New rules for radicals
David Harsanyi has a good article up at the Denver Post entitled, "Presenting New Rules for Radicals:"
Yes, I've seen them. And not just at tea parties but everywhere I look. These new radicals tend to carry a copy of Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto
under their arm rather than Rules for Radicals.
I now see these people in a number of public places and all over the internet and I must say, it warms my heart and makes me remember what this country is about.
In today's world, the "radicals" are the ones who protest the takeover of a huge swath of the economy by government bureaucrats who have proven they can't even run a program that gives free money away to car buyers properly. It is radicals who want to preserve the pillars of a system that over 80 percent of Americans still believe works — though certainly not perfectly.
In this new world, radicals are the ones who protest adding trillions to our debt and who have the temerity to ask if legislators have read the bills they sign. You've seen them. Those radicals who are ranting and raving about silly things like the Constitution.
Yes, I've seen them. And not just at tea parties but everywhere I look. These new radicals tend to carry a copy of Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto
under their arm rather than Rules for Radicals. I now see these people in a number of public places and all over the internet and I must say, it warms my heart and makes me remember what this country is about.Labels: political activisim, politics
posted by Helen at 8:34 AM
71 Comments:
"Radicals" are always the ones who bring political issues to the forefront of the "mainstream" populace. Most people are too busy getting on with life to do anything but complain to friends, call up radio talk shows or post on blogs. You can gauge the popularity of an existing political system by how many "mainstreamers" are moved to stand up and actually do something.
In the USA I think the best data is somewhere around 18-24 months into an administration. The angry losers have lost steam and the election engine is yet to go full throttle. Any radicals protesting in that time frame are serious.
I do find it amusing how the press loves to talk about right wing extremists or right wingnuts. I'm not quite sure what they think a right wing extremist would be, an anarchist perhaps?
Sure, those on the right my preach their values and want others to adhere to a code of behavior (yeah, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder, and other oppressive and controlling beliefs). But the kind and tolerant left uses laws and the courts to force us to subscribe to their values. Now, who is more redical?
"I now see these people in a number of public places and all over the internet and I must say, it warms my heart and makes me remember what this country is about."
But are they willing to do anything other than complain at the top of their lungs?
Time was, vocal protest would have sufficed. The political class would have bowed to a sufficient volume, sufficiently prolonged. I fear our current political class is far more callused, and far more avid for power, than any we have ever known -- and by implication, that no volume of angry talk will persuade it to back away from its totalitarian dreams.
I could be wrong...but I don't think I am.
The only thing that will seriously get the attention of the political class (and how I despise that anti-American term for its existence and its accuracy) is the very real threat of them losing their phony baloney jobs. Of course, many of them would then turn around and cash in as lobbyists but that's a different matter.
I can only imagine that if the political class comes to fear that the population has finally turned against them, then it must scare the hell out of them. Good. It's about time.
our current political class is far more callused, and far more avid for power, than any we have ever known
I agree. Witness the Dems descriptions of tea partiers as extremists, Nazis, mobs, brown shirts, etc. These are middle Americans who have had enough, far from the college age Vietnam War protesters of yesterday. The tea parties I attended had a extremely diverse crowd by age, ethnicity, gender, etc. The Dems are cutting their own throats unless they plan on doing away with elections.
Dr. Helen, you have done much to bring sanity to this Republic. Keep up the terrific work.
Like DADvocate and Francis P., I too am worried about how "organized communities" let alone activist individuals in opposition to the takeover of health care are portrayed. This does not bode well for a free republic. This does not bode well for self reliant peoples as opposed to those who want the government to solve all of their problems.
Francis wrote: "I could be wrong"
I hope you are, but I also see how your skepticism could be quite accurate. If things do not change, if the elected officials do not listen to the will of the majority of the people, I worry that bad things will happen.
I know people who talk of armed insurrection. This is not my wish, and I do not support it, but I hear of it from more than one source. They are fond of quoting Jefferson about the tree of liberty being watered with the blood of tyrants.
