To the Editor:
David Brooks, in “The Long Voyage Home” (column, May 5), reminds Republicans that they are, or should be, the party of civic order.
Since the ancient republics, however, civic order has been the product of civic virtue, the principle of participation in government and protection of the interests of the commonwealth and the common good.
The community in a republic is not formed simply to achieve order. It is formed to respect and guarantee to future generations all those goods we hold in common.
Gary Hart
Kittredge, Colo., May 5, 2009
The writer, a former Democratic senator from Colorado, is the author of a book about the Jeffersonian ideal in 21st-century America.
To the Editor:
David Brooks posits that Republicans are in trouble because they are “the party of untrammeled freedom and maximum individual choice.”
Huh?
Republicans favor government intrusions into such fundamental individual choices as reproductive health, marriage, adoption and death. That is a big part of their problem, one that they ignore at their peril.
Deborah Leavy Haverford, Pa., May 5, 2009
• To the Editor:
David Brooks’s excellent column struck a real chord with this cradle Republican.
I don’t recognize the people who have taken over the party my family served for 150 years. The Republicans I grew up among believed in democratic capitalism, not a feudal society of gated communities for themselves served by an ill-housed, ill-nourished, ill-educated, un-doctored servant population.
They were veterans and had learned in war that everyone is expendable. They did not have utter contempt for working people. Even amid the social upheaval of the ’60s, they were not like the callous, precious, entitled people currently calling themselves “Republicans.”
Ann N. Greene Philadelphia, May 6, 2009
To the Editor:
I take exception to David Brooks’s assertion that one of Republicans’ core themes is “moral clarity.”
Perhaps moral clarity as a conservative or religious conservative might define moral.
Does the Republican position of disregard for a policy of health care for all show moral clarity?
What moral? Indifference?
Does the Republican position of tax the poor and middle class and give tax-breaks to the rich show moral clarity? What moral? Selfishness?
How about the Republican position on global climate change? What moral? Ignorance?
What does the Republicans’ beloved trumpeting of individualism boil down to many times? Greed.
Susan Hall Remacle Canaan, N.H., May 5, 2009
•
To the Editor:
David Brooks would have us believe that inherent in the Republican philosophy is a belief in individual freedom. This is certainly so, if the freedom in question is to own any type of gun without restriction or to run a business without any regulations that protect the environment and the consumer.
But what if one is a man or woman who wants to marry a person of the same sex, or a woman who wants to choose whether to bring a child into the world? Not so much.
James Spada Boston, May 5, 2009
To the Editor:
David Brooks got it only half right when he wrote that the Republicans draw the wrong lessons from classic western movies.
Instead of emulating the lone pioneer hero like Wyatt Earp, as Mr. Brooks suggests, the Republicans are acting like a gang of ruffians who ride into town and shoot up the place just when the beleaguered sheriff — in this case President Obama — is trying to restore some semblance of civic order.
Hoyt Hilsman Pasadena, Calif., May 5, 2009
•Keep listening to the overpaid and undereducated Limbaugh--and follow him right off the cliff.
59 comments:
I like what one of the writers said about this Republican Party not being the same Republican party it used to be...that's exactly how I feel and why I've left. I'm tired of it.
Dating myself just a bit I have actually voted for the odd Republican in my day. Washington State once upon a time had a solid group of progressive Republicans who functioned quite well in congress and in the governor's office.
No longer. The wedge issues of Islamofascism, baby murder, guns and Jesus have taken over the party platform even in this corner of the nation and enough is enough.
Funny how the party of 'individual freedom & liberty' has devolved. Now far too many Republicans eagerly embrace the most intrusive forms of government control (women's reproductive rights, end of life issues, marriage, domestic surveillance, etc.).
No thanks.
James,
We need a two-party system--actually we should have more than two parties.
The problem is that the Republicans in DC are catering to the leader of a distinct MINORITY. The DC Republicans have ceded the soul of the GOP to an entertainer!
You and others should find each other and call the DC Republicans and tell them to grow some cajones and disown that clown Limbaugh and the rest of them.
Colin Powell is a sober, thoughtful, intelligent man. He said it best the other day:
"I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without."
And what did Limbaugh do? He mocked Powell and suggested he leave the GOP. Where were the reasonable voices of the Republicans telling Limbaugh to go to hell with his mocking and his divisive hatred? Limbaugh accused Powell of voting for Mr. Obama solely on race? When did that overblown cankerrot get the power to read people's minds?
Limbaugh has the power he has because no one seems to have the courage to stand up to him.
