From Rasmussen:
…The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds that the generic Republican picks 48% of the vote, while the president gets 43% support. Three percent (3%) favor some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided…
It seems to me that as we have gotten deeper in to the budget and debt battle and have stood ever more firmly, we have been gaining an advantage over Obama and his Democrats. This is in keeping with the November results and with the general tenor of the American people – everyone is sick to death with business as usual. This slowly discovered GOP backbone is giving people something to be hopeful about.
Stand up; stand firm – no fear and no worries. We’ll win this fight if we just stick to our guns.
UPDATE: Gallup has the generic Republican up by 8, and Obama only getting 39%!
Blogs For Victory 
We’ll win this fight if we just stick to our guns.
GUNS???
and Bibles?
OOH you hate monger….LOL
next you will be saying we *target* our opponents, OHH the humanity!!!!!
and take *aim* at their political positions…..(.shrieks of horror)
OH wait…..
didnt the marxist – muslem usurper, tell his minions to bring GUNS to knife fights?
get in their faces?
who their ENEMIES (fellow Americans) are?
WTF??
PS
ment to say lassie could beat 0chimpy, and She is dead.
but still would be better than the POtuS that we now have.
This is a great poll. Wait until Rick Perry throws his hat in the ring. I follow politics pretty close, and from what I can see, Obama is holding the losing hand except with his hard core base. Americans are sick of the spending, the animosity, and wastefulness that is pervasive in Washington. I believe America wants to start over. That is why Obama was elected in the first place. Because people were tired of the Bush era. Obama however, has led with an iron fist, ignored the Constitution and the will of the People with not only Obamacare, but the GM bailout, his union affiliations, etc. I think that the American people are REALLY beginning to smell the stench from this administration.
Also, with more information coming out about Fast and Furious, etc. I believe he will be one and done. If, he even finishes his term. Think about this as well, how must the Democrat party feel having someone that is so toxic at the top? I would imagine they may be rethinking Obama as well. Time will tell.
Richie
I would imagine they may be rethinking Obama as well. Time will tell.
NEVER it is who they have become…….
hillary? WTF X1000
meet the new lightweight marxist, the same as the old lightweight marxist.
donk party = the party of hate, thieves, looters, murderers, atheists and sodomites.
dont expect anything more out of them.
The wheat is being separated from the chaff and it is glaringly obvious who the chaff is.
I suppose this explains why the President has raised 86 million dollars thus far. More money in the same time period than any other president since these records were kept. Additionally, this amount of money exceeds the total of all the current “Republican” candidates combined.
As far as this debunked, empirically false myth that the President is a Marxist, he isn’t even a liberal. He is a pragmatic centrist. Something that extremists can neither tolerate nor understand.
This blog has been around for ~ 8 yrs and it has yet to widen it’s appeal. The same sorry handful of angry and resentful people yelling at clouds. Don’t you ever get bored with the same old echo chamber?
mitch,
Do you think there is any correlation between the tens of millions of dollars from the stimulus that went to union coffers, and the subsequent campaign contributions now going to Obama’s campaign? Have you connected those dots sport?
Pragmatic centrist? Really? Is that why Obama has taken every pet project of his over the last two years off the negotiating table in terms of debt reduction? And how about the absence of a budget since Obama has been in office? Is that pragmatic in your opinion?
Let’s take a quick look at the definitions in the Mitchionary, shall we?
debunked : Something with which Mitch disagrees and wants to be disproved.
empirical Something Mitch wants to be true
liberal </i. As usual, undefined and vague. Perhaps Mitch will be willing to provide a definition for us.
Marxist Having no relationship whatsoever to redistribution of wealth, large and powerful government, or confiscation of private property
pragmatic Locked into a specific agenda
centrist Right down the middle of radical Leftist ideology
extremist One who believes the United States should be governed according to its written rule of law, the Constitution
Your arrogant presumptions are breath-taking and your comprehension of etymology is remedial.
“As far as this debunked, empirically false myth that the President is a Marxist”
Not around here, where facts and reality hold no sway. Just look at Amazona and her alterna-dictionary (and alterna-reality)for picture-perfect proof. “Obama is a Marxist” is an absolute article of faith–it’s true to them because they believe it’s true, and facts have precisely zero to do with it–and if you don’t believe it, then you are, at best, very suspect. Remember that to step into the world of the wingnut is to step through the looking glass.
It is an exercise in futility to have a fact based discussion with people who are incapable of differentiating between empirical reality and fantasy based opinion.
So it is your opinion that unions are inherently evil? And therefore it is those unions who made these contributions? If so, this is complete conjecture on your part. You have not provided one shred of evidence to back up your claim other than to imply that I am misinformed by calling me “sport”.
As far as the debt, I seem to recall the phrase “deficits don’t matter”. (Not that I am conflating a deficit with debt, but just to make the point.) Furthermore, our country would not be facing this crisis if the 2 wars of the past 10 yrs weren’t paid for by putting the expense on a credit card and lowering tax rates at the same time. It wouldn’t be so severe if large and obscenely profitable corporations were not only subsidized by the taxpayer, but pay little if any taxes at all.
And if you want more evidence of the popularity of your political / social / economic views, look no further than Scott Walker, Rick Scott, Chris Christe, the special election in NY a few months back, California yesterday or the fact that every single one of the fake democrats running in WI lost. Look at the recalls in that state and in AZ. Look at the fact the the current “leadership” of congressional Republicans would rather sacrifice good governance for ideological purity and now they have been put in a box by a centrist President who isn’t whining about who set the house on fire, he understands how imperative it is to put it out. Even if that means undermining his own presidency. He is doing it for the good of the country.
People who think like you remind me of Lt. Calley and his excuse for Mi Lia. “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”
What a load of bull. All you have to do is type this in a search engine…union contributions to obama… you will get enough reading to last for quite awhile.
The average tax payer is being forced to finace the bams machine wheater we want to or not.
Lenin, stalin,hitler,mao,pot,name any leftist dictator thug you want. They all did it “for the good” of thier country.
So it is your opinion that unions are inherently evil? – mitch
Mitch,
Please don’t lecture anyone on reality, when you make statements like this. No where in my post was this even mention or even implied, yet that doesn’t stop you from throwing up the strawman and taking swings at it.
Mitch, what is it about you Lefty trolls and your misstating of what other people have said? (What we call ‘lying’.)
No one ever said that unions are inherently evil. On this blog, many of us, including me, have commented that unions have a place in the American workforce.
Recall the phrase “deficits don’t matter” all you like. Recall it twice on Sunday if that floats your boat. The fact is, the claim that Cheney made this comment is wholly unsubstantiated.
Pretend, while you are off on the sunny shores of Planet Mitch, that the current economic crisis is really due to those “unpaid wars”. That has to be far more appealing than the truth, than an actual admission that the housing crisis and lending crisis, so intertwined as to be inseparable, both go back to the foolish social engineering experiments of the Left and the meddling in sound business practices by a government hell-bent on forcing the entire housing and lending industries into socialist contortions.
If anyone is “sacrificing good governance for ideological purity” is is the Leftists who are destroying the economy while they try to prove that the economic policies of the Left, which have never in history led to anything but economic misery, are for some magical reason going to work this time if we just keep pretending that the best way to get out of debt is to borrow more.
You are quite correct. The President is not (yet) “whining about who set the house on fire”. So far he is just whining about who drove the economy into the ditch. If he even realizes the house is on fire, his ‘solution’, based on his ‘solutions’ so far, will be to put it by pouring gasoline on it. (Gasoline imported from Brazil, of course.)
Are you sure Calley said that? Or is it yet another of the lies/fantasies that form the foundation of what you seem to think is a political position. The thing is, you need to be more careful of what you post in an effort to be snide toward conservatives, as all we have seen since Obama’s inauguration has been an attitude of believing the Left needs to destroy the nation in order to save it. Barry himself has stated a desire to “fundamentally transform” the nation.
The Right is trying to keep the country on the only path that has ever led to the personal liberties and economic prosperity we have enjoyed in the past. We don’t want to “transform”, we want to “preserve”.
BTW, what IS your political position? From your posts, it seems to be based on nothing more than admiration for a man. Do you have a coherent political philosophy that goes any deeper than the superficial tabloid-level pseudo-politics you hint at here?
Yes I do.
“Yes I do.”
Yet you refuse to explain it, refuse to admit to it, refuse to use it to support the petty superficial sniping you do on this blog.
Conservatives routinely explain their political philosophy, the actual blueprint for governing this country that they believe is best.
We are quite candid about our political philosophy, and never find the need to hide it or avoid questions about it.
We believe that the political model outlined, explained and codified into law by the Constitution of the United States is not only the best possible political system for this nation, it is the only legal one.
There…that wasn’t so hard, was it?
If you share this political philosophy, this belief, then you are a conservative and object to the erosions of Constitutional law, the undermining of the basic tenets of government set out so clearly by the Founding Fathers, and the ongoing applications of programs and policies which are in direct contradiction to the Constitution.
If you believe that the programs and policies which conservatives find objectionable are really the better way to govern the nation, then your political philosophy is not one based on the Constitution.
So what is it?
“the fact that every single one of the fake democrats running in WI lost”
Funny how that whole saga–the fact that a bunch of Republicans risk being recalled, the fact that the GOP is so terrified of this that they’re doing everything they can to gum up the process–never gets mentioned in the hilarious recitations of “WI GOP is doing the will of the people!” that passes for thought around here. Gee, I wonder why they’d want to avoid discussing that. Or avoid discussing Rick Scott’s abysmal performance. And so on.
And there goes Monty again, obsessing about people and events and completely dodging the question of which political system he believes in and supports, how it should or should not be applied here, and how it would improve Wisconsin, or the U.S. for that matter.
No, Monty’s perception of politics is limited to what he can ridicule and attack about PEOPLE.
So sorry that bringing up reality makes you so very, very uncomfortable, Amazona. But you can’t hide from it forever, you know?
But just for fun, why do you think the WI GOP is doing everything it can to avoid a recall, hmmm? Why did the WI GOP try to run false Democrats in the Democratic primary? Isn’t that the sort of thing that you claim only “the left” does and the right would never stoop to? Is the WI GOP afraid that it has overstepped?
