Thursday, June 16, 2011

Beck: Redux

When Bill Maher featured Andrew Breitbart as a guest on “Real Time”, he asked if it was possible that people were racist without their knowing it. Breitbart responded, “I don’t understand the question”. I believe that perfectly answered the question.

For any reader who still wonders, “Where has Beck spewed any racism?”, and would rather disingenuously assert we “repeat this crap because they read it on Daily Kos but have never listened to one minute of Beck”, I will dedicate this post towards answering that question.

I’ve listened to Beck, and so have others. Unfortunately, some of those who listen to Beck are not too bright and became very angry.

Fortunately there are others at MediaMatters and elsewhere who listen and document what Beck and fellow neo-fascists say. We thank them for shining the light into the darkness of Beck World. While former Republican David Brock accused Beck of being arguably “responsible” for three assassination attempts last year, I would say Beck surely inspired these ignorant and frightened dupes. Beck has proven to be a racist, fear-mongering, and dangerous, radical Right Wing ideologue.

His hate speech is finally ending on FOX(R) TV due in part to some corporations having the sense to pull their advertising from his show.

Here we see the rogues’ gallery of Beck fans: Thank you MediaMatters.

David Brock accused Glenn Beck of being "responsible for three thwarted assassination attempts this year." Indeed, in each of the three examples Brock cited -- Gregory Giusti, Charles Wilson, and Byron Williams -- the incendiary and often violent rhetoric spewed by the Fox News host and elsewhere on the network was said to be a motivating factor, if not the inspiring factor, in the men's actions.

On July 18, 2010, Byron Williams was stopped by California Highway Patrol and engaged in a shootout with law enforcement. He later said he was on his way to murder individuals at the Tides Foundation and ACLU.

During an interview with reporter John Hamilton after his arrest, Williams said: "I would have never started watching Fox News if it wasn't for the fact that Beck was on there. And it was the things that he did, it was the things he exposed that blew my mind. I said, well, nobody does this."`

In October 2010, Charles Murray was sentenced to a year and a day in prison for threatening Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) with "violence" in phone calls to her office.

A relative of Wilson said in publicly available documents filed in federal court that Wilson's "fears were grown and fostered by Mr. Beck's persuasive personality" and that Wilson's actions occurred because he "was under the spell that Glenn Beck cast."

In December 2010, Gregory Lee Giusti was sentenced to a year and nine months in federal prison for threatening to destroy former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's home if she voted in support of the health care reform law.

During an interview with the local San Francisco ABC affiliate, Giusti's mother, Eleanor Giusti, stated that Fox News was a factor in her son's actions.

Here we have more of Beck’s racism documented by MediaMatters, showing the tip of the iceberg of Beck’s racist spew:

Beck said of the 2008 election: "You were voting for - not change, but change, I think, in race. You were like 'Hey, let's put this behind us.' I think a lot of people were there. They weren't necessarily for his policies because his policies and everything else are - what are they?"

"This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture."

"He chose to use his name, Barack, for a reason. To identify, not with America -- you don't take the name Barack to identify with America. You take the name Barack to identify with what? Your heritage? The heritage, maybe, of your father in Kenya, who is a radical?"

“The health care bill is reparations. It's the beginning of reparations. He's going to give -- if you want to go into medical school, the medical schools will get more federal dollars if they have proven that they are putting minorities ahead."

"Everything that is getting pushed through Congress, including this health care bill, are transforming America. And they are all driven by President Obama's thinking on one idea: reparations. ...”

Throughout his career in Top 40 radio, Beck was known for his imitations of "black guy" characters and racist tropes. According to Beck's former colleagues in the late 90s, this included mocking unarmed blacks shot and killed by white police officers. Such was the case of Malik Jones, the victim of a controversial killing that took place in 1997.

"After the shooting, Beck sometimes did a racist shtick," remembers Paul Bass, a former radio host and Beck colleague at a Clear Channel station cluster in New Haven. "Glenn did routines about Jones' grandmother being on crack. Generally he made fun of his family and the loss of life--as joke routines."

Beck's racially tinged tirades did not disappear after he switched formats in 1999. During his first talk radio stint in Tampa, he often referred to the Rev. Jesse Jackson as "the stinking king of the race lords."

Beck forced to apologize for "mocking Asians." In 1995, Beck and his co-hosts at KC101 in Hartford, Connecticut were made to apologize for mocking an Asian man who called into the program. The Hartford Courant reported in October 20, 1995: "When [Zhihan] Tong telephoned WKCI- FM to protest the broadcast as a racial slur, disc jockeys Glenn Beck and Pat Grey made fun of him. The two played a gong in the background several times, and Papineau, the executive producer, mocked a Chinese accent."

On his June 4 radio program, Beck promoted The Red Network by Elizabeth Dilling, saying of the 1934 book: "This is a book -- and I'm a getting a ton of these -- from people who were doing what we're doing now. We now are documenting who all of these people are.

The Red Network is rife with racism and anti-Semitism. As Media Matters noted, Dilling's book contains numerous passages that espouse anti-Semitism and racism. At various points throughout the book, Dilling attacked "racial inter-mixture" as a communist plot, referred to "un-Christianized" "colored people" as "savages," called Hinduism and Islam "debasing and degrading," and blamed Nazi Germany's anti-Semitism on "revolutionary Russian Jews."

Dilling herself was a Nazi sympathizer. Dilling visited Germany in the late 1930s, and attended Nazi party meetings and praised Adolf Hitler's leadership. She also spoke at rallies hosted by U.S. Nazi organizations after the outbreak of World War II. Following the war, she leveled anti-Semitic attacks against several U.S. presidents, calling Dwight Eisenhower "Ike the Kike," attacking Richard Nixon for his "service to the synagogue," and calling John F. Kennedy's New Frontier program the "Jew frontier."

What do you know? The Daily Kos didn’t make this stuff up after all.


Dave Dubya said...

Yeah Jack. The country is in steep decline but the Almighty Cash Flow to economic elite masters like the Koch Brothers, and their mouthpieces like Beck and Limbaugh, is not in decline. That's what matters. They've never had it better, while we lose our jobs and sadly watch our country crumble.

Tom Harper said...

Oh come on, fess up. All of us liberals get our news exclusively from Daily Kos, and we get our daily marching orders (and our funding) from George Soros.

Dave Dubya said...


Shh! The Commissar will have us shackled and thrown to the floor and face the cruel judgment of a secret Death Panel if Komrade Soros hears of such weakness and confession.

Mauigirl said...

Well said, Dave, thanks for exposing this guy as the racist he is. Good riddance to Glenn Beck.

Dave Dubya said...

We hope it's good riddance. Creeps like him seem to never go away entirely.

Darrell Michaels said...

I won’t waste a lot of time in response, because it will only fall on deaf ears. The fact that you cite the notoriously biased and often egregiously inaccurate MediaMatters for your source for most of your accusations is quite telling though.