He's not that dangerous. Like all bullies and morally bankrupt cowards, he would crumble faster than a punctured balloon if someone called him out on his corrupt ideas and clownish actions.
He is a fraud.
It's astounding that people who should know better continue to defend the loud-mouthed bigot.
As loathe as I am to speak ill of anyone, the crass, uncivil and just plain goofy Michelle Bachman needs to be excommunicated from the Republican Party if it is ever to be anything but the fringe element it is becoming.
Until the Republican leadership takes the brain trust back from the 400lbs. pedophile and junkie named Rush Limbaugh, they will continue to be perceived as a small, regional party of religious extremists, out of ideas and out of touch.
I'm hearing from my sources their latest scheme will be to rally votes against President Obama's choice to replace Justice Souter on the SCOTUS. Nevermind that Obama hasn't named a replacement, the GOP still plans to stomp their widdle feet and obstruct until they're blue in the face.
This sort of behavior is childish but it also says how completely useless they are to the country. But I'm sure Rush approves and that's all they care about.
Joe the Plumber has left the GOP!
Not much of a loss, since he wasn't really a plumber and his name was not Joe. Another fraud.
But really. How bad can it be when even the frauds are abandoning the GOP?
Poor Joe. They used him and cast him aside. Kind of like Scooter Libby.
Christopher, from your sources? This is pretty public information.
And in reality, the GOP response to the Obama nomination will be about the same as it was from the Dems when Bush nominated someone.
Do all you can to muddy the name, the waters, and possibly influence the next pick.
We all know that barring another income tax issue, [a real possibility given the Obama problems with vetting] this nominee will sail through the approval process.
A disgraced scandal-ridden Democrat from ages past starts the list. You would have probably been better leaving that one off.
In one of the later letters:
"Does the Republican position of tax the poor and middle class and give tax-breaks to the rich show moral clarity? What moral? Selfishness?"
This is a straw-man attack. The Republican position has usually been to lower taxes on everyone (and leaving it so the rich still pay more in taxes).
As for Powell, he came out years ago as a racist himself when he voiced support for policies that reward and punish people based on their skin color (affirmative action quotas). He, Pat Buchanan, and Cynthia McKinney are free to form their own party of racists.
Dave: Good point about ObamaCo and its problems with nominating tax crooks. Maybe someone has learned a lesson by now. Or maybe not. Perhaps Tom Daschle will be nominated to replace Souter.
Arthurstone: "The wedge issues of Islamofascism, baby murder, guns and Jesus"
Last time I knew, Obama was a Christian. But the best way to get rid of the "wedge issue" of guns is for everyone to stop encroaching on gun rights, and to get rid if the "islamofascism" issue is for everyone to present a united front against this threat.
Also, women's reproductive rights (which you mentioned) have not been an issue for decades. Abortion actually is done after the biological process of reproduction has occured.
Sigh. Christopher, Christopher, you invalidate everything you say when you call Rush a pedophile. As has been mentioned before, you have no proof, just idle speculation.
All we see is Until the Republican leadership takes the brain trust back from the 400lbs. pedophile and our brains go to blah blah blah....
Grow up.
I missed: "But what if one is a man or woman who wants to marry a person of the same sex, or a woman who wants to choose whether to bring a child into the world? Not so much."
As for the first one, take it up with President Obama first. He campaigned on his opposition to same-sex marriage. And he's the one in power. As for the second, there's not much opposition to preventing unwanted pregnancies. Most of it comes from the Catholics. The Catholics are overwhelmingly on Obama's side. Democrats.
James Spada Boston is looking at the wrong "side", the wrong party.
(Spada's first part is a straw-man attack. No one can name any Republicans who want to remove all regulations on business).
dmarks,
President Obama is FOR civil unions.
He supports granting civil unions for gay couples, and in 2006 he opposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
What are you talking about?
Shaw: The DC Republicans have ceded the soul of the GOP to an entertainer!I'm assuming you're speaking of Rush (who you seem to obsess over) in this case. So based on that, you've gone off the cliff yourself.
Having heard many hours of Rush, I can tell you without hesitation that you're wrong for a simple reason: the beltway Republicans have not listened to Rush on most things (except for the few things they sound silly over), and it's the same reason I don't want to be called a Republican.
To them, conservatism is simply a growing government that controls the moral rudder, using the words "free market" whenever they come up with their version of a Democrat bill. And they proved it in 2008 with their choice of presidential candidates, who was mostly the antitheses of what Rush expected of the GOP. October and the beginning of November were particularly painful to listen to, as Rush was far from enthusiastic about helping the idiot McCain win.
