Another WTF Open Thread
Across the pond, British PM Gordon Brown is looking at passing a bill allowing voters the ability to recall their MP in situations of gross financial misconduct. Brown's Labour Party had a very poor showing
in the EU Parliament elections, finishing third behind the Conservatives and the UK Independence Party.
Our favorite Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in danger of losing his post to moderate Mir Hossein Musavi. The Iranians vote on Friday to determine if Ahmadinejad will be retained.
Submitted by stinerman on Wed, 2009-06-10 09:06
Tags:
Comments :
Radical Rhetoric
The folks that insisted that Janet Napoletano apologize for her memo clearly stating that the FBI and local law enforcement officials need to be on high alert for acts of violence generated by right wing extremists. were wrong.
I'm only half stupid
Cutting off Social Security Benefits
was apparently the last straw, that sparked, the anti-government white separatist James von Brunn's shooting at the Holocaust Museum yesterday.
The financial strains of living on the streets from hand to mouth sent a man already on the extreme over the edge.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/10/AR200906...
I'm only half stupid
Wht in the F___ are you talking about?
The sick wacko that shot up the Holocaust Museum was no right wing extremist!
He hated Bush 41.
He despised Bush 43.
He loathed neo-con's.
He was basically YOU ML! LOL!!!!
He was just some poor old sick dude.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
You are making my case
Yeah this sick whacko..... and what did he hate, people.
That is just what the right does so well, the debate it never about ideas it is about people.
Hillary Clinton was an evil witch, an ambitious woman who dared to wear a pant suit. How many personal insults did she have to endure because of her ideas.
Don't debate the ideas, demonize the person.
And here you are demonizing me, and comparing me to a jew killer, because you disagree with my ideas. Even worse you think it's cute to do so.
Thank god this guy was just a deranged white supremist american, instead of a deranged muslim american.
I applaud your empathy for the mentally deranged white guy.
I can only guess how much empathy you would have for mentally deranged muslim if he had committed the exact same crime and had the exact same history of mental illness and outspoken jew hatred.
I'm only half stupid
Pfft.
That's it, just pfft.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I am too lazy to look
and I don't have the time to look up your reference on that.
Could I have some links to verify your (false) claims, please.
I'm only half stupid
Frankly
I think you have to prove this gentleman was a "right wing extremist". First, define what the phrase "right wing extremist" means. Give specific examples and since the implication is there, how these people and their views dovetail with the current Republican Party.
Then you'll have to make the case that the good Governor had a good-faith basis to think that right wing extremists would be a threat.
After those things are done, I'll side with you. Until then, I'm neutral.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
You can stay nuetral
My opinion is that white supremacy is right wing.
I don't know any liberals that get swastikas for tatoos.
The closet example I can give you is the John Birch Society, an organization that fears "one world order' and has blamed liberal jews for many of the problems in the US.
They claim that conservative values are the foundation of society, and that belief in god is necessary to maintain societies order. They have stated that Nixon and Eisenhour were liberals, with possibly communist leanings.
Joe McCarthy famous for the Red Scare and investigating who was and was not a communist became a member of the John Birch society.
Pat Buchannon has roots in the John Birch Society.
Sarah Palin has ties with some members of the John Birch Society.
Now none of these people are violent radical extremists per se, but their words and their publications are on the right. Many have leaned to an anti-government rhetoric that can have a strong effect on those in the fringe who take the ideology of their movement too seriously.
The election of a black President is likely to rile up some of these old sentiments that Jews and Blacks are in cahoots to have a (insert conspiracy theory here) one world order.
These are just general examples.
I'm only half stupid
Fair enough
I tend to think that this guy was "right wing" the same way Bill Ayers is "left wing".
They're so far from the mainstream that generic terms like that don't accurately describe them.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
And don't forget ELF.
They are obvious violent radical leftists as well.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Based on what?
What do you base this on otehr than your own twisted view of th world?
How many conservatives do you know with swastikas for tatoos?
Another pfft moment for you, ML. So, the people you actually point out who are recognizable as conservatives, or at least Republicans, are not "violent radical extremists", but somehow they turn these other people who have their own ideology into "violent radical extermists?" That's laughable. (Really, I just had a good laugh over it a moment ago.) And this is your proof that conservatives, who don't even hold the ideology of the extermist groups, are actually radical extremists? Please give me a break.
You sit there and try to paint the conservatives as race baiters and then you post something like this? If that's not one of the most legitimately racist things I have ever herad I'm not sure what could be worse. You, madam, are the racist here, not the Republicans.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4double meh
First off why on earth would you take the phrase, right wing extremism, personally? The word extremist implies just that....... extremists.
Get it?
Second of all I never called conservatives 'racists', so where the hell did you pull that out of, your arse?
Have a shock! I can say the word blacks with out being a racist. I can say the world Jew without being an anti-semite.
I prefer Australian cattle dogs as a breed. Why? Do I hate other breeds of dogs? No, I prefer one breed over another because of their inbred traits. Am I a dog racist now, because I have a blue heeler, and discriminated against the Dingo?
You are way out on a limb here. It is absolutely not accepting reality if you don't realize that some people will find a black President threatening.
If your hero Rush Limbaugh can sing, "Barack the Magic Negro" over and over again on the radio, and according to you not be a racist, then the exact same standard applies to me.
I said a black man is President and it could spark old 'fears' if you will. You call me a racist. What a bunch of bullsh*t that is.
My beef is with folks in the media who irresponsibly inflame old divides and play on peoples fears intentionally for political gain and use dog whistle code words to do so.
Get over your bad righteous self, get off your soap box, and understand that some people still don't like blacks. It is not racist to mention it.
I did not call conservatives racists.Why on earth would you take offense??????
When I say right wing extremists, that is exactly what that means extremists.
I'm only half stupid
You talk so much trash and NEVER provide links...
..except the occasional flame thrower of an article.
I would like to see proof of this;
It's Eisenhower by the way...
And as far as the following three things;
It's Buchanan by the way...
