Friday, December 17, 2010

Bush v. Gore Plus Ten

The ten year anniversary came and went last week with little, if any, media attention. The minority of Americans with a functional memory vividly recall December 12, 2000 as the definitive point in history that democracy was finally killed in the US by the radical Right. As for the corporate media, they didn’t really care too much about bringing attention to this anniversary of a very crucial Supreme Court decision.

I suppose it may be due to our new era of bi-partisan “looking forward”. I’d guess that’s the reason why we can’t look back and investigate anything involving the Bush/Cheney cartel. I have a feeling Obama will be investigated up the wazoo soon after the next Republican congress gets together. But that’s different, right?

It is no exaggeration to say democracy was crushed when the Right Wing majority of the Supreme Court denied the majority of American voters a fair recount in Florida on December 9th, and gave the presidency to George W. Bush on December 12th. The half million more Americans who voted for Gore over Bush had their voices silenced by a Right Wing majority of five of nine.

The US had suffered a coup d'├ętat.

Little did unsuspecting Americans know at the time that the prejudice, bias and cronyism of Republican Supreme Court justices would seal the fate of a nation, along with uncounted thousands of human lives in the ensuing wars of choice. The case of Bush v Gore reeked of conflict of interest and was devoid of precedent, law, and justice.

As a dark omen of the cronyism to come, we know the friendship between Justice Scalia and Dick Cheney went back over a quarter of a century. Perhaps if Dead-eye Dick had shot his duck hunting pal instead of his quail hunting pal things would have turned out better for the world.
Of course the Scalia/Cheney cronyism was not the only influence. Rehnquist, Thomas and O’Connor all had issues of conflict of interest as well.

For those with enough curiosity and interest in our recent history, I’d like to offer you revealing look at the likely, or even illegal, conflict of interest in that Right Wing court decision. These are but a few snippets from: The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Spring 2003 by Neumann, Richard K Jr

**

Conflicts of interest in Bush v. Gore: Did some justices vote illegally?

On December 9, 2000, the United States Supreme Court stayed the presidential election litigation in the Florida courts and set oral argument for December 11. On the morning of December 12-one day after oral argument and half a day before the Supreme Court announced its decision in Bush v. Gore-the Wall Street Journal published a front-page story that included the following:

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 76 years old, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 70, both lifelong Republicans, have at times privately talked about retiring and would prefer that a Republican appoint their successors. . . . Justice O'Connor, a cancer survivor, has privately let it be known that, after 20 years on the high court, she wants to retire to her home state of Arizona . . . . At an Election Night party at the Washington, D.C., home of Mary Ann Stoessel, widow of former Ambassador Walter Stoessel, the justice's husband, John O'Connor, mentioned to others her desire to step down, according to three witnesses. But Mr. O'Connor said his wife would be reluctant to retire if a Democrat were in the White House and would choose her replacement. Justice O'Connor declined to comment.

In a story published the following day, Christopher Hitchens, the United States correspondent for the Evening Standard of London, wrote that "O'Connor . . . has allegedly told her friends and family that she wishes to retire from the Court but won't do so if there is to be a Democratic president to nominate her replacement." Helen Thomas, a nationally syndicated columnist, wrote that "[t]he story going around [Washington] is that a very upset Justice Sandra Day O'Connor walked out of a dinner party on election night when she heard the first mistaken broadcast that Vice President A Gore had won. The ailing O'Connor apparently wants to retire, but not while a Democrat is in the White House and could pick her successor." Various parts of this story were repeated in a number of publications.

The following week, Newsweek published a more detailed account:

[A]t an election-night party on Nov. 7, surrounded for the most part by friends and familiar acquaintances, [Justice O'Connor] let her guard drop for a moment when she heard the first critical returns shortly before 8 p.m. Sitting in her hostess's den, staring at a small black-and-white television set, she visibly started when CBS anchor Dan Rather called Florida for Al Gore. "This is terrible," she exclaimed. She explained to another partygoer that Gore's reported victory in Florida meant that the election was "over," since Gore had already carried two other swing states, Michigan and Illinois.

At the time Bush v. Gore was decided, Chief Justice Rehnquist had often been described in the press as a person who would like to retire but would delay doing so until a Republican president was in office and in a position to nominate a successor who could be confirmed by the Senate.

The press has reported several times that Justice Scalia confided in others that he would like to become the next Chief Justice and that he understood that that could happen only during a Republican presidency. During the time Bush v. Gore was being litigated, Justice Scalia's son John worked at the law firm that represented the Bush campaign in the Florida courts, and Justice Scalia's son Eugene was a partner at the law firm that represented the Bush campaign in the Supreme Court.

On December 4, 2000-while Bush v. Gore was pending before the Supreme Court-Virginia Lamb Thomas, Justice Thomas' wife, sent an email to 194 Congressional aides, suggesting that if they wanted assistance in being considered for positions in the next administration, they could forward their resumes to one of Mrs. Thomas' coworkers at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that collaborates with the Republican Party. In addition, according to the Wall Street Journal, during her previous employment with a Republican leader in House of Representatives, Mrs. Thomas "spearheaded a leadership effort to gather embarrassing information about the Clinton-Gore administration."

**

As Justice O’Connor said, “This is terrible!”

Well, maybe, Sandi, but you ain't seen nothin’ yet.

89 comments:

Beach Bum said...

...when the Right Wing majority of the Supreme Court denied the majority of American voters a fair recount in Florida...

And here I am thinking the Citizen United case was the worst decision the Supremes made.

Kulkuri said...

"Right Wing majority of five of nine." We've been taken over by the Borg.
The Reich-Wing does seem to have a hive mind with their circle-jerk echo chamber.

For the last ten years I have said that Scalia and Thomas should be impeached because they clearly had conflicts of interest that could be easily proven. Why this action has never been undertaken has baffled me all along.

This action by the Supremes was the death of democracy in this country. I'll leave it to others to describe what form of government we now have.

Suzan said...

In its own uniquely orchestrated fashion. Not a peep at the Faux Mox News channels which re-echo every celebrity sneeze and car backfire incessantly for months if not years.

Not a mistake.

Thanks for noting this major milestone: where the electorate completely forgets (or decides to ignore) its subornation.

Anybody thinking Germany 1930's?

S

The ten year anniversary came and went last week with little, if any, media attention.

Tom Harper said...

What a nice cozy arrangement. I guess quaint old terms like "conflict of interest" don't apply any more.

But "conflict of interest" was actually more of a guideline, so, no biggie.

T. Paine said...

I find it amusing that you are dismayed by conservative justices wanting to retire during a conservative administration. Don't you think the same holds true for liberal justices wanting to retire during a liberal administration? ...and for the exact same resons?

As for the Bush v. Gore decision, the legal and constitutional path was followed in its issuance. You are correct in recalling that Gore won the popular vote, but as I am sure you well know, it is the electoral college that decides where the votes go.

The first recount in Miami-Dade county was done in accordance with Florida law and certified by the Florida Secretary of State. That recount showed Bush won and therefore would receive the electoral votes for that district accordingly.

The Gore contingent complained and asked that Florida conduct another recount that was extra-constitutional under Florida law. I guess the Democrats were going to continue recounting until they "found" enough votes for Gore to change the outcome.

When it became clear that this additional recount was moving forward contrary to Florida law, an appeal was made to the SCOTUS who held that the first recount and certification by their secretary of state was valid. Everything was done precisely as it should have been under the letter of the law.

Now I share many of your same sentiments regarding the shortcomings of the Bush presidency, but having had a Gore presidency would have absolutely been a travesty of justice and contrary to constitutional succession of the presidency.

No destruction of our representative republic was done in this instance as you asserted, Dubya.

Dave Dubya said...

Beach,
Citizens United put the nails in the coffin of democracy.

Kulkuri,
We live in a right wing corporatist plutocracy with rapidly growing fascist tendencies, that maintains an illusion of democracy. Voters are forced to choose between a right wing Democratic Party and an extreme right Republican Party.

That's my two bits.

Suzan,
I'm thinking more like a victorious Nazi Germany with American allies. Fascism is winning.

Tom,
With the Reich Wing, justice itself is no guideline.


TP,
I’m not dismayed by the retirement preferences of the coup enablers, but the conflict of interest that was plainly documented. There’s no equivalent case on the liberal side. Just imagine the howls of outrage if Gore’s duck hunting crony had installed him into the presidency. I bet you can’t fathom that can you?

The recounts were stopped for one reason. That is the fact that Bush’s lead in votes was fast disappearing, and it looked like he would lose. Denying a fair and accurate vote count was the travesty of justice and end of democracy. The Republicans disdain for high voter turnout is a clear indication of their contempt for democracy.

Let’s not even factor in FL Sec. of State Katherine Harris (R) doing her best to deny extensions of county filing deadlines. Let’s not even factor in the Diebold (R) voting machines that sometimes showed more Republican votes than actual voters and did not reflect exit polls. Let’s not even factor in the thousands of eligible voters purged by Florida Republicans from voter rolls. Let’s also not factor in the Republican thugs mobbing and disrupting legal recounts. These factors all indicate the Reich Wing’s hatred of democracy and are destructive to a representative republic. And they reflect more than ample justification for an accurate count.

But never mind that. Here’s what it all came down to:

Sunday December 24, 2000
The Observer

Despite the decision by the US Supreme Court to halt the Florida recount in the contested counties, American media organisations, including Knight Ridder - owner of the Miami Herald - have commissioned their own counts, gaining access to the ballots under Freedom of Information legislation.

The result so far, with the recounting of so-called 'undervotes' in only one county completed by Friday night, indicates that Al Gore is ahead by 140 votes.

Florida's 25 electoral college votes won Bush the presidency by two seats last Monday after the Supreme Court refused to allow the counting of 45,000 discarded votes. But as the media recount was suspended for Christmas, the votes so far tallied in Lake and Broward counties have Gore ahead in the race for the pivotal state, and hence the White House.

Gore's lead is expected to soar when counting resumes in the New Year and Miami votes are counted. In a separate exercise, the Miami Herald commissioned a team of political analysts and pollsters to make a statistical calculation based on projections of votes by county, concluding that Gore won the state by 23,000.

Beekeepers Apprentice said...

Conflicts of interest don't apply only if one is a republican.

The newest justice...Kagan...recused herself from a case because of conflict of interest recently. It can be done, it should be done and in her case, it WAS done.

It was not done by republican justices when it could have been and SHOULD have been.

squatlo said...