In fact, I remeber many times (and still do) when I'll get an idea, ony to hear Rush say the same thing after I've thought of it and before I've typed it.
I know you'd like the GOP to be made up of primarily people who think like Limbaugh. Strangely, so would I.
Sorry, Shaw, you don't get to weasel out Obama with your "oh, he's for civil unions" crap. As key Democratic spokesman Mario Lavenderia has said, it's marriage or nothing.Oh, unless you're a liberal. Then you get a weasel license. I forgot.
Shaw said: "President Obama is FOR civil unions."
But he is against actual same sex marriage, and that is what that particular letter was about.
Gordon's right. This is "weaseling". Or maybe Barack Obama has been for same-sex marriage all along, but he flat-out lied during his campaign when he said he wasn't. If this turns out to be the case, want to be his supporters will just shrug it off, saying that it was a good lie, or that it was necessary for him to lie to get elected, etc.
I know that is a "what if", but I have read some on the left who have said just this (that Obama is really for same-sex marriage, but he lied about it just to be more acceptible to the public).
dmarks typed:
'Also, women's reproductive rights (which you mentioned) have not been an issue for decades. Abortion actually is done after the biological process of reproduction has occured.'
Oh. Oh.
My sister-in-law works for Planned Parenthood in smaller, rural communities. She'll be relieved to hear this news. I guess word is still a little slow getting out.
As for our Second Amendment Rights I have yet to notice any 'encroaching' in all my 56 years. There are, in the US, more guns of more calibers and firing rates in private hands than in any time in the history of the f**king planet. Sadly, it isn't actually MANDATORY to pack heat, but give the gun nuts time.
And as for standing up to 'Islamofascism' everyone, save for the diehards, agrees invading Iraq isn't quite the one-size fits all solution one might have hoped for.
And thanks for tossing in the 'Colin Powell is a rascist' tidbit. It's one of my favorite non-sequiturs of yours.
Delicious.
No Gordon.
President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Civil unions with ALL the SAME rights and privileges that are accorded to "married" couples is fine with me. I don't care what it is called "marriage" or "civil union." So long as the gay "married" COUPLE is treated the same as the hetero "married" couple.
Mr. Obama is a Christian and he has said this:
"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
Barack Obama supported gay rights during his Illinois Senate tenure. He sponsored legislation in Illinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
And this from Mrs. Obama:
“Michelle Obama said her husband supports a world where federal laws don't discriminate against same-sex relationships” and he advocates equal treatment for “any relationship recognized under state law.”
“That is why he has said the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide for themselves how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples -- whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union or a civil marriage,” Obama said to the DNC’s Gay and Lesbian Caucus.
So his religious beliefs prevent him from calling it "marriage" but he agrees with my position: that gay couples' "civil unions" are EXACTLY the same in the eyes of the law as a hetero marriage.
That's fine with me.
No weasle there at all. Only your biased, slanted, Obama-hating opinion.
He's still walking very, very tall in my estimation, and we are lucky that he's our president.
And my gay friends and family members support him as strongly as ever.
BTW, dmarks, aren't you the selective one nosing out the "lies" that candidates tell on the campaign trail.
Were you aghast when Mr. Bush walked away from his campaign promise to renew the federal ban on assault weapons.
The ban on 19 types of assault weapons _ such as Uzis, AK-47s and TEC-9s _ became law in 1994 with the support of a Democratic Congress and President Bill Clinton.
There were other promises "lies" that he made during his campaign, but I'm sure I don't need to point them out, since you'll link me to the blog sites where you were calling him out on his "lies."
Speaking of "good" lies, I suggest you read up on Leo Strauss and his advocacy of "the noble lie." Something the neo-cons who urged Mr. Bush into invading Iraq engaged in.
Strauss noted that thinkers of the first rank, going back to Plato, had raised the problem of whether good politicians could be completely truthful and still achieve the necessary ends of their society.
How very quickly certain people are to point out politicians' lies when their liars are out of office.
If you read my previous comment, you'll see that Mr. Obama was very upfront about his position on gay civil unions and marriage.
shaw said: "Were you aghast when Mr. Bush walked away from his campaign promise to renew the federal ban on assault weapons."
You fail to see the difference between broken promises and outright lying. I am not claiming that Obama lied when he said he opposed gay marriage, but I had some Obama supporters outright tell me this.
Examples of broken promises that were not lies include the first Bush's "no new taxes" and Bill Clinton's promise on Haitian immigrants ["...In 1993 Bill Clinton renegged on promises to allow Haitian refugees..."]"but I'm sure I don't need to point them out, since you'll link me to the blog sites where you were calling him out on his "lies."