Who give's a F___! Are you trying to link PB and SP to some kook who shot people at the Holocaust Museum?
Throw in a McCarthy reference for the incendiary effect.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
It's just history
Is the John Birch Society left wing? I don't think so.
Stiney was asking about the label right wing.
Again why doth ye protest so much.
I am so sure you wouldn't describe the Weather Underground as a left wing extremist group, and that you wouldn't give a sh*t if Bill Ayers used to belong, right.
Let's make a deal.
The next time some 'far left kook' perpetrates an act of violence, just use the word extremist with out the descriptor 'far left,' and I will leave out the word right wing as a descriptor and just use the word extremist.
Bet you can't do it.
I'm only half stupid
Obama is an extremist President ...
who blows up innocent civilians and detains people indefinitely without trial.
There, I managed it! :-P
Meta: This post is not a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Are you accusing military officers
and our good men in the military of intentionally murdering innocent civilians?
That's an extremist view, that could easily have come straight out of John Kerry's mouth.
Shame on you for saying our soldiers are intentionally killing innocent civilians.
Why do you hate the troops?
I'm only half stupid
No, not at all.
Obama is the one at fault.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4LOL! Oh ML, that's so like you...
...First when asked to validate your claims, you fail utterly.
Then go on to attempt to equate the John Birch Society, lol, with the,lol The Weather Underground! lol!
Come on?
You really are something else...
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
The birther movement
as a symptom of radical right wing extremism has been legitimized by certain political figures.
It is clear that the birther movement has gained steam on the radical right.
Yet we have politicians, news channels and widely listened to radio hosts appealing to and legitimizing these extremists.
It is quite disturbing.
" Rep. Bill Posey, R-FL, has introduced a bill
in the House requiring presidential candidates to file a copy of their birth certificates. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-V.A, has joined him as a co-sponsor of that measure. "
" Several weeks ago, conservative reporter Lester Kinsolving, asked Robert Gibbs
why the president would not "respond to the petition to requests of 400,000 American citizens by releasing a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate listing hospital?"
On Wednesday morning, moreover, talk show host Rush Limbaugh sardonically compared President Obama to God, noting that, "God does not have a birth certificate either."
Will this stop any time soon. Likely not. Will more gun toting extremists resort to acts of murder in the near future. Likely so.
I'm only half stupid
What a radical demand...
...to see our Presidents birth certificate...geeze?
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
It has been seen repeatedly and often
Don't let the facts get in the way of your conspiracy theories.
I'm only half stupid
Where, when?
So the 400K, the reporters asking Q's, everyone is just missing it somehow?
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Like I said
don't let the facts get in the way of your imagination or your conspiracy theories.
I'm only half stupid
Here
birth certificate.
Can't access photobucket from work. This was provided by the campaign last June. Anyone who wanted to look it up could have.
Idiot conspiracy theorists have claimed this wasn't the "long form" Hawaiian birth certificate (which doesn't exist), and that "certificate of live birth" and "birth certificate" don't mean the same thing here (they do). Note the text at the bottom about prima faciae evidence. He was born in Hawaii. Hawaii was part of America on August 4, 1961. Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States. People need to deal with it. Ironically, McCain wasn't born in America.
There were some equally evidenceless claims about it being a forgery. It should not surprise you that 400,000 people don't follow basic rules of logic and common sense when they really really want something sensational to be true. I would say at least one in five people I know believe some sort of conspiracy theory. If you includ Roosevelt's "advance knowledge" of Pearl Harbor and Churchill allowing the bombing of Coventry to happen, it would be much higher.
And no, nobody missed it. Those who want it to be true ignored the conveniently provided online certificate and kicked up a dust cloud about nonexistant forms, birth abroad legal issues and other irrelevant claptrap. Now, if anyone you know still makes this claim, could you please direct him/her to this URL.
Nope I'm not that guy...
I am not interested in this issue.
But I do find it funny the Obama people would not do everything to prove otherwise, not post a picture of a copy on the internet.
People want to know, he should end this.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
I hereby repeat ...
without providing any of the references, any and all comments I have made regarding his failure to produce, or allow independent media organizations examine, the ORIGINAL birth certificate that is on file.
The easiest and most efficient way to resolve this mess is to simply allow them access to the document. Failing to do so only fuels the speculation that he has something to hide. Well, if he doesn't, then why not allow the access?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You know better
I agree that it fuels speculation, but the fact that a few cranks speculate doesn't put the onus on Obama to disprove the cranks' claims.
I don't think George W. Bush released his birth certificate, long or short form. I demand that he disprove my theory that he is actually a reptilian space monster
.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Sorry, it's not the same thing at all.
The Constitution says explicitly that the President has to be a natural born citizen. Producing his original birth certificate, as issued by the hospital where he was born if that exists, is not an unreasonable request. Especially since we have reason to believe that it is sitting right their in Hawaii. I so no legitimate reason that he should withhold it.
If anyone had asked to verify that George Bush was a natural born citizen I have no doubt that he would have produced whatever records were requested.
Your personal theories regarding the existence of reptilian space monsters don't really seem germain to this discussion because nobody that I am aware of is alleging that Obama is anything but human. The question here is (1) where was he actually born and (2) to whom as determined by his original birth documents. It is not an unreasonable request.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4He has released his birth certificate
In fact at the very bottom it says that the certificate constitutes prima facie evidence of birth in any court proceeding.
Any reasonable person would take that as fact that he was born in Hawaii. There is no need to go any further to indulge conspiracy theorists...or are the 9/11 truthers on to something?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
And one can reasonably assume that there is no reason ...
to block access, unless there is something to hide. Stop feeding the conspiracy theorists and just give them access already so we can all move on.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +47th Day Adventist Syndrome
Ya, and then so many would say they got access to 40 something year old forged documents, further proof to them that they're right....many conspiracy theorist will sell their homes and forever wait in a field....
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Got nothin' to loose by tryin' ...
so release the information already.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The House does have a history of introducing stupid bills
I'm sure a dig could uncover lots of crazy ones.
