First time visitor? Learn more.

Bob Woodward v. Andrew Sullivan’s “Daily Ditch”

by Speranza ( 209 Comments › )
Filed under Liberal Fascism, Media, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives at March 15th, 2013 - 7:00 am

It is hard for me to believe that 10 years ago my first two reads when I turned my computer on in the morning when I got to the office was Charles Johnson’s “Little Green Footballs” and Andrew Sullivan’s “The Daily Dish” (now referred to by many on the Right as “The Daily Ditch”). This article just shows you how the political Left will turn on their own when their “own” shows some intellectual and professional integrity. (Although to be fair I never thought of Bob Woodward as being on the hard Left.) Tina Brown not firing Andrew Sullivan from The Daily Beast because of all those vicious smears about Trig Palin’s parentage shows us as Mr. Nolte points out that as long as you target the “right” people, any smears no matter how  vicious and preposterous will be tolerated.

hat tip – Powerline

by John Nolte

A couple weeks ago, the last living legend in journalism, Bob Woodward — the man who took down a corrupt president and for the last forty years has remained at the top of his profession — made the biggest mistake of his career.

Woodward was caught red-handed using his own exhaustive reporting to expose President Obama as a liar for trying to tie ownership of sequester to the tail of congressional Republicans.  Afterwards, based on his own opinion, Woodward was then busted for saying he was uncomfortable with a top White House official telling him he would “regret” reporting that Obama had moved the negotiating goal posts with respect to sequester tax increases.

Unlike so many others in his profession, Woodward wasn’t caught lying or manufacturing facts. [......] His sin was only daring to step off the Narrative Plantation at the expense of President Obama. And for that sin, the recriminations from his so-called colleagues came fast and furious.

In other words, the media-collective was all geared up to deliver Obama a major sequester victory before Woodward came along and rained a bunch of facts down on their parade. And now, as payback, they are raining hell down on him with derision and ridicule that has lasted straight through to today. Throughout the Web, Woodward is now getting hammered via Slate (an outlet owned by his employer, The Washington Post) over his reporting in “Wired,” a 1984 biography of the late John Belushi.

What’s notable is that all of this is occurring in a media environment in whicg Eliot Spitzer is given two primetime cable news shows, Al Sharpton is an NBC News star, Dave Weigel has his own Slate blog, Ezra Klein’s (of journoList fame) and Ben Smith’s stars are ever on the rise, Dan Rather is treated as an elder statesman, Brian Ross remains an ABC big shot, and the Internet’s number-one smear-merchant, Andrew Sullivan, is treated like the media’s favorite uncle.

For those of you who don’t know, Sullivan spent years manufacturing a vicious conspiracy around the parentage of Trig Palin, Governor Sarah Palin’s youngest son. Currently, Sullivan is spreading smears about Pope Benedict and the Catholic Cardinals. [........] And yet, the media not only helps to aggregate these partisan smear campaigns; they treat Sullivan with respect and deference.

Earlier this year, after Sullivan was dumped by the Daily Beast, everyone from the New York Times to Politico to NPR came to his rescue with the affection and attention needed to ensure his new venture would be a success. All this for a man who launched a nasty “birther” style conspiracy against a Down Syndrome child and his mother.

Can you imagine the same media doing anything close to the same for someone who put a tenth as much effort into questioning Obama’s birthplace or the parentage of one of Obama’s daughters?

It’s a revealing and very troubling fact that, even though Sullivan’s unfounded rumor-mongering and character assassination passes nothing close to a journalistic standard and goes a long way towards defining his online identity, the media still embrace him. [........] Because Sullivan is savvy enough to engage in the “correct” kind of unfounded rumor-mongering and character assassination.

You see, although Andrew Sullivan violates every rule of ethical journalism, the media still love and promote him, because he targets the “right” people. That was true with Palin and it’s true today.

Since going independent, Sullivan’s latest unfounded smear campaign is aimed directly at the Catholic Church.  Without any evidence, he has accused the Holy Father of having a secret homosexual relationship. Later, Sullivan upped the ante by claiming “many” of the Catholic Cardinals are gay.

Other than a few media tsk-tsks, though, over the years, Sullivan has paid zero price for any of this behavior. In fact, these deliberate smear campaigns have likely helped to up his media profile and endear him to a left-wing media that secretly loves this behavior. [........]

But who is having his career relentlessly undermined right now? Bob Woodward, for doing nothing more than reporting the truth and his opinion.

So, as you can see, the message from the media is abundantly clear: You can hurl all the unfounded claims and filth at the right without ever having to fear any kind of recrimination from your “journalist” peers. But should you report a truth about Barack Obama that derails his political goals, your peers will relentlessly destroy you and your legacy — even if it means going all the way back to 1984.

Read the rest - How Woodward’s truths and Sullivan’s smears expose our corrupt media

Tags: , ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

209 Responses to “Bob Woodward v. Andrew Sullivan’s “Daily Ditch””
( jump to bottom )

  1. eaglesoars
    1 | March 15, 2013 7:31 am

    What gets me about Sullivan is that he purports to be a Christian. I remember a debate between him and Christopher Hitchens (don’t remember what it was about). Today I doubt Hitchens would piss on him if he were on fire


  2. 2 | March 15, 2013 7:49 am

    It’s a shame that the modern media is so truthfully blind. Especially when it comes to their whipping posts. Anything on the right is bad, evil, and deranged. It doesn’t matter if they are looking at themselves in the mirror and transposing their qualities on the right. We have a mayor here in Toronto that’s very conservative and trying to do the right thing in regards to austerity. He’s been fought tooth and nail in council and the leftist rags are doing everything in their power to trumpet his “misdeeds”.

    Currently one leftist has accused him of sexual harassment. All the leftists are screaming in joy in their vindication of their beliefs about him. Never mind that the nut bar spreading the accusation was looking for something like this, and there are witnesses to her saying this. Nothing will stop them from smearing the right. Accusations of corruption, fraud, and other felonies is their stock in trade.


  3. 3 | March 15, 2013 7:55 am

    eaglesoars wrote:

    What gets me about Sullivan is that he purports to be a Christian. I remember a debate between him and Christopher Hitchens (don’t remember what it was about). Today I doubt Hitchens would piss on him if he were on fire

    He claims to be a practicing Catholic, though he’s also a practicing homosexual. I’m not for discrimination or persecution of gays, I’m a “live and let live” kinda guy, but practicing gays cannot be practicing Catholics and all of the “embracing diversity” in the world isn’t going to change that.


  4. MikeA
    4 | March 15, 2013 8:04 am

    @ MacDuff:

    This is due to some Americans being “cafeteria” christians. They pick and choose the parts that they like and ignore the rest.


  5. 5 | March 15, 2013 8:06 am

    @ MacDuff:

    Oh, but you know the Left won’t be happy with the Catholic Church until there is a Lesbian Pope. Nothing else will satisfy the “diversity” requirements. I think “diversity” is one of the most abused words in the English language. It means tolerating the intolerable except when that “intolerable” is coming from the Right. Then it must be quashed. Worse, Demonized and destroyed. The Left aren’t very tolerant of dissenting views on the Political front. But hey, if you wanna fuck a rotweiler, go ahead!