And why do you think Rick Scott has been reduced to creating a boilerplate letter to the editor for minions to click on–could it be at all due to the fact that he’s been a horrendous governor? And why would you expect a criminal to be a good governor anyway?
Don’t be cowardly, now, Amazona. Discuss these political issues. You pretend to care about the issues, right? But it’s just that: Pretend. As you are no doubt about to showcase. Let me just get an umbrella handy in preparation for the spittle that’ll come flying with your forthcoming tirade.
No, Monty, what you are trying to do is set up a quarrel about some EVENTS.
You have to start at the beginning, you see: What is the correct way to run the COUNTRY? You are trying to stir up a little fuss over what is going on in a STATE—furthermore, a state far from my own, and based on incomplete information gleaned from biased media.
Yeah, I do care about “issues”. But I care more about the foundation of our nation’s governing system. Issues are what are built upon that foundation.
Any system is going to have abuses, mistakes, and wrong turns. We will be electing our representatives from the human gene pool so we are guaranteed to have imperfect people elected.
As I have said before, I think of this blog as a national forum. I personally tend to opine on matters of national government.
As for your sad silly effort to shift the discussion to an area where you seem to think you have stockpiled a lot of ammunition, why not go back to the foundation of the government of that state?
Does its Constitution allow the things you claim happened? If not, then what you claim happened was a violation of the laws of the state, and should be treated as such. If they did not happen, then there is an active propaganda machine in play. But the question is not what happened but what was supposed to happen according to the laws of the state and the blueprint for its governance.
You guys are always just on the surface, darting here and there after every shiny thing that catches your eye, but totally ignoring the foundation of the system under which the event occurs.
The structure is simple.
First you study the available political models you can choose from. You make a preliminary choice based on what seems to you to be the most likely to produce the outcome you want. Then you look at the success/failure rate of these systems when they have been applied.
When you feel confident that you are ready to commit to a specific political model, or system, then you try to elect the people who are most likely to put that system into play and make it work. The system will dictate the issues. For example, if you, like me, choose the American Constitutional system, then every issue connected with anything that is not an enumerated duty of the federal government is a state, local or personal issue.
Abortion? Not addressed in the Constitution, so it is a state issue. Health care? Ditto. Gay “marriage”? The same. Education? Yep.
So what issues are left at the national level, if you support this system? National defense, international diplomacy, etc.
If your choice is not the same as mine, your issues will be different, because you will want things like abortion, education, health care, and so on dealt with at the national level. You will not want to be constrained by our Constitution. If you are in favor of a collectivist, redistributionist political model you will be in conflict with the American Constitutional model at every turn.
But you don”t seem to think it is of interest, or value, to understand that conflict.
If someone screws up, you don’t junk the system—not if you think it is the right one, not if its overall history shows an acceptable success rate. No, you look at the failure as a human failure that happened IN SPITE of the good underlying system.
If the failure is the result of a defect in the system, you have to decide if you want to modify the system or switch to the other one. But if your commitment to a certain system, based on your research and your subsequent belief, is unchanged, then an event is just a signal that you chose the wrong people to enact it.
Which is why, if you don’t have that underlying foundation of a coherent political philosophy you will always be bouncing around from one personality to another, one scandal to another, always be at the mercy of the sources of your “information” because they will know you are easily manipulated due to the emotional basis for your political allegiance.
Good thing I had that umbrella handy. You just let me know when you’re going to finally quit ducking and spraying, OK?
My guess is that you never will, though.
By a wide margin, more Americans blame former President George W. Bush for the national economic outlook than they do President Barack Obama, according to a new poll.
Numbers out of Quinnipiac University Thursday morning indicated that 54 percent of Americans say Bush is to blame for exploding the federal deficit and swelling unemployment, whereas just 27 percent believe it is President Obama’s fault.
Those figures are bad news for Republicans, who are hoping to hang the nation’s poor economic state around the president to defeat him in 2012.
Sure it is. Thats why bams approval polls keep tanking and mr/mrs generic keeps beeting bams in the polls. Nice try though.
By a wide margin, more Americans blame former President George W. Bush for the national economic outlook than they do President Barack Obama, according to a new poll.
Then they should not vote for Bush.
The figures quoted serve only to illustrate the success of the Complicit Agenda Media in promoting the Liberal agenda.
Let’s see what happens as the economy tanks ever further and the election cycle results in actual facts and figures being presented to the public.
actual facts and figures being presented to the public
And this is exactly why Pelosi, and now the Harry Reid Senate has refused to put forth a budget in over two years. But that’s probably Bush’s fault.
It’s also why they are so insistent on passing the bizarrely-misnamed “Fairness Doctrine”—they need absolute control over the media, so they can control what is fed to the public.
Truth, to the Left, is what is toxic.
“It’s also why they are so insistent on passing the bizarrely-misnamed “Fairness Doctrine””
Yeah, uh, that’s only happening in your imagination. But keep up the paranoia!
Green Mountain equivocates despots, totalitarians and mass murderers with Obama. The only killing that I know of that he is responsible for is Bin Laden. And good for him. Mission Accomplished indeed.
Green Mountain seems to be just another pathetically misinformed and angry authoritarian. Probably steeped in Dominionism as well. The resentment you suffer from G.M boy, will never subside and the populists whom you favor are nothing more than shameful, superficial opportunists who exploit the fears and ignorance of the congenitally misinformed. It is very easy to pit one tribe against an other. What’s hard is to bring people together. That is why the current crop of populist spokespeople do nothing but cultivate divisiveness and hurl unfounded accusations. Because it’s easy. And because of that character flaw and lack of intellectual prowess the President will be elected to a 2nd term. Despite your histrionic predictions.
I equuivocate bams with despots? Sure I do. That is the kind of power he wants. He has said so himself. So your point is? Resentment? Ha I have no resentment towards anyone but proving that is next to impossible to a person like you. Pit one tribe against another? Right out of the donkrat playbook. Rules for radicals. Ever read it? I have. The donks have been trying to pit one class of americans against another since jan 1913.
Unfounded accusations? Care to provide any examaples?
Intellectual prowess? LOLzer dont make me laugh so hard this early in the day. If you libbies were one tenth as smart as you thought you were, whats the point? You are a victim of your own accusations. You just do not know it.
“I equuivocate bams with despots? Sure I do. That is the kind of power he wants. He has said so himself” GMBoy
Can you provide actual proof that President Obama actually said such a thing?
“Right out of the donkrat playbook. Rules for radicals. Ever read it? I have.” GMBoy
I would like to read this play book. Can you provide the name of the book and where I can obtain a copy?
If what you said in these two statements are true I will change party affiliation before the next election. I do remember that Bush once said it would be easier if he were king instead of president, but I think he was just kidding. If you cannot respond to my questions with definative answers then you are just BSing.
Here GMB, this is an example confirmed by Harry Reid.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20029715-503544.html
He is doing it for the good of the country. – mitch
I am loving mitch this morning, he’s just completely invested in the rheotric, be damned with the actual results. Mitch states that Obama is trying to put the fire out, the only problem is Obama, because of his lack of experience and complete incompetence, is throwing gas on the fire and has increased the debt, the deficit, unemployment and division across the country. But actual results don’t matter to someone like Mitch. The only thing that matters to mitch is intent and rhetoric – Obama’s soothing words make him feel better, and he gets to be accepted by hating rich people. It’s a win-win for mitch.
I have a net worth of ~2.5 million dollars. I don’t hate “rich” people, but I despise the small minded and mentally atrophied. The myth of the supposed hero worship of Saul Alinsky by Obama and Hillary is worn, tired and demonstrably false. Give it up, it only makes you look more foolish. I suppose you still think he isn’t a citizen and that $arah Payme is qualified to be a national leader.
The intellectual development of this site hasn’t progressed in 8 yrs. It’s just gotten smaller and more toxic.
“I have a net worth of ~2.5 million dollars.” Prove it!!!!!!
“The intellectual development of this site hasn’t progressed in 8 yrs. It’s just gotten smaller and more toxic.”
Then why are you here? To show us neanderthals the errors of our ways?
Good luck with that.
Mother jones is calling you home.
Now lecturing us on toxicity, after a post filled with ridicule and scorn. You’re a hell of guy mitch. Hillary did her college dissertation on Alinsky, and that’s demonstrably true, just FYI
Back to the Mitchionary:
mentally atrophied People who base political decisions on actual politics instead of personality
demonstrably false Proved and supported by ample evidence.
$arah Payme Example of inane juvenile effort to prove someone else inferior by the use of inferior reasoning and spite and malice
“The intellectual development of this site hasn’t progressed in 8 yrs. It’s just gotten smaller and more toxic.”
It’s like a microcosm of the GOP.
Yet the ‘toxic’ element seen on this blog comes from the Left.
Hmmmm
Without the Lefty trolls obsessed with coming here to spew their irrational loathing of a system they don’t even understand, and of people they understand even less, this blog would be a place of actual political discussion.
That is, of discussion of policy based on actual POLITICS instead of on personality, which seems to be the primary content of Lefty posts. Read what they have to say. It is all about Bush, and surly resentment that Sarah Palin makes a lot of money, and who is the bigger pervert, and so on. They do occasionally slip in a distorted reference to an event, which they then try to use to malign the person they decide was responsible for it.
But never, EVER, an explanation for why one system of governance is supposedly better than another. Never a defense of an actual political model, just sniping at people and events,
What could be funnier than seeing a whole thread dominated by nonstop insults and name calling by mitch and monty, and then a whimper from the primary source of this attack mode content that the blog is sooooooooo toxic.
It’s like a skunk complaining about the smell.
If what you said in these two statements are true I will change party affiliation before the next election. – franklymydear
Please don’t join the conservative ranks. I would hate to be associated with such an intellectual lightweight. BTW, the book is called Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky. One of Obama’s and Hillary’s heroes. I am surprised you haven’t heard of it, but then again maybe not.
Green Mountain challenged my net worth. Is a brokerage statement OK?
Who WOULD believe anything you say when your posts are so full of lies?
But more to the point—what IS your point? Are you, like most of the RRL, judging people based on income or net worth, as well as occupation, zip code, or other criteria you guys seem to find so compelling?