But all of them should be filed under "gee, don't y'all have something better to do with your time?"
True
Yet this kind of 'crazy' is a bit beyond the pale.
As mentioned, people in Congress, giving credence to conspiracy theories, allows extremists to see themselves as validated.
OMG the President is a secret muslim, trying to take over the world 'just like Hitler. Be so afraid that you have to go grab a gun and do your vigilante justice duty.
Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh..... "We told ya so. He was never an American citizen and he wants big government to give more welfare to black people. See Acorn."
This is irresponsible and dangerous.
File it under freedom of hate speech.
Yes I do expect to see more killings.
I'm only half stupid
Is this
too too partisan? Mentioning that the right is appealing for violent outcomes?
I think responsible people should call out these hate merchants on the radio and on TV. Enough already.
People do have free speech rights to say whatever, but I find it very troubling that the usual suspects, Fox News, and right wing radio continue to beat the anti-government, anti-Obama, drum so loudly that it appeals to some fringe elements that will persue vigilante justice 'in the name of liberty'.
I just feel that this is so irresponsible and potentially dangerous. Don't these folks care or understand that they are fanning the flames of violence?
I'm only half stupid
The guy was not right wing anything ML...
You're smoking your own sh!t if you think otherwise.
He hated everything, he hated Bush 41 and 43, he hated the neo-con movement, he hated Jews, what in that mind of yours has got him out to being a right wing extremist?
Your own liberal propaganda, that's what!
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Bill Ayers was not a left
Bill Ayers was not a left wing extremist, he hated the war JFK started and LBJ continued...
------------------
Is there a situaltion where one could be a right/left wing extremist that doesn't think other fairly out there right/left wingers don't go far enough?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Not a convincing statement...
Ayers embodied the left, this Von Brunn fellow does no such thing on the right, he simply was not a right winger at all as far as I can tell.
What about him makes you suggest he was?
The liberal media is just jumping to this conclusion.
Crazy!
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
What does it matter?
Right and left are such imprecise terms (as are liberal and conservative) that they are practically meaningless. At any rate, the bickering about Ayers being "of the left" or Von Brunn being "of the right" is to engage in guilt by association.
All of this isn't anything more than "my team is better than your team". I suppose this would be interesting if we were on the grade-school playground or at a sports bar.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I disagree stiney
I don't think at the present time that right and left are particularly imprecise terms at all.
There is nothing more ingrained in the American spirit than winning. The American competitive spirit is all about my team is better than your team.
That is why it was said that 'we are a nation of laws and men'.
I'm only half stupid
Labels are imprecise
What is important is the ideas behind the (crude) labels we apply to people.
Not everything is black or white, blue or red, etc. Ask any libertarian!
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Winning isn't a label
It's winning. It's the American spirit. Come on.
Besides have you seen some of the crazy labels libertarians use? Pre-manchurian geo-modern argiculturalist revolutionary liberalst dating back to 1870 were the birth of the pre-Austrian Freiderick school of libertarians. Now that's a label! Libertarians have more labels than I can keep track of.
I'm only half stupid
I must be un-American
Winning isn't important.
In your case, those words relating to libertarians are descriptive. I'm simply making the case that the world doesn't divide into "liberal" and "conservative" whatever those words mean. I need several paragraphs to accurately describe my political outlook. I belief most other people's views need more than a word or two to describe.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
You must be...... :-)
I am fairly competitive. I like to win. Though I don't think it is everything, I do think competition, if you chose to buy in to the game can inspire you to improve, that is if you don't cheat. By game I mean anything, chess, photography competition, debate, business, it doesn't have to be sports.
I'm only half stupid
I think the actual quote is ...
supposed to be this:
Emphasis mine.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Is there a difference between a nation
and it's government.
Yes I screwed up the quote, but it is one I like.
Particularly because when you use the language of the law, it is difficult to engage in flame throwing rhetoric that we see in political discourse.
I'm only half stupid
Which version?
Adams' or or the one you made up? :)
Meta: This post is just a good natured ribbing.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No I am not horrified.
Are you suggesting that white supremists who fear that their blood will become tainted if mixed with that of 'others' are left wing?
That's a new one.
I'm only half stupid
There are those that just hate...
n/t
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
The kook
is supposedly quite bright. Was qualified for mensa.
Some called him a genius. It just goes to show there is a fine line between being brilliant or nuts.
I'm only half stupid
Yep, there are the Phil Spector's of the world too...
...but this von Brunn guy had serious problems, and had them for a long time.
He was a genuine kook.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
White
supremacists are kooks, I agree.
I would venture that all white supremacists have a some kind of personality disorder, bordering on paranoia.
He was hardly a lone wolf. There is a white power movement behind him, that celebrates his actions.
I'm only half stupid
White power movement?
If that like the new Black Panther movement only in reverse?
Question: What's the difference between the white supremists and the black panthers?
Answer: The white supremacists weren't trying to intimidate voters in the last election.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Free speech
Free speech is what it is. You can't support it when you like the topic and then turn around and say it should be restricted when you don't.
This whole line of reasoning is rather reminiscent of the chatter in the '60's about how rock music was subversive and would turn teens into violent protesters and anarchists who would take arms against their country.
Anybody who is likely to do something "because the guy on Fox said X" is likely to do it for any other convenient reason, too. Fox, Rush, and all the other talking heads do what they do simply because it's their job: to make money for their employers.
Were the boys of Columbine responsible for their own actions, or did somebody make them do it? Or this latest crazyman, killing the guard at the Holocaust museum....did somebody "fan his flames" too, or was he just a homicidal maniac?
Agreed on all points....
... with respect to 'talking heads'. But what about news? Is there a distinction between news and entertainment?
Should a free press have responsibilities other than creating maximum value for shareholders?
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Depends
Should the press think about something other than profit? Yes. Do I support any legislation to that end? No.
I welcome the dumbing down of others. It makes me smarter by comparison.
;-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Yeah, I think....