So for all our sakes, I hope our political class smells the potent coffee and wake up. I think they will. I do not think those folks have the spines or core values to follow an unpopular agenda that would cost them their jobs. These people crave power and their power comes from a certain amount of popularity. I do not think they can completely dismiss the feedback they are getting from angry voters. The white house will work hard to get them to, but then the white house folks are not in the trenches. Congress is.
If they do ignore and rationalize the groundswell of anger and resentment, people will die. That is my fear.
So I pray more for our country than I ever have.
Trey
放鬆心情自由自在的來一趟花蓮旅遊，可以感受花蓮民宿各種不同的風味，所以來花蓮一定要住花蓮民宿哦！因為可從花蓮民宿主人那裡分享到不一樣的花蓮旅遊經驗及花蓮美食道地的花蓮小吃，所以來花蓮旅遊不一定就要享受花蓮高級餐廳的花蓮美食也可以多試試道地古早味的花蓮美味哦！來花蓮民宿可以放鬆整個心情，來花蓮電腦住宿也可以放空自已，來花蓮也可以了解在地的文化哦！住民宿其實是很輕鬆的，住花蓮民宿其實是很容易，還有就是現在是高油價的時代，還自行開車來花蓮嗎？來花蓮租車會比較輕鬆哦！來花蓮房屋租車會比較省錢哦！或是可以請花蓮計程車帶您包車旅遊喔!!歡迎來住住美麗的花蓮民宿囉!!一定要讓您來花蓮旅遊並且讓您愛上花蓮民宿，還有團購美食好吃的蜂蜜蛋糕、養顏美容的蜂王乳以及花蓮美食喔!!
"So for all our sakes, I hope our political class smells the potent coffee and wake up. I think they will."
You know, I think we would be able to focus better if we dropped the hyperbole and similes.
In other words, what the hell are you talking about?
Wing-nut(all flavors), gun-nut, tree-hugger, granola-eating, peacenick, free-market-zelot, X-wing extremist...
All useless names thrown around for no reason other than to "radicalize" ideas away from the attention of majority. Radicals are, by definition, the minority. I see terms like this used here all the time.
The way activists (not radicals) turn from a "mob" to an actual "movement" is by continuing to get the word out in ways that don't turn people off. By not allowing themselves to be cordoned into "free speech zones". By defining solutions that people can actually get behind.
Prime Designer, this blog may be beyond your capabilities. It is my understanding Sesame Street has a web site..........
anyone with specific suggestions rather than playing the blame game or dumping on "others," or dissing officials who get elected over and over and take money from corporations, unions, a guilds?
Nice to express your rage, vent....but???
me? I'm happy with what is going on.
"You know, I think we would be able to focus better if we dropped the hyperbole and similes."
You got a friend in your pocket? Who is we?
For your understanding, if the majority of people in America are angry with politicians and the politicians do not listen, Americans will get very angry and start tearing shit up. I do not want that to happen, so I hope the politicians start to listen.
Is that better? Hope so!
Trey
Fred, here is the Republican plan. You ahve not heard about it because the major media will not report about it. You can google it if you want to see that those of us who are not blind supporters of the Democrats know there are other options. Here is a little about it.
In its major features, the Republican bill, dubbed The Patients' Choice Act of 2009, would:
•Create state health insurance exchanges to allow Americans to compare different private market health insurance policies
•Guarantee Americans the same standard health benefits and choices as members of Congress now enjoy
•Ensure that no individual would be turned down by a participating
exchange insurers based on age or health
•Create a non-profit, independent board to risk adjust among participating insurance companies to penalize companies that "cherry pick" health patients and reward insurers that encourage prevention/wellness and cover patients with pre‐-existing conditions
•Gives states the ability to band together in regional pooling arrangements, as well as risk pools, reinsurance markets, or risk adjustment mechanisms to cover those deemed uninsurable.
So now you can react to or critique this plan. But you can no longer say that people are just complaining. It would make you look ignorant and uninformed.
Have a nice day reading about the alternatives. I know you will!
