but conservatism is all about money which, in turn, excludes minorities from many opportunities. that's what capitalism is all about - making as much money as you can for yourself and your friends. what positive qualities would you say that conservatism has, anyway? none, except for rewarding entrepreneurs with huge money.

The discussion on Reagan misses the mark. Reagan himself said it best: "I didn't leave the Democrat party, the Democrat Party left me." Reagan supported civil rights, labor unions, and FDR. However, his experience with Communists in Hollywood made him an anti-communist. Further, liberalism in the 1960s was quite different from liberalism of the 1930s. Most democrats in the 1930s were patriotic, religious, and pro-life. In the 50s/60s the left became more extreme and less patriotic, so people like Reagan became "conservatives."

Agree BigM.
Alot of both sides is corporate manipulation and power ideology.
Classical liberalism gets a bad name from alot of people on the left today.

Quoting rcocean: The discussion on Reagan misses the mark. Reagan himself said it best:

"I didn't leave the Democrat party, the Democrat Party left me."

Reagan supported civil rights, labor unions, and FDR. However, his experience with Communists in Hollywood made him an anti-communist. Further, liberalism in the 1960s was quite different from liberalism of the 1930s. Most democrats in the 1930s were patriotic, religious, and pro-life. In the 50s/60s the left became more extreme and less patriotic, so people like Reagan became "conservatives."

Come on, nobody on this board is going to buy bullshit like that. Reagan himself was pretty open about getting rich and paying higher taxes making him conservative, especially after his acting career fizzled out and he became a spokesman for General Electric.

Quoting rcocean: ...However, his experience with Communists in Hollywood made him an anti-communist...

You mean his status as a turncoat and a rat for the HUAC. He should have been deeply ashamed of his role in that travesty; and you ought to speak with far less pride in his cowardly snitching.

Such a microscopic understanding of conservatism. It's the same brand of ideology that pervaded the msm coverage of the tea parties, casting them as racist and extremist. Also love the 'rat' talk from the revisionist history buffs. Good thing the Venona papers are around to correct the fellow travelers. Best article written about someone else who 'ratted': The Rehabilitation Of Elia Kazan

Quoting harkin: Such a microscopic understanding of conservatism. It's the same brand of ideology that pervaded the msm coverage of the tea parties, casting them as racist and extremist.

Also love the 'rat' talk from the revisionist history buffs. Good thing the Venona papers are around to correct the fellow travelers.

Best article written about someone else who 'ratted':

The Rehabilitation Of Elia Kazan

Revisionism?

In 1947, as SAG president, Reagan testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee regarding the influence of communists in the motion picture industry. Strongly opposed to communism, he reaffirmed his commitment to democratic principles, stating, "I never as a citizen want to see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this group, that we ever compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or resentment." During this time, he was a secret FBI informant, using his position to provide the FBI with information on actors who he believed to be communist sympathizers.

Reagan's testimony.

Quoting rcocean: The discussion on Reagan misses the mark. Reagan himself said it best:

"I didn't leave the Democrat party, the Democrat Party left me."

Actually, I believe what he said was:

I didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic Party left me.

Say what you will about Reagan; at least he was above juvenile slurs. I have also heard it said that a much more important factor driving Reagan's change in ideology was the property tax bill he got when he bought a ranch in California.

Great interview, Jane, and great answers, Kim. I enjoyed listening to this very much. I look forward to reading Invisible Hands.

Quoting BigM: This is astonishing - two leftists trying to talk themselves into believing that there's nothing to conservatism but bigotry and corporate manipulation.

I think you're exaggerating Jane and Kim's point of view at least as much as you accuse them of. I did not hear them claim that there was "nothing to conservatism but bigotry and corporate manipulation." I heard them talking about how the conservative movement was organized, funded, and built popular appeal by various groups and people. Not the same thing at all.

Quoting harkin: Such a microscopic understanding of conservatism.

I don't think they were trying to discuss all of conservatism. Rather, it seemed to me, the focus was on the development of infrastructure and the clarification and publication of ideas that created a political force. To that end, I thought the description was fairly wide-ranging.

It's the same brand of ideology that pervaded the msm coverage of the tea parties, casting them as racist and extremist.

This seems utterly paranoid and wrong-headed. I will agree that there were some stories that focused on the crazies at the rallies who thrust themselves in front of the cameras. This always happens when the media cover protests -- it makes for good teevee and artwork. More generally, the coverage I saw in, say, the NYT was pretty even-handed. For example, here is a straight report, here is a slideshow, here is a piece from the Media section that criticizes both sides of the cable TV coverage, and here is a survey of blog coverage, meant to show a range of views. I should also ask whether or not you consider Fox News part of the MSM.

Interesting discussion. Kim brought up some of the heavy hitters in the conservative movement. Being a Californian the most compelling seems to be Ronald Reagen. Of course, the republican party is much weaker now than when he was at it's helm. The diavloggers brought up the descendancy of free market ideology with this current economic crisis and justifiably so. I wonder since they didn't address it is what will replace it? Bigger government and smaller capitalism? I just don't know. The big question to me is do the people want to finance a larger government which is needed to support a social contract that was not delivered by the invisible hand. Here in California I think the jury is out on that one. The state is raising taxes during a recession and I am unsure of the consensus for these measures put through by the legislatures and governor. The upcoming special election next month where they want to take money from programs like mental health and child services among others to help with the state's deficit will be telling how much the electorate goes along with

Quoting harkin: It's the same brand of ideology that pervaded the msm coverage of the tea parties, casting them as racist and extremist.

A further dispute of this idea, in addition to what I offered earlier, comes from Freedom Works’ press secretary Adam Brandon, who was interviewed (second segment) for this week's On The Media. Among other things he said, he repeatedly pronounced himself very pleased with the media coverage. (Freedom Works, for anyone who does not already know, was one of the principle organizers of the rallies.)

Quoting harkin: ...

Best article written about someone else who 'ratted':

The Rehabilitation Of Elia Kazan

Wow. I just read that article. Do you really think that supports your point?

Yet Kazan saw his reputation savaged in a witch hunt--not the infamous hunt for Communists in Hollywood, but the later and far more destructive unofficial inquisition loosed against anti-Communists.

My head spins. What "destructive unofficial inquisition loosed against anti-Communists?" You mean the inquisition directed against people like President Ronald Reagan? All those careers destroyed! All those lives cut short! What a complete and utter load of stinking horse-shit.

In 1954, Kazan cast Brando in "On the Waterfront," which took a bouquet of Oscars including best director. From the beginning, Kazan made clear that the film--about a union member who defies peer pressure and chooses to testify against labor racketeers--was inspired by his own decision to speak out. "A story about man's duty to society" was the description he offered the press.