Earlier this week one of your fellow trolls kept repeating the lie that I had claimed to be a millionaire. I wonder how he will react to someone actually doing that very thing.
“Are you, like most of the RRL, judging people based on income or net worth, as well as occupation, zip code, or other criteria you guys seem to find so compelling?”
You just described cluster, not this imaginary “RRL” you love to froth about.
Sure, if you can prove it’s yours and prove it’s real. I am the King of Siam, a Satanist Archbishop, A dues paying member of the Bilderburgrers, and a Field Marshall in the Chadian Army. I have documentation to prove each one.
Hmmmm….Just how intellectual are you now?
The Title of the book…..Rules for Radicals.
Author of the book….. Saul Alinski
Where this book can be bought…any book store
I would for you also recomend, Das Kapital and comminist manifesto both by Karl Marx.
Also Mao’s Little Red Book. Lots of garbage in all these book.
Should fit you nicely mr “intellectual” LOLzer
Now,now, now, cluster and GMB….we all know that mitch and frank are not going to waste any time doing any actual research into actual POLITICS.
These are people attracted to the Left by its reliance on and nurturing of irrational hyper-emotional hatreds, resentments and envy. The actual stuff of REAL politics is not only far above their heads, it is of no interest.
These are tabloid politics people. To them, politics is nothing more than personality, scandal and isolated events taken out of context and redefined by their minders so they can be told what they are supposed to think. These are people whose need to wallow in negativity and express irrational hatred trumps everything else. To them, politics is The Glory That Is Obama and the Awfulness That Is The Right—–totally superficial, totally fact-deficient and totally indifferent to being fact-deficient.
Mitch actually denies that Hillary and Barry admired Alinsky. Looks like ol’ Mitch has’t been paying much attention, doesn’t it? Hillary wrote her thesis on Alinksy (and then threatened to sue the university of it was republished) and Barry, in his own books, stated his admiration for Alinksy.
But then, why should truth, reality or fact ever intrude on a Mitch screed? They haven’t so far. He has his own truth, and his own definitions, and the vitriol that define him as a person is amply illustrated by those definitions.
So when has cluster ridiculed anyone for where he or she lives, or for his or her occupation?
When has cluster bragged about having more money than someone else?
Was it cluster who has repeatedly tried to insult me by dismissing my occupation or my place of residence? I don’t think so.
No, those realms of bigotry belong to the toxic trolls of pseudo-political attack-mode blog vandalism.
“When has cluster bragged about having more money than someone else?”
Constantly. It’s a pretty pathetic thing, as he so desperately wants to be a country club Republican (and he’s most likely lying about his income anyway), but he’s fond of saying, “I pay more in taxes in a year than you make in a year” as a means of asserting some sort of imagined superiority. Google it if you’re not too lazy.
And so on it goes with cluster talking down others’ occupations (especially union members, whom he considers to be useless), the states they live in, etc. It’s like he strives to be Judge Smails, but he can’t even do that right. But his little outbursts do rather handily undercut your snottiness, so there’s that.
Union member is an occupation? Endlich a lefty admits it!!
Constantly huh? I do pay a lot in taxes, and have made that comment before, but that is directed at someone who challenged me for not paying my “fair share” – as if it is their place to determine that.
Other than that, I have never denigrated anyones occupation. I would ask you to stop lying, but I believe that is a character flaw of yours and probably not entirely under your control
I was surprised as well to learn that I judge people by where they live, occupation, or net worth. News to me. But making things up seems to SOP for Monty.
Well, I don’t expect you to be honest about it, cluster–especially not when being honest about it would make Amazona collateral damage.
Also, some reading comprehension would do you well, GMB: “Union member” is not an occupation, but when cluster is denigrating people’s employment, he heaps extra scorn on those who also are union members, whom he considers to be worthless.
“I equuivocate bams with despots? Sure I do. That is the kind of power he wants. He has said so himself” GMBoy
Can you provide actual proof that President Obama actually said such a thing?
Hey Boy, you still did not answer this question.
So Boy, apparently any book written by a “left” radical is a playbook for Democrats? What an intelligent answer. With that kind of rational thinking I guess any writings by a far right wing nut cake would then be the playbook for the Republican Party? There are also right wing radicals especially when they bring religion into the mix.
Will someone please tell frank the Rule of Holes?
Hint: It has something to do with, when finding yourself in hole, you should stop digging.
Every post of yours digs you deeper and deeper into a hole of utter silliness, pettiness, and proof of your inability to have a real discussion.
And now you drag in your religious bigotry.
You will never be able to convince anyone here that you are anything but worthless, but at least you can stop trying to convince us.
amy,
if you follow your own rule, you’d be halfway to china.
by the way, how did the stalking work out for you? or how are your millionaire friends doing? how is your net worth these days…still in the millionaire status?
Oh, yeah, now that you have become the arbiter of fact and made me a millionaire by constantly saying that I am, I am quite enjoying the novelty.
I guess you missed my post about hooking up the Mercedes to go plow the north 40.
Since you have also decreed that “farming” and “ranching” are one and the same, I am calling a meeting of my Forbes buddies at the club so I can explain that they have now become “farmers”—-and that this means they are scorned by the rabidly radical Left.
They’ll be devastated. We may have to order a couple of magnums of bubbly to get over it.
Guess I need to start spending more time at my million-dollar lakefront resort area house in Colorado, now that I have been outed as being rich. Fortunately the renovation on the million-dollar Denver house will be finished by winter, so I can spend the snowier months in luxury there.
It’s just such a hassle, hauling around all the bling from one house to another. Guess I’ll just have to duplicate—no, triplicate—-the jewelry to make my life easier, eh?
Servants—no prob. I just hire a few illegals, pay them 10 cents an hour, and fire them when I move on.
Boy? and again Boy? What are you trying to accomplish? You are childish. This “Boy” has not attacked you personaly at all. This is what lefties always end up doing. The personal attack is thier supreme response to anything.
Sorry fella does not work at all.
Do a little research on your messiah and find out what he said himself.
GMBoy, you are the one making the accusation. Therefore, you need to be the one to man up and prove it. Otherwise, you are just a boy. After all, that is what you use in your name. If you are going to make extremely derogatory remarks about others expect it to come back to you. Granted, you are not as hateful as Amazona, but no one here is that hateful. And you are not as stupid as Neocon, but again, no one here is that stupid. Just provide proof that Obama actually said what claim he said or admit you made it up and could even say that is what you believe he would like to do, but don’t make a claim that he actually spoke such words if you cannot provide the evidence.
How to put this right? Without being a snot about it.
Do your own research. Bams said exactly what I stated he said. Hint: Hu’s state visit to the U.S.A.
You have no idea what a “Green Mountain Boy” is. Try reaserching that too.
And again you go insulting Amazona and Neo. Like I said personal attacks are a libbie specialty.
And finally, frankly my dear. I do not give a damn what you say or think. 🙂
GMB,
Franklymydear is just Vandregg in drag. Unless you just love circular arguments with stupid, she really isn’t worth responding to.
Spook,
once again you try and bail someone out by telling them to ignore the valid questions that were posed.
Seriously, either you are tryin to stand up for a fellow poster who is intellectually incapable of defending himself, or you’re just another one of those fakers who runs and hides when someone calls them out on their “facts”
which is it.
Maybe it is time you started acting like a man if you don’t like being called out on the blatent lies you post. And if frankly you don’t give a damn, then stop posting garbage that you will get called out on.
And a fine “mahok” to you to Jeff.
LOLzer
dodge dodge dodge. can’t address the issues posed to you huh green? dodge away oldtimer.
he can’t provide any proof.
Green is a simpleton. He thinks that all evil historical characters were leftist. He thinks that the President isn’t eligible to be the President. He also thinks that Obama has an evil secret plan to be in power forever and that he ignores the constitution.
It’s the typical deranged ramblings of a angry, sad middle aged white male.
Back to the insults huh? Oh well…welcome back Thomas. As far providing proof. Again, I do not care if you belive me or not. IF you are truly interested in the subject at hand, you will find out the truth yourself.
Evil secret plan? LOL. Bams has no secret plan, It is right out in the open. No need to go look for it.
Hows that research from the Bundesarchiv going? Found anything yet?
One more question…How come all the name changes? Don’t know who you are yet?
Green,
typical response from someone who can’t prove their position or back it up.
“I don’t care if you believe me or not!”
Seriously, how old are you? Also, what’s out in the open? you listen to Rush, Hannity, Beck and other idiots who are making millions off of you and you then come here and take an intellectual dump and claim it’s the truth. Yeahh….that’s very believable!
Also, what research are you talking about? I never said I would do any research for you you fool.
And I didn’t change my name at all. I am Thomas Grueneberg. I simply changed my screen name to make it shorter.
Nice try at a childish insult. It seems to me that you don’t know who the hell you are. But then again, you also think Hitler was a leftist right? Ha.
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” A. Hitler
His own words. It reads and sounds harsher in german but you know that already?
Thomas, please stop and think for a minute. Take a deep breath and relax.
I never asked you to do any research for me. That was from another discussionwhere I refused to provide you proof.
Wasn’t meant as insult. Was just a question.
Fool?? LOL Thats the nicest thing you ever called me. Got any more?? 🙂
The leftists here sure have taken this thread deep into the weeds and off of the subject, haven’t they? From personal attacks, to lying, to religious bigotry, the left will do anything to deflect attention away from their failed President, and failed ideology.
Nothing to see here folks
Cluster,
off topic is when neoconehead posts the same copied and pasted bs over and over again regardless of the thread.
off topic is when amy the deranged talks about her forbes friends and her wealth in wyoming.
off topic is when you constantly refuse to answer questions and continue to post outdated old talking points.
give me a break, maybe if you’d admit you’re wrong when you are, you’d have more respect….but let me guess, you don’t care about respect from anyone other than the wingnuts you associate with.
typical.
What am I wrong on sport?
LYING is the constant repetition of something that was never said, and which has been rebutted every time it has been brought up.
Forget that I have never, ever, said I have FRIENDS who appear in Forbes. Forget that I have never, ever, claimed to be wealthy.
What is important here is the absolute freak-out of tommy about the very POSSIBILITY that I might be wealthy, or have rich and powerful friends. What is significant is that tommy has latched onto this fantasy of his, because it definitely says something about tommy.