Trey
There are politicians trying to control the message by controlling which people can send them messages. That control is breaking down. These pols and their fellow travellers are freaking out.
mostly, when people get stung by insurance companies, it`s at the individual level.
for example, car insurance refusing to pay a claim for damage to your vehicle, opting instead to write the car off and pay the replacement cost at the depreciated present rate, vs. what you paid for it or could hope to replace it currently.
now what we have is a nation of people preparing to allow a huge bureaucracy to provide blanket health coverage to meet thier future needs.
it`s not hard to see how some would have some reservations about that.
in canada we have what is supposed to be a blanket coverage for medical care, and i assure you that there are too many cases of people`s real needs not being met.
my girlfriend`s sister has ms and the medications cost $3000 per month, which the goverment doesn`t pay because it`s conveniently not on the list of things they cover. her husband`s health plan at work thankfully does....
This comment has been removed by the author.
@the Republican bill, dubbed The Patients' Choice Act of 2009, would: •Ensure that no individual would be turned down by a participating exchange insurers based on age or health
______________
This is a nice catch phrase that voters like to hear, that is stated by both parties often. My problem with it is this: if I can not be turned down regardless of age or health, why bother getting insured until I need it? The whole point of insurance is for people, when they are healthy, to transfer the risk of a condition to the insurance company, which is basically an agreement where healthy people agree to share the costs in the event someone becomes unhealthy, where they all pay a smaller total to avoid a catastrophic total.
What we need is incentive for people to sign up when they are healthy. However, in a free country, it seems wrong to mandate participation, and if someone wants to risk a personal disaster to save money that is their problem.
There aren't many examples of things the goverment does that is actually efficient, certainly not in private lives. Anyone willing to bet the entire health care system that this will be different? If so, first go to Vegas and bet your computer and internet connection on one pull of the slots--we'll wait for you to let us know how that works if you can.
Trust, I agree with you. I think what would help the most is having our work give us the money that they spend on our healthcare so we buy it ouselves. Then none of the costs would be hidden, and there would be more competition.
Same way with taxes, we should all have to write a check every month so nothing is hidden.
But I get tired of fred saying that all the opposition does is criticize and that there are no alternatives, so I wanted to shut him up for awhile.
I am not a Republican, they lost me when they went Democrat lite. But there is their plan, so fred can use the time he would spend posting to study it.
Trey
I categorically reject any discussion of the need to take this to the "next level" or any provision of excuses to those who feel the need to move from protest to physical confrontation.
Those are the tactics of radicals, and radicals have a bloody track record through the past century.
We have the ballot, and if from time to time we get fooled, or our neighbors disagree with us stupidly, well, that's democracy. Still the best thing going.
Anyone who suggests we abandon the democratic path, or forecasts some coming showdown that is outside of democracy is playing into the hands of the thugs and radicals.
The statists who want to change America are in a rush, yes. Their dearest hope is that they can stampede the level-headed, prudent critics into rash action. Then they can re-frame the debate as a crusade against to heroically enact the will of the people against the will of violent reactionaries. (It will not hurt their cause that the most readily available image of violent reactionaries is the KKK. Can't you see that coming?)
Anyone who loses their cool in response to provocations from SEIU or other statist stooges should be given a t-shirt that reads:
I'm of TOOL (of the other side!)
These guys have read Alinsky, Ayres, and Marx. They know what it takes to radicalize the moment, and they know they need to make this the radical moment, or they will lose momentum, as we see happening.
Let the criticism drone on; the fire will die and people will begin to ask "So, why the rush? How about we read this before making it law?"
@TMink said... But I get tired of fred saying that all the opposition does is criticize and that there are no alternatives, so I wanted to shut him up for awhile.
_________________
I agree with you, they do have a plan, unlike what was said, I just couldn't resist criticizing that one aspect (the democrat-lite tendencies). I do get tired of hearing the left say that as well. They swept into power bashing and trashing Bush withotu any plan of their own.
I agree with your point about "hidden" cost. This is part of the reason I favor a national sales tax over the income tax (other reasons include limiting the buying of votes through wealth redistribution, social engineering through the tax code, and the enormous amount of information the government collects about private citizens through that taxation process).