This didn't make sense. Perhaps you were talking to someone else.
"Speaking of "good" lies, I suggest you read up on Leo Strauss and his advocacy of "the noble lie." Something the neo-cons who urged Mr. Bush into invading Iraq engaged in."
Neo-cons? There are few, and they do not have, and never had much influence.
"How very quickly certain people are to point out politicians' lies when their liars are out of office."
What's your point?
"If you read my previous comment, you'll see that Mr. Obama was very upfront about his position on gay civil unions and marriage."
This does not change the fact that he opposes gay marriage., which is relevant to discussing James Spada Boston letter, which used the word "marry" specifically.
"Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage." - Lesbian Life"The White House front-runner said in an interview with MTV he did not support same-sex weddings and believed "marriage is between a man and a woman"." - Telegraph
It seems my conservative leaning friends think because I and Shaw support President Obama, we must agree with all his policies.
I myself am a lifelong Democrat but that has never meant I have to be blindly loyal. I disagree with the President on his tax cut. Unless you're very wealthy, you most likely will never have your taxes lowered enough to notice a difference in your lving standard.
I disagree with his policy in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am closer to Ron paul.
I believe Gays have the right to marry. I don't get hung up on a word.
I say this respectfully to my conservative friends. If you agreed with Reagan, or Bush, or Rush on everything, you have nose problems.
"It seems my conservative leaning friends think because I and Shaw support President Obama, we must agree with all his policies."
Gosh, I wonder why someone would think that. Could it be because the president regularly breaks promises, is spending us into national penury, and is running a shakedown operation to hand over GM and Chrysler to his union buddies--and yet we haven't seen any expressed caution, any disagreement at all with his policies on this blog.
Instead there's an operation that runs Media Matters and DNC articles that slavishly worship Obama's personality, and yells "Oooh! Rush Limbaugh!" whenever anyone points out that the president is doing things that have never been done before (and for good reason).
And we know he's weaseling on gay marriage because his pollsters tell him he must. We know this, because the 9th Circuit has ordered that federal employees in their circuit be allowed domestic partner benefits. Obama doesn't even have to do anything--just allow the order to take effect.
But he's blocking it, because his pollsters tell him it will cost him a lot of the independent voters. Hardly a profile in courage. He's weaseling, and Shaw is enabling it.
The funny thing is, Shaw, I think you're nearly as concerned about Obama's actions as I am. You're an intelligent, well-informed gal. The strong-arm tactics, the spending, and the utter disdain for promises on ethics and legislation reform have to be making you very uncomfortable.
I worry for you, Shaw, I do. Waking up from this nightmare is going to be painful, and as a friend I would not wish that on you.
Perhaps you should go back and reread all my posts Gordon. And then reread all of Shaw's posts and comments to see if she took President Obama's, Speaker Pelosi's or Senator Reid's side on any of them.
In fact, reread all the left leaners posts and you will most likely find that I am the only one that identifies himself as a Democrat.
I differ with Ron Paul on many things, and come to think of it, am finding him more and more like Pat Buchanan. His foreign policy views are isolationist and have a strong undeniable tinge of antisemitism (he has used "Jewish control conspiracy" language that was created by neo-Nazis), and have nothing to do with the Constitution he claims to be true to. Kind and Gentle, check into Pat Buchanan's foreign policy. You will probably find much to like there, if you like Ron Paul's.
I'm just glad he has little power/influence at all, outside of those of us in blogs and websites who like to discuss him at times.
Gordon: "and is running a shakedown operation to hand over GM and Chrysler to his union buddies"
So, do you think it is a winning strategy? Will a GM and Chrysler now completely run by those who insist on being paid double to build the worst cars for sale in North America be truly viable?
"the spending, and the utter disdain for promises on ethics and legislation reform have to be making you very uncomfortable."
You are so correct on this. I recently found out of a promise candidate Obama made to make legislation/etc available for public review and comment. A great idea, how can anyone not like it? But he blew this off too.
As for ethics, you will find a great example of President Obama "weaseling" there. He promised "no lobbyists". Unequivocally. But then he started to pack them into his administration. He amended his promise to something like no lobbyists, unless they are lobbyists whose talents he needs.
There are those who agree with Obama too much, really. You can tell when they circle the wagons on issues like his appointing tax crooks.
The gay marriage thing? If he says he opposes it and then in practice favors it, he is definitely weaseling and trying to play both sides. Just like those who say they oppose abortion and then have policies that encourage it. (I will give Obama some credit on this one for not weaseling: at least he is usually consist in favoring abortion, and does not weasel much on it).
