Conservative media forecast dark results if Dems retain majority in November
Conservative media figures have used extreme and violent rhetoric to drum up support for the GOP in the midterm elections and have warned of the consequences of continued Democratic majorities in Congress.
Conservatives warn of dire consequences of midterm elections
Blankley: "[T]he country will be rocked to its core" if GOP fails to reclaim majority. In an August 9 Washington Times op-ed, Tony Blankley warned that the country will be "rocked to its core" if the GOP doesn't retake the House this fall. He also described a "foul and dangerous brew" that the Republicans will need to counter, a part of which, he said, is "the thwarting of the public will -- with glee -- by the entrenched, non-elected powers (in the courts, media, colleges and government bureaucracies)." After listing all the conservative policies he hopes will be enacted if the Republicans do end up with a majority, Blankley wrote:
No, what worries me is a scenario in which the GOP does not take back the House and at least make major gains in the Senate, or takes it back but fails to find the power to begin having a serious check on administration policies and actions. I don't say that with a mere partisan, boostering mentality.
Rather, if the upcoming election results fail for any reason (including GOP campaign incompetence) to empower the public's overwhelming desire to stop and reverse the "fundamental transformation" of the United States -- I suspect the country will be rocked to its core within the following months and few years.
Conservatives at Right Online conference use extreme rhetoric to stump for GOP votes in midterms. While speaking at the 2010 Right Online conference, held July 23-24, a number of conservative media figures used extreme rhetoric to show support for the GOP in the upcoming midterm elections.
- Radio host Herman Cain expressed his hope that "in November of 2010, we're going to change the house of politicians back to the House of Representatives, the way it was supposed to be" and "take back our government."
- RedState's Erick Erickson, who is also a CNN contributor, stated: "We're coming. We're going to take over." Erickson later attacked the left for being "so wrapped up in this idea that we should all be equal" when, he claimed, "[t]he only way for us to be equal is for us to be slaves ... to government."
- Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund said that "[e]very 75 years is a generation that is called upon to do maximum sacrifices to keep this country free" and that "you're the next generation." He went on to say that former Democratic pollster Pat Caddell "says the polls he looks at shows this country is in a pre-revolutionary mentality."
- After saying that the United States had won against the British Empire, German militants, Nazis, and communists, radio host Kirby Wilbur declared: "We're at a crossroads in American history where on November 2, we will decide if we are the America of Van Jones and Reverend Wright and Saul Alinsky or the America of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson."
- Fox News host Andrew Napolitano told the audience that they were one of the few generations "granted the role of defending freedom in its maximum hour of danger."
IBD op-ed: Republicans may take over in November, but even that "will not necessarily stop Obama." In an Investor's Business Daily op-ed titled, "Will Washington's failures lead to second American Revolution?" Ernest S. Christian, a Ford administration official, and Gary A. Robbins, a Reagan administration official, wrote:
Opinion polls suggest that in the November mid-term elections, voters will replace the present Democratic majority in Congress with opposition Republicans -- but that will not necessarily stop Obama.
A President Obama intent on achieving his transformative goals despite the disagreement of the American people has powerful weapons within reach. In one hand, he will have a veto pen to stop a new Republican Congress from repealing ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank takeover of banks.
In the other, he will have a fistful of executive orders, regulations and Obama-made fiats that have the force of law.
[...]
The overgrown, un-pruned power of the presidency to reward, punish and intimidate may now be so overwhelming that his re-election in 2012 is already assured -- Chicago-style.
Conservative media frequently warn of upcoming "civil war" and "revolution"
Geller: Obama "is itching for a civil war. And at the rate he is going, he is going to get one." In a June 23 post at Atlas Shrugs titled "Forecast: Blood On The Streets," Pamela Geller wrote that "It is increasingly clear that the most divisive President in history is itching for a civil war. And at the rate he is going, he is going to get one -- if he continues to ignore the will of the American people."
Savage: "We're going to have a revolution in this country"; "These people are pushing the wrong people around." Michael Savage discussed multiculturalism and predicted in August 2009: "This is not going to go on in this country much longer. We're going to have a revolution in this country if this keeps up. These people are pushing the wrong people around." Savage further said that "the rage has reached a boil. If they keep pushing us around, and if we keep having these schmucks running for office catering to the multicultural people who are destroying the culture of this country ... guaranteed the people -- the white male in particular."
Quinn called for "riots": "Our country was built on revolution, and it's about time we took it back." Discussing health care reform in September 2009, Jim Quinn stated, "You have got to say no to this, and if they push this through, you need to riot in the streets. You need to riot in the streets." He further said, "Our country was built on revolution and it's about time we took it back. These people are dangerous," and, "It's about time to put an end to this leftist control of this country, and if a revolution is what it takes, damn it, then that's what it's going to take, because liberty will not be denied."
Chuck Norris: "[W]ill history need to record a second American Revolution?" In his March 9, 2009, column for WorldNetDaily.com, actor and political activist Chuck Norris wrote: "How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution? We the people have the authority according to America's Declaration of Independence." Norris also wrote: "On Glenn Beck's radio show last week, I quipped in response to our wayward federal government, 'I may run for president of Texas.' That need may be a reality sooner than we think."
Limbaugh: LA's Arizona boycott "is the kind of stuff that starts civil wars" and "is not accidental." On the May 20 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Obama won't enforce the border because he's trying to win the Hispanic vote. Limbaugh then referred to the Arizona boycott by the city of Los Angeles over the state's immigration law, saying that "[t]his is the kind of stuff that starts civil wars, folks. This is not coincidental. It is not accidental. And the answer today to virtually every question you've got is liberalism."
Savage: "I almost feel as though Obama's trying to create a civil war in America for his own reasons." On the June 18 edition of his radio show, Savage said: "This administration has produced a turmoil in the American people unseen since -- I don't know, what? What should I say? Since World War II? I've never seen anything like this. Should I go back to the Civil War? I almost feel as though Obama's trying to create a civil war in America for his own reasons."
Beck suggested Obama is "trying to destroy the country" and is pushing America toward civil war. While discussing the ongoing controversy over Arizona's immigration law, Glenn Beck told listeners on his radio show that "we are being pushed" toward civil war and that Obama is "trying to destroy the country."
Quoting Jefferson, Beck warned about "rivers of blood." On his Fox News show, Beck quoted a letter by Thomas Jefferson warning " 'if they lose freedom' -- he's speaking of us, future generations -- 'if they lose freedom, there will be rivers of blood.' " Beck continued in his own words, "Boy, I hope that's not true, but I can tell you there will be rivers of blood if we don't have values and principles."
Beck: "There is a coup going on. There is a stealing of America." Beck has claimed that "there is a revolution, and they think they can get away with it quietly," adding: "At this point, gang, I'm not sure, they may be able to because they are so far ahead of us. They know what they're dealing against; most of America does not yet. Most of America doesn't have a clue as to what's going on. There is a coup going on. There is a stealing of America, and the way it is done, it has been done through the -- the guise of an election, but they lied to us the entire time." He also said, "And they're gonna say, 'we did it democratically,' and they are going to grab power every way they can. And God help us in an emergency."
Beck suggested that progressives support "armed insurrection." After Obama signed health care reform legislation into law, Beck suggested that progressives support "armed insurrection" and asked: "Why would the president take up immigration right away, after he's just punched you in the face with health care?"
Beck suggested Pelosi and Obama support "pick[ing] up a gun" to advance "revolution." Beck has also said that "violence is the wrong way to go," but asked his viewers: "You'd pick up a gun? Have you ever thought of that?" He then pointed to several pictures, including images of Obama and Pelosi, and stated: "These people have. Because possibly, maybe the question should be asked, maybe they're tired of evolution, and maybe they are waiting for revolution." Beck also said: "Haven't we just been spanked? Hasn't most of the country -- doesn't most of the country feel like they've been spanked over health care? You bet. I do, you do. A lot of people do."
Bob Owens: "[O]ne would be wise to prepare for possible conflict." Responding to a commenter about a previous post, Confederate Yankee blogger Bob Owens wrote:
We have moved "closer to midnight" not because of any singular act , but because of inertia of a political class that does not respect or enforce the laws, or this nation's sovereignty. We have diametrically opposed views of how our nation can and should be run, and it appears that there is very little room left for negotiation.
Propagandists for the elitists at Media Matters seem troubled by A Nation on the Edge of Revolt. They portray it as a threat when "Conservative media figures openly discuss armed revolution."