Communist Party members = labor racketeers. There's a moral equivalence to be remembered. For the record, Kazan was a great director. Too bad he was such a moral coward.

from Michelle Malkin's site, a video of a speech given by Katrina Pierson in Dallas on April 15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV6bN...layer_embedded "If I had my way, Texas would close the borders and secede from the nation ..." < loud cheers from the crowd> "we can let those parasitic societies feed on themselves ..." "I came from the side of the tracks that most people forget about ...." "It was a welfare kind of ordeal. I had a less than functional childhood. My father was black, my mother was white. She had me at fifteen. ..." "When I was 22 I found myself at a crossroads. I had two choices. Choice number 1, I could have very easily chosen welfare. I could have sat home and had all you good people pay my bills, pay for my child. That is pretty much the road that everyone I knew took." "I had friends who had nice things, that had intact families. I decided I was going to go with choice number 2. ..." "I stand here today with 2 college degrees ..." "the moral of the story is no government is going to change your life circumstance ..." "we make our choices ourselves and that is the way it is going to stay ..." "we will not be

Quoting bkjazfan: On the national level we are seeing a substantial uptick in government spending and deficits. The next 3 years the CBO has them running over a trillion dollars a year. Not being an economist I don't know if it is bad or good. For a James Galbraith he's say it's doable but if I would ask someone from the Austrian School like Peter Schiff his response would be it's armageddon.

John

John, You are seeing it all for what it is. Yet you are not willing to condemn it. The majority of the people governed by Obama want to be subsidized by the productive minority. Government rewards dependency. It is a ponzi scheme that cant sustain itself.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: from Michelle Malkin's site, a video of a speech given by Katrina Pierson in Dallas on April 15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV6bN...layer_embedded

"If I had my way, Texas would close the borders and secede from the nation ..." < loud cheers from the crowd>

"we can let those parasitic societies feed on themselves ..."

"I came from the side of the tracks that most people forget about ...."

"It was a welfare kind of ordeal. I had a less than functional childhood. My father was black, my mother was white. She had me at fifteen. ..."

"When I was 22 I found myself at a crossroads. I had two choices. Choice number 1, I could have very easily chosen welfare. I could have sat home and had all you good people pay my bills, pay for my child. That is pretty much the road that everyone I knew took."

"I had friends who had nice things, that had intact families. I decided I was going to go with choice number 2. ..."

"I stand here today with 2 college degrees ..."

"the moral of the story is no government is going to change your life circumstance ..."

"we make our choices ourselves and that is the way it is going to stay ..."

"we will not be

Quoting AemJeff: Ten weeks into a Democratic administration and Republican cry-babies are screaming revolution. Oh boy.

Steve reacts with an incoherent screed that links to a perpetually outraged, foam-flecked blogger's approval of the hysteria, but never quite makes a point. Ho-hum.

Funnily enough, as I was reading Steve's original post, I thought that he meant to point out how ludicrously hysterical the conservative movement has become. That is to say: he was posting it as an indictment, not an appeal. Then I saw him close with "well said," and, alas, now "foam-flecked" would be a good way to describe the state of my computer screen: a spit take was in order.

Thanks for the link. I especially liked this quote: "REAGAN: Sir, I detest, I abhor their philosophy, but I detest more than that their tactics, which are those of the fifth column, and are dishonest, but at the same time I never as a citizen want to see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this group, that we ever compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or resentment. I still think that democracy can do it." Truly a great American.

Quoting harkin: Also love the 'rat' talk from the revisionist history buffs. Good thing the Venona papers are around to correct the fellow travelers.

I see a parallel between the condemnation of those that acted to thwart the communists in America and the memory hole destruction of the justifications for the intense interrogation of the captured jihadists post 9/11.

Quoting AemJeff: Ten weeks into a Democratic administration and Republican cry-babies are screaming revolution. Oh boy.

Steve reacts with an incoherent screed that links to a perpetually outraged, foam-flecked blogger's approval of the hysteria, but never quite makes a point. Ho-hum.

Funny how those who spent years accusing reporters and anti-war protesters of "treason" are now openly advocating committing it. Get it through your head, Steve. This is a democracy. You lost an election. It's not the end of the world. Wipe away your tears, stop threatening to take your ball and go home, and get on the ass of those people you call your leaders to do something you can believe in. Stop blaming the majority of the country for choosing to kick your side to the curb for the mess they made while they were in power.

Quoting rcocean: Thanks for the link. I especially liked this quote:

"REAGAN: Sir, I detest, I abhor their philosophy, but I detest more than that their tactics, which are those of the fifth column, and are dishonest, but at the same time I never as a citizen want to see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this group, that we ever compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or resentment. I still think that democracy can do it."

Truly a great American.

I'd love to know what he would have thought of the Bush Administration's many compromises of democratic principles, not to mention their fear-mongering, and what he would say about the endless hyping of resentment on the part of the GOP now.

Quoting AemJeff: Ten weeks into a Democratic administration and Republican cry-babies are screaming revolution. Oh boy.

It is not right that democrats are running skyhigh deficits and tanking the economy. What justification is there for imposing such a staggering debt burden on the minority?

Quoting rcocean: Thanks for the link. I especially liked this quote:

"REAGAN: Sir, I detest, I abhor their philosophy, but I detest more than that their tactics, which are those of the fifth column, and are dishonest, but at the same time I never as a citizen want to see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this group, that we ever compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or resentment. I still think that democracy can do it."

Truly a great American.

Yeah, that was nicely said. You're welcome. Too bad he said it contemporaneously with his status as a covert snitch who had completely compromised democratic principles, and by his actions would destroy the lives and careers of colleagues through fear and resentment and direct state sponsored oppression. Truly a great American.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I see a parallel between the condemnation of those that acted to thwart the communists in America and the memory hole destruction of the justifications for the intense interrogation of the captured jihadists post 9/11.

I see that parallel and raise you a parallel to the condemnation of DHS for acting to secure Americans against fringe fascists and skinheads

The answer to your problems.

Quoting pampl: I see that parallel and raise you a parallel to the condemnation of DHS for acting to secure Americans against fringe fascists and skinheads

only that there is no evidence people are engaged in the activity the DHS is monitoring for. How did Timothy McVie's service in the Army contribute to his radical views and actions? Is the DHS as intent on detecting the next Ted Kaczynski as it is a potential federal government building bomber?

Quoting nikkibong: The answer to your problems.

I dont think so. Canadians have to travel to the US for health care. Better if those inspired by Jefferson get the Mountain West.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: It is not right that democrats are running skyhigh deficits and tanking the economy. What justification is there for imposing such a staggering debt burden on the minority?