  6. eaglesoars
    6 | March 15, 2013 8:09 am

    MacDuff wrote:

    but practicing gays cannot be practicing Catholics

    True. But I was coming from the “Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor” direction. He could decide one day to be celibate, it would do nothing to mitigate THAT violation.

    As for the complicity of the media -- I would note that the smear against Woodward’s Belushi’s book “Wired” was written by someone who wrote a compteting tome. I won’t do him the favor of naming him or his book.

    It’s as tho’ they’re scavengers fighting over the diminishing remains of the MSM’s carcass.

    A maybe-bright-light on the horizon: In partnership with the Washington Times, a conservative TV cable channel is launching July 4th.


  7. eaglesoars
    7 | March 15, 2013 8:11 am

    I cannot believe this. It’s freaking 8 in the morning and some asshole is outside with what sounds like a chainsaw.

    ‘scuse me while I get my weapon……..


  8. 8 | March 15, 2013 8:15 am

    eaglesoars wrote:

    In partnership with the Washington Times, a conservative TV cable channel is launching July 4th.

    That sounds like a good thing. Fox could use some competition from the Right. If nothing else, it’ll hopefully keep Fox from drifting too far Leftward. They are (in my opinion) already drifting there, though you can see a definate pro-gun bias from most of the prominent news readers at Fox. Not all of them are against gun control, though. Chris Wallace came across as pretty favorable towards gun control a couple of Sundays ago. I was very disappointed.


  9. 9 | March 15, 2013 8:24 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    Oh, but you know the Left won’t be happy with the Catholic Church until there is a Lesbian Pope. Nothing else will satisfy the “diversity” requirements. I think “diversity” is one of the most abused words in the English language. It means tolerating the intolerable except when that “intolerable” is coming from the Right. Then it must be quashed. Worse, Demonized and destroyed. The Left aren’t very tolerant of dissenting views on the Political front. But hey, if you wanna fuck a rotweiler, go ahead!

    The root word for “diversity” is “divide” and that tells us all we need to know about the agenda of the left- divide and conquer..

    As for the Church, they are among he last vestige of morality, “standing athwart history yelling STOP!” As WFB was wont to say. The left? The more they squeal, the better I feel!


  10. Bumr50
    10 | March 15, 2013 8:30 am

    @ MacDuff:
    @ MikeA:

    As a Christian, I find this to be a helpful verse:

    4They said unto him, Teacher, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

    5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what say you?

    6This they said, testing him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

    7So when they continued asking him, he lifted himself up, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

    John 8:4-7

    I guess that’s going to come across as “preachy,” but I really think that we do ourselves a great disservice by not disseminating the difference between the “homosexual movement” and homosexuals themselves as individuals.

    If we can start to get “groups” to think as “individuals,” it would be a great start to turning things around in this country.


  11. 11 | March 15, 2013 8:33 am

    @ MacDuff:
    I think there are more people returning to the fold actually. A friend of mine who as long as I have known him wasn’t very religious. Back around Christmas when I was talking with him, he mentioned that he had found a church that he enjoyed and was attending on a regular basis. I was floored.

    Then again, maybe it isn’t so surprising considering that some people with high morals wouldn’t step back to see what they had missed.


  12. 12 | March 15, 2013 8:35 am

    @ Bumr50:
    And of course the big mystery of that selection is, what was he writing in the dirt? It’s obviously important other wise it wouldn’t have been mentioned.


  13. 13 | March 15, 2013 8:35 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    The Left will never be happy until they have complete power over every institution.


  14. 14 | March 15, 2013 8:39 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Fox is too Pro-Muslim Brotherhood for my tastes. They are always calling for the US to invade Syria to help al-Qaeda.


  15. 15 | March 15, 2013 8:39 am

    Bumr50 wrote:

    If we can start to get “groups” to think as “individuals,” it would be a great start to turning things around in this country.

    That would help, but for the most part humans are herd animals. They tend to want to divide into smaller groups, and they pretty much all compete for their group interests. You can’t really blame the welfare suck for his/her laziness in not getting a job. It is the government’s fault for providing the welfare to begin with that is the problem. But that is a failure of leadership on the part of our putative leaders. A good leader makes the herd follow him. Bad leaders follow the herd. Guess which one wins out in a democracy? People have a hard time looking beyond the moment. That’s why Obama is able to get away with saying our deficit is “sustainable” for the moment. We can all, if we so choose, look ahead ten years and see where the economic collapse comes. But the herd doens’t look ahead. Democracy is a bad form of government, but everything else we’ve come up with so far has been worse.


  16. Guggi
    16 | March 15, 2013 8:40 am

    The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre—the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.


    (H.L. Mencken)

    This fits with a new research that people tend to vote for a leadership which is more like themselves and not superior.


  17. eaglesoars
    17 | March 15, 2013 8:40 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Chris Wallace came across as pretty favorable towards gun control a couple of Sundays ago.

    Yeah, well if he had to listen to the noise I did he’d change his mind right quick.

    It’s quiet now.

    Bumr50 wrote:

    If we can start to get “groups” to think as “individuals,”

    You’ve hit on one of the big differences between the left and the right.

    You know how the right is always kvetching because we don’t have a ‘coherent message’ and the left speaks with one voice?

    Groupthink is, I think, necessary for their psychological well-being. Without the hive, they have no identity, hence their furious activity to protect it.

    Woodward swatted the hive.


  18. 18 | March 15, 2013 8:42 am

    eaglesoars wrote:

    True. But I was coming from the “Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor” direction. He could decide one day to be celibate, it would do nothing to mitigate THAT violation.

    Oh, I know. I just find Sullivan particularly irksome as he likes to pontificate “as a Catholic”. We’re all sinners and I’m certainly not going stand in judgement as to who’s a “good Catholic” and who’s not, but there are some prominent Catholics who, by virtue of their public statements and public lifestyles are clearly not even trying and give no thought to how far they’ve strayed. These people, in addition, delight in criticizing the Church, and by extension, her followers.

    This is certainly not a phenomenon found only among Catholics, you could probably name a list of Jews who behave in the same fashion. These people write their own dogma thus make themselves into their own god…..as I recall, the God of Abraham addressed that in the First Commandment. It must have been pretty important, no?


  19. Speranza
    19 | March 15, 2013 8:42 am

    eaglesoars wrote:

    What gets me about Sullivan is that he purports to be a Christian. I remember a debate between him and Christopher Hitchens (don’t remember what it was about). Today I doubt Hitchens would piss on him if he were on fire

    Hitchens told Sullivan once that he knows that Sullivan wants to have Obama’s baby.


  20. Speranza
    20 | March 15, 2013 8:43 am

    MacDuff wrote:

    He claims to be a practicing Catholic, though he’s also a practicing homosexual. I’m not for discrimination or persecution of gays, I’m a “live and let live” kinda guy, but practicing gays cannot be practicing Catholics and all of the “embracing diversity” in the world isn’t going to change that.

    What is worse for me is that he has become an antisemite and Islamist apologist. As a gay man he would be killed in just about any Muslim nation.


  21. Speranza
    21 | March 15, 2013 8:44 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    I think “diversity” is one of the most abused words in the English language.

    I think it is one of the most perverse terms in our language.


  22. 22 | March 15, 2013 8:45 am

    @ Bumr50:

    If we can start to get “groups” to think as “individuals,” it would be a great start to turning things around in this country.

