My Current Electoral Projection

20121031-195044.jpg

This is a conservative estimate. I do think there’s a chance we can take Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Nevada I’m less sure of, but I’ll update this projection on Friday.

What do you think?

Advertisements

111 thoughts on “My Current Electoral Projection

  1. Cluster October 31, 2012 / 7:56 pm

    I think you’re real close. The possible exception is we lose VA, which still gives Romney the victory, but we might also pick up WI.

    • 01canadianobserver November 1, 2012 / 10:51 am

      It’s hilarious watching you guys fall all over yourselves trying to support a candidate you didn’t want in the first place. Old neocon, for instance, said “I voted for newt because OF the Fn loon paul and the flopper”. Yes, he called Mitt a flopper and on January 27th. went as far as to post a You Tube video entitled, Desperate, Mitt Romney will do and say anything to become President. Anything. Wow, Neocon, you are quite the flip flopper yourself, aren’t you?

      Look, there’s no shame in admitting that the candidate y’all are embracing as the future leader of the free world is the same loser now as he was when neocon was bad-mouthing him during the Primaries.

      No matter how much you want to believe that any Republican, even someone as lame as Romney, will defeat President Obama, it’s just not going to happen. Of course, there’s always the possibility that you will steal the election as was done in 2000.

      • neocon01 November 1, 2012 / 12:10 pm

        zero 1 canuckunobserved

        Wow, Neocon, you are quite the flip flopper yourself, aren’t you?

        Not my first choice…… but now it is between a ham or SHIITE sandwich Ill take the ham.
        you can keep the kenyan commie and bad breath.

      • 01canadianobserver November 1, 2012 / 2:13 pm

        Haha, your honest assessment of Mitt as a ham sandwich is bang on, neocon. A bigger ham would be hard to find.

      • neocon01 November 1, 2012 / 4:24 pm

        zerokanuck

        and a bigger POS than ubama would be impossible to find

      • dbschmidt November 1, 2012 / 8:29 pm

        Hope your head doesn’t explode or you start having attacks because of the polling as those in SanFran are–why if it wasn’t for Nate–they would jump off the bridge stupid.

        I think Romney was my 3rd or 4th pick but since he was selected and I have learned more–I am voting for him rather than voting against Obama. Live with it. He is a better man and candidate that has absolutely nothing to run except dismal failure.

  2. Kevin D. Korenthal October 31, 2012 / 7:59 pm

    I agree that Romney will take Florida and Ohio and will also take Wisconsin.

  3. GMB October 31, 2012 / 8:02 pm

    I think you are about 40 votes shy of the final count. Mitt will get 340 plus ev.

    • neocon01 October 31, 2012 / 8:04 pm

      Lord willing

      Psalm 109:8

      • neocon01 October 31, 2012 / 8:17 pm

        For His Last Halloween In Office Obama Should Dress Up As A Real President
        The Looking Spoon ^ | 10-31-12 | The Looking Spoon

    • James0601 October 31, 2012 / 8:43 pm

      Tell us GMB, which other states will Romney carry to get him to 340?

      • M. Noonan October 31, 2012 / 9:03 pm

        James – well, saying Romney gets to 340 is certainly a bit of chest-thumping…but I have a max for Romney of 363 if every last thing breaks his way. My projection right now is 321 Romney, 217 Obama. Bottom line for me is that even if PA, OH and NV go for Obama, Romney still wins.

      • James0601 October 31, 2012 / 9:06 pm

        Mark, you’re delusional. Must be nice to live in your dream world….

      • M. Noonan October 31, 2012 / 9:09 pm

        James,

        We’ll know in about 146 hours…

        UPDATE: But I’m already pretty certain of the outcome. The cake is baked and Obama is done.

      • ricorun November 2, 2012 / 6:58 pm

        Mark: But I’m already pretty certain of the outcome. The cake is baked and Obama is done.

        You might want to check out the on-line odds makers. I’ve been mentioning InTrade, but there are others. And some of them have Romney down in the range of 1:4. I’m not suggesting it’s a sure thing, or even advising you that you should plunk your money down (that’s my disclaimer). However, those are some really good odds. So if you really think “the cake is done”, maybe you should look into it. Because IF you’re right (again, there is a risk involved in any investment), that kind of return on a 4-day investment (essentially quadrupling it) is really hard to find. I’m just sayin’.

  4. cyberactor October 31, 2012 / 8:29 pm

    Here’s where you’re wrong: Mitt will definitely lose Michigan. I don’t know what planet you’re living on, projecting him to win in the state where he advocated the death of their primary industry. So that’s strike one.

    Virginia is strike two. That’s just crazy talk.

    Iowa is strike three but since we’re being generous, strike four is Ohio.

    As I said yesterday, Barack wins with AT LEAST 290 electoral votes, maybe even over 300.

    Write. It. Down.

    • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 10:46 am

      Romney “advocated the death” of Michigan’s primary industry?

      ?????????

      Romney advocated a structured bankruptcy, such as the one employed by Chrysler, which would have protected GM while it restructured its compensation and benefit packages and put itself on a path to profitability. He understood the weakness of the “hand out a lot of taxpayer money” approach.

      And he was proved right. The taxpayers got screwed, the equity owners of GM stock got screwed, and the only ones who benefited were the unions, who were handed a huge block of GM stock as a payoff for their getting Obama elected.

      And THEN GM went into a structured bankruptcy.

      You people are shameless in your insistent and blatant lies.

      • dbschmidt November 1, 2012 / 8:32 pm

        Please consider the non-union employees and supplies / vendors of GM that got the biggest hosing after the bond holders. Then again, when one knows nothing of business~they just squeal like a pig when Obama speaks.

  5. James0601 October 31, 2012 / 8:38 pm

    The President will win 290 or so electoral votes.

    Romney isn’t carrying Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, nor Colorado.

    The rest you can have. Good luck!

  6. M. Noonan October 31, 2012 / 8:57 pm

    Personally, I think PA more likely to go Romney than MI. I also still have faith in my Nevada – sure, the corrupt Reid-SEIU machine is running at top speed but other than carrying Reid’s carcass over the finish line in 2010, it really doesn’t do that much (so we don’t have Senator Bernstein nor Governor Rory Reid); with 12% unemployment I just can’t see us Nevadans being that stupid a second time.

    It really all depends on whether the “Mittmentum” continues – which we can’t track because most of the national tracking polls won’t start up again until Thursday, which means we won’t have a really good sample until Sunday or Monday. If, however, the shift to Romney which has made MI, PA and MN in play continues then we could see an astounding landslide on Tuesday – a landslide which not only carries those States in to the Romney camp but also shifts States like Oregon to Romney. Will Obama’s handling of “Sandy” help him? We simply do not – and cannot – know. I don’t think it will – if Obama gets re-elected because of a photo-op with Christie in New Jersey then it will shock all heck out of me.