... having the government tell journallists what to report is messed up. But I also think that having media conglomerates tell journalists what to report is messed up. Meanwhile, it's shocking how bad broadcast news is to me. It probably shouldn't be shocking... maybe I'm just naive that way.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
It is messed up
But I don't see how any fix can be better than the disease.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
The "press"
From what I recall reading, the "press" was even more hyperpartisan and misleading at the time of our founding than they are today. Yet still, the idea of a free press was enshrined.
So while morally, yes, I would appreciate some media outlet that tried a bit harder to be responsible, I think that's a fool's wish. There will always be bias in any reporting. The trick is to be smart enough to see it.
It all comes down to the individual. One chooses which blinders to wear.
Yellow journalism.....
.... has a rich history, no doubt.
Jefferson said this about journalism....
So I think he'd agree with you, Purpleface.
Oscar Wilde said this:
Which is pretty funny.
*edit -- I should add, bias is fine. I don't expect objectivity from anybody, really. It's the 'making crap up and calling it news' that bugs me.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
With all due respect, ML ...
if anyone is being a hate monger here, it is you.
Meta: This post is a VERY serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4me and Janet Napolitano
How dare anyone mention right wing extremism. How DARE they.
All you want to hear about or promote is left wing extremism, as if that is some kind of norm. Oh those crazy insane liberals, that hate America, *chuckle snork*
Sorry I don't play by your rules.
Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh and their insane boogie man that oooooo the government will control you if the left has their way....ooooo Obama is a Nazi, anti-government rants, is hate speech that appeals to fringe right wing extremists and it's fricking dangerous. Words do matter.
If I say so out loud then that's too damn bad.
You will have to live with my free speech rights, just like I have to live with theirs.
I'm only half stupid
I don't want to dimish or restrict you free speech rights, ML.
But if you're going to exercise them as you are, don't be surprised when I'm right there to exercise mine by pointing out who the true hate mongers are. You've already admitted above that the extremist of which you speak have an ideology all their own. Don't try to hang these loons aroung the necks of good honest conservatives.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Arousing populist fears
Michelle Maulkin and Andy McCarth (one of Rush's favorite sources) keep spouting the inflammatory headline, with this "I told you so" conspiracy. (Obama really is a secret muslim)
Obama reads Miranda Rights to Terrorists.
(This is exactly the kind of fear mongering garbage that ignites the imagination of extremists.)
Gen. Petraeus says that's not accurate but the wingnut media forges ahead with this garbage.
Even the elite Weekly Standard is part of this push to associate Obama with giving terrorists rights, given this invaluable information by Representatives Mike Rogers, and Pete Hoekstra.
I'm only half stupid
That's because ...
they had to use their interpreters to do it, so technically Petraeus is telling the truth. :)
Meta: This post is not a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sotomayer shows her BS in broad daylight...
Give me a break...and we're supposed to put this person on the SCOTUS?
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
If you want your party to come back
you will stop pretending that the health of a fetus has more rights than the health of the mother.
Let's stop calling it a pro-life movement and start calling it the pro-fetus movement.
If a woman drinks too much coke or beer it could damage the fetus.
Should the woman then be charged with a crime for violating the equal rights of the fetus?
Should a woman be charged with a crime for having sex in the ninth month of pregnancy for possibly causing brain damage to the fetus.
If a fetus becomes ill from blood poisoning will the woman then be charged with murder?
And you folks are the folks that want the government out of our lives? Be serious.
I'm only half stupid
Oh boy, I sure hope Sotomayer sys the same thing!
LOL! It would make this whole thing much easier!
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
What whole thing
?
Pursuing your extremist views, that a fetus should have civil rights.
Again, this from the folks that want government out of our lives?
You want a federal mandate for the fetus.
The reality is that your position shows an essential disrespect for women as individuals capable of thinking for themselves, while out of the other side of your mouth you claim that you profess to advocate for the rights of the individual.
I guess you could say that if you exclude women as individuals who deserve to have their views and their rights taken seriously. Women are fit to think for themselves and can be good at other tasks besides doing laundry.
Your statements show a disrespect for women generally.
I'm only half stupid
Extremist views...my my you are a dangerous person
ML, I'll let you in on something, you are the extremist around here in case that little detail had escaped you.
Your radical disdain for everything right of george soros is frightening.
You have no clue about my position on abortion, yet you jump into your liberal jujitsu pose without even asking none the less.
I don't know whether I should be weary of radical liberals like you, or feel sorry for you, probably both are in order.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
I doubt that this has anything to do with the vast majority ..
of abortions. I suspect in most cases both are completely healthy so this argument cover a minor number of cases at best. At least I suspect so.
You are claiming that the fetus of a perfectly healthy mother has zero rights. I disagree.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Think about the consequences
of having 'equal rights' for the fetus.
That means 'big government' could charge a mother with a crime for violating the equal rights of her own fetus.
The whole premise is ridiculous on it's face, in so many ways, but especially coming from the party that claims it believes in less government.
I'm only half stupid
Who said anything about "equal rights"?
Oh, that was you and your strawman.
Me? I'd be happy with at least recognizing some rights for the fetus. Small things like you can't just kill him/her on a personal whim.
You are advocating for zero rights for the fetus.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Quick give me the name of
a good fetal lawyer.
You know one that will represent the fetus and it's newly granted yet unequal rights.
The fetus wants to sue it's mother for damages.
I'm only half stupid
What's your point?
If fetal rights are being infringed upon it is the duty of the executive of either the State or the US to defend those rights, so talk to the DOJ at either level.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Back to DeMint
He's either tried to get new laws, where other laws already apply or his "legal" question to Sotomayor is more than moot, it's a fishing expedition to find and activist judge.
in them.
He's already tried to get zygotes some of the same rights as people with the breath of life
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
WWSS
I don't really think DeMint, the most conservative Senator in US, really asked a "legal" question. At least not until DeMint gets the Constitution changed
.
I don't think Scalia, or others, would agree with DeMint's "legal" question he posed.
