Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

BREAKING NEWS

Nigeria has been declared officially free of Ebola after six weeks with no new cases, the World Health Organization (WHO) says.



According to the BBC, the Spanish nurse who was the first person to contract Ebola outside of West Africa has tested negative for the virus (a second test is required before she’ll be officially free of the disease). And the United States has reached an important milestone: the 21-day monitoring period for the 48 people who had contact with Thomas Eric Duncan, the Liberian man who died of Ebola in Dallas, ended on Sunday and Monday. Aside from the two nurses who cared for him, there have been no new infections.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Scott Brown, a Conservative Liberals can love?

Now that the dust has settled from the earth-shattering victory of Republican Scott Brown, who will now be Massachusetts' junior senator, let's examine his postions on the issues, and see if the Republicans' enthusiams over his win will last very long.

Scott Brown on health care reform:

"I believe that all Americans deserve health care coverage... In Massachusetts, I support the 2006 health care law that was successful in expanding coverage..."


The law he's referring to is a government health care program that forces people to buy insurance, exactly like Obamacare. The idea is to achieve universal coverage, exactly like Obamacare. Those who can't afford it get subsidized by taxpayers, exactly like Obamacare. And four years after it was passed, 98 percent of Massachusetts has signed up.

And even if we hear that this type of health care is state run, IT IS STILL GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE, and Scott Brown supports it.  So it's actually okay to force people to buy socialist health care now? Big government is okay as long as it's Big State Government?

Brown also supports big banks which was one of the basic things the Tea Party was upset by. When Brown's Democratic opponent, Martha Coakley, asked if he supported Obama's proposed tax on the Big Bonuses, Brown said he was so opposed to raising taxes ever, on anybody. The tax on those bonuses would have returned some of the taxpayers' money.  Why wouldn't he support that?
.
Brown also supports the voluntary bussing of inner city minority school kids to suburan, mostly white schools. 

"I am a strong advocate for the METCO program, which provides lower-income students with broader educational opportunities," he says. He's referring to a Massachusetts program for busing minority kids into white school districts. It's run by the State Department of Education and funded by $20 million in tax money. And when the governor tried to scale it back during the budget crisis, Brown criticized him for "disproportionately cutting a program benefiting inner-city minorities."

The tea parties overlook this, saying Brown supports charter schools.  Well, so does President Obama. Brown and Obama agree on this as well.

Brown also supports one of the biggest mandatory federal government programs of all, Medicare — although, to be fair, this appeared on his Web site in the form of concern that Obamacare might end up lowering the quality of care "for elders on Medicare."
.
Here is a list of more LIBERAL issues Scott Brown SUPPORTS:


1. He supports legal abortion: "This decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor," he says.

2. He's against a national law prohibiting gay marriage: "States should be free to make their own laws in this area," he says.


3. He supports government investment in green programs: "I support reasonable and appropriate development of alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal and improved hydroelectric facilities."


4. He's politically correct on Israel: "I support a two-state solution that reaffirms Israel's right to exist and provides the Palestinians with a place of their own where both sides can live in peace and security."


5. And he doesn't even want to bomb Iran! He's backing Obama's cautious incrementalism! "I support the bipartisan Iran sanctions bill..."

Can it really be true? Is the movement founded in scorn for politicians who abandon their principles for power already abandoning its principles for power?

The answer is a resounding YES!  Scott Brown appears to be a conservative any LIBERAL could love.

He may have an "R" after his name, but his positions are most definitely LIBERAL.

Maybe Tuesday's election wasn't a defeat for Liberal ideals afterall. 


h/t Esquire

.

114 comments:

Jim said...

You bring up some interesting points SK. I will be watching how he votes as will other conservatives but how he voted in the MA statehouse is no concern for me in CA. After all, that is what STATE'S RIGHTS are about. If one what's the total cradle to grave gov life style in MA then by all means get it. If someone in MA don't like it that person has the right to move to say, TX, where life is more about personal responsibility and freedom from gov interference.

Just don't try to tell me here in CA what I must buy by some law originated in DC. Ain't gonna fly around this house. No sirree. I don't give up that right to no one, Republican, Democrat, or Commie.

FenwayFrank said...

Liberals Still Don't Get It
Anything, anything at all....racism, homophobia, sexism, stupidity, love of religion and guns, xenophobia or just plain old-fashioned evil-mongering.....anything except the notion that the people have rejected their Progressive ideas or their Liberal 'values'.

It's impossible for them to acknowledge that there could be anything short of loving devotion to their radical agenda and so they will rationalize every minut detail until they've convinced themselves that they're just simply misunderstood.

For them the obvious answer is to double-down and push even harder.

The word 'No' doesn't mean 'No' to them....it means they have to explain it to you again until YOU finally get it.

That knucklehead Howard Dean actually believes that the vote in Massachusetts was an indication that the Obama administration needs to press the Progressive Agenda even harder on the country....this is true insanity.

You know it's bad when even Chris Matthews thought he was crazy.

Im telling you...the Liberals still don't get it.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

Green Monster (Fenway): This might prevent the supposed large loss of Congressional seats in November, really. The Dems are no longer saddled with that healthcare plan, and by November the voters will forget that big reason to vote against them.

Shaw Kenawe said...

To Fenway Frank,

First of all, you didn't back up your first claim with any evidence or facts. So it is meaningless.


Massachusetts' electing a Republican with liberal leanings does NOT mean the country has rejected the Democrats. In fact the country favors the Democrats over the Republicans in some polls and in one the parties are tied. Fact.

That hardly means the country rejected the Democrats. Try using facts instead of just prejudices next time you come here. .

And a plurality of Mass. voters actually said in a poll taken after the vote that Mr. Obama's health care reform DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH!

"Massachusetts voters who backed Barack Obama in the presidential election a year ago and either switched support to Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown or simply stayed home, said in a poll conducted after the election Tuesday night that if Democrats enact tougher policies on Wall Street, they'll be more likely to come back to the party in the next election.

In a somewhat paradoxical finding, a plurality of voters who switched to the Republican -- 37 percent -- said that Democrats were not being "hard enough" in challenging Republican policies.

The poll also upends the conventional understanding of health care's role in the election. A plurality of people who switched -- 48 -- or didn't vote -- 43 -- said that they opposed the Senate health care bill. But the poll dug deeper and asked people why they opposed it. Among those Brown voters, 23 percent thought it went "too far" -- but 36 percent thought it didn't go far enough and 41 percent said they weren't sure why they opposed it.

Among voters who stayed home and opposed health care, a full 53 percent said they opposed the Senate bill because it didn't go far enough; 39 percent weren't sure and only eight percent thought it went too far."


Source.

It appears your only reason for coming here was to plant your opinion backed up by no evidence or facts.

You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.

Nice try, though, Frankie.

Susannah said...

Perhaps you're right, Shaw, about Sen-elect Brown's positions relative to MA politics. I'm surely not informed enough to make a judgement about that.

Isn't it interesting that regardless, everyone's trying to ride Scott Brown's coattails on this. Even the PRESIDENT - who mere hours before, campaigned AGAINST him (& his truck), tries to aligns himself w/ Sen-elect Brown by claiming that it's STILL George Bush's fault ...

Jim speaks of personal responsibility, & FenwayFrank says Libs 'just don't get it.' Dmarks says the Dems are 'no longer saddled' w/ their healthcare plan. They're all correct. Trouble is, BHO won't (or hasn't yet) taken his OWN personal responsibility for wasting an entire year on a Leftist agenda that demonstrates his disconnect from his populace; which, imo illustrates his 'just don't get it' position.

As for Dmarks' notation: Thank GOD in heaven that We the People are no longer 'saddled' with the threat of that monstrous healthcare trainwreck! Mr. Brown may be a "Scott Brown Republican," & that's fine by me. I don't tie myself to party as much as to worry about that. I'm just so giddy that the PEOPLE have finally been heard.

"With all due respect sir, this is not Ted Kennedy's seat, it's not the Democrat's seat. This is the people's seat."

And we don't want what you've been selling. Hear us now?

Shaw Kenawe said...

..SUSANNAH wrote: "Perhaps you're right, Shaw, about Sen-elect Brown's positions relative to MA politics."

But Brown is still a representative of MA politics, since he is now the junior senator from Massachusetts where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 3 to 1. If Brown wants to keep his seat, he has to consider that a Palin-type conservative will not get re-elected here.

Susannah, you claim that President Obama "wasted" an entire year on a "Leftist" agenda, without backing that up.

Is sending 30,000 extra troops into Afghanistan part of a "Leftist" agenda? If you think so, come here to Massachusetts and tell us where you got that idea.

And here are a few more of what you label Mr. Obama's "Leftist" agenda, and what you claim he's been "wasting" his time on:

Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices

Instituted enforcements for equal pay for women

Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover A.F.B.

Better body armor is now being provided to our troops


Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration

Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date

States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards

Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards

Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back

Ended the previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings


Those are only a few actions Mr. Obama has taken to implement his “Leftist” agenda. I’m shocked that you would see something there that a conservative would be against.


Susannah wrote: "And we don't want what you've been selling. Hear us now?"

Actually more Americans favor the Democrats than they do Republicans--whose favorability ratings are around 24%.

And polls taken after the Mass. vote upset on Tuesday showed that a plurality of Mass. voters felt that Mr. Obama's health care reform DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH,as I pointed out in answer to Fenway Frankie's comment.

The spin immediately following the upset vote in Mass. was that it was a rejection of Mr. Obama. When the dust settled and peopled looked at WHY Mass. voters voted the way they did--a different story emerged. Yes. It was a message to Mr. Obama--TO DO MORE!

dmarks said...