    • cyberactor October 31, 2012 / 9:19 pm

      Hahahaha! “Mittmentum”! That’s hilarious! Keep it up, Noonan!

      • M. Noonan October 31, 2012 / 9:22 pm

        Cyber,

        I can’t take credit for it – it may have been Allahpundit over at Hot Air who first used it. At any rate, I first saw it there.

    • cyberactor October 31, 2012 / 9:51 pm

      Boy, you guys are going to have to stick a sock in Chris Christie’s mouth because he can’t do anything today but praise Obama and FEMA. It’s all over the news, the blogosphere…everywhere. Christie hearts Obama.

      Oh, and Condoleeza Rice is defending Obama against charges that he screwed up in Benghazi. Any more keynote speakers from the convention that you think will abandon Mitt before next Tuesday? Ann, maybe? Rubio? Can’t wait to find out!

      • tiredoflibbs November 1, 2012 / 5:50 am

        Wow, droneactor, obAMATEUR did his job for once!!!

        Woohoo… too bad he FAILED at everything else. I guess if that is the only success, then there is reason to celebrate…. only briefly…. too little, too late.

        Pathetic.

      • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 10:47 am

        Please quote Rice “defending Obama against charges that he screwed up in Benghazi”.

        And I thought one of your main gripes against conservatives was that they refused to cooperate and work with The One. Now one is doing that, and you are freaked out about THAT.

      • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 11:37 am

        Yeah, darlin’ I was pretty sure this was all you had. And, of course, you lied in your characterization of what Rice said.

        I read that link when it was first posted, and I responded to what it actually SAID, not to how it was described.

        In the interview, which took place before the latest and most damning evidence of gross incompetence and outright lying by the President had come out, Rice merely said that we should wait till we have all the information before make a judgment.

        In other words, she advised exactly what conservatives have advised time after time, regarding events such as the Zimmerman incident.

        But when the quote is from a time before actual PROOF was made public, it can only have referred in the most general terms to a general attitude of prudence, of not rushing to judgment before enough facts were in. Rice did NOT “defend Obama against charges that he screwed up in Benghazi”, you lied when you said she did, you got caught at it, and I thank you for playing.

      • M. Noonan November 1, 2012 / 6:11 pm

        That Rice quote was a week ago, after all – now we have a week more data. As for Christie – well, he does have to run for re-election in still-blue New Jersey in 2013. It won’t harm him in the least to put a little lovin’ on ‘Bams at this point…

  7. Cluster October 31, 2012 / 9:01 pm

    I am sure the voters in NY, NJ, PA, etc, will all be very excited to rush down and vote for Obama while there power is still out, gas is $5 a gallon and scarce and unemployment remains high.

    Yes sir, they will want four more years of that.

    • James0601 October 31, 2012 / 9:03 pm

      Cluster,

      where is gas 5 dollars a gallon? what’s the national average again?

      also, what’s unemployment currently and what was it when the President took office?

      again, your fear is obvious and I won’t mock you on tuesday when your candidate loses.

      • Cluster October 31, 2012 / 9:12 pm

        My fear? Where do you get this James? It’s really juvenile.

        Gas is $5 in a lot of places, notably So Cal. And when you stop counting people you can make the unemployment number any thing you want, but you are probably only a handful of people that fall for it.

      • Cluster October 31, 2012 / 9:15 pm

        And I am sure James will be here if Romney loses, but if Obama loses, James will be no where to be found. He doesn’t handle criticism very well.

      • M. Noonan October 31, 2012 / 9:15 pm

        Cluster,

        Don’t you know? Everything is just swell! The nation is happy, prosperous, at peace and ready for another four years of Obama…until we, in great gratitude, amend the constitution so that Obama can have three, four or even five terms (if we’re really nice he might deign to serve as our Dear Leader for that long…but the world does call and we really shouldn’t be greedy with him…).

      • Cluster October 31, 2012 / 9:22 pm

        We’re just ingrates Mark. We simply don’t appreciate all that Obama has done for this country. Trillions of dollars of debt, persistent high unemployment, and blaming the rich are all good things, we just don’t see it yet.

      • James0601 October 31, 2012 / 9:33 pm

        cluster, simply hilariously ignorant.

        Gas is $5 in a lot of places, notably So Cal.

        really? tell us where? you’re good at lying and picking out the exception and claiming its the rule. But go ahead, show us where gas is $5 which would be about 1.75 dollars over the national average…

        And when you stop counting people you can make the unemployment number any thing you want,

        ummm…the methodology of the BLS hasn’t changed from 10 years ago to now…I don’t know why you weren’t complaining about them before.

        You’re an abhorrently ignorant person. It’s almost painful reading your posts and blog entries. I actually start to laugh its so sad.

        tell me again…what’s the unemployment rate currently, and what was it when the President took office?

      • James0601 October 31, 2012 / 9:56 pm

        Again, you are citing the price of premium fuel because???

        you were actually off 62 cents sport, check your math. the average nationwide prices are based on REGULAR UNLEADED.

        your dishonesty doesn’t surprise me. It may convince sheep like neo and gmb, but it usually doesn’t stand up in the real world.

        and did you really read your own article? the first sentence says it all. prices are DROPPING.

        Thanks for playing sport.

      • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 11:29 am

        James bleats, about the comment “And when you stop counting people you can make the unemployment number any thing you want…

        “..ummm…the methodology of the BLS hasn’t changed from 10 years ago to now…I don’t know why you weren’t complaining about them before.”

        It is always so hard to tell if James is stupid or just dissembling. Does he even understand the reference, or does he understand it and is just trying to shift it into something else?

        Given the very real likelihood that James really doesn’t understand how the unemployment figures are established, he might NOT realize that once people have used up all their unemployment benefits and are not on the rolls any more, they are not counted, even if they remain unemployed. i.e.: They are not counted any more.

        (Is he admitting ignorance of the system, or just whining that “..you weren’t complaining about (them) before”? If the latter, then he is implying that we have always had millions of people who used up their benefits, fell off the outer edge of the unemployment figures, but we ignored them because they did not reflect badly on The One. Silly, desperate, dishonest—-classic James. But that is based on the assumption he even understands why millions are not being counted at all.)

        To the simple minded, such as James, “unemployment” refers to people without jobs, but of course it really only means people who had jobs, lost them, applied for benefits, are receiving benefits, and are actively looking for jobs. It does not include people who are not looking, who have used up their benefits, or who are underemployed because they had to take minimum wage jobs just to have something.

        As annoying as James is, he is a wonderful source of insight into the ignorance of the RRL, as well as into its sewer of hatred and vitriol, resentment and rage. Creepy, but useful.

  8. Cluster October 31, 2012 / 9:17 pm

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 54% of Likely U.S. Voters favor repeal of the health care law, while just 39% are opposed. This includes 43% who Strongly Favor repeal, and 30% who are Strongly Opposed to it.