Scalia would likely think something along the lines that American citizen are those born or naturalized in the US, meaning that, an unborn fetus, is not an American. And legally speaking, the youngest a child can be is after birth, there are zero unborn American's.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I don't know
This would be the kind of issue on which Scalia would throw away his philosophy and vote that a zygote is an American citizen. This would be in spite of clear language that says citizenship is bestowed upon birth rather than fertilization.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
An update
To those who might be wondering-
I am still alive. I have found work with the local university doing much the same thing I did for Intel, although so far only part time (I've graduated from unemployed to underemployed which is definitely better but still has problems). My health is fine.
I've been pretty blase about politics of late. Obama has been about what I expected- competent but not the progressive a lot of people imagined him to be. He's been able ot accomplish a lot but much of it is not what I'd personally want. On the other hand he's not authored any horrors to compare to the previous administration (but has left some of them to fester). If he manages to get a public health plan passed that's any good that'll considerably increase my estimation of his presidency. Consequently there's not a whole lot to say about about current political events other than that the right seems caught in a death spiral that is unlikely to end soon. That's unfortunate, because we really do need (atleast) two well functioning parties. But the GOP has been around the bend for a while now and aren't going to come back until they go through some serious soul searching, so I guess all we can do is wait and hope the dems don't go too far in the meantime.
I've also been busy with fostercare, something my wife and I started a few months ago after going through the process of getting accredited. Since I only have my kids periodically we have two kids rooms that are mostly empty (not counting the cats). We figured we might as well use them to try and help out, especially with the number of kids in foster care skyrocketting due to the economy.
That's about it.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Glad to hear an update!
I think the overall political climate has mellowed a bit, so we're all kinda blase at the moment.
My world has shrunken considerably for the present, as I'm focusing on rehab'ing my lacerated hand.
But stick around. Post some humor or something.
sorry about the hand
I assume there's a story there.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yep
I was walking down an aisle in a store, examining merchandise as one does, felt a tug, look at the back of my right hand and see meat, knucklebones, and a four inch gash. A kid had broken some of that glass shelf edging and the clerk left a broken edge protruding into the aisle a bit. Fourteen stitches.
Physical therapy three times a week now, plus hourly at home. Scar manipulation sucks. But I'm extremely lucky to not have lost a tendon or a nerve. Too soon to know if I'll have full use back and that hinges mostly on what I do with it now. Thus my reduced world. Progress is good, though, and I'm hopeful :-)
Ouch
That sounds awful!
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You'll always have a home here...
Even if you don't visit it as much.
How about that? Blogs mimicing real life, not the other way around! yea, I know SL mimics real life better...I just can't seem to devote that kind of time to an etherial life. Kinda caught up in the outside one now.
Art mimics life
Somebody famous said that, didn't they? Blogs and SL are like art in that way; we recreate what we are.
In blogs we do it with words. SL adds the dimension of user-created three-dimensional spaces, pictures and motions. It's amazing to me the way people describe themselves and their worldview within those parameters. When there's no "point" to the game it becomes merely an extension of yourself. It's just bizarre and incredibly difficult to describe. But fascinating if you enjoy the rainbow that is humanity. For example, I have a great mental picture of missliberties. But given no constraints of money or even gravity, how would she visualize the world and what else would that tell me about her?
There's some kerfuffle going on right now about the smut in SL. The game owners are making some changes so that innocents unaware of the darker side of human sexuality aren't so easily greeted with the games people play in their minds ("OMG, look, she's wearing a collar!"). Somebody, corph?, recently posted a link to an article about the disgust factor and how it plays into the conservative stance against gay marriage. With the stuff that's more explicit in SL, I think it shows that that same disgust factor comes in from the liberal side too. We all have lines, and claiming that one side's lines are worse than the other's is disingenuous. It's just a variation of the "ick" factor. And to pretend there's no slippery slope is to ignore reality; Romania recently decriminalized incest between consenting adults, for instance, and was I believe the third European country to do so.
The reaction from the players, though, has been extremely interesting to watch. It's a microcosm of the same stuff one sees on political blogs. References to Hitler, ghettos, "they'll come for you next", the first amendment, US prudishness and our (to other nations) puzzling and immature preference for extreme violence while being shocked at the sight of a nipple or a bong; strikes against the financial system, unionizing, protest marches (with signs and all); business people trying to explain to "the government" (the game owners) how badly they will be impacted by this proposed "legislation" and seeking modification and assistance in adapting, charges of favoritism and cronyism in implementing the change, Europeans complaining about having to conform to US standards or being left out of the process because of money, language and timezone constraints, "politicians" (inworld representatives of the game owners) attempting to manage all this variety of, er, stupidity without alienating their "constituents".
People are weird. It's amazing we've been able to create any forms of stable governing bodies at all.
People are weird.
I think it is worth keeping in mind that the government is made up of people, and is not some huge mechanized zombie robot trying to control your every move as some suggest.
The people made it what it is. IF you want it to change participation is necessary, preferably non-violent participation.
I'm only half stupid
People desire rules, though
And that's where the problem comes in. People, in all their myriad ways of thinking about society, tend to think that rules must be defined in order to "manage" the society. Too many rules necessitate an enforcement body, a bureaucracy, and that DOES create a self-sustaining robot-like structure that can be impossible to change, because the people with a vested interest in sustaining the "robot" will always resist any loss of power.
Jerry Pournelle
, a blogger I read sometimes, calls it his Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
His blog is kinda fun. He rambles on many topics and covers a lot of geeky stuff too if you're into that sort of thing.
Some people need explicit rules, while others are fine operating within looser definitions. IMHO, and you might find this counter-intuitive, I find that liberals seem to desire clearly defined rules moreso than conservatives, which actually makes liberals more authoritarian (e.g. needy for the ability to appeal to some authority outside of themselves) than conservatives, in my personal experience.
I have no idea what you mean
when you say 'liberals'. ;-)
Are you suggesting that conservatives prefer anarchy. That is counter-intuitive.
Your counter-intuitive definition would imply that liberals should thrive in the military because of it's authoritarian structure.
The theory posits that protecting or conversely strengthening the areas where you are weak is where the most attention should be focused.