I wondered about this one: "Here is a list of more LIBERAL issues Scott Brown SUPPORTS: 1. He supports legal abortion..."

So I went to check the web site of NARAL, the lobbying arm of the abortion industry.

http://www.prochoicemass.org/news/press/201001121.shtml

which states that "Massachusetts’ leading advocacy organizations for women’s reproductive rights denounced Republican Scott Brown's poor record" in the view of those on that side of the abortion debate.

So, isn't it probably a case of both sides wanting Brown, who appears to be a moderate, to go to their side?

dmarks said...

Shaw concluded in her comment above: "Yes. It was a message to Mr. Obama--TO DO MORE!"

How, by making it harder to do more? That is what electing Brown did. It has made it harder for the President to get his agenda done.

Susannah said...

Shaw~ Yes of course, Leftist agenda: the cornerstone of which being Hlthcr. & Cap&Tax., which the People have resoundingly rejected by making those things VERY unlikely to enact now- thank God.

Dmarks is right, it doesn't 'add up' to say that BHO's agenda didn't do enough, therefore voters made it even more difficult for him...

Glad to see you're back in the saddle (sincerely glad). I know you're back to yourself when your retort is as predictable is this one!

...I know, I know...Susannah's point can't possibly be correct, b/c she didn't back up her comment w/ statistical analysis of variance among the voter's polled, including demographic indicators broken down by party affiliation, precinct, & time of day their vote was cast...Oh & she pluralized a singular noun, & incorrectly used the present active participle of a verb (though highly unlikely), which of course negates any plausibility of her assertions...

Like I said, glad you're back to your old self! ;)

Shaw Kenawe said...

Harder to get his agenda done?

George Bush had fewer Republicans in the Senate when he shoved his agenda through Congress.

The Democrats have 57, with 2 Independents that may vote with them--Bernie Sanders, yes, Joe Lieberman? Depends on how much attention he wants.

The Democrats can get a lot done is they use their power.

Shaw Kenawe said...

SUSANNAH wrote:

"...I know, I know...Susannah's point can't possibly be correct, b/c she didn't back up her comment w/ statistical analysis of variance among the voter's polled, including demographic indicators broken down by party affiliation, precinct, & time of day their vote was cast...Oh & she pluralized a singular noun, & incorrectly used the present active participle of a verb (though highly unlikely), which of course negates any plausibility of her assertions...

Like I said, glad you're back to your old self! ;)"

I, of course, didn't say any of that. I merely asked you to back your assertion up with facts, as I did, showing you that a lot of Mr. Obama's agenda is party-neutral, i.e., something Dems and Reps can support. That's all.

As for the other part, I only criticize people who come here and name-call or just rant. You didn't.

I don't care about typos or grammatical errors.

Arthurstone said...

Seems corporations are people too.

I'm waiting for our "conservative" friends to rail against one of the more provocative examples of judicial activism I can recall.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Arthurstone,

That decision by the SCOTUS is up there with Dred Scott.

If that isn't judicial activism, then I don't know what is.

How will we mere citizens compete with multi-billion dollar corporations in the next election?

Talk about a corporate fascist state.

Stick a fork in the good ole USofA.

We're done.

Susannah said...

This just in... Chris Matthews bolsters Susannah's assertions using pure logic vs. Howard Dean w/ his polling data (aka Shaw's 'facts').

Note that in the face of superior logic, Mr. Dean didn't demand that Mr. Matthews 'back up' his argument with 'facts.'

Just thought you may be interested. Have a good weekend.

dmarks said...

I like this decision, because it means less censorship. Corporations aren't people (of course they aren't not one of them can vote!), but the people who choose to join them are, and there's nothing in the Bill of Rights that removes rights for individuals just because they are members of organizations.

It's definitely a step away from fascism: less government restrictions on people's free speech. The First Amendment benefits in this also come to members of labor unions and other organizations. Remember the First Amendment, and if you don't like something someone says ignore it. There's no reason at all to have such censorship. Especially the censorship (now overturned) which was designed to stifle political discourse.

Judicial activism or not, it's great that the Supreme Court has decided for once to dust of the Constitution and give it a read.

Shaw: back to the idea of "electing Brown is a boost for Obama", does this mean if we elect a whole bunch more Republicans to the Senate, then Obama will become invincible?

dmarks said...

Susannah: Carefull, don't prod Howard Dean too much. You know what happens when he blows his stack. If you do, cover your ears.

Pamela D. Hart said...

Shaw: I only have a minute, but FYI Fenway Frank is cutting and pasting THAT comment all over the blogosphere. I just deleted him over at my place.

dmarks said...

farewell freeway fritz1

Arthurstone said...

Thanks dmarks.

I can always count on you for a laugh.

One hundred years of legislation, judicial precedent and plain old common sense swept out in a heartbeat by a group of jurors in thrall to the very same corporate interests which have led the nation to the edge of economic catastrophe.

And 'anti-fascist' to boot.

Excellent.

Ending censorship?

Nonsense.

dmarks said...

Arthur: This ruling came out of a case where the law censored someone's anti-Hillary movie.

Well, maybe you are a Hillary fan and believe such movies should be censored. But that goes against the most important standing precedent: the First Amendment.

I'd say the exact same thing if it were "Fahrenheit 9/11" being censored, or a film like it.

It has nothing to do with "corporate interests". The claim that it is, is a big laugh. The mention of "economic catastrophe" is a non-sequitur, like tying in Haiti or Ted Kennedy into the comment.

Yes, completely anti-fascist, since the government is letting off the "gag" some and allowing more free speech.

So, feel free to protest this decision. And to join with others of like view, and speak out at any time, even during an election. This supreme court ruling protects that right.

Arthurstone said...

It isn't as if our elected representatives don't spend enough time raising money to get themselves re-elected. I seem to recall a number of posters hereabouts mewling about that very issue of late.

Oh well.

Now our representatives can give up any pretense of representing their constituents.

Wait. I take it back.

Now they can more completely represent their constituents.

The folks with the deepest pockets.

Is this a great country or what?

dmarks said...

Oh. and missed the end, where Arthur said: "Ending censorship? Nonsense."

True, more examples still exist. But this ruling did end some major examples of censorship, and by doing so, reduced it overall.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...

From this Gallup article the day before Scott Brown won comes these interesting stats of MA voters: 13% Republican, 35% Democrat and 49% Independent. Apparently the Indies went for Mr. Brown in a big way or that most of the Democrats staid home. Either way, it is a repudiation of Mr. Obama's policies.

And this trend is nationwide as most Democrats are trailing badly in their races, Ohio, Arkansas, Illinois, California to name a few, or they are retiring so as not to face their constituents in November. Google it if you like.

I know that liberals are all a twitter over what the SCOTUS did for freedom of speech this week. What's the matter? Afraid of a little competitive discourse on ideas? Me thinks so.

Arthurstone said...

The campaign finance laws were 'censorship' in only the most convoluted sense. The First Amendment is not absolute.

On the other hand labor unions will be free to pour in unlimited amounts of money to engage in 'competitive discourse'. And that's a good thing I suppose.

And of course the voter is forgotten in all of this as big money rules the conversation. It's the American way.

This ruling just removes any doubt.

The Supremes are really only legitimizing what we already know to be true. With deep enough pockets anything is possible.

Susannah said...

Dmarks~ Bravo! I like the way you think!
Jim~ HA! At first I thought you were the 'Jim' who's @ my blog a lot, & here some too, then I read your comment & thought maybe that 'Jim' had received a brain transplant!! BUT NO - You're a new 'Jim'! (to me anyway) "afraid of a little competitive discourse?" Indeed.
Arth~ "The First Amendment is not absolute."
EXCUSE me? Oh, I suppose you believe it's a "living document," too; evolving along w/ Society at the whims of the Left? Please.

Arthurstone said...

Susannah barely managed:

Arth~ "The First Amendment is not absolute."
EXCUSE me? Oh, I suppose you believe it's a "living document," too; evolving along w/ Society at the whims of the Left? Please.


Er. Um. Harrumph.

This may help:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/libraryexpression.aspx?topic=exceptions

TRUTH 101 said...

Perhaps some good will come out of the Supreme Court decision. When the righties make ads and films full of lies and distortions, trial lawyers could sue them for defamation and donate a portion of the proceeds to Unions and other Democratic institutions that fight the lies and anti America agenda of the republicans.

Yay America!

Jim said...

This AP story from CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer today brings the jobs numbers into clear focus: Nationally, more than 600,000 people left the labor force in December, according to government data. The large exodus from the labor force indicates that "unemployment is a lot worse than the numbers suggest," Koropeckyj said.

Mr. Obama's policies are only exacerbating the problem, not solving it. This economy is his, no matter how loudly liberals claim it is still GWB's.

The unions will have a hard sell this November with independent voters no matter how much they spend on spin advertising. The auto bailouts were mostly for their retirement bennies, not to shore up the manufacturer to make it more competitive in the market place.

This November will be a lot of fun. The ads should be entertaining as well as informative or misleading, as the case may be. As a voter one can ignore all the spin and laugh at the best ones. I do.

Arthurstone said...

Jim weighed in:

"Mr. Obama's policies are only exacerbating the problem, not solving it. This economy is his, no matter how loudly liberals claim it is still GWB's."

Excellent.

Thirty years of constant deregulation supported by both parties pushed the economy right to the edge of catastrophe.

But it's Obama's economy.

Righteo.

The situation would be even more dire without Obama's actions. In fact it's a pity he wasn't able to be more aggressive with government spending.

This is interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/books/19book.html?ref=books

Stiglitz is on to something.

Jim said...