That ten year anniversary didn't go unnoticed at my home, DD. I opened a bottle and poured a deep shot, then another, and raised a glass to the tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children who have died, the thousands of American servicemen and servicewomen who have died or come home forever scarred, and for the irrepairable harm done to our environment, science, and even the arts because of that one fucked up decision.
It might very well go down in history as the most improperly abjudicated ruling in Supreme Court history, eclipsing Dread/Scott and any of a half dozen others that might (questionably) beat it to the top of the guano heap of history.
We will never know the depth of the damage done by that one decision, and it may be fifty years before all of the crimes committed during the Bush/Cheney Reign of Error are made public.
It was indeed a coup, and the legacy will forever tarnish the Court.

T. Paine said...

An authoritative study sponsored by eight news organizations that was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago one year after the 2000 election determined that after the final recount, Bush still would have won the 2000 election.

It was the politcal maneuvering and attempted skirting of Florida state law in an attempt to steal the election by Gore and his advocates that was the real travesty of justice in the election that year.

TRUTH 101 said...

Why don't you just want a an accurate recount Mr. Paine?

Granted, it's too late now. It was too late when the right took over The Supreme Court. And like it or not, it doesn't look like any Justices will be dying or retiring soon.

Ironic that the republicans who cry out about "judicial activism" are the ones that packed the Supreme Court with right wing judicial activists.

an average patriot said...

I was following this when the anniversary war mentioned and I will always be pissed that the courts got involved and took the election from Gore. It will never be over and I just wish the damage could be overturned!

Dave Dubya said...

Bee,
Of course double standards are as American as apple pie. Guardians Of Plutocracy like Vitter and Ensign are to be forgiven, for they are good "Christian" men. Democrats are to be punished for they are evil Godless Marxists. See, I can “think” just like a Rightie if I rely on politically correct “beliefs” and the required emotional response.

Squatio,
I shared your pain and found some analgesia in Bell's Two Hearted Ale.

The decision and ensuing deceptions, wars, deaths, debt, and destruction of the Bill of Rights would soon show the country the hypocrisy of the US Right. I wonder if anybody out in the rest of the world noticed that right after stealing an election from the majority of American voters, the thieves then went on to “spread democracy” in Iraq? It’s the classic Reich Wing “do as I say, not as I do” authoritarianism. Fortunately for the Reich, and tragically for humans and nature, they own enough corporate media to keep their propaganda flowing 24/7. They are able to confuse just enough voters in addition to their “true believers” to regain power.

Truth,
It's judicial activism only if the Reich Wing disagrees. Otherwise it's "justice".

Jim,
You are painfully correct. The continuing consequences will haunt us the rest of our lives, and maybe our grandchildrens' as well. I'm sure the following generations will be properly indoctrinated to the Reich's version of history. Just like the Civil War was not about slavery, it turns out. Never mind that S. Carlolina had included defense of slavery in their secession documents. The Confederacy was fighting for freedom...well rich white people's freedom to enslave black people. Sort of the same as now, except poor people of all color are now becoming serfs to the lords of the Fourth Reich.

"Lords of the Fourth Reich". I think I just came up with a title for a book on the GOP, Blue Dogs and corporatist America's descent into fascism.

Dave Dubya said...

TP,
Thank you for providing a reference this time. No, NORC did not “determine” that Bush won.

From the NORC website:

The goal of the project was not to declare a “winner,” but rather to carefully examine the ballots to assess the relative reliability of the three major types of ballot systems used in Florida.

Approximately 180,000 ballots in Florida’s 67 counties were uncertified because they failed to register a “valid” vote for President.


(The vast majority were in Gore counties.)

While we’re at it, let’s add one more choice item to the list of factors I mentioned earlier. Pat Buchanan said on The Today Show November 9, 2000:
"When I took one look at that ballot on Election Night ... it's very easy for me to see how someone could have voted for me in the belief they voted for Al Gore."

By the way, it can hardly be an attempt to “steal the election by Gore and his advocates” when they clearly won the majority of Americans' votes. This is another classic case of right wing projection.

an average patriot said...

definitely our grandchildren and way beyond if we are lucky enough to be around.

squatlo said...

Seems to me, some folks are willing to overlook voter suppression in the Florida election of 2000, as well as the vast number of "undervotes" where no candidate was selected for president despite clear voter intent to do so. If a "CHAD" is crimped, or dented, but isn't completely detached from a voter's card, in some cases those clearly identifiable efforts to cast a vote weren't counted. Almost as many "overvotes" were registered, too, pointing to the fucked up ballot used in many of Florida's voting districts.
For anyone to say that the election would have gone to Bush had the recount been allowed to continue is to disregard the evidence already ignored. Gore won the election in 2000 handily, and only the Supreme's intervention and the rank corruption of the Kathleen Harris/Jeb Bush machine were able to steal the election for Bush.
Subsequent investigations that merely parrot the original misrepresentations of the day are useless, and serve to provide wiggle room to Bush disciples who know in their hearts had the facts of the case been reversed, and Bush had been denied his rightful place in the Oval Office, they would never let it rest.
Gore was gracious enough to concede and his supporters were adult enough to not riot in the streets. I doubt the same would have been true had the right wing been screwed over in such a manner.

S.W. Anderson said...

The selfish, the bullies and the ruthless coalesce in conservative organizations, fill the ranks of movement-conservative groups and dominate the Republican establishment in and out of government. If their approach to politics had to be summed up in one phrase, it would be "anything to win."

So, conservative Supreme Court Justices' self-serving political dirty work on behalf of Bush and Cheney figures. It's just one more manifestation of anything to win.

The anything-to-win tone was set when Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., the place where three northern civil rights workers were slain a few years earlier. The ante was upped when Reagan operatives cut a deal with the Iranians to release the Tehran hostages as Reagan was being sworn in, illegal arms sales benefiting the Iranians to follow, along with an illegal war in Central America. And, of course, we looked ahead and not back, and almost none of those responsible suffered any consequences.

Did I say selfish, bullies and ruthless? Somehow, the words seem weak in this context.

squatlo said...

SW Anderson, you ought to be on my "faves" list! This "Saint Ronnie" horseshit we hear from the right ignores one of the most corrupt and damaging administrations in our nation's history. Thanks for summing up in so few words (even though you left out the PATCO air traffic controllers incident which forever changed the way corporations deal with labor unions, to our country's detriment)

Dave Dubya said...

SW,
Selfish, ruthless bullies are exactly what Right Wing authoritarians are, and have always been. John Dean's book, "Conservatives without Conscience" does a lot to explain them.

S.W. Anderson said...

Squatlo, thanks (blush). :)

Dave, John W. Dean's book, Broken Government, explains it too, excellently. It should be mandatory reading for every American voter. Well, at least the ones with gray matter for brains.

Dave Dubya said...

SW,
Dean knows what he is talking about. Add "Worse than Watergate" and we have the essential trilogy on America's descent into fascism.

Those books would make an excellent course of study on the damage to our nation that only Right Wing authoritarians are capable of wreaking.

libhom said...

Thanks for bringing up this critical event in US history. We can't forget it.

Weaseldog said...

T. Paine said, "As for the Bush v. Gore decision, the legal and constitutional path was followed in its issuance. You are correct in recalling that Gore won the popular vote, but as I am sure you well know, it is the electoral college that decides where the votes go."

I'm sure you can name and cite the Constitutional Amendment that give the US Supreme Court the power to appoint Presidents.

Please do it for those of us who are unaware of the full extent of the Supreme Court powers granted under the US Constitution.

T. Paine said...

Weasel, the Supreme Court merely enforced the ceasing of endless recounts. In other words, they enforced existing Florida State law that election officials were conveniently ignoring in the state.
They stepped in to enforce a state law and ensure that the election was not stolen.

The recount was done; Bush won; It was certified by Florida Secretary of State; Gore wanted to continue recounts ad nauseum until a favorable result "appeared".

Weaseldog said...

T. Paine said, "Weasel, the Supreme Court merely enforced the ceasing of endless recounts. In other words, they enforced existing Florida State law that election officials were conveniently ignoring in the state.
They stepped in to enforce a state law and ensure that the election was not stolen."

Where in the US Constitution is the Supreme Court granted authority to enforce State Laws?

Please cite the Constitutional Amendment and appropriate text.

You've been pretty clear in the past that you believe that the US Constitution is a dead document. But it was created and ratified by the States to give the Federal Government specific rights and responsibilities.

Without the US Constitution, the Federal Government has no rights, recognized by the States. It's only real power then comes from military force. It does have an army, air force and navy, and could carpet bomb our major cities and slaughter hundreds of millions of Americans to keep it's power.

The US Constitution is it's charter. It has no rights not expressly granted by that charter. Once it begins acting outside it's charter, it's actions are lawless and criminal.

rightsaidfred said...

The Supreme Court is a left-drifting body. John Paul Stevens was far more conservative in his earlier days.

Left-wing Justices such as Stevens and Ginsburg reliably vote the party line. Always. The conservative brethren can occasionally be found wandering on the other side.

To allow Democrats to work their recount chaos in Florida circa 2000 would have been highly irresponsible. The proper decision was to let the result stand. Bush did indeed win Florida.

Ya'll badly want to think that a Gore administration would have been all unicorns and rainbows, but I suspect his policies would not have been much different from W's.

Dave Dubya said...

Hi Fred,
Thank you for your opinion.

I have to wonder why a “left-leaning body”’ would render decisions that fall clearly to the Right 90% of the time...

Chaos is exactly what Republican thugs were attempting when they disrupted vote counts. Very Brown Shirt of them, wasn’t it? Like I say, the Right hates democracy.

Florida was given to Bush. He didn’t “win” it. It was given to him by Sec. of State, and conveniently Bush’s campaign co-chair, Katherine Harris (R). It was given to him by the GOP purging thousands of eligible voters from rolls. It was given to him by Diebold (R). It was given to him by shoddy butterfly Buchanan-friendly ballots. It was given to him by his father’s appointed Justices. It was given to him by Cheney’s duck hunting “Justice” crony. It was given to him by a “Justice” who called a Gore victory “terrible” before deciding the case. It was given to him by the husband of a woman who worked to smear Clinton and Gore and recruited people for the Bush Administration before the case was decided by her “Justice” husband. It was given to him by a “Justice” with two sons working for the Bush campaign.

That was about as “fair and balanced” as a FOX(R) or Rush Limbaugh show, I’d say.