I'm only half stupid
Degrees, not extremes
Stick with me on this one. In any continuum (ie from total freedom, zero rules, to total control, a zillion rules), there is a huge middle and only two ends. Let's ignore the ends labeled "anarchy" and "totalitarianism" and focus on the other stuff.
Yes, I am saying that liberals tend to adore rules. They prefer it when everything is spelled out in the law. It makes things so much neater. Everything is defined, no one has to "interpret" anything, everyone is presumably treated fairly and equally, as long as enough rules exist to cover every situation. No one has to take a risk and be responsible for an independent decision, because the law provides all the guidelines needed. In this worldview, the only people who have the authority to interpret anything are judges. The law is the authority. Common sense, common courtesy, local unique knowledge and decision-making, the ability to make necessary exceptions, all of those things are not important, because "this is the law."
An example: A woman arrives at the Social Security office saying she's disabled. Based on the clerk's own judgement, because he's the one seeing and interacting with her, she is definitely disabled and should receive public assistance. But is the clerk allowed to make that assessment? No. Instead, the bureaucracy, in order to ensure "fairness" to all, to prevent anyone from taking an unfair advantage of the government, and to remove liability for that decision from the clerk, requires paperwork and proof and and perhaps has never written a rule that covers that woman's specific, unique situation. Therefore, her claim is denied.
In my opinion and experience, liberals tend (not always, not everywhere, not absolutely) to be in support of rules that remove independent and possibly fallible judgment from the process. Conservatives, on the other hand tend to be more flexible and supportive of the concept of letting the individual decide the specifics under more general guidelines.
I hate to use this given the current climate, but interrogation techniques would be one example. Most conservatives are fine with allowing the CIA or whomever to determine what to do in a given situation, following general guidelines of acceptable tactics and strategies. Most liberals are not, because sometimes a CIA agent might make a mistake and do the wrong thing.
I disagree (of course)
All rules are not laws.
I don't see how the clerk at the SS office suffering through the mounds of paper work is different than the clerk working for a large health insurance company.
IN both cases at the SS office and the insurance company no one gets anything until the forms are properly filled out. The paper work for the insurance company serves the same purpose for the clerk at the SS office and the insurance company. They are both removed from having the authority to validate any claim because all the tees and eyes must be crossed and dotted.
The clerks in both instances are supposedly protecting their organizations against fraud.
I'm only half stupid
The difference though
The difference is that Social Security, being a government program, a "for the people" program, is not concerned with turning a profit. Nor should it be.
The insurance industry is not a governmental program. They exist to make money, not to serve the people.
Either way
they are both big bureaucracies.
The clerks in each organization will reject or approve claims based on proper protocol, and have no authority to make the rules within the organization, whether the goal is to serve the people or turn a profit.
One would hope that insurance companies should not make a profit unless they are serving their customers well.
I'm only half stupid
Well, actually, no it's not
An insurance company is not a bureaucracy. It's a company. There is a difference. See Websters ;-)
Or, this link
(PDF warning!) might be a good read, as well. I've not finished it yet.
Bureaucracy has more than one definition
There is such a thing as corporate bureaucracy.
The derivation of the word means office rules.
http://www.answers.com/topic/bureaucracy
I'm only half stupid
Try the OED then
I am using bureaucracy in the dictionary sense, not the colloquial. We don't (currently!) elect the folks who make the rules at insurance companies.
Yes we do.
The insurance companies just don't know it yet. Obama will get to them soon enough. Another government takeover?!?!?
It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Meta: This post is a semi-serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well...we elected some folks who seem to think they have...
...a right to choose who makes the rules at private insurance companies, banks, and our auto manufacturers.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
I don't want to make the rules for insurance companies
I simply want them out of business. I don'tsee the need to humor parasites, after all.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
That isn't always true.
I work for Kaiser. I think they're really good. They offer great medical care. Physicians there make all the decisions, not accountants. It's a Not for Profit. I will state that I work with the accountants. Even then though, I do support a government option available to all. It's the only way. I say that because a large government entity is the only way to spread the pool so that rates can be cheaper. I also think that they'd be able to negotiate better rates for pharmaceuticals & physician groups. That plus the whole point of not having to make a profit makes a government option a really good plan.
Unless something like that kind of pressures develops, the private insurance carriers & Big Pharma will never lower their rates or accept a lower return.
The government option
The Republican line is internally inconsistent.
1) Government insurance would be of lesser quality and value compared to private plans.
2) Government insurance would put the private insurers out of business.
If 1) is true, no one would buy it. If indeed an option is given, people will buy whichever plan gives them the best value. The best value cannot be the government plan because the government is horrible at everything it does...except defense. Why defense? I don't know, but it is really good at defense and sucks at everything else.
And since no one would buy a crappy government plan, it wouldn't put any efficient private insurers out of business.
Methinks that the Republicans know that people will opt for the government plan and it will provide better value than their current coverage -- especially for the self-employed.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Offering a government plan
Offering a government plan alongside private insurers seems to me the ONLY way to get market forces to act on demand and price. If they want to keep private insurance as a piece of the solution, I don't see any other effective way of making much of a difference in the situation.
Personal anecdote. I was getting set up for my physical therapy and had to deal with the usual stuff. Clerk at the PT center asks me to sign a document stating I would pay whatever my insurance doesn't pay IF I exceed the 12 visit limitation in my policy. So, I ask, what would the charge be for that 13th visit?
She can't tell me. Drones on about contract pricing, insurance negotiations, etc.
Even an educated consumer who wants to do the right thing when medical care is needed (shop around, get best value for the dollar, etc) cannot do so under our current system.
Employer-subsizided insurance
That's actually what keeps choice out...coupled with the high cost of unsubsidized insurance.
New plans like HSA/HDHP coverage is all fine and dandy (especially for someone who is almost never sick like myself), but if your employer doesn't offer it, then you effecively don't have the choice to get it. This is because paying out of pocket is an immediate no-no. It is way too expensive.