It is like if someone says "I am strongly opposed to the death penalty, but have no problems with states, prosecutors, and federal law-enforcement related agencies that choose to use it."
About the spending, I have a liberal friend who has frequently listed all the terrible thinga about the Bush administration, including the horrendous debt. Now that Obama has proven himself to have a much worse debt problem than Bush, he has quietly removed the debt problem from his list of Bush's transgressions.
Let me ask you Dmarks. All those on the right in my city are demanding "fiscal accountability" here and with the federal government. What would you cut that would really make that big a difference in the budget deficit? What taxes would you raise?
I've been through this as actively and as an observer. A right leaning, probably well menaing, person demands fiscal accountability. He speaks before a government body or writes a letter to the newspaper. Some organize a protest. (Tea Party anyone?) They usually suggest that "business people" be allowed to look at the budget and make recomendations. Guess what. In all my years involved in and following politics, you know how many "business people" actually read a government budget and made recomendations?
ZERO.
I am all for, 100% for anyone that thinks he/she can make a positive difference having a say.
Bitching alone is not a positive difference. I don't want to pay taxes any more than the next guy. But as long as travesties like Walter Reed, a bridge collapse, levees in disrepair because there isn't enough money to fix these things are happening, I will not bitch about my tax bill. I am on the record for paying more if that's what it takes to get our Nation out of debt and pay for the government services that do in fact help make our lives better.
Thank you all for allowing me to be part of the conversation.
"a bridge collapse, levees in disrepair because there isn't enough money to fix these things are happening"
When the bridge collapse happened, I looked at the budgets involved. These budgets had been increasing steadily and significantly in the time leading up to the bridge collapse.
Obviously, tax cuts and not enough money weren't the problem.
"What would you cut that would really make that big a difference in the budget deficit? What taxes would you raise?"
Do you want item by item? There are some that come to mind immediately: the SCHIP money being wasted on giving free government health care to quite-well-off adults (estimated to start at $8 billion), the $1 billion to encourage abortion overseas (whether or not you favor abortion, isn't it unreasonable to want to spend this money as part of what he claims is a plan to stimulate the US economy?), tens of billions in "down a rathole" bailouts. This is just for starters.
"I will not bitch about my tax bill"
I will, because we will be paying more and more, and really getting less for it as the money is wasted, and along the way the debt actually goes way up instead of down, or even holding steady.
To Anonymous:
I deleted your last two comments because they were about abortion and not about the subject of my post.
I suggest that you start your own blog and post all you want about your opposition to a woman's right to control her own body.
Gordon,
You're always welcome here. But when you leave your supercilious comment about my ideas, it gets to be a bit thick to take.
Your posts over at Crian's blog are filled with your opinions (contemptuous) of Barack Obama. He is diametrically opposite to your political philosophy.
You all but call him the anti-Christ and a demon. That post on the NY flyover with a photo of Mr. Obama looking like Satan himself does you no good vis-a-vis your haughty attempts to enlighten me about my political views on Mr. Obama.
How on earth can I take your comments seriously?
You have Crian's blog to trash Mr. Obama to your little heart's content.
I understand how it feels to be a minority--the Democrats were there for a while.
Your party--your conservative philosophy--is NOT what the American people want. It has been soundly rejected. Approximately 21% of the American people are with you.
I have no illusions about Mr. Obama. I know what he has said, what he has backpedaled on, what he's dragging his feet on.
He's still light years better than anything the GOP has/had to offer.
Why don't you work on bringing the GOP back from oblivion and irrelevancy, instead of crapping on every effort Mr. Obama is making to right the shame, chaos, and disaster left to him by Mr. Bush and the GOP?
Shaw: If anonymous is opposed to abortion, he/she might very well not post about "a woman's right to control her own body.". Different issues.
Shaw,
It's your blog. Characterize me as you will; I can take it.
But calling the photo on the movie poster "demonic" is silly. It's just a picture of Obama photoshopped over a similar photo of Harrison Ford.
I'd like to see this photo. To see if it is "Mr. Obama looking like Satan himself does" or " picture of Obama photoshopped over a similar photo of Harrison Ford."
To see if he has horns and a red face? Or a fedora and a whip?
Contrary to liberal beliefs,there are no moderate Muslims nor is Islam a religion of peace. Help stop the movement before they reach their objectives, converting or killing you and I.
To Frisco Lady:
That's a slander on Muslims. There are millions of Muslims who wish you no harm, who go about their business raising their children, educating them and overall being contributing members of society.