    That’s all well and good, but we have to deal with reality. The Left has created the whole group think. This will not change until the Right takes back the education system. Until then, the Right needs to learn how to play the group game. The Left has a very unstable coalition that can be torn apart by pitting group against group.


  23. Speranza
    23 | March 15, 2013 8:47 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    That sounds like a good thing. Fox could use some competition from the Right. If nothing else, it’ll hopefully keep Fox from drifting too far Leftward.

    Fox is completely in the Republican Establishment camp -- how else can you explain a failed bullshitter like Karl Rove after his election night melt down being given a four year contract extension?


  24. Speranza
    24 | March 15, 2013 8:49 am

    Rodan wrote:

    That’s all well and good, but we have to deal with reality. The Left has created the whole group think. This will not change until the Right takes back the education system. Until then, the Right needs to learn how to play the group game. The Left has a very unstable coalition that can be torn apart by pitting group against group.

    Any group that automatically gives 90% of its vote to a political party no matter who the candidate is has how shall I put it -- shown itself lacking in political maturity.


  25. Prebanned
    25 | March 15, 2013 8:53 am

    Speranza wrote:

    Fox is completely in the Republican Establishment camp — how else can you explain a failed bullshitter like Karl Rove after his election night melt down being given a four year contract extension?

    Is the Republican Establishment actually the left? They take a dive every chance they get. They are just less left than the Dems.


  26. eaglesoars
    26 | March 15, 2013 8:53 am

    Speranza wrote:

    how else can you explain a failed bullshitter like Karl Rove after his election eve melt down being given a four year contract extension?

    Because his knowledge of precinct-level politics/elections is second only to Michael Barone and Larry Sabato.

    Want to read about one the the best takedowns of the GOP ‘consultant class’ EVAH?

    Pat Cadell at CPAC was on fire.

    Caddell predicted that the Republican Party, unless it became the anti-establishment, anti-Washington party, would become extinct, like the 19th century Whig Party. “These people [in the consulting-lobbying-establishment complex] are doing business for themselves. They are a part of the Washington establishment. These people don’t want to have change.”


  27. Bumr50
    27 | March 15, 2013 8:55 am

    @ Prebanned:

    They’re scared.

    They’re just as beholden to BIG GOVERNMENT as the Left, hence the commonality.

    It’s why libertarians in their midst scare them so.


  28. eaglesoars
    28 | March 15, 2013 8:55 am

    Ok, there are some bacon and eggs in my near future.

    brb


  29. MikeA
    29 | March 15, 2013 8:58 am

    @ Bumr50:

    agree with you but that wasn’t my point. I wasa saying that people tend to pick and choose the parts of the belief system that they like and ignore the parts that make them feel bad or will cause them to change. Each of us will do this to a degree and have to guard against it.

    Now Andrew Sullivan… I think we can agree he is a vile man.


  30. Speranza
    30 | March 15, 2013 8:59 am

    Prebanned wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    Fox is completely in the Republican Establishment camp — how else can you explain a failed bullshitter like Karl Rove after his election night melt down being given a four year contract extension?

    Is the Republican Establishment actually the left? They take a dive every chance they get. They are just less left than the Dems.

    They are not Left in the sense that the Democrats are close enough to communism but they are Big Government Teddy Roosevelt/Nelson Rockefeller/George Herbert Walker Bush types who throw out meaningless red meat rhetoric to social cons to essentially con them and buy their votes all the while expanding government control.


  31. Speranza
    31 | March 15, 2013 9:00 am

    MikeA wrote:

    Now Andrew Sullivan… I think we can agree he is a vile man.

    He is not a man but more of a humanoid- a vile cockroach.


  32. 32 | March 15, 2013 9:00 am

    @ Speranza:

    That is exactly my point. The Republican Establishment is too far Left as a whole. Did W do anything about big government? Hell, no! The Republican Establishment are for big government, just not as big as the Democrats want.


  33. Speranza
    33 | March 15, 2013 9:00 am

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Ok, there are some bacon and eggs in my near future.
    brb

    Nanny Bloomberg says that is not good for you -- raises your cholesterol.


  34. Speranza
    34 | March 15, 2013 9:01 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    That is exactly my point. The Republican Establishment is too far Left as a whole. Did W do anything about big government? Hell, no! The Republican Establishment are for big government, just not as big as the Democrats want.

    Yet the family from Texas are revered by too many Republicans. Explain that.


  35. MikeA
    35 | March 15, 2013 9:02 am

    Speranza wrote:

    What is worse for me is that he has become an antisemite and Islamist apologist. As a gay man he would be killed in just about any Muslim nation.

    From talking with a friend from Egypt (catholic) and another from Pakistan (muslim in ame only), it depends on (and excuse the line) whether he “pitches” or “catches”. They told me its OK to pitch but the catchers tend to be killed. They also said it OK to go after little boys. Both moved away cause they thought their home countries were vile places for women and others who did not follow they muslim way.


  36. 36 | March 15, 2013 9:06 am

    @ Speranza:

    Which is why we need to play the Dem’s game and turn people against each other.


  37. 37 | March 15, 2013 9:07 am

    MikeA wrote:

    Both moved away cause they thought their home countries were vile places for women and others who did not follow they muslim way.

    They would be correct on that point. Both contries are vile places to live.


  38. 38 | March 15, 2013 9:07 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    That is exactly my point. The Republican Establishment is too far Left as a whole. Did W do anything about big government? Hell, no! The Republican Establishment are for big government, just not as big as the Democrats want.

    The GOP elites are International Socialists. The Democrats are Transnational Progressives.


  39. 39 | March 15, 2013 9:08 am

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Ok, there are some bacon and eggs in my near future.
    brb

    I had a Bacon, Egg Bagel sandwhich.


  40. Speranza
    40 | March 15, 2013 9:08 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Which is why we need to play the Dem’s game and turn people against each other.

    I hate to say it but we need to play just as dirty as they do -- and given their built in advantage thanks to the media -- maybe even more so.


  41. 41 | March 15, 2013 9:08 am

    MikeA wrote:

    it depends on (and excuse the line) whether he “pitches” or “catches”.

    Reminds me of something a couple friends say jokingly. “It’s only ‘gay’ if the ***** touch


  42. Speranza
    42 | March 15, 2013 9:10 am

    Rodan wrote:

    The GOP elites are International Socialists. The Democrats are Transnational Progressives.

    They aren’t Socialists they have a laissez-faire combined with a noblesse oblige mentality go along to get along types. I loathe them all.
    Is that enough French for you?


  43. 44 | March 15, 2013 9:11 am

    @ Speranza:

    They are a bunch of cowardly fools.


  44. 45 | March 15, 2013 9:12 am

    Bumr50 wrote:

    Heckuva job, ACU! Frustrated Twitter users: ‘I can’t get CPAC website’; It’s a ‘total lag fest’
    ht — Twitchy

    That ties in to the digital ineptitude of the Right. How hard is it to get a good tech team?


  45. buzzsawmonkey
    46 | March 15, 2013 9:12 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Oh, but you know the Left won’t be happy with the Catholic Church until there is a Lesbian Pope.

    Maybe Pristine Quim will try for the position after she finishes being First Lesbian Mayor of New York.