I hope they do feel threatened. Attempts at peaceable protests have been met at turns by feigned ignorance, then mockery, then attacks on the character and motives of those would not sit quietly by. Perhaps it will take a serious review of our capacity for violence to get them to realize we shall not surrender our individual liberties to their lust for power.
I have not yet been swayed to the point of view that an armed conflict is inevitable, TN_NamVolunteer. But we are close enough that one would be wise to prepare for a possible conflict, just as one would prepare for any coming storm.

















A return to conservative governance would be mostly a return to the Bush II years: trigger happy foreign policy, damaged reputation overseas because of arrogance and hubris, tax cuts for the wealthy, soaring deficits while programs cut for poor, environmental problems ignored, resource depletion issues ignored, corporate greed and corruption run wild...
I just can't imagine life getting much better when we go back to digging the hole we are in deeper rather than trying to crawl out.
The fantasy of a conservative libertarian nirvana is intoxicating to so many these days - actually solving problems is no fun anymore!
We've seen this in the FIRST TWO years, and it hasn't helped!
Obama will be re-elected, most likely by a wide margin, becasue they'll put up someone like Palin or Jindal or Huckabe or some idiot Tea-Bagger.
Aside from that, I know what you mean, but it's sickening that things need to get worse before they get better. Why ANYONE is still voting Republican is beyond me.
------------------------------------------------
And "liberal media" my @$$!!!
The "tea party" was supposed to be about a return to fiscal thrift/classical liberalism but that's more or less been hijacked by the pro-war deficit-spending pro-Bush Right.
Discredit everyone who bashes the other party, engaging in groupthink. Parties don't offer the solution, principles do.
The teabaggers are still a minority, though of moderate size (15% or so of the voting population). They can certainly "take their country back" if the real majority doesn't turn out to vote.
Do you mean digging the hole deeper like creating a $3trillion debt instead of a $1trillion debt? I think Obama is digging that larger hole very well all by himself. You don't need to continually blame someone who isn't even in politics anymore. But, like all true liberals, you will continue to blame anyone and everyone you can, instead of accepting a little personal responsibility.
eb-- A return to conservative governance would be mostly a return to the Bush II years
I heard people talking about that yesterday. Uhhh, Bush isn't running for president. I'm pretty sure he can't. But, if you fear unemployment rates of 5% and an economy that thrived and expanded ... so be it.
BS - Been watching Fox too much and taking it sersiously
He had to use NATO equipment to bomb hospitals and schools in Serbia
NATO has been in Afghanistan throughout the Bush years. What's your point?
completely ignored OBL's threats and actions.
Please review Bush's actions before 9-11. Richard Clark wrote a book about it. Funny how the conservative blind spot works.
Obama will go down in history as one of the worst ever, while Bush will be up there with Clinton.
Bush left us with an deteriorating budget---
Bush left us with two unfinished unpaidfor wars ---
Bush failed to see the economic crises coming ---
Bush supported policies that enabled large too big to fail financial institution to gamble away our economic health--
Bush left the next guy, whoever it might have been - a big mess. What a legacy.
Why does anyone even respond to Floyd here? For that matter seahawks123 and RightOn also. He puts forth the most ridiculous statements that have no factual basis like: Clinton fired 2/3rds of the military.
Then, he:
1) Gets totally pwned,
2) Can not provide any proof of his statements (except for something like a WorldNetDaily link).
3) Drops those items from his subsequent argument.
4) Cannot connect the dots on something as simple as the effect of the Bush tax cuts on the National Debt.
5) The worst part is that next week he will make the same statements that he just got pwned on.
Does it not come to a point where you should just ignore trolls who will never accept anything but the crazed ranting of their political Gurus (Glen Beck in the case of Floyd)? It is pointless to respond to Floyd, he does not accept ANY proof you may offer. Everyone he converses with on this site is a socialist, communist, anti-American whose only goal is the total destruction of the United States (liberal). Why would he listen to anyone like that on anything? He is not here to be informed in any manner.
Why not just respond with some sort of disclaimer:
This Troll has been totally pwned continuously on this site and is in need of more effective anti-psychotic medications. Nothing you may prove to him will be remembered more than five minutes from now and you would be better off spending your time encouraging him to drink enough of his Jim Jones Kool-aid to finally do the job.
It is interesting to see how they twist and turn to maintain the illusions that have been fed to them. How far will they go in spite of all the contrary evidence pointed out to them.
Also it is a lot more interesting to have the results of the perpetual conservative media PR blitz on display here along with the misinformation clips.
Kind of like what mmfa did with the Glenn Beck show from Friday? Wow did they ever get schooled on that one!!
Hey, jag, what part of my statements are incorrect? You got any proof to support your whine? Or, you just going to copy/paste what you read from mmfa posters?
Also, feel free to show us that you now grasp even the most basic elements of our progressive tax system.
Or that you now understand why it was not impressive when you showed us that Exxon paid taxes internationally while using Caribbean tax shelters to avoid paying ANY taxes to the US and this was proven in the link you actually provided to defend Exxon. It is no wonder you choose to provide no evidence at all for your nonsense, it usually refutes your own argument.
How bout it, mikehuck1976, are you gonna answer why Biden didn't pay his fair share or are you going to continue to whine about me not knowing how the tax system works? I suspect you'll continue whining, because liberals NEVER answer direct questions!! And you appear to be the typical liberal...at least until you answer how Biden can pay less taxes than YOU say he owes.
And, may I say, that was quite a double-lutz you pulled off when you redirected his attack on your sources into a COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT attack on Joe Biden. You didn't exactly stick the landing though...does it hurt, landing on your face like that?
Well perhaps you are another accountant, like Mike is. You can tell everyone why Biden paid less taxes than the US tax code showed he should have. Well can you? I didn't think so. You're just another typical liberal chiming in where you don't have a clue to where you're at.
I'd like to know where you heard that, Floyd. I doubt strongly that you heard it from anyone else, since the actual decrease in military personnel during the clinton years amounted to 18.8 percent.
This is also indisputably false, as anyone with a passing knowledge of current events would recognize.
I'm getting suspicious you aren't sincere, and that your real purpose here is simply to waste other poster's time and irritate them. I get the feeling you're delighted when you get another poster to spend time debating an obviously idiotic position.
But if you are sincere, I suggest you stay out of political discussions until you are more informed.
If you beleive that you are in no way in touch with reality.The media has been kind to GW Bush,History will not be so kind.The Iraq war phony preemptive "mushroom cloud" fiasco alone would be enough to put Bush "The Decider"in the bottom.Invading Afghanistan following 9-11 and then virtually putting it on a pause button while spending for both wars on credit will be the biggest bonehead move in history.That in part was due to a 3 trillion dollar tax cut and the $600 million Medicare expansion all while hiding the actual cost of the wars to deceive the American public.The media didn't challenge the Iraq war or the deficit deception due to intimidation from the Bush Administration.They said"question us and we will call you un American/unpatriotic"..Dick Cheney threw a finger at the American people by saying "so?".The economy started to tank in the aftermath of Republican disdain for business regulation peaked under Bush and the Boehner/McConnel Congress.They were still saying "the fundamentals of the Economy are still strong" as late as September 2008!!Then they were forced to eat old tough crow and "DO" something about the economy!
When the current President says they drove the bus into the dicth ,he is being kind.The Bus was on cruise control with no driver and plunged over the cliff while they were in the back of it drinking and playing cards with their rich buddies that got tax cuts and no-bid contracts!!
Ah ha ha ha ... who's the one out of touch with reality?
smt-- They said"question us and we will call you un American/unpatriotic".
Yeah, that sure scared a lot of Americans! Someone cue the twilight zone music for smtdl.
Now they attack this WAR President 24/7.
Remember the Bush admin screening out protestors from all gatherings where he was speaking..Remember how they set up protest zones well out of the way so he wouldn't see anything but smiles and adoring fans.You do remember people arrested for daring to show up in an anti war/anti Bush T shirts? Such an incident happened about a mile from my house. What would they have done if someone had shown up armed with one of those famous "water the tree of liberty" signs?
Then there's that whole Dan Rather case where an exempliary career was flushed based on just a minor technicality, not actual facts being distorted!!If those standards were used all the time ,there would be no Conservative media personalities on TV!