Elections matter. How about I say that again: Elections matter. Your side lost and now somebody else has the ball. It's their turn. Quit crying, quit acting like spoiled children, and present a package of ideas to the voters that they approve of. But in the meantime, get over it.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: John,

You are seeing it all for what it is. Yet you are not willing to condemn it. The majority of the people governed by Obama want to be subsidized by the productive minority. Government rewards dependency. It is a ponzi scheme that cant sustain itself.

Steve, Hello! From what little I know living off the government is not exactly a walk in the park. Frankly, I wouldn't want to do it. Ok, it may be a Ponzi scheme but what about farm subsidies, bank bailouts, AIG, automakers, Amtrak, defense contracting, the list is endless. I'm for the one that helps the downtrodden or at least attempts to. Even Robert Nozick changed his mind on that one. John

Quoting AemJeff: Elections matter. How about I say that again: Elections matter. Your side lost and now somebody else has the ball. It's their turn.

You're not responding to the complaints of the tea party particpants. The debt you're government is running up is insurmountable. Why should the minority have to pay the debts of the majority??

Quoting bkjazfan: I'm for the one that helps the downtrodden or at least attempts to.

me too, John. For example, I would take away the legal ability of unions to shutdown companies by forcing workers to join the union and prevent the permanent hiring of replacements. That way manufacturers in the US could be competive against imports and employ more American workers, including the downtrodden.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: You're not responding to the complaints of the tea party particpants. The debt you're government is running up is insurmountable. Why should the minority have to pay the debts of the majority??

I don't care about their concerns. I think those are exaggerated, and mostly based on media demagogues whipping up the gullible. Further, I think the teabaggers need to understand the same message I had for you: Get over it. Elections matter. Your party is out of power and people who don't agree with you are now making decisions. That's the way democracies work. Grow the fuck up.

Quoting bjkeefe: Get it through your head, Steve. This is a democracy. You lost an election. It's not the end of the world. Wipe away your tears, stop threatening to take your ball and go home, ...

The tea party Texans think otherwise. Take your deficit spending and shove it. Katrina gave an awesome speech. She was just as good as Sarah Palin. Once again, Katrina Pierson :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV6bN...layer_embedded

Quoting DenvilleSteve: You're not responding to the complaints of the tea party particpants. The debt you're government is running up is insurmountable. Why should the minority have to pay the debts of the majority??

It's yours to Steve. In fact your posturing is decidedly un-American if not traitorous. You are an enemy of the state. Haven't the DHS reports sufficiently chilled you enough to recognize that your identity and address is already known? Be careful and afraid.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: me too, John. For example, I would take away the legal ability of unions to shutdown companies by forcing workers to join the union and prevent the permanent hiring of replacements. That way manufacturers in the US could be competive against imports and employ more American workers, including the downtrodden.

Steve, I spent 20 years working in non union factories and they all either went broke or offshore. Manufacturing is not coming back and there many reasons why that is so. Granted, GM and Chrysler and perhaps Ford as they are currently constituted are toast. Even Robert Reich acknowledges that one. However, the unions historically have helped the worker get a livable wage and that is commendable. John

Quoting DenvilleSteve: She was just as good as Sarah Palin.

Words fail me.

Quoting kidneystones: Running away from questions, however, isn't liberal or conservative. A seething, deranged, unhinged, citizen journalist attacked Jane at a Tea Party and asked her to provide evidence that the gatherings are organized by Fox News and 'corporate' America. Actually, the chap seemed quite civil. Rather than answer, Jane simply floated away.

I have a feeling your first description was closer to the truth. In any case, she probably didn't feel like being badgered in an unfriendly crowd. Big deal. As to evidence, I have no doubt Jane could have pointed someone she felt it worth engaging to a bunch of it. Start here or here. Some direct from Jane, for example, here, here, and here. Want more? Try here and here.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: only that there is no evidence people are engaged in the activity the DHS is monitoring for. How did Timothy McVie's service in the Army contribute to his radical views and actions? Is the DHS as intent on detecting the next Ted Kaczynski as it is a potential federal government building bomber?

You realize that this reads exactly like every defense of 50s-era communists and 00s-era accused terrorists, right? I don't think the majority should have to give up their security for you and your lunatic cohorts to rant and froth about seceding

Quoting DenvilleSteve: The tea party Texans think otherwise. Take your deficit spending and shove it. Katrina gave an awesome speech. She was just as good as Sarah Palin.

Once again, Katrina Pierson :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV6bN...layer_embedded

What is Katrina Pierson's claim to fame? I have never heard of her. John

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Take your deficit spending and shove it.

And where was your tough talk during the past eight years, when your hero George W. Bush took a budget that was running a surplus and turned it into eight years of borrowing and record-setting annual deficits, resulting in trillions of dollars of debt? Face it. You're just a whiner. You have no actual standards. This "deficit spending" is just some talking point someone told you to say, same as every other teabagger.

Quoting kidneystones: Instapundit, btw, is probably doing more to help the Tea Party movement than Fox, Rupert Murdoch, or Dick Cheney.

I'll tell you what: if you all want to hold up as your champion a guy whose great ideas are to make fun of Janeane Garofalo's looks and to link to pictures of two whole black people allegedly at teabagging rallies to prove "vindication" against the accusation that he's a racist, be my guest. It'll only mean extra decades in the wilderness for your side.

Quoting Thanks, dad!: but conservatism is all about money which, in turn, excludes minorities from many opportunities. that's what capitalism is all about - making as much money as you can for yourself and your friends. what positive qualities would you say that conservatism has, anyway? none, except for rewarding entrepreneurs with huge money.

First of all, how does something exclude minorities even if is is all about money? Second, Conservatism is about more than money (an honest debate, unlike the echo-chamber of this vlog, might show that), such as freedom: the freedom to own a firearm for self-defense; the freedom to not have your land regulated into uselessness; the freedom to associate with whomever you choose. I will grant you that there are freedoms that "the Right" or Republicans fail to protect, like abortion, drugs and sex; and I disagree with them on that. But my point stands: conservativism is not only about money.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Better if those inspired by Jefferson get the Mountain West.

Here is a picture of the President of the United States and people like DenvilleSteve: You want words, too? Matt Taibbi's got 'em. The opening:

Following the Republican Party of late has been a movingly depressing experience, sort of like watching Old Yeller die — if Old Yeller were a worm-infested feral bitch who spent the past eight years biting children at bus stops and shitting in neighborhood swimming pools. As a useful force in American politics, the Republicans have been dead for a while now. But in the seven months since Sarah Palin's nomination, they have taken on an intriguing new role: providing much-needed comic relief during dark times, serving as the unofficial rodeo clowns of the Financial Crisis Era.

The rest. (h/t: watertiger)

sorry, i don't really see any redeeming qualities play out in real life. it's a fantasy.