You are right that many of Gore’s policies would have been corporate friendly like Bush’s. Only “company men” get into the White House. The difference would be of course the four thousand dead and scores of thousands wounded Americans in Iraq. Not to mention the uncounted hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Not to mention the horrible debt incurred by the treacherous war for political gain and corporate profit. Who knows? Maybe Gore would have acted on that August 2001 Daily Brief alerting the White House that bin-Laden was planning a terrorist attack. Maybe the attacks could have been prevented. Instead Bush simply dismissed the note with a “You’re ass is covered” comment.

But thank God the Friends of Bush/Cheney stopped that damned irresponsible vote count and made Bush president. Everything turned out so well, right? Well at least for the economic elite, Halliburton, Blackwater, Wall Street swindlers, and other good Republican Big Money interests. They’re quite better off. The rest of us? Not so much.

Weaseldog said...

Yeah, the count was solidly in Gore's favor up until the end. Most of the networks started announcing Gore's impending victory.

Then Fox News announced that Bush had won, before all of the ballots were in, and the other networks switched their position to match Fox.

Then an overwhelming count of Republican votes came in and Buchanan did great in districts that he didn't campaign in, for lack of support.

Maybe Gore would've been just as bad, but I'm not so sure he would've chased after vengeance for what the Saudis did on 9/11 by attacking Iraq.

As we argue about that election, I'm reminded that more and more Republicans and Tea Party members are convinced that because Bush was so forceful in war, that the USA did not suffer a single terrorist attack while he was president.

As Dick Cheney has informed us, the conservatives don't live a reality based life, they invent their own realities. The rest of us should just try to keep up.

Dave Dubya said...

Wease,
Yeah, some of them love the "Bush kept us safe" lie so much they forget 9-11 even happened on his watch. And of course the Right Wing anthrax attacks don't even register on their radar.

rightsaidfred said...

decisions that fall clearly to the Right 90% of the time...

Hardly.

Republican thugs...the Right hates democracy.

Please. Republicans sat around while the 2004 Washington Governors race was skimmed away, Republicans put up weak protest while Al Franken was recounted into office via votes from illegal aliens and "found" bags of votes. And now we have the latest hero, Obama, with his "clear the field" tactics, and the non-prosecution of the club wielding precinct thugs in Philly.


Florida was given to Bush.


I don't agree.

It was given to him by the GOP purging thousands of eligible voters from rolls.

More like Democrats can't stand the light of day.

It was given to him by Diebold (R).

I don't know about this. It seems more heat than light.

It was given to him by shoddy butterfly Buchanan-friendly ballots.

Usually name order is alternated on ballots so such things (such as who is listed first) cancels out over precincts. I don't know the details of Florida in this case. Maybe it made a difference. I doubt it. You do the best you can and live with the results.

Maybe Gore would have...

If you are going to play What If..., Gore might have invaded Pakistan and given us ten times the casualties...He might have banned the building of coal fired electric plants plus other "green" initiatives and cut our GDP in half...He might have become totally unhinged and ordered Marine snipers to shoot his political opponents. I'm not a big fan of Gore.

Weaseldog said...

rightsaidfred said... "decisions that fall clearly to the Right 90% of the time...

Hardly."

From what you've written so far, I would wager that 95% of the US population is to the left of you in politics.

So I think many right wing policies would seem leftist to you.

rightsaidfred said...

I would wager that 95% of the US population is to the left of you in politics.

Surveys reflect a pretty conservative US population. Most people I know, and bloggers like you (if I can be so presumptuous) are personally pretty conservative: live within their means fiscally, don't drink, smoke, or drug to excess, are not sexually promiscuous, etc.

The nature of governing pushes us leftward.

Dave Dubya said...

Fred,
Many observers say we now have the most conservative Supreme Court in memory, and leaning right.

According to the New York Times:

"In its first five years, the Roberts court issued conservative decisions 58 percent of the time. And in the term ending a year ago, the rate rose to 65 percent, the highest number in any year since at least 1953."

65% conservative decisions does not make a "left leaning body" unless as Wease sugests you are to the right of 95% Americans.

Conservative lifestyle is common but so is support for New Deal programs like Social Security and Medicare. Far more than 50% of the country support that aspect of liberalism. Consider the success FOX(R) and propagandists like Limbaugh have had demonizing the word liberal for so long and it's no wonder people are intimidated from admitting their liberal inclinations. Many people say they are conservative but support liberal policies. Go figure.

Amish are conservative. They are nothing like the new incarnation of "conservative" that is really militaristic right wing corporatist. I'll promise you most American are not that kind of "conservative". If they were Obama would not have been elected.

I see you hold to the "new black panther" hysteria. No actual person was kept from voting, that's why they didn't prosecute them for voter intimidation. But they do make a scary picture to make angry white people more angry, and racists feel more righteous.

rightsaidfred said...

I see you hold to the "new black panther" hysteria.

Well, I see you hold to the Republican-as-brown-shirt hysteria, which has even less of a prosecutable perch.

Many people say they are conservative but support liberal policies.

You've got a point. Many of my conservative business brethren wallow mightily at the trough of government programs that should not exist. We're often bribed into these situations.

According to the New York Times

The New York Times knows nothing about what is conservative or liberal.

Weaseldog said...

Fred said, "You've got a point. Many of my conservative business brethren wallow mightily at the trough of government programs that should not exist. We're often bribed into these situations."

And the politicians are bribed into creating the programs....

It's a circle jerk of bribery with the victims all getting rich off the taxpayer.

Dave Dubya said...

Fred,
I only compare Right Wingers to fascists when they speak and behave like fascists. Those Republicans, (not all Republicans, that was your distortion) behaved like Brown Shirts disrupting vote counts. That is the essence of anti-democracy action and very fascist. If the jack boot fits...

I guess we better alert the corporate media and tell them the Roberts court is liberal...because Fred knows better than anyone else.

This does indicate you are very, very far to the authoritarian right. I suppose we better also reaffirm to the corporate media that Obama is Marxist Muslim racist with deep seated hatred for white people too.

Another direct comparison of radical Republicans to fascists is their tendency to accuse opponents of being Communists. It worked for Hitler.

Same thing with invading Poland and Iraq. “Ve must protect ze Homeland from ze aggressors.” Yeah, Poland attacked Germany just like Saddam caused 9-11. Before the propaganda took effect 70% of Americans did not agree with attacking Iraq. Once Bush/Cheney fed the public's fears with lies about mushroom clouds, "Nukular" aluminum tubes, Sadddam's "connections to al-Qaeda” to al-Qaeda, and fictitious WMD's 70% of Americans were duped into thinking Saddam did have something to do with 9-11.

This sir, is fascism, in its shiny new American form.

Your absurdity about the left leaning Supreme Court fits that pattern.

I know you are a true believer. But you almost can't help it. It's become very much like a religion. And it must feel so very righteous to attack the immoral, godless Marxist left that your authoritarian leaders have fabricated for you. But the hateful liars of FOX(R) and Beck and Limbaugh have their unquestioning cult of followers because they are duped into believing the agenda of the rich and powerful is in their interests, and everyone who disagrees is a Marxist.

If you’re wealthy I understand your selfish reasoning, but if you are not, How does it feel to ALWAYS side with the rich and powerful? Where’s the courage and sense of justice in such a sycophantic position? Where is the conscience?

rightsaidfred said...

Where is the conscience?

Indeed.

You traffic mightily in labels, but I'm not sure of the efficacy at the end of the day.

More Democrat politicians are wealthy than Republicans. Democrats are backed by as many or more wealthy people than Republicans. Barack Obama ran a mightily more expensive presidential campaign than anyone in history.

You are too easily taken in by class warfare rhetoric. You seem to believe that the redistribution policies you champion will mean more for you. I suspect you are not one in line for an increase when the power shifts between our oligarchs.

Dave Dubya said...

Fred,

Labels? Who me? A Marxist, commie, socialist, liberal, flag burning, America hating elitist? Nah, no way.

You’re right about Democrats being backed by Big Money as well as Republicans. This is a corporatocracy we live in, and after all, your “left drifting” Supreme Court sanctioned corporate money as “free speech”. Your assertion that more of that money goes to Dems is unfounded. There’s no contest really. Wall Street has now almost completely sided with the Guardians Of Plutocracy. But that is what you must assert.

I see you’re quite partial yourself to the rhetoric of class warfare, as much as you repeat Right Wing buzzwords like "redistribution" and even “class warfare” itself, as waged by the least wealthy upon the economic elite.

Real redistribution to the economic elite is continuing at record levels. The middle class is fading and more people are living in poverty. More and more disproportionately wealth trickles up to those who least need it. This is not rhetoric. This is fact. This is also the way you want it, so you should be very happy.

As your man Ben Stein reported in the New York Times, (before Obama was elected of course) Warren Buffet said, ““There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

But you know better than Buffett, as well as the New York Times, right Fred?

No, I’m not in line for increased anything. As long as I’m not rich, I, and most Americans, will probably get less income, less representation in Congress, and fewer public services in the New Republican Order. We know who always gets more wealth and power, now don’t we?

rightsaidfred said...

You admit that Democrats are beholden to the corporatocracy, yet you shill for them anyway.

I suspect we have a Coke/Pepsi argument going here. A Chevy/Ford argument. Cadillac/Lexus.

Obama got more Wall Street money than McCain then promptly installed Geitner as Treasury Secretary, so the fox is on steroids and in the chicken house.

Despite your complaints and the gratuitous quote from Warren Buffet, America has done pretty well distributing the goods. Our standard of living has risen steadily for all classes. We've absorbed a lot of immigrants and raised their standard of living, perhaps at the expense of the native born. The accounting used to feed your pessimism is a bit suspect, along with the common comparison of US to Europe.

I realize we have an economy that lives by the high bid and the low bid, and there is often a winner-take-all aspect to things, and wealth transference drives many industries, but someone who creates and adds value makes us all better off. Big schemes by the central authorities to make things more equal have a poor track record.

Dave Dubya said...

Fred,
Even if you called it a Democrat/Republican argument it would still not be the case. Maybe Democracy/Plutocracy if you wanted to simplify it. You mistake my shilling for most Americans as doing so for Dems. We understand who you are shilling for. It is because most Dems are bought, like all Republicans, that democracy suffers.

This is not really an argument at all. I’m noting the forces at work against democracy and most Americans' interests. I am referring to documented sourced facts and you answer with unfounded and absurd assertions. Here’s another doozy: “Our standard of living has risen steadily for all classes.” Where the hell do you live? In THIS America our standard of living has been decimated. Well not for Republicans and their wealthy enablers. The rest of us get to watch our jobs go overseas while rich Republicans get richer. We see record unemployment and Wall Street sees record bonuses.