Floyd ..are the bells ringing yet?
smt-- Then there's that whole Dan Rather case where an exempliary career was flushed based on just a minor technicality, not actual facts being distorted!
Uh, the guy flat out lied to the American public. HE created a document on his computer then told everyone it was an original from 50 years earlier. HE LIED! You people want the likes of Beck, Limbaugh and BOR FIRED because they lie, yet YOU say Rather had an "exempliary (SIC) career" after HE lies.
Yeah, I hear the bells ringing, and it's coming from the emptiness between your ears.
As to the media I meant the whole media was kind to George Bush in the sense of actual negative coverage.The main stream media was told to back off and they did.Those were just two examples of reporters who later spoke out on it.David Gregory was another who did and there are others.I'm sure you never heard any of it since you were probably listening to Fox praise and support every thing Bush did. The conservative media which is not really media anyway was hypocrtical as always.Why did that confuse you?Is it ok or not to attack a war president?Fox is now doing what it said was unpatriotic!.And please don't talk about what is between anybody's ears!I didn't change anything "when questioned",I think everyone but you understood exactly what I was saying!
You got that right. The only part you forgot to mention was that Rumsfeld and Cheney were also leaders in the "biggest bonehead move in history", cheered on by Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh and Beck. And since then, the Cheney daughter's criticism of the people trying to undo the damage has been incessant. Are all these GOPers completely devoid of common sense?
Just about every developed country's debt to GDP ratios have gone up in this recession. Revenues went down as need went up. Your beloved Palin/McCain admin. would have had very similar numbers. Also much of the so called Obama debt was in his first year which was under the Bush budget.
But, like all true liberals, you will continue to blame anyone and everyone you can, instead of accepting a little personal responsibility.
Why won't conservatives blame their own ideology and policy decisions for messing things up instead of blaming fanny and freddy and inner city home buyers for the recession? Even Alan Greenspan has admitted that his faulty libertarian assumptions were wrong. Right now conservatives are trying to blame Obama for everything. We played the let the market decide everything game and the greed won out over the people. Accountability is what libertarians try to avoid: they blame the government for everything.
Who was in office the last time we were paying down our debt? Who reversed that process?
I heard people talking about that yesterday. Uhhh, Bush isn't running for president. I'm pretty sure he can't.
W. is gone, maybe one of his relatives can run - or maybe Palin. Does it matter? What have the republicans learned their rise and fall: Mostly that dirty politics and biased media allies can get the base ready for a second helping of the same old gruel. Please let us know how the next Conservative Republican administration and congress are going to be different. What mistakes have they learned?
But, if you fear unemployment rates of 5% and an economy that thrived and expanded ... so be it.
If our economy continues to fail, it will not be in away that your average conservative understands. Most of them failed to see are current mess coming. Most are worried about inflation right now. Most want draconian budget cuts in a deflationary cycle. Most think free market policies that favor the rich are the answer to everything. Their track record stinks and most of what comes out of their mouths is blatently dishonest.
And how can you prove that statement? If I recall, the republicans were seeking to continue tax cuts to allow employers to afford more employees. No, the numbers would have been different. But, I can understand your fear of a vibrant economy. Wouldn't that reduce your chances of creating the socialist state you so dearly want?
eb-- Also much of the so called Obama debt was in his first year which was under the Bush budget.
Actually (and FACTUALLY) ALL of the debt after Obama took office is on him and him alone. If you want to deny responsibility, that would be expected since you are a liberal. Obama has been president since he took office, with a democratic majority in the house and senate. If anything needed to be done, he could have done it. He chose NOT to, so trying to blame others for HIS failures is ... well ... fully expected by every fearmongering liberal in this nation.
eb-- Why won't conservatives blame their own ideology and policy decisions for messing things up instead of blaming fanny and freddy and inner city home buyers for the recession
Umm, aren't those companies run using the ideology that you say caused this mess? So, in FACT conservatives ARE blaming the ideology you whine about.
Tax Cuts? Is that all you guys have to offer for the chronically unemployed? Continued tax cuts makes the debt worse. We find that out everytime. I thought conservatives blamed the debt for all our problems. This makes it worse.
No, the numbers would have been different.
With the current tax cut in place, the numbers stink. One reason the numbers stink is becuase revenue went down. So you claim that budget numbers would be better under Palin/McCain because they would have cut revenue further to extend breaks to the wealthy, thereby curing the recession? Yes the wealthy are too big to fail.
But, I can understand your fear of a vibrant economy. Wouldn't that reduce your chances of creating the socialist state you so dearly want?
Socialism? Straw man! Who is advocating a government owned economy? You guys don't seem to know what socialism even is.
How about the world economy during the 1950's and 60's before the free trade policies were enacted that gave away everything to the finaceers. Economic growth was vibrant back then with higher taxes on the wealthy and more progressive government policies. Since the Reagan supply side washington consensus reforms, stagnation and low growth have been the rule. The rich have down well, the trickle down only drips.
If anything needed to be done, [Obmama] could have done it. He chose NOT to, so trying to blame others for HIS failures is ... well ... fully expected by every fearmongering liberal in this nation.
What huge parts of the government would a conservative in his place cut to pay down the debt and pay for the tax cuts for the rich? Oh I know, more tax cuts. Please tell us what Obama should have done or what Palin would do. Cut defense in half? Privatize social security and medicare?
Republicans are also responsible as well. Single payer health insurance plans are much more fiscally responsible around the world yet that was never and option to consider. A much more efficient and just health care reform would have done even more to lower the budget. Since its not a tax cut, however, it was not worthy of consideration.
Umm, aren't those companies (fanny & freddy) run using the ideology that you say caused this mess? So, in FACT conservatives ARE blaming the ideology you whine about.
Fanny and Freddy. They are not entirely controlled by the government and they got in the same game the other big boys were in. They are not the prime cause of the mess. To review:
Conservatives have weakened government regulations and helped corrupt our government to be an enabler of corporate irresponsibility, rather than a strong check and balance to economic power.
Many democrats were not very progressive and also were a part of the enabling. They acted like republicans.
Financial and corporate institutions do not self regulate themsleves well. They turned our economy into a casino. Now we pay the price.
The market will not take care of itself, the wealthy will not take care of everyone else.
Bottom line is, we should stop arguing about left and right. We need to argue about whether or not who is in control has our interests in mind, and right now I know they don't. Will they come November, most likely not. But until any action like I mentioned previously is taken, we will always face the same problems.
They are elected officials, who in the current set up need to raise hundreds of thousands or more to get elected. Take the money out of the electoral process and you might get a more responsive representative system. Other alternatives to politicians: stockholder appointed CEOs, celebrities, kings, scientists, accountants...
The only way to fix all of our problems and to get rid of our ENORMOUS debt and record deficit is to reduce the size of the federal government.
Or raise more revenue, or enact real health care reform (single payer), or greatly reduce military spending, or have a graduated carbon tax, or cut welfare to corporations...
And how about We The People decide, not Congress.
I guess we could throw away the constitution and have budget by referendum.
We need to set term limits so they won't hop into bed with whoever writes them a check.
Term limits do nothing to stop corruption. Many would just do the same damage and have the next guy get blamed for it. If I know I am out soon, I might as well start going to bed right away.
And we need to pass an amendment to the Constitution to ensure a balanced budget.
While we are at it, why don't we just outlaw all forms of credit if debt is so evil. From now on, no one pays for anything they can't afford. If the feds can't go into debt, how will we pay for the next war?
The fed spends, spends, spends, and pays no consequences...they pass it on to us!
When was the last time the fed gov. made you pay for the debt? More than likely they have been reducing your taxes.
Single payer health care will not do as you think. Carbon taxes will not cure the deficit. It will only allow money to change hands and pollution to continue unchecked (even be authorized). And cut welfare to corporations? What do you mean by that; cut the payments they make or cut some illusional payments you think they are getting? If you cut the payments they are making then your favorite pet group of needy people (the poor) will go without. If you mean the other, then you are delusional.
eb-- Term limits do nothing to stop corruption.
You are absolutely wrong on that one. Use the career of the recently deceased (R) Stevens to support your theory. Then use any career of any senator that held office for longer than 12 years to continue testing your theory. You'll find you are absolutely wrong in every instance.
By your thinking the corrupt will start being corrupt quicker, but in reality, the voters will observe that corruptness just as quick as realize who that person is. With term limits in place that person will be forced out. Without term limits we get careers like Stevens, Byrd, Kennedy. All corrupt and without term limits.
eb-- When was the last time the fed gov. made you pay for the debt?