I think it goes back to that surly resentment of the loser for anyone who has achieved anything, accomplished anything, or attained anything of value. I think it is a snapshot of the typical Liberal troll—-totally ignorant of the ideology of the model he supports and enables, but easily recruited to be a mindless tool because of his preference to hate the productive and happy instead of aspiring to be one.
And if you ever want to see an example of a mindless tool, tommy is quite happy to keep posting here so you can get a good look at him.
I know that President Obama is terribly unpopular and his numbers are dropping drastically.
MADISON, Wis. — A poll released Thursday shows half of Wisconsin residents approve of the job President Barack Obama is doing, nearly unchanged from a year ago amid an ongoing stalemate over the national debt crisis and after the recent killing of Osama bin Laden.
Other political news of note
AP Obama-GOP debt talks get tense at White House
Tensions hit the boiling point at a White House summit on the debt ceiling, ending with an exchange between President Barack Obama and Rep. Eric Cantor.
Giuliani heads to N.H. to explore presidential bid Obama raises $86 million — far more than GOP Can order emerge from chaos on the debt deal? NYT: No-tax debt deal? Most in poll say otherwise The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Badger Poll offers a glimpse at how residents in one of the most polarized states in the U.S. are leaning as Obama heads toward his re-election campaign in 2012. Wisconsin, which has 10 electoral votes, has been divided in recent months over Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s collective bargaining proposal, which generated massive protests and prompted historic recall efforts against nine state senators.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43755129/ns/politics/
I know someone is going to say “What is your point.”
franklymydear,
You never do have any points, so I don’t expect anyone to ask that from you.
One of the ways in which pathological denial is expressed is by holding in contempt any evidence that runs contrary to what the victim of the disease wants to believe. Hence the employment of the word “lies” which is intended to discredit fact based reality. A perfect example of this phenomena are such easily refuted concepts as “Obama is a Marxist, socialist, ice-creme lover, etc”.
1st off, I suppose that taxes can be described in very misleading terms as a redistribution of wealth but to imply that the government; led in a covert effort to steal money from peoples wallets is laughably pathetic and wild-eyed ignorant. Talk about “lies”.
As far as “socialism”, the next time you want to go to a public park, be it national, state or local change your mind in protest. If you need a policeman or a fireman I suggest you take care of the problem yourselves. If your concerned about any kind of standards in food, or building codes or interest rate charges don’t be. Just continue to believe in some sort of Randian nightmare-utopia where people who fundementally don’t believe in government actually admit that they can’t govern. Nor are they interested.
But go ahead and enjoy a big bowl of ice creme. You’d probably like it better if Obama wasn’t the President.
And, BTW, did I mention he killed Bin Laden??
mitch,
Socialism is NOT funding for parks, police, or infrastructure. Socialism is the government managing the private sector and redistributing wealth via government entitlement programs, ie: health care. Even Howard Dean admitted that UHC is redistribution of wealth. Do a little more research on socialism before posting again, k?
Also opposing socialism is not the equivalent to advocating the absence of government, just FYI
Cluster,
on the contrary, most arch conservatives who want to leave everything up to the states because that’s what the constitution says are completely taking things out of context.
thus, when you say that you don’t want the IRS, or the EPA, or the DOE you are advocating for a light version of anarchism.
Why do you think Southern states in the Union are categorically poorer and less educated than the rest of the nation? Is it because of their people? or perhaps its due to the LACK of government?
you have routinely made this argument that redistribution of wealth is bad and evil…when in reality, every CENT that we pay in taxes somehow is redistributed to something else. That’s the very definition of living in a civil society with a tax system.
Also, if howard dean said that the GOP is evil, would you follow suit? You can’t cherry pick someone’s statements that you like.
That’s a hell of rant thomas102.
thus, when you say that you don’t want the IRS, or the EPA, or the DOE you are advocating for a light version of anarchism
Loved this line. Evidently thomas equates opposing inefficient government bureaucracies to anarchy – that’s hilarious. Have you ever looked into the worthiness of say the DOE? Have you ever scrutinized the scope of their responsibilities and correlated it to the money the department requires to determine if it is a worthy venture? Or do you just scream from the mountaintop that anyone in opposition to said department advocates anarchy?
And again, redistribution of wealth is not my tax dollar going to pay for public parks, or police protection. That is not at all what conservatives oppose, but that doesn’t stop brain-dead liberals like you bringing that up time after time now does it? But if you don’t think that Obamacare is redistribution of wealth, ie; socialism, then you’re just not paying attention. That line from Howard Dean was not cherry picked – it was just a moment of clarity on his part.
Cluster, you’re full of talking points.
Evidently thomas equates opposing inefficient government bureaucracies to anarchy – that’s hilarious. Have you ever looked into the worthiness of say the DOE? Have you ever scrutinized the scope of their responsibilities and correlated it to the money the department requires to determine if it is a worthy venture? Or do you just scream from the mountaintop that anyone in opposition to said department advocates anarchy?
the DOE is an essential part of the education system in our nation. If it wasn’t for the DOE, every state would have different standards and worse education results that they get today. Its amazing how many scum republicans like to cut anything to do with education, or teach religion in schools.
the problem with the education system in this nation isn’t that we don’t have enough money to spend on it, its that things that money is going for is not helping so much. Getting rid of the DOE won’t solve that problem.
And again, redistribution of wealth is not my tax dollar going to pay for public parks, or police protection. That is not at all what conservatives oppose, but that doesn’t stop brain-dead liberals like you bringing that up time after time now does it?
talking points alert. That’s EXACTLY what conservatives say time and time over. How many times have you said we should cut off funding for planned parenthood? this is an orgnanization that provides medical care for poor people and only does about 3% of its business as abortions. Yet, you still want to cut off funding.
How many GOPers want to cut off funding for NPR? How many want to cut off funding for the arts? I could go on and on. All those programs are meant for EVERYONE and for SOCIETY. But in your dumb mind, you don’t want them because you don’t like art, and you don’t listen to NPR. It’s the classical egotism that is prevalent in american culture and mostly prevalent among the GOP.
But if you don’t think that Obamacare is redistribution of wealth, ie; socialism, then you’re just not paying attention. That line from Howard Dean was not cherry picked – it was just a moment of clarity on his part.
Obamacare is the same thing that Newt called personal responsibility. But again, you don’t understand the basic concept of governance. To you, since you proudly claim you don’t have insurance, it doesnt matter, since you can afford care without it. To others, who are POOR and can’t afford care out of pocket, they don’t go to the doctor, and when they do go, it’s usually an emergency room visit. Therefore, its BETTER and SMARTER if we give those people vouchers to help them with coverage, and make everyone else cover themselves as well. this way, WE ALL PAY LESS in the long run. But off course, you see national health care and scream socialism, when in reality, Medicare, the VA are already socialist. I am sure Neo and Spook would love to leave the VA care, and would love to give up medicare. NOT!
Also, that quote from Dean was cherry picked. How about you admit that and man up for once in your life. I can find a bunch of quotes from many GOPers talking about national health care, tax increases and many other topics, and call them “clarity” instead of calling them cherry picking and out of context.
Nice try cluster, come back again.
Thomas,
Do you honestly believe that if the government did not fund the arts, that there would be no arts or culture? Do you honestly believe that if the government did not fund NPR, that there would be no other equivalent media outlet? Or how about Planned parenthood? Do you not realize that there are many other county and state health clinics available for the poor?
Your arguments are simply those of one who believes in a central authority, and that’s is inherently un American. America was founded on the concept of a small and decentralized government. What do you think would happen if we eliminated the federal DOE, and created 50 DOE’s, all competing against each other for curriculum achievement? Do you think educational scores would go up?
And would you please stop assuming and projecting? You stated that I “don’t like art”, which is asinine, and simply proves you to be an emotional sensationalist hell bent on shoving your worldview down someone else’s throat.
Finally, I don’t oppose government health care for those who need it, but it needs to be administered at the state level, and the program needs to drafted up by someone a hell of lot smarter than Nancy Pelosi. Incidentally, most states already have programs in place
“the DOE is an essential part of the education system in our nation. If it wasn’t for the DOE, every state would have different standards and worse education results that they get today.”
Nice try, tommy-boy, but the quality of education has GONE DOWN since the creation of the DOE. That is why Atlanta (and others as well) felt the need to change test answers so their students would appear to perform better than they did.
Plain and simple fact. You need new talking points.
What no trial? Did anyone read him his rights? Wheres the lawyer? LOL these things used to be important to libs. Why the change?
P.S. I do believe obl was killed by a U.S. Navy Seal. Not bambam obamalo. It is even debateable that obamalo even gave the order.
Here we go again with the idiotic theory that he didn’t give the order.
So you are a constitutionalist right Green? If you are genuinely concerned about following the law of the land, then you’d be outraged that the commander in chief didn’t give the order.
Instead, if it’s suitable to your little imaginary world, you go with it. But god forbid Obama do something that you disagree with, then you pull out your old constitution and want to follow it.
Bottom line loser, he gave the order, our troops killes a bad person. If you even deny that, then you’re truly a lost cause.
That story is coming out thomas, much to your chagrin
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/05/03/leon-panetta-not-obama-issued-order-to-kill-bin-laden/
from PAJAMAS MEDIA? really? come back when it’s on Reuters, or AP, hell or even any other NEWS network.
tommy bleats: “If you are genuinely concerned about following the law of the land, then you’d be outraged that the commander in chief didn’t give the order.”
In other words, tommy is demanding that conservatives be more like him and his other Liberal trolls, and be emotionally overcharged all the time, operating in a constant state of OUTRAGE over this or that.
Tell you what, tommy-boy. You and your little buddies get all wound up, fuss and fret, get OUTRAGED and wallow in your irrational hatreds, and in general act like RRL tools. The adults in the room will adhere to coherent political philosophies, objectively analyze information, and make calm decisions based on reason.
And you will continue to be clueless as to what they are doing, as it is so foreign to your hyper-emotional adolescent level gaming view of politics.
BTW, just to point out how utterly stupid you delight in proving yourself to be, here’s yet another example in a long long list:
GMB says: I do believe obl was killed by a U.S. Navy Seal.
