy, stupid.
OK, you're right.
I am making these things up. The whole debate is merely a figment of my imagination.
I can't own guns that I once could.
I can't spend my own money to disseminate my own political viewpoints within 60 days of a general election.
Nope, no infringements there. I stand corrected.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I am just mad
cause I can't own that F-16 Fighter Jet I have always dreamed of having. Damn govt restrictions!
You can spend your money 60 days before an election........ as long as it is YOURS and not lumped in with a billion or so from Halliburton, that PRETENDS to be a small group.
It is the economy, stupid.
free markets/free people
I guess that's not working for you then.
See Chuck Hagel
It is the economy, stupid.
you don't see anyone
forbidding him to think for himself. His freedom to do so does not make him immune from criticism.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Too true
And exactly relevant.
Conservatives are not free from criticism. Yet when it comes from the "dreaded
left" it is manufactured to represent some sort liberal tyranical plot.
The whole premise of this liberal tyranny is so ridiculous on its face, and on its rear end.
It is the economy, stupid.
I don't mind the criticism ...
it is the passing of repressive laws that concerns me. For example, we have on this very site a diary that is advocating for the nationalizing of private infrastructure for the purpose of controling free speach.
Now it is wrapped up in a nice little "truth in advertising meme", but it is nothing more than the left (actually the anarchists if I am to believe the self proclaimed alliances) trying to put in place government controls to use as another tool to impose their beliefs onto the right.
One man's tryanny is another man's common sense proposal, and that is my point.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
"repressive socialist ideals"
Fortunately I think we're still a long way off from the socialist hells of Sweden and - god forbid! - Canada.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Perhaps you are right.
But that doesn't change the truth of my observation regarding fringe groups being the "canaries in the mine" on this issue.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Sweden is hell?
Dang. I had no idea. I send my son there for 5 weeks every summer. I spent many vacations there visiting all over when his dad and I were married. I had absolutely no clue I was in hell. Heh.
Just for the record
while I more or less agree with you on Weaver I think your take on Waco is absurd. ATF agents were killed -- you claim of Branch Davidians "incinerated in their home because they refused to submit to the will of the left" lacks any foundation. They died because they refused to surrender to the lawful authority, and there is no proof (in fact it's rarely even suggested) that the fire was intentional (unless it was caused by the BDs themselves).
Whether you think the ATF overreached in its initial investigation is open to debate, but that should have been resolved in court, not with deliberate and intentional armed resistance to agents of the law.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Agree to disagree.
We are both familiar with the facts in these cases. The difference is in our respective interpretations of those facts and what they imply about the motives and intentions of those running the government at the time.
[ In this sense, this is exactly the same issuse we have with the Bush Lied meme. We agree on the facts, disagree on the interpretation thereof. ]
The point here is that there comes a time when rehashing the facts over and over again doesn't change anything. At that point you must either agree to disagree a