The reason why private coverage is so expensive is two-fold:
1) Health care (especially emergency care) is incredibly inelastic. If your life is in danger, you aren't in a position to haggle over the price. Really, you're putting a dollar amount on your own life. The fact that non-emergency/chronic care is very much knowledge-based also contributes to it (you don't want to switch doctors every few months if you have an uncommon, chronic condition).
2) We require emergency rooms to treat people regardless of ability to pay. Anything the hospital can't collect on gets passed to those who do have insurance through higher prices, which causes the insurance company to raise premiums in turn.
I think a market-based solution has a chance, but only if we require payment up front before service is rendered. Necessarily, that would mean that poorer people would end up dying for lack of care, but I believe it would bring prices down.
Generally speaking, you have to ensure that everyone has the ability to pay. That means either weeding out those who can pay through their own means or having Uncle Sam pick up the tab. I'm obviously for the latter.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I've only ever heard horror stories about Kaiser
seriously I mean I've met dozens of people who've told me about this or that instance in which kaiser almost got them killed. My ex-wife included. She had bad appendicitis which they almost failed to catch because the techs were watching the superbowl. It may be a regional thing since all the people I know came from the pacific coast, still it hasn't left me with a good impression of Kaiser (I've never used them myself).
Although we may be talking about different things since I'm talking about their hospitals and clinics and you seem to be talking about an insurer.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Shocking!
You'd like to put half a million or more people
out of work?
GM, after all, employs less than half
of that, and the country seems to want to jump through hoops to save those jobs.
That isn't a proper end
The fact that people have jobs is not a reason in and of itself to discard policy decisions that may eliminate those jobs.
I can go back to the story of the buggy-whip manufacturers, but I think you know where I'm going with this.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Of course
And as mean and heartless as it sounds, Detroit is the functional equivalent of buggy-whip manufacturers, IMHO.
But, since this administration (cheered on by a majority of citizens) recently saw fit to outspend all prior presidents combined and rack up an almost incomprehensible pile of debt in order to "save jobs," I find it quite amusing that the impact of policy upon employment isn't still of paramount importance.
If it was important enough to spend trillions last month, it should be important still, no? Or did The Next Great Depression end last week and I missed it?
You're asking me?
Yeah, Obama et al. wouldn't go for it, but then again I'm ready to let GM die. I was also ready to let AIG die, too. And everyone else who suddenly need a handout.
Bailout the workers, not the businesses.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Rhetorical questions, actually
I tend to use them a lot and I forget that they can be misunderstood. But I don't yet see any stimulus / bailout supporters choosing to reply to the overall thread.
Speaking of the gargantuan spending Obama has lead, Laffer came out today
with some lovely prognostications
I don't know whether his opinion matters much (another reason why I miss our yellow bars). But the rate at which the government is spending money is just insane.
Does anyone remember the financial meltdown of o8?
You know when the world global financial system almost completely melted down.
Can we remember that this all started before Obama became President.
What do you think he should have done in hindsight?
Let GM go? The dirtiest little secret of course among many things is that the financial division of GM was global, with it's dirty little fingers in the ponzi scheme of Bernie Maddoff via Ezra Merkin.
It is to laugh that the supply sider in chief.... Art Laffer..... is whining about inflation. What a joke. He is the preacher of the mantra deficits don't matter and that debt is seen as investment. Just make more stuff than folks will buy, because supply creates demand. I guess GM elites followed his model.
The folks that put out these 'facts and figures' are the same folks that enabled the financial crises...... Now they say the sky is falling and inflation is going to kill us all.
Supporting GM supports America, but these traitorous supply siders would rather see GM fail and workers be penniless, because you know the free market solution is always better. Except that how we got into this fricking mess in the first place.
Of course according to the Laffers of the world it is 'the unions' that must have caused this mess somehow. God forbid America might support it's workers, at the expense of a CEO getting a 30 million dollar bonus for putting his company in the sh*tcan.
I think it is a rotten shame that folks aren't interested in shutting up and quit screaming our countries government is stiffing freedom and start making a sacrifice for their country, by supporting American manufacturing, and supporting the President in his efforts to bring us out of a crises.
I'm only half stupid
asdf
No president gets to start with a clean slate; regardless of when or who or why it started, it's Obama's problem now.
Should he have let GM go? I've already covered that
in detail.
Economists frequently disagree. I found Laffer's to be the starkest POV yet. But as I don't follow all the economists' chatter, I don't know where his opinion stands in the spectrum of speculation nor whether current data is more supportive of his take on the situation than previously. But I venture to guess that you don't either :-)
The rest of your comment just sounds like you're venting.
asdq
You asked for an opinion. You got mine.
My feeling, is I think it is unAmerican for folks to not support GM. It is our manufacturing base.
Do you think this country could be great without one? Obviously so.
It's Obama's problem, as if it isn't the countries problem?
This country, though you think I am engaging in rank hyperbole was on the verge of a total economic meltdown.
If lending freezes, stuff as in, product doesn't move. If lending freezes, payroll doesn't get met. If lending freezes, orders don't get paid for. Much shipping and trading would have stopped.... no lending to keep it going.
No one knows what what have happened if no bailouts had happened. Everyone can speculate.
You speculate that we would have all been fine. No biggie. I speculate that you are way off base.
Now that the vaunted stock market has stablized, and lending is coming back on line, everyone starts bitching.
Some economists even think that we should be grateful that the bank system was rescued. Shocking! Imagine that! ! Being grateful that the economy didn't freeze up. Is this a concept beyond everyone's imagination? Or has it be beaten out of consciousness by teabaggers and vigilantes who portray our government as 'the great satan'.
I am venting, because it bugs the hell out of me, that people think that letting GM go would have been dandy, as if at this time, with the conditions as they are, losing all those jobs, including second and third hand suppliers, would have been 'what those damn union folks deserve' and great for America.
As for the big inflation scare, if we as a country would pull together, we have lots of opportunities to start growing our economy with an eye on the future. As Adam has pointed out, the way the US accounts for it's debt, the big scary numbers are not the doom and gloom that budget fear mongers forecast. Are we even sure how these 'economists' come to these conclusions? I don't think so.