I visited your site for the first time Susannah. Great site. Good work. I don't follow other conservative sites as I find it more entertaining to be on sites that I disagree with. The fun factor ya know. So I am not the 'Jim' that is regularly on your site.

Let's see how well Mr. Obama's so called stimulus packages have helped. Unemployment continues to rise (no 'shovel ready jobs' of any note [Proof]). The deficit has risen faster under his watch at an unprecedented rate (America's credit rating at risk to become worse than a banana republic's [Proof]). His foreign policies have destroyed America's image abroad (America looks weak and indecisive, thus emboldening our enemies to even more dangerous attacks [Proof]).

This November is gonna be FUN!

Jim said...

Arthur I just wish you'd learn how to link. ;-)

Susannah said...

Arth.~ Thanks for the input. I'm quite sure you figure yourself among the intellectual elites, & myself not. The Supreme Court just happens to disagree w/ you.

And of course, everyone knows the NY Times is the epitome of journalistic integrity. *Psha*

Jim~ Thanks for the visit & for the nod! I've just left a note for you.

dmarks said...

Arthur said: "The campaign finance laws were 'censorship' in only the most convoluted sense."

They were censorship in the most direct sense. This is because the purpose of the laws was to quash undesired speech.

Arthur: "The First Amendment is not absolute."

True. But the freedom of expression on political matters is at its very core.

Arthur: "On the other hand labor unions will be free to pour in unlimited amounts of money to engage in 'competitive discourse'. And that's a good thing I suppose."

Yes. The more free speech, the better. And by the way, what sort of convoluted interpretation of the First Amendment would all censoring one type of organization (corporations) but not others? It becomes more clear that your ideal of free speech is "allow it if I agree with it."

Arthur: "And of course the voter is forgotten in all of this as big money rules the conversation. It's the American way."

And there's nothing in the Constitution that demands censoring someone just because they have more than a certain amount of money. Nonetheless, the voter is indeed forgotten here, since this issue is about freedom of speech, and not voting. Voting is covered in other parts of the Constitution.

This ruling just removes any doubt.

Arthur: "The Supremes are really only legitimizing what we already know to be true. With deep enough pockets anything is possible."

Not at all. What they have confirmed is that everyone has free speech rights, and can't be censored for the depth of their pockets.
---------------
Truth: A great business model, until we get tort reform. Then, filing frivolous lawsuits in a back-door form of censorship won't work anymore.

By the way, referring to the case involved, this benefits the Left more than the Right. Who ever heard of the Hillary movie other than in news of this case? In contrast, the industry of film-length and film-distributed campaign speech on the left ("Fahrenheit 9/11") is larger and more profitable.

dmarks said...

Also, Arthur, thank you for already linking to the First Amendment Center in support of your arguments.

Did you go to the root page?

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/.

This resulutely non-partisan pro-free-speech group applauds the recent Supreme Court decision.

How about if you were really concerned about corruption, you go after actual corruption, instead of intentionally going out to deny those with supposedly "deep pockets" basic Constitutional rights?

TAO said...

I can't wait till these corporations start pouring money into ads for candidates like the ones they do for Cialis....

You know where they have to announce a disclaimer about if the drug works too good ('if you have an erection that lasts longer than 8 hours see your doctor)

I want to start having politicians that over achieve.....

dmarks said...

Well, it's good for this "place" too (and Kos and Dem Underground and World Net Daily and the other big guns), especially since the regulators have been making noise about regulating blogs, etc out of concerns over campaign speech. Nothing ever quite came of that, and I think it is less likely now.

Jim said...

Thomas Jefferson had his troubles with 'progressives' and the SCOTUS.

Shaw Kenawe said...

SUSANNAH wrote: "Arth.~ Thanks for the input. I'm quite sure you figure yourself among the intellectual elites, & myself not. The Supreme Court just happens to disagree w/ you."

Susannah, it is not being elitist for Arthurstone to point out that over the years, changes have been made to the 1st Amendment. Calling Arthurstone elitist did not address the facts he presented to you. You avoided addressing this.

The Constitution is not immutable, as we know. It has been changed over the years to reflect the changes in our society--if it hadn't changed, we'd still be supporting slavery and denying unproperties citizens and women the right to vote.

For that reason, the Constitution is most certainly a living document. Count the amendments added since 1789 to see for yourself.

BTW, you seem to have forgotten that the NYTimes SUPPORTED George W. Bush's war in Iraq, and published all of Judith Miller's now discredited reporting on it. The NYTimes also reported, without attribution, all the rumors swirling around ex-President Clinton during his Monica scandal.

Have you actually read the New York Times?

And dmarks, if you truly believe that you will have the same influence on politicians and government policy as multi-billion dollar corporations will now have, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Arthurstone said...

Susannah sputtered:

"And of course, everyone knows the NY Times is the epitome of journalistic integrity. *Psha*"


I linked to a book review where anyone with the slightest interest could learn more about economic views of Mr. Stiglitz. Now if there is some problem with the 'integrity' of the book review or the book itself I'd be curious to know what it might be. If, on the other hand this is a knee-jerk (which it gives all signs of being) reaction to the words 'NY Times' then that's your problem.

But well done Susannah. You play the victim card impeccably. As far as 'intellectual elites' go thanks for the compliment. But truth be told I'd put my blue-collar working class experiences against yours any day of the week.

As far as the Supremes ruling goes I for one am not going to lose any sleep over it. I am not surprised in the least. I merely point out that once again an immediate consequence will be politicians even more beholden (if that's possible) to wealthy special interests.

Perhaps this will drive real campaign reform which would take the shape of public financing and likely a time limit on campaigns. Likewise some real legislation limiting elected officials going to work as lobbyists after serving in congress wouldn't be a bad idea.

dmarks said...

Arthur said: "Perhaps this will drive real campaign reform which would take the shape of public financing and likely a time limit on campaigns"

I hope those fail too. Why?

1) Public financing means taxpayer or government financing. A complete waste of taxpayer dollars, which is also so wrong since it means that people end up being forced to pay for candidates that don't represent their interests. If you come up with an option under which all money given is voluntary, I would not object to that. Oh wait: that is what we have now.

2) Time limits on campaigns would never apply to the incumbents, who are able to campaign all the time in office. This is yet another attempt to limit the ability of people to challenge those in power.

Also, your limit would not apply to the Ross Perots of the world, who would be able to buy infomercials and do book tours in order to "Help the country", and only run for office at the last second in order to get under "campaign" limits.
---------------------------

No, sorry, I feel that giving government control over who gets to run for office is a bad idea, and people being able to speak out, challenge those in power, and run for office as early as they want to is intrinsic to democracy. After all, what's the problem? If some guy is running too early, just ignore him. And you are perfectly free to vote against him, if it comes to that, because he ran a month earlier than you'd have liked.

dmarks said...

Shaw said: "For that reason, the Constitution is most certainly a living document. Count the amendments added since 1789 to see for yourself."

I agree very strongly. The Constitution was designed to live through the amendment process, and was not intended to live due to men or women on the Supreme Court outright ignoring the document and just making up stuff.

"And dmarks, if you truly believe that you will have the same influence on politicians and government policy as multi-billion dollar corporations will now have, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you."

I don't. However, I do not believe that somehow the First Amendment should get tossed out for anyone.

Arthurstone said...

I know that beyond bombing third worlders into oblivion there's very little government spending many of my 'conservative' friends much care for.

Likewise unfettered free markets are the and all be all of human existence.

Except they aren't and rules, laws and regulations are necessary in civilized society.

Only in early 21st century United States would having to buy a pet license be considered a threat to personal liberty.

Have a great weekend you rugged individualists.

Jim said...

I know that SK likes to deal in 'facts' and presents those that bolster her argument exclusively. And who doesn't do that?

Here's a great article from several years ago that explains the debate over a living vs not living Constitution. Good Read!

Arthurstone said...

Thanks for the link Jim.

Here are two of my favorite paragraphs in the piece:

"Until the 20th century, the "originalist" view of the Constitution held sway. There are several variations on this philosophy, but it generally meant that judges should interpret the Constitution as its framers intended it and would themselves interpret it, using the text itself plus other documents of the time, such as the Federalist Papers."

Concluding with:

"But we live with such conflict, and muddle through the uncertainties the Constitution will always present. As Justice William Brennan wrote, "It is arrogant to pretend that from our vantage we can gauge accurately the intent of the Framers on the application of principle to specific, contemporary questions."

Intention is a funny thing.

Cheers!

dmarks said...

Arthur said: "I know that .... there's very little government spending many of my 'conservative' friends much care for."

Little government spending? Try trillions. Even Reagan and George W. Bush spent far less on defense than was spent on other things.

"Except they aren't and rules, laws and regulations are necessary in civilized society."

You said this in regards to free markets. Is this because you want this applied to the expression of political opinion?

Arthurstone said...

Nice try dmarks.

But I said nothing about 'little government spending' I mentioned that for conservative types there was little government spending BEYOND bombing third-worlders into oblivion THEY approve of.

And I stand by that.

As for rules, regulations, laws applying to the 'expression of political opinion' they already do and always have.

The nice thing about the Supremes ruling is now political 'competitive discourse', as Jim euphemistically describes our current situation, will now consist entirely of paid advertising.

Mission accomplished!

Satyavati devi dasi said...

Shareholders don't currently have input into what campaigns the corporations they own shares in support.

This isn't 'free speech'.

This means that if I own stock in X company, they can go support candidates I wouldn't, with unlimited amounts of funds.

This cannot possibly be right.

dmarks said...

Arthur said: "I mentioned that for conservative types there was little government spending BEYOND bombing third-worlders into oblivion THEY approve of."

You stand by this? When you know that conservatives usually and typically approve and stand by budgets in which little is spent to do what you inaccurately describe? When most of the spending they support is "BEYOND" retaliating against terrorists?