Your cognitive dissonance crops up again, “There is often a winner-take-all aspect to things, and wealth transference drives many industries, but someone who creates and adds value makes us all better off.” Tell that to the American worker who had to train his Asian replacement. Tell him he’s better off so his Republican boss could be the winner who takes all. Tell him all about how “America has done pretty well redistributing the goods”, and he will tell you about class warfare.

And finally, “Big schemes by the central authorities to make things more equal have a poor track record.” Sorry, Social Security, Medicare and unemployment compensation have great track records. Americans overwhelmingly support these programs that have fed people, saved lives and helped seniors escape poverty. Your complaints and gratuitous falsehoods are wearing thin.

I thank you for your comments, but please feel free to add reality based, or even sourced information, if there’s to be further discussion.

Otherwise we're just playing the same old circular obfuscation and distraction that accompanies so many discussions with Right Wing ideologues.

rightsaidfred said...

I'll provide some links, but does it matter? We've got a cocktail party going on here. Maybe some things to think about later.

Tell that to the American worker who had to train his Asian replacement.

I never said everything was rosy. I rage on against most immigration and outsourcing. The stats you like to quote about declining wages in the US are skewed by illegal immigrants and their depressing effects on wages. I don't see too much effort from your side to curb this.

Tell him he’s better off so his Republican boss could be the winner who takes all.

His boss is more likely a Democrat, or a RINO.

Social Security, Medicare and unemployment compensation have great track records.

Let us not overuse the term "great". Medicare has a lot of fraud, the other two are pure transfer payments and not entirely fair at that. It is a fallacy to say, "SS is a great program, so let's have the government do even more for us." This gives us the overweaning public sector we find in places like Zimbabwe, Greece, North Korea, etc.

SantaCat said...

Ho, Ho, Ho!
Merry Christmas to all you cool cats and kute kittens!
Ho, Ho, Ho!

Dave Dubya said...

Merry Christmas to you, SantaCat! Hope your Christmas is as fun as it is for our felines with their new catnip toys.

Weaseldog said...

Fred said, "More Democrat politicians are wealthy than Republicans. Democrats are backed by as many or more wealthy people than Republicans. Barack Obama ran a mightily more expensive presidential campaign than anyone in history."

I think your statement needs clarification...

Democrats are backed by more wealthy Americans and Australians.

Republicans are backed by wealthy Arabs. These folks own the world industry.

Both parties are equally represented by wealthy people.

And both are backed by wealthy Israelis.

so to recap, Republicans are backed by Muslims and Jews, while democrats are backed by Christians and Jews.

Weaseldog said...

Fred, I didn't know Dave was a Democrat. When did he say that?

Of course in a bipolar world, there are only two kinds of people. Republicans and Democrats. No one in the world is allowed to be outside these parties.

And if you dislike any single Republican for what they do, then you're a Democrat.

As a for instance, John Wayne Gacy was a well respected Republican Party official in Florida. He also served as an Alderman and was a well respected businessman.

I don't respect much of what he stood for, so clearly, by your standards, I must be a Democrat.

For myself I believe there are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't. The Republican and Democratic systems in my view are leis and shams.

Weaseldog said...

Wow Fred! You publish a link from a Right Wing think tank that uses stats from the height of the tech bubble!

You are a Grand Wizard Cherry Picker!

Never mind that a little over a year later, those bubble stats are completely wiped out.

Up to this point, I've suspected that you've in a coma since 1999 and have just recently awoken. And thus you have no awareness of events since then. I think that theory holds.

The second article you link is a touchy feel, how do you feel, do you feel good, sort of piece.

The kind of Democratic Progressive feel good piece I'd expect from an Obama Minion.

Though Republican supporters clearly think emotionally, and rationalize facts according to their feelings, it's rare that a right winger would wear feelings other than hate, out on their sleeve as you've done here.

I love the way you use hypocrisy as a form satirical humor. you, the Grand Wizard of name calling and labeling, pointing your finger at those who tried to communicate at your level. I'm ROTFLMAO off your excellent joke!

Dave Dubya said...

Wease,
At least Fred provided some sources instead of just the usual assertions. I credit him for doing so, despite the lack of the sources' credibilty.

Fred,
Maybe you should ask Social Security pensioners if it's great, or not so great, that SS keeps them out of poverty. Same with folks getting Medicare treatment. I wonder if anyone would say, "Well since there's been fraud, let's do away with the programs." I wonder how many unemployed people don't like the unemployment compensation. I wonder if they would agree that it's not so great.

Weaseldog said...

Good point Dave about him actually providing sources.

If we do away with every program that with fraud in it, we might start with the Republican and Democratic Parties. Just eliminate both forms of worship.

As to SS and other systems designed to keep people from dying en-masse in the streets homeless...

These are contracts that the government has entered into with the people. They take extra money from us for our entire working lives with the promise that when we are unable to work, we will get a monthly stipend.

Republicans understand that contracts are simply a promise. And when they become cumbersome and the other party doesn't have the power to enforce it, you just refuse to honor your side. But you continue to use the contract to force the other side to honor theirs.

The Republicans want to keep taxing us for social security, but they want to end the payments. They'll just roll that tax into something else.

The Federal government is renowned for breaking contracts. It's been breaking them since the Indian wars.

Dave Dubya said...

Weasse,
You're right. Fraud is everywhere. I'm sure many Dems are as crooked as Republicans. One difference I see is that fraud is rewarded on the Right. We still shell out our tax dollars to Halliburton despite its "overbilling". We still reward Blackwater/Xe despite its murderous and crooked dealings. And Florida voters rewarded Rick Scott with his new job as governor despite his record of fraud.

It's pretty clear our corporate government is at least as corrupt as any banana republic, and perhaps as much as Putin's vast Russian cartel. It's a wonder average Americans are getting any public services or benefits at all. Give 'em some time, and more Republicans power, and soon these will disappear. Since we have a government of, by, and for the rich, someone's got to pay, right? Certainly not those with all the "free speech" money.

T. Paine said...

It would seem to me that, at least historically, the biggest difference between the two parties is that the Democrats seemingly want to create a dependence among Americans on government and its "compassionate" programs, thereby furthering power for the Democrats as more of the populace does indeed become dependent upon them for healthcare, sustenance, and their very survival at times.

The Republicans have historically been more about Americans keeping the wages of their own labor and reducing government interference which only creates problems and costs money for average Americans. The GOP wants the average American to have the freedom to succeed on his own volition.

That, my friends, is the primary difference... historically anyway.

Dave Dubya said...

TP,

Hope you had a great Christmas.

Yes, there it is; exactly as the Republican Party, the economic elite, and FOX(R) want us to see it. Can you detect the spin in such phrases as “to create a dependence” and “keeping the wages of their own labor and reducing government interference”? Rush would be proud of you. Look at how the differences are reduced to dependence and false “compassion” versus pro “freedom” for the average American. If you used accurate terms like safety nets and regulation to describe helping the old and helpless and applying legal standards to the powerful, the simplification cannot stand.

Sorry to beak the news to you, but the Guardians Of Plutocracy really don’t give a crap about most Americans. Really, honest. They work exclusively for the economic elite. All evidence supports this. They oppose public service programs and want to privatize Social Security. The GOP is, and always has been, about taking from the majority and giving to the rich. I’m not just speaking of my tax dollars going into Blackwater and Halliburton pockets. Sending jobs overseas at the expense of the middle class put money into the already wealthy corporate pockets. Average Americans suffer at further enrichment of the wealthy. That is what the GOP specializes in. Since Reagan, money has steadily “trickled up” to the top, by design.

Did you miss those little deals where Obama has twice so far given YOU tax breaks? First in the Stimulus act, and now in extending the Bush tax cuts. Your simplification has already departed the realm of reality. Can’t you even acknowledge Obama said he wanted to insure taxes did not go up for most Americans? I have plenty of issues with Obama, but this is what he really said. Honest.

So historically, what has happened since the Bush/GOP tax cuts and de-regulation? More unemployment, fewer good jobs, shrinking middle class, loss of workers’ pensions, higher deficits, and more debt. All of which lead to creating a dependence among Americans on government assistance, didn’t it? And many Americans are, in fact, receiving less wages now because of these “conservative” implementations.

And gullible Americans voted to give the GOP more power to continue their economic rape of most Americans. We’ll see soon enough where that gets us.

If you want a simplification, try this. Most politicians of both parties in the Federal Government work primarily for the interests of Big Money, in what has become a corporatocracy that creates a dependence of all politicians on corporate money for election campaigns. One party pretends to care about most Americans while the other one is openly hostile to them.

Depending on typical conditions, most people would prefer not to be dependent on corporate bean counters and CEOs for healthcare, sustenance, or their very survival. They understand public services come only from government and not from corporations. In these hard times, corporations are proving they would rather hoard money than create jobs. This void leaves only government to take action. And Republicans only want to cripple the government’s ability to do so.

If what you say is true, I would gladly prefer freedom to dependence. If what you say is true, I would even vote for Republicans. Instead the spinning makes me dizzy.

Weaseldog said...

T. Paine, Dave is right. The Republican Party loves to give speeches about helping the working man, but in deed, they do the opposite.

A number of Republicans have been telling me of late that our current economy is the best it's ever been, thanks to their hard work. they point to the Stock Market as their prime example. Would you agree with them that the USA is in better shape than it's ever been in? And the Republican Party can take complete credit for the current state of the economy?

Glenn Beck has argued, anyone that sees problems with the US Economy is a traitor. Do you agree?

an average patriot said...

Right on as you know Wease and Dave

rightsaidfred said...

Dave, I'm not that far away from you in political sentiment, but when you bash Republicans, you by implication side with Democrats.

I say, "Republicans bad, Democrats worse." Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Chris Dodd come in under the banner of Democrat, champion of the common man, when they have probably been the biggest booster of oligarchic big business (especially finance) than anyone. At least Republicans are a little more honest in that they are pro business from the start.

As for corruption, Republicans at least occasionally vote out an offender (Ted Stevens), where Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Charles Rangel, et al stay in forever.

You made this statement, "In THIS America our standard of living has been decimated.", which is patently false. When you add up wages and transfer payments, and some "hedonic adjustment", and consider the effects of illegal immigration, which raises the standard of living of the immigrant, but brings down our collective economic advancement, we are on an upward climb. I toss in a few quick links to suggest otherwise, and you trash them. Where are they wrong? Where are your links showing otherwise? Let us be honest about these things. I agree things could be better, but let us not discount the present too much. I probably discount the efforts of government too much, but one should be careful in vesting too much in central authorities. I've seen many programs "captured" by other interests. I say better to preach more self sufficiency.