Every time I buy gas. AND, every time I make ANY purchase of durable goods. I pay with every paycheck I receive. And then I pay again every April 15th.
Thanks for showing how clueless you are to reality.
How much taxes will those on 2+ years of unemployment be paying? I think you don't know what you're talking about.
eb-- A much more efficient and just health care reform would have done even more to lower the budget.
Perhaps, but nobody wanted it except those who were without. Instead of using Trillions on a NEW health care plan, they could have just as easily spent Millions and covered the few who slipped through the cracks.
eb-- The market will not take care of itself, the wealthy will not take care of everyone else.
Which leaves WHO to do that? The middle class are about to have a tax increase. How much do the poor pay in taxes? Hey, eb, please explain who is left to support your wild liberal plans if everybody in the nation is too poor and/or unemployed to pay any taxes?
Why is it that you keep repeating that? The middle class (those earning below 77,500) are not going to get a tax increase. Families earning more than 250,000 both constitue 1.5% of the population and ARE NOT the middle class.
Another fact, Obama did nothing to add to the debt for at least 10 months because that is the way the system works, Bush's budget is in effect until then. That is an undeniable fact. Learn about budget rules before making a fool of yourself.
Tax rates on the top 1% are at historic lows and have been for nearly three decades. What we've seen in this time is unemployment numbers acting pretty much independently of the top earner income tax rates, and in the last years of the Bush administration, they started to climb rapidly, and we're still trying to slow them down.
On the other hand, in this same time frame while tax rates on the top earners have been at historic lows, we've seen executive compensation soar exponentially, while wages for middle and working class people have stagnated as the cost of living steadily rises.
This is just one of many many falsehoods that get repeated and backed up with talking points and anecdotes that ignore reality and history.
Tax rates on the top 1% are at historic lows and have been for nearly three decades. What we've seen in this time is unemployment numbers acting pretty much independently of the top earner income tax rates, and in the last years of the Bush administration, they started to climb rapidly, and we're still trying to slow them down.
On the other hand, in this same time frame while tax rates on the top earners have been at historic lows, we've seen executive compensation soar exponentially, while wages for middle and working class people have stagnated as the cost of living steadily rises.
This is just one of many many falsehoods that get repeated and backed up with talking points and anecdotes that ignore reality and history.
I find it very interesting that you criticize Obama for blaming bush for the economy, but then you try and blame Clinton for 9/11. You are a hypocrite
After that nonsense, you should add idiot to hypocrite.
Did you know you only have to hit the "save" button once?
Your example of Charade is a good one. She DID prove to be a racist after all. Too bad you liberals are so blinded by hatred you couldn't accept it.
However, if you want to show where the debt did NOT increase 3X or the budget is NOT 3X worse, you go right ahead and try. Good luck to you sir/ma'am, I'll be waiting for an actual response where you bring substance instead of hateful rhetoric (like you usually do).
P.S. watch what happens when you hit the "save" button just ONCE ...
An as far a refuting your 3x BS... naw too easy and waste of time. To argue with a person who has abandoned all reason makes about as much sense as giving medicine to a dead man.
Just about every developed country's debt to GDP ratios have gone up in this recession. Revenues went down as need went up. Your beloved Palin/McCain admin. would have had very similar numbers. Also much of the so called Obama debt was in his first year which was under the Bush budget.
But, like all true liberals, you will continue to blame anyone and everyone you can, instead of accepting a little personal responsibility.
Why won't conservatives blame their own ideology and policy decisions for messing things up instead of blaming fanny and freddy and inner city home buyers for the recession? Even Alan Greenspan has admitted that his faulty libertarian assumptions were wrong. Right now conservatives are trying to blame Obama for everything. We played the let the market decide everything game and the greed won out over the people. Accountability is what libertarians try to avoid: they blame the government for everything.
Who was in office the last time we were paying down our debt? Who reversed that process?
I heard people talking about that yesterday. Uhhh, Bush isn't running for president. I'm pretty sure he can't.
W. is gone, maybe one of his relatives can run - or maybe Palin. Does it matter? What have the republicans learned their rise and fall: Mostly that dirty politics and biased media allies can get the base ready for a second helping of the same old gruel. Please let us know how the next Conservative Republican administration and congress are going to be different. What mistakes have they learned?
But, if you fear unemployment rates of 5% and an economy that thrived and expanded ... so be it.
If our economy continues to fail, it will not be in away that your average conservative understands. Most of them failed to see are current mess coming. Most are worried about inflation right now. Most want draconian budget cuts in a deflationary cycle. Most think free market policies that favor the rich are the answer to everything. Their track record stinks and most of what comes out of their mouths is blatently dishonest.
2.48 TRILLION Bush tax cuts - NOT PAID FOR
1.25 TRILLION Bush Medicare Prescription Drug Ben. - NOT PAID FOR
1 TRILLION (and counting) for 2 Bush wars - NOT PAID FOR
By October 2008, due to increases in domestic and foreign spending, the national debt had risen to $11.3 TRILLION, an increase of over 100%from the start of year 2000when the debt was at $5.6 trillion. Spending and the national debt...
Floyd, please, lying when EVERYONE can find out the truth with a simple Google search is pathetic!
YOU KNOW the exact unemployment rate was when Bush left office. And in case you can't seem to raise your head from under the rock you lived under during the Bush years, here's are the facts:
January 9, 2009 - The hemorrhaging of American jobs accelerated at a record pace at the end of 2008, bringing the year's total job losses to 2.6 million or the highest level in more than six decades.
A sobering U.S. Labor Department jobs report Friday showed the economy lost 524,000 jobs in December and 1.9 million in the year's final four months, after the credit crisis began in September.
The unemployment rate rose to 7.2% last month from 6.7% in November - its highest rate since January 1993. Worst year for jobs since '45 - Annual loss biggest since end of World War II. Unemployment rate rises to 7.2%...
Congero, Floyd won't respond, because he can't. He knows and I know that his rosy picture of the Bush years is a joke, just like Floyd.
From unemployment to housing, Floyd and his fellow right-wingers like to pretend that 2007 and 2008 didn't happen.
It's been their theme since 9/11.
In their convoluted logic, Bill Clinton becomes responsible for 9/11 even though HE wasn't President. And now President Obama becomes responsible for the economic disaster, even though it started in late 2006, when Bush was President.
Floyd and his fellow right-wingers will not take responsibility for SUPPORTING the folks who caused this country to fall into it's second depression. So they go back to 2004, pretending that the last 4 years of the Bush administration didn't happen.
But facts don't lie, just Floyd.
Until you lot acknowledge the damage that Bush (and his policies) did, and the inherent difficultly of fixing everything he (and his policies) ballsed up, you have NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER to be talking about US taking "a little personal responsibility." So STFU.
if you fear unemployment rates of 5% and an economy that thrived and expanded
Are you derranged?
It's called "SUSTAINABILITY," moron. And the Bush economic policies, unsustainable as they were, led to the worst US and Global recession since the 1930's.
For a minute there a less observant person might have thought you were talking about the CLINTON economy!
It unbelieveable that you can't recognize a colossal, eight-year cavalcade of FAILURE, even when it walks right over you.
--------------------------------------------------------
You should try visiting the planet EARTH some time. The climate's nice, and it's getting warmer.
No, they were the policies of Clinton which were revised by democrats/republicans alike during the next 5 years. Get YOUR facts straight before you start calling people moron.
OK, fine, if you want to play THAT game, I'm no fanb of Clinton either, so... What you call "Clinton's Policies" I call "Conservtaive Polices" that the Democrats should not have supported and Clinton should not have signed into law. And Clinton's economy would have been every bit as robust without repealing the Glass-Steagal act, or signing the '96 Telecom Monopoly bill. (Or NAFTA for tha matter!) And that's all thanks to a little pet-project Al Gore was "taking the initiative" on. (So much for the idea that government project never do any good.)
Re the POLICIES, it seems like we're both saying the same thing: Shame on Clinton and the Democrats for (once again) going along with the Republicans. The difference is, I'M NOT A REPUBLICAN. (Or a Conservtaive, to save me the trouble of listening to you claim that YOU'RE not a Republican either, even though your an Anti-Democrat.) So there's no hypocrisy in ME saying it.