I have never ever heard Beck even imply that violence was ever the answer to any issue he brings to light. Indeed, I have heard ad nauseum from his own lips that violence is NOT the answer and rather it undermines the conservative cause and credibility. I have heard him denounce those that partake in violence to purportedly “help the cause of conservatism” and call for them to be punished. Indeed he was mocking those that kill abortionists this very morning.

He certainly did not proclaim that he wanted people to go down and kill others in the Tides Foundation etc. Bringing the unseemly or malevolent connections and dealings of an organization to light for people to see is not the same thing as advocating for the murder of their workers. There is a little bit of a disconnect there, Dubya.

Further, the charges of anti-Semitism are ludicrous in the extreme. Beck, if anything, is an ardent fan of the Jewish people. He is even planning a rally in support of Israel in Jerusalem later this summer. He often talks with and quotes from his Rabbi friends. Heck, there was even a rumor that Beck was going to convert to Judaism. Like most of the charges leveled against Beck, the truth is that Saul Alinsky tactics are being used in the hope of marginalizing and destroying him. The one-world leftist George Soros is working hard to make this come to fruition, particularly since Beck had the temerity to bring to light many of Soros’ dealings.

I have found nothing of substance to the charges against Beck accordingly.

Squatlo said...

Mr. Paine here seems to underscore your original point, Dave. He's heard nothing in the rants and ravings of Beck to suggest he's encouraging violence or supports racist positions. Why would Mr. Paine notice such things, though obvious to others? Because he simply doesn't recognize a racist or an ideologue when he hears one.
Beck's a throwback to what we used to quaintly refer to a "crank", only now cranks like Glenn Beck have followings of loons from coast to coast who hang on their every word. He can go to his blackboard, scribble connections between his various manifestations of paranoia, and a mouth-breathing knuckle dragger in Peoria takes it all in as well-reasoned thought.
He's dangerous, the same way that a child with a hammer is dangerous. Those who can't recognize his racist and inflammatory statements for what they are probably don't see racism unless it's coming from a black voice. A lot of the troglodytes have hammers, apparently.

Dave Dubya said...

Thank you for your response. It is not wasted.

Attacking the messenger is often the first tactic of the Right You offer no evidence of any inaccuracy at MediaMatters. Since they draw the wrath of the radical Right because they call out FOX(R) as a political operation posing as journalism you have no recourse but to merely state your accusation as a point of argument. That’s fine. We understand.

What you fail to see is this: the very words of Beck ARE the point. Of course Beck insists he’s against violence. Why do you think he even needs to make such a claim?? As if you can say “never mind” after shouting “fire” in a theater and make it all ok.

Look at his words. They are intended to arouse resentments, (Hammering on “Reparations”) and inflame anger (“the stinking king of the race lords.") and fear. ("This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.")

What on God’s green Earth can possibly be his intentions??? Brotherhood? Love? Compassion? Forgiveness? Charity? No. His intentions are to get votes for Republicans. This is all meant to make people angry at fellow Americans; angry and resentful of their social and economic peers, and duped into voting for the Republicans who will rob them over and over again to pay for the tax cuts for the rich. (Still waiting on all those jobs from the tax cuts, BTY.)

And you follow the Limbaugh line that liberals are the real racists, while ignoring the actual thing, and denouncing efforts to compensate for racism as the real racism. This is sad.

Yes it’s very easy for a Rightist white guy to say Beck is no racist. And I would suppose it wouldn’t matter how many minorities say he is racist. How would they know? Are they too blinded by the long history of conservatives’ hatred they’ve suffered from slavery, to poll taxes, to “literacy” tests, to civil rights struggles, to voter disenfranchisement?

It was those damn liberal racists that opposed all these changes over the years, right?

Damn, those liberals are to blame for everything.

Dave Dubya said...

Yes, of course, TP, some of his “best friends are Jews”.

Other Jews see it this way:

Jeffrey Goldberg is a national correspondent for The Atlantic.

It's become clear to me that the Fox commentator Glenn Beck has something of a Jewish problem.

This is a post about Beck's recent naming of nine people -- eight of them Jews -- as enemies of America and humanity. He calls these people prime contributors to the -- wait for it -- "era of the big lie." The eight Jews are Sigmund Freud; Edward Bernays, the founder of public relations, and a nephew of Freud's (which Beck discloses as if this had previously been a secret); Soros, of course; Cass Sunstein, now of the White House; the former labor leader Andy Stern; Walter Lippman, who is no longer here to defend himself; Frances Fox Piven, who Beck believes is "sowing the seeds" of revolution; and, of all people, Edward Rendell.

It is fair to ask if Beck knows that these people are Jewish (It is not widely-known that Rendell is Jewish, I think). But Beck is a smart person, and has researchers at hand with access to Wikipedia. Further, most of these people on Beck's "big lie" list are already the targets of straightforward attacks in the dark, anti-Semitic corners of the Web, so an extended Google search, in some cases, would show that much of the opposition to some of these people is motivated by anti-Semitism. That said, Beck has not crossed a certain line, by identifying his targets openly as Jewish. Nevertheless, this, to me, is a classic case of anti-Semitic dog-whistling. Beck is speaking to a certain constituency, and the thought has now crossed my mind that this constituency understands the clear implications of what Beck is saying.

My modest suggestion to those Jews who fear the building of mosques in American cities is that they look elsewhere for threats that seem to be gathering against them.

From Salon:

Glenn Beck has called Soros a Nazi collaborator and claimed that the man is bent on world domination, and now he is claiming that Reform Jews are not real Jews, because many of them tend to be liberal.

Statement by the Anti-Defamation League:
Glenn Beck's comparison of Reform Judaism to radical Islam demonstrates his bigoted ignorance. Despite his feeble attempt to suggest that he was not equating Reform Judaism with Islamic extremist terrorism, the simple fact that he would mention them in the same breath is highly offensive and outrageous.
You can't argue with that. I only wonder what ADL head Abe Foxman is saying about this to his personal friend, Fox chief Roger Ailes.

S.W. Anderson said...

Indeed, listening to Beck and keeping up with the inane drivel with which he exploits gullible people is a dirty job — and somebody else has got to do it. My stomach can't take it and life's too short.

Get a clue, Beck fans, he's in it for the money. Beck doesn't know, doesn't care and doesn't believe. He just wants to make tons of money by pandering to the prejudices and playing on the fears, suspicions and resentment of willing dupes.

Dave Dubya said...

That's it. Cha-ching!

The old bottom line at the bottom of all Right Wing ideology.

Darrell Michaels said...

Geez! Really? Okay, following are just a very small sample of some of the lies Media Matters has told and not retracted:

Next, leftwing myth: Beck is hardly a G.O.P. hack. Again, this tells me that you all get your information from secondhand dubious sources. Beck regularly calls Republicans on the carpet as well as progressives. That is part of his credibility in that he calls a spade, a spade regardless of ideology.