Quoting AemJeff: Get over it. Elections matter. Your party is out of power and people who don't agree with you are now making decisions. That's the way democracies work. Grow the fuck up.

What DenvilleSteve can't get through his thick head is how intellectually consistent you are. Back in '05 you were telling progressive opponents of the Iraq Occupation the same thing you're telling him now, "SHUT UP, YOU LOST!" You don't just root for your political team members and disregard your opponents' reasoning; this is about principles. And the things you used to call anti-war protesters? I'm surprised Bob didn't put some kind of swear blocker on this site.

Quoting breadcrust: What DenvilleSteve can't get through his thick head is how intellectually consistent you are. Back in '05 you were telling progressive opponents of the Iraq Occupation the same thing you're telling him now, "SHUT UP, YOU LOST!" You don't just root for your political team members and disregard your opponents' reasoning; this is about principles.

And the things you used to call anti-war protesters? I'm surprised Bob didn't put some kind of swear blocker on this site.

You want to try that one on me again? I think there's an attempt to inject heavy irony into this discussion, but the lack of teh funny anywhere in the post leads me to question that. Are you trying to say that if I'm to be consistent I would have needed to jump on the Iraq bandwagon and berate everybody who didn't? I think not. And to the extent that they were screaming Revolution!, I was revolted. Like I said, get over it - organize your side and vote in the next election. But don't whinge about how elected governments that don't do exactly what you personally want them to do are evil and despotic.

Quoting AemJeff: Are you trying to say that if I'm to be consistent I would have needed to jump on the Iraq bandwagon and berate everybody who didn't?

No, but that for you to be consistent, you would have argued that Iraq War protesters in their millions were a bunch of losers who should shut up and win some elections. (And shut their yaps about impeachment.) If I'm wrong, please link to anywhere on the web that you've made an argument of this kind.

Quoting AemJeff: Like I said, get over it - organize your side and vote in the next election. But don't whinge about how elected governments that don't do exactly what you personally want them to do are evil and despotic.

This is exactly what many progressives did throughout the Bush years. Oh, how often his administration was called evil or despotic.

I tried to watch this diavlog. I really did. Despite the fact that it's a couple of lefties basically saying people on the right are led by a cabal of greedy, money-grubbers out to rob the common folk of their birthright. But I just couldn't. And not for any good reason, either: Ms. Hamsher looks uncannily like pictures of my mother from about 40 years ago. I just can't handle it. Ugh, now we get the old trope: People on the right are "anti-democratic" motivated by fear, hatred, resentfulness, etc., etc. And what is the left motivated by? Egalitarianism. "Growth without the stunning rise in inequality..." altruism, etc., etc. I don't dispute the discussants' right to their opinions. I'm just not sure there's anything here for anyone interested in an even-handed or fair-minded discussion of conservatism. To each her own, I guess.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: "If I had my way, Texas would close the borders and secede from the nation ..." < loud cheers from the crowd>

By contrast to Steve's new favorite eight-year-old, here is a grown-up view, from Macon, GA, in the person of Charles E. Richardson:

As upsetting as that stimulus package was, I believe there is another core reason why thousands of people turned out for the 700 or more tea parties held throughout the country — and it had nothing to do with mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren.

During the Ronald Reagan years our debt went from about $85 billion to $255 billion. Not a tea party in sight — as a matter of fact, Reagan is viewed by some as the greatest president of the 20th century.

When Bush 41 took the deficit up to $399 billion during his final year in office, he hailed it as a victory. The year before the deficit hit $432 billion. Still no tea parties.

The Clinton years saw the deficit morph into a $128 billion surplus. No tea parties. No dancing in the streets. No waving of signs and rejoicing that our children’s futures were secure. That’s a good thing because the first

Quoting Lyle: This is exactly what many progressives did throughout the Bush years. Oh, how often his administration was called evil or despotic.

If you honestly believe there is any comparison between what liberals were protesting about Bush and what the teabaggers and wingnuts have been going on about since the day Obama took office, there is no hope for you. Just because you can hold up one thing in one hand and another thing in the other doesn't mean you get to say, "Look! Same!" Bush started a war, dropped the ball on it, started another war based on lies, severely damaged a number of departments in the Executive branch with his ideology including Justice and the EPA, let an American city drown, bankrupted the country, and wiped his ass with the Constitution. Just to name a few. Obama has proposed a very mild tax raise on the richest Americans (still way less than what they paid under Reagan) and he is trying his best to implement the agenda he ran and won on, while cleaning up all the messes Bush left. He has been in office three months, and you

Quoting Lyle: This is exactly what many progressives did throughout the Bush years. Oh, how often his administration was called evil or despotic.

Putting aside whether this description is accurate or not: do you think DS should aspire to act that way? Should his role model for political behavior be people who called Bush despotic? It seems misguided to me to spend your time mirroring what you revile in other people.

Quoting breadcrust: No, but that for you to be consistent, you would have argued that Iraq War protesters in their millions were a bunch of losers who should shut up and win some elections. (And shut their yaps about impeachment.) If I'm wrong, please link to anywhere on the web that you've made an argument of this kind.

Why? To please you? First show me the analogy between Iraq war protesters and teabaggers. By which I mean show me the calls for revolution, the political leaders drooling over the idea secession amongst them. What I recall is that they did exactly what I said the teabaggers ought to do - they organized and won the next two elections - remember 2006 and 2008? Those elections surely mattered. Please tell me how exactly I'm wrong here, I'm dying to know.

Quoting Lyle: This is exactly what many progressives did throughout the Bush years. Oh, how often his administration was called evil or despotic.

See my reply to Breadcrust. The analogy is crap. Go ahead and call Obama "evil" and "despotic." Tell me how that works for you.

Quoting pampl: You realize that this reads exactly like every defense of 50s-era communists and 00s-era accused terrorists, right? I don't think the majority should have to give up their security for you and your lunatic cohorts to rant and froth about seceding

please point out how the security of the democrats is threatened by any source other than the traditional ones - Chavez/Castro/Ortega/Evo, Iran, Islamic jihadist, Russia, China/NK.

Quoting bjkeefe: Here is a picture of the President of the United States and people like DenvilleSteve

If you dont like the push back, get your administration to moderate itself. If Obama wants to pal around with Chavez, he should also have a publicized meeting with some of the oppressed producers in Venezuela. The drive bys dont ask, so I dont know. Does Obama think Chavez is good for the people of Venezuela?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: please point out how the security of the democrats is threatened by any source other than the traditional ones - Chavez/Castro/Ortega/Evo, Iran, Islamic jihadist, Russia, China/NK.

By crazed wackos with guns and idiot Governors whipping them up for a revolt.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: If you dont like the push back, get your administration to moderate itself. If Obama wants to pal around with Chavez, he should also have a publicized meeting with some of the oppressed producers in Venezuela. The drive bys dont ask, so I dont know. Does Obama think Chavez is good for the people of Venezuela?