    James will be calling Rasmussen a right wing pollster hack in 3 …… 2 ………1 …..

    • James0601 October 31, 2012 / 9:30 pm

      the law was constitutional. you would be one of those people who would let people in each state vote on desegregation, slavery, and other issues that are based on right and wrong.

      keep quoting Rasmussen and lets see how next tuesday turns out.

      • Cluster October 31, 2012 / 9:35 pm

        Equating government run healthcare to slavery? OMG. James, you definitely go off the rails quickly.

      • James0601 October 31, 2012 / 9:37 pm

        I wasn’t equating anything. and how is this government run healthcare? which government program is going to be created that allows you or me to buy government insurance?

        Please explain further there sport.

      • Cluster October 31, 2012 / 9:43 pm

        James,

        You are aware that millions of people will be added to Medicare and government operated exchanges will be required in all states, right? That’s government RUN healthcare.

        Have you read the bill?

      • Cluster October 31, 2012 / 9:44 pm

        Are you still laughing James?

      • James0601 October 31, 2012 / 9:54 pm

        You are aware that millions of people will be added to Medicare and government operated exchanges will be required in all states, right?

        WRONG! government exchanges are a marketplace where PRIVATE companies can come and advertise their product for people to buy. The exchanges are a marketplace that brings people to market easier and in one place.

        People added to medicare…man that’s HORRIBLE!!! NOT! what’s your problem with medicare? You don’t want more people to have coverage under medicare? and this is because?

        That’s government RUN healthcare.

        Nice talking point. I can’t wait to see Romney lose, and I changed my mind, I will come back and mock you.

        Have you read the bill?

        Yes, a large portion of it actually.

      • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 11:11 am

        How much is a “large portion” of the 2700+ pages? Did you also read the many hundreds of pages of referred citations?

        Where in the “large portion” you claim to have read did you find the solution for the problem of vastly increasing the number of insured while the number of providers drops? It’s an interesting problem, and you seem to address it only by denying that large numbers of doctors are now dropping out of Medicare and Medicaid because of declining compensation.

        Does this Act include the same provision that HillaryCare did, and make it illegal for a doctor to provide health care outside the government system?

        I’ve tried to simplify the discussion for you by limiting it, for now, to just this one issue. Add hundreds of thousands of people into the health care system, and at the same time have the number of people providing health care drop dramatically—-what is the answer to this problem?

      • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 11:15 am

        “WRONG! government exchanges are a marketplace where PRIVATE companies can come and advertise their product for people to buy. The exchanges are a marketplace that brings people to market easier and in one place.”

        Are you really saying that government exchanges are just sites where private insurance companies can advertise? Really? The government just steps in and teaches private industry how to advertise its product to the public?

        Are you denying that the goal of the government is to edge out private insurance, to create a single payer system similar to that in Canada? And that the government will be the single payer?

      • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 11:19 am

        “you would be one of those people who would let people in each state vote on desegregation, slavery, and other issues that are based on right and wrong.”

        No, James was not exactly EQUATING slavery and government health care, he was just playing the RRL game of trying to insert racism and slavery into any discussion where he is floundering—which would, if he were consistent, be in every one—-and illustrating the dependence of his kind of this kind of ugly, vicious and dishonest rhetoric.

    • James0601 October 31, 2012 / 9:51 pm

      what’s your point? I am still laughing at you for the record, i never stopped.

      but back to the article, what’s your point? There was a major storm, power is down and fuel is running short.

      people will change their vote because of that?

      Man, this is to easy, you’re to ignorant.

      • Cluster October 31, 2012 / 9:55 pm

        Kind of lost the government run healthcare and $5 gas debate didn’t you?

        Goodnight James.

      • James0601 October 31, 2012 / 9:59 pm

        right, because you ignored the reply and just tuck tail and run. atta boy.

      • Cluster October 31, 2012 / 10:03 pm

        I will just leave you with one more fact:

        Government programs directly cover 27.8% of the population (83 million)

        This establishes the government as currently the largest insurance provider and they will get only bigger. That is government RUN healthcare James. It’s just a simple irrefutable fact.

      • Cluster October 31, 2012 / 10:04 pm

        Oh and if you had any retention skills whatsoever, I have often said that I support Medicare. When you grow up, maybe we can debate further.

        Good night.

      • cyberactor November 1, 2012 / 12:27 am

        I’d like to chime in to say no- it isn’t government run healthcare. Not the ACA in its current incarnation anyway. Private insurers, so the government “runs” nothing.

        But you know what, Cluster? It SHOULD be government run. There shouldn’t be a for-profit insurance company in this entire country. Health insurance shouldn’t be for profit AT ALL. Doctors? Yes. For profit. Why not? Hospitals? Sure. Absolutely. But insurance? Nope.

        It should be single-payer Medicare for all.

        But please, by all means: Explain to me the advantages of having multi-billion dollar insurance companies who really call the shots. Be my guest.

      • Cluster November 1, 2012 / 8:11 am

        I don’t think you understand the relationship. When you have private insurance companies competing for people’s business, the people call the shots. If they don’t like the cost or coverage, they can go with another company. When the only option is government, they no longer have a choice, which is just another example of liberals being anti choice.

        Secondly, insurance companies pay the doctors, hospitals, etc., and that is one reason why many doctors no longer accept Medicare patients, because of the low reimbursement rates, and timeliness of getting paid. And when government determines reimbursement rates, and coverage, they do RUN healthcare. Just FYI.

        We do need to reform our healthcare industry, but you are going in the completely wrong direction.

      • James0601 November 1, 2012 / 10:33 am

        Cluster, again with the misinformation…

        I don’t think you understand the relationship. When you have private insurance companies competing for people’s business, the people call the shots.

        Really? You should tell that to people who were denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or people who have caps on their account by no choice of their own.

        this notion that people can change coverage and companies anytime they want because its their choice is a complete lie.

        If they don’t like the cost or coverage, they can go with another company.

        which insurance company you know cluster would cover someone with pre-existing conditions if it wasn’t for this healthcare law the President passed?

        When the only option is government, they no longer have a choice, which is just another example of liberals being anti choice.

        Government is the only option now? Oh right, i forgot you live in a bubble where all of a sudden all the private carriers are gone, and ONLY medicare is available for people….are you drunk?

        Secondly, insurance companies pay the doctors, hospitals, etc., and that is one reason why many doctors no longer accept Medicare patients, because of the low reimbursement rates, and timeliness of getting paid.

        You must not know, or purposely avoid posting facts about the percentage of doctors and hospitals that accept medicare.

        And when government determines reimbursement rates, and coverage, they do RUN healthcare. Just FYI.

        No. that’s a straw man, and you’re to dishonest to have an honest conversation about healthcare.

      • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 10:50 am

        James claims: “I live my life based on facts and empirically proven events.”