Dubya, I am still waiting on a list of all the “shovel ready jobs” that the stimulus created, not including the government jobs that eventually have to be subsidized with even more tax payer dollars.

Your list of Jews that Beck hates is also ridiculous. Did it ever occur to you that his antipathy towards these nine folks was because they were all militant progressives? Eight of the nine of them were also men. Does that mean he hates men too, or is that merely coincidental like their faith. For the record, I thought Soros was a self-proclaimed atheist anyway, despite being raised Jewish.

Next, I would dearly love to see your source for Beck “claiming” Soros was a Nazi collaborator. I actually caught Beck’s show on a day where he was discussing Soros’ childhood and his being forced to help the Nazi’s. Beck said he did not want to disparage Soros for that because he assumed that Soros as a boy did what he had to do in order to survive. I thought he was more than fair with Soros accordingly. At no time did I hear him denounce Soros as a Nazi collaborator.

Lastly, Anderson, you postulate that Beck does not believe in what he says but only does it for the money. I suppose Keith Olberman, Ed Schultz, and Rachel Maddow are too altruistic and are true believers in their noble progressive causes and it is not about the money for them, huh? We all know that only right wingers are obsessed with money and wealth. I am sure all liberal journalists, anchors, and talk show hosts donate all of their income to the poor in order to compensate and give reparations for all of the evil policies of George Bush and the Republicans. Give me a break.

You know, it is funny, the left truly is always showing generosity, but it is almost universally from others pockets that they wish to donate.

Dave Dubya said...

What, another blatant contradiction? All the liberals you cite actually want to give more of their tax dollars to help the country.

Beck is a Right Wing propagandist employed by FOX(R). FOX(R) has a job to do, and it is not journalism. It is to support the Republican Party and attack their opposition. Only a deluded tea drinker cannot see this.

Remember Beck’s first big FOX(R) tea party? Did he feature Democrats? No, only Republicans. He only “calls Republicans on the carpet” for not being as extreme as he is, nowhere else. Please show me where Beck accused any Republican of destroying the country. You cannot.

Next, I would dearly love to see your source for Beck “claiming” Soros was a Nazi collaborator. A reasonable person, as well as Roger Ailes’ friend at the ADL, would surmise “helping send the Jews to the death camps” as collaboration.

One more time. Beck said on November 10, 2010: Soros, "used to go around with this anti-Semite and deliver papers to the Jews and confiscate their property and then ship them off. And George Soros was part of it. He would help confiscate the stuff. It was frightening. Here's a Jewish boy helping send the Jews to the death camps."

Did you completely miss this intentionally? Here it is again:

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director and a Holocaust survivor, issued the following statement:

Glenn Beck's description of George Soros' actions during the Holocaust is completely inappropriate, offensive and over the top. For a political commentator or entertainer to have the audacity to say – inaccurately – that there's a Jewish boy sending Jews to death camps, as part of a broader assault on Mr. Soros, that's horrific.

While I, too, may disagree with many of Soros' views and analysis on the issues, to bring in this kind of innuendo about his past is unacceptable. To hold a young boy responsible for what was going on around him during the Holocaust as part of a larger effort to denigrate the man is repugnant.

The Holocaust was a horrific time, and many people had to make excruciating choices to ensure their survival. George Soros has been forthright about his childhood experiences and his family's history, and there the matter should rest.

You also did not quote one MediaMatters lie. That was a list of, well not really lies, but Right Wing accusations of lies. I checked them out. Please show us the lie and not just links to Breitbart and co. accusations.

Dave Dubya said...

Stimulus jobs? Here you go:

Yes, the stimulus legislation increased employment, despite false Republican claims to the contrary.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, more commonly known as the stimulus bill, has been featured in more than 130 TV ads this year, according to a database maintained by Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group. In many of those ads, Republicans claim the bill has "failed" (a matter of opinion) or state (correctly) that unemployment has gone up since President Barack Obama signed the bill into law.

But it’s just false to say that the stimulus created "no jobs" or "failed to save and create jobs" or "has done nothing to reduce unemployment" – or similar claims that the stimulus did not produce any jobs.

As we have written before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has "lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and "increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million."
Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill. The exact number of jobs created and saved is difficult to estimate, but nonpartisan economists say there’s no doubt that the number is positive.

I drive every day on the new pavement on my road, paid for by the stimulus.

Now you show me all the jobs created by the tax cuts for the rich...

Tim said...

As you say Dave, thank the stars that some people had the insight and iron stomach to document pure crazy hate. Let's see who they replace him with at Fox.

Darrell Michaels said...

Blatant contradiction? It seems contradictory to me that progressives want to help the poor with MY money. That really is not the definition of charity, Dubya.

As for Beck stating about a Republican destroying the country, I think some of his outcry towards George W. Bush was on par with what you would have heard from a more objective leftist. He was the one decrying Bush’s choosing of winners and losers with his bailouts and how his policies were harming the economy, and he was right.

Next, here is the entire Beck quote in context:

“George Soros’s father asked a Christian in Hungary to adopt his son, make him his godson. And George Soros used to go around with this anti-Semite and deliver papers to the Jews, and confiscate their property, and then ship them off. And George Soros was part of it. He would help confiscate the stuff. It was frightening. Here’s a Jewish boy helping send the Jews to the death camps.

I am certainly not saying George Soros enjoyed that, even had a choice—I mean, he’s 14 years old. He was surviving. So I’m not making a judgment, that’s between him and God.

… But you think there would be some remorse as an 80-year-old man, or a 40-year-old man, or a 20-year-old man. When it was all over, you would do some soul searching and say, ‘What did I do? What did I do?’ “

What did Beck say here that wasn’t absolutely true in that quote? Why is Soros so hesitant to share any remorse for this, even if he had no choice, and yet he clearly shared this horrible story of his childhood? Beck even stated that there was mitigating factors and that Soros probably didn’t even had a choice in the matter. Nice Media Matters-type edit there, sir. Chalk that one up to one more of their lies of omission for you.

As for the other myriads of Media Matters lies, where precisely do you expect me to get these from if not from other watch-dog and news blogger groups? Rachel Maddow sure as hell isn’t going to call them on the carpet for their misinformation and lies. I am not surprised that you dismiss all of the DOCUMENTED lies simply because you don’t approve of the sources.

Darrell Michaels said...

Next, your assertion that the stimulus created jobs is dubious at best. See the excerpt below from:

“During the session, Elmendorf (CBO director) stated specifically that his team’s estimates do not measure real-world outputs (just inputs), that they do not serve as an independent check on its success or failure, and that if the stimulus had not created jobs the CBO's figures would not reflect that fact.

See, the CBO doesn’t actually count jobs created. Instead, it uses models that assume putting taxpayer money into the system results in additional demand, additional spending, and, ergo, additional jobs. Even before the stimulus passed, the CBO used these same models to predict that the stimulus would create jobs. And now it’s using those same models to estimate that it has created jobs. Ever heard of circular reasoning? But because the CBO relies on slightly updated versions of the same, original models throughout the process, it wouldn’t necessarily detect the fact that the stimulus didn’t work”.