There are radical extremists who wish us harm, but the Muslims I personally know and interact with are wonderful Americans.
Your party of NO! has sold you a stew of hatred, suspicion, and prejudice; and, apparently, you gobbled it up before looking at what it was made of.
Shaw: I was going to say about the same thing you did. For the first two paragraphs.
Frisco said: "there are no moderate Muslims"
Frisco, if I can give you the name of just one moderate Muslim, that proves you wrong. Do you want the names of several?
But the third is a blast of partisan bile, and it doesn't have much to do with anything, really.
Dmarks: Thank you for listing the app. 9 billion you would cut. Also let me remind that President Obama cut 17 billion and the right pilloried him, saying it was chicken feed or something. We're talking, anywhere from 700 billion to 1.2 trillion. What are you going to cut that will make a difference? How much from defense will you cut? Entitlements? Highways? Education. Be advised that anything you cut from education will need to be made up by local and state income and property taxes. Any amount you cut from health care will be added to your local taxes or higher premiums and hospital charges.
Kind one: "Also let me remind that President Obama cut 17 billion and the right pilloried him, saying it was chicken feed or something"
I would not pillory him. I say "it is a good start". I remember the Left pilloring George W. Bush when he vetoed two spending bills. It wasn't that he was cutting too little: they would have rather that he waste the money.
9 billion? No, I mentioned far more than that because I included much of the bailouts.
As for more "cuts", how about if the President had a budget without spending increases? That takes care of the "What would you cut?" question.
A lot can also be saved, on highways, etc by repealing "Davis Bacon"/prevailing wage, which specifically requires government to choose bad bidders that cost too much instead of choosing the best bidders. The savings would be significant. I looked at it for one state, and it would save the state from 10 - 20% on contracts.
The money that is freed up could be used as part of the cuts, or it could be used for infrastructure repairs. Either way, it is better than wasting it in a situation that is at least as bad and much more prevalant than Halliburton's "no bid contract".
Also, you asked about cutting entitlements?
I do not know how much it would save, but I would means-test entitlements. Seriously, does it make sense for the Federal Government to give welfare to the rich?
dmarks,
I've been in a bilious mood these past few days. If you want kind and gentle, you know who to talk to.
PS. I've been to a lot of liberal blogs and haven't seen any posts or comments saying Muslims are out to kill Americans.
Frisco Lady typed that, and it usually springs from hatred of "the other."
I don't doubt it. But I've never seen this as "the party line" anywhere.
The banks, AIG, are on the hook for 55trillion. They go down then we the taxpayers are on the hook for all of it. 700billion sucks. 55trillion is world economic collapse. This is from Bush and Obama economists.
I was wondering when you would get to the zero growth thing Dmarks. That or the old cut everything is the usual standby. Then you get to tell America and our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan they're on a zero growth budget so once you're out of this years bullets duck. When another bridge take a detour for the next ten years.
Your talking point about prevailing wage is more typical conservative speak for screw hard working, trained Union men and women.
"Then you get to tell America and our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan they're on a zero growth budget so once you're out of this years bullets duck."
I thought Obama promised to get us out of Iraq, and to cut the money spent there (which means much less money than "Zero Growth")
"Your talking point about prevailing wage is more typical conservative speak for screw hard working, trained Union men and women."
What of the 90% of hard working men and women who are not in the union?
Federal contracts should go to the best contractors, without regards to union or not. Don't waste federal money on bad contracts. This does not screw union workers. Davis-Bacon screws us all.
Is it really necessary to use the federal contract system as a form of welfare in overpayment which goes only to contractos who force workers (through the union) to give to the Democrats? Rather corrupt, in a way.
And the extra money that is no longer wasted can be used to fix the bridges.
just read on another blog about the Governments responsibility to protect us. How is the Government going to protect me? Protect me from what? From who?
Barack Obama and his band of Idiot's are not my parents! The nuttie Congress is not my parent either. I am an adult and I know what is right and wrong and can live my life without the Liberals of the country dictating to me. I don't need him to protect me.. I know when to shut a light off and if and when I want to go on a long trip ans therefor use a lot of gas.. Screw the “Global Warming” brigade, and screw the ACLU as well. This is still American and I still can do what I want and when I want to do it. I don’t
need Barack Obama or Congressman John Conyers, Chuck Schumer, or Al Gore’s approval. And you can throw Obama’s wife into that sack of crap also. The American way of life is all but gone. John Conyers talks about Bush Lying America into War and HIS Campaign to Hold Bush accountable. But never about holding Clinton accountable, about catching and PUNISHING those who killed and attacked Americans world wide, as well as the first bombing of the World Trade center.. It’s no secret that Barack is a Marxist and what his agenda is. But that don’t seem to bother the Liberal bloggers. All the Liberals bloggers are concerned about is the fact that they OWN the White House and the Congress. So us Conservatives are screwed. Effective check and balance? What a joke.