Here is an attempt at feeling your pain... Do you just need coddling?:
Klein on Tea

The Teabaggers are not necessarily opposing the specifics of Barack Obama's fiscal policy. They're opposing Barack Obama's fiscal policy in context of Barack Obama's broader philosophy. The stimulus and bailouts and tax policy are the parts of that philosophy that are happening right now, but they're not the whole of what's scaring the protesters. It's entirely possible that if John McCain was gravely explaining the need to nationalize the banks and build up our infrastructure to better compete with China, these same people would be nodding along. At the end of the day, they don't trust Barack Obama, and they're faced with the fact that his presidency began at a transformative moment that allows him to act

Quoting graz: Here is an attempt at feeling your pain... Do you just need coddling?:
Klein on Tea

I feel abused. I actually wasted 2 minutes of my life reading that. I assumed the Klein who authored the piece was Joe. People actually read and link to Ezra Klein? incredible.

Quoting AemJeff: Why? To please you? First show me the analogy between Iraq war protesters and teabaggers. By which I mean show me the calls for revolution, the political leaders drooling over the idea secession amongst them. What I recall is that they did exactly what I said the teabaggers ought to do - they organized and won the next two elections - remember 2006 and 2008? Those elections surely mattered. Please tell me how exactly I'm wrong here, I'm dying to know.

Are you trying to say that if I'm to be consistent I would have needed to jump on the Iraq bandwagon and berate everybody who didn't? I think not. And to the extent that they were screaming Revolution!, I was revolted.

Your words, AemJeff. I came across plenty of Bush-haters who screamed about revolution, impeachment on any grounds, and moving to Canada. My guess is that you never wrote anything like:

Get over it. Elections matter. Your party is out of power and people who don't agree with you are now making decisions. That's the way democracies work. Grow the fuck up.

to any of them, which is why you can't spend the thirty seconds it takes to link. You're just the obverse of the

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I feel abused. I actually wasted 2 minutes of my life reading that. I assumed the Klein who authored the piece was Joe. People actually read and link to Ezra Klein? incredible.

Well, at least you have a sense of humor. There's hope we can stanch the secession yet. For better or worse... we're in this together. I love the Mountain West... You can't have it without a fight.

Quoting breadcrust: Your words, AemJeff. I came across plenty of Bush-haters who screamed about revolution, impeachment on any grounds, and moving to Canada. My guess is that you never wrote anything like:

to any of them, which is why you can't spend the thirty seconds it takes to link. You're just the obverse of the right-wingers who responded to any reasoned argument about Bush with "Support the troops!"

You keep arguing by posing a hypothesis of what I may or may not have done or said in the past. The analogy you stake your arguments on is flawed, and based on a misunderstanding of what I've said. Your presumption that I have something to prove to you hasn't instilled in me a feeling of obligation towards your request - particularly since you don't seem to have bothered to understand what I said in the first place. You want to have a teabag party? Go right ahead. You want to complain that elected governments that aren't doing your particular bidding are despotic? You're an idiot. You want to threaten secession two and half months into an Administration run by a party not your own? Go fuck

Quoting AemJeff: You keep arguing by posing a hypothesis of what I may or may not have done or said in the past.

True. I've only heard you tell non-fans of Obama to shut up because they are political losers, even though you've apparently told the same to Revolution! screamers during the Bush years but are unwilling to link.

The analogy you stake your arguments on is flawed, and based on a misunderstanding of what I've said.

Are you talking about the obverse coin analogy?

Your presumption that I have something to prove to you hasn't instilled in me a feeling of obligation towards your request - particularly since you don't seem to have bothered to understand what I said in the first place.

No one misunderstands you, AemJeff. You're not being mysterious or complicated. You don't have to feel obligated. Take it easy. If you can't or won't answer a simple request, that's fine. I'll just assume I'm right. And if you don't feel like responding to this, I'll understand that, too.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: If you dont like the push back, get your administration to moderate itself.

You bitters are not doing "push back" in any meaningful or adult way. All you are doing is screaming at the top of your lungs the things you are told to, by the pseudo-populists who are taking advantage of you. You all are having a temper tantrum because the man in the White House is everything you are not: smart, cool, worldly, sophisticated, and for too many of you, black. That you can spout a couple of talking points to put a gloss of rationality on your childishness fools no one. Threats of secession, because you're suddenly not getting everything you want? Please. And sorry, Steve, but as far as I'm concerned, the only complaint I have with Obama is when he's too moderate. I can tolerate some of this from him under the assumption that he's still trying his best to appeal to the saner people on the right, and unlike his predecessor, actually trying to govern for the whole country, but I am hardly going to encourage him to go further in that direction. Particularly to appease those holding a point of view

Quoting breadcrust: True. I've only heard you tell non-fans of Obama to shut up because they are political losers, even though you've apparently told the same to Revolution! screamers during the Bush years but are unwilling to link.

Are you talking about the obverse coin analogy?

No one misunderstands you, AemJeff. You're not being mysterious or complicated. You don't have to feel obligated. Take it easy. If you can't or won't answer a simple request, that's fine. I'll just assume I'm right. And if you don't feel like responding to this, I'll understand that, too.

You obviously misunderstand, or maybe just pick and choose which aspects of what someone says to pay attention to, and which to ignore. Thanks, by the way, for trying to put words into my mouth. And please feel free to declare victory. You've earned it.

she was "raised on welfare". ok . so we have government handouts to thank for the fact that she actually got enough nutrition so her brain and body could fully develop. not to mention a public education to further develop that brain. she went to college. excellent! good choice! are we suppposed to believe she didn't get a single pell grant or stafford loan, or heaven forbid! profit from affirmative action or diversity programs? her whole story is a story about why it is important to have a social safety net!! yet she sits there and just wants to feel superior to some others that have not made as much of their opportunities instead of being grateful for getting opportunities she would never have if the people she supports had more power. people like that just disgust me.

Steve newsflash - its YOUR government too!

Quoting DenvilleSteve: ... Does Obama think Chavez is good for the people of Venezuela?

Chavez gives as good as He gets... At least to us.

A lot of liberals saw President Bush as an actual despot, king, or fascist... so yes, some liberals were crazy wrong. There were even people who actually thought President Bush wouldn't ever leave office. The war also wasn't based on lies. There was all kinds of intelligence saying that Saddam Hussein had unaccounted for WMD. You must not have watched any of Bob Kagan's diavlogs. I also like the Obama Presidency so far, especially in regards to foreign policy.

Just like people could call President Bush a despot, people can President Obama names too. Fair is fair. I mean, Bjkeefe has called Obama a homophobe already, because Obama doesn't personally support gay marriage. I'm not Denville, but the fact that I don't engage is such rhetoric probably tells you what I think about it.