  46. Speranza
    47 | March 15, 2013 9:13 am

    MikeA wrote:

    From talking with a friend from Egypt (catholic) and another from Pakistan (muslim in ame only), it depends on (and excuse the line) whether he “pitches” or “catches”. They told me its OK to pitch but the catchers tend to be killed. They also said it OK to go after little boys. Both moved away cause they thought their home countries were vile places for women and others who did not follow they muslim way.

    For their sake (they seem like decent guys -- assuming they are both guys) I hope they can get out of those shit holes. “Pitchers” and “catchers” -- an interesting term. lol


  47. 48 | March 15, 2013 9:13 am

    @ Speranza:

    They are not Left in the sense that the Democrats are close enough to communism but they are Big Government Teddy Roosevelt/Nelson Rockefeller/George Herbert Walker Bush types who throw out meaningless red meat rhetoric to social cons to essentially con them and buy their votes all the while expanding government control

    .

    I would say they are Center Left whereas the Dems are Hard Left. That’s sad, the Bush family are vile and have led to the GOP becoming a joke.

    We are still suffering the political consequences of the 92 election.


  48. Speranza
    49 | March 15, 2013 9:15 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    I don’t give a ***t about her sexuality but she is a panderer of the worst sort and her recent claim that she would have kicked Giuliani’s ass shows me she is as delusional as she is stupid. Back to the 70′s for us New Yorkers starting next year.


  49. 50 | March 15, 2013 9:15 am

    @ Speranza:

    Yet the family from Texas are revered by too many Republicans. Explain that.

    Many Conservatives would slit their wrists for that family. They have become Republican saints.


  50. Speranza
    51 | March 15, 2013 9:17 am

    Rodan wrote:

    I would say they are Center Left whereas the Dems are Hard Left. That’s sad, the Bush family are vile and have led to the GOP becoming a joke.

    We are still suffering the political consequences of the 92 election.

    According to some poll (I don’t know how accurate it is) 62% of Republicans have a favorable image of Jeb Bush -- we learn nothing and forget everything.


  51. 52 | March 15, 2013 9:19 am

    @ Speranza:

    People laughed at me when I said Bush can win the nod in 2016. I will absolutely NOT vote for him.


  52. Speranza
    53 | March 15, 2013 9:19 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Yet the family from Texas are revered by too many Republicans. Explain that.
    Many Conservatives would slit their wrists for that family. They have become Republican saints.

    That is because the Left tarred them unfairly just as they tarred Nixon unfairly. Neither Nixon or that family are hard core conservatives or even soft conservatives -- they were in fact “New Dealers”.


  53. 54 | March 15, 2013 9:20 am

    @ Speranza:

    Just like Cheney. He’s a Saudi/MB ass kisser yet the Right loves him.


  54. Speranza
    55 | March 15, 2013 9:20 am

    Richard Nixon to his credit strongly supported Ronald Reagan when Reagan became president. Nixon appreciated the fact that Reagan did not pile on him during the whole Watergate mess.


  55. MikeA
    56 | March 15, 2013 9:21 am

    @ Speranza:

    Both are out. Years ago. The catholic from Egypt got his mom out has never been back since he married my wife’s friend. The guy from Pakistan went to school in England then the US for college. I met him at a job years ago. He married a strong willed american woman and will also never go back. They both think democracy will NEVER work in their countries for the same reasons we have all stated.


  56. buzzsawmonkey
    57 | March 15, 2013 9:21 am

    Speranza wrote:

    I don’t give a ***t about her sexuality but she is a panderer of the worst sort and her recent claim that she would have kicked Giuliani’s ass shows me she is as delusional as she is stupid. Back to the 70′s for us New Yorkers starting next year.

    At this point, I do give a shit about “sexuality”—when someone decides to make an issue of it. It’s a form of blackmail; “vote for me or you’re a bigot.” Well, no—there are plenty of reasons not to vote for Quinn, starting with that scandal (remember? About two years ago?) where she was funneling city money to phony astroturf organizations. Then, the fact that she’s been Bloomberg’s water carrier on all his nanny stuff; she’s been backing off his soda ban because it is so wildly unpopular, but she’s basically Nanny Lite on everything else.

    The only person on the Democrat side who is not completely vile, as far as I can see, is Thompson.


  57. Speranza
    58 | March 15, 2013 9:22 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Just like Cheney. He’s a Saudi/MB ass kisser yet the Right loves him.

    Dick Cheney is from the Jerry Ford wing of the Republican Party. However he is a regular George S. Patton compared to Hagel the Clown.


  58. RIX
    59 | March 15, 2013 9:22 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:

    People laughed at me when I said Bush can win the nod in 2016. I will absolutely NOT vote for him.

    The Media will beat the drum for Jeb Bush as “The Only Republican
    that can get elected”
    Then if he does get the nomination, they will destroy him.


  59. 60 | March 15, 2013 9:22 am

    @ MikeA:

    They both think democracy will NEVER work in their countries for the same reasons we have all stated.

    They need to tell this to the Republican Establishment. They always want to send Americans to die for Islamic Democracy.


  60. 61 | March 15, 2013 9:23 am

    @ Speranza:

    I have no use for Cheney. He needs to go away.


  61. Speranza
    62 | March 15, 2013 9:24 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    At this point, I do give a shit about “sexuality”—when someone decides to make an issue of it. It’s a form of blackmail; “vote for me or you’re a bigot.”

    Only if you let that define and intimidate you. It neither defines or intimidates moi. I will not vote for her because she is a typical dumb ass leftist. I would vote for Nanny Bloomberg over her and then go home and vomit in the toilet.


  62. 63 | March 15, 2013 9:24 am

    @ RIX:

    You betcha they will.


  63. Speranza
    64 | March 15, 2013 9:26 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    I have no use for Cheney. He needs to go away.

    I like his daughter Lynne a lot.
    Frankly I wish Bush had resigned after Hurricane Katrina and allowed Cheney to take over. I believe that he would have done a better job then the neutered and demoralized GWB.


  64. Speranza
    65 | March 15, 2013 9:26 am

    RIX wrote:

    Rodan wrote:
    @ Speranza:
    People laughed at me when I said Bush can win the nod in 2016. I will absolutely NOT vote for him.

    The Media will beat the drum for Jeb Bush as “The Only Republican
    that can get elected”
    Then if he does get the nomination, they will destroy him.

    Gee we’ve seen that movie before haven’t we? lol


  65. Speranza
    66 | March 15, 2013 9:27 am

    Rodan wrote:

    They need to tell this to the Republican Establishment. They always want to send Americans to die for Islamic Democracy.

    In search of the chimeral “Islamic democaracy”.


  66. 67 | March 15, 2013 9:29 am

    @ Speranza:

    See Eaglesoars #26. Pat Caddell Rips Rove and the Cosnultant Class apart.


  67. Speranza
    68 | March 15, 2013 9:29 am

    I notice that Rove is on either Hannity or O’Reilly several times a week now. Talk about dumbing down!


  68. RIX
    69 | March 15, 2013 9:29 am

    @ Speranza:
    The MSM gave us McCain &tried to give us Huntsman.
    Theyb liked Romney until he gotb the nomination, then they
    smered him everyday.


  69. 70 | March 15, 2013 9:29 am

    @ Speranza:

    Islamic Democracy is about as real as The North Korean Unicorn.