What I’m going to say is just like the asswipes on the liberal blogs said, and call for the Impeachment of the sitting President, who we all can see now is an idiot. Lets run down his idiot-ness (is that a word?) and see how well he’s done in his first 100 days in office…
The Europeans, who were all lining up to take turns kissing up to the Messiah sucking up to him like a vintage Hoover vacuum cleaner have had an epiphany, and now are convinced that he’s an utter moron who doesn’t know his ass from his elbow about economics, foreign policy, domestic policy, etc, etc, etc, and is also completely clueless on how to properly treat a visiting head of state or foreign dignitary with the decorum that the position deserves. Us conservatives pointed out that he was a complete bumbling idiot, but the liberals wouldn’t listen, and accused us conservatives of trying to *steal* the election by scaring the world into thinking that he would ruin their economies. I guess we were right, but its rather a moot point, because the idiot got elected.
He has spent more, in the first 100 days of the presidency, than all of the other presidents COMBINED have spent in their first FULL YEAR in office. That’s impressive, only because we were told that it would be impossible to spend that much money in that short of a period because it would bankrupt the country, so all of us conservatives were told that we were just *being alarmists* and trying to win an election with our own moron by scaring the beJesus out of the population in order to *steal* the election from the Messiah. I guess we were right, but its rather a moot point, because the idiot got elected.
We conservatives pointed out that he couldn’t cobble together a coherent sentence on his own without the help of a staff of writers, and Teleprompters placed in a grid-like pattern in a radius of 50 feet, spaced two feet apart in any direction form the next available Teleprompter, so as to make sure the idiot wouldn’t stumble over the words, or forget his place. And even with all that, the idiot *lost* his place on the scrolling Teleprompter, and just babbled for 5 minutes while the staff tried to scroll the text back so that he could stop making an idiot of himself. Again, I guess we were right, but its rather a moot point, because the idiot got elected. Pretty impressive isn’t it!
He wouldn’t know an un-corrupt politician if said politician dropped to his knees and bowed to him... . His is the first presidency in history where the amount of overall appointments is running neck and neck with the amount of tax cheats he’s appointed. Us conservatives pointed out that OBambi was nothing more than a corrupt Chicago asswipe. I guess we were right, but its rather a moot point, because the idiot got elected.
We pointed out that he’s a gun-grabber, and he even turned the spotlight onto himself with the *clinging to religion and guns* statement he made, but the panty-wetters at the Brady Outhouse to Prevent you from Exercising your Second Amendment Right got their titty-nipples tied into knots and claimed that we were trying to scare the law-abiding citizens into not voting for him, in effect trying to steal the election by spreading false and vicious rumors. I guess we were right, but its rather a moot point, because the idiot got elected.
The list of stuff goes on, but I’m not going to bore the readership with the more mundane things that prove, beyond a doubt, that he’s a complete bozo, and an idiot who couldn’t find his behind with both hands and a map, a moron who demeans the office of the Presidency by going on late-night talk shows and yucks it up, laughing as he talks about how much money he’s going to be spending in order to *fix* the broken government that he *inherited*
And you Libs thought Bush was stupid? This guy is infantile. He’s way out of his league, and he may very well be impeached after the 2010 election by the wave of conservatives that will no doubt be swept into office.
And another thing... Shut the Mexico Border down. What is the deal?? Are we trying to spread this illness faster than wildfire?? You know the Mexican people are fleeing their country and running into ours! But the Prez makes speeches about inheriting everything form the rescission to swine flu to Michelle's new pair of Jimmy Choos
The above comment is a blog equivalent of a "chain letter". I've seen it elsewhere. I googled one sentence of it, and found yet another copy by yet another person. You can see it here http://aconservativesreport.blogspot.com/2009/04/trash-in-white-house.htmlIt looks like the only thing IMHO added was about Michelle Obama's shoes. I wonder if he is jealous of the family of a successful millionaire author that can afford such shoes (and more). Until you can show evidence that government money was wasted on Michelle's shoes, it appears that they were paid for from the money that family earned from its own hard work. Whatever happened to conservative respect to those who work hard and enjoy the fruits of their labors? Will you heap derision on Rush Limbaugh when he smokes a $52 cigar?