Also see here:

Or the decidedly NOT conservative Newsweek magazine:

As for tax cuts creating jobs, I give you Ronald Reagan and the 1980’s. He cut the top income tax rate from 70 to 50% and the bottom from 14 to 11%. In addition to bringing the Carter era inflation rate from 13.5% in 1981 to 3.2% only two years later, he also created 21 million jobs with his tax policies between December 1982 and June 1990.


Further, simply from a common sense standpoint, when Bush Jr. increased the dependent tax deductions from $600 per dependent to $1000 dollars each, please tell me how millions of people keeping more of their own money in poorer and middle class households didn’t go towards consumption in the economy.

So now that you are driving on stimulus-paid pavement, can you tell me if those construction workers that did that work still have jobs now that the stimulus money is gone, Dubya? That’s the problem with government and government-paid jobs. When the money for them is gone, stimulus funds or otherwise, so are those jobs.

Dave Dubya said...

Yeah, Beck was tough on Bush all right...for not being even further to the radical Right. How “balanced” is that?

Thank you for the additional “context” from Beck. “So I’m not making a judgment, that’s between him and God.… But you think there would be some remorse as an 80-year-old man, or a 40-year-old man, or a 20-year-old man. When it was all over, you would do some soul searching and say, ‘What did I do? What did I do?’ “

Notice how he makes a judgment immediately after saying he’s “not making a judgment”.

So you’re saying it is “absolutely true” that Soros “used to go around with this anti-Semite... and then ship them off. Here’s a Jewish boy helping send the Jews to the death camps.”

The astounding thing to me is your blindness to what the ADL found outrageous. The ADL is not MediaMatters.

You seem to validate my introductory paragraph in the post. If you cannot see racism here, and I’m not accusing you of being a racist, then it is near certain that a racist cannot see his own racism for what it is.

I asked you to show me the jobs created by the Bush tax cuts for the rich, not the deficit increasing tax cuts from Reagan. You’re quoting Reagan’s minion Laffer is quaint, but avoids the question. I asked about jobs created by tax cuts for the rich. And you know what I’m talking about. The Bush tax cuts. Our economy collapsed and jobs disappeared after the rich got those breaks.

Dave Dubya said...

This may take up some space.

I know the Right Wing noise machine has indoctrinated their true believers that the stimulus failed and “did not create one job”. I don’t expect to hear anything different from you.

You cite a June 16, 2009 article on a stimulus program created in February ’09 that was designed to be rolled out over a three-year period. The other links were to Right Wing sources. How can that possibly be a fair assessment?

I can show you a better picture.

“Can you tell me if those construction workers that did that work still have jobs now that the stimulus money is gone, Dubya?” I can tell you they had their jobs longer than they would have otherwise. By your logic, temporary work would be worse than no work at all. The bottom line is jobs were done and people were paid. Why are you against that?

By February 9, 2010 Republicans were on record praising the effects of the stimulus, and were attending ribbon cutting ceremonies of stimulus funded projects.

Rachel Maddow offered a few examples:

That‘s Bobby Jindal there, governor of Louisiana who has railed against the stimulus, then gone around the state handing out big fake checks with his own name on them as if the money came from him instead of from the stimulus that he‘s been railing against.

Then, there‘s Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia. That‘s him getting all Publisher‘s Clearinghouse with a giant check for funds that he voted against and criticized as worst than worthless. He called the money and that check he‘s holding a boondoggle and a dismal failure.

And it‘s not just a couple of these guys who have been caught like this either. Republican John Mica of Florida trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district as “helping improve one of our key economic generators.”

Republican Frank Wolf of Virginia trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying, “We could use that money desperately. There are a lot of things up here that that money could be used for.”

Republican Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home state by attending the groundbreaking of a sewage treatment plant that it funded and praising the jobs that it would create in his district.

Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas trashed the stimulus, voted no, and praised its effect in her home state by saying this funding will spur growth in Texas communities.

Republican Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district as a great thing for this county. We‘re not accustomed to federal dollars in that magnitude finding their way to North Carolina.

Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri trashed the stimulus, voted no and then praised its effect in his home district by saying it would create jobs and ultimately spur economic opportunities.

Republican Joe Wilson of South Carolina, remember him? The “you lie” guy? He trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying it would provide jobs and investment in one of the poorer sections of that district.

Dave Dubya said...

There’s more. Shall we continue?

Republican Senator Bob Bennett of Utah trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying said, the addition of federal funds would maximize the stimulative effect on the local economy.

Republican Pat Tiberi of Ohio trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying it would support businesses and jobs.

Republican Mary Bono Mack trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in her home district by saying the funding will provide much needed assistance.

Republican Senator Mike Johanns of Nebraska trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home state by saying that just one proposed stimulus-funded project in Nebraska would create 38 new jobs.

Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home state by highlighting a project he says would create over 200 jobs in the first year, and at least another 40 new jobs in the following years.

Republican John Linder of Georgia trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying the employment opportunities created by this program would be quickly utilized.

Republican Mike Castle of Delaware trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by sending out press releases touting how imperative those funds were.

You want to see Mike Castle of Delaware handing out one of those giant checks? Yes, as if he hadn‘t actually voted to kill the money that‘s in that check. Mike Castle is running for senator from Delaware now, presumably on the platform of being a giant hypocrite.

Republican Eric Cantor not only trashed the stimulus and voted no on it, he coordinated the feat of having all House Republicans vote against it. Then he held a job fair in his home district at which nearly which half of the companies who were at the job fair because they were in a position to hire have received stimulus funds.

Even John Boehner, leader of the House Republicans, who has led the trashing of the stimulus and voted no on it and who bragged so enthusiastically on Republicans in the House all voting against it.
When it came to his home district, John Boehner praised the federal funding for shovel-ready projects that will create much needed jobs.

Republican Senator Jim Inhofe of denying-global-warming fame - he trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised the effect in his home state by saying it would help spur additional economic growth.

Republican Jack Kingston of Georgia trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying these funds should help save or create local jobs.

Republican John Carter of Texas trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying it was a victory for the economy in central Texas.

Republican Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying it would be great for employment in the area.

Shall I go on?

"Failed" and "Not one job" eh?

Dave Dubya said...

Then there was the stupid accusation Beck made about “reformed rabbis”.

The Jewish Week article quoted Beck:

“When you talk about rabbis, understand that most -- most people who are not Jewish don't understand that there are the Orthodox rabbis, and then there are the reformed rabbis. Reformed rabbis are generally political in nature. It's almost like Islam, radicalized Islam in a way, to where it is just -- radicalized Islam is less about religion than it is about politics. When you look at the reform Judaism, it is more about politics.”

One balanced comment said, “Didn't the LDS Church underwrite Prop 8? Isn't that a political act rather than a "faith." Is LDS the new radicalized Islam?” Can you say “hypocrite”, Glennie?