And how does tommy respond?
… our troops killes a bad person. If you even deny that, then you’re truly a lost cause.
Yep, GMB said a Navy Seal did the deed, and by the time this ran through tommy’s built-in Insanity Application Filter he decided GMB was denying that “our troops killed a bad person”.
It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
WOW! I haven’t heard that word since I was a kid.
oh god, here comes the smoking lunatic from CA….i wonder what he will puke into the conversation now.
Now Thomas,
How is that not a toxic response? Why do you always label conservatives as haters, when you in turn respond to people in this manner?
Cluster, you can always tell who has tweaked tommy a little too much. This is exactly his level of response when proved to be a lying hysterical tool who makes no sense whatsoever.
To a tool like tommy, this is a preemptive strike. Knowing that the Count is going to tear him a new one, though calmly and with great dignity, using facts and the truth, he is simply trying to pre-define anything the Count might say.
Poor silly little twit. If he had a friend in the world, he’d be getting advice right now to just go away before he makes an even bigger fool of himself.
on the contrary, most arch conservatives who want to leave everything up to the states because that’s what the constitution says are completely taking things out of context. – thomas
And yet, another teachable moment. Conservatives do not want to leave everything up to the states. Only those responsibilities that are given to the federal government, by the state, per the Constitution. IE; national security, border defense, interstate commerce. Is that still taking things out of context thomas?
Damn
the whole forker 0 chimpy useful idiot flying monkey show flapped in and I had to be at work all day.
The knee pads must be flying off the shelves at local home depots…….
You know they are terrified when media matters trolls attack in force on a tiny conservative blog.
They are drawn like a moth to a flame, they hate us, ridicule us, defame us, yet come back day in and day out to eat Shiite sandwiches of facts and truth fed to them.
I LOVE IT!!
Oh so now it’s Media Matters. Do you know who created Media Matters? A paid, rabid, life long right wing extremist whose answering machine used to say; “Sorry I’m not available. I’m out killing liberals”.
Media Matters is a fact checking site. Period. But you have the same aversion to anything contrary to your uninformed , bigoted, biased world view as vampires do to the sun.
Mr. Phony Fake Marine. It is dubious that the Corps would allow anyone of your ilk to even join. Vietnam or not.
Probably still call Asian’s gooks. Or at least think it.
Guess what baby, Asian’s are taking over the world.
moronkid
Soros-Funded Media Matters Attacks Conservatives
by Rondi Adamson
10/29/2007
Media Matters for America (MMFA) was created in spring 2004 in time for the presidential election campaign. Funded by an estimated $2 million in contributions, the group promotes itself as an online watchdog protecting the public from the deceptions and errors of the mass media that has been bullied or blinded by conservatives.
In fact, MMFA is a cog in the growing machine of “progressive” activist and advocacy non-profits, including the online radical agitators at MoveOn.org, the liberal policy wonks at the Center for American Progress and the Democratic get-out-the-vote forces at America Coming Together. These groups were obsessed with defeating President George W. Bush in the 2004 election. Having failed, they have grown increasingly angry and determined.
MMFA has a staff of 59 and is headquartered at 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. in Washington, D.C. MMFA employees have at various times worked for Al Gore , John Edwards, Barney Frank , Wesley Clark , the National Organization for Women (NOW), the Center for American Progress, Greenpeace, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (recently rechristened the American Association for Justice) and the Alliance for Justice.
Led by a Confessed Liar
MMFA is the creation of David Brock , a self-described “hit man” and self-confessed liar and gossip peddler. Brock’s own past casts a shadow over his current self-proclaimed dedication to truth-telling. At one time or another, Brock has viciously attacked the Clintons and the Bushes, Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas , Rush Limbaugh and National Public Radio , the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Each time he recants a prior assault, he lunges out at a new political enemy.
Brock puts himself in the position of someone who says, “I’m a liar. Believe what I tell you.” Reviewing Brock’s 2002 memoir, Blinded by the Right, journalist Christopher Hitchens wrote, “I would say without any hesitation that he [Brock] is incapable of recognizing the truth, let alone of telling it. The whole book is an exercise in self-love, disguised as an exercise in self-abnegation.” Cultural critic Camille Paglia , a left-leaning Democrat, ridiculed Brock’s confession: “Behold, the writhing snake pit of amoral media ambition!”
moronthekid
alligator mouth, canary ass….typical LIB
spewing BS and putting words and hatred in other peoples mouth, you are what we call Fn LOSERS!
moronthekid
mmmm mmmmm mmmmmm
imagine that……hillary helped start MM
Mr. Marine selectively leaves out the caveats in the above quote (from 2007.) The “hit man” reference was to his (previous) adherence to an extremist right-wing ideology. When Brock identifies himself as a “liar” he is referring to the lies he told in furtherance of his political positions and personal ambition. At the time, neither Ms.Paglia nor Mr. Hitchens allowed much credibility to Mr. Brock’s claims. In other words, they were very dubious about Brock’s proclamation of having fundamentally re-evaluated his life’s investment in a ideology that is counter-productive and has little real world application as a functioning template.
But, whatever. I’ll see your Soros and raise you by the Koch brothers.
I see that you seem to fancy yourself as an amateur Columbo. I think you are a coward. Why don’t you follow me around and post on blogs that have more than 5 members. If George Wallace could change (as well as David Brock) then maybe you can as well.
Uh-oh….mitch just skirted an actual discussion about actual politics. I’m sure it was a mistake, but still, as the door is open a crack, let’s see if he can back up what he says.
First we have to know how mitch, or Brock, would define “extremist right-wing ideology”.. We know that mitch and his ilk don’t like to be pinned down to actual DEFINITIONS—free-form definitions are so much more convenient—but sometimes you just have to know what a word is supposed to mean.
As “right-wing” in 21st Century American politics means support for and belief in the Constitution of the United States, does an “extremist right-wing ideology” mean really REALLY REALLY believing the Constitution describes the best way to govern the nation? Or do you think that liar Brock and liar mitch are making up some other, malignant, definitions to further their, well, lies?
But then mitch gets a little too close, I think, to an actual political statement when he refers to this “extremist right-wing ideology? as “… a (sic) ideology that is counter-productive and has little real world application as a functioning template.”
You see, now mitch, if not retreating into his usual political and philosophical cowardice, has to explain
1. What this ideology IS
2. Why it is counter-productive, and
3. Why it “has little real world application as a functioning template.”
Ooops
So, mitch, you’re up.
What is “right-wing ideology”?
What is “EXTREMIST right-wing ideology”?
Why is it “counter-productive”?
Why does it have “little real world application as a functioning template”?
If you get into this, you might define YOUR ideology, which we can probably safely assume is the opposite of whatever you claim “extremist right-wing ideology” is and then explain to us how and why IT is productive and has real world application as a functioning template.
We are agog with anticipation.
mitch, are you claiming that Brock lied about one claim to one ideology but now is telling the truth about another?
If Brock lied over a period of time “… in furtherance of his political positions and personal ambition. ..” what is to indicate that he is not lying NOW, “… in furtherance of his political positions and personal ambition. …”?
As for change, if you want to see someone who has made a political 180, here I am. I was what I now refer to as an “unexamined liberal”—that is, one of those who got sucked into the emotion-based rhetoric of anti-conservative attacks and blindly insulted, attacked and generally despised everything I had been told represented conservatism.
I used to listen a conservative talk show in Denver and absolutely HATED the host. He was such a mean person, I thought, never showing any respect for the people who called in to make statements with which I agreed. But after a while an odd little fact started to sink in. Someone would call in highly indignant about something he had said, which I thought was an appropriate response to his commentary. This caller would make some statements with which I agreed, and the host would challenge the caller to back up the statements. I would find myself thinking “Yeah—tell him why you said that” or “…why you think that” because I really wanted to know. I started to realize that when I felt those same things, I never really knew WHY I felt them
Oh, I felt them very strongly, no doubt about that. But I started to realize that I had merely accepted them, made them part of my consciousness and therefore thought of them as part of my body of knowledge, but that I didn’t really know WHY I thought they were true. So I would wait for the caller to tell me why I was right.
And, funniest thing—-they never could. Ever. They wouldn’t even try. They would duck and dodge, they would try to avoid answering a question by asking a different question, they would try to divert the discussion away from the question—after a while, the pattern became quite clear, and quite predictable.
So, being gulled for a while but not being an intellectual coward, I set about finding those answers for myself. it was not easy to accept the inevitable, which was the realization that I had been wrong. Deeply, profoundly, wrong.
This is why I can so easily see through the likes of you, mitch. Oh, I was never so toxic or hateful, never so desperate to find a channel for miserable negativity, never so vicious or gleeful in my attacks. But I was passionate in my ignorance and complacent in my conviction that whatever I had been told was correct. And when I see a phony like you, and like the others here, I can see the superficiality of your position.
When I challenge you to define and defend your positions, you all fall back into the same totally predictable avoidance pattern, of dodging, ducking, diverting, frantically trying to shift the discourse into an area where you feel more comfortable—which in your case is the area of vicious personal attack.
Wallace pulled a Brock and made a tactical change for political gain. I made a serious shift from the emotion-based thoughtless passion of the unexamined liberal to the solidly grounded and carefully examined ideology of the modern American conservative.
My prediction: mitch will not answer any of my questions. mitch will not engage in actual political discourse, because that would entail having a coherent political philosophy, understanding it, being willing and able to explain it, having an accurate definition and understanding of the opposing political philosophy, and being both willing and able to compare the two political models, defending his and showing its superiority.
mitch doesn’t do this.
Just like those before him, including his other incarnations here under different names, mitch’s role in “politics” is much the same as the role of a stick rammed through the spokes of a bicycle wheel to stop the rider from going anywhere. This is mitch’s goal, and it is probably a very accurate assessment of mitch’s abilities.
mitch is a speed bump, or at least wants to be a speed bump. Actual discussion of actual political models, and objective comparisons of them, using actual real-world examples of each, would be far too demanding, far too complex, and most of all far too dangerous for the Left. So they stick with what they know best: vicious attack-dog tactics and efforts to divert or derail the opposition, as they know they will never stand a chance in a real discussion.