And, BTW... If you're going to blame these CONSERVATIVE polices on Clinton, why don't you explain to me how BUSH's policies differed? The only difference I see are massive tax cuts for the rich that led to record deficits, and an ACCELERATION of the Libertarian nonsense of de-regulation that brough the banking situation to a head.
So... HOW are they different exactly?
----------------------------------------
Nice try, but... FAIL, as usual.
So, YES you are being a hypocrite when you blame Bush economic policies for being completely at fault and ignoring what Clinton did. And you are especially being a hypocrite by continuing that stance in reply to mine. You are defending failed economic policies of democrats while stating only republican policies are at fault even though you know (or claim to know) that both parties share fault for the results you claim ONLY Bush is responsible for.
Typical liberal
You and ilk appear to equate stupidity with change. Voters may be angry but are you willing to bet they are equally stupid too?
Um, yeah, Tony...you actually DO say that with a mere partisan, boostering mentality.
"Blankley" indeed!
The scenario that the conservative "news" media is promoting is flat out civil war.
Conservative media forecast temper tantrum if they don't get their way in every election and vote
Just exactly how rich is George Soros? Never mind, it already shows in the policy's being adapted by Obama. Very good insight by pete, too bad you meant it to be anti-republican.
Your constant use of his psychotic rambling talking points makes it obvious.
What about Rupert Effin Murdoch? He's YOUR rich D-bag from a foreign land!
If you are going to use someone elses brain to do your thinking for you, I would suggest that you try using someone with at least a grain of intelligence. Beck is about 3 dying braincells away from walking on all fours.
I'm worried for you. The gullible and the weak minded will be the cannon fodder for his revolution!
Finally, Isn't all this Un-American Treasonous Rhetoric Un-Patriotic? I mean if you expect me to admit I'm a communist, I expect you to admit you are a traitor. A traitor to your nation and your President, who was elected of the people, by the people, for the people.
Yes, but HE isn't telling Obama what to do.
the-- I'm worried for you. The gullible and the weak minded will be the cannon fodder for his revolution!
If those are your standards, you should be worried for yourself.
Clever, really clever. Go stick your head back up Beck's Arse, you traitor.
Yes, but HE isn't telling Obama what to do.
Yes he is, he is telling Obama to go to hell.
Soros - I fail to see him having near the amount of influence that Fox news has. Yet he seems easy for conservatives to fixate on. What is the name of Soro's media empire? How many networks and newspapers does he own?
the-- I'm worried for you. The gullible and the weak minded will be the cannon fodder for his revolution!
The gullible and the weak minded are those who take Fox and Rush seriously. They have been trained to blame everyone for their pain EXCEPT the fat cats that cause it. Its rather pathetic.
If those are your standards, you should be worried for yourself.
Why do conservatives need to rely on misinformation and personal attacks to promote their cause? I guess ideas are not enough.
I'm not the one posting article after article about Fox/Rush/Beck ect., day after day after day. Obviously, mmfa and YOU are the ones who take those people serious. Personally, I never watch anything on FOX except sports. I don't listen to Rush, but I do listen to the comedian Glenn Beck on the radio. And, apparently he put huge amounts of egg on the faces of those at mmfa last Friday because they take him so seriously. Thanks for providing more proof to the statement made by theliberalrepublican.
eb-- Yes he is, he is telling Obama to go to hell.
Nice quote you provided. But, where is the part where he is telling Obama to "go to hell"? You provided a quote, but perhaps you cut it short or took it out of context and forgot to provide the actual quote of what YOU say he said.
Which BTW, isn't telling Obama what to do like Soros is. Soros is using Obama like a hand-puppet and you defend his actions.
eb-- What is the name of Soro's media empire?
I guess you like living in denial. Ever here of "hedge funds"? Who owns/operates Quantum Group of Funds? Do you know what kind of financial mess this country is in because of hedge funds? So YOU are defending a man that helped cause the financial problems this country is in and yet you have the gall to bemoan a man giving his personal opinion. Typical liberal
Yes, but HE isn't telling Obama what to do.
Yes he is, he is telling Obama to go to hell.
Soros - I fail to see him having near the amount of influence that Fox news has. Yet he seems easy for conservatives to fixate on. What is the name of Soro's media empire? How many networks and newspapers does he own?
the-- I'm worried for you. The gullible and the weak minded will be the cannon fodder for his revolution!
The gullible and the weak minded are those who take Fox and Rush seriously. They have been trained to blame everyone for their pain EXCEPT the fat cats that cause it. Its rather pathetic.
If those are your standards, you should be worried for yourself.
Why do conservatives need to rely on misinformation and personal attacks to promote their cause? I guess ideas are not enough.
If the rest of your posting hadn't already done it, the Soros regurgitation would have exposed you as a credulous neo-con stooge.
By the way, would you explain why you use an apostrophe (') to pluralize, instead of using the English form, policies?
You're right, I should have said "policies" that Soros is telling Obama to do. To which you had no response other than to correct some grammar errors. I hope you critic liberal posters as strictly as you do mine.
I gave the Soros red herring all the response it deserves. And, no, I don't critic liberals over their punctuation (well, not often).
Yeah, that's my excuse too. Now we need to teach thelibrep how to hit the "save" button once instead of multiple times to post ONE message. Perhaps he just loves to see his own name on the internet?
Blah, blah, blah. We've heard all of the Beck Conspiracy Theories. We're trying to discuss politics and reality here. If you can't play along, go post on Big Government where your nutball conspiracies are welcomed by the other fringies.
Well, Soros is a rich guy who funds liberal media, and that nefarious revelation somehow negates and excuses the many ultra wealthy conservative media sponsors who have spent just as much or more on similar media for the conservative ideology.
Ultimately, it's useless to argue with a poster like Floyd. Floyd has no interest in reality, only in promoting the cause and ideology he's been fooled into believing is in his best interests.
Too bad you can't prove it. It's also too bad that you don't seem to understand the phrase "no matter who is in charge on paper." I'm a registered independent who believes Democrats are just as easily bought and paid for as Republicans.
What is George Soros' net worth compared to the annual profits of Exxon Mobil, Chevron, GE, and Wal-Mart? You think Soros' really wields any power in comparison to entities like this? Dream on.
Fannie/Freddie are hedge funds? <snark>
Let those who are encouraging violence as a solution lead the charge. Their supporters will be waiting a long time if they expect one of these mouthpieces to step out in front and start any kind of rebellion against the government.
They sure are patient. They've allowed themselves to be fooled into thinking that the republicans will repeal Roe v. Wade and reform immigration for over 25 years now.
Are all of those positions elected when Republicans are in charge? Isn't the media a free market?
And did Madison and Jefferson have political infomercials in which they told people to stock up on overpriced gold?
And yet they weren't granted the role of defending freedom when the Bushies were doing warrantless wiretapping?
So boycotts are but having cops round up Hispanic citizens is trouble free?
I'm gonna go with some other option besides high-tech lynching or actual slave-ownership.
Sorry, wingnuts, normal people aren't limited to your fantasies.
First they attack the Constitution and now it's the Declaration of Independence...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Why do Republicans hate America?
When we speak of people being equal, it means that we are all given the same rights, the same protections, and the same treatment for our actions and transgressions. America was the first nation since times before B.C became A.D that attempted to establish a society without a rigid class system. That is fundamentally American, and although it was far from perfect at first (slavery, women couldn't vote, treatment of native cultures) we grew and changed slowly and painfully into the more egalitarian society that we are now.
I truly believe people like Erickson and many other right wing "contributors" don't believe in a class free society. They have a fundamental belief that democracy is bad because they read too much Ayn Rand and listened to too much Murdoch and Ailes. They have nothing but contempt for the common man, made ignorant by the likes of they themselves in their dishonesty. These people represent the strong arm of resistance to freedom, liberty and dignity for all people.
Equality equals slavery now in the mind of Erickson, I feel saddened for him, and for our nation that people like him would ignore all that is good about a modern enlightened society. Why are we still debating whether or not feudalism sucked?
But you and I are different in many many ways. I can tell you that without even seeing you or speaking with you. We look different. Our voices are different. We wear different clothes. We are not equal. We are not the same.
Equal means the same, don't you know?
If we are all equal, we must be the same. If we are all the same, we are not given freedom to be different.
Now, I know that equal is used to denote equal under the law, but even that is problematic. Should an employee have the same rights as the owner of the business? Of course not. How about children-- should they be given the same rights to enter into contracts as adults? Of course not-- it is absurd to think they should be given the exact same, equal, rights to do that. So, there's two examples of how we are not treated equal under the law.