Your rant just above is okay in the main, but you go off the edge on occasion: "The GOP is, and always has been, about taking from the majority and giving to the rich." Seems a little extreme. By some measures, the smart fraction of people are the ones that create and produce, so helping them is not necessarily a bad thing. Looking at who provides revenue to the Treasury, never have so few paid for so many. Most people are net users of government.

"They oppose public service programs and want to privatize Social Security."

Public service programs often run off the rails, becoming a captured niche for the connected bureaucracy. To oppose such is not to oppose good works. Privatizing Social Security is a way to increase the benefits. (Probably won't occur, I agree, but the possibility is there.)

So historically, what has happened since the Bush/GOP tax cuts and de-regulation? This initially gave us an economic boost. Times were good. That it was blown on overbuilding houses and unproductive consumption is another matter. More unemployment, fewer good jobs, Many factors here, including massive immigration, which is supported by the Left and Right both. shrinking middle class, loss of workers’ pensions, The middle class isn't shrinking that much, and the big problems with pensions is that they were overpromised. We don't have the ability to pay that much. higher deficits, and more debt. This was sold to us as improving our lot. What happened? All of which lead to creating a dependence among Americans on government assistance, didn’t it? Where's the cause and effect here? If we had less assistance, would people adapt by expanding private sector opportunities? And many Americans are, in fact, receiving less wages now because of these “conservative” implementations. These are not "conservative implementations".

rightsaidfred said...

Dave, I'm not that far away from you in political sentiment, but when you bash Republicans, you by implication side with Democrats.

I say, "Republicans bad, Democrats worse." Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Chris Dodd come in under the banner of Democrat, champion of the common man, when they have probably been the biggest booster of oligarchic big business (especially finance) than anyone. At least Republicans are a little more honest in that they are pro business from the start.

As for corruption, Republicans at least occasionally vote out an offender (Ted Stevens), where Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Charles Rangel, et al stay in forever.

You made this statement, "In THIS America our standard of living has been decimated.", which is patently false. When you add up wages and transfer payments, and some "hedonic adjustment", and consider the effects of illegal immigration, which raises the standard of living of the immigrant, but brings down our collective economic advancement, we are on an upward climb. I toss in a few quick links to suggest otherwise, and you trash them. Where are they wrong? Where are your links showing otherwise? Let us be honest about these things. I agree things could be better, but let us not discount the present too much. I probably discount the efforts of government too much, but one should be careful in vesting too much in central authorities. I've seen many programs "captured" by other interests. I say better to preach more self sufficiency.

Your rant just above is okay in the main, but you go off the edge on occasion: "The GOP is, and always has been, about taking from the majority and giving to the rich." Seems a little extreme. By some measures, the smart fraction of people are the ones that create and produce, so helping them is not necessarily a bad thing. Looking at who provides revenue to the Treasury, never have so few paid for so many. Most people are net users of government.

"They oppose public service programs and want to privatize Social Security."

Public service programs often run off the rails, becoming a captured niche for the connected bureaucracy. To oppose such is not to oppose good works. Privatizing Social Security is a way to increase the benefits. (Probably won't occur, I agree, but the possibility is there.)

rightsaidfred said...

Dave, I'm not that far away from you in political sentiment, but when you bash Republicans, you by implication side with Democrats.

I say, "Republicans bad, Democrats worse." Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Chris Dodd come in under the banner of Democrat, champion of the common man, when they have probably been the biggest booster of oligarchic big business (especially finance) than anyone. At least Republicans are a little more honest in that they are pro business from the start.

rightsaidfred said...

As for corruption, Republicans at least occasionally vote out an offender (Ted Stevens), where Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Charles Rangel, et al stay in forever.

You made this statement, "In THIS America our standard of living has been decimated.", which is patently false. When you add up wages and transfer payments, and some "hedonic adjustment", and consider the effects of illegal immigration, which raises the standard of living of the immigrant, but brings down our collective economic advancement, we are on an upward climb. I toss in a few quick links to suggest otherwise, and you trash them. Where are they wrong? Where are your links showing otherwise? Let us be honest about these things. I agree things could be better, but let us not discount the present too much. I probably discount the efforts of government too much, but one should be careful in vesting too much in central authorities. I've seen many programs "captured" by other interests. I say better to preach more self sufficiency.

Your rant just above is okay in the main, but you go off the edge on occasion: "The GOP is, and always has been, about taking from the majority and giving to the rich." Seems a little extreme. By some measures, the smart fraction of people are the ones that create and produce, so helping them is not necessarily a bad thing. Looking at who provides revenue to the Treasury, never have so few paid for so many. Most people are net users of government.

"They oppose public service programs and want to privatize Social Security."

Public service programs often run off the rails, becoming a captured niche for the connected bureaucracy. To oppose such is not to oppose good works. Privatizing Social Security is a way to increase the benefits. (Probably won't occur, I agree, but the possibility is there.)

rightsaidfred said...

So historically, what has happened since the Bush/GOP tax cuts and de-regulation? This initially gave us an economic boost. Times were good. That it was blown on overbuilding houses and unproductive consumption is another matter. More unemployment, fewer good jobs, Many factors here, including massive immigration, which is supported by the Left and Right both. shrinking middle class, loss of workers’ pensions, The middle class isn't shrinking that much, and the big problems with pensions is that they were overpromised. We don't have the ability to pay that much. higher deficits, and more debt. This was sold to us as improving our lot. What happened? All of which lead to creating a dependence among Americans on government assistance, didn’t it? Where's the cause and effect here? If we had less assistance, would people adapt by expanding private sector opportunities? And many Americans are, in fact, receiving less wages now because of these “conservative” implementations. These are not "conservative implementations".

T. Paine said...

Dubya, thanks to you sir and I hope you and yours had a wonderful Christmas as well!

As for my previous statement, I was not speaking in absolutes. (You realize you have a habit of taking a generalization and casting it as gospel, don't you? :) )

I have no problem with a "safety net" for those unable to provide for themselves. I have a huge problem with those gaming the system and being entirely dependent upon tax-payer money for their survival, despite being able-bodied and able-minded. Surely, even you must acknowledge that the number of the latter is quite significant.

Weasel, I think there is serious problems with the U.S. economy, and I find your attributed thoughts to Glenn Beck to be very innacurate. He constantly is harping to the point of being apocalyptic regarding our nation and its economy. Hell, he even plugs Goldline as a sponsor as "insurance" for the collapsing economy. Sorry, Weaseldog, but like most of your bluster, I think you are way off course and using corrupt sources of information.

Lastly, I will stand by my assertion that the progressives seemingly want to create dependence of the American populace thereby to cement their power base, whereas the conservatives would rather free Americans from government shackles and largess to prosper by the sweat of their own brow.

I,specifically, need the federal government to do ONLY those things enumerated in the Constitution and no more. They need to provide for our national defense and keeping our nation and its borders secure. They need to regulate interstate commerce between the states when necessary, and provide for negotiations with foreign powers as to America's best interests.

Nearly everything else can be taken care of by state governments, or by private industry... in other words those rights not specifically enumerated therein should be reserved to the states or to we the people!

Dave Dubya said...

Fred,
Thank you for the civility of your comments. I really appreciate seeing disagreement not turning into name calling.

I’m surprised you haven’t noticed any of my Democrat bashing yet. In one case I see you agree with me that Dems work for Big Money interests along with Republicans. Whom would you imply we side with when we bash both D’s and R’s? That would be the people, the vast majority without the wealth to influence politicians. We side with the interests of the Americans not represented in Congress. We side with Americans without the wealth that has been sanctioned as “free speech”. We side with the Americans losing their jobs. We side with the elderly, infirm, and unemployed. We side against the corrupt system of corporatocracy. We side against those who would destroy Social Security and Medicare by turning them over to an amoral and corrupt Wall Street. We are not so gullible to think a privatized Social Security will benefit anyone but the Big Money Wall Street swindlers salivating for more free tax payer money. That would be another perfect example of upward redistribution to the economic elite, very much like the Wall Street bailouts.

We side with anyone opposed to Congressman Spencer Bachus, (R) Alabama, who said, "In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.” This comes from the likely new chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in the 112th Congress.

We side against Heritage Foundation co-founder, and open adversary of democracy, Paul Weyrich, who said, "I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

We side with real free speech, not political bribery by campaign cash “free speech”. We oppose White House spokesman Ari Fleischer saying, "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is,” when he took a swipe at "Politically Incorrect" host Bill Maher.

We side with civil liberties, and oppose Right Wingers and their defense of Bush’s extremism like:
“You have no civil liberties if you are dead.” –Senator Pat Roberts, R-KS
“None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead.” –Senator “Big John” Cornyn, R-TX
“Our civil liberties are worthless if we are dead! If you are dead and pushing up daisies, if you’re sucking dirt inside a casket, do you know what your civil liberties are worth? Zilch, zero, nada.” –Rush Limbaugh

And, yes, we oppose Obama’s continuation of Bush’s unconstitutional warrantless surveillance, detention without charges and counsel, and unending war and debt by a runaway militarization of foreign policy.

(continues)

Dave Dubya said...

You say, “Republicans bad, Democrats worse”. I would tend to say Democrats bad, Republicans worse, that is, when we can discern any difference. And we side against corruption by both parties, including some glaring omissions from your list, like Bob Ney, Tom Delay, and Duke Cunningham.

As to the decline of our standard of living, I speak from personal experience, people I know, and all I have read. My wife was ordered to train her Asian replacement. Boom! There went our standard of living. Do you really think our situation is uncommon? I can provide endless documentation on this, but to help you relate, I will even give you a link from FOX (R).

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/09/mallory-factor-america-decline-standard-living-downhill/


“And America’s standard of living relative to the rest of the world is falling off a cliff -- with President Obama’s policies giving it a two-armed push over the edge."

Of course, with FOX(R), it’s all Obama’s fault, since he’s a Marxist Muslim with a deep seated hatred for white people and wants to impose death panels on America. It is incredible how many Americans believe those lies, but the election proves the success of Right Wing propaganda.

Even within your comment you allow my point with, “the middle class isn't shrinking that much”. I guess that depends on the meaning of “that much”. As I said, I speak from experience. I can tell you how much is “that much” in my own household.

In fact, I can honestly say I am a Constitutional conservative. I want to protect and preserve all the Bill of Rights. Yes, that even includes my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

“Never have so few paid for so many.” Yes, why is that? Could it be because never have so few gained so much at the expense of so many? The trickle up redistribution of wealth supports this.