I accept your challenge with eager anticipation. However, I am preoccupied now with more pressing issues so you will have to wait a few hrs. I am confident that you will and rest assured I will respond. I will say now,however, that I am not an ideologue. My political / social / cultural / values are far more fluid than yours (not to to say that I am not tethered to them, but I experience much more latitude and I am far more open-minded.) I find your smug presumptions about me (and others) your condescending attitude, your rigid adherence and matchless inflexibility when it comes to even considering that your highly defined and distilled concept of a “philosophy” is not the absolute standard of measurement.
The intolerance that you display is; IMO, your Achilles heel.
Furthermore, I suggest that you expand your presence. By associating with the level of discourse on display at this blog, you insure that you seem more intelligent and enlightened than you actually are. Improve yourself by engaging with others who have greater skill and more experience. And BTW, The Constitution is not a rigid document that exists in some sort of time-freeze. It is not a reflection of your wishful thinking. It is a document that was designed to change over time. Or at least that’s how it is (ready for this??) interpreted.
Yeah, mitch I can hardly wait to see what kind of vague, nonspecific dog’s dinner of a “philosophy” you come up with. Given that you have prefaced this revelation with the warning that you really don’t stand for much of anything, it ought to be interesting.
You extrapolate much from what I have said about my own political ideology, most of it wrong. On this blog, I speak almost exclusively of my political philosophy regarding the role of the federal government, as this is a national blog and few if any are very concerned about my local politics.
You appear to be trying to redefine “traditional” social and cultural values as “rigid”—-another effort to use emotionally laden terms to create an emotional reaction to something.
My own political philosophy IS “the absolute standard” of my own political philosophy. I claim it is nothing else but that. It is interesting to see an effort to dismiss confidence as rigidity and inflexibility—again, an effort to introduce emotion into the equation.
The Constitution WAS written to include the ability to change. There is no question about that.
It was also written with a very specific (what you might dismiss as a “rigid” and “inflexible”) process for achieving that change. And this has been done, as spook has already pointed out, 27 times. This is a fact and requires no interpretation. It is clearly written out in the body of the document.
However, the Constitution as it is written at any given time IS inflexible, and means what it says and nothing else. It cannot, or at least should not, be changed willy-nilly according to some current political or social whim.
I do not seek, nor respect, your condescending advice to me on how I might better appeal to you as a political commentator. You know nothing of my other political interests or involvements, but that doesn’t matter. They are none of your business. If you are holding yourself up as a model of political awareness or tolerance, I am distinctly unimpressed. If you think I should aspire to your astounding level of smugness and pomposity, once more, think again.
Why not just quit cluttering up the blog with your self-satisfied lectures on The Glory of Being Mitch and just set out an explanation of the ideal governing body of law.
I have given you a template, a list of simple questions you can use as a guideline. You might start by answering those, instead of engaging in your elaborate tap-dancing around the issues and transparent efforts to obfuscate the fact that you are not likely to offer up anything of substance.
BTW, just a heads-up—-someone once tried to outline a political philosophy and it was nothing more than a list of his favorite things—-fairness, justice, equality, etc. That is NOT a political model for governance,that is a list of things you hope good governance will accomplish or at least encourage or allow.
mitch July 15, 2011 at 1:15 pm #
I accept your challenge with eager anticipation. However, I am preoccupied now with more pressing issues so you will have to wait a few hrs
Helllllooooooooooo Bit – er Mitch where art thou?????????
crickets chirping and frogs croaking…..
Hey BIT…er mitch
what say you about this?
The Democrat Party’s Long and Shameful History of Bigotry and Racism
A common attack upon conservatives and republicans by the ultra left is to engage in what has come to be known as “playing the race card” but is more accurately described as racial McCarthyism. Hardly a day goes by without a member of the far left wing falsely accusing conservatives of racism, bigotry, and a wide array of similar nasty things. They are not only dishonest, but they often border on the absurd, as in NAACP leader and hyper bigot Julian Bond’s recent implication to his organization that Bush administration officials supported confederate slavery. Amazingly, Bond’s statements went without condemnation from the radical Democrat party or others in his organization.
Not surprisingly, in all the lies and accusations of racism by the radical left wing, the truth becomes distorted not only about the Republicans but also the Democrats who make these accusations themselves. For instance, you may or may not have heard Democrat Senator Robert Byrd’s outburst of racist bigoted slurs, more specifically the “n-word,” on national television in March of 2001. Amazingly, this incident of blatant racism on national television drew barely a peep from the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond, Mary Frances Berry, or any of the other ambulance chasers who purport themselves to be the leaders of the civil rights movement. In contrast, the main source of well deserved criticism for Byrd’s racist outburst came not from any of the so called leaders of the civil rights movement but from from Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey (source). The race hustlers Jackson, Mfume et al turned a blind eye towards this act of racism by one of their own party, at most issuing an unpublicized slap on the wrist, or, as was more often the case, making not a peep. But where the race hustlers turn a blind eye and spew their lies, it is up to conservatives to set the record straight with the truth.
In response to the growing practice of racial McCarthyism by prominent left wing Democrats, it is necessary to expose the truth about the Democrat Party’s record on Civil Rights:
The difference is, when McCarthy made an accusation it was specific, it named names, it gave details—–and he was proved right.
Once again, a conservative gets sucked into the Semantic Infiltration of the Left, and starts using incorrect and inflammatory language just because it has been repeated so often it has become accepted.
It appears Mitch has left the building. Surprise, surprise.
Oh contraire mon amie. Understand languages other than English do you not?
figures B er mitch is a Fn Frog
My obligations for the day have concluded so here I am. As promised.
Before I begin, I want to add a few comments. One, I think this person who identifies himself as Neocon1 is repulsive. His unabashed racism is common place on a KKK, John Bircher or white-supremacist blog. The fact that his ignorant rantings and prayers for the death of the President are tolerated on this forum just might be one of the reasons that B4V is not a very popular website. (And by popular, I mean how many people respond to a particular topic.) It seems that B4V is a personal hobby of the primary moderator. An opportunity to express is opinions and outrage at contemporary society in general and politics and religion in particular. To allow someone with his (assuming he is a man) lack of intellectual prowess and overt resentment and stereotyping of Blacks reflects poorly on those who encourage, agree or willfully ignore his “perspective”.
I also want to point out (even though this may be obvious) that as persons life experiences evolve so does their outlook on life. The impact these experiences have can therefore change ones “philosophies”. To me, my base values are more rigid for they comprise the foundation of what I; well, value or deem important but the tangential issues are much more fluid.
Earlier today, on different thread, Amazona asked me what my definition of liberal was. Not “the” definition, but my definition. Without digressing into a discussion of language and meaning, what I consider to fall under the auspices of the term is tolerance, acceptance, mutability, fluidity, a propensity for change, open-mindedness, non-authoritarian, not absolutist, not dogmatic or ideologically inflexible and intellectually inquisitive.
Next point: some insight into what comprises my gestalt.
My home-life growing up. The part of the country in which I lived. Current events of the time. My parents divorce. My time in Vietnam as an O-2 FAC Officer. My formal education. My marriage. The birth of my children. My divorce. My business. The death of my mother.
None of these things are any better or worse or different than anyone else. I am not special.
Now to the meat of Amazona’s challenge.
I was never particularly interested in politics. I just wanted to learn how to fly and fly I did. It is my life’s vocation.Years later, when I found out that The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was a complete fabrication I became even more apathetic. However, when the Republican Party attempted to impeach Bill Clinton I changed and educated myself about the commingling of human nature, social structure,power, dominance, hypocrisy and this phenomena we call “politics”.
Hence my subsequent disdain for GWB, Iraq and the thin wedge of Fascism that I personally believe was attempted to be perpetrated upon this great nation.
But again, I digress.
I am in favor of a strong central government. I am in favor of States Rights, but I think that in many cases that the states should be subservient to the Fed. I think local governments; (city, village township,etc) know what’s best for their residents, not the State or the Fed. I think that the Constitution is the “law of the land” but I also am educated enough to believe (notice my word choice here) that it was written by people who were exposed to the enlightenment that occurred in Europe and is therefore subject to mutation and interpretation. Hence the creation of a Supreme Court as a 3rd branch of centralized government.
Obviously I am not a constructionist. Nor am I strict. Nor do I think linearly. Nor can I rely upon the informed opinions and utopian musings of people who have been dead for over 200 yrs.
I know that it was not possible for the creators of our Constitution to project their subjective experience of the world several hundred yrs into the future. Just as it is not possible for us. I have little tolerance and less empathy for folks who insist on relying upon the past to forge a path into the future. As the brokers say, “Past performance is no guarantee of future results”. Yes, the past is important and ques can be taken but being regressive is a proven failed strategy against the astronomical weight of the now.
Now for some personal opinions.
I think that a maturated society has an obligation to take care of the less fortunate without them having to reply upon charity or the proverbial “kindness of strangers”.
I am in favor of a woman’s right to choose.
I could care less about gay marriage.It posses no threat to my heterosexuality, my marriage, my children, my brokerage account or my neighbors.
I am not a Randian.
I think that the dogma of literal and absolute religion is a vestigial mental disorder based upon superstition, magic and the neolithic period and I hope that humanity evolves out of these fantasies in geologic short-order.
I know that the contemporary “hero’s” of the right would not be accepted into what presumes itself to be the Republican Party of 2011.
Wm. F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan (but his son Ron jr is someone who I admire) George Bush and son G.W. and any other sane and reasonable conservative.
The historical time line is that because of the cold calculations and unmatched cynicism of Richard Nixon, the ignorance and fears of the religious (read Christian, not Catholic) of this country were exploited to such a degree that they have now eviscerated the former Republican Party. What we are currently left with is a hollow shell surrounded by people who publicly claim that the solution to all of our very humanly created problems is to pray to an imagined deity.
It used to be that the folks that espoused these thoughts were offered psychological counseling or strong medication. Now they run for President and claim that they can be elected. Because god talks to them. Personally. And all of them. Maybe god is a sadist.
Fortunately the most extreme of them (and Amazona,an extremist is someone or some isolated group who is so far removed from mainstream or conventional thought that they are rejected on a wholesale basis by the majority. Regardless of the righteousness of their personal convictions.)