        How sweet.

        Now try sharing those facts and empirically proven events with us, instead of just making sweeping comments and then trying to defend them with the equivalent of “because I said so”—if you even try at all.

  9. Cluster November 1, 2012 / 8:40 am

    Just as cyberactor fails to fully understand the role of insurance, James has little understanding of economics and how dangerous our mounting debt is. On the other thread, and in numerous other threads, James has always cited our “reserve currency” as the back stop to any problem we may confront, and of which allows us to borrow unlimited amounts of money. What James fails to understand is that historically reserve currencies have come and gone, and just this year, some are speculating the the dollars standing may go:

    http://business.inquirer.net/57211/experts-see-demise-of-dollar-as-world-currency

    This possibility is based on the fact the our dollar is losing its strength in part due to QE1, QE2, and a likely QE3, in addition to our continued borrowing which is now estimated to be .42 cents of every dollar.

    On the other thread, Amazona asked James a very pointed question – what amount of our GDP goes towards the interest of our debt, of which James typically dodged, citing our reserve currency as the answer to our problems, which leads me to believe he really doesn’t understand it.

    • Retired Spook November 1, 2012 / 9:35 am

      Cluster,

      What James and people like him don’t seem to grasp is that the dollar only remains the world’s reserve currency as long as America is the strongest nation on earth. That’s a distinction that Romney gets and Barack Obama doesn’t. One of the main goals of the current crew of Progressives is to knock the United States down to the level of all the other “exceptional nations”.

      • James0601 November 1, 2012 / 10:27 am

        Spook,

        again with the touchy feely bs from you. How do you know Romney gets something and Obama doesn’t?

        What James and people like him don’t seem to grasp is that the dollar only remains the world’s reserve currency as long as America is the strongest nation on earth.

        Who says we aren’t? We are by far the strongest nation on earth in every way. do you disagree with that?

        That’s a distinction that Romney gets and Barack Obama doesn’t.

        obviously! that must be the reason you are voting for Romney if you already haven’t. You would think for a guy who claims to base his opinions and statements in reason…you’d have something to back that up with…

        One of the main goals of the current crew of Progressives is to knock the United States down to the level of all the other “exceptional nations”.

        Where did you get that from? Let me guess…Newsmax? Commentary magazine? PJmedia? Fox? AEI? go ahead, give us some sources on this claim.

      • Retired Spook November 1, 2012 / 4:33 pm

        Who says we aren’t? We are by far the strongest nation on earth in every way. do you disagree with that?

        I don’t believe we are as strong economically, militarily or morally as we were, say 10 or 20 years ago. When Obama said the week before the 2008 election, “We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”, what exactly do you think he meant? Did you think he meant make it stronger? If so, in what way do you think he wanted us to be stronger relative to the rest of the world?

      • dbschmidt November 1, 2012 / 9:04 pm

        James,

        Just look at the Progressives from our own history to start; Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Carter (to a lesser degree) and Obama. There goal is to turn America, the Shining city on the Hill, into just another nation.

        Please review how many people Americans have raised from true oppression into freedom. Maybe Tocqueville or Henry Adams, who stated “–in other words, to the species of freedom that has done more than anything else ever invented to lift masses of people out of poverty and that would later be known as capitialism.”

      • dbschmidt November 1, 2012 / 9:07 pm

        As a final question to you as asked by many better suited than I: “And equality…what is the record?”

    • James0601 November 1, 2012 / 10:25 am

      Cluster,

      I didn’t dodge it. you’re the habitual liar and dodger on this blog from what I can tell.

      you live your life based on speculation, ifs, and maybes. I live my life based on facts and empirically proven events.

      you and others have been predicting inflation, demise, and the plummeting of our dollar for as long as I have been here. And it’s always been bs.

      • Cluster November 1, 2012 / 10:33 am

        James,

        Once again, thank you for the well reasoned and mature response. Please tell us how continued spending, borrowing and printing of money will strengthen the dollar and our economy, ensuring that the dollar remains the reserve currency.

        And if you would like to answer Amazona’s question from the previous thread, I would welcome that too.

        Have a nice day.

      • James0601 November 1, 2012 / 10:49 am

        Cluster,

        if you’d bother to scroll up on this thread you’d see that I did answer her.

        Maybe you like to live your life with catch phrases and straw men, but in the real world, we are the best investment the world can make. thus our reserve currency status is not in danger.

        Thanks for trying though.

      • James0601 November 1, 2012 / 10:51 am

        wait a minute JR, did you just seriously post an article by a guy who uses “liberty” as his polar star?

        Really? Tell you what, try reading something outside your bubble, you may find it helpful.

      • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 10:53 am

        No, James, you did NOT answer me. Typing in a bunch of words is not the same as an answer.

        You did not respond with facts to any of my questions, but either dismissed them as irrelevant, sneered at them, or simply restated what you had already said.

        You refused to address the impact of rising interest rates, you refused to address the impact on economic growth of artificially low interest rates, you refused to deal with the impact on the economy of massive debt—you didn’t answer a single thing.

      • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 11:04 am

        “…wait a minute JR, did you just seriously post an article by a guy who uses “liberty” as his polar star?”

        What??????

        And why can’t you address what was said, instead of just sneering at the source—–if that is what you are doing. You are so incoherent, sometimes it’s hard to tell just what you are trying to say.

        You also seem to be sneering at the very idea of inflation. Well, I remember wanting to buy a new car in 1979 and finding the interest rate to be 21%–that was approximately the time our bogus “gas shortage” had cars line up to buy gas, which was often rationed, and sold according to whether your license plate had odd or even numbers.

        By the way, this all happened under the administration of the man who was considered, until Obama came along, to be the worst president we had ever had.

      • James0601 November 1, 2012 / 11:15 am

        Amazona,

        And why can’t you address what was said, instead of just sneering at the source—–if that is what you are doing. You are so incoherent, sometimes it’s hard to tell just what you are trying to say.

        the source is bogus, and the article was a complete waste of time. I can never get those 7 minutes back. get some credible sources and people and we can actually discuss it, otherwise, don’t waste your time. The internet is a place where you can get someone to agree with any position you want.

        You also seem to be sneering at the very idea of inflation. Well, I remember wanting to buy a new car in 1979 and finding the interest rate to be 21%–

        1979????? this is 2012 last I checked and inflation is negligible. You live in this alternate universe where your anecdotal stories and experiences are the norm and not the exception.

        What happened in 1979 isn’t happening today and won’t happen tomorrow.

        that was approximately the time our bogus “gas shortage” had cars line up to buy gas, which was often rationed, and sold according to whether your license plate had odd or even numbers.

        so what? are you saying that will happen again now? or was that an addition to your anecdotal indictment of Obama?

      • Cluster November 1, 2012 / 11:28 am

        James,

        You are proving yourself to be ignorant of history, and irrationally charged on nearly every subject.