“Where's the cause and effect here?” Well, you see, because of Big Money’s political and economic agenda, Americans have been losing their jobs. And they often need a safety net. Unemployment compensation, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, etc. are usually all denied or opposed by Republicans.

I refer to the factors mentioned as “conservative” implementations because I really don’t think conservatism has anything to do with it. It is Big Money’s corporatist corruption of politics. Have you noticed how every bit of the “conservative” agenda enriches the economic elite? Traditional American conservatives have been duped and co-opted into embracing the Big Money boys as a “conservative value”. Christian Americans have been deceived into supporting the very Mammonites Jesus scorned.

Dave Dubya said...

TP,
I’m sorry your resentment for the safety net abuser is so intense you’d deprive the needy. Your obsessive belief that progressives want to “create dependence” is very sad. You seem willing to ignore the fact that liberals want jobs for everyone, in order to adhere to Right Wing propaganda.

Your interpretation of what is Constitutional is remarkably similar to what the most powerful interests in the country spout. The Constitution is not just for the elite. It is for all of us. Remember, “We the people” does not mean “We the few with all the money”.

Weaseldog said...

rightsaidfred said... "Dave, I'm not that far away from you in political sentiment, but when you bash Republicans, you by implication side with Democrats."

Some stupid people might think that. But it's not a logical assumption to make.

I suppose you'd say that anyone bashing the UAW, sides with the Teamsters?

I like the point you make about how if you massage the numbers a lot, you can make the American economy look great. And of course you can! Doing that you can bring people back from the dead and perform all sorts of miracles.

T. Paine, the nice thing about arguing about what Glenn Beck says or means to say is that he's so flip floppy that everyone can be right some of the time. Check out his bashing Bruce Springsteen.

You said, "I have no problem with a "safety net" for those unable to provide for themselves. I have a huge problem with those gaming the system and being entirely dependent upon tax-payer money for their survival, despite being able-bodied and able-minded. Surely, even you must acknowledge that the number of the latter is quite significant."

Is 2% quite significant? A little clarification on your numbers would be helpful.

I do know that there are a lot of people staying on unemployment because it pays a lot more than a job in the current market would. These people are assuming that the job market will pick back up and they can go back to their middle class careers soon.

Eventually the gov will drop them from the rolls and they'll be forced to take jobs that won't cover their mortgages or car payments.

The USA needs to get used to the fact that those jobs aren't coming back. We're competing with the Chinese and their wages are bottom dollar. Many earn only $35 / week doing what we pay $8.00 hour for.

When the likes of you and I are earning $35 / week, we can hope to start taking jobs back from the Chinese.

Forget the lost middle class jobs. They are gone forever.

I wouldn't worry about the millions of freeloaders in the USA too much. The Gov can't feed them forever. Our policies are on the exact same path as Argentina's. and they don't feed the freeloaders. They just let them die from malnutrition and disease. It's the babies and elderly that will go first. But then, they can't really provide any meaningful benefit to society, right?

You're going to get what you want. Although I may complain about the path we're on and disagree with you on it's course, I expect that you'll get more of the policies you want, than I will.

Anonymous said...

good thing Gore didn't win because he would have robbed us with his phony Kyoto Treaty.
I guess his liberal friends felt bad for him so they gave him an Academy award and a Nobel Peace Prize. And we all know how it doesn't take much these days to get that award.

Weaseldog said...

Anonymous said... "good thing Gore didn't win because he would have robbed us with his phony Kyoto Treaty."

Good thing that didn't happen! Instead we Bush gave us the greatest economy the USA has ever seen! An economy that continues to give us a paradise on Earth as foretold in the Bible!

Good thing we didn't get the 2000 economy combined with the phony Kyoto Treaty. Then we wouldn't be living in the paradise that the world has ever known, that Bush gave us, because he's the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, our savior and Lord who died on the cross for our sins.

All praise Bush! The Son of God and the Messiah of the Jews! Hallelujah!

Damn good thing we didn't get the Kyoto Treaty and instead, had Jesus as president for 8 years.

rightsaidfred said...

Dave, good post.

Yes, you bash Democrats, but it is for when they are acting too much like Republicans.

I say you quoted Weyrich and Bachus out of context.

Thanks for the link, but it was mainly predicting a future decline. It stated that US GDP has declined 25% since 2000 when measured in Euros, of which I'm highly skeptical, especially since the Euro wasn't fully implemented until 2002.

Our personal financial situations may be worse, but one has to realize the micro - macro divide in economics. The latest shopping season was the best ever. There is a tendency for progressives to give a pessimistic account, and then call for remedial government action. I find government action to be a zero sum game: the mischief and unintended consequences cancel out the good intentions and any gains.

As an example, Southwest Asians (Indians) lobbied the Bush administration to have themselves declared disadvantaged minorities, and thus eligible for Small Business Administration Loans. I don't qualify for such loans, yet I have to compete against these guys. I've got a government working against my interests here.

Weaseldog said...

rightsaidfred said... "Thanks for the link, but it was mainly predicting a future decline. It stated that US GDP has declined 25% since 2000 when measured in Euros, of which I'm highly skeptical, especially since the Euro wasn't fully implemented until 2002."

Look at the the GDP when compared to gold then.

Since 2000, more than 42,000 factories have been closed in the USA.

"There is a tendency for progressives to give a pessimistic account, and then call for remedial government action."

I've seen these accounts on the internet and on television. I've never met one of those 'Progressives'. I have met people who parrot what they hear on television and have little knowledge that isn't provided there. They often have an opinion about this plan or that plan. An opinion provided by the media. I've found that if you give them more information, they often change their opinion again.

So I don't know that actual 'progressives' as demonized by the right, actually exist in any meaningful number. That kind of person is likely just a placeholder for a Goldstein. It does provide an ideal to rally against.

In practice, the policies that these Progressives are touted to want, is remarkably the same as what the Republican party wants. And that's more centralized power in the hands of the political elite in Washington, in service of wealth internationalists. Both sides appear to be working to the seam ends, the debate we proles engage in is, "Who do we vote to strip us of wealth and leave us bankrupt? Will it be the Democrats or the Republicans that we allow to destroy us?"


Dave and I disagree a bit on the relative dangers of the parties. you know his position. I think they are essentially the same party, and the differences amount to a stage show to keep us feeling empowered.

continued...

Weaseldog said...

My opinions on what the government's role in any sort of recovery should be, doesn't fit either party.

Using High school math it can be easily shown that without a miraculous new energy source, our era of growth is ended, and we are in the decline phase of our civilization. you can see Doctor Albert Bartlett's videos on YouTube for a good college lecture on the topic.

Many people simply don't want to believe that infinite growth is impossible or that we've reached any sort of limits. Some people tell me that Jesus refill the oil fields, or that the miracle energy source is locked away in a super secret military archive and aliens will reveal it when we're ready.

Some say the answer lies in the future. Someday our present problems will be solved, so we don't have any problems today. because in the future, we'll be in the present. Perhaps in the future, my dead brother will be raised from the dead? Or using time travel some future family member will go back in time and prevent his death? When the future is capable of performing any miracle we can imagine, nothing is out of bounds, is it?

But toady, the math is clear, we're currently in the decline. The actions taken by our government and others is completely predictable and rational on a day to day basis. Our policies makers believe in infinite growth and they believe that the economy will magically fix itself. In the mean time, they are just buying time and trying to help their owners survive the storm.

You can bet there is a bigger financial crisis coming and our government will do everything it can to save the remaining mega banks. More bailouts in various forms are coming. The politicians have no choice. All they can do is react, to forces they do not understand.

Dave Dubya said...

Fred,
The message was very clear from those quotes, and they have acted in complete accordance with them.

While it is true there have been small measures of improvement in the macro sense of our economy, this offers little comfort to the near depression levels of unemployed and underemployed Americans.

And you're right. Much of my criticism of Dems is when they willfully abet, or capitulate to, the agenda of the economic elite to the detriment of the majority. Let me praise the Bush Administration for some balance. I completely supported their efforts in the no-call list to keep solicitors off our phone lines. I also appreciated the middle class tax rebate and the end of the marriage penalty. I even benefit from the capital gains tax break.

So you see, for a person of socialist inclinations, I also have a real interest in capitalism.

And speaking of broad terms, capitalism and democracy co-exist under socialism. Democracy perishes under unregulated corporatism. This assumes you understand the difference between socialism and communism. The Right does its best to conflate the two, as in, "Obama the socialist/Marxist". Of course Ron Paul admits Obama is a corporatist and a corporatist Marxist is about as common as a winged pig.

You're right that progressives tend towards pessimism. This is because the definition of progress is working on improvement of conditions. On the other hand the Rightists tend toward ad hominum attacks on the progressives. I'm not suggesting liberals don't verbally attack conservatives. but there's been a concerted right wing media driven campaign to demonize liberals that has no equivalence on the other side.

Nowhere have I seen the likes of "conservatives have no family values", or "conservatives hate America". Yet this is the core message of Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity against liberals.

Kanye West was vilified for saying Bush didn't like Black people after Katrina. Beck got a raise after accusing Obama of having a "deep seated hatred for white people".

See the difference?

This is not even factoring the preponderance of right wing violence. Families of dead Tennessee Unitarians, Pittsburgh cops and abortion doctors will attest to the hateful fruits of right wing media.

Hate, anger, and misinformation are essential tools of the Right because it cannot win elections on honesty. It's the only way to win support for funneling more money and power to the already rich and powerful.

You're broad statement, "I find government action to be a zero sum game: the mischief and unintended consequences cancel out the good intentions and any gains" is hyperbole in regard to social programs. Maybe if we factored in the death and destruction from military aggression, that would be more the case.

I need to ask you, if the private sector hoards money, offshores, and refuses to grow jobs, then who else but government can do anything?

Just as big government can be a problem, Big Business also works against the interests of the people. It's obvious to me neither of them like to follow the rules.

Dave Dubya said...

Wease,
Yes, the bottom line is we are an empire in decline. And certain interests will still profit from that. We are certainly in agreement that we have two primary corporatist parties operating within an almost completely corrupt system. This is why I was never on the "hope and change" bandwagon. Still there are individual differences to consider. I only voted for Obama because I knew he was less likely than McCain to appoint more Roberts and Alitos to the Supreme Court.

Apart from that, my expectations were few. I knew he was a corporatist company man when he helped Bush betray our Bill of Rights and protect telecoms with his FISA vote. I knew he was a corporatist militarist when he pushed for escalation in Afghanistan.