Haha... I don't think President Obama is despotic or evil. Partisan hate goes both ways though. If Bush can be name called, so can Obama. Fair is fair.

Quoting popcorn_karate: Steve

newsflash - its YOUR government too!

Any government of mine would not let its guard down re: intense questioning of known terrorists. Esp when such interrogations have succeeded in interdicting attacks in progress. Obama would actually allow a 9/11 type plot to go undetected rather than wall one of the plotters until he talks. Incredible. I think a case can be made that republican people are being singled out by the democrats for oppression. Mocking of their protest gatherings by the mass media and elite society. Unwarranted monitoring of individuals by the DHS. Threats of criminal prosecutions of those who act on the instructions of the president in republican administrations. -Steve

Quoting Lyle: Haha... I don't think President Obama is despotic or evil.

How do we explain his refusal to allow intense questioning of captured terror plotters? It is not right that innocent people have to die because government officials are not willing to use legitimate questioning techniques that have been demonstrated to be necessary and effective. Obama is either a disfunctional idealogue or without the intellect to do his job.

from an InstaPundit link to an IBD story:
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArtic...25121571147529 The hope of republicans is that Obama has seen the light and will push for Columbia to be recognized as a free trade partner with the US. Yes, inact trade barriers with China so it cannot finance deficit spending by the democrats. But there is no reason for any trade tarrifs and restrictions between the US and countries in the Americas.

Quoting DenvilleSteve:
Yes, inact trade barriers with China so it cannot finance deficit spending by the democrats. But there is no reason for any trade tarrifs and restrictions between the US and countries in the Americas.

You mean besides Venezuela, right? I thought the wingnut hive mind had determined that Chavez was the next Hitler

How are abortion, drugs, and sex rights?

That's a little harsh Denville. Clearly he's intelligent enough to do the job. You can't point to any examples of innocent people dying because of not being able to interrogate people in an aggressive manner. It's just not that cut and dry. He is killing lots of Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan though, and there's some people who would argued that that's against international law, i.e., a war crime. If Obama listened to people who believe such, and packed up operations in Iraq and Afghanistan from day one, I'd have some serious worries about Obama, but he as much a warmonger as President Bush... so I appreciate his idealism and realism. The Taliban and Qaeda are playing the Comanche to Obama's Buffalo Soldier... he's kicking their butts on to some kind of Taliban reservation in Pakistan. al Qaeda and the Taliban are like America's Carthage too... and Obama is not shirking from his responsibility to annihilate them yet.

that is the right to privacy, cmr.

Just to be clear, I don't know what you mean when you say that the right to use drugs comes from the right to privacy. Are you saying this is how the Constitution should be interpreted, such that people should be allowed to use whatever drugs they want, owing to the right to privacy? Or are you saying that this is why certain people are allowed to use certain drugs (e.g., doctors' patients are allowed to use regulated drugs if they have a prescription). If you think that the right to privacy grants the use of any drug you want, then all judges have misinterpreted that right, which seems unlikely. If, on the other hand, you grant that the right to privacy only allows the use of certain drugs, then it might similarly allow abortion only in suitably restricted circumstances, and it might allow for certain kinds of sex-act and not others (e.g., necrophilia, bestiality, pedophilia, incest).

Quoting Bobby G: Just to be clear, I don't know what you mean when you say that the right to use drugs comes from the right to privacy. Are you saying this is how the Constitution should be interpreted, such that people should be allowed to use whatever drugs they want, owing to the right to privacy? Or are you saying that this is why certain people are allowed to use certain drugs (e.g., doctors' patients are allowed to use regulated drugs if they have a prescription).

If you think that the right to privacy grants the use of any drug you want, then all judges have misinterpreted that right, which seems unlikely. If, on the other hand, you grant that the right to privacy only allows the use of certain drugs, then it might similarly allow abortion only in suitably restricted circumstances, and it might allow for certain kinds of sex-act and not others (e.g., necrophilia, bestiality, pedophilia, incest).

I think adding pedophilia to that list of sex acts weakens your argument. Whatever the merits of the privacy argument (and I'm a strong advocate of the view that says privacy has indeed been misinterpreted and

yes , like all rights there are limits. i think roe v wade and the repeal of the sodomy laws in texas etc. were based on the right to privacy, so that covers abortion and sex. I also think that all the judges that have ever sentenced anybody for ingesting any substance were sacrificing the constitution for instrumental ends. obviously I am still in the minority on this opinion.

I'm not so sure how much in the minority you really are. I mean the last 3 presidents were all druggies with out the courage of their convictions to rescind prohibition.

Yeah, you're right, I shouldn't have added pedophilia. That said, there is a legitimate debate over the age-of-consent, but I suppose that doesn't really have to do with privacy.

Quoting popcorn_karate: yes , like all rights there are limits.

i think roe v wade and the repeal of the sodomy laws in texas etc. were based on the right to privacy, so that covers abortion and sex.

I also think that all the judges that have ever sentenced anybody for ingesting any substance were sacrificing the constitution for instrumental ends. obviously I am still in the minority on this opinion.

To be honest, I don't really know what the right to privacy is. Obviously, it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but perhaps there's a principle specifically enumerated in the Constitution from which it stems. That said, what is the right to privacy, on your understanding? I'm guessing it's something like the right to pursue your projects without interference from others (just so long as your projects don't interfere with others' rights), where "interference" includes others forcibly stopping you (I guess that's battery, right?), plausibly threatening you with force (assault), or even learning about what you're doing when you don't want them to and where you have legitimate grounds for thinking you've taken precautions about being found out. If that's the right to privacy, though, isn't it just entailed

Colonies had banned alcohol before the Constitution was written, so I think if substance use was intended to be protected as a right it would have been written in explicitly. There's an obvious case to be made that it ought to be in the Constitution, but I don't understand the argument that it's already there.

I don't know if it was purposeful or not but your mention of the Commerce Clause is spot on. It is this clause and the interpretations of Commerce Clause cases during and subsequent to FDR time that has created so much havoc and conflict with the principals of the 10th amendment and the curtailment of rights and freedoms of individuals. It is time Commerce Clause jurisprudence is reviewed in light of the more recent finding of a right to privacy.

thanks

Quoting Bobby G: To be honest, I don't really know what the right to privacy is. Obviously, it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but perhaps there's a principle specifically enumerated in the Constitution from which it stems.

That said, what is the right to privacy, on your understanding? I'm guessing it's something like the right to pursue your projects without interference from others (just so long as your projects don't interfere with others' rights), where "interference" includes others forcibly stopping you (I guess that's battery, right?), plausibly threatening you with force (assault), or even learning about what you're doing when you don't want them to and where you have legitimate grounds for thinking you've taken precautions about being found out.