SDD said: "Shareholders don't currently have input into what campaigns the corporations they own shares in support.
This isn't 'free speech'."

It is very free speech. The shareholders, after all, choose whether or not to get involved with the corporation. It's entirely voluntary.

Likewise, I can join the NRA or ACLU and have no input into their campaigns. But by joining, or quitting, I support what they do, and put my money behind it. Or take it away.

"This means that if I own stock in X company, they can go support candidates I wouldn't, with unlimited amounts of funds."

The key word is "if". It's your choice, as a shareholder.

"This cannot possibly be right."

The situation could not be better, really. People are free to invest, or not invest in, companies that do things they like.

You can take your money (As a potential shareholder) and invest it in a ocmpany. And pull it out if you do not like what the company is doing. And if you find another company you really do like, invest in that. If you find none, sit on it, put it in gold or something, or support some start-up that really agrees with your causes.

dmarks said...

And SDD, shareholders typically don't micro-manage other things the company does. Like choose the color if iPods.

Yes, that's right.

Jim said...

dmarks you are so spot on. I notice that SDD did not mention what union dues are spent on campaigns that a lot of members don't agree with. Humm, OK for that I guess.

And Arthur, poor Arthur, is so, well, prejudiced against conservatives and paints us with a very broad brush. And without any 'facts' to justify his accusations. SK won't like that. ;-)

dmarks said...

Jim said: "I notice that SDD did not mention what union dues are spent on campaigns that a lot of members don't agree with"

That is kind of a different situation, where federal law ends up requiring employers to force workers into these organizations (and to give them money).

Aside from this problem, I have no problem at all with the free speech of unions and their choice to get involved in campaigns and fund candidates. Like with corporations, a union isn't a person, but a union is made up of individuals with First Amendment rights.

Susannah said...

Bravo to Dmarks & Jim, who seem to have the stamina to continue these incredibly tedious discussions. I disconnected after Arth.'s insulting "barely managed" & "sputtered" characterizations of my comments.

Arth., if you only knew who you were speaking to, you would never - ever characterize my actions as 'playing the victim card.' It made me laugh out loud, my friend. Thanks for the chuckle!

Now, I've been organizing/planning a birthday party for my almost-7-year-old all afternoon, & prepping my 7th grader all evening to take the SAT in the a.m., rather than twisting my brain into knots in an attempt to appease you folks, which is impossible anyway (why, oh why did I come here again?). It's time to turn in, & bid you all farewell.

I do, however, just havta say - Shaw, the Constitution is NOT a living document. Amendments go through a stringent process in order to be ratified & added to, ahem, amend the document. It is not a 'living' document in the sense that it meant one thing for those in the 1700-1800's & another for us today. Your lecturing me on Amendments illustrates your lack of understand of what that phrase means, & why you failed to gather the spirit of the way the phrase was used by me, & by most everyone who uses that oft-cited phrase.

...yep, this is where Shaw berates me for not 'backing up' my assertion w/ aforementioned statistical ANOVA data, for 'avoiding issues' presented by others' arguments (like I spend spare time chasing someone else's wild geese in order to comment on this blog), where she lectures me on the basis & nature of a Constitutional Amendment (again), where she does her own oppositional research to determine which newspapers & mags I read or do not read, thereupon basing her judgement of the veracity of my assertions...*blah, blah, blah*...

Big day tomorrow. I need all the rest I can get. Shaw - glad to see you're back in rare form!

Oh, & I still say dmarks & Jim are the most lucid folks here! Bye now.

Shaw Kenawe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shaw Kenawe said...

Susannah, after the birthday party and helping your 7th grader with SAT preparation, you may want to return and see that, indeed, the Constitution is considered a "living document."



The Living Constitution is a concept in American constitutional interpretation which claims that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning. The idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.

"While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with long outdated views is often unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that the theory can be used by judges to inject their personal values into constitutional interpretation."


The Constitution of the United States of America is not set in stone. It is constantly subject to subtle interpretive change by the courts and major change by the passage of amendments.

And this:

How is the Constitution a living document?"

A. The Constitution has been termed a "Living Document," but whether you think it is, or rather should be, depends on your interpretation of the Constitution itself. Through out time, the Constitution has been interpreted by many people; Presidents, Congress people, Judges, Justices, and plain folk like me. The fact that we are able to do this at all is where the phrase comes from.

Some believe that the Constitution is a whole document in and of itself, and that any further interpretation of its text is not only unnecessary but undesirable. However, my feeling is that the bulk of the people in the United States take a view that allows the Constitution to be interpreted to at least some extent. In interpreting the Constitution, it is said to grow, expand, adapt. In this way, it is like a living thing. It is able to take the external surroundings and change to suit them. These changes are most visible in the decisions of the Supreme Court.

For example, at one point, the Court ruled that separate institutions for black and white citizens were perfectly legal and constitutional, as long as the institutions were equal in power and efficacy - the "separate but equal" doctrine. In this century, the Supreme Court turned this doctrine on its ear by declaring that separate cannot mean equal, and segregation was unconstitutional."


I don't know why you accuse people of "lecturing" you when they present opposing opinions. You came here and presented your opinion; I countered with mine.

You appear to be using snark in your comment (twice) that I'm in "rare form" whatever that means.

I'm simply countering your opinion.

No one is "lecturing" or being "elitist" when they present their point of view.

FenwayFrank said...

Denial, arrogance, and self-pity are ingredients for a pretty toxic cocktail. But the facts speak for themselves Shaw. The vote in Massachusetts was an indication that the Obama administration is losing steam and the people are finally waking up and realizing that they have been duped.
I'm "STILL" telling you...the Liberals still don't get it.

Shaw Kenawe said...

FF,

I that helps you feel "empowered," go ahead and believe it.

FenwayFrank said...

Shaw are you smoking those funny cigarettes again? Your comment to me wasn't even a spin, it was desperation.
Scott Brown campaigned on two promises, both of which apparently struck a nerve with the electorate. He wants to block health care reform and he wants to find ways to reduce the enormous budget deficit. It is here where the roots of dissatisfaction with Obama are to be found.
0bama is getting desperate, he's saying and doing stupid things and getting us in deep trouble AGAIN!.
You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.

Nice try, though, Shaw!

TAO said...

Boy, this is wild....

The constitution is not a living document and then go on and list how it can be amended...

That pretty much makes it a living document....as does having a Supreme Court who's decisions become 'precedent'

Pretty much an ever changing document to me...but then again its always humourous to listen to conservative justices claim that they 'strictly' interpret the constitution....

Right! If you say it enough times it might end up being true...

In regards to corporations...

Dmarks, in the past you claimed that the investors were the owners of a corporation and as such everything a corporation did what at the behest of the investors.

Corporations are a legal entity devised to protect the investors and to allow investors to form cooperatives to make money and to protect them from losses more than their initial investment.

As such, corporations are nothing more than individuals acting as investors. As individuals have freedom of speech then their is not reason to grant freedom of speech to nothing more than a legal structure.

By claiming that investors can sell their ownership if they become dissatisfied with the political speech of a corporation then what you have done is made management the owner of the corporation and the owner of the income derived from the corporation until thus time that they decide to share it with the investors.

Realistically, with all the issue of a Board of Directors being appointed by the CEO and the networking that goes on in board rooms you have basically created a whole new class of tyrants...the CEO of corporations.

They can now promote candidates, promote positions and do so with money that is NOT THEIRS!

I also do not believe that unions should have the same freedom of speech that individuals do.

Now, if you join an association which was established to promote a particular point of view, like the NRA then that is a different story or planned parenthood.

Corporations and unions are formed for reasons other than to promote a particular point of view.

The individuals who form corporations and or unions do so not for the intent of a shared political opinion....and they do not participate with the assumption of a shared point of view.

Shaw Kenawe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shaw Kenawe said...

FF wrote: "Shaw are you smoking those funny cigarettes again? Your comment to me wasn't even a spin, it was desperation.
Scott Brown campaigned on two promises, both of which apparently struck a nerve with the electorate. He wants to block health care reform and he wants to find ways to reduce the enormous budget deficit. It is here where the roots of dissatisfaction with Obama are to be found.
0bama is getting desperate, he's saying and doing stupid things and getting us in deep trouble AGAIN!.
You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts."

FF,

I covered the facts behind the vote in Massachusetts, and you disregard them and came here to insist your biased opinion of what happened is correct. That just isn't true.

The people of Massachusetts want a stronger health care bill. They want Mr. Obama to do MORE. That was the story behind their disontent at the polls and sending Washington a message. Ignore it if you choose, but that doesn't change the reality.

FF said: "0bama is getting desperate, he's saying and doing stupid things and getting us in deep trouble AGAIN!."

Trolls who come here and make pronouncements as facts without giving examples to back up what they say are to be ignored.


"You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts."


Really? Where are the "facts" in your comment? Claiming that Obama is saying and doing "stupid" things is an OPINION not a fact.

You seem not to know the difference between the two.

dmarks said...

Tao: "Dmarks, in the past you claimed that the investors were the owners of a corporation and as such everything a corporation did what at the behest of the investors."

Yes. If they all don't like it and choose to pull out, what's left?

"I also do not believe that unions should have the same freedom of speech that individuals do."

Unions are made of individuals, and a union can't "say" one word without the cooperation of one ore more individuals.

"The individuals who form corporations and or unions* do so not for the intent of a shared political opinion....and they do not participate with the assumption of a shared point of view."

If a shareholder participates invests in company that is known for its political activities and attitudes and does not assume that the company will go on as before, this shareholder is a sort of blind/ignorant investor.