As was suggested above, "The Dems are cutting their own throats unless they plan on doing away with elections." I think that there is a very good chance that they do indeed intend to do away with elections. Or perhaps I should say with elections that have any sense of being free and fair. Elections for show will no doubt continue to give the appearance of democracy in action, just as in the Soviet Union, but real elections could very well be a thing of the past. We saw massive vote fraud in this past election with many people voting more times than they could count by their own admission. We also had the Black Panthers doing voter intimidation in Philadelphia, a matter that was settled in court until the Obama DOJ threw it out of totally unexplained reasons. Yes, I think true elections may very well be behind us.
@Dr.D
Good point. They've already deployed this strategy. ACORN is active at this. They managed to steal the election in Minnesota for Al Franken.
Yet, guess which election the press reports as "stolen"? Florida 2000, which gave Bush the presidency. It wasn't stolen by Bush, they failed at stealing it for Gore and painted it as a Bush theft with the aide of the supreme court.
In any case, back on point, one of the fathers of the left famously said "those who vote decide nothing, those who count votes decide everytthing."
Trying to stop elections would radicalize a lot of people. And those people are well armed.
Trey
@TMink said... Trying to stop elections would radicalize a lot of people. And those people are well armed.
______________
Which is why they won't be public about it. They'll use proxies like ACORN, corrupt counting staff, and noble sounding motives like "so every vote will count" (meanwhile, they'll request targeted "recounts" and blame the opponent for stealing the election, like they did in Florida 2000).
The label of radical is appropriate. Conservatives radicals have "radically" given up on rational debate. Instead, they raise their voices, chant conservative slogans, and drone on about govt run health care. These people have radically CLOSED their minds to anything constructive and have fallen prey to conservative talk radio propaganda.
Helen, I can't believe you are promoting Mark Levin's (aka,The Narcissist), book on your blog. He is definition of radicalism and hatred.
Miles,
The town hall meetings are trying to keep other voices from being heard. I am proud of people for standing up for democracy. If standing for free speech and freedom is what you re-define as hatred and radicalism, count me in.
Miles,
You need to refresh your psychology 101. Mark Levin is anything but a narcissist. If you want a classic narcissist then look at Obama. He doesn't even need a mirror or still pond since he can see his own reflection in our obliging media and stupified public.
YEs, Democrats call their opponents "brownshirts" and bought and paid for tools of the "healthcare lobby", but its those same opponents who aren't rational.
Glenn,
The only people who are trying to keep other people's voices from being heard are those who raise their voices and chant the same thing over and over. It's like little kids sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "la la la...la la la." If you like kiddy politics, I guess you would like to take part in saying the same thing over and over..over and over...over and over... over and over.
the definition of fascism is a society of corporations run by government. an italian invention, along with 50 party political systems and the mafia....
...most of which has been successfully imported to the us. in one form or another.
good luck hoping for a democratic way through that charlie-foxtrot.
@Miles said... The label of radical is appropriate. Conservatives radicals have "radically" given up on rational debate. Instead, they raise their voices, chant conservative slogans, and drone on about govt run health care.
____________
Yeah, I hear ya. They way they spent years chanting "Bush lied, people died." So mature, we know from kindergarten that if it rhymes it must be so.
Wait, you said conservatives. My sincerest apologies. I read "slogans and chants" and imediate thought of the nonsense I've been hearing for years.
Please explain what is wrong with someone protesting goverment take over of their health care? Was it wrong for the left to protest a war they oppose, childish chants and rants aside? (I don't believe it was, it was their right).
@dr.alistair said... the definition of fascism is a society of corporations run by government.
___________
It's funny how the left believes fascism is right wing extremism while they gleefully go about government takeovers.
Miles, you mean like "We're here, we're queer, get used to it?
Like reverend Wright?
Like Obama himself saying he doesn't want those "responsible" to say anything? Like that you mean? When Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, Reid, Schuster, and others have forced the programs that have put us near bankruptcy? Like that, you mean?
And about 1,000 other things from the democrat side of the floors and administrations? Like that, you mean?
Miles, you are disingenuous. Or an idiot. Or both.