Given that, I also understand equal has been read that all should be given equal protection and that people should not be discriminated against. But isn't any law restricting any behavior, or requiring any behavior, discriminating against the people who do or don't do that behavior?
In all of these situations, if we use 'equal' loosely, we run the risk of creating slaves if taken to their natural conclusions.
So, I'd say that equal must be a very specific and narrow term when used in such a manner as to ensure justice for all. That's really what is meant, isn't it? Everyone should be given the true justice that they are due.
I'd agree with that completely, but that is a separate concept than equality for all. Justice requires all like positioned people be treated equally. But not everyone is positioned equally, and they cannot ever be positioned equally.
So, in the end, the term "equal" is not very useful, I don't think, and it creates images that are impossible to reach, and leads to unnecessary divisions. However, looking to see what justice someone truly deserves is a much better formula.
Funny they should say that when the only ones talking about it are the lying, fear mongering, right wing nuts!
I am so sick of hearing the Republicans say “What the American People want” or “The American People don’t want this”, when they don’t have a clue or give a crap about “what we want”!
I’ve got a News Flash for the righties: The “Will of the People” is to have a fair and equal shot at the American Dream.
If the Republicans get their way, you will have to be born into the elite, wealthy, families to get an education, buy a home, or do anything besides work like a slave for a low wage. They are the ones who are taking away our freedom.
Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News in general have been working overtime stoking racial fears, phantom government takeovers, and a variety of fake marxist/socialist/nazi/islamofacist plots on everything from indoctrinating our children to healthcare death panels.
Now Blankley says the only way to save the country is to have the Republican cavalry ride in and do what? Stop their own paid shills from spewing their daily deluge of seditious blather? Will he muzzle Savage, Olie North, Liddy, Quinn, Malkin, and a few of the other low lifes that continue to pop off with their made up paranoid stories?
We had eight years of Republican "conservative" policies. We don't need even eight more minutes of it.
There won't be any armed revolution, and if there were, these gasbags wouldn't have any part in it. They are, each and every one of them, abject cowards.
OK - MF's - as YOUR chimpy boyfriend put it - BRING IT ON...
Especially Blankley...what a set of over sized flapping lips firmly planted on the Moonies booty..
After a while, just like with Glenn's comparisons of Obama to Stalin/Hitler/Emperor Palpatine/Sauron/Lord Zod/etc., all that rhetoric loses its effect. And then you have nothing.
None of these people have the guts to start a war, anyway. They are just too comfortable. They aren't oppressed, THEY are the ruling class. THEY are the elites. They'd rather just sit back and complain about all the brown people than give up their cozy lives to revolt.
Although I would like to see a crowd of them get tear-gassed by riot cops. I'm crossing my fingers for 8/28.
I want my insurrection, dang it!!!!
I think it is a long way off, but I think that rebellion is indeed possible. You dismiss it, and those who espouse it, as cowards. Be careful with that attitude, and be willing to compromise or the thing may blow up in your face.
No one likes being bullied, and right now, many conservative causes are being bullied aside. Don't believe me?
Tax-rates are really quite jumbled now, and to say we have the lowest tax rates in history is quite the misstatement, given that the income tax was not even implemented until into the 20th century on a grand scale and most of the time before that there was no income tax.
I suggest you look into the matter of conservatives being bullied. I can provide examples, but I've found that instead of addressing the points, you will only ask for more examples. You'll never address my points that way, and such an excercise is pretty darn foolish if you ask me.
Ah, stick the point, man!
This is why we will never be able to come together, Congero. You insist on playing by your rules and refuse to look to the other side's position.
My positions should be clear, but you cannot see that. You are just as happy to call my positions "vague references" without addressing why they are vague or even attempting to figure out what I may be saying, even though they are actually pretty clear.
And this is exactly why there will be some sort of 'revolution' in the future. The divide in communication and basic assumptions about our governance will simply become too big. New York will not be able to live under the same rules as Texas or Arizona. California will be too far removed from the realities of Oklahoma or Alabama to have adequate laws to meet the needs of both. The only way to make it work will be to have a central government forcing its way onto somebody, whether it be onto CA and NY or TX or OK.
This is inevitable unless people stop to listen. So, Congero, are you really listening? Or are you looking for something specific and tuning out anything except for what it is you are looking for?
And now they want us to give them back the keys to the car they totaled?
Shameless arrogance.
The economy is not recovering because no one knows what is going to happen in it. Everyone is afraid to act, and is just sitting on their money.
You can disagree about the right's policies, but simply complaining about it does nothing to rectify the problem. And that's all I've seen the left do-- blame Bush.
Take a stand and make it happen. Don't teeter somewhere in the middle towing both sides of the line. Give people something solid that they can build on and act from. Also realize the past is the past, and whether or not it is Bush's fault, move forward. Fix the problem and don't blame.
Blaming, by the way, only leads to the tension that leads people to the thoughts of rebellion. It decidedly does not bring people together.
Bob Owens = Terrorist
Or at least has a terrorist's mentality.
TV news media were responsible for presenting opinions about news and government activity. Now we have Fox and others on the airwaves talking about revolution and civil war. The crazies who listen may act. Most people that I know political change through voting.
There has been too much talk of violence from organizations that are supposed to be part of the establishment.
It is a shame.
I live in Wyoming but used to live in DC, and I can tell you straight up that the values here are in many ways in direct opposition to those in LA or NY. The needs of the people are different, and the attitudes are entirely different.
It is also true that these opposites exist within a single state. Virginia is a great example. Northern VA is completely different than the rest of the state.
But what of this difference? Does anyone really expect to have values imposed on another group for very long without a huge amount of tension building? It seems to me this has already occured in this nation in a number of ways, like the civil rights movement. It has happened, and can well happen again.
But liberals need to be careful to understand that conservatives have ideas as well that are valid and need to be considered.
"...But what of this difference? Does anyone really expect to have VALUES IMPOSED ON ANOTHER GROUP for very long without a huge amount of tension building? It seems to me this has already occured in this nation in a number of ways, LIKE THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. IT HAS HAPPENED, AND CAN WELL HAPPEN AGAIN.-----Rational Conservative
You consider yourself rational? That is really scary.
But it came from a group of people who were pushed down by another group. Much the same idea (though not to the same extreme) is going on now. Like it or not, Congero, liberals would LOVE to shut conservatives up. They actually find creative ways to do so. Hate speech is a great example, as is the call of racism or intolerance every time someone on the right says something the left doesn't like. Rather than discuss the merits of the proposition-- the left is far more quick to call foul than discuss. This is not a sign of them being very open to what the right has to say.
If you tell me that we have to make sense before you'll engage, then what the heck does that mean? Does that mean that we have to come to your level, rather than try to see ours? In other words, does it mean that you will only engage when you approve instead of trying to understand?
If you tell me that it really is about being tolerant to other ideas, I'd respond by asking where is your tolerance? Your tolerance, under such a scheme is skin deep and one sided.
If you then tell me that you position is the only correct one and that's why you stick to it so strongly, I'd ask two questions: why and are you sure?
See, my position stated above is a comparison, and uses an example of a place in time where people were held back by another group. They group held back did not like it. Conservatives who are told to shut up won't like being told to shut up. Same thing with gays being told they can't marry.
Now, if you'd like to respond to the merits here, please do so. But please do not sikmply respond with a very vague attack on my lack of logic, like you did in this last post to me.
I agree, we need to compromise, but your warning should be issued to YOUR fellow conservatives.
From 2001 till 2006 this country was govern completely by Republican conservatives. They allowed ZERO input from liberals and considered ZERO liberal ideas, And IF liberals expressed ANY differing opinions, we were branded traitors, non supporters of our own military and terrorists sympathizers and on and on.
And yet we liberals NEVER gave up on our country. We NEVER decided to say "NO" to ANYTHING purposed, simply because we weren't in power.
So besides tax cuts, WHAT do conservatives purpose? And don't forget, this country just had one of the largest tax cuts in history and STILL went into it's second depression. And those same tax cuts WERE NOT PAID FOR and increased the deficit by over 2.8 TRILLION dollars.
Besides deregulation, WHAT do conservatives purpose? And again, don't forget how well deregulation worked on the financial industry. Don't forget the massive housing crisis, credit crisis. Don't forget how 2.8 million Americans lost their jobs in the year 2008 alone.