        Cyberactor suggested single payer, to which I responded that if government controls 100% of healthcare insurance, then that negates choice. You flew off the handle once again in your response. The fact is, government does already insure nearly 30% and that number is growing. No one argues the need for reform, and pre existing conditions need to be addressed, but Obama;s answer to the problem is what I and many others disagree with, so again, try and be rational about that fact. It is also a fact that more and more doctors are no longer accepting medicare patients, you wishing that it isn’t the case, doesn’t make it true.

        The dollar has declined in value, our reserve currency status is in jeopardy, and inflation could hit us hard if we don’t get it under control – those are simple, irrefutable facts.

        I am embarrassed for you James, you really are ill informed and over emotional no doubt as a result of some self perceived superiority.

      • James0601 November 1, 2012 / 11:40 am

        Cluster,

        You are proving yourself to be ignorant of history, and irrationally charged on nearly every subject.

        on the contrary, you’re the one who cherry picks information and runs away when called on it. you’re truly ignorant on a level i’ve never seen before.

        Cyberactor suggested single payer, to which I responded that if government controls 100% of healthcare insurance, then that negates choice.

        So you saying there isn’t choice in the system now was a comment on a single payer now? nice duck and cover.

        The fact is, government does already insure nearly 30% and that number is growing.

        Earlier you stated you support medicare…and medicare and other programs cover about 30%…but you don’t want to expand it to cover more needy people? You support the program, but don’t want to expand it for others?

        Also, where did you get the 30% from?

        It is also a fact that more and more doctors are no longer accepting medicare patients, you wishing that it isn’t the case, doesn’t make it true.

        no longer accepting medicare as compared to when? what’s the baseline for your comparison? what percentage of doctors should accept medicare in your opinion? your argument is full of holes and its actually kind of funny.

        The dollar has declined in value,

        according to whom? compared to the Euro, its about the same as it was when the President took office….

        http://www.oanda.com/currency/historical-rates/

        our reserve currency status is in jeopardy

        according to you, its been in jeopardy for years….snap out of it, you live in a bubble.

        and inflation could hit us hard if we don’t get it under control – those are simple, irrefutable facts.

        COULD hit us hard? how long have you been living in this inflation fear monger world? let me give you a hint, as long as interest rates are low, inflation isn’t an issue.

        I am embarrassed for you James, you really are ill informed and over emotional no doubt as a result of some self perceived superiority.

        this coming from a guy who lives in a fear induced bubble of inflation, high interest rates where the dollar is worth nothing. riiight.

        have fun watching Romney lose.

      • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 11:49 am

        According to you, James, anything you have not personally experienced is “anecdotal” and therefore irrelevant.

        I merely pointed out that we have experienced massive inflation in the fairly recent past, and during an administration very similar to this one, which should indicate to any reasonable person that it could easily happen again.

        I have noticed the insistence of so many of our RRL trolls in simply dismissing history as irrelevant. One of you once shrieked that we (conservatives) are just TRAPPED IN HISTORY !!!

        You yourself claim that you live your life “…..based on facts and empirically proven events..” but when I present facts, and events which are “empirically proven” you just sneer at them and dismiss them as irrelevant.

        I understand the need for the new RRL recruits to dismiss history—after all, it is quite inconvenient for you. You ardently support a political system you don’t understand, because it has validated your personality disorders, told you that not only is there nothing wrong with being driven by hate and resentment and rage it is really quite noble if directed toward an Other, which they conveniently define and point out to you.

        When challenged to defend your allegiance to this system, you try to change the subject, and when the historical facts surrounding this system are pointed out to you, to show you that it has an uninterrupted history of failure, of economic misery, of the loss of personal liberty, often of the slaughter of tens of millions, you just laugh it off as nothing more than anecdotal trips into an irrelevant history.

        You choose to focus on Identity Politics, on the only things you can understand, which are attacks on people, and you strenuously evade any effort to put your support for the radical Left into a historical perspective.

      • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 11:54 am

        Oh, goody, another economics lesson from James:

        “Let me give you a hint, as long as interest rates are low, inflation isn’t an issue.”

        Sooooo good to know. Here I have been looking at low interest rates for a couple of years now, while watching prices go up. I thought my increased prices for bread, milk, gas, cereal, etc. were due to inflation. But James has assured us that this just ain’t so.

        So what IS it, James?

      • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 11:55 am

        Or maybe he is saying that while there IS inflation, it just “isn’t an issue”.

      • Cluster November 1, 2012 / 12:00 pm

        ..which should indicate to any reasonable person that it could easily happen again.

        I think we can all agree that James is anything but reasonable. He believes name calling makes his points for him.

        He continues to create strawmen then take irrational swings at them, much like the Obama campaign. For example, he implied that I suggested there was no current choice in health insurance, when in reality my response was to cyber that if we DID have single payer that there would be no choice. It’s just a small example of why any debate with such an irrationally over emotional person is a complete waste.

        He has yet to answer the very simple question posed by Amazona from yesterday, and here we are, still watching him flail about and take swings at those strawmen.

      • Cluster November 1, 2012 / 12:03 pm

        Gas prices have more than doubled in four years James. Is that a function of supply and demand, or inflation?

      • neocon01 November 1, 2012 / 12:14 pm

        jimmah/sasan goat heredr

        FIVE TRILLION in FOUR YEARS, the entire ME lost, 2000+ dead in Afgan.
        a dead ambassador, 12% real unemployment the economy in shambles………I guess you goat herder stick together no matter what eh?

      • dbschmidt November 1, 2012 / 9:12 pm

        James sounds like he is living in 1978 — just before hyper inflation.

    • Cluster November 1, 2012 / 12:30 pm

      From your link:

      “The easiest possible explanation is that Obama goes on their shows and Romney doesn’t.”

      The honest explanation is that Romney is white and Obama is black. These comedians, and society as a whole, are reluctant to ridicule black people for fear of being labeled a racist by irrational people like you and the media.

      Letterman use to be funny and relevant 30 years ago, now he is just old and boring.

      • James0601 November 1, 2012 / 12:37 pm

        right, who is bringing race into the equation? maybe you should listen to chris rock, or bill maher. During their standup acts, they routinely mock people of different races and backgrounds.

        maybe just google “indian comedian” or “muslim comedian”

        seriously, don’t bring race into everything like conservatives usually do.

      • dbschmidt November 1, 2012 / 9:13 pm

        James,

        You just prove over and over again you are a complete f’king moron.

  10. Cluster November 1, 2012 / 12:24 pm

    Just an observation – liberals consider themselves to be pro choice, but when confronted with choices on a number of issues, specifically, the choice on how to move the country forward, they become enraged, irrational and derisive, rendering them incapable of conducting an adult conversation. Maybe choice isn’t what they really want.

  11. James0601 November 1, 2012 / 12:35 pm

    Amazona, I will honor you with my point by point reply one more time.