If the investor stays in the company after suddenly learning of its political attitudes, they are endorsing them.

dmarks said...

Shaw mentioned: "He wants to block health care reform and he wants to find ways to reduce the enormous budget deficit."

Shaw, what do you think of Congress' plan to raise the debt ceiling?

dmarks said...

Shaw said: "The people of Massachusetts want a stronger health care bill. They want Mr. Obama to do MORE. That was the story behind their disontent at the polls and sending Washington a message."

I listened to stories on talk radio yesterday about how this "message" makes a lot harder for Obama to do anything, and throws his plans in disarray, and will likely make him a lot meeker instead of putting forth bold new ideas. "Obama 2.0" will try to do less, not more.

Sounds like the opposite of the result you say they wanted.

And by the way, the talk radio programs were mainline NPR national programs. Not Glennity O'Levinbaugh on AM radio.

Shaw Kenawe said...

.dmarks wrote: "Shaw mentioned: "He wants to block health care reform and he wants to find ways to reduce the enormous budget deficit."

Where did I write this? I couldn't find it here in this comment thread.

dmarks wrote: "I listened to stories on talk radio yesterday about how this "message" makes a lot harder for Obama to do anything, and throws his plans in disarray..."

This, of course, is the only plan the GOP has had for this desperate country. Ruin Obama's presidency at all cost, be obstructionists, and label every program he proposes as "socialist."


How do the trolls, like Fenway Frank, come up with the idea that the people are standing with the GOP?

.This country is not rejecting Mr. Obama by any measure:

WASHINGTON - Despite suffering a massive blow in form of Sir Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts seat, President Barack Obama continues to be seen as America’s most trusted political figure, according to a new poll.


A poll conducted by Strategies Inc. survey has found that 54 percent of voters still have faith in the president, if not the party he represents.

“President Obama’s trust rating remains steady at 54 percent - a number that has not changed since last July, including among independents,” Politico quoted Dick Keil of Public Strategies Inc., as saying in a memo accompanying the poll.

Just 28 percent said they trusted Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to deal with problems and only 35 percent said they had confidence in former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

The poll also found that just 41 trust the Democratic Party to solve America’s problems, while 40 percent expressed confidence in the Republican Party to do the same.

“Trust in Democrats and Republicans is now identical and remains very low. Trust has decreased significantly for Democrats over the last year, but Republicans have not been able to capitalize on this decrease,” Keil wrote.

The online survey of 1000 registered voters was conducted between January 11 to January 12. The polling also found that the economy is the top concern of those polled (49 percent), followed by health care (20 percent) and government spending (20 percent).

“Americans remain pessimistic in their economic outlook, with strong majorities rating the national economy, their local economies, and their local job markets as weak - more than four out of five voters have characterized the U.S. economy as weak consistently since last March,” Keil wrote. (ANI)

Source

For trolls like FF to come here and pronounce that the American people are fed-up with Mr. Obama or for anyone to believe the GOP has captured Americans' confidence is just plain fantasy and not based in fact.

Just because the tea baggers make a lot of threatening noise and blow-hards like Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity broadcast their biased, idiotic blather over radio and teevee, it doesn't make what they say a reality.

Jim said...

Let me quote an exceptional authority on the Constitution and how to interpret same:

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

The term a 'living document' came about in the early 1800's. The SCOTUS was never intended to be ultimate legal authority. Jefferson and others, including Hamilton, had a great fear of judges. It was John Marshall who started to usurp powers from the States. It was the States laziness in not fighting him.

The Founders were well aware that things will change. That is why they put into place a very rigid and rigorous procedure to amend the Constitution. It was to prevent the later usurpation of power by a General Government. The Constitution freed us from one why would we now want to go back to another in this age?

BTW - the quote above is from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to Justice William Johnson in 1826.

FenwayFrank said...

Shaw Kenawe so ridiculously said...
"The people of Massachusetts want a stronger health care bill. They want Mr. Obama to do MORE. That was the story behind their disontent at the polls and sending Washington a message. Ignore it if you choose, but that doesn't change the reality."

Oh really, so they elected a republican to take care of that. Is that what you expect anyone to believe?

dmarks said...

Exact quote from Shaw: :)

".dmarks wrote: "Shaw mentioned: "He wants to block health.....etc...Where did I write this? I couldn't find it here in this comment thread."

Sorry so confusing. The "mention" was poor wording for you quoting Fenchurch Finkelstein. It gets too confusing when I quote a quote (of a quote, etc)

Shaw Kenawe said...

BTW - the quote above is from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to Justice William Johnson in 1826.--Jim

Jefferson was in many ways a genius, IMO, but he was also an enigma--professing that all men are created equal, but not recognizing that people with dark skin are worthy of equality. He was of the same mind as the rest of his compatriots--he did not rise above the error of his time in thinking that dark-skinned people were unworthy humans.

George Washington's slaves were freed upon his death, Jefferson did not do the same. Jefferson also admired the French revolutionists who literally dragged people to their deaths without a trial.

Indeed, a genius and an enigma.

FF,

You don't have to believe what the pollsters found when they called and polled the voters in Massachusetts. You don't have to believe what is fact:

We had Research 2000 poll voters immediately after the Election ended: Even Scott Brown voters want Democrats to be bolder and they want healthcare reform that includes a public option.

You read that right. By a margin of three-to-two, former Obama voters who voted for Republican Scott Brown yesterday said the Senate healthcare bill "doesn't go far enough." Six-to-one Obama voters who stayed home agreed. And to top it off, 80% of all voters still want the choice of a public option in the bill.

It was a message that resonated with voters like Ann Feeney. The Boston insurance agent said that health care, along with unemployment, were the main reasons she voted for Brown over Democrat Martha Coakley.

Feeney said that while she supports the Massachusetts law and thinks everyone should have health coverage, she didn't approve of the way the national legislation was being shaped.

"I think it needs to be tweaked," Feeney said. "I agree that everyone needs health insurance, but I don't agree with the way they are doing it."

Feeney wasn't alone. A poll conducted this week by The Washington Post of 880 Massachusetts residents who said they voted in the special election found that 68 percent support the Massachusetts plan. Even among Brown voters, slightly more than half backed the 2006 law.

source

The reason you refuse to believe this data is that you suffer from cognitive dissonance. You refuse to acknowledge the facts because they don't square with your deranged hatred of Mr. Obama.

Other than the fact that Brown won, where are the data that back up your assertion that the Massachusetts voters don't want health care reform.

If you can't produce them. Stop coming here and insulting me and posting your opinion as though it were fact.

TAO said...

dmarks,

You just made a corporation a living breathing entity, separate and distinct from the 'owners'

dmarks said...

How so?

Susannah said...

Jim! I KNEW I liked you! Shaw, Jim's point here is EXACTLY what I've been trying to say, though apparently not enough 'fact' to suit you.

I'm well aware that there are essentially two 'schools of thought' re: Constitutional interpretation. One says it's a fluid, 'living document.' The other says it should be interpreted strictly. You adhere to the former, I to the latter.

As Jim said here (& I said earlier) the flexibility provided by the Founding Fathers (Amendment process) was intended to be rigorous, so that the document didn't change over the decades according to the whims of political fancy. The Found. Fathers knew human nature VERY well; that we would encounter Justices & Lawyers of all stripes, some like your beloved BHO, who believe that the Constitution is so fluid & 'alive' as to change it to fit his interpretation of our nation.

I'm sorry for you & other Socialistas, but the strict Constructionists just won a victory through the body politic in MA. You can spin it any way you wish - if it eases the pain - but as Chris Matthews said to Howard Dean in the link I provided earlier -- didn't anyone even PEEK at it?? (CM destroys Shaws argument. Oh, right. He didn't use fact, just common sense.)

Anyway, the SAT went very well, thank you. He said it was the hardest test he'd ever taken. But for a 13 yr. old, I'd say that's normal. AND the birthday party was a rousing success! 12 little girls can be a lot of fun!

I'm done here, & I suppose you're glad. Suits me too.

Hope you have a good rest of the weekend.

Arthurstone said...

But wait. There's more...

Justice Thomas wanted to go even farther and in his opinion made the point that not only should corporations be entitled to spend as they wish but that they be able to do so anonymously. That is to say we should eliminate public disclosure laws as well as lifting restrictions on spending. Thomas is upset that anti-Gay rights supporters in California might be 'outed'. Waaaaaah.

Even Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy & Alito couldn't go that far.

The man is a menace.

My wife and I were talking last night and since we began closely following politics and civics in high school back in the 1960's we have not run across a Supreme Court Justice as profoundly anti-democratic as Thomas.

Thomas knows as we know that his selection by the senior Bush was and remains one of the truly preposterous appointments of the age. Thomas knows as we know he was and is in no way, shape and form remotely qualified by accomplishment or temperament for a seat on the highest court. He was a political hack who played the race card during his confirmation hearings in a breathtaking display of cynicism the likes of which we have rarely seen.

Funny how 'conservatives' rail against affirmative action in situations such as college admissions or the workplace yet never seem to get around to mentioning a GOP President's use of the tactic to add political allies to the nation's highest court.

Oh well.

Arthurstone said...

Susannah noted:

'Now, I've been organizing/planning a birthday party for my almost-7-year-old all afternoon, & prepping my 7th grader all evening to take the SAT in the a.m., rather than twisting my brain into knots in an attempt to appease you folks, which is impossible anyway (why, oh why did I come here again?). It's time to turn in, & bid you all farewell.'


Goodnight Mom.

Arthurstone said...

dmarks typed:

'You stand by this? '

Absof**kinglutely.

Read your own posts for a start. Virtually all government spending beyond 'defense' is an excuse for you to bemoan high taxes and inappropriate use of federal money.