  70. Speranza
    71 | March 15, 2013 9:30 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    See Eaglesoars #26. Pat Caddell Rips Rove and the Cosnultant Class apart.

    More Pat Caddell’s, Doug Schoen’s, and Kirsten Powers’ and less Rove, Cain, and Alan Colmes!


  71. 72 | March 15, 2013 9:30 am

    Speranza wrote:

    I notice that Rove is on either Hannity or O’Reilly several times a week now. Talk about dumbing down!

    Rove should be run out of town. He is a loser and a malignant Cancer on the GOP.


  72. Speranza
    73 | March 15, 2013 9:31 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Islamic Democracy is about as real as The North Korean Unicorn.

    You mean that the bears in the DPRK did not weep at the passing of Kim Jong-Il?


  73. Speranza
    74 | March 15, 2013 9:32 am

    Rodan wrote:

    Rove should be run out of town. He is a loser and a malignant Cancer on the GOP.

    He is an active behind the scenes player in the GOP. He is not just an “observer”. Roger Ailes is becoming a moron.


  74. Bumr50
    75 | March 15, 2013 9:32 am

    Speranza wrote:

    I notice that Rove is on either Hannity or O’Reilly several times a week now. Talk about dumbing down!

    I really don’t like either of them, but will admit that Hannity does some good work.

    I stopped watching O’Reilly at least five years ago because I think he’s a ****.


  75. Bumr50
    76 | March 15, 2013 9:33 am

    Speranza wrote:

    Rove, Cain, and Alan Colmes!

    I know you don’t like Cain, but really?

    With Rove and Colmes?


  76. 77 | March 15, 2013 9:34 am

    @ Speranza:

    More Pat Caddell’s, Doug Schoen’s,

    I told you in private the week before the elction, I said it was over. Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen were also saying that. Yet they were dimissed and too many on the Right were in a bubble,. That is why I did not post much that week. I would get accused of defeatism. Everyone clung to that stupid unskewed poll crap.

    I wish people on the Right could deal with reality better. 2012 was an example of group think on the Right.


  77. 78 | March 15, 2013 9:34 am

    @ Speranza:

    Rove has an agenda. Jeb Bush 2016.


  78. Bumr50
    79 | March 15, 2013 9:40 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:

    Rove has an agenda. Jeb Bush 2016.

    If the GOP isn’t already beyond hope, that will eliminate all doubt.


  79. 80 | March 15, 2013 9:41 am

    Rodan wrote:

    eaglesoars wrote:
    Ok, there are some bacon and eggs in my near future.
    brb
    I had a Bacon, Egg Bagel sandwhich.

    On a FRIDAY? In LENT??


  80. Speranza
    81 | March 15, 2013 9:42 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    Rodan wrote:
    eaglesoars wrote:
    Ok, there are some bacon and eggs in my near future.
    brb
    I had a Bacon, Egg Bagel sandwhich.

    On a FRIDAY? In LENT??

    Not Kosher!


  81. Speranza
    82 | March 15, 2013 9:42 am

    Bumr50 wrote:

    Rodan wrote:
    @ Speranza:
    Rove has an agenda. Jeb Bush 2016.

    If the GOP isn’t already beyond hope, that will eliminate all doubt.

    There is a reason why they are called The Stupid Party.


  82. 83 | March 15, 2013 9:43 am

    @ Bumr50:

    I predict the GOP will be wiped out in 2016. It will be a combo of OFA, The GOP corrupt Consultant Class and the bubble some Conservatives live in.

    Although out of that defeat a new GOP will emerge. 2020 will be the earliest I see Republicans win the Presidency.


  83. 84 | March 15, 2013 9:43 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    Yeah I slipped. I normally just have fish and chips.


  84. 85 | March 15, 2013 9:43 am

    @ Speranza:

    Yeah, I screwed up!


  85. Speranza
    86 | March 15, 2013 9:44 am

    Rodan wrote:

    I told you in private the week before the elction, I said it was over. Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen were also saying that. Yet they were dimissed and too many on the Right were in a bubble,. That is why I did not post much that week. I would get accused of defeatism. Everyone clung to that stupid unskewed poll crap.

    I wish people on the Right could deal with reality better. 2012 was an example of group think on the Right.

    Caddell and Schoen actually understand the Democrats. Stuart Stevens and Steve Schmidt are hired mercenaries.


  86. Bumr50
    87 | March 15, 2013 9:44 am

    @ Speranza:

    @ Rodan:

    Pat Caddell, the Fox News Contributor and Democrat pollster who engineered Jimmy Carter’s 1976 Presidential victory, blew the lid off CPAC on Wednesday with a blistering attack on “racketeering” Republican consultants who play wealthy donors like “marks.”
    “I blame the donors who allow themselves to be played for marks. I blame the people in the grassroots for allowing themselves to be played for suckers….It’s time to stop being marks. It’s time to stop being suckers. It’s time for you people to get real,” he told the audience that included two top Republican consultants.

    Amen.

    ht- Breitbart and @ eaglesoars:


  87. 88 | March 15, 2013 9:45 am

    @ Bumr50:

    Pat Caddell speaks the truth. In fact, I will get working on that as a post.


  88. Speranza
    89 | March 15, 2013 9:45 am

    Bumr50 wrote:

    I really don’t like either of them, but will admit that Hannity does some good work.

    I stopped watching O’Reilly at least five years ago because I think he’s a ****.

    Hannity can have a good show at times. O’Reilly is an interrupting blow hard.


  89. buzzsawmonkey
    90 | March 15, 2013 9:45 am

    Speranza wrote:

    Only if you let that define and intimidate you. It neither defines or intimidates moi. I will not vote for her because she is a typical dumb ass leftist. I would vote for Nanny Bloomberg over her and then go home and vomit in the toilet.

    Bloomberg too is a dumb ass leftist, though an atypical one in that he has billions of dollars with which to indulge his madness.

    I am not “intimidated” by Quinn’s identity-politics blackmail; I merely note that that is what she intends her identity politics to do—and that the fact she is doing it is reason enough to not vote for her.

    When my father ran for the governing board of his town, the local Al Sharpton wannabee asked him some jive question about what he would do to “support diversity.” My father replied, in effect, “Not a damn thing. Our job is to make sure the streets are clean and the garbage picked up, and there is no “black” or “white” way to do that.” He was not intimidated by identity politics, and he caused a minor scandal, after being elected, for being the first person in the history of the town to refuse to sign the statement “supporting diversity” which it had become customary for elected officials to endorse.


  90. Speranza
    91 | March 15, 2013 9:46 am

    Bumr50 wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    @ Rodan:
    Pat Caddell, the Fox News Contributor and Democrat pollster who engineered Jimmy Carter’s 1976 Presidential victory, blew the lid off CPAC on Wednesday with a blistering attack on “racketeering” Republican consultants who play wealthy donors like “marks.”
    “I blame the donors who allow themselves to be played for marks. I blame the people in the grassroots for allowing themselves to be played for suckers….It’s time to stop being marks. It’s time to stop being suckers. It’s time for you people to get real,” he told the audience that included two top Republican consultants.
    Amen.
    ht- Breitbart and @ eaglesoars:

    Excellent remarks that are spot on!


  91. 92 | March 15, 2013 9:46 am

    @ Speranza:

    Rove loves being being a puppet master.