    According to you, James, anything you have not personally experienced is “anecdotal” and therefore irrelevant.

    Wrong. I don’t care what you have personally experience in 1979. It has no bearing on today or today’s world.

    I merely pointed out that we have experienced massive inflation in the fairly recent past, and during an administration very similar to this one, which should indicate to any reasonable person that it could easily happen again.

    How is Carter similar to this president? How are the economic conditions of 1979 similar to these economic conditions? Your straw man is painfully weak.

    I have noticed the insistence of so many of our RRL trolls in simply dismissing history as irrelevant. One of you once shrieked that we (conservatives) are just TRAPPED IN HISTORY !!!

    History is not irrelevant at all. the only condition you have to follow is to compare SIMILAR times in the past to today. That’s it. You compare times that not only are not similar, but are not even close to today’s conditions.

    You yourself claim that you live your life “…..based on facts and empirically proven events..” but when I present facts, and events which are “empirically proven” you just sneer at them and dismiss them as irrelevant.

    again, read above. bring up points that are relevant to today’s conditions and we can discuss anything to your hearts content. but when you bring up times in history that have no bearing on today and are completely different than today, i will ignore you.

    You ardently support a political system you don’t understand

    Right, because you understand conservatism and liberalism. I forgot, you’re a walking encyclopedia. I understand my political system much better than you ever have understood yours.

    because it has validated your personality disorders, told you that not only is there nothing wrong with being driven by hate and resentment and rage it is really quite noble if directed toward an Other, which they conveniently define and point out to you.

    blah blah blah. personal attacks, and on top of that, you project immensely.

    When challenged to defend your allegiance to this system, you try to change the subject,

    I’ve never done that.

    and when the historical facts surrounding this system are pointed out to you, to show you that it has an uninterrupted history of failure, of economic misery, of the loss of personal liberty, often of the slaughter of tens of millions, you just laugh it off as nothing more than anecdotal trips into an irrelevant history.

    Once again. Not true. If you want to compare a Democrat today to a communist of yesteryear, then go ahead and make that false comparison. I could compare conservatives and right wing religious nuts to the islamic religious nuts in the muslim world today, but that doesn’t make it a valid comparison.

    How has the liberal movement in the US contributed to your loss of personal freedoms? explain that one to us. Do the Europeans have less freedom than you? Germans? French?

    It’s also hard to argue with you when you change history to put the fascists on the left side of the spectrum, and don’t attribute anything but evil to the liberal side of the spectrum.

    You live in your own parallel universe and quite frankly, when you lose the election next week, i’d hope you snap out of it and become moored in reality.

    You choose to focus on Identity Politics, on the only things you can understand, which are attacks on people, and you strenuously evade any effort to put your support for the radical Left into a historical perspective.

    Says the woman who just posted nothing but personal attacks and who routinely attacks everyone who doesn’t agree with her….irony doesn’t even begin to describe you.

    • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 12:44 pm

      James, you avoided every single thing I said. As I have pointed out merely typing a bunch of words is not a response, and neither is just dismissing what you don’t agree with.

      But—you say ” I understand my political system much better than you ever have understood yours. ”

      Great. Aside from the fact that you have no idea how well I understand my own political system, or as far as I can tell, even what it is, I would love to hear your own definition and explanation of yours.

      Remember, a political system is not a wish list of how you want things to be, but is a blueprint for how to govern a nation.

      I really hope you can follow through on this.

      Later you might find time to go back through my many posts on this blog for so many years and see just how many of them have been thoughtful discussions of political philosophy, including my respectful responses to your own claim that you were eager to have legitimate political discussions—back before you backed off on that, and went back to your usual attack mode.

      Till then, though—please do explain your chosen political system.

      • James0601 November 1, 2012 / 12:53 pm

        easy.

        I believe in big government. I believe that government should provide citizens with guaranteed healthcare, free education, and pensions. This would be paid for by higher marginal tax rates on everyone.

        I don’t believe in the 10th amendment or the sovereignty of states. we should have ONE national drivers license, one national licence plate, one national criminal code. states should not have their own constitution or autonomy to decide on issues like abortion, gay marriage, or death penalty.

        I believe that an education system controlled from the federal government and enacted by the federal government is better htan having a rag tag of 50 states with 50 different levels of education and standards.

        I believe that big government spending on social programs with our tax dollars is not only acceptable but morally required to take care of the needy in our nation. states should not even touch those issues.

        I believe in a strong military and I don’t believe each state should have its own national guard. the national guards should be under control of the federal government.

        That’s the basic belief in a nutshell.

      • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 1:08 pm

        Thank you very much. You DO have a clear and coherent political philosophy, and you CAN explain it.

        So you have put yourself firmly opposite the Constitutional model of government for the United States. How do you propose to address this conflict? Do you suggest overthrowing a Constitutional form of government? Do you suggest simply ignoring the Constitution and moving into an overtly Marxist form of government? Do you advocate extensive amendments of the Constitution to make your goals legal in this country?

        Do you even understand that what you want is NOT legal in this country, under our current Constitutional model of government? And do you understand that objections to your position are principled opposition based on a completely different viewpoint of how this nation should be governed, and how it MUST be governed according to its current body of Constitutional law?

        Now, having taken such a firm stand in favor of a strongly Leftist political model, can you tell us where this model has been successful? That is, produced a strong economy and increased personal liberty?

      • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 1:11 pm

        James, you say “I don’t believe in the 10th amendment or the sovereignty of states.”

        Do you understand that this is akin to not believing in gravity? That is, there IS a 10th Amendment, and there IS a Constitution of the United States of America which is based on state sovereignty. Saying you don’t “believe in” them is simply silly. They are there.

        You might not AGREE with them, but to not BELIEVE in them is a very odd position to adopt.

      • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 1:18 pm

        James, do you believe that your personal political belief system, as you described so clearly and concisely, is representative of the Democratic Party?

        Do you believe that most supporters of Obama agree with you and share this political ideology?

        Do you believe that the Democratic Party, in 2012, represents a desire to get as far from our Constitution as you want the nation to go, and shares your vision of one single national government as you described it, and this level of power and control in the central government?

      • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 1:22 pm

        James, how far do you think redistribution of wealth ought to go?

        You advocate vast expenditures by the federal government, which clearly would have to depend on extensive contributions by the more wealthy among us—-which is just another way of saying redistribution of wealth. To what extent should individuals be allowed to control their own assets?

        Do you believe in private property, or do you fall short of actual communism?

        How much control should the central authority have over private enterprise?

      • James0601 November 1, 2012 / 2:07 pm

        amazona, not at all.

        So you have put yourself firmly opposite the Constitutional model of government for the United States.

        not at all, every amendment, and everything else in the constitution except for the 10th amendment, I agree with completely.