If that's the right to privacy, though, isn't it just entailed by the rights the Constitution enumerates?

the constitution does not give the federal government(explicitly) the right to regulate anything I ingest. therefore it is a right left to the states or the people. The constitution provides the limits of federal power, not the limits or listings of the rights of the people. This is a fundamentally important issue to get correct.

Quoting Bobby G: EDIT: also, I should think that the commerce clause would

I second that, piscivorous!

From the top of the head on privacy and the Constitution - Since privacy was pretty much a given at the time the Constitution was written it is not really surprising that it isn't enumerated as a specific case. Governments had nothing like today's ability to monitor your conversations, track your every commercial exchange, your location, your associations, and so on. Some capability certainly but nothing like today, and if you wanted to have a private conversation a simple walk around the yard would suffice. Issues that were more contemporary recieved more specific treatment unsurprisingly, and otherwise the treatment of rights was more general. Written today, a constitution might, I would hope, be more specific about privacy rights and constraints on government power over the citizenry but would likely not specifically prohibit quartering troops in private homes. The latter just isn't something that would likely come to mind due to changes in circumstances and practices. As to Constitutional specifics that imply privacy, consider the Fourth Ammendment limiting search and seizure. Courts have rather erased these protections in favor of authoritarian convenience, but the security of one's person and property from

All good points, Cragger, but I still wonder: what is the right to privacy above and beyond the provisions mentioned in the fourth and fifth amendments? One can infer a right to privacy, I suppose (though going from a right against search and seizure to a right to have an abortion seems inobvious to me), but why does one need to infer to a whole right? Another way of putting my question is: Is the "right to privacy" just shorthand for all those parts of the Constitution that allow for certain kinds of privacy (in which case there's no special privacy besides the kinds of privacy that follow from the 1st, 4th, 5th amendments, etc.), or is it a right above and beyond the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments, that gives protections not granted by those amendments?

The constitution provides the limits of federal power, not the limits or listings of the rights of the people.
I think you may be fundamentally misunderstanding this.

This gets into the question of interpretation of the Constitution. In broad areas like this, we all tend to start with our impulses and then construct arguments to fit them. My inclinations are similar to PK's here, I view the Constitution as providing the basic structure for the government and setting out limits on that government. I like to interpret civil rights expansively, and consider that government should be restricted to those functions that are widely agreed to be best performed collectively, and for which we widely agree to cede certain powers to the government. For what little it is worth, I would argue that this was also the intent of the framers given that they had just gone to the trouble of casting off the yoke of a government that they found sufficiently opressive as to spur them into rebellion. Hardly seems worth the trouble if they intended that government be free to do pretty much whatever it liked with few limitations. Note that there is nothing about this expansive take on individual rights that necessarily says anything about the size and scope

Quoting DenvilleSteve: The tea party Texans think otherwise.

A video response with which I find myself sorely tempted to agree.

Quoting pampl: You mean besides Venezuela, right? I thought the wingnut hive mind had determined that Chavez was the next Hitler

Correction: Chavez is the CURRENT Hitler!!! Also, the current Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman Mao.

Quoting TwinSwords: Correction: Chavez is the CURRENT Hitler!!!

Also, the current Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman Mao.

Hey! Quit taking away all of Obama's titles.

Quoting bjkeefe: A video response with which I find myself sorely tempted to agree.

That was fantastic. Thanks.

Quoting bjkeefe: Hey! Quit taking away all of Obama's titles.

ROFL. Maybe we could just say that Obama is the new Chavez and then via the Transitive Property of Wingnut Lunacy, Obama = Stalin?!?1!? And don't forget: Obama also gets to be Mugabe.

Quoting bjkeefe: A video response with which I find myself sorely tempted to agree.

That is awesome. I think we have the makings of an agreement!

Quoting TwinSwords: ROFL.

Maybe we could just say that Obama is the new Chavez and then via the Transitive Property of Wingnut Lunacy, Obama = Stalin?!?1!?

And don't forget: Obama also gets to be Mugabe.

Just checking. Chavez, Mugabe and Stalin - they are bad, right?

Quoting piscivorous: I don't know if it was purposeful or not but your mention of the Commerce Clause is spot on. It is this clause and the interpretations of Commerce Clause cases during and subsequent to FDR time that has created so much havoc and conflict with the principals of the 10th amendment and the curtailment of rights and freedoms of individuals. It is time Commerce Clause jurisprudence is reviewed in light of the more recent finding of a right to privacy.

I think the time is right for another constitutional convention. It is dysfunctional to have 40% of the country believing in the free market system and the remainder wanting government involvement in everything. I think individuals should be able to opt out of large scale government and the tax obligations to fund it. That would be things like health care, social security, unemployment insurance, schooling, investment banking and car manufacture. But if this individual opt out is not permitted, then allow individual states to opt all of their citizens out, replacing with state versions of those programs.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: That is awesome. I think we have the makings of an agreement!

Always good when that happens.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Just checking. Chavez, Mugabe and Stalin - they are bad, right?

BAD!?!!??!!?!? Watch yourself, Steve. For that kind of talk we will put you in a FEMA camp and spray you with chemtrails.

Quoting TwinSwords: BAD!?!!??!!?!?

Watch yourself, Steve. For that kind of talk we will put you in a FEMA camp and spray you with chemtrails.

freedom from the democrats cant come soon enough.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: freedom from the democrats cant come soon enough.

I guess in a literal sense this is true, as long as "soon enough" means "before the heat death of the universe"

Quoting DenvilleSteve: You're not responding to the complaints of the tea party particpants. The debt you're government is running up is insurmountable. Why should the minority have to pay the debts of the majority??

Here is a response to the teabaggers, from David Weidner of the Wall Street Journal. I have added emphasis within (after the article title and blurb) to highlight key points.

The Bailout Is a Bargain
Despite tea party protests to the contrary, the Wall Street bailout is costing taxpayers much less than feared – so far.

Anyone who takes tea with friends will tell you: The parties are painless. It's the gossip that hurts.

In the same way, today's antitax, antispending movements aren't the problem, it's the dangerous misconceptions they spread about the government response to the financial crisis.

Their argument -- that huge tax hikes are coming or have been implemented to pay off bailouts for banking fat cats -- betrays a lack of understanding of the government's approach to solving the financial crisis. When protesters or critics complain about the $10 trillion-plus spent on the Wall Street bailout, you can understand how their estimates of the number of protesters in

Quoting DenvilleSteve: freedom from the democrats cant come soon enough.

That's how I felt when Bush/Cheney were ruining the country. But unlike you, I remained loyal to the United States. God Bless America, Steve.