Cheers!

dmarks said...

Arthur said "Virtually all government spending beyond 'defense' is an excuse for you to bemoan high taxes and inappropriate use of federal money."

No quotations needed around defense. While there is still overtaxation and lots of government waste, your claim is simply not true. I'm one of those who is in favor of spending to aid the needy/indigent/destitute/disabled. None of this spending has anything to do with me "bemoaning" the waste (such as welfare for the rich, a great example being the expansion of SCHIP to give free health care to rich adults, especially when the program was sold as something to aid needy children).

You probably have me mixed up with one of those "no welfare, let em rot in the streets" conservatives.

dmarks said...

Arthur said: "Thomas is upset that anti-Gay rights supporters in California might be 'outed'. Waaaaaah."

That would be a curious situation, since the main anti-gay supporters in California are left-wing Blacks. Left-wing African-Americans and Clarence Thomas do not get along so well.


"Funny how 'conservatives' rail against affirmative action in situations such as college admissions or the workplace yet never seem to get around to mentioning a GOP President's use of the tactic to add political allies to the nation's highest court."

So, Arthur, are you willing to be consistent then and oppose all such racist policies (affirmative action goals/quotas/etc) everywhere as well as for Supreme Court appointments?

Beyond this, Thomas has turned out to be someone be generally who is properly doing his job. This recent ruling where he ruled in favor of the people's First Amendment rights snows that on this issue, at least, he is acquinted with the Bill of Rights. Unlike Ginsberg, Soto. etc who chose to ignore it.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Susannah typed: "I'm sorry for you & other Socialistas, but the strict Constructionists just won a victory through the body politic in MA."

Susannah: First of all, you don't need to come here and call me names. Would you like me to come to your blog and label you a "Fascista?" Where do you get off saying that to me? Your cloying little diatribes make you sound like nothing more than a scold. Go back and read them. You don't seem to be interested in back and forth dialog, only in showing me and the others here that you are extremely impressed with yourself.

The voters of Massachusetts did NOT vote on a Constitutional issue. This is where you're confused. The voters in Mass. made a POLITICAL decision.

They voted to send a LIBERAL Republican, who approves of abortion, albeit in limited circumstances, but nevertheless he APPROVES OF ABORTION, and who approves of government funded health care here in Massachusetts.

You seem to be determined to come to my blog and have the last say, even if it means that you have to use labels like "Socialista" to describe a woman you actually know nothing about.

Your extreme ideology is showing. It colors all of your comments, and it isn't charming.






.

Jim said...

I was not aware arthur that you KNOW what is in the mind of a Supreme Court Justice! Woowweeee Geezuss! You are one mystical dude. ;-)

Well, I suppose the threat by FDR to "stack" the court was something innocent. An innocent political move I'm sure. The Court would not allow itself to be so manipulated would it?

How's the weather in Seattle these days Arthur? Seen any Sun lately?

mickeymat said...

We the people of the United States owe Scott Brown's sup porters a huge debt of gratitude. They didn't merely elect a senator. They ripped the facade off the Obama presidency.
Scott Brown won because he ran against Obama's policies and on the idea that he would vote his conscience. Masachusetts was so stunned by a politician with a conscience that they voted for him. I think it was a good choice. There is a movement in the state now to unseat some of the other 'machine' politicians with people of conscience.
Just as Dorothy and Toto exposed the ordinary man behind the curtain in "The Wizard of Oz," the voters in Massachusetts revealed that, in this White House, there is no there there.
The real scary part is that there are lots of people who think he is doing a great job. You cant fix stupid. But we'd better try. That means discrediting the Marxist Kenyan to the point his own mother would deny him. Oh wait, that already happened.
It's all smoke and mirrors, bells and whistles, held together with glib talk, Chicago politics and an audacious sense of entitlement.
His self-aggrandizing ambition exceeds his ability by so much that he is making a mess of everything he touches.

fldemo said...

ok let’s put this in perspective, this troll Susannah is a conservative shill who goes from blog to blog to spread her propaganda and to further the BS that Scott Brown is the new conservative's savior, now that Sarah Palin is dead in the water. I jyst visited her *BIAS* blog and read the jokes that she calls information.
If you want a good laugh go there ... but beware of the barn yard dogs that will attack you if you dare to disagree with her venom.
To say that she's a little over the top is an understatement. Suzanne needs to take a look at her own shtick and get a life somewhere in la la land.

dmarks said...

mickeymat said: "That means discrediting the Marxist Kenyan to the point his own mother would deny him"

I find the "Marxist" claim against the President to be quite debatable (even though he has employed and befriended some Marxists, how does it apply to him personally?).

However, it is quite clear that you are using "Kenyan" as an insult. Never mind the fact that he is 100% American (and of half-Kenyan heritage). What are you getting at? That mere claims of nationality can be used as insults?

Last time I knew, Kenyans were 100% human beings with no less or more worth than anyone else. I'm not about to go up to someone and say "you you you... KENYAN!!!!"

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks! Good come back to the insulting troll!

mickymat typed: "Scott Brown won because he ran against Obama's policies..."

Scott Brown believes in a woman's right to abortion (as does Mr. Obama) and he VOTED FOR MASSACHUSETTS HEALTH CARE REFORM.

It is really amusing to read the people who come here and believe Brown's election is a repudiation of Obama.

Brown voted YES in 2006 on universal health care in Massachusetts.

"In an apparent contradiction, Brown campaigned on being the 41st vote needed to derail two health-reform bills that lawmakers were in the process of merging into a final bill. The Massachusetts law is widely considered a blueprint for a national version; its centerpiece is a shared-responsibility mandate that requires all individuals to buy coverage, and it provides subsidies for people who can't afford it.

Brown's objection to national reform but support of his own state's reform may have attracted some Massachusetts voters, but the Bay State relies on federal taxpayer dollars to accomplish its overhaul, said Alan Sager, professor of health policy and management at the Boston University School of Public Health

"Maybe some voters felt they didn't want to have to pay for uninsured residents of other states," he said. "That isn't all that fair because a decent share of the money that's financed to improve coverage in Massachusetts came from a Medicaid waiver and accompanying cash from Washington."


Source

Do you guys know anything more than Obama...blah blah blah..."Socialist!"...blah blah blah..."Kenyan!"...blah blah blah..."

Go read this and inform yourselves instead of coming here and calling me a "Socialista." It looks like your hero, Brown, was speaking out of both sides of his mouth when he ran for the senate, and you listened to only what you wanted to.

BROWN SUPPORTED UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IN MASSACHUSETTS, which program did NOT propose controlling costs as does the Senate and House proposals.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Also this:

"Scott Brown won the special Senate election in Massachusetts over Martha Coakley yesterday. In an earlier post, I argued that Scott Brown’s legislative record in the State Senate put him in the liberal wing of his party – a state legislative caucus which was amongst the most liberal Republicans in the country.

My comparative research design allowed me to place him to the left of Dede Scozzafava, even though the two had never served together. It also allows me to put Brown on the same ideological scale with members of Congress, so I can make an informed prediction about how he’ll vote when he joins the Senate."

Source

Jim said...

So, SK, we are now informed, Scott Brown is a RINO. Won't be the first time. It must surely make you happy.

RINO or not, Teddy's 'seat' has been wrestled back by the people. And that is a good thing. Term limits should be applied to both Houses of Congress, ala the Presidency.

Then, perhaps, the people will enjoy the services of statesman and not career politicians once again.

Jim said...

OK, SK, here's a fact:

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove. rasmussenreports.com

Now, Mr. Obama may be personally liked by most voters but his policies are turning more and more voters against him and the Democrats.

November is gonna be FUN!

Jim said...

One more factoid.

BostonGirl said...

The most liberal state ( My State) in the Union said yes to Republican and independent minded Scott Brown and NO to Martha Coakley, and No to Barack Obama.

House Democrats are starting to abandon the sinking S.S. Obama.Tuesday night’s bombshell in the Bay State are going to have a ripple effect throughout the Democrat party. Once safe districts and states, are no longer.
I love it. I can’t wait to hear the back-peddling,and the LAME excuses; those liberals saying this “isn’t a big deal. Mass has elected REP before in state elections blah blah blah…” Fact is Mass is made up of 12% Republicans.
In fact there’s one blogger that is claiming Scott Brown is more Liberal than Martha Coakley. Talk about sinning the facts.
The Bay State wanted real “Hope & Change” and got it with an underdog with a “pickup truck” Scott Brown.
Obama, do you hear us now? . It’s time that you listen to the voice of we the people

Jim said...

November is gonna be FUN I tell ya:

"Asked specifically if, under the presidency of Barack Obama, respondents feel they are losing freedoms, 52 percent now say 'yes,' up from 47 percent last month," said Fritz Wenzel. WND Article

dmarks said...

shaw said: "dmarks! Good come back to the insulting troll!"

Thanks. My disagreements with the President on policy won't make me stoop so low as to utter or support quasi-racist statements such as using someones (falsely claimed) nationality as an insult.

Mary Baker said...

Shaw Kenawe said...
Also this:

And then You post a link and call it
"Source"
That so called "Source" is a BLOG written by an
Assistant Professor, Harris School at the University of Chicago. This is his own slanted Liberal opinion... NOT A SOURCE

Holy Crap, I'm laughing My Ass Off, If that where you get your information from... That is nothing but PURE Horse Manure.

w-dervish said...

dmarks said... Thomas has turned out to be someone be generally who is properly doing his job. This recent ruling where he ruled in favor of the people's First Amendment rights shows that on this issue... he is acquainted with the Bill of Rights. Unlike Ginsberg, Soto. etc who chose to ignore it.