  92. Speranza
    93 | March 15, 2013 9:48 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Bloomberg too is a dumb ass leftist, though an atypical one in that he has billions of dollars with which to indulge his madness.

    Nanny Bloomberg is annoying because he is a Nanny but would be infinitely preferable to Quinn who is an updated version of Ruth Messinger whom Rudy crushed in 1997. I am not obsessed by gays as I take a live and let live attitude.


  93. Speranza
    94 | March 15, 2013 9:49 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    When my father ran for the governing board of his town, the local Al Sharpton wannabee asked him some jive question about what he would do to “support diversity.” My father replied, in effect, “Not a damn thing. Our job is to make sure the streets are clean and the garbage picked up, and there is no “black” or “white” way to do that.”

    That was and is the proper response.


  94. Speranza
    95 | March 15, 2013 9:50 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Rove loves being being a puppet master.

    He looks like a toad. I would not pay him for his opinion on anything. The fact that the left claimed he was this great Machiavellian figure is why too many on the Right defend him.


  95. buzzsawmonkey
    96 | March 15, 2013 9:52 am

    Speranza wrote:

    I am not obsessed by gays as I take a live and let live attitude.

    Nor--despite what you may believe—am I; I have merely engaged in pointing out the communist roots of the gay-rights movement, and the fact that the movement has the First Amendment very much in its sights. This has nothing to do with a “live and let live attitude” towards people’s personal practices; it has everything to do with a political threat to Constitutional government and to the social structure on which the country rests.


  96. 97 | March 15, 2013 9:52 am

    @ Rodan:

    I cannot fault you -- Flyboy and I went camping last weekend and we ate a pork roast for dinner on Friday.

    I called it the “no Pope in office” exemption.


  97. 98 | March 15, 2013 9:53 am

    @ Speranza:

    The Left understands the Right much better than the Right understands the Left.


  98. Bumr50
    99 | March 15, 2013 9:53 am

    @ Rodan:

    Karl Rove, age 20.

    In the fall of 1970, Rove used a false identity to enter the campaign office of Democrat Alan J. Dixon, who was running for Treasurer of Illinois. He stole 1000 sheets of paper with campaign letterhead, printed fake campaign rally fliers promising “free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing”, and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters, with the effect of disrupting Dixon’s rally. (Dixon eventually won the election). Rove’s role would not become publicly known until August 1973 when Rove told the Dallas Morning News. In 1999 he said, “It was a youthful prank at the age of 19 and I regret it.”[14] In his memoir, Rove wrote that when he was later nominated to the Board for International Broadcasting by President George H.W. Bush, Senator Dixon did not kill his nomination. In Rove’s account, “Dixon displayed more grace than I had shown and kindly excused this youthful prank.”[15]

    What were YOU doing when YOU were 20 years old?

    If it WASN’T interfering in elections, raise your hand…

    Everyone?

    I asked myself : “How do these people amass power?”

    Then I answered myself : “This IS how they amass power.”


  99. 100 | March 15, 2013 9:54 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    I call it the I forgot it was Friday. I am dead serious, I thought it was Thursday.


  100. Speranza
    101 | March 15, 2013 9:55 am

    @ Bumr50:
    Good grief he really was a creep even back then.


  101. 102 | March 15, 2013 9:55 am

    @ Bumr50:

    At 20 I was Djing and living a great life. Rove is a coward with power and a pure scumbag.


  102. eaglesoars
    103 | March 15, 2013 9:55 am

    Speranza wrote:

    less Rove, Cain, and Alan Colmes!

    what’s wrong with Cain

    As for Colmes, he’s no better than Sullivan. He posted on his blog that Trig was born with Down’s Syndrome due to lack of pre-natal care. Once the blowback began, he deleted the post and denied he ever said it.

    But the innernut is forever.

    Ithink the only reason he’s still on Fox is because he’s married to Monica Crowley’s sister


  103. 104 | March 15, 2013 9:55 am

    Speranza wrote:

    @ Bumr50:
    Good grief he really was a creep even back then.

    I will not forgive what he did to Rick Perry.


  104. Speranza
    105 | March 15, 2013 9:56 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    The Left understands the Right much better than the Right understands the Left.

    Oh I agree.
    I know the Left because I live in Liberal Land. I know how they think and how they react.


  105. 106 | March 15, 2013 9:56 am

    Sullivan’s smear couched in the inevitable Democrat/Progressive “because I’m a ____________ I can say this” moral authority dodge brings to mind the remarks of Dianne Frankenfeinstein yesterday when addressing Ted Cruz’s question about what other rights Congress should be allowed to limit. She went off on a tangent that somehow her opinion and desires should have the greater deference because she had felt the wounds of gun violence. What a pile of s**t. She didn’t go anywhere NEAR the bodies of Milk and Moscone -- the police and Boyd Stephens (medical examiner) would have first had them seal the rooms. And then she claimed the child victims of Sandy Hook (God rest their innocent souls) had been dismembered. Hyperbolic old Harpy.


  106. 107 | March 15, 2013 9:56 am

    @ eaglesoars:

    Colmes was agnostic on 9/11 Trooferism. He used to have Alex Jones on his show back in the mid 2000′s.


  107. Bumr50
    108 | March 15, 2013 9:56 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    @ Carolina Girl:

    My Catholic grandfather would ask you if you ever thought that the pig took a swim.

    Or to just dip the bacon in some water before eating…

    ;-)


  108. Speranza
    109 | March 15, 2013 9:57 am

    @ Carolina Girl:
    You have got the two dumbest Senators from any one state -- Babs Boxer and Diane Feinstein.


  109. 110 | March 15, 2013 9:57 am

    @ Speranza:

    I know the Left because I work with them. I also use to troll Think Progress, Kos and DU. It gave me a great insight into them. I read leftist comments to get how they think.


  110. Speranza
    111 | March 15, 2013 9:59 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:
    Colmes was agnostic on 9/11 Trooferism. He used to have Alex Jones on his show back in the mid 2000′s.

    The feret faced Colmes once was appropriately put down by Netanyahu.
    Colmes: There was an anti-war rally in Tel Aviv on Saturday night (during the 2006 Lebanon War)
    Netanyahu: Really, did they hold it in a phone booth because I did not see it?


  111. Speranza
    112 | March 15, 2013 10:00 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    I know the Left because I work with them. I also use to troll Think Progress, Kos and DU. It gave me a great insight into them. I read leftist comments to get how they think.

    I work with them too. My boss is a red diaper baby.


  112. buzzsawmonkey
    113 | March 15, 2013 10:02 am

    Speranza wrote:

    Netanyahu: Really, did they hold it in a phone booth because I did not see it?

    Speaking of which, Obama is going to Israel for one reason only—so that he can claim to have proven himself “a friend of Israel” after Iran announces it has acquired nuclear weapons, and Obama promises to protect Israel from those nukes on the condition that Israel dismembers itself in accordance with the “Palestinian” wish list.

    It is pre-emptive cover to keep the American Jews on the Democrat plantation, nothing more.


  113. Speranza
    114 | March 15, 2013 10:03 am

    @ Carolina Girl:
    Don’t forget that as Mayor of San Francisco she opened her ignorant mouth up and divulged confidential information regarding the Night Stalker (Richard Ramirez).