One pathetic consolation for us is we will never be bored, as spectators watching a trainwreck.

rightsaidfred said...

Dave, once again I somewhat agree with you, but I see some things differently.

a corporatist Marxist is about as common as a winged pig.

As much as Marxists preach power to the people, when in power they seem as fond of big corporate-type entities as anyone.

... there's been a concerted right wing media driven campaign to demonize liberals that has no equivalence on the other side.

I say liberal values are more embedded in journalism for various reasons: people go into journalism "to change the world" (a more progressive sentiment); the entertainment industry in general (and this includes journalism) is more progressive friendly. Conservatives have a bit of an uphill battle against these natural tendencies.

Kanye West was vilified for saying Bush didn't like Black people after Katrina. Beck got a raise after accusing Obama of having a "deep seated hatred for white people". See the difference?

I wasn't aware that Kanye was "vilified". He seems to be flying pretty high. Bush is the one who was pretty mercilessly vilified, probably rightly so, but I don't think he was ever cut much slack. Beck got his raise for other reasons, and think he was hurt by that comment.

This is not even factoring the preponderance of right wing violence.

??? I realize there is a lot of ruin in a nation, and the groups that constitute it, but the right wing is generally Law and Order. I don't walk down the street worried about right wing crime. Our large cities with liberal administration (New York, San Francisco, New Orleans) have seen a spike in crime amounting to multiple thousands of more murder victims each year. Our liberal immigration policies have let in millions of illegals, and the attendant murders and traffic accidents have claimed something like 7000+ victims a year. I'm not sure a body count favors the progressive side.

Hate, anger, and misinformation are essential tools of the Right because it cannot win elections on honesty. It's the only way to win support for funneling more money and power to the already rich and powerful.

Well, I see lots of hate and anger on the Left. I don't see where the Right is afraid of honesty. People naturally tend to be conservative, so I would say more honesty helps that side.

The rich and powerful are plenty liberal, and get plenty of money funneled to themselves. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, the Goldman Sachs enterprise, are liberal, and benefit from continuation of plenty of current policies that are not particularly conservative or right-wing.

I need to ask you, if the private sector hoards money, offshores, and refuses to grow jobs, then who else but government can do anything?

We agree that both business and government "don't like to follow the rules." I would like to see the government have more of a role in keeping competition in business, in part by breaking up large entities, or making them a utility. Instead we have too much of government picking winners and losers. Much of modern business has become a "winner take all" affair. If people had more choices of where to put their money, we could steer it away from the off-shoring hoarders.

rightsaidfred said...

Dave, once again I somewhat agree with you, but I see some things differently.

a corporatist Marxist is about as common as a winged pig.

As much as Marxists preach power to the people, when in power they seem as fond of big corporate-type entities as anyone.

... there's been a concerted right wing media driven campaign to demonize liberals that has no equivalence on the other side.

I say liberal values are more embedded in journalism for various reasons: people go into journalism "to change the world" (a more progressive sentiment); the entertainment industry in general (and this includes journalism) is more progressive friendly. Conservatives have a bit of an uphill battle against these natural tendencies.

Kanye West was vilified for saying Bush didn't like Black people after Katrina. Beck got a raise after accusing Obama of having a "deep seated hatred for white people". See the difference?

I wasn't aware that Kanye was "vilified". He seems to be flying pretty high. Bush is the one who was pretty mercilessly vilified, probably rightly so, but I don't think he was ever cut much slack. Beck got his raise for other reasons, and think he was hurt by that comment.

This is not even factoring the preponderance of right wing violence.

??? I realize there is a lot of ruin in a nation, and the groups that constitute it, but the right wing is generally Law and Order. I don't walk down the street worried about right wing crime. Our large cities with liberal administration (New York, San Francisco, New Orleans) have seen a spike in crime amounting to multiple thousands of more murder victims each year. Our liberal immigration policies have let in millions of illegals, and the attendant murders and traffic accidents have claimed something like 7000+ victims a year. I'm not sure a body count favors the progressive side.

rightsaidfred said...

Hate, anger, and misinformation are essential tools of the Right because it cannot win elections on honesty. It's the only way to win support for funneling more money and power to the already rich and powerful.

Well, I see lots of hate and anger on the Left. I don't see where the Right is afraid of honesty. People naturally tend to be conservative, so I would say more honesty helps that side.

The rich and powerful are plenty liberal, and get plenty of money funneled to themselves. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, the Goldman Sachs enterprise, are liberal, and benefit from continuation of plenty of current policies that are not particularly conservative or right-wing.

I need to ask you, if the private sector hoards money, offshores, and refuses to grow jobs, then who else but government can do anything?

We agree that both business and government "don't like to follow the rules." I would like to see the government have more of a role in keeping competition in business, in part by breaking up large entities, or making them a utility. Instead we have too much of government picking winners and losers. Much of modern business has become a "winner take all" affair. If people had more choices of where to put their money, we could steer it away from the off-shoring hoarders.

Dave Dubya said...

Fred,
Not sure of your point on Marxists. Are you referring to Soviet/Chinese Communists or Obama the “Marxist”?

You conflate journalism with entertainment. So Limbaugh is a journalist? Sadly, real journalism is in decline because of the corporate media’s twisted infotainment. Journalism, as in a free press, is as much essential to democracy as the conservative dominated law enforcement you point out. You assume it is a liberal value. If it is, then that liberalism is vital. Without journalism where is the check on abuse of power? The press is supposed to be the information source and voice of the people. Instead we have corporate media, not real journalism. Corporate media is by nature pro status quo, not an advocate for change. Its revenues come from other corporate entities that are also pro status quo or Big Money agenda.

Beck was coddled for his race baiting comment and you know it. Where is the equivalency? Maybe Dan Rather can tell you about consequences of faulty journalism. He stupidly used forged papers to support an essentially true story and got canned. Does that happen at FOX(R)? No, and it never will because they have little to do with journalism and everything to do with the agenda of Right Wing propaganda. “Death panels”, “death tax”, “Marxist Socialists who hate America” is what FOX(R) is all about. They were instructed to deny scientific consensus on climate change. They were instructed to never mention "public option" and use “Government run takeover” of health care instead. These are but a few examples of the calculated dishonesty from the Right. I will be more than happy to show you more.

Maybe YOU don’t have to walk the streets in fear of Right Wing violence, but doctors who perform legal abortions do, don’t they? Unitarians in Tennessee know about Right Wing violence from a fanatical FOX(R) true believer. How do you think the Tides Foundation people feel after Beck inspired a fan to shoot them? It is real. And it is deadly.

These are politically motivated acts of Right Wing terrorism.

If I were you I’d think twice about blaming liberals for street crime. Most of it is directly related to the Right Wing war on drugs and too many firearms on the streets.

“The rich and powerful are plenty liberal.” Like the US Chamber of Commerce? Please.

Change is the natural order of the universe. The bottom line is people are influenced by corporate media to resist change as if it were a force of evil. Why else are lies given the same consideration as truth? Notice how the corporate media will take two points of view and conclude the truth must be in between. As if one person says the sky is blue and the other says it’s yellow, then the sky really must be green. This is not journalism and it is not “liberal media”.

T. Paine said...

Dave, Fred makes some excellent points that are well supported by facts and history. You seem to think that the media, by and large, is corporate and therefore not imbued with a liberal outlook.

As Fred points out, many young journalism students choose that profession to "change the world". Sorry, but I thought the purpose of journalism was to report who, what, why, where, and when in an objective factual context without editorial or biased implications.
Journalists are supposed to be the people's watchdog. Instead they are often agenda-driven in promoting dubious issues like anthropogenic global warming etc.

I just did a post where the Society of Professional Journalists are calling for all journalists to refrain from using the terms "illegal aliens" or "illegal immigrants" in their reporting because it is offensive to Latinos. A politically correct bias is trying to be instituted against an accurately defining label. This is only one of myriads of examples of leftist bias, sir.

Dubya, you also attribute violence strictly to the right, and seem oblivious to that perpetrated by the left. Hell, to this day the unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers, states that he wishes he could have done more. So the man who bombed the pentagon and later provided his living room as the starting point of Obama's political career is not guilty of his crimes in our president's eyes or those of the left? The irony of your statement regarding the left are amazing, my friend.

Hell look at the anarchists in Greece and throughout Europe that are bombing buildings because of pending cuts in their "entitlements". I suspect this is a phenomenon which will become prevalent here in America as we necessarily have to cut our own massive spending.

You have valid points, sir, but you also need to not be oblivious about the same "crimes" being committed by progressives which you charge only to the right.

T. Paine said...

Dave, Fred makes some excellent points that are well supported by facts and history. You seem to think that the media, by and large, is corporate and therefore not imbued with a liberal outlook.

As Fred points out, many young journalism students choose that profession to "change the world". Sorry, but I thought the purpose of journalism was to report who, what, why, where, and when in an objective factual context without editorial or biased implications.
Journalists are supposed to be the people's watchdog. Instead they are often agenda-driven in promoting dubious issues like anthropogenic global warming etc.

I just did a post where the Society of Professional Journalists are calling for all journalists to refrain from using the terms "illegal aliens" or "illegal immigrants" in their reporting because it is offensive to Latinos. A politically correct bias is trying to be instituted against an accurately defining label. This is only one of myriads of examples of leftist bias, sir.

Dubya, you also attribute violence strictly to the right, and seem oblivious to that perpetrated by the left. Hell, to this day the unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers, states that he wishes he could have done more. So the man who bombed the pentagon and later provided his living room as the starting point of Obama's political career is not guilty of his crimes in our president's eyes or those of the left? The irony of your statement regarding the left are amazing, my friend.

Hell look at the anarchists in Greece and throughout Europe that are bombing buildings because of pending cuts in their "entitlements". I suspect this is a phenomenon which will become prevalent here in America as we necessarily have to cut our own massive spending.

You have valid points, sir, but you also need to not be oblivious about the same "crimes" being committed by progressives which you charge only to the right.

Dave Dubya said...

TP,
You guys really cling to that “change the world” line don’t you? Do you even consider the fact that people want to investigate abuses of power or report information that is important to democracy’s survival? To speak truth to power is more likely a motivation for young journalists. Nobody’s going to change the world more than the economic elite Mammonites that you revere so highly.

How many people did Ayers kill again? Zero. How many women’s heads did he stomp to the curb? Zero. You call him a terrorist? May all terrorists be as deadly as Ayers.