Beck later apologized and admitted, "I was wrong on this. I also apologize for it...I've always told you to do your own homework and in this case I didn't do enough homework.”

Imagine that! He didn’t do his homework. No kidding? Whodathunk?

Dave Dubya said...

I am curious, as well, about who the next hate-mongering propagandist will be at FOX(R).

For FOX(R) has a job to do, and it is not journalism.

Darrell Michaels said...

Dubya, Beck is a conservative guy. Do you expect him to cheer Bush for progressive actions? He called Republicans on the carpet when they were being inconsistent or acting like tax-and-spend Democrats. I understand why you think that isn’t balanced. What I don’t understand is why someone that always leans left, like Maddow, IS balanced in your eyes. Beck was being CONSISTENT.

Next, let me see if I understand your point. The fact that Soros as a boy actually helped deliver papers, confiscate Jewish property, and then helped ship Jews off (by Soros’ OWN ADMISSION) is racist when Beck makes note of it?

The fact that Beck said he understood that Soros probably did what he had to do simply to survive is evidently overlooked by those making the charge. The question Beck asks is why would any person of good conscience and character relate such a story publicly and not also mention that they had remorse or regret for having helped in such atrocities, even though he had no other choice as a boy? Is that an unreasonable standard to expect from the average person? I certainly don’t see how having human decency is “racist”.

Continuing onward, I appreciate your list of hypocritical Republicans. It is my opinion that each and every one of them should be targeted in the next GOP primary by real conservatives and summarily removed from office on the following general election accordingly. We managed to do so with our RINO Senator Bennett in Utah. I can’t help but think many of the others you mentioned will not also be challenged, as they well deserve.

Further, I suppose I should have been more precise. Yes, the stimulus did in fact create some jobs, BUT the overall net effect was likely quite negligible at the very best. Indeed, it probably would have been more effective to simply give the money directly to the poor and middle class that were out of work. If one is going to be foolish with Keynesian pump-priming, you might just as well eliminate the middle man and inefficiencies of the assorted government jobs programs, regulations, and red tape.

Next, I wasn’t aware that the LDS church underwrote prop 8. I know that they supported the measure as it was in line with that church’s teachings. The same was true of the Catholic Church and probably many other Christian and Muslim denominations. I don’t see that as hypocritical but rather consistent in living what one preaches.

What is hypocritical is something akin to Catholics supporting Planned Parenthood and pro-abortion legislators.

By the way, while I admittedly don’t watch Maddow, or O’Donnell, etc on a daily basis, I have not ever yet heard them apologize or admit when they were mistaken, especially when they really truly were. Beck at least has the credibility to admit when he was wrong or inaccurate. He leads off at the beginning of his show on the rare occasion when this happens, instead of burying it deep in the program. Too bad this isn’t an example followed very often, especially on the left.

Dave Dubya said...

I must admire your tenacity. Old buddy. I really do. You believe you are right and hold on to your beliefs religiously.

If churches want to influence our politics and government they should damn well pay taxes like I do, or respect Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state. Everything but “render unto Caesar” suits some of them, apparently.

You’d be amazed at how long that “list of hypocritical Republicans” is. It may just be longer than the list of hypocritical Democrats.

I’m happy you would also insist Maddow is as consistent as Beck, when she calls out Blue Dogs and even Obama when they fail to resist and challenge the Right. She understands Democrats are beholden to Big Money interests as well. You’d be amazed at a fact-check, and corrections, comparison between the two. There is documentable evidence that one is consistently more wrong than the other. I’ll let you look it up.

So you must believe Beck brought up Soros’ history as an act of compassion for the boy trapped in Nazi Europe. It couldn’t have possibly been used as a deliberate effort to slime someone he hates, right? You must also be utterly flabbergasted at the ADL for their outrageous and uncalled for condemnation of Beck. It looks like I need to spell it out for you again.

It was tasteless and malevolent enough for Beck to even bring up the story, but he lied as well. Did you read what the Anti-Defamation League director, and friend of FOX(R) boss Roger Ailes, Abe Foxman wrote? Beck said Soros helped ship Jews off to the camps, for God’s sake! “Here's a Jewish boy helping send the Jews to the death camps." Soros DID NOT DO THAT!

What kind of monster would make such a false accusation? And to think of how many deluded Americans revere this evil man, this servant of Mammon who reaps millions of dollars from a Right Wing political propaganda organization to spew such hate.

And his faithful true believers continue to revere, and glorify, and yes, even take inspiration to murder, from this man.

It is such insensitivity and hateful false beliefs, perpetuated by FOX(R) and the radical Right propaganda machine that are taking our nation down a dark path. That my friend is what is really destroying everything great about America.

Anonymous said...

If we are only getting left wing policies from the White House and left wing view points from the media then anything else is considered hate and destructive?
Me thinks that's what the left hates is that there are actually people who have other POV's of how to do things other than theirs.
They want it their way or no way.
But we have seen their way during the Carter admin and in other places such as Western Europe ,Greece,Sweden and possibly Venezuela.
And people don't like it and don't want it. And they have every right to reject it.
We don't need organizations like Media Matters monitoring people like a Chinese Government.

Dave Dubya said...

I gotta hand it to ya, that is the single biggest "If" I have ever seen in my entire life.

I'm so glad you clearly see the big picture and understand this mess we're in is all Carter's fault.

Darrell Michaels said...

Dubya, when it comes to tenacity and religiously holding on to one’s beliefs, I think we may be in the same category, my friend.

I am somewhat hesitant to even start down this path, but what the heck is the point of some churches if not to encourage one’s followers to live by certain moral dictates? One would hope those dictates aren’t something which they espouse only during their Sabbath at worship, but rather something they try to live their entire lives by, accordingly.

Next, you take the often miss-used quote of Jefferson’s to the Danbury Baptists regarding the “separation of church and state” to imply that its meaning is something he never intended.

Nearly all of the founders, Jefferson included, did not expect nor want a government and a society of faith that were mutually exclusive of each other and never the two to meet or overlap. (In fact there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.) What was wanted and expected by the founders is that there would not be a state religion. There would be no Anglican Church set up in America, as it was in England. That hardly meant that abiding by, and attempting to live a Christian or other faith in the execution of one’s government duties was frowned upon. Just read the history of the chaplains that congress and the founders had even way back then for proof of this, sir.

As for the list of hypocritical Republicans being longer than that of the Democrats, well… I haven’t counted, but it is not a bet I would place against you for sure! The remedy, though, is not to add more Democrats, but rather to get rid of more of the hypocrites.

As for Beck brining up Soros’ past as a boy, I am absolutely sure that he did it to provide context into Soros’ life. One doesn’t do evil, even if one had no choice in the matter, and not have remorse about it unless one is indeed evil or a sociopath. Beck has brought to light some exceptionally scary things that Soros has done or is trying to do in the world. He is not America’s friend, in my opinion. Pointing out those faults and his history are expected when one is trying to stop such a person.