And NOW the same conservatives don't want to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits for American citizens, but somehow conservatives didn't care WHO paid for the tax cuts, the Medicare Drug Perscription benefit or the 2 wars?
Forgive me if I just don't buy the sudden concern for the deficit either.
This country DID NOT get in this mess from liberal ideas and conservatives CAN'T keep offering up the same ideas that got us in this mess as a solution. Remember, Americans have been suffering long before Obama became President
Now I'm not saying that liberals are without fault, we have made mistakes too. But you and your fellow conservatives need to get your house in order and come up with REAL ideas.
The warning goes BOTH ways.
First, you need to be careful in your labels. Not all Republicans are conservatives-- in fact many are not. When I look back I see few true conservatives making the calls in that time, and GWB certainly was not one of them.
Second, the mess this country is in, I don't think, came from the policies of one group over another. The downturn started before Obama but his policies have done absolutely nothing to turn it around. Now, sure, we can debate where we'd be without, but it is now getting to be a long time in this position. It seems the market could have and should have turned around by now if it were left to its own devices. And I do think people are very scared to invest-- no one knows what is going to happen or if Obama will intervene. There's no confidence right now. Even just giving some direction, whatever it is, would help.
Third, you accuse Republicans of not allowing any contrary thought in the past. I must remember things differently than you, but that's OK. Also on this note, I am not just talking about those in office but address the leftist thinkers out there who dismiss anything that comes from the right without considering the merits of their position. I 100% acknowledge it happens on the right towards the left, too. But I am afraid to say I tihnk it is worse from the left to the right.
From whatever direction though, it stinks.
1) You cannot blame the rise or fall of the economy on one person.
2) The economy, if left to its own devices, may well have picked a direction by now after two years.
3) Right now, it is not falling nor gaining momentum because there is no leadership from the top.
I am not suggesting that Obama's picking a direction would have the economy in shambles or in steep ascent. However, I am suggesting that the economy would be more defined right now if he would be more clear on his intentions. Don't miss the importance of direction or confidence.
Its not it all, but it is a big contribitor to it all. There are many, many factors outside of the office of the US President that determine the fate of the economy. But confidence and direction are factors. I think FDR is a good example-- his policies kept people hopeful and moving, though they themselves did not fix the economy-- they knew where they were and what was coming, and were hopeful. Contrasting Obama, no one now knows what is going to happen-- taxes up or taxes down? Government involvement or no government involvement? To invest or not to invest? It all leaves this question open: if I invest in activity X, what is the government going to do with my investment-- anything at all or something drastic? As a result, they do nothing with their money, and the economy heads on without direction.
Well if you say so. Oh wait... what's this?
"How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy."
And based on the title, your article does not address my points, which are really just points that are not directed for against anyone in particular, short of saying Obama could and should give more direction on the future of the economy.
For what its worth, I think Bush shares some blame for the fault of the economy, but not all of it. But he also deserves credit for its recovery, but not all of it. I can go way back in time if you'd like in that Hoover deserves blame for the Great Depression, but not all of it.
It states that the way to improve the economy and provide long term stability is to reduce taxes, and to reduce spending. It criticizes Bush and Co, and even beyond, for failing to balance the budget.
He does seem to think some tax increases would be good, but I get the feeling he'd prefer straight up cutting of spending.
I'd agree with him. And agree that the GOP has lost its way.
But we both know Obama is not going to cut spending, and to compensate for his increase in spending, he's going to have to raise taxes a whole bunch.
Anyway, I think this article, though, demonstrates my position of the divide on the right. Not everyone is on the same page, and many in the GOP are out for power and do what they can to get it rather than stand for truly conservative principles.
BTW, don't take it as giving the Dems a pass, either. He wrote that it takes two to tango, and so he's right. I think he blames the GOP because they were the ones who could stop the Dems, and they did not do so.
So Rational Conservative, you call yourself a conservative but you voted for the non conservative GWB?
I'll start buying your "he's not a real conservative" when you stop voting for the "he's not a real conservative" candidates. No matter what you call yourselves, it doesn't change how you vote or who you support.
Look at 8 years of Bill Clinton with a Republican Congress vs 8 years of GWB with a Republican Congress and there is NO question which one left this country in better shape.
Whether you want to admit it or not, the downturn in the economy started in late 2006. By the end of 2008, this country had lost 2.8 million jobs, over 1.9 in the LAST 3 MONTHS of 2008!
Now President Obama had been in office almost 2 years and YOU somehow expect him to fix the worst financial meltdown since the great depression, fix the worst housing crisis in this country's history and restore the over 2.8 million jobs lost in 2008? And I suppose you also expect President Obama to make up for Bush's failure to create only 3 million jobs in 8 YEARS as well?
Wall Street is greedy AND irresponsible and YOU want to give Wall Street MORE freedom? Did YOU happen to miss the failure of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns? And how many more times do YOU want to lend YOUR money to Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, UBS and others?
Let's see if YOU can remember ANY bill that the Bush vetoed when Republicans held Congress and exactly how many he vetoed when Democrats took control of Congress in 2007?
The first answer is ZERO.
MMFA shows, on a daily basis, the right has a lock on "loony rants without EVER considering the merits" badge. When you find examples of those "leftist thinkers" that reflect the same number that show up on MMFA, you'll have a point.
Give the options-- Gore or Kerry, yes, Bush is MORE conservative, but not necessarily conservative. And I also think he moved left as he move on. I think his record is pretty clear on that one, as for example, his auto bail outs demonstrated. I'd ask that you understand conservatism before making these accusations. Its a lot more complicated than you think, and the right is more diverse than you give it credit for, as you evidently lump us all together.
The upturn did not start until Bush was in office, really. Does that mean Bush gets all the credit? Of course not. The economy is bigger than the President, which is why I do not fully blame Obama. About the only two things a pres can do is instill confidence and try to push policies he thinks are going to work. Even FDR realized this, and even for all he did, it was not his policies alone that got us out-- it was WWII. But he is revered today, I think, for his ability to instill confidence, not so much for the merits of his policies. So saying that Clinton left the country in better shape really means nothing, as A) it is debatable and B) what other things were going on in the world and the economy outside of the White House?
Your next point suggests that I realistically expect him alone to restore it all, and of course that is prepostorous. However, his promise that the stimulous bill would not allow unemployment of 8% has proven disastoroulsy wrong. Should he not be called out for that? Should that be something that end up, "Oh, he was just mistaken" and look the other way? Of course not, unless you are willing to to give the same leeway to all Presidents and all politicians.
See, that issue really can be divided into two separate ones. First, the hypocracy of holding one group on a very tight leash and giving the second great latitude. Second, ignoring what someone expressly promised to do by a given policy. As to the first, this should be pretty self explanatory. And the second is explained by his express promise and policy failed. Had he not been so specific, we could talk about time and everything. But he was specific, and so we should not forget that. The policy that he promised would protect the nation in a specific way has not protected the nation in that way.
You next move into Wall Street. Where did I ever mention Wall Street? I never mentioned Wall Street. But since you bring it up, who, in business or politics is not greedy? Who will not screw the neighbor so as to protect his own power? So, first, I think the government needs to realize its own greed, and it is not isolated to the GOP. The dems are pretty bad on that one, too. Second, why shouldn't people given an opportunity to pursue a living how they see fit, of course, within certain boundaries? Now, the next question is who should set the boundaries? The greedy governmental politicians? I am not sure they are the answer.
I wish Bush would have vetoed some bills, but he didn't. This argument won't get you far, because it is really irrelavant. Bush is not the GOP, and is thus not indicative of the GOP working with other voices.
I'm glad MMFA shows that, but I would expect no different from this organization. Check out the Media Research Center's take on the issue. There is a lot more out there than just the MMFA.
A final point-- I have my own opinions on what would solve the greed problem and this divide that we now see in this nation. If you'd like to know what they are, I am happy to discuss. But I think there are many out there on both sides that are closed to honest and open discussion and who can't avoid using terms like "loony" or "evil" or pick your adjective. If we cannot ever discuss something in an open and honest way, the divide will grow ever deeper. This gives creedence to the premise of this article, as both sides, I think, are quick to throw labals and to blame.