This country needs a government that functions well, and I am sick to death of people trashing our government as if was the second coming of the soviet union.
The President is actually trying to get our broken capitalist system back on line, otherwise he would have nationalized the banks. It would be nice if folks would stop shrieking that the world is gonna end because of government. It's not.
I'm only half stupid
There's no 'win' here politically.
No matter what the administration had done, it would be either too little or too much. If the economy recovers it will be despite the administration's efforts. If the economy tanks it will be due to the administration's efforts. If the auto manufacturers fail despite the bailout it will be the administration's fault. If the auto manufacturers succeed in turning things around they would have succeeded even faster without government intervention. That's how it works.
Did we just dodge a global economic collapse and a global depression? Who knows?
The US does have a strategic interest in GM, though. Allowing GM to fail would affect national security. To the extent that this is true it's not a simple market issue, though I'm personally on the fence about bankruptcy. It's definitely complicated -- too complicated for a pat response.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Thank You
For folks who watch soap operas and don't pay attention that lean democrat, they are aware that this is not Obama's fault. He is just trying to fix what is broken.
I agree it's a no win. I would like the President to emphasize a little more loudly that 'we are all in this together', and that though it's not perfect we averted a crises that was enormous in scale, because it would have affected us, and foreign countries.
Many countries are willing to give the US the benefit of the doubt, simply because Obama is President. Many were pissed at the US for bragging about how great the US financial system was, exporting the creative financing, and then having it break their banks.
A lot of lending is still off line as far as the very poor third world countries where political unrest could become a national security issue.
I am glad that you get it.
I'm only half stupid
I'd put the companies out of business
the grunt workers can work for the government system. The executives can go hang.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
More generally
as someone else noted, you could make the broad statement that liberals are drawn to different professions than conservatives. I would make the general statement that liberals are more drawn to socially oriented professions, whereas conservatives are more drawn to business oriented professions.
I would posit that teachers are more often liberals than conservatives simply because of the nature of the people that are drawn to that profession.
The owner of a restaurant would, more likely be a conservative, while the people that work there would more likely be liberals. Just as a very general statement.
I'm only half stupid
Agree
I was indeed speaking in generalities and not placing a value on either position. In fact, I think a healthy nation needs a balance, because we as a people desire neither anarchy nor totalitarianism, but a functional society. Sometimes rules are needed, and sometimes they are not.
I just find it interesting that liberals, who in general love to throw the charge of "authoritarian!" at conservatives, do tend to display this need for specific rules more frequently than conservatives do. IMHO.
Teachers unions, another prime example. Rules rules rules rules, because gawd forbid one single solitary teacher be fired unfairly. Therefore, we have excessive rules in place to insure no teachers get fired. Teachers unions lack balance.
I don't accept your premise
that liberals are (more) authoritarian than conservatives.
The policies they advocate are generally that the authority itself 'the big boss' be even handed and fair.
Conservatives would say fairness promotes the weak and the weak should not be rewarded.
The definition of authoritarian uses the word illiberal.
A bureaucracy is the administration of the protocols that could enforce either fairness or repressive draconian measures, as an example.
One could consider any law, whether it be to enforce fairness in hiring or to enforce a state religion to be authoritarian.
I'm only half stupid
Good to hear
from you. Glad you got a job.
Stop in more often.
I'm only half stupid
It's funny. Obama's Dept of Justice ferociously backs up the
Defense of Marriage Act (blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-defense-of-marriage-act-that-candidate-obama-opposed.html
) and you don't hear a peep out of conservatives saying they like what Obama's doing.
They can't say it. It sticks in their craw. The words, they won't come out. If Rush were to say that, his head would explode.
Meh..
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
That's not what they said in Federal Court yesterday.
Just sayin', that's all.
Curiously, I still hear crickets over what the Justice Dept put forth from the right. I swear, they won't support their own causes if it doesn't come from their own boys. Spoiled whiney children....that's what the current leadership of conservative republicans consists of. Here they get a government to do their discriminatory bidding and they refuse to credit it.
In looking at the elections in Iran, there's a paralell to US
elections. I find it strangely satisfying to compare the two camps in Iran to us here in the US.
The current and apparently President elect, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad represents local conservatism. He pushes a strict conservative approach vs. his challenger, the apparent loser Mir Hossein Mousavi who is portrayed as being more a pragmatist and moderate.
The paralells? Ahmadinejad puts religious police on the streets making sure women dress 'appropriately'. He only recognises the more conservative religious leaders as the true representation of religion. Who does that sound like? If I were to make a comparison, I would say that is an exact copy of the religious right and the Republican party here in the US. Seriously.
In contrast the more moderate, but still conservative (by US standards) Mousavi is much more a Democrat. No, not a liberal Democrat, more like a blue dog Democrat. He could have been Clinton or Obama except he lost and they didn't.
Mind you, Iranians are a conservative people. I know many including christians, jews & muslims as Northern Cali has a large population. And that is another thing I find funny. Here you have a conservative party, the Republicans, and they spend more time alienating their natural members by making media demons of latinos, arabs & persians. I mean I understand some in the party expect that only white christian conservatives will dominate the discourse and be the public face of the party. Their dismay is that other white christians don't share their views. So what do the conservatives do? They castigate the other white christians as not being true believers and use the other nationalities as their public whipping boys. Just like Ahmadinejad.
It makes no sense at all till you see them for what they are. Control freaks & xenophobes.
The intellectual shortcomings of the neocons
is on full display for all to see. They are rooting for the status quo and hope that Ahmadinejad stays in power.
How can you make Iran the most arch enemy if power changes hands. The neocons love the anti_Israeli rhetoric spewed from Ahmadeinejad. If Iran mellows, how will the neocons continue to advocate for another of their 'beautiful wars'.
Mike Rubin form AEI is pulling hard for the short Iranian guys win.
http://wonkette.com/409143/neocons-pulling-hard-for-ahmadinejad
I'm only half stupid