I find it interesting that the left had no problem bringing up George Bush’s past with alcohol and even trying to falsify documents to show he was avoiding service in Viet Nam. Why would they do such a thing, I ask in mock surprise? They were trying to discredit him of course. The difference is that unlike Bush’s military service issues, Soros’ past as a boy was not fabricated. Indeed, he was the one that originally told the story.

And I realize in your semantics that Soros did not literally load Jews onto the trains for Auschwitz. I am sure that is not what Beck was saying or implying there. You are reaching on that one. That said, Soros helped, indeed as a matter of his own survival, a regime that was intent on dehumanizing, rounding up, and killing six million Jews though. THAT is the truth of the matter.

As for the rest of your statement, well I won’t even bother addressing that nonsense with a response… again.

Finally, it isn’t all Carter’s fault. It is all Bush’s fault. Just ask Reid, Pelosi, and Lord Obama.

Dave Dubya said...

I try to avoid holding beliefs without evidence. One of my beliefs is that a plutocracy of economic elites is the greatest threat to American democracy.

So because Beck did not literally say “load Jews onto the trains for Auschwitz” then it’s all peachy. The trouble is, Beck did literally say, “...confiscate their property and then ship them off.” And he continued to literally say, “Here's a Jewish boy helping send the Jews to the death camps." I’m afraid the ADL and many, many others would agree with me that the semantics problem is yours. It is nothing but character assassination against a person who happens to be of a minority, very much like “Obama is a racist with deep-seated hatred for white people”.

If you answer no other question of mine, please answer me this. How is Beck being “America’s friend” by saying such hateful things?

You are rationalizing for Beck, you know. Not once have you acknowledged the outrage from the ADL official, who happens to be a friend of Ailes. You cannot live in a world where only your standards and beliefs exist.

And speaking of personal beliefs, you correctly assert religion is “something they try to live their entire lives by”, but it is not an excuse to force one’s religious beliefs upon others through government. Like I say, if they want to tamper with public policy, let them pay taxes. We are already suffering as a nation because the economic elite have forced their agenda on the rest of us through government, often by entities that pay no taxes. Do you see where I’m at here?

Whatever you imagine Jefferson’s intent, it is abundantly clear that religion controlled by the state, as well as a state controlled by religion, is antithetical to freedom. We hold these truths to be self evident.

I also wish we could get rid of all of the hypocrites in our government, but it seems as if hypocrisy is what qualifies them for the job. All politicians claim to represent the people, but in fact, largely represent their wealthy campaign donors.

Documents or no documents, it is not a fabrication that Bush dodged Vietnam through Daddy’s influence in assigning him to the “Champaign unit”, only to go on and fail to serve his full term of service in the Guard. And Rather did not falsify any documents. He was defrauded, and failed to examine them closely. I have to wonder why you cannot accept that truth.

Perhaps because the truth is at odds with your beliefs?

Darrell Michaels said...

I won't even bother with most of your retort other than to say that I never claimed Dan Rather was the one that forged those documents.

He was guilty of sloppy journalism though, as a blogger discredited the veracity of them very quickly. Rather was duped because he wanted to believe such crap and because the documents supported his left-wing ideology. (Oh wait, I guess he is a corporate media type and has no ideology either, right?)

Dave Dubya said...

Your problem is your hatred for the messenger, for the Right MUST attack the reporter of information they don't like released. That doesn't channge the fact the message is true. Such "crap" is not ideology, but historical truth.

"I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
William Kristol, as reported by the New Yorker, 5/22/95

I'd be curious to know your version of Bush Jr.'s service. Maybe he's some kind of hero to your ideology after all.

Darrell Michaels said...

It annoys me that I have to defend Bush as much as I do. I don't do it because I admired him or agreed with all of his policies, especially his domestic spending policies, but because he has been unfairly maligned by the left and their allies in the media.

Bush was a pilot in the national guard. He didn't run overseas and write a letter expressing the fact that he "loathed the military" like Clinton did.

There is plenty of good reason to criticize Bush without fabricating crap like the left does.

Dave Dubya said...

You’re right. There is plenty of good reason to criticize Bush without fabricating crap. Bush has generated more crap than the Left, or anyone else, can possibly fabricate.

You defend Bush because you believe the Right Wing media when they say he is unfairly maligned by the left and their allies in the media. I’d never have time for anything else if I defended Obama from being unfairly maligned by the Right and their allies in the media.

And there is plenty of good reason to criticize Obama without fabricating crap like the Right does.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

You defend Bush because you believe the Right Wing media when they say he is unfairly maligned by the left and their allies in the media.

I don't need the anyone to tell me how Bush was treated in the media or what bias the media has. I saw it for myself, didn't you? Bush has pros and cons and media has various bias, fox to the right... pretty much everyone else to the left. The idea "the media" is right or left wing is frankly laughable. Its a case by case basis, but there it's obvious MSNBC's model is to be the antithisis of Fox and CNN tries (and fails) to be in the middle. The NY Times is clearly liberal and the Wall Street Journal is Conservative, at least fiscally. You can always spot the most unhinged leftist when he's so extreame he's to the left of almost ALL MSM and is crying about their "bias."

As for Beck, sometimes he's VERY RIGHT, but I mostly don't bother listening because frankly he's behind my power curve. He's where I was in logic back in like 2005. I've outgrown him.

He's not a racist, and the accusation is simply a typical leftist bomb thrown to silence it's critics. Anyone who disagrees with the left is used to being hit with said race card bomb. We actually joke about it with each other, as your side's predicability in its use is frankly comical.

If your side had any credability with the race card, it was long ago spent it's been so over used. Only yourselves take it seriously anymore. Ever wonder why, when your side shout's "Racist, racist" the country collectively yawns when once they took notice? You'ved cried wold far too often - just as you are now with Beck. Thats sort of sad because the media is largely liberal (though right of where you are which should tell you something) and the average American knows this. There are actual racists out there; But because of the liberal media's over play of the race card- ACTUAL racists can now slide under the radar because the population has become desensitised to the acusation after years of the left hurling it at anyone who opposes them... or the Democrat agenda.

Dave Dubya said...

Nice to see you.

I saw it for myself, didn't you?

I too, remember “how Bush was treated in the media or what bias the media has.”

I cannot tell a lie. I saw it for myself. The banner read, “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”.

I’m glad Beck is behind your power curve. But does that mean the president still has a deep seated hatred for white people?

free0352 said...

No, I think he has a deep seated hatred for RICH people... kinda funny since he is one... but a lot of you Dems have that probelm.

Dave Dubya said...

Yes, that is what the indoctrination of the radical Right wants everyone to believe. Maybe you cannot question the Right’s propaganda. Or maybe it is simply what you want to believe, and holding that belief gives you another excuse to hate liberals.

Personally I am fond of many rich people. I even willingly give them money by purchasing books, music, goods and services from them.