If you want to complain about not having your ideas taken seriously the fight should be within your own party sense it seems that all they are pushing is non-sense and kooks. Sharron Angle,Rand Paul,talk of admending the 14th and continuing Bush Tax cuts to name few. If these are not conservative then you need to take up the fight like I said within your party it;s not the democrats who are drowning out the voices of moderation and reason and replaced it Beck,limbaugh,Bachmann and Palin. Maybe you have proof or examples of conservatives being denied jobs(you can't be this dense since we just went through the violations of the Hatch Act under Bushs DOJ)or being shut out of the airwaves or having dogs let loose on them or any other patterns of discrimination. Please highlight them. Whether you like it or not you saying something doesn't make it true and unless youy can point to examples your're just blowing bunk.
Oh Bush labeled himself a compassionate conservative don't blame democrats for him.
Fair enough on your position. The civil rights movement is indeed a very different proposition. However, the extreme that was shown there still shows up when anyone is pushed around. That situation was a shame.
And I disagree that it is those on the right who do this to others on the right. They are not the ones who cry foul whenever something happens they don't like happens or rush to the courts crying a violation of a given right.
Those on the left utilize those tactics. For instance, the insinuations from Rangel that his investigation is racially motivated is an example of this.
Race and intolerance have become tools of the left to shut down opposition and to win support for their cause apart from the merits. This is not something the right does. They may be beginning to point out this one sided tactic, but really cannot use them themselves because the left has successfully taken the issues for their side.
And you know what? Conservatives are tired of being in that position, where they cannot make their case without being labeled a racist or intolerant. I, for one, am against race based policies of any sort because they eventually create unintended consequences that will be difficult, if not impossible, to rectify-- not because I am against those of other races than myself. But even as I say that you, or others, may be thinking I am indeed racist and want to keep blacks down because I do not support race based policies of any sort. This will happen without even considering why it is that I think that way or what those reasons are, and the labels against me will fly. This, then, leads to the frustration of feeling pushed around.
For instance, if I were to always say that because someone is liberal they are dumb and intolerant and worse all the time, do you think those people would not fight back? (BTW, I do know some conservatives do this, and I reject their tactics, too.)
Oh, and a "compassionate" conservative is a loaded label that does not necessarily translate into a traditional conservative.
I do not defend Brietbart. I do not generally watch news, but admit it usually is Fox. However, it is usually the news shows and maybe O'Reilly. Hannity is obnoxious, and Beck is childish. Greta's not bad but comes on at a bad time. I do not listen to Rush. In other words, my opinions are not formed by the right wing talkers. I also don't like Palin, don't know much about Bachman, Angle, or Paul.
Here, Congero, if you are going to push me for minute details in this forum you are missing the boat. I used Rangle as a single example. There are others who suggest race goes into everything, and there are more than a few individuals who shout "racism" when something goes wrong against a black person. Didn't Jesse J. compare the owner of the Cavs to a slave owner when he called Lebron James out for his theatrics in leaving Cleveland? This is just another, single, example. It is not meant to encapture all the events that support my position.
And it is my position that you dodge. You have not addressed my points. You have only complained about the form of my argument. If you do not understand my argument, please say so, but don't dodge the argument.
Anyway, it is not just in race that conservatives are battling being pushed back. Religion, free speech, in schools, etc conservatives are finding it hard to do much of anything. Look it up, Congero, if you want details. There is far too much to include in a forum such as this.
The blanket statement that religion is completely accepted is simply oversimplified. I know well that the schools have to be very careful in how they allow any sort of treatment of religion or their involvement in it. They can allow student prayer, but they must keep their hands out of it. But prayer is not the only manifestation of religion or the only form it can be presented.
Its an interesting topic, I think, and I'd best most conservatives are surprised at exactly how much a school can allow in terms of prayer. But again, prayer is not the only aspect in question here.
In New York, students are thought world history in 9th and 10th grade. Amongst the lessons is the history of the middle East, whose development is tied to the spread and development of Islam, but they don't delve into teh religious aspects. the Same with all other history. Schools may teach about religious culture, but it must be from an anthropologist point of view.
I was though stories from the Bible, but from a literary stand point. If a techer holds a double standard with one group, the student has all the right to complain..
Creationism can't be taught along Evolution for two reasons: its not consistent as teaching one creation story would mean teaching other, different creation stories in order to keep a neutral POV and Creationism itself is not science. It can't be [dis]proven, tested and is used to fill the plot holes in Evolution. In short it doesn't follow the scientific method.
Students can congregate in school. In my school there were Chistian and muslim clubs as well as GayStriaght alliace and specific cultural clubs. The only thing the clubs couldn't do is harass others or attempt to prosiletize. Its possible for schools to perform religious services in its premises, but it can't be done BY the school or during class as well as that they must respect others' beliefs/customs.
You talk in generalities here that I agree with in principle, but I do not see the reality as playing out in the ideal. Dressing up as Arabs just after 9/11 was significant. I understand the argument that the purpose was to expose them to alternate points of view and specifically to show them what Arabs do and what they are like. However, do you really fail to see the significance of the timing?
Stories from the Bible have been rejected. Do you not believe me on that? I encourage you to look into that some more.
That the creation stories don't follow the scientific method is, frankly, I think a cop out. Merely suggesting that there is a possibility that the world was created by no means means you must prefer one story over another, and by rejecting under the scientific method promotes the scientific method over religious faith. Scientific value has value, then, but religious faith cannot be trusted under that idea. That is a liberal position.
Did you not read my position on religion in schools?
and Reagan kicking off his 1980 presedential campaign in the state that has four I's but still can't see and the city where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found Philadelphia,Mississippi. Look up the republican Southern Strategy and the play to the angry white southern vote,guess what they were angry about? After that maybe you can turn to Lee Atwater and his sucessful use of race in the Willie Horton(be scared of the blackman)ad that helped propel George no new taxes into the presidency.
I won't minch words about your last paragraph...that is total BS. Conservatives have a religion? What is it? You want to say this is a white christian nation but this is nation is far from being only white and Christianity is but only one religion practiced here. Look it up. Schools? What you are hiding behind . Come out and say white christians are being oppressed in your mind. Stop fudging and let it out then we can get to the real meat of the matter
Oh my. You really are narrowly focused. I am sorry to see that.
If I may, I will guess that you lived through the civil rights movement and were deeply affected by it. I am sure that it was hard. I cannot imagine living through the stuff that blacks had live through. I have seen, and have been deeply affected by videos of black youth being hosed and arresed in Alabama. Kids as young as 4! I have a 3 year old and a 5 year old. Trust me, the thought of them being treated in that manner sickens me and I think the people that did that were sick.
But we're not there anymore. That is the past, and if anyone did that to anyone now, I would throw them in jail immediately. They have no place in society.
But what I've said in my posts is that in the same principle as that, no one likes being pushed around. Conservatives are no different. And perhaps you fail to see the connection, conservatives do. They see it really quite clearly. If you'd try to see what they see, it would help us come together.
But you are unwilling to do so, at least you have not shown me you are willing to do so. You continue to focus on this very narrow issue of comparison. And if I chose something too close to you to make my point, I apologize. But my point remains the same, nonetheless, and I cannot put that comparison back in a bottle. So you'll have to figure out the comparison.
But let's look at contemporary ideals, like JJ's analogy to slave owner holding Lebron back. What does that accomplish? Does that comment make people think it is a racial issue? Absolutely!!! It is significant, and it does nor bring people together. Lebron hosted a show on which he chose his new team. He profited from that. There's nothing wrong with him profiting, but that was a show, and as an owner of an organization involved, yeah, he had a right to be upset and call the player out. It would be the same if A-Rod or Albert Pujols did the same in baseball, or Tom Brady in the NFL. Its not about color at all, yet JJ had to make it about color. And as long as people continue to do that, color will still be an issue front and center, and there will not be racial healing.
Reread my last paragraph. Just reread it, guy. Tell me what my intent was.
In the end, Congero, try to understand what I am trying to say and get past your own bias about me, a white male conservative. Until you can do that, the divide will continue to grow.
I presented my thoughts yet you want me to figure out yours? WTF! I explained what i thought. You have yet to answer my questions but instead offer some vague BS about New York and Texas not getting along. you don't like taxes I see them as necessary. You think cons religion is being oppressed but never answer what the cons religion is? You feel that liberals make to much about race yet deny the discrimination and opression that people of color are still experiencing today. You have yet to show how conservatives are being oppressed and denied rights in any way through laws,housing,schooling et.al. In other words WTF do you want?
and one person, will come to mind, ( bush )...... it won't be difficult on what lever to pull.........