Trust, what's wrong with people protesting the government take over of health care? For one, it's based on a delusion. The govt isn't taking over health care and none of the representatives are advocating such a position. So your real question is, "is there anything wrong with protesting a delusion?" I think people can protest delusional or nondelusional acts. Just don't expect those who are sane to take the protest of delusional acts seriously. What this really means is don't be surprised when delusional, disruptive people get kicked out of town meetings.
Schumer.
I keep getting Schumer and scheister mixed together to make Schuster.
br549, You are confusing contexts. When was Reverend Wright, Obama and the rest of the people you listed chanting silly slogans over and over and over and over and over at town hall meeting with representatives?
Frankly, you are lost in an oblivion of random associations. :)
Part of reason conservatives don't always offer up an alternative plan is they don't want a plan... period. They want the goverment to keep out and quit trying to run our lives. So not having an alternative at time is itself an alternative.
This is part of the reason that, no matter which part is in power, the left gains ground. Even when the republican party controlled the presidency and the congress, the left controlled the courts, schools, media, etc. Not to mention, republicans always felt the need to propose an alternative... thus moving to the left, just at a slower speed.
Not to mention, debates are often tough for the right to win in politics. The right isn't against health care, they simply disagree with the left about the governments role in health care. The left confuses support for a noble cause with support for the government doing it. This is also why the right gives a higher percentage of income to charity than the left--they believe in the cause, they just dont' believe government is the solution.
Miles wrote: "The only people who are trying to keep other people's voices from being heard are those who raise their voices and chant the same thing over and over."
Not at all Miles. Congresmen have been documented as packing their speeches with SEIU union people and others who have admitted on caera that they work for the congressman. Also, we have footage of people being asked to leave a so called town hall meeting at a car dealership.
These are very easy to find on youtube. Give those a look then we can talk about people trying to silence the public more cogently.
Trey
Regarding Mark Levin, Miles wrote: "He is definition of radicalism and hatred."
Give some supporting evidence please. And if he is a radical, and not in the mainstream, how do you account for the huge sales of his books?
Miles, you are making standard leftist statements with no data to back them up. To be taken seriously here, you will need so hard data. Please pony up or understand you will be marginalized.
I look forward to checking out your data and reasons for making such statements.
Trey
Trey,
So the PRESENCE of SEIU members silences the voices of other town hall attendees? Wow! You will have to let me know how that magic trick works. Mere presence silences other town hall members. Who would have thought! Trey, there's no excuse for bad behavior no matter how much you try to rationalize bad behavior. :0 )
Ahhh, so you are not interested in the facts. Union thugs are beating people up, it is caught on camera, and you refuse to accept that this is intimidation.
OK, thanks pal, I do not have to read another word you write because I can see that you are drunk on koolaid.
Watch out, it has a real bad hangover.
Trey
Tmink, let's assume union members are beating people up. Does that still make acting like morons (yelling, screaming, chanting over and over and over)prior to getting beat up appropriate in a town hall meeting, which is designed to be a time and place for DISCUSSION? For some reason you think acting like a moron is justified prior to being beat up. Strange morals you have. :)
Miles, I repeat. You are being disingenuous. You are an idiot. And you drink kool aid.
You are not present on a blog that's still on line because George Soros gave the blog owner 15 mm dollars to keep it on line, and it's owner brags about having Obama's cell phone number on her speed dial. If I accidentally found Obama's cell number on my phone, I'd delete it. And by the way, every time I have heard Huffington speak, the theme song for "Green Acres" immediately starts playing in my head.
The things I stated above are available on you tube to view, as they happened. No editing, no commentary. Just footage. The Obama speech, shown only on Fox as far as an MSM outlet, is also available on you tube. Again, no editing. Just straight from the horse's mouth. Unless you visit Drudge, or right of center blogs, or you tube or Fox, it is doubtful you even saw the Obama speech with the statements of which I wrote.
When has the protest happy left ever had open discussion in such settings? Who runs up on stage throwing pies? Who crawls in ground floor windows and disrupts meetings of opposing opinion to a particular lefty group?