You think whatever you want to think, however incorrectly, but you clearly don’t know what I think. You think I’m a Dem and apparently think that I, along with Obama, have a deep seated hatred for rich people.

I wonder what would be the reasoning that brought you to that conclusion. Could it be our opinion that the rich should have the three percent tax cut restored? Or could it be the fact that the wealthy elite own our government and often dictate public policy for the benefit of their class alone? Is merely stating their obvious antagonism shown for 99% of Americans actual hatred? Perhaps it is the notion that maybe they should pay a little more because it was their tax cuts, their financial swindles, their military aggression for profit and political power, and the freedom killing war on drugs that have cost the rest of us dearly.

Their idea of “shared sacrifice” only applies to the little people, yet their wealth has exponentially grown from their dominance of our politics. They send our jobs overseas while major corporations pay zero income tax, all while their Right Wing henchmen say liberals hate America.

I don’t even hate those few greedy assholes who happen to be rich. I’m just not gullible or foolish enough to revere them or their wealth to the point of surrendering our government to them so they can impose a plutocratic dictatorship over the rest of us.

I can only surmise that you equate stating the truth with hatred.

free0352 said...

Personally I am fond of many rich people

We weren't talking about you, we were talking about Barak Obama and a lot of Democrats. Glad you aren't one of them. How come you want to over tax them if you're so fond? Isn't 50% enough?

As for their power or "ownership of government," as you put it; wouldn't reducing the size and power of government also in due course reduce the power you say the rich through their ownership have over government and therefore the people? Instead you seem to support a stronger government, which taxes more and holds greater regulatory authority. Doesn't that just hand power to the people whom you said - that the wealthy elite own our government and often dictate public policy for the benefit of their class alone?

I must admit, this is confusing. If the rich unfairly dominate government, why do you seek to increase their power through the state?

yet their wealth has exponentially grown

What's wrong with that? Isn't people making money a good thing?

They send our jobs overseas while major corporations pay zero income tax

And your answer to this is to regulate them more and tax them more. How is that course of action going to accomplish the goal of companies opening factories in the Unites States? Wouldn't it cause more of them to open factories in China or India and move themselves and their headquarters to the Caymans and pay no taxes and deal with no regulations at all? Why should they sacrifice when they don't have to?

We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, if raisning taxes on corporations is benificial for the country - why are we loosing jobs and GDP monthly?

Dave Dubya said...

I must say your convoluted reasoning and "flexible" use of words are something to behold. Your original words were “a lot of you Dems” that magically transformed into, “We weren't talking about you, we were talking about Barak Obama and a lot of Democrats.”

”wouldn't reducing the size and power of government also in due course reduce the power you say the rich through their ownership have over government and therefore the people?


What makes you think the government would act in the public interest if dominated by the moneyed elite? Corporate power would be unlimited by “quaint relics” like the Constitution. They would be above the law and unregulated. We’ve seen what happens then. Child labor, company stores, no safety regulations, corporate thugs snooping in on workers lives. History has shown us your gilded age of robber barons.

The Constitution specifically allows for regulation of commerce. Why do you seem to hate America’s Constitution as much as you revere wealth?

You know very well that the “highest corporate tax rate in the world” is utterly meaningless and not even close to reality. Many pay no taxes at all. Why do you think that three percent is “over taxing”? I’d settle for 40%. They now pay 35%. Somehow I think they will be all right. I swear I’ve never heard such spoiled crybabies! Wah! The evil socialists want their 3% back! Wah! I can’t survive that! Boo hoo.

So you must agree only the little people should sacrifice, since it is insufferably cruel to restore a measly few percent tax rate on your America-hating heroes.

free0352 said...

So you're found of rich people... you then go on to insult them in your last paragraph. Imagine my perplexion?

What makes you think the government would act in the public interest if dominated by the moneyed elite?

What would it matter if government is so small it doesn't make a difference? A government too small to control your life... it doesn't matter who runs it really.
But we don't have that kind of government, so I have to ask - has our government NOT been controlled by rich interests? What makes you think that would ever change? What would have to happen to change it? What's wrong with child labor? Aren't all stores owned by companies? Isn't it true that any system can be abused, no matter what it's intentions?

As for taxation, just because you can doesn't mean you should.
In fact, why not instead of taxing the rich since they are more productive, we do the opposite and tax the poor? There are certainly more of them. If this is morally repugnant, why is not equally morally repugnant to tax the rich disproportionately? Shouldn't our government treat people regardless of socioeconomic class equally?

Many pay no taxes at all.

Are you really suggesting that all corporations, to include small businesses with less than 100 employees pay zero or next to no taxes? Which is more likely, that GE and a handful of other's pay little taxes while most other companies suffer under the worlds highest tax burden or all companies pay little or nothing? Is that fair? Why if you want to raise their taxes should some companies be punished for doing nothing wrong for the "crimes" of other's like GE?

As for tax rates, individuals making over 250k pay on average 50% of their income, while the corporate tax rate is 35%. Both are very high rates of overall taxation, especially when you consider pay roll, capital gains and local taxes on top of them.

So you must agree only the little people should sacrifice

I don't think anyone should sacrifice. We still live in the richest country on the earth.... why would we need to sacrifice?

Dave Dubya said...

Perplexed? Only if you failed to comprehend the rich people I was referring to were the America-hating cry babies, not the majority of them.

It is interesting how you avoided answering my two questions completely, yet turned around to toss out a dozen or so of your own quite specious questions. Do you really expect me to answer them?

By doing that, you've just dead-ended our discussion.

Somebody's been making sacrifices lately, and none of them are the Republicans and aristocrats you revere so deeply.

Not that you’d care to notice.

free0352 said...

Do you really expect me to answer them?

Yes. You're the one making the argument here, not me. If you want to hear me make an argument, you can visit my blog.

I was referring to were the America-hating cry babies

So to clarify your point as best as I can understand it, the people who earned the money who don't want to give it away (Republicans/Libertarians) are unpatriotic cry babies, and the people who want it (Progressives, Democrats) who didn't earn it are sacrificing. What exactly are they sacrificing? It sounds to me like they're taking - and it sounds like you're running from this conversation because I'm punching some holes in your logic.

Dave Dubya said...

You're the one making the argument here, not me”

Oh, really? You’re lucky I am so amused by this; otherwise I wouldn’t bother with responding.

”No, I think he has a deep seated hatred for RICH people... kinda funny since he is one... but a lot of you Dems have that problem.”

As for Beck, sometimes he's VERY RIGHT.” And ”He's not a racist.”

Sure looks like you’re making several arguments to me. Yet you offer no evidence or reasoning for them. I provide numerous examples, including a condemnation from the ADL.

That’s ok, I’m quite used to Righties making their simple unsupported assertions while demanding their never ending calls for “explanation” and “clarification” from me.

Then there’s the favorite old Big Lie argument of the radical Right, “the media is largely liberal (though right of where you are which should tell you something)”

Yeah, I am to the left of corporate owned, commercial media. Imagine that. I guess I really am more of a centrist when put in that perspective.