Here’s a list of deadly Right Wing acts of violence. Do you believe any of their victims felt terrorized by Ayers?

Jim David Adkisson committed two counts of murder in a church in Tennessee. He also wounded six others at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville. Police found books and material in his home by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Bill O’Reilly. He wrote a note urging others to kill liberals.

On April 4, 2009 Richard Poplawski, the sociopathic conservative without a conscience, murdered three cops in Pittsburgh. Poplawski’s racist head was filled with crap like Beck’s poisonous lies about Obama coming to take his guns away from him.

On June 10, 2009 James Von Brunn, another conservative, became the Holocaust Memorial Museum gunman.

Then there was conservative Scott Roeder, the bomb making assassin, who killed a doctor in church.

We remember Byron Williams on his Glenn Beck inspired mission to gun down Tides Foundation staff.

And not least there was conservative Tim McVeigh, before he blew away scores of innocent people.

Where are the victims of homicidal liberals? Got any names? Any?

No comparison, my friend.

rightsaidfred said...

Where are the victims of homicidal liberals? Got any names? Any?

Is this a contest? If you lose, will you become a right-winger?

You seem anxious to believe the worst about your political opponents. The Right/conservatism is not defined by the people you listed. I'm not sure the people you list even qualify for the more conservative side of the spectrum: a nut job with ones' side propaganda could well be a kind of agent provocateur. I've heard that McVeigh was an avowed atheist, which isn't a particularly conservative position.

I don't follow these things, but off the top of my head, the Left has the unibomber and the two guys shooting people from the trunk of a car around DC. The Fort Hood shooter struck me as an anti-war, 'big government is not doing enough for me' leftist.

The Left is anxious to register convicted felons to vote. What kind of message is this? One reason the Left countenances illegal immigration is to pad the voter rolls with reliable votes for their side, and that cohort has a pretty high criminality rate, like maybe 3-4000 murders a year. Who gets to wash this blood off their hands?

Under liberal David Dinkins, New York saw their murder rate rise to around 3000 victims a year. Under conservative Rudy Guliani, the rate fell to around 1000 a year. Liberals kill by induction.

rightsaidfred said...

As to journalism, my problem with Dan Rather was that he wanted us all to think he was an objective reporter when he would use his position to shade things for his side. Beck and Limbaugh have made it more than clear that they are coming from one side.

Not sure of your point on Marxists. Are you referring to Soviet/Chinese Communists or Obama the “Marxist”?

I was thinking more along the lines of Soviet/Chinese. Castro came to power preaching for the great leveling of society, of bringing the big overseas gamblers to heel. But those flocking around him built the military into the latest manifestation of the Cartel, where one goes for power and prestige in Cuba. One master for another.

The Obama type politician is similar, where when campaigning, he would promise the people "a seat at the table", but in power he encourages the usual big enterprises because they roll in the big tax revenues needed to fund Leviathan, including campaigns.

Weaseldog said...

rightsaidfred said... "As much as Marxists preach power to the people, when in power they seem as fond of big corporate-type entities as anyone."

I guess a Marxist is someone who does not follow the principles of Karl Marx. Like Christians, who purport to follow the principles of love and forgiveness, hooting in ho0llering in our local bar the images of bombers disintegrating schools full of brown skinned children.

I think you're beginning to recognize the traits of frauds and hypocrites without realizing exactly what you're seeing.

Because you never learned exactly what a Marxist is, you think anyone you label a Marxist, must be one. If I label you a Christian, can I assume you like to get drunk and kill people? Or is there more to these kinds of analysis than simply calling people names?

Weaseldog said...

Fred said, "I realize there is a lot of ruin in a nation, and the groups that constitute it, but the right wing is generally Law and Order."

It's also death squads, assassination teams, organized crime, etc... Al Capone was a rigid right wing authoritarian.

The Quakers in contrast are on the far left, preaching brotherly love, turning he other cheek, excessive charity and the like. Yet somehow they are still law abiding.

Weaseldog said...

Fred said, "Our liberal immigration policies have let in millions of illegals, and the attendant murders and traffic accidents have claimed something like 7000+ victims a year. I'm not sure a body count favors the progressive side."

Well the drug war was begun by Nixon and kicked up a notch by each successive Republican administration. The MIC which is unquestionably right wing, makes a lot of money from working both sides of the drug war.

The hotter the drug war becomes, the more profits that everyone that our government employees, contractors, bankers and of course the drug lords and drug dealers see.

Profits are the sacred cow of the Republican Party, so every action they will take will increase the violence in the drug war to increase their profits. Liberals on the other hand, would trade profits for lives. Republicans will fight against this to the bitter end.

The liberals would put hundreds of thousands of DEA agents out of a job if they ended the drug war and brought peace to our borders. Violence creates jobs.

Weaseldog said...

Fred said, "I don't follow these things, but off the top of my head, the Left has the unibomber and the two guys shooting people from the trunk of a car around DC. The Fort Hood shooter struck me as an anti-war, 'big government is not doing enough for me' leftist."

You should follow these things.

The Unibomber was not a leftist, he was at war with technology and it's misuse. His political leanings weren't clearly in either camp.

The guys going around shooting from the trunk of their car, didn't have a political agenda. They were doing it for fun. They didn't give a shit about the war or politics.

The Fort Hood shooter is your best example of a leftist. He became very troubled about the constant loss of life and trauma he dealt with every day and wanted to end it. A right winger would not take his position.

Dave Dubya said...

Fred,
Let me clarify. No comparison in violence means no contest.

I am stating factual history of right wing violence, not beliefs. Studies show Right Wing Authoritarians believe they are superior to others. No surprise. Read John Dean’s “Conservatives without Conscience”.

Sorry, plugging the “Turner Diaries” puts McVeigh far to the Right.

Convicted felons are prohibited from voting in some, but not all, states. Do you believe a guy busted for growing his own medicine should be deprived of the right to vote? How about Scooter Libbey? Or maybe just Blacks?

Wease clearly debunks your “leftist” killers. So all illegal immigrants are now “liberals”? OK.

Speaking of the alleged illegal immigrant crime spree, O’Reilly also loved to lie about the non existent record crime wave in Arizona, sorta like the Arizona Governor and her phantom severed heads in the desert. They lie, my friend, they lie. And they lie in order to incite anger and garner votes for Republicans. It is the only way to get a majority of votes for the party of the economic elite minority. They really don't like democracy. They prefer low voter turnout.

Again these are not my beliefs. These are facts.

Thank God for Rudy the 9-11 Guy. Not only did street crime subside in NYC in the 90’s but all around the country as well, even in cities with Democratic mayors. He must indeed be a super hero. Or...the crack epidemic passed its peak and the proportion of youth in the general population shrank. But pay no attention to liberal sociology. Rudy was a super hero. Oh, and police brutality also increased in NYC under this hero.

Obama, like most federal level politicians, is a corporatist. I thought I mentioned that. Communist leaders are one-party dictators. Why would we expect otherwise from such?

No journalist can be completely objective. That’s not the point. Propagandists like Limbaugh and Beck are not journalists. They, unlike Rather, are completely unaccountable to the truth.

rightsaidfred said...

No journalist can be completely objective. That’s not the point.

The point here is the claim of objectivity by left wing journalists who are pushing a political agenda. It is a way of leveraging the message, seen elsewhere by the Left: "we have the facts!"; "we don't kill as many people as the Rignt!"; "we don't propagandize!" The Left claims the moral high ground, when I suspect it is more the narcissism of small differences.

Speaking of the alleged illegal immigrant crime spree

Aren't illegals by definition criminal? I bring it up since we are doing a body count here, and this seems a rather tractable area to save some lives. I have a friend in Arizona who is distraught over two acquaintances killed as pedestrians hit in a crosswalk by illegals -- no drivers license, no insurance. You tell me it is not a crime spree, but, then, what is it? If we are fretting about deaths, the risk from right wing violence isn't that high on the list.

rightsaidfred said...

Wease clearly debunks your “leftist” killers.

I am akin to Lot, of the Bible, searching the Sodom of political killers for one unrighteous liberal killer, or else my city will be destroyed.

One word: abortions. Checkmate! Bwhaahaahaa.

In the search for corpses generated by political ideology, the Left has a pretty healthy pile generated by the likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al. I don't find the Left all that friendly to the human condition in the long run. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

rightsaidfred said...

No journalist can be completely objective. That’s not the point.

The point here is the claim of objectivity by left wing journalists who are pushing a political agenda. It is a way of leveraging the message, seen elsewhere by the Left: "we have the facts!"; "we don't kill as many people as the Rignt!"; "we don't propagandize!" The Left claims the moral high ground, when I suspect it is more the narcissism of small differences.

Speaking of the alleged illegal immigrant crime spree

Aren't illegals by definition criminal? I bring it up since we are doing a body count here, and this seems a rather tractable area to save some lives. I have a friend in Arizona who is distraught over two acquaintances killed as pedestrians hit in a crosswalk by illegals -- no drivers license, no insurance. You tell me it is not a crime spree, but, then, what is it? If we are fretting about deaths, the risk from right wing violence isn't that high on the list.

Dave Dubya said...

Fred,
I'm sorry for your friend's loss. I'd think it was an accident. It makes no sense for an illegal immigrant to deliberately draw attention of law enforcement.

Well, if you gotta start comparing Stalin to little ol' American liberals to find blood...Sieg Heil, mein Freund.

Weaseldog said...

rightsaidfred said... "I am akin to Lot, of the Bible, searching the Sodom of political killers for one unrighteous liberal killer, or else my city will be destroyed."

You get drunk, sleep with your daughters and then sell them off as whores? Nice guy you are...

"One word: abortions. Checkmate! Bwhaahaahaa."

I've never had an abortion.


"In the search for corpses generated by political ideology, the Left has a pretty healthy pile generated by the likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al. I don't find the Left all that friendly to the human condition in the long run. Methinks thou dost protest too much."

You really don't know what the left is, do you? The left rejects centralized authority. your examples are right wing Authoritarians. they lied and used rhetoric that sounds almost leftist. and of course you trust them and so believe these lies without thinking.

Weaseldog said...

Over 50,000 Americans die in traffic every year at the hands of legal citizens. Is this a bigger or smaller count than those who die in traffic accidents with illegals?

Big business isn't going to allow anyone to put an end to illegal immigration and the drug war. there's too much money to be made on it.

You can bitch and moan about how the leftists are to blame for illegal immigration all you want, but those leftists can't fix the problem.

Don;'t forget it was Republicans that expanded the problem by giving many thousands of them Amnesty and opening the door.