I doubt anyone who visits here, even Cham, will buy what you are selling. No matter how pretty you attempt to say it.
br549, this is just another Ken type who spouts the party line without the ability to think. Let's not waste any time on him.
Some people have open minds and can use them, others can only see what they are instructed to see and only say what is on the script.
Ignore him long enough and he will have to change his screen name! But he reminds me a lot of Ken. More glib than fred. fred actually posts some interesting stuff as long as it is not invloving the one.
Trey
Hi Tmink. Just pointing out the projecting.
I assume Miles is back on line with John Favreau and Rahm Emanuel, asking what to say next.
John Favreau and Rahm Emanuel "types".....
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think the people who are yelling, screaming, and chanting political slogans at town halls are the same people who watch professional wrestling on TNT. It also reminds me of those crazy Iraqis who sing and dance around when the cameras are rolling just to make a political impression. Maybe they should form a political rally and chant themselves into a coma. I am sure all the intellectuals who want to have a civil discussion in town halls would appreciate it!
You're still an idiot.
Miles,
In god we trust, all others bring evidence(including you Miles, especially because you're the minority on this blog).
Oh, and any ounce of government in the adult healthcare field would destroy private insurance. By definition the Government can undercut costs and make it cheaper to be on the government healthcare plan for an individual. Not because of any inherent efficiency on their part, but because they can operate in the red. When a normal business does that, they go out of business. The Government can just tax people more(which is merely a form of legalized stealing; albeit, a needed one in the case of national defense and other services that only the government can provide, healthcare is not one).
Everyone else,
"Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one." ~ Henry David Thoreau
So gentlemen and ladies, while you're out there questioning your Congressmen do not be afraid. Even if you're the only person in opposition there, you will be the majority of one. Be proud, be courageous.
Just one last thing...
http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
Aren't flow charts great?
Trust said: "Part of reason conservatives don't always offer up an alternative plan is they don't want a plan... period. They want the goverment to keep out and quit trying to run our lives. So not having an alternative at time is itself an alternative."
Fine. The Republicans don't think there should be any government response to what Democrats at least believe is a health-care crisis? Then say so.
Tell the American people, "We think the system is working fine. We don't feel government involvement is warranted."
See how that works for Republicans. I mean, I don't know. Let's do a referendum. The majority of Americans may agree with you.
But for God's sake--lay off the bullshit "the Dems are trying to have the govt take over EVERYTHING" meme--when you all bloody well know that the president is simply trying to address what I believe most reasonable people would agree is a bug problem in this country now.
He could very well ignore the problem like Bush did (with just about every issue really). I mean, there's always a big risk for an administration to try to make real change. He could, I suppose, sit around with his thumb up his ass like Bush, hoping/ praying that the "market" will just resolve all problems. ("And if it does, I get the credit for doing NOTHING! Yay!")
You disagree with the administration's proposals? Fine, say so. Say plainly that you think nothing should be done. You could very well be right.
But at least have the balls to say your position plainly, stand by your convictions and disagree with respect.
What is disingenuous is to pretend that (a) there is no problem, (b) but if there is, here's our plan for government intervention, (c) but we think gov't intervention is a terrible idea, so if this doesn't work out--don't blame us!
Should say "huge problem in this country..." not "bug problem".
Geez, this gets old. Let repeat: Not wanting a big government solution to a problem is no the same as not wanting a solution to the problem. I believe I speak in english.
Trust: I think your original comment was critical of the Republican party. They "feel the need" to propose an alternative, even if they don't actually really support that alternative or a government solution.
So, what precisely, is the problem with me essentially agreeing with you and calling bullshit on that? What you describe is, literally, disingenous.
Of course, everybody WANTS a solution (or says they do). But if Republicans actually believe there is nothing the govt can or should do, then I'm simply asking that they say that plainly. You know...speak English as you say. Don't propose some bullshit proposal that they don't actually believe in--just so their constituents will think they are TRYING to resolve something. And then, when the other party's solution falls through, claim "This is what happens when the govt intervenes!" You know, despite the fact that they themselves proposed govt intervention.