  114. eaglesoars
    115 | March 15, 2013 10:03 am

    Speranza wrote:

    Netanyahu: Really, did they hold it in a phone booth because I did not see it?

    Oh man I would PAY to see that!


  115. 116 | March 15, 2013 10:03 am

    @ Speranza:

    We also have Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Nancy Pelosi, Lois Capps -- I’m starting to think we cannot elect sane women to national office in this state.


  116. Speranza
    117 | March 15, 2013 10:04 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Speaking of which, Obama is going to Israel for one reason only—so that he can claim to have proven himself “a friend of Israel” after Iran announces it has acquired nuclear weapons, and Obama promises to protect Israel from those nukes on the condition that Israel dismembers itself in accordance with the “Palestinian” wish list.

    It is pre-emptive cover to keep the American Jews on the Democrat plantation, nothing more.

    I dread his visit to Israel and frankly wish he were not going. He hates the country, hates Netanyahu and hates the very concept of Zionism.


  117. 118 | March 15, 2013 10:04 am

    Oh wait — Jackie Spier and the Sanchez sisters.
    Our batting average is .000.


  118. Speranza
    119 | March 15, 2013 10:05 am

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    Netanyahu: Really, did they hold it in a phone booth because I did not see it?
    Oh man I would PAY to see that!

    I kid you not -- it happened.
    Netnayahu can be cutting without breaking a sweat.


  119. Speranza
    120 | March 15, 2013 10:05 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    We also have Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Nancy Pelosi, Lois Capps — I’m starting to think we cannot elect sane women to national office in this state.

    Loretta Sanchez too!


  120. 121 | March 15, 2013 10:06 am

    @ Speranza:

    Every time I see the face of Alan Colmes I wonder why he isn’t sunning himself on a rock in the Arizona desert….


  121. Speranza
    122 | March 15, 2013 10:06 am

    @ Carolina Girl:
    My buddy finished taping Ripper Street for me.


  122. Bumr50
    123 | March 15, 2013 10:06 am

    @ Rodan:

    @ Speranza:

    I work with a bunch of recent college grads, most with secondary degrees in design, engineering, or hard sciences.

    While it’s clear that they’ve been culturally and educationally indoctrinated into Progressive academia’s model for globalism and social justice, they are, at their core, mostly libertarian.


  123. 124 | March 15, 2013 10:06 am

    @ Speranza:

    You guys got nothing on me…..
    I went to school in and now work in their holy cities of Mecca (Berkeley) and Medina (San Francisco).


  124. Speranza
    125 | March 15, 2013 10:06 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Every time I see the face of Alan Colmes I wonder why he isn’t sunning himself on a rock in the Arizona desert….

    He has gotten even worse since he left Hannity & Colmes. Like he wants to prove something to the Left for the sin of taking a paycheck from Newscorp.


  125. 126 | March 15, 2013 10:07 am

    @ Speranza:

    Last episode was amazing. Call me after you watch it.
    I hope there are plans for a second season.


  126. eaglesoars
    127 | March 15, 2013 10:07 am

    Speranza wrote:

    Netnayahu can be cutting without breaking a sweat.

    Too bad we can’t sic him on Mooch

    So why don’t you like Cain?


  127. Speranza
    128 | March 15, 2013 10:08 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    You guys got nothing on me…..
    I went to school in and now work in their holy cities of Mecca (Berkeley) and Medina (San Francisco).

    Ah yes the Peoples Republic of Berkeley aka Bezerkeley.


  128. Bumr50
    129 | March 15, 2013 10:08 am

    @ Bumr50:

    I think that because they all majored in rigorous fields, their “indoctrination” was merely incidental to their education.

    They’ll recite talking points, but would prefer not to talk about politics at all. Many of their viewpoints are based simply on misinformation by the MSM.


  129. 130 | March 15, 2013 10:09 am

    @ Speranza:

    I think Fox gives him a radio show on XM but I imagine the only time anyone listens to it is if they punch the wrong button.


  130. Speranza
    131 | March 15, 2013 10:10 am

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Speranza wrote:

    Netnayahu can be cutting without breaking a sweat.
    Too bad we can’t sic him on Mooch
    So why don’t you like Cain?

    Cain is a light weight who has nothing important to say except 9-9-9 and frankly he took up way too much time during his Quixotic attempt to win the nomination. He was minor league trying to play in the major leagues. I liked him personally but he had no business being on the podium. If he were white nobody would have given him a look. Just my opinion.


  131. Speranza
    132 | March 15, 2013 10:11 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    I think Fox gives him a radio show on XM but I imagine the only time anyone listens to it is if they punch the wrong button.

    Hey he had Charles Johnson on as a guest!


  132. 133 | March 15, 2013 10:13 am

    @ Bumr50:

    That is why Rand Paul is a threat to the Left. He is trying to create a Republican party that appeals to a broader audience. Thanks to the stubborness of some republican party officials, the Santorum Wing, False flag Operatives (Ann Coulter) and OFA, a very negative view of the GOP has been created. Rand Paul offers a new direction.

    I am under no illusionas he would ever be President. His last name is a hurdle and the Bush/McCain/Cheney Nation Building Pro Muslim Brotherhood/Al-Qaeda Globalist wing of the GOP will never allow him to be the nominee. But hopefully he is starting a new movement to create a relevant 21st Century GOP.


  133. buzzsawmonkey
    134 | March 15, 2013 10:14 am

    Speranza wrote:

    I dread his visit to Israel and frankly wish he were not going. He hates the country, hates Netanyahu and hates the very concept of Zionism.

    According to a friend of mine, he is also screwing up the hotel that he’s going to stay at.

    He’s going just before Passover, preparations for which require extremely thorough cleaning—so much so that many people actually will go to a properly-kashered hotel rather than clean their own houses as thoroughly as required. Passover is thus a big week for kosher hotels, where they expect full occupancy.

    My understanding is that due to the timing of his visit there will not be enough time to properly kasher the accommodations he’s in after he leaves, so it must be done beforehand—which means that nothing which is not kosher for Passover, nothing with leavening of any kind, can be brought into those areas.


  134. eaglesoars
    135 | March 15, 2013 10:14 am

    Speranza wrote:

    Cain is a light weight who has nothing important to say except 9-9-9 and frankly he took up way too much time during his Quixotic attempt to win the nomination. He was minor league trying to play in the major leagues

    I agree but I think he knew that. I recall him saying something to the effect that he just wanted to shine a spotlight. he and his family paid an awful price and I admire his ‘stand up to it’ attitude.

    Well, breakfast is over -- many thanks to Molly the Beagle who ate half my bacon -- so I have to get my day going.


  135. 136 | March 15, 2013 10:14 am

    @ Speranza:

    And with all two dozen LGF inmates tuning it, my guess is it doubled the listening audience. Shows how stupid and irrelevant Colmes is that he found the one person on the planet that is more stupid and less relevant than he is on as a guest.


  136. 137 | March 15, 2013 10:14 am

    @ Bumr50:

    Many of their viewpoints are based simply on misinformation by the MSM.

    OFA as well.


  137. Bumr50
    138 | March 15, 2013 10:16 am

    @ eaglesoars:

    I like him!

    O’Reilly wasn’t buying it. “Oh come on,” he said. “You think after that long, long campaign that you and all the other Republican hopefuls engaged in, and that [former Republican presidential candidate Mitt] Romney has a billion dollars to spend on his advertising, and you’re still telling me that the American people are misled? I mean, how dumb are we?”