From what I've heard the guy's a waste of space who doesn't do much more on the Supreme Court except agree with whatever Scalia decides. FYI The bill of rights does not apply to corporations, but individual US citizens.

So why do the Righties believe that we can't give prisoners in Gitmo any rights because they aren't US citizens, but foreign corporations with US subsidiaries can spend unlimited money to influence our elections?

From The Washington Independent: ...the recent High Court decision could [end] the ban on foreigners buying influence over US elections. One prominent example is CITGO [which is a subsidiary of] the Venezuelan government-owned PetrĂ³leos de Venezuela S.A. The Citizens United ruling could allow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to spend government funds to defeat an American political candidate, just by having CITGO buy TV ads bashing his target. In his dissent Justice John Paul Stevens cautioned that the decision "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans" (by Mike Lillis 1/22/10... edited for brevity).

I'd be interested in knowing why dmarks thinks this is a good idea. Obviously Righties believe that "free speech" is dependant on how much money you have. The more money you have, the more FREE speech you can buy. Those of us who don't adhere to corporatism recognize that this ruling is straight up fascism.

Jim said...

Hey, w-dervish, you mean like what happened during the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign?

As the conduit for more than $600,000 in contributions to the Democratic National Committee that had to be returned as coming from illegal or suspect sources, Trie has long been viewed as a potential font of information on whether Democratic Party or White House officials knowingly accepted improper funds and on alleged efforts by the government of China to influence the presidential election. Source

dmarks said...

w dervish said: "The bill of rights does not apply to corporations, but individual US citizens."

Exactly, and the speech that is censored is that of US citizens. There is no exception in the First Amendment that says that people don't have freedom of speech if they happen to be members of unions or corporations or other interest groups.

"foreign corporations with US subsidiaries can spend unlimited money to influence our elections?"

It's all free speech. Typically, people don't agree with the idea of censoring ideas just because they are "foreign".

"....just by having CITGO buy TV ads bashing his target...."

If you don't like these possible future CITGO ads, just turn the channel. Thanks for proving my point: that this is really all about censorship, and the desire (shared by you) to silence opinions you don't like.

I'm no fan of the Venezuelan dictator in any way, but I don't get as extreme as to want to pass special laws to censor his speech.


"I'd be interested in knowing why dmarks thinks this is a good idea."

I told you. Free speech.

"Obviously Righties believe that "free speech" is dependant on how much money you have."

Not at all. My defense of free speech has nothing to do with money. Unlike yours, where you seem to be saying that the jackboot of government can kick in your windpipe if (1) you have too much money or (2) your ideas are dangerous and "foreign".

"Those of us who don't adhere to corporatism ...."

That's me, for sure. I don't believe in or adhere to this mythical theory.

"...recognize that this ruling is straight up fascism."

It is strongly anti-fascist. Because the jackboot of censorship has been lifted some. Typically, censorship goes hand in hand with fascism. How odd that you call more openness, more free speech, less censorship some sort of step toward fascism.

If you don't like what someone says, come on now. ignore it. Don't have government goons enforce your listening/reading preferences on everyone.

Shaw Kenawe said...

The Bay State wanted real “Hope & Change” and got it with an underdog with a “pickup truck” Scott Brown.

This is the funny quote. Mr. Obama is still the president, the House and Senate is still a Democratic majority.

Mr. Brown will be one of 100 senators. One. And in the minority.

What exactly can he do? Not much.

And to the troll who calls itself Mary Baker:

When I link to a "source," it means that I'm giving credit to the place where I found the data.

It's very much like when I visit conservative blogs and they link to Drudge or Red State or some other conservative source. What is your problem?


Why don't you create you own blog "Mary Baker" instead of surfing Liberal blogs and making yourself look foolish.

w-dervish said...

The result of the the recent SCOTUS ruling is that corporations will run adds FOR the politicians who dance to their tune and against those who do not. I call that fascism because that IS what it is.

And don't give me this "ignore it" or "change the channel" crap either, dmarks. Money spent on political advertising most certainly DOES have an effect. Why the hell do you think our politicians spend so damn much getting elected? Why do you think they hire slick PR firms to carefully craft their message?

Witness how the tea baggers were fooled by what they thought was a grass roots movement. A movement which turned out to be corporate sponsored. And why do you think so many people are "undecided" up until the last minute? It's because they are morons who vote based on how they personally "feel" about the candidate instead of where they stand on the issues.

You are naive in the extreme if you think this ruling will not allow corporations to get the politicians THEY WANT elected. Quite a few people will vote for the politicians the ads tell them to vote for. You and I may do our research and vote for the individual we believe will best represent us, but a lot of people don't.

Hell, a huge percentage of the population is dumb enough to not even bother voting, despite how important it is! Yet somehow you think ALL the people who do vote won't fall for deceptive political advertising? What kind of a fantasy world do you live in dmarks?

Also, I don't know how you can say that this ruling is "strongly anti-fascist" when you clearly do not know what the definition of fascism is. FYI It's the merger of state and corporate interests. Do you think the ads the corporations will run WON'T advocate for what is in their interest? Do you think a politician won't think twice about any position he or she may hold that runs contrary to what the corporations want? Even if it is what THE PEOPLE want?

This ruling clearly puts the corporations in charge of our elections. All they have to do is spend enough money and they will be able to "convince" (fool) enough people to vote for their approved candidate to easily sway an election. Goodbye democracy. It wasn't a perfect system, but at least it wasn't up for sale to the highest bidder (actually it was, but we just took a HUGE step towards more fascism, instead of in the direction of more democracy).

Laws which keep our election process fair by not allowing the rich and powerfull more influence than an average citizen doesn't amount to government "goons" enforcing my listening/reading preferences on everyone. That sounds like one of those imaginary conspiracy theories you're always complaining about dmarks. It's complete nonsense.

dmarks said... There is no exception in the First Amendment that says that people don't have freedom of speech if they happen to be members of unions or corporations or other interest groups.

What this ruling says is that they get EXTRA rights. If you have more money (and are willing to spend it) you get more influence over our political process.

dmarks said... Typically, people don't agree with the idea of censoring ideas just because they are "foreign".

Nobody is talking about censoring "ideas". Spending money on advertising is what I was talking about. I think most US citizens would agree that foreign corporations shouldn't be able to do run paid political ads.

Anonymous said...

shaw,

your trolls aren't interested in facts only their feelings. Here's more information:

"Our national poll this week found that only 19% of voters in the country are happy with the direction of the Republican Party, compared to 56% who are unhappy with it. Even among independents, who have voted overwhelmingly for Scott Brown, Chris Christie, and Bob McDonnell 58% say they don't like the direction the GOP is headed in."

Even tho Brown won in Mass., overall Americans think the GOP sucks.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/01/direction-of-gop.html

dmarks said...

w-derv: "And don't give me this "ignore it" or "change the channel" crap either, dmarks."

I oppose censorship. If someone says something I don't like, I ignore it. I don't get all bent ouf of shape and demand that the government behave in a more fascist fashion (as per the definition of the term) and censor it.

"Why do you think they hire slick PR firms to carefully craft their message?"

Because... imagine this now: they want to get their message across. Shocking!

"Witness how the tea baggers were fooled by what they thought was a grass roots movement."

It is in fact a grassroots movement, but anyway...

"A movement which turned out to be corporate sponsored."

Actually, it turned out to be grassroots. I'm on a mailing list. I've gone to one of their events (albeit as an observer not a protester/sign waver). No businesses were paying anyone to send the emails, no businesses were paying anyone to go. Not sure why you mentioned the "Tea baggers", other than that it is quite clearly a political movement you want to see crushed by the government.

"It's because they are morons who vote based on how they personally "feel" about the candidate instead of where they stand on the issues."

Calling people who do not vote the way want them to "morons" is at heart an anti-democratic sentiment, and is nothing more than a base playground insult.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

"Quite a few people will vote for the politicians the ads tell them to vote for."

So? Yes. Some people do things that others suggest. It is their free choice, however. And the freedom for someone to tell others why they like or dislike a political candidate is at the heart of the First Amendment and freedom of the press.

"You and I may do our research and vote for the individual we believe will best represent us, but a lot of people don't."

Yeah. and those who do the research and end up voting for the guy you don't like are "morons" who are controlled by advertisers...

"Yet somehow you think ALL the people who do vote won't fall for deceptive political advertising?"

Yeah... "deceptive" meaning someone saying something you disagree with? So, realize the fact that free speech can be deceptive regardless of "big corporate ads". So what do you want, to prevent this horrible problem? A government clearing house where they have control enough to censor anything that the government deems deceptive?

That is rather fascist. Instead, let free speech rule. Leave the libel/slander laws in place, but otherwise let the people make up their own minds, and check FactCheck and other web sites.

"Also, I don't know how you can say that this ruling is "strongly anti-fascist" when you clearly do not know what the definition of fascism is."

I do, actually. It is "a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)"

You are twisting things to use an obscure definition of fascism in which the more government oppresses people, the less fascist it is.

"All they have to do is spend enough money and they will be able to "convince" (fool) enough people to vote for their approved candidate to easily sway an election."

Thanks for further proof that your intent is nothing other than censorship: trying to cut off money because it might result in speech you don't want spoken.

W-Derv said: "Nobody is talking about censoring ideas"."

You certainly were. You even got specific talking about objecting to someone bashing candidates with TV ads. You named a political movement ("tea baggers"), made up some nonsense about people being paid to protest, and targeting this movement for being crushed by the government.

"Spending money on advertising is what I was talking about."

Exactly. Advertising just being another example of expression of ideas. One that is not exempted from the first amendment.

"I think most US citizens would agree that foreign corporations shouldn't be able to do run paid political ads."