        How do you propose to address this conflict? Do you suggest overthrowing a Constitutional form of government?

        why would you do that when you can just repeal the 10th amendment?

        Do you suggest simply ignoring the Constitution and moving into an overtly Marxist form of government?

        another straw man fear argument! atta girl!

        Do you advocate extensive amendments of the Constitution to make your goals legal in this country?

        the only amendment that needs to be repealed is the 10th.

        Do you even understand that what you want is NOT legal in this country, under our current Constitutional model of government?

        many things weren’t legal under the constitution until the constitution was amended. It’s called the amendment process.

        And do you understand that objections to your position are principled opposition based on a completely different viewpoint of how this nation should be governed, and how it MUST be governed according to its current body of Constitutional law?

        opposition is based on how it must be governed according to the current constitution, but like I said, amend it, and there you go.

        Now, having taken such a firm stand in favor of a strongly Leftist political model, can you tell us where this model has been successful? That is, produced a strong economy and increased personal liberty?

        Last I checked, they have as much liberty in Belgium than they do here. In fact, most western nations including Korea and Japan are far more “progressive” than we are and have succeeded just fine and have given freedom to their people.

        This argument that ONLY your model of government gives people freedom is a farce. there are just as much property rights in France as we have here.

      • James0601 November 1, 2012 / 2:09 pm

        another reply.

        James, do you believe that your personal political belief system, as you described so clearly and concisely, is representative of the Democratic Party?

        I’d say the Democratic party is more aligned with my view point than the GOP. I can’t speak for the members of the Democratic party on an individual basis.

        Do you believe that most supporters of Obama agree with you and share this political ideology?

        I don’t know. The dems have a pretty large tent, unlike the GOP. we have many different types of people in our party.

      • James0601 November 1, 2012 / 2:13 pm

        James, how far do you think redistribution of wealth ought to go?

        I call it a progressive tax system, which is what we currently have. you can call it a pole dance for all I care. the progressive tax system isn’t progressive enough. I believe we should model our tax rates after Germany’s rates and progressiveness.

        You advocate vast expenditures by the federal government, which clearly would have to depend on extensive contributions by the more wealthy among us—-which is just another way of saying redistribution of wealth. To what extent should individuals be allowed to control their own assets?

        another straw man. you are full of hot air amazona. everyone should pay, those who earn more, pay more. Those who earn less, pay less as a percentage of their income. you’re a real piece of work, lumping together so many cartoonish preconceived notions into one sentence is impressive.

        Do you believe in private property, or do you fall short of actual communism?

        why wouldn’t I? again, another attempt to make your opponents into something they aren’t. It’s like me asking you..do you want a theocracy?

        How much control should the central authority have over private enterprise?

        other than the regulations we have, and maybe a little more, none. how much central authority is there over private enterprise in Germany? Japan? France?

      • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 2:31 pm

        Here are two questions and answers, in my exchange with James:

        So you have put yourself firmly opposite the Constitutional model of government for the United States.

        not at all, every amendment, and everything else in the constitution except for the 10th amendment, I agree with completely.

        How do you propose to address this conflict? Do you suggest overthrowing a Constitutional form of government?

        why would you do that when you can just repeal the 10th amendment?

        This is fascinating, because it illustrates the abject ignorance of James regarding the Constitution as a whole.

        The 10th Amendment is not just a stand-alone, slapped-on addition to the original content of the Constitution. Rather it is a clarification of the original document. Don’t take my word for it—not that you would—but study the origins of the Constitution, the discussions by the Founders, the arguments about the content and wording, the compromises necessary to get it ratified.

        Basically, the Founding Fathers thought that the fact that only 17 assigned duties were enumerated was enough to limit the federal government to those duties, and only those duties. Skeptics said no, it won’t be long before people start to argue that the way it is written is so open-ended that it will be OK to add to that list.

        Finally, the only way to get the Constitution ratified as it was, without making it too wordy and cumbersome, was to promise—PROMISE—that if the skeptics would support it as written, and help get it ratified, it would be shored up with more specific wording later. A Bill of Rights, which would balance the designated duties of the federal government with a list of what it could NOT do.

        The entire 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights does just that—-it LIMITS the scope and power of the federal government. It says the feds cannot interfere with the right to worship, with the right to own arms, with the right to deny the military occupancy in our homes, with the right to refuse self-incrimination, etc.

        The entire Bill of Rights—ALL TEN OF THE AMENDMENTS—-were part and parcel of the original Constitution, and were promised to reinforce what the FF had thought would be adequate protections against the expansion of the federal government.

        And the entire Revolution, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, were all based upon the absolute determination of our ancestors that they would not allow the creation of a central government with unlimited size, scope and power.

        To simply advocate the repeal of the 10th Amendment is to admit ignorance of the entire process of the founding of this nation and the principles which guided its establishment.

      • Retired Spook November 1, 2012 / 4:46 pm

        Last I checked, they have as much liberty in Belgium than [as] they do here.

        James, what a great example. You’re a barrel of laughs.

      • James0601 November 1, 2012 / 8:55 pm

        spook,

        just because they don’t have a coalition government at this moment doesn’t mean they aren’t free.

        are you stupid on purpose or by accident?

      • dbschmidt November 1, 2012 / 9:26 pm

        No James–you are a f’king idiot in the more common sense. No sense of history, no sense of the world view, no idea of economics or much anything else. Geez, does Mommy let you out of the basement much? I lived through Carter, and most of the world but your ignorance astounds even me.

        For you it so be: “Were you born and asshole or did you work at it you whole life.” My guess would be a compound answer for you.

    • Cluster November 1, 2012 / 12:46 pm

      I don’t care what you have personally experience in 1979. It has no bearing on today or today’s world. – James

      It wasn’t a personal experience, it was a national experience. Interest rates were double digit, inflation was double digit, unemployment was double digit. And you’re the one that bases his opinions on historical facts?

      Good grief.

      • James0601 November 1, 2012 / 12:49 pm

        maybe you’re just obtuse, but do you now see the difference in times and economic conditions? are you seriously stupid?

      • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 1:01 pm

        Gee, James, instead of just floundering around hurling insults, why don’t you outline Carter policies and show us how they differ from Obama policies? You know, economically and internationally and so on.

        it would be a refreshing change from your reliance on “because I SAID so” and name-calling, which seem to be the foundation of whatever constitutes your position on pretty much everything.

    • Amazona November 1, 2012 / 12:59 pm

      “It’s also hard to argue with you when you change history to put the fascists on the left side of the spectrum….” , a statement which proves that you really DON’T understand political systems and how they are defined.

      Fascism was a political model based on leftist principles of collectivism and large, powerful, controlling central government. It was a kissing cousin to socialism, Marxism, communism—all the leftist ‘isms’ that overlap so much it is hard to tell the difference, if any, among them.