Quoting bjkeefe: Here is a response to the teabaggers

My focus is on the deficits the government is running and the accumulated debt. As I understand it, that is the main concern of the tea party protesters. The drive by media first reported the grievance was about high taxes. This article says it is the bank bailout. My conclusion is the ruling elite are deliberately not getting it. Their purpose is to do what they can to disempower the movement. Regarding deficit spending under modern era republican admins, the rank and file I think shared my position and opposed it. However, I did see merit in the idea that low taxes and regulation help the economy grow, which in turn increases tax revenue. For a few of the Bush years at least, the deficit was shrinking. One thing I dont understand is the lack of candidates running on a platform of spending cuts. Cut public employee pay and benefits to private sector levels. Highlight where automation can eliminate paid government employees. Means test entitlements ( including public schools ) and cut the entitlements to those who can afford their own. Cut social security payments to those with other incomes.

Kim -- your book is weak and often incompetent when it comes to your discussion of Friedrich Hayek and his Mont Pelerin society. You suggest that Hayek was Ludwig Mises student, but in fact Hayek never took a class with Mises. You seem to be completely ignorant of Hayek's own accounts of why he founded the Mont Pelerin Society, or what the purpose of the organization was -- because of your ignorance, you mis-report the relationship between Hayek and the Mont Pelerin Society and those from whom Hayek hoped to get donations for its activities. Lets turn to this bloggingheads conversation -- it comes across as junior high Marxist intellectual analysis, based on the assumption that an ad hominem attack on people providing ideas and arguments is a substitute for understanding and engaging their ideas -- which you fail almost entirely to do.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: My focus is on the deficits the government is running and the accumulated debt.

Then you should read the article more carefully. It addresses these as well, although it does it in the context of debunking the misinformation about the bailout and the imaginary tax increases. The jump in deficits is short-term and lots of the projected worries about the debt are fantasies, not reality.

As I understand it, that is the main concern of the tea party protesters.

I really don't believe that this is a concern of many of the teabaggers. It was a talking point repeated by some of them, maybe held sincerely and understood by a few. You cannot pretend to speak for all the people that were at all those rallies, and in any case, they were clearly not speaking with one voice.

The drive by media ...

Have I told you how much damage you do to your own credibility when you repeat this Rush trope? There was all kinds of coverage out there, newspapers, TV, radio, and bloggers. You cannot simply dismiss everyone who doesn't work for Fox News or who isn't Rush Limbaugh as "the drive

Quoting TwinSwords: That's how I felt when Bush/Cheney were ruining the country. But unlike you, I remained loyal to the United States.

God Bless America, Steve.

when can we expect democrats to start volunteering for service in the combat arms in Iraq and Afg? do democrat universities like Harvard show their loyalty to the country by welcoming ROTC on campus? http://www.mindingthecampus.com/foru...ed_at_har.html

Quoting DenvilleSteve: when can we expect democrats to start volunteering for service in the combat arms in Iraq and Afg?

you are the definition of an asshat.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: when can we expect democrats to start volunteering for service in the combat arms in Iraq and Afg?

We've already established this, Steve. Just because you refuse to hide your treasonous egotism doesn't mean you have to highlight the whole conservative movement's antipathy towards America

Quoting bjkeefe:
Say what you will about Reagan; at least he was above juvenile slurs.

Speaking of juvenile slurs, the Lefties seem to enjoy referring to the people who attended the tea parties last week as "tea baggers." So, so clever.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: when can we expect democrats to start volunteering for service in the combat arms in Iraq and Afg?

do democrat universities like Harvard show their loyalty to the country by welcoming ROTC on campus?

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/foru...ed_at_har.html

Everybody I know who fought in Iraq (and I know more than one) is a Democrat. I work in the offices of a space and defense contractor - a real liberal hothouse, I might add. Steve is being presumptuous and offensive.

Quoting pampl: We've already established this, Steve. Just because you refuse to hide your treasonous egotism doesn't mean you have to highlight the whole conservative movement's antipathy towards America

The treason charge does not bother republicans like it did democrats during the Bush years. Republicans are loyal to the history, ideals and achievements of the American people. Their response of revulsive to the actions of the ruling democrats is honest and from the heart.

Quoting Dr. Johnson: Speaking of juvenile slurs, the Lefties seem to enjoy referring to the people who attended the tea parties last week as "tea baggers." So, so clever.

Already acknowledged (penultimate paragraph). And I don't really think those of us on the left think there is anything particularly clever about calling teabaggers teabaggers. Rather, we do it because we love the cluelessness evidenced by the unselfconscious use of the term early on by many of the participants (e.g.) and organizers (e.g.), and because the ridiculousness of the whole idea deserves ridicule. Also, given that it provokes such a hysterical reaction from the loudmouths on the right, it's fun to keep it up. Sucks having your own tactics turned against you, doesn't it?

Quoting AemJeff: Steve is being presumptuous and offensive.

Disagree slightly. "Presumptuous" implies he's presuming something, which would suggest he's thinking. He's not. He's just parroting hate radio talking points. You might as well call a tape recorder presumptuous. Or, more to the point, a broken record.

Quoting Dr. Johnson: Speaking of juvenile slurs, the Lefties seem to enjoy referring to the people who attended the tea parties last week as "tea baggers." So, so clever.

Who is calling whom what? It seems to me that "cleverness" is just exactly what the use of the term seems to negate.

Quoting bjkeefe: Disagree slightly. "Presumptuous" implies he's presuming something, which would suggest he's thinking. He's not. He's just parroting hate radio talking points. You might as well call a tape recorder presumptuous. Or, more to the point, a broken record.

Heh.

You make your point well by showing a juvenile holding up a sign with a juvenile message.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: The treason charge does not bother republicans like it did democrats during the Bush years. Republicans are loyal to the history, ideals and achievements of the American people. Their response of revulsive to the actions of the ruling democrats is honest and from the heart.

Well, no, you're not. You're actively hostile to the very concepts of federalism and democracy, you appear to be driven schizophrenic by the concept of "E Pluribus Unum", and you'd just as soon divorce yourself from the history, ideals, and achievements of the American people if it meant more money for you. You can't spend hours a day jerking off over secession and hating and fearing the majority of American people then pretend to like America more than the average member of Al Qaeda does

Quoting piscivorous: You make your point well by showing a juvenile holding up a sign with a juvenile message.

Who chose to put that specific text onto that "juvenile" sign? Did they have any clue what those words would mean to millions of moderately pop-culture savvy people? Did they bother to do due diligence on a phrase before they applied it to their erstwhile mass movement? Who chose to put a sign like that into the hands of a "juvenile?" Calling them "teabaggers" perfectly encapsulates the rank stupity, the utter cluelessness, encoded here. They chose - that's the point. The complaint that their own self-applied appellation is unduly humiliating is itself pretty deeply lame.