Anyway, the end.
Can’t wait for the histrionic attack’s.
I’ll spread them around.
Mitch,
your entire comment would make an interesting main post. Unfortunately, this thread is dead.
If it’s dead, then move it forward. I will be happy to continue.
B…er Mitch
One, I think this person who identifies himself as Neocon1 is repulsive. His unabashed racism is common place on a KKK, John Bircher or white-supremacist blog. The fact that his ignorant rantings and prayers for the death of the President are tolerated on this forum just might be one of the reasons that B4V is not a very popular website.
1. YOU LIE
2. Psalm 109:8 does not wish death at all only replacement. 2012
3. 4 packs a day and F Fries? a twist on what you libs were saying about Clarance Thomas, dont like your own hatred used back against one of your own?
then dont say it in the first place
4. KKK ? 100% a democRAT owned orginazation.
5. you want racism and racial hatred> LOOK NO FURTHER than the muslem occupying the WH, his “pastor”, buddy faracan, ayers, resco, and his AG.
NEXT??
mitchthestooge
I think that a maturated society has an obligation to take care of the less fortunate without them having to reply upon charity or the proverbial “kindness of strangers”.
I am in favor of a woman’s right to choose.
I could care less about gay marriage.It posses no threat to my heterosexuality, my marriage, my children, my brokerage account or my neighbors.
Liberalism IS a mental disorder, and you are a Fn LOON!
The word is spelled Muslim. Not muslem or moslem. Muslim. And the President practices a form of Catholicism despite the dictates of your pathological delusions. And I am not a Democrat. I have been a registered independent since I was able to vote. You seem to think that labeling me as a Democrat is an insult. It’s not.
You obviously have some severe cognitive challenges as indicated by the convoluted logic you express and the fantasies you believe. Have you ever sought therapy or had an IQ test? Did you graduate from High School? Can you tie your shoes without help?
” A FORM OF CATHOLICISM !!”
Great—-a new entry in Craziest Thing Ever Said On Any Blog.
Catholicism has nothing whatsoever to do with the vicious racism and distortion of Christianity that is Liberation Theology.
Liberation Theology is only related to any form of Christianity by its reference to Christ being the Son of God. After that point it is nothing but a vile screed designed to support and defend racial hatred.
I suppose the comment makes sense, coming from one with such a deep-seated loathing and contempt for religion, but still—–the facts are there, for anyone who cares.
methkid
You obviously have some severe cognitive challenges as indicated by the convoluted logic you express and the fantasies you believe. Have you ever sought therapy or had an IQ test? Did you graduate from High School? Can you tie your shoes without help?
Projection?
It is YOU who supports murdering babies in the womb, It is YOU who thinks sodomy is just fine, It is YOU who worries how mooooslim is spelled yet cares not that we have one occupying the WH. it is YOU who does not believe in God.
and it is YOU who thinks LOONS like wright and O-chimpy are “Catholics”
I believe you are far more qualified for the short bus than I
NEXT asshat?
mitchthestooge
Maybe god is a sadist.
says all I need to know about you.
mitchthekid….thank you for your honesty. I respect that, and respect you for being so candid. In all the years I have been asking these questions, only three people have answered them, and none with such clarity and completeness.
Having said that, I strongly disagree with probably every word you have said. But I can, and will, address disagreements without histrionics.
I am in favor of a strong central government.
Here, in your first sentence, you declare a belief that is contrary to the form of government laid out for the United States in its Constitution. Not just in the actual document itself, but in every discussion, writing, and debate leading up to the writing and ratification of the Constitution and every explanation by the Founding Fathers for what they did and why.
The Bill of Rights was a response to demands that the Constitution itself be tightened up, made more specific regarding the severe restrictions on the size and scope of the federal government.
You can believe in a strong central government, but you need to realize that this is contrary to every tenet of our foundational and governing law.
I am in favor of States Rights, but I think that in many cases that the states should be subservient to the Fed.
See above.
I think local governments; (city, village township,etc) know what’s best for their residents, not the State or the Fed.
Agreed. What overriding control should the Fed and the State be able to apply to local government?
I think that the Constitution is the “law of the land” but I also am educated enough to believe (notice my word choice here) that it was written by people who were exposed to the enlightenment that occurred in Europe and is therefore subject to mutation and interpretation.
Here I disagree, quite strongly. No law can be taken seriously if it can be “subject to mutation and interpretation”. A law can be CHANGED, as the Constitution can be amended, but only through an established process, not merely by “mutation and interpretation”.
If your education has extended to actual study of the Constitution, from its origins in the coffee shops of Boston to its debates over the years to its actual construction, and the thoughts and ideas behind it, you will know that the intent was to create a document that was most definitely NOT “subject to mutation and interpretation” but clear, precise, specific, and IMMUTABLE except through the careful process it describes.
Mere mutation is just another form of degredation, and interpretation is entirely too subjective and dependent upon individuals.
Hence the creation of a Supreme Court as a 3rd branch of centralized government.
First, the Supreme Court is NOT “a third branch of centralized government”. It is part of the third, or judicial, branch. There is not time to go into it here but I suggest you do some study on the Supreme Court, its origins, its history, and learn that what we see now is a perfect example of what happens when something is allowed to mutate and be subject to interpretation. You will learn that the Supreme Court, as it exists today, is barely recognizable as the Court established in the Constitution.
Obviously I am not a constructionist. Nor am I strict. Nor do I think linearly. Nor can I rely upon the informed opinions and utopian musings of people who have been dead for over 200 yrs.
I know that it was not possible for the creators of our Constitution to project their subjective experience of the world several hundred yrs into the future. Just as it is not possible for us. I have little tolerance and less empathy for folks who insist on relying upon the past to forge a path into the future. As the brokers say, “Past performance is no guarantee of future results”. Yes, the past is important and ques can be taken but being regressive is a proven failed strategy against the astronomical weight of the now.
This entire paragraph is a summation of a justification for discarding, or at least ignoring, our Constitution, and quite clearly lays out your position regarding it. I disagree with every word you say, but I have heard others make the same argument. I will just point out that you cannot believe this and also, at the same time, believe that our nation should and must be governed by the Constitution of the United States. You have stated part of a political philosophy. The other part would be what you would prefer, and you have hinted at this, when you have said you believe in a strong central government and that the states should be “subservient” to the federal government.
I suggest that you admit that although you pay lip service to the idea that “… I think that the Constitution is the “law of the land” ..” you immediately start to explain why it isn’t, really, as it ought to be open to mutation and interpretation, and then go on to describe beliefs that are contrary to it, you do not, in fact, think our Constitution is the best way to govern the nation. You may not have actually admitted this yet, but as your explanation went on, this is where you went and this is where you ended up.
Have you studied the alternatives to our Constitutional rule of law? Have you educated yourself on the complete ideology of the political model which most seems to fit the political ideals you outlined? That is, a strong central government, states which are subservient to it, government being the source of support for many people, discarding of some traditional values such as the application of the word “marriage” to homosexual relationships, and antipathy toward and ridicule of religion. These are all tenets of Leftist political models, and there is plenty of source material reporting on the successes and failures of the various political models along the Leftist spectrum of political philosophy.
My confidence in the Constitutional model is based on the fact that it has worked, for over two centuries. It has been the foundation of the most prosperous nation in history, providing a standard of living far above that of any other nation at any other time for a larger number of people. It has provided a framework for innovation, unheard-of personal freedom, national security, and has been a beacon of liberty and promise for over 20 decades.
My lack of confidence in the various Leftist models is based on the research that has shown them all to be failures regarding personal liberty and economic prosperity. I do not just leap to an emotion-based conclusion, but base my conclusion on the empirical evidence of history.
I place no faith in the wishful thinking of “this time it will be different”.
I have found that those on the Left tend to dismiss the past and depend on the present. I have been accused of being “trapped in history”. I find it an interesting, though false, argument that learning from history is being “regressive”. I find it quite instructive to study the repeated patterns of outcome when certain policies have been implemented, and have no reason to think that human nature has changed so dramatically that when those same policies are applied, yet again, the outcome will for some reason be different.
mitch, I also note that you have made big leaps based on isolated events, which does indicate a rather shallow foundation for whatever political belief you may have had and also for the one you adopted when you changed. This kind of “flexibility” is why I ask about the underlying political belief.
I was, as I have said, what I now call an “unexamined liberal”, and I got a nudge away from the Democratic Party when the supposed feminists of my party proved that they were total hypocrites and went against every single thing they had ever preached when one of their idols would have been damaged if they had been consistent. That “flexibility” of principle bothered me, and made me question how much of the rest of my Liberalism was also based on falsehoods. This questioning is what led me to listen to talk radio, so other Libs could explain things to me. And, as I have said, they didn’t.
But I did not just flip-flop to conservatism because of an event. And what I have learned over the years is that when a political belief is so fragile that it can be destroyed or reversed because of an event, or a personality, it is based not on objective analysis of political models and systems but on sheer emotion.
But…..you offer not a political definition of “liberal” but a dictionary one. And the two are diametrically opposite.
You define “liberal” as “… tolerance, acceptance, mutability, fluidity, a propensity for change, open-mindedness, non-authoritarian, not absolutist, not dogmatic or ideologically inflexible and intellectually inquisitive…” And that all sounds very nice. Well, not that “mutability” and “fluidity” stuff, but the rest sounds very high-minded.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
Note the disclaimer: principles of social and political liberalism
The very nice word “liberal” was hijacked by the illiberal Left many years ago to put a kinder and gentler face on a political model which had turned many off because of its oppressiveness and brutality. But only the name changed. The political model remained just as rigid, just as dogmatic, just as oppressive, just as authoritarian, as it ever had been. It just turned its coat to a prettier presentation.
So when talking about politics, one has to be careful to know and use the correct word—liberal or Liberal.
I, for example, am quite liberal. I think most drugs should be legalized, I don’t care what consenting adults do with each other in the privacy of their own homes and do not denigrate them with hostile terminology, I am totally lacking in racism, I am tolerant of the religions and beliefs of others, I am pretty much a live-and-let-live person.