I would hope that those censorship-happy citizens have enough strength in their fingers to turn the damn channel when these ads come on TV.

So, which is more fascist? Letting people say what they want, or having the government force our personal preferences on people with a complicated and inconsistent system of censoring political speech?

Arthurstone said...

With tthe nation evolved highly enough where political discourse is conveyed increasingly through paid advertising we might as well enjoy the endless f**king that accompanies that form of 'free speech'.

w-dervish said...

dmarks said... You are twisting things to use an obscure definition of fascism in which the more government oppresses people, the less fascist it is.

Fascism (or corporatism), as defined by Giovanni Gentile, is "the merger of state and corporate power". Giovanni Gentile described himself as "the philosopher of Fascism", and ghostwrote "A Doctrine of Fascism" (1932) for Benito Mussolini (source: Wikipedia).

I fail to see how using the definition of fascism from the guy who invented it qualifies as "obscure".

The SCOTUS ruling allows corporations to buy our politicians -- as I pointed out in my previous comment. There was a lot of that going on already (my preference would be to STRENGHTEN campaign finance laws), but this ruling is obscene in that it removes all the impediments that used to exist. We are on our way to a one party state consisting of corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats. There will barely be a difference. (single party rule fits with the definition of fascism).

dmarks said... Yeah. and those who do the research and end up voting for the guy you don't like are "morons" who are controlled by advertisers.

YOU are twisting my words dmarks. I never said people who disagree with me are morons. You're saying that. That charge is repeated quite a few times in your comment, and it's totally unsubstantiated by anything I wrote.

dmarks said... Yeah... "deceptive" meaning someone saying something you disagree with? ...do you want... a government clearing house where they have control enough to censor anything that the government deems deceptive?

No, but I appreciate it if YOU could debate the issue without deception. I did not suggest, nor would I support anything like what you've described.

dmarks said... I do, actually. It is "a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)"

You've given a generic description for a dictatorship. That description could apply to a hard Right or hard Left form of government. Fascism (hard right) is the merger of state and corporate interests. So you did get the definition wrong. Now that you know the correct definition will you recalibrate your argument?

dmarks said... Thanks for further proof that your intent is nothing other than censorship: trying to cut off money because it might result in speech you don't want spoken.

Wrong again. I do not advocate censorship, just the restriction of free speech rights to individual US citizens -- the only people the founding fathers intended to have them.

dmarks said... You certainly were. You even got specific talking about objecting to someone bashing candidates with TV ads. You named a political movement ("tea baggers"), made up some nonsense about people being paid to protest, and targeting this movement for being crushed by the government.

Please let me know EXACTLY where I said ANY of that. Or stop coming up with these imaginary conclusions to things I've written.

dmarks said... Advertising just being another example of expression of ideas. One that is not exempted from the first amendment.

OK, perhaps I will run my own TV ad. Oh, wait, it takes a lot of money to do that doesn't it? I'll have to point out to the TV ad guys that they MUST run my ad or be in danger of abridging my free speech rights (and I'll sue).

What you're missing is that money does not equal speech. Laws regarding who can spend money influencing our electoral process is NOT an abridgment of free speech.

w-dervish said...

dmarks said... So, which is more fascist? Letting people say what they want, or having the government force our personal preferences on people with a complicated and inconsistent system of censoring political speech?

I'm all for letting people say what they want without censorship. I'm not for corporations being able to buy our politicians. That's fascism. I don't support it.

Clearly you do. So why not just come out and say so? dmarks thinks fascism is the way to go. I doubt you'll be honest about it though. So, that being the case, I'll even support your right to pretend that fascism is "free speech" issue.

I find it sickening, but I'll still support your right to stand up for this lie. I'll still call you out on it however.

dmarks said... Actually, [the tea bagging movement] turned out to be grassroots.

The tea party movement is astroturf all the way. I wrote about this on my blog on 09/02/2009. You can check out my post here if interested. I've also posted on the SCOTUS ruling (1/23/2010) with a post titled "George W. Bush's Activist Supreme Court Rules For Fascism". both posts are still open for comments.

dmarks said...

"What you're missing is that money does not equal speech."

I'm not missing it at all. Money doesn't equal speech, but when you cut off money in order to silence someone, it is. And you have described at different times your goal of getting rid of this or that ad, or preventing this or that person from being heard.

"Laws regarding who can spend money influencing our electoral process is NOT an abridgment of free speech."

Unless, of course, these laws are put in place with the goal of censoring people.

"So you did get the definition wrong [of fascism]. Now that you know the correct definition will you recalibrate your argument?"

I knew the exact definition, and gave it in quotes. No need to recalibrate for an incorrect definition.

Jim said...

Fascism
by Sheldon Richman
About the Author

Search CEE
Home | CEE | 2nd edition | Fascism
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

shoprat said...

Scott Brown being elected in MA is a great thing for America. He has stopped Obamascare and now the Dems are so scared that they are wee weeing in their pants. But, Obama refuses to accept the reality that people are fed up with Washington policies which happens to coincide with his policies. He's still playing the blame Bush game for everything instead of accepting responsibility for anything and everything that is his fault. Obama needs to face the fact that he screwed up and needs to stop his idiotic policies.

Not Left, Just Right said...

Good for Scott Brown and congratulations. At the moment, Massachusetts really is a model for America, with the majority of folk firmly seated in the moderate independent aisle. It's not about his policies but about his message: if a little-known Republican can take out the safest of all seats on the planet, a long-held Kennedy seat in MA, that means the American people are truly done with party politics. They are ready - indeed, desperate - for a real change. Obama is not it. No, Scott Brown isn't it either.
The nation is in collapse, and the Democrats are busy spending another trillion on health insurance, and the GOP simply wants to further the same policies with which they destroyed the nation.

What happened last week should be inconsequential powerwise. The GOP only had a one seat majority - at times, not even that, only Cheney's tie-breaking vote - and yet passed massive policy after massive policy. Now, the Democrats still maintain an effective nineteen-vote majority. Nineteen votes. Versus the one vote or none the Republicans had . And yet the GOP wielded more power with that one or none than the Dems likely will with nineteen, simply because they are lost, spineless, and truly without principle.

We, the normal people of America, understand the message of last night. Stop f'ing around with health care. Bring our damn jobs back home. Focus on us putting food on our tables, actually do any of the things with regard to the economy that you promised. Stop borrowing and spending money.
Unfortunately, expect the Dems to do the exact opposite, to take this as a call to stand even less strongly for what they stand for, to do none of the things the nation needs and that they promised and believe in. Free trade won't be touched. The Bush tax cuts will remain. The media rules will not be fixed - and so 24 hours a day, the lies, the endless, hate-spewing lies will continue to echo uncorrected, and the Dems will take the blame for the collapse conservatism has caused.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"The nation is in collapse, and the Democrats are busy spending another trillion on health insurance, and the GOP simply wants to further the same policies with which they destroyed the nation."

To ignore the fact that health costs are part of what is "destroying the nation" is to be out of touch with reality.

Health reform would get spending under control.

It's like a family who doesn't want to spend money to buy a new and efficient oil burner because they don't have the money to do so, but they are, in the meantime, wasting hundreds of dollars of their income because they won't find the means to save hundreds of dollars in the long run.

Doing nothing to rein the cost cost of health care, which is contributing to our deficit, is not a solution. We can find jobs and fix health care at the same time.

Not Left, Just Right said...

If Obama wanted to destroy the Country, what would he do different now than he hasn't already been doing?

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Americans' health and our nation's long-term fiscal health depend on it. I know that the short-term politics are bad. It's a good plan that's become a demonized caricature. But politically speaking, if we do not pass it, the GOP will continue attacking the plan as if we did anyway, and voters will have no ability to measure its upside. If we do pass it, dozens of protections and benefits take effect this year. Parents won't have to worry their children will be denied coverage just because they have a preexisting condition. Workers won't have to worry that their coverage will be dropped because they get sick. Seniors will feel relief from prescription costs. Only if the plan becomes law will the American people see that all the scary things Sarah Palin and others have predicted -- such as the so-called death panels -- were baseless. We own the bill and the health-care votes. We need to get some of the upside. (P.S.: Health care is a jobs creator.)"

The notion that this is some government take-over - while 60 percent of healthcare in this country is already paid for by the government - is pure ideology and hysteria. This is a centrist, practical, worthwhile start on a very difficult public policy problem. The Democrats would be insane to drop it; and the president really must fight for it.

h/t Andrew Sullivan's blog

Shaw Kenawe said...

Not Left Just Right,

It is pure hysteria to say that Mr. Obama is "destroying" the country.

IMHO, it is the radicals in the GOP and their FOX propagandists who have torn this country apart.

Mr. Obama has tried to work with the GOP, and all he got was this lousy NO!

People who say things like that--that the president is trying to destroy the country--are the ones doing the damage.

TAO said...

Nurseaisha...

You are right on!

What sheeple....what right do citizens have to expect anything from their government?

Our government was established to support corporations and Wall Street!

For so long our country kept corporations from enjoying the freedoms that other taxpayers enjoyed and finally the supreme court set them free!

Can you believe that everyone expects government to solve their problems!

The government should be protecting corporations from frilivous lawsuits and protecting insurance carriers from states that want to enact laws that keep health insurers from competing across state lines....

Can you believe that Obama won the majority of people who have a college degree or more education?

Can you believe that Obama won the majority of people who make $250,000 or more a year?

They are such stupid poor people....

One day they will realize the error of their ways and follow you and ALan Keyes to the promised land....

Shaw Kenawe said...

TAO was responding to a troll who came here and did nothing but rant and repeat old worn out complaints.