If the parties are actually only disagreeing about the specific terms of govt intervention, then why act like this is some super ideological issue?
We all know why. This administration may very well decide to bite the bullet of this mess and try to pick up the pieces and DO SOMETHING. If that doesn't result in absolutely perfect results in the unanimous opinion of Americans, Republicans will try to get mileage on that-regardless of the fact that they proposed an alternative not much different.
It's clear, Republicans will do nothing, expect their beloved market to resolve all problems, then criticize anybody who tries to take action, and take no responsibility for what befell during their tenure.
I mean, I suppose it's an ingenious plan. If we say the market can solve anything, then we NEVER have to actually do anything and we can NEVER be held responsible.
And what gets old? Defending the Republican party? I'm sure it does, my man.
I reckon "believ[ing]" you speak English is about as impotent and useless as "wanting" a solution to the problem. "We'd really like to help. But there's...there's nothing we can do."
I mean, you yourself made what I think any unbiased person would read as a criticism of the Republican party.
"Not to mention, republicans always felt the need to propose an alternative... thus moving to the left, just at a slower speed."
This despite the fact that they don't actually believe an alternative is warranted and feel the govt should stay out?
What are you saying? That somehow the supposed liberal-control of the courts and the media somehow "forced" the Republican party to take positions they didn't really believe in?
And you don't think this was a criticism on your part?
Is this one of those things like how you can rag your own mom but wont tolerate anybody else doing it?
Our military seems to be distressed at the trends:
Oath Keepers
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.
Our motto is "Not on our watch!"
Cut it wrote: "the Dems are trying to have the govt take over EVERYTHING"
Why would anyone who drives a GM or a clunker or work in investment banking or who has investments or works in health care or who uses health care think the government is trying to take over everything?
They must be paranoid.
Trey
TMink:
If you're referring to TARP when you mention investment banking or anyone who has investments, that was the brainchild of YOUR man's administration.
So, again--spare me the bogus ideological contempt.
I now see these people in a number of public places and all over the internet and I must say.
___________________
Jessica
Email Marketing Solutions
Cut it, you are confusing me with a Republican. I have not been a republican for years. The political world is not dichotomous. Seems you are the one who needs to back off the ideological contempt.
I hated that stuff when W did it too. Becuase it was obvious that it would waste money and be bad for the economy. That W had an R after his name is just a high school distraction.
As you open your mind to the history and results of big government ( I had to correct a typo that read "giverment", Dr. Freud is chuckling somewhere) you will find plenty of folks on both sides of the aisle who are guilty of promoting government programs that will never work. But to do so, you have to transcend the limiting world view that you have been indoctrinated in.
It is not about red vs. blue, that is a silly power game. The important aspects of government are those which promote success and freedom and those which hinder it. Once you get that perspective, you have a legitimate way to evaluate proposed government approaches.
I can also recommend the Constitution as an excellent yardstick for critiquing political ideology. But forget about party distinctions, they are just there to amuse and confuse the groundlings.
Trey
Just because many people believe we should DO SOMETHING about health care, it doesn't automatically follow that we should do something stupid. Letting government have so much control over health care (given how poorly they've done running Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, the Native American health systems, etc) would be very stupid. Why not let them prove themselves capable of getting those things right first before they come for the rest of us. Congress apparently has such poor faith in their bill that they're unwilling to apply it to themselves. That alone is telling.
I see Miles' replacement has showed up.
TMink:
Well, alright. That all sounds well and good. But why not lecture Trust or any of the rest of the multitude who turn this into conservative v. liberal, D v. R, red v. blue?
This post (and pretty much every other here) is replete with talk from the other perspective. But I don't see you lecturing them. Why?
And your original response to me (in so many words, why would anyone think the Dems are trying to let the govt take over everything? loads of reasons!)suggests something rather different from the lecture you just gave.
And, likewise, I never said I was a Democrat.
"And, likewise, I never said I was a Democrat."
Nobody ever accused you of being one.
But now that you brought it up, are you? What parties did you vote for last election?