Politically, I am completely opposed to the Liberal political model. I find it illiberal to the extreme, as I have described. Just as the Left adopted the word Progressive when it needed yet another disguise, and applied a perfectly good word to the most regressive political model in the world today, the use of the word liberal to describe the Leftist model is quite hypocritical.
So here is another area where I am wildly at odds with the Leftists who post here. I expect political commentary to be based on actual politics, not on personalities or events or emotion, and I expect words to be defined according to their political terms when used in a political context.
mitch, does your attitude toward religion and people of faith fit in with your definition of “liberal”? You know—tolerant, accepting, open-minded…….
mitch, you like to come across as well educated and smart. You might like the book Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell. I strongly recommend it. It discusses things like the wide difference in our visions, yours and mine, of how government should work.
mitch, you like to come across as well educated and smart.
Yet falls off the cliff in both areas.
Try to form a cohesive thought. You do a very poor job of pretending that you have any intelligence via making crude, asinine comments.You consistently fail if your intent is to come across as a know it all. You suffer from the all to common affliction of trying to make yourself appear as something you are not by deriding and mocking others. All you are accomplishing is to reinforce what an utter fool you are. If you can’t control yourself or be more witty, do humanity a favor and die.
I appreciate your comments but I am not interested in taking a civics class. Thanks anyway. It was not my intent to define “liberal” in political terms. I merely conveyed my understanding of the term using synonyms. If they have an application to politics (which they do) then fine. I do, however, want to point out something about you. In the above comment, you said that “I like to come across..”. This implies that I am not well educated and smart and that I am being deceitful. I do not think that it is possible to fake such things.
I am familiar with Thomas Sowell. Thanks for the referral though. As far as some of the other items you mentioned, one in particular that I take you to task on is how you defined mutation, subjectivity and interpretation. Mutation means to change. It does not specifically mean to degrade. Evolution for example, contains a process called mutation that leads to more complex forms. Rarely do life forms devolve. And if they do, it is because of the need to adapt to the environment.
Every experience that every human has is subjective. Our consciousness is the receptacle and our awareness is the filter of the “outside” world. Everything is subject to interpretation. Everything.
There is a book that I will turn you on to. It’s out of print but has an internet presence. It’s entitled “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind”. It’s fascinating. The hypothesis is that all words are metaphor’s and human consciousness changed once the awareness of self became identified with the invented word “I”.( I won’t bother you with a dissertation on cognition, language and meaning.)
As far as my political identification, I do not enjoy being stereotyped but according to a political assessment survey I took a few yrs ago I am a
left-leaning libertarian. Although I do occupy the upper right of the lower left quadrant the survey used as a 4 square graph, I don’t give these surveys much credibility. They seem like a Meyers-Briggs.
Finally, I don’t care much for religion. Organized especially. I don’t care what a person believes but what really enrages me is the absolutism. The in your face aspect that so many are compelled to practice. I see dominionism as a rising threat and people who want to use a book of fairy stories, angry gods and historical anecdotes as the basis of laws and solutions to man-made problems as certifiably insane. I particular, I have utter contempt for people who deny science. Now I am not saying that faith is a bad thing. But faith cannot exist without doubt and i have no use for those who are so self-righteous, so smug, so contemptible of others that question things because it means that their own faith is weak and I find their hypocrisy stifling. These end of timers’, these Jesus freaks, these Taliban who cannot tolerate any exposure to alternative explanations as to the nature of reality are compelled to attempt to hijack the free will of others and it infuriates me because there are no absolutes. Not even in math or physics. (Except, of course, the concept of absolute zero.) When faced with having to actually explain their faith, they shrivel like a vampire on a day pass. That’s why people like Bachman, Palin, Perry, Santorum, etc are so dangerous to our society. People who rely on their faith in their religion to make sound decisions are intrinsically incapable of making any decisions for the greater good. And to announce to all the world that god speaks to them is Bellview time. It used to be that people kept this form of schizophrenia to themselves. Now it’s a badge of honor and a requirement for being in the Republican Party. Next you know, god will tell them what condiments to put on their hot dogs and hamburgers!
Anyway, I’ve enjoyed this. Somewhat of a catharsis.
The Worldview War
By Brad Hughes
The conjunction of humanist and Islamic worldviews will threaten to destroy America from within throughout the 21st century. Indeed, there is a war of worldviews raging in America, with secular humanism and Islam as co-belligerents on one side and Judeo-Christian America on the other.
The worldview war
The worldview war is spiritual in origin. The Bible states in Ephesians 6:12 that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Worldviews incorporate theology and therefore reflect spiritual beliefs. Life in America as we know it is at stake in this war.
A worldview is a comprehensive framework of ideas and beliefs from which an individual interprets his surroundings and circumstances. It is this view of reality that consequently directs the decisions and actions of the individual, and also of nations. According to Dr. David Noebel, worldview expert, worldviews are composed of ten different disciplines: theology, politics, economics, philosophy, biology, history, ethics, law, sociology, and psychology.
There are primarily six worldviews contending for the 6.9 billion people on Earth, with Islam, secular humanism, and Christianity chief among them.
The Islamic threat to America has historically been primarily a war of words, as characterized by S.A.A. Maududi in 1939, when he said, “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam. Islam requires the earth – not just a portion, but the whole planet.” Maududi influenced Sayyid Qutb, the leading theologian of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and ’60s and author of Social Justice in Islam. Qutb had a significant influence on bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
The rise of secular humanism
Secular humanism increasingly supports the Islamists’ position in the battle against the Judeo-Christian worldview. Secular humanists currently dominate the government, education, the media, and the legal institutions in the United States.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_worldview_war.html
“do humanity a favor and die”.
The REAL (B)mitch shines through, I can spot a TROLL a mile away
ESAD Moron!
And your point is what exactly? Are you warning me or threatening me? Am I a troll? Maybe I am. Who cares? Do my comments undermine your worldview? Am I causing you to question things? Or is your certitude really just solitary confinement. I am a secular humanist. So what. How is that a cause of concern to you? Or are you so weak that you feel you have to dominate everything in a futile attempt to eradicate your fundamental fear of other people and other ideas. It’s an incredible leap to assume that because you can’t spell Muslim that I somehow magically turn into an Islamist. That’s quite a trick! Houdini would be in awe.
It’s another quantum leap to assume that because I support a woman’s right to have control over her own body, that I support “murder”. It’s not murder to me and to be even more frank, I don’t place a supreme value on human life over any other. We just happen to temporarily be at the top of the food chain. I don’t cotton to the idea of American exceptionalism either. What do you think of that? The religions that I can (somewhat) relate to Eastern in nature. Or the religions of the plains Indians. (What’s left of them anyway.) Does that mean I am going to hell? I think European Caucasians from the middle ages up to the mid 19th century, with their communicable diseases and religious proselytizing were a plague to the rest of humanity. Does this mean I am a traitor to my race or my families’ religious predilections? Will I go to hell for that as well?
If 2 men fall in love with each others hairy ass, how does that effect me exactly? And lets not leave the women out. Don’t want to be perceived as a sexist.
For all the talk about smaller government and less intrusion into peoples lives, you sure seem to have some mega hangups when it comes to their sex lives.
But then again, maybe your gay.
mitch, you skirted rational discourse for a while, but then veered off and back into name-calling and hostility.
I asked you about political philosophy and your definition of “liberal” because you said you are not A liberal.
The only way to have a reasonable discussion is to first agree on terms. The evasions and distractions I am seeing indicate a reluctance to actually have a real discussion.
Sorry—I was hopeful for a while.
Just a note: I blog here because I am a conservative and I want to discuss issues and policies from a conservative point of view. I have not, and will not, be so crass as to butt into a Liberal blog and attack, insult and demean those who post there. Even though I find that these Liberals are as shallow in their so-called political convictions as those who post here, I don’t care.
You imply that if I were just to be exposed to more Liberal content I would, perhaps, change my position. But the opposite is true. The more I come to understand that the Liberal positions support and enable anti-Constitutional policies and agendas, the more I learn of the Liberal vision for this nation, the more convinced I become that the Constitutional model is the correct one.
One reason for this conviction is that while presenting a mishmash of political opinions, emotions, wishes and hopes and dreams, even the most passionate Libs don’t even try to present historical examples of Leftist successes. No, what you guys do is dismiss history, claim it is irrelevant, give credence only to what you referred to so grandiosely as “….the astronomical weight of the now…” How convenient.
I am sure you don’t live your life ignoring historical data. I’m sure you don’t buy a car with a history of mechanical failures, or move to a neighborhood with a history of violent crime. I’ll bet you haven’t insulated your house with asbestos, ignoring the historical data regarding its dangers, or used lead-based paint. No, civilization moves forward by learning from its mistakes, not just slamming the book shut and pretending they don’t matter.
So you go your way and I’ll go mine. But I will point out that a good opportunity for a real exchange of ideas and comparison of philosophies has been lost, and also that I responded to the ideas you presented with respect and courtesy.
That is how I respond to IDEAS. To rank emotion, logic-free nonsense, and attacks and insults, not so much.
Sorry you feel that way. Apparently there is no middle ground that you are comfortable in. I think it very telling how you use the word leftist. Why do you equivocate anyone who has more moderation in their views with Mao, Castro or Chavez? I can see the moon. It doesn’t make me an astronaut.
I appreciate your desire to discuss conservative issues with like minded fellows, but if the discourse of someone like Neocon1 is representative of today’s conservatism, then the impact that liberals have on society, culture and politics will continue unabated. It is not necessary to use that word as a pejorative, which you seem to have an inclination to do so.
The great irony in your displeasure over insults is that you seem to condone Mr. Neocon1 by virtue of your silence. I have yet to see you call him out for what he is and what he says. He is an embarrassment to conservatives of your caliber. He is crude,vile and frankly I don’t know why he is tolerated here. He does your perspective a great disservice because many liberals think he is representative of the ideology as a whole.
“Why do you equivocate anyone who has more moderation in their views with Mao, Castro or Chavez? ”
The short answer: Because she thinks her radicalism is normal and that everybody is as radical as she is, left or right. (Also, because her radicalism has driven her to determine that anybody who opposes “conservatism” as she sees it is, in her own words, “a de facto socialist.” Think a Republican is wrong about something? Then you, sir, are Stalin Jr.)
The long answer: She’ll provide that for you shortly.