Your “clarification” is a classic Right Wing tactic of distraction and muddying a discussion. “Don't want to give it away” and “want it” are examples of twisting my words on taxes. Taxes are not what anyone chooses to “give away”. “Give away”, “want” and “didn’t earn” were not my terms. They are yours. Specious questions and word twisting do not punch holes in logic.

Words become flexible beyond meaning to the Right, and intentionally so. "Death Panels", "Communist/Socialist", "liberal media". This list goes on... All is fair in service to the plutocratic aristocracy.

The Constitution provides the government power to tax and regulate commerce. You seem to hate that to the extreme, while you believe your revered anti-American greedheads should dominate our government, and not even pay taxes. Your contempt for democracy clearly shows as you prefer aristocrats have more power than a government of, by, and for the people.

Talk about those who “want it who didn’t earn it”.

That clearly makes your position un-American. You Righties fundamentally despise democracy as much as the communists you ridiculously accuse us of being. Liberals want democracy back in our government. Your authoritarian nature would seem to prefer fascism.

We still live in the richest country on the earth.... why would we need to sacrifice?

Oh, that’s right. To the Right mentality, “taxes” are the equivalent of sacrifice. And oppression. And punishment. I’ve listened to Rush, too, you know.

Your fanatical defense of the wealthy elite paired with your obliviousness, or utter disregard, for our crumbling infrastructure, for Americans who lost jobs, health care, homes, and lives all while living in the “richest country on the earth” says it all.

Maybe you should move to Russia. Their anti-democratic cut-throat dog-eat-dog system seems more to your liking.

free0352 said...

Firstly, I don't know why I have to clarify this on every one's blog over, and over again... but I'm not a Conservative AT ALL. When you support things like gay marriage, drug legalization, and a strong separation of church and state how well do you think I really fit into that mold? Sure I sound sort of like a Conservative when we talk about social programs or the funding of them like we are now, but I can't stand things like oil subsidy for big oil or Anti Trust protection for insurance companies, or a protectionist immigration policy... things they advocate. I'm in fact a dues paying member of the Libertarian Party. You're going to have to leave behind your Right/Left dynamic on this one, because I'm all over that spectrum - but one by and large consistant with my party's platform.

If you want an argument from me, it's very simple. Government always fails except for a very few things. That's my argument... for just about everything. Sure the private sector fails too... but it didn't have the power of the State so who cares? You're right, there are elites who control our government disproportionately from both the private and public sectors... I want to limit their power by taking away their primary tool... government authority. The primary problem most Americans face today is government over reach, take it away and they're better off.

The crux of my argument is; I think people can take care of themselves, provide for themselves, and make their own decisions much better than any regulatory agency or social welfare program ever could, and I think a person should be able to keep the vast majority of their property and money... because they have a fundamental right to do that. I don't think people have a fundamental responsibility to one another beyond immediate family. For example, I don't think the rich have any duty to "help" the poor... nor do I think the "poor" have any duty to the rich- and I certainly don't think Government has a duty to enforce a duty between either. People have a duty to themselves. Sacrifice in my world is a dirty word. Sacrifice implies giving "something" away be it time, money - whatever - and not getting anything in return. I think that sucks, especially when it's mandated by the State that said sacrifice must be done. That's not freedom and that's not prosperity and that's not happiness... that's serfdom, and there is no nobility in it.

free0352 said...

The Constitution provides the government power to tax and regulate commerce. You seem to hate that to the extreme, while you believe your revered anti-American greedheads should dominate our government

Yes, it does have that power - one I think is egregiously abused. I'm not an anarchist and I understand there must be some government and that has to be funded with taxes. I prefer a very limited government. One that provides courts so we can protect ourselves from criminals, and settle disputes between fellow citizens peacefully with fair rules. I think we need a national defense to protect us from other countries and groups like Al Qaeda. I don't mind paying for things like the State Department maintaining relations with other countries... that's pretty key, or even a CIA to give our military and diplomats timely intelligence. But beyond that, I think we're good. I don't think we need the federal government, I think we as people can do just fine on our own. Especially with the mechanics of state legislators who can do more if citizens want to in their own states. Its a very decentralized theory of government, contracted with the more top down central plan you advocate. That's not Russia, that's America mostly is, and that's how it will be again if by no other reason that George Bush and Barak Obama blew all our money.

Your fanatical defense of the wealthy elite

I defend all socio economic classes equally - you just don't see it that way I think because you seem to think firstly

A: Government has a duty to people who have less money than others


B: That should be funded by people who have a lot of money... or at least what you think is a lot of money.

I disagree. I think people should pay pretty much equally for government services they received by percentage... and that the current "progressive" method is harmful to people of all classes and counter productive not to mention frankly very inequitable.
I'm for equality under that law... um frankly you're not. You wouldn't argue that "the rich" should pay the same percentage of income as "the poor" would you? No, you wouldn't. That is inherently unequal. I think that runs contrary to American Democratic values and hurts more than helps.

So in short, I support a very weak government... much the opposite of fascism. Fascism is a government that controls EVERYTHING. That as a libertarian is my worst nightmare. However, with the unequal distribution of responsibility to the state of a relatively small class of people, the unequal application of our laws you advocate, the elevation of one class of people over another... that does look a little like Fascism, or perhaps a heavy handed socialism at the very least. That's not freedom, its dependency and state serfdom. It ends in misery, equal poverty for all, and dependency of the poor on the very elites you claim to dispise... elevating them to god like power.


Dave Dubya said...


I appreciate taking your time in explaining your views.

Thankfully you are obviously not a social conservative. It is unfortunate libertarians and progressives cannot join in their mutual defense of civil liberties and freedom from the moralist crusading Thought Police.

While you may understandably see government social programs that provide food and health care to the poor as unfairly preferential to the poor, I take a different view. I see this as a benefit to the country as a whole. These are primary needs of a society as well as individuals. A healthy and fed population is good for all of us, directly and indirectly. Public health is a legitimate government issue as you indicate so reasonably by your statement on antibiotics. A Center for Disease Control would probably be seen as a good thing by most as well. It is a mater of degree what people believe is best.

It is fair enough to disagree on where the responsibility lies, whether at the local, state or federal level. I happen to see a need for all three to various degrees. One thing is indisputable. The market alone does not care for the sick.

You mention equality. Socially there’s no such thing. It is, however, an ideal worth our striving, as much as we can practically attain. I’m speaking of education, opportunity and civil rights, not outcomes as alleged by Rightists. Government’s duty is to all the people. You see a partiality to the poor through the welfare state and I see enormous deference to the economic elite through a corrupt system of campaign funding, lobbying, and fox-in-the-henhouse regulatory agencies.

A civil and prosperous society should have public programs for those in need. And I would suggest having enough jobs for everyone as the best way to meet those needs. But our corporatist government and bought-and-paid-for politicians care less for our jobs than they do for campaign donations.