I voted for Palin for President and the Republican running against my Democratic Congressman, I voted for a Democratic Governer and against a Republican Senator.
Those are the facts. What about yours?
And in answer to your post, I agree with the posts I agree with, and disagree with the posts I disagree with more or less. I am not sure why that is confusing. I disagreed with your posts because I disagree with your positions and how you tried to make them.
Is that a problem?
Trey
TMink:
I don't think I accused you of being a Republican either.
The only relevant voting history here is, did you vote for George W. Bush?
Well...did you?
Cut it, you owe me an answer first. That is necessary to keep you from just shucking an jiving your way out of discussing any facts at all.
So pony up, who did you vote for last election?
And just for fun, why not tell the truth.
Trey
Oh, so now you're calling me a liar, TMink? Just for funsies? Way to play it.
Why would I owe you an answer.
Facts:
One, my original post was in response to someone else. You butted in. Fair enough, but don't act like I owe you anything.
Two, you butted in by saying essentially there are loads of reasons to think the Dems want govt to take over everything.
Three, I pointed out that TARP was the idea of "YOUR man's administration". You then deny that you're a Republican, claim you didn't like what W did and proceed to lecture about not drawing lines. I respond that that's fine, but I never said I was a Democrat either and why are you not seen to give this same lecture to other folks who've made more polarizing statements than me.
Four, you then proceed to detail your purported voting history. And here, I have to ask, TMink. I thought you were in Tennessee. But you claim that you voted for a Dem governor. But the governor was not up for re-election last November. So, I'm confused.
So, finally, I don't see how you would imagine that I owe you an answer. I certainly never asked you who you voted for. You volunteered that information. My point after you volunteered that information was that THE ONLY STATEMENT I MADE RELATIVE TO YOUR POLITICS WAS ABOUT BUSH BEING YOUR MAN. SO THE ONLY RELEVANT VOTING HISTORY IS DID YOU VOTE FOR HIM OR NO!
I certainly have no problem saying that I mostly vote Democrat, but I have voted for Republicans. I might very well have voted for McCain had he not chosen Palin. But not only is that none of your business, IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THE CONVERSATION THAT WAS GOING ON!
So, spare me your ridiculous high horse, TMink. You haven't provided any facts yourself and it's not my fault you can't or refuse to keep to the salient points of discussion.
And don't you ever, ever suggest that I'm a liar.
Oh, so you won't say who you voted for.
And I provided no facts. Right.
You are a frightened little person that you will not honestly share your voting record anonymously. Why so chicken?
To show you how it is done, I will tell you who I voted for, and I won't get so angry that I have to all caps out and risk a stroke.
I voted for Bush both times.
While I wish I could take my second vote for him back and give it to some third party candidate, it was a very instructive vote. I believed the Republican liars who said that Bush would be more conservative in his second term.
I will never believe that sort of bovine scatology again. And I dropped the Republicans.
Now see, that is not so hard, is it? My answer was what you expected, and you get a chance to skewer me for voting for Bush twice. I am OK with that. Because the truth is, I did vote for Bush twice.
And the truth has a power about it Cut it. It trumps cleverness and word play and trying to make other people look bad.
So, now that you see how it is done, I will ask you for a second time, who did YOU vote for last electon? You can do it, you saw me do it twice.
Buck up, give it a try. You might get used to it.
Trey
Oh, bless your heart. I know that hurt.
No, you didn't provide any facts. And now you're acting like a spoiled sport because you've been bested.
It was never a question who I voted for. You've yet to explain how it's relevant. At any rate, I voted for Obama. I believe I voted for Lamar Alexander. I can't remember the other races.
But NONE of that is going to assuage the guilt and shame you OBVIOUSLY feel about your multiple votes for Bush.
You were deceived, huh? Kind of like Pelosi?
How convenient. Just don't forget to give me the same out if things don't work out perfectly for the Obama administration. I mean, I'll get to claim it's not my fault, I was deceived, too right?
Sounds like the Republican way. And Republicans want to sell themselves as the party of personal responsibility?
First you call me a liar and then a "chicken"? You're a real class act, TMink.
Post a Comment
<< Home