      In Nazi Germany (“Nazi” being a slang term for the National Socialist Party) fascism became part of a melding of government and industry, in which the government controlled what was nominally still privately owned industry. Even then, Hitler and Stalin were best buds, brothers in Leftist ideology, standing together against the world. And fascism was still, even more so, a system of massively large and powerful and controlling central government, the antithesis of Right wing systems.

      When Hitler violated his non-aggression pact with Russia and war broke out between the two nations, it was awkward to have an enemy who was the mirror image of yourself, so a little Leftist revision of history took place, in which fascism, of all the Leftist movements, was suddenly redefined as being not of the Left but, abracadabra, on the RIGHT—- a much more explainable enemy.

      This was “explained” by the control of German industry by the government, simply by turning reality on its head and pretending that it was industry controlling the government, not the other way around. It was easy to gull the ignorant into associating industry with the Right, and the ruse worked, at least with the undereducated and politically illiterate and easily led.

      This worked only for people who were, and are, basically ignorant of what a political system IS, anyway—people sucked in by Identity Politics, in which names and personalities are what are important, not ideology.

      • James0601 November 1, 2012 / 2:16 pm

        you must smoke some good stuff. arguing with you about politics is like asking a blind man for directions.

        If you truly believe that Hitler and Stalin were best buddies and that their peace pact was a love fest, then you need to read some history books that don’t come from newsmax and wnd.

        if you don’t know the difference between fascism and communism then you’re a lost cause.

        Until you educate yourself on that simple fact, debating you is pointless.

        Talk about not knowing the history of your political ideology.

      • neocon01 November 1, 2012 / 4:34 pm

        Bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha

        missed this in goat herding class eh tommy/sasan?

        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.

      • neocon01 November 1, 2012 / 4:37 pm

        james/sasan

        November 25, 2007
        The Nazis Were Marxists
        By Bruce Walker
        The Nazis were Marxists, no matter what our tainted academia and corrupt media wishes us to believe. Nazis, Bolsheviks, the Ku Klux Klan, Maoists, radical Islam and Facists — all are on the Left, something that should be increasingly apparent to decent, honorable people in our times. The Big Lie which places Nazis on some mythical Far Right was created specifically so that there would be a bogeyman manacled on the wrists of those who wish us to move “too far” in the direction of Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater.

        The truth about the Nazis was that they were the antithesis of Reagan and Goldwater. Let us consider the original Nazi movement and its evolution. The National Socialist movement began in Austria with Walter Riehl, Rudolf Jung and Hans Knirsch, who were, as M.W. Fodor relates in his book South of Hitler, the three men who founded the National Socialist Party in Austria, and hence indirectly in Germany. In November, 1910, these men launched what they called the Deutschsoziale Arbeiterpartei. That party was successful politically. It established its program at Inglau in 1914.

        What was this program? It was against social and political reaction, for the working class, against the church and against the capitalist classes. This party eventually adopted the name Deutsche Nationalsozialistche Arbeiter Partei, which, except for the order of the words, is the same name as “Nazi.” In May 1918, the German National Socialist Workers Party selected the Harkendruez, or swastika, as its symbol. Both Hitler and Anton Drexler, the nominal founder of the Nazi Party, corresponded with this earlier, anti-capitalistic and anti-church party.

        Hitler, before the First World War, was highly sympathetic to socialism.

      • Retired Spook November 1, 2012 / 4:55 pm

        Neo, we’ve had this discussion may times. All you have to do is look at a side by side comparison of Communism and Fascism to see how similar they are.

        Fascism is a totalitarian system, where big government and big business are in collusion to lord it over ordinary citizens. Private property is allowed “on paper”, but because owners are not free to use or dispose of their property as they wish, the term loses all its meaning. Under a fascist system of government, the individual’s interest is subservient to the national interest.

        Communism is also a totalitarian system, where all property belongs to the state. Government and business are the same thing – as the state owns the means of production. Under a communist system of government, the individual’s interest is likewise subservient to the national interest.

        Both political systems result in effective dictatorship. Both reduce their citizens to the status of serfs – under a ruling class. So the extremes on both sides are simply two sides of the same coin, variations on an identical theme (collectivism and property
        confiscation) – rather than actual opposites.

        So tell us, James, how exactly are Fascism and Communism fundamentally different, much less at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

      • neocon01 November 1, 2012 / 5:10 pm

        spook

        Neo, we’ve had this discussion may times. All you have to do is look at a side by side comparison of Communism and Fascism to see how similar they are.

        yuuup

        some trolls still live under bridges or in caves in tora bora and will never see the truth.

      • ricorun November 2, 2012 / 10:23 pm

        Spook: Fascism is a totalitarian system, where big government and big business are in collusion to lord it over ordinary citizens.

        Darn, I wish I had time to weigh in on this point. But to make it short, I think that’s the system we’re approaching — with bilateral support!

        The problem is, I don’t think a system where big business calls all the shots would be any better, and would probably be worse — for ordinary citizens, that is. So, in a world of huge, multinational corporations — some of whom are already “too big to fail” without dramatically affecting the entire global economy. That is, after all, what we’ve been witnessing over the last few years. Imagine how terrible it could have been if big government wasn’t there to soften the blow?

        Economists are still debating whether it was a good idea to allow Shearson-Lehman to go belly up because of the global repercussions it had. Imagine what the topic would have been had there not been an entity (i.e., big government) that was capable of preventing J.P. Morgan, Chase, Citibank, B of A, etc., from going belly-up as well. It would have been FAR worse than the Great Depression.

        But that is very likely the scenario that could occur if you buy into Grover Norquist’s idea of trying to reduce the size of centralized government to the point where you could “drown it in a bathtub”. But frankly, that’s the attitude I’m hearing on this site. IMO, reverting to a strict adherence to an ideology that was cooked up more than 200 years ago (i.e., a constructionist/literalist interpretation of the Constitution) — an ideology that was discarded in any sort of pure form in a couple of decades or so after the inception of the document — is not the way to go here in the 21st Century.

        To be perfectly honest, what I would like to see is a Constitutional amendment which recognizes the considerable power that large corporations, unions, and various other powerful special interest groups, have come to hold over the modern political process, and to include them in the political system of checks and balances that has otherwise proven so effective — effective until the emergence of those powerful interest groups, that is. That, to me, is the most promising solution to our present dilemma. Maybe if you thought about it long and hard, maybe you’d agree too.

        On a slightly different note, I’m a big fan of the federalist model — one in which power and influence is shared between federal and state governments. It’s a wonderful formulation when functioning at peak efficiency, provides multiple test-beds for different ideas on many different things, but also provides consistency when such is needed. I am not at all a fan of any sort of centralized model, where all power is aggregated into a federal government. But I am even less of a fan of the confederate model. And the latter is what you would get if you buy into Grover Norquist’s idea of reducing the size of centralized government to the point where you could “drown it in a bathtub”.

Comments are closed.