There are some good points here and there in this "form letter", but they are hard to find among the venomous snarkiness and some pretty outrageous things here and there (did I see something about throwing out Michelle Obama in a garbage bag?).
I don't know the extent of Shaw's rules, but I would not blame her for deleting a mindlessly cut-and-pasted form letter that has already been pretty much spammed on several other blogs.
Why do you hate workers that only want what is fair Dmarks? Even those that are not covered under a Union contract benefit by their employers having to compete for their work with Union employers. Unions help workers get higher wages and you're against this? I thought you were a capitalist Dmarks. Why are you against people putting more money in their pockets for their work Brother? Your double standard is troubling friend.
dmarks,
I'm going to leave that venomous screed up so people can see how low these people have sunk into the muck of fear, hate, and self-pity.
When your group has no ideas it attacks and lies.
Again, IMHO proves the observation that these people are irrelevant.
Kind asked: "Why do you hate workers that only want what is fair Dmarks?"
A fair wage is a wage for the real value of the work.
"Even those that are not covered under a Union contract benefit by their employers having to compete for their work with Union employers."
But this results in a significant inflation of the value of the contract above the fair value, which results in much money wasted (in comparison to going with the best bidder).
"Unions help workers get higher wages and you're against this?"
So? Let them compete against better bidders that have lower wages (and end up costing less). And may the company that offers the best contract win.
"I thought you were a capitalist Dmarks."
Then pay for the best. Don't overpay for no good reason.
"Why are you against people putting more money in their pockets for their work Brother?"
When they plunder the treasury to line their pockets, I am against that.
"Your double standard is troubling friend."
It's a single standard: go with the best bidder. Anything else is a big waste of money.
Shaw: "When your group has no ideas it attacks and lies."
Is this why the left-wing screaming troll Christopher, in a quite similar way, attacks and lies? Because his group (which happens to be yours also) has no ideas?
The truth is that you will find such screaming trolls on both sides. During the Bush administration, the leftist ones were ascendant. Now the rightest ones are ascendant.
I'm less annoyed by the trolling (and if I had the power here, would probably not delete Christopher OR IMHO) than by the form-letter spamming. Watch and see if IMHO spams this one again in your next blog post.
dmarks,
The "group" I refer to is the lunatic fringe of the GOP--the birth certificate deniers, the "Obama is a secret Muslim" screamers, the "Obama is a babykiller" screamers, the "Obama is going after my guns" screamers.
Those people are disturbed and out of their minds, bereft of ideas and only interested in advancing lies and hatred.
With an asterisk after the gun part, I mostly agree.
Negotiation is capitalism Dmarks. You seem to not understand that employers also take part in negotiations. They do a good job then proper work rules are established that ensure competence and reliability among labor and management. I've hijacked Shaw's thread with my pro labor stance enough. I hope that you one day soon embrace the concept of labor and management working together to make our business more productive and America better for all of us Dmarks.
Thank you for the conversation.
"I hope that you one day soon embrace the concept of labor and management working together to make our business more productive and America better for all of us Dmarks."
I already have. I respect the rights of workers, whether or not they are in a union, and whether or not they choose to join it. Negotiation is capitalism. Regulations (including forced unionization against workers' will, and Davis-Bacon, which (to use your word) "hates" non-union workers) artificially inflating already-high wages is not capitalism, and is not smart or efficient government.
I'd rather see the money go to fix bridges rather than to make the well-off even richer. After all, what is supposed to be the priority of the highway department? Is it to fix roads, or is it supposed to be a sort of welfare agency that prefers to deal with companies that force their workers to give to the Democratic Party?
When the anti worker Republican Party finally embraces the right of labor to bargain for better wages and benefits the politics will be removed from the Labor movement.
Until that day, we have to fight in the political arena.
There's only one major party that supports the rights of workers to choose to bargain or not to bargain, and it is not the Dems. The Dems tend to favor forcing workers into bargaining situations, whether or not it is in interest of each worker forced into the situation.
Ah those pesky unions.
Representing barely 14% of the labor force but somehow responsible for all that ails American capitalism. It isn't management. Heck no. It's the workers. The Ford Pinto is some welder in Dearborn's doing. Right?
Well business and the GOP have been hugely successful in rolling back labor gains over the past three decades so why not enjoy your victory dmarks?
Sadly all the gains won't be given up. Workplace safety. Pensions and health care. Environmental rules. Child labor laws. Etc. All accomplished with the help of workers organizing and demanding their rights.
You should be pleased.
They've made the US a better place for all of us.
Post a Comment