    “Yes Bill,” Cain replied. “We are that dumb.


  138. buzzsawmonkey
    139 | March 15, 2013 10:16 am

    Bumr50 wrote:

    While it’s clear that they’ve been culturally and educationally indoctrinated into Progressive academia’s model for globalism and social justice, they are, at their core, mostly libertarian.

    If antisemitism is the Socialism of fools, libertarianism is the conservatism of fools.


  139. 140 | March 15, 2013 10:18 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    You would think there would be someone in this ridiculous administration would have had a working knowledge of customs and traditions that would have advised him against visiting at this time and how inconvenient it would be.

    Of course, let’s all remember this is the same inconsiderate asshole who believes it’s no big deal to create massive traffic jams during rush hour by timing his visits to New York or California to coincide while those little people are trying to get home from work.

    I imagine he knew exactly how much he was inconveniencing everyone and didn’t give a crap. Netanyahu should have told him point blank that visiting during Passover would be unwise and perhaps he should consider flying in on Easter (after all, I seriously doubt that that day holds any special meaning for him, either).


  140. 141 | March 15, 2013 10:24 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Oh, you are going to piss people off with that one. I happen to agree with you. If Ron Paul is the spokes-hole for your movement, it isn’t much of a movement.


  141. Speranza
    142 | March 15, 2013 10:24 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    libertarianism is the conservatism of fools.

    No. I am small “l” liberatarian on social issues and I am many things but not a fool.


  142. Speranza
    143 | March 15, 2013 10:25 am

    Bumr50 wrote:

    I work with a bunch of recent college grads, most with secondary degrees in design, engineering, or hard sciences.

    While it’s clear that they’ve been culturally and educationally indoctrinated into Progressive academia’s model for globalism and social justice, they are, at their core, mostly libertarian.

    Students who are into mathematics and hard sciences are less liberal then those who major in liberal arts. In the hard sciences you cannot bullshit your way with words. An answer is either right or wrong, hence “wordsmiths” need not apply. I would say that 90% of the people who live in yuppie/liberal Park Slope Brooklyn were liberal arts majors.


  143. buzzsawmonkey
    144 | March 15, 2013 10:26 am

    Speranza wrote:

    No. I am small “l” liberatarian on social issues and I am many things but not a fool.

    I would never dream of suggesting you were one. I would, however, suggest that it means you may not in fact be quite as “libertarian,” au fond, as you might yourself believe.


  144. Speranza
    145 | March 15, 2013 10:27 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Oh, you are going to piss people off with that one. I happen to agree with you. If Ron Paul is the spokes-hole for your movement, it isn’t much of a movement.

    Ron Paul is a cult figure and an extreme libertarian bordering on anarchist.


  145. Bumr50
    146 | March 15, 2013 10:28 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    I’m curious as to what aspects of libertarianism you find anathema to conservatism.

    I don’t think that it’s an “either-or” scenario.

    I’m pretty certain that most true libertarian thinkers vote Republican, distancing themselves from the “libertarian movement.”

    Just because Ron Paul describes himself as a “libertarian” and his cultist believe themselves to be so doesn’t give them ownership of the concept.


  146. Speranza
    147 | March 15, 2013 10:28 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    I would never dream of suggesting you were one. I would, however, suggest that it means you may not in fact be quite as “libertarian,” au fond, as you might yourself believe.

    I’m a live and let live guy. If things don’t hurt me or the country I don’t care.


  147. Speranza
    148 | March 15, 2013 10:29 am

    Bumr50 wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    I’m curious as to what aspects of libertarianism you find anathema to conservatism.
    I don’t think that it’s an “either-or” scenario.
    I’m pretty certain that most true libertarian thinkers vote Republican, distancing themselves from the “libertarian movement.”
    Just because Ron Paul describes himself as a “libertarian” and his cultist believe themselves to be so doesn’t give them ownership of the concept.

    Barry Goldwater was my type of libertarian.


  148. 149 | March 15, 2013 10:29 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Oh, you are going to piss people off with that one. I happen to agree with you. If Ron Paul is the spokes-hole for your movement, it isn’t much of a movement.

    Rand Paul is our Spokeman, not Ron Paul.

    Is Rick Santorum the spokesman for Conservatism?


  149. 150 | March 15, 2013 10:31 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Conservatism has become an ideology of judgemenetal scolds.


  150. 151 | March 15, 2013 10:31 am

    @ Speranza:

    Exactly and I would add Calvin Coolidge as well.


  151. Bumr50
    152 | March 15, 2013 10:33 am

    If Ron Paul is so great, why do his supporters need to post eight paragraphs, a chart, and lots of capital letters and exclamation points to try and convince me?


  152. buzzsawmonkey
    153 | March 15, 2013 10:33 am

    My problem with libertarianism is that it ends up being, politically, the equivalent of a “zero-tolerance for violence in schools” policy.

    Zero-tolerance policies sound like a good idea—”we allow no violence here.” In practice, however, they are a means for administrators to duck issues and avoid heat. They punish the bully and the child who fights back against the bully equally, without looking into the existence of the bully in the first place. Zero tolerance, right? It’s all violence; everyone is treated equally. It’s an abdication of responsibility to permit the authorities to appear impartial while enabling abuse.

    Libertarianism does exactly the same thing. If people want to degrade themselves by selling their bodies, that’s their business. If people want to take drugs, that’s their business. Et cetera. Moral abdication, which ignores the reality of what these things do both to society and to the people who engage in them—and ignores, too, that the “libertarian” typically concentrates on legalizing, or at least turning a blind eye to, the socially-destructive behavior in the name of “principle”—while ignoring the huge amount of structural personal intrusion the society engages in.


  153. 154 | March 15, 2013 10:33 am

    Rodan wrote:

    Is Rick Santorum the spokesman for Conservatism?

    You seem to think that he is. You spend more time attacking Santorum than you do Obama. Ron Paul is what Libertarianism has come to mean. That’s why I no longer consider myself a libertarian.


  154. 155 | March 15, 2013 10:34 am

    @ Bumr50:

    I love listening to his radio show. That man loves America!


  155. buzzsawmonkey
    156 | March 15, 2013 10:35 am

    Rodan wrote:

    Conservatism has become an ideology of judgemenetal scolds.

    There is nothing wrong with being judgmental.

    Admittedly, a judgment on my part—but so is the stance that “judgmentalism” is bad.


  156. 157 | March 15, 2013 10:36 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Libertarianism does exactly the same thing. If people want to degrade themselves by selling their bodies, that’s their business. If people want to take drugs, that’s their business. Et cetera. Moral abdication, which ignores the reality of what these things do both to society and to the people who engage in them—and ignores, too, that the “libertarian” typically concentrates on legalizing, or at least turning a blind eye to, the socially-destructive behavior in the name of “principle”—while ignoring the huge amount of structural personal intrusion the society engages in.

    So lets use Government to impose your vision on society on others. That’s very Progressive/Leftwing.


  157. 158 | March 15, 2013 10:37 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Yes there is. I do not want Politicians lecturing me. I have my Priest for that.


  158. Bumr50
    159 | March 15, 2013 10:39 am

    Ron Paul supporters also need to learn that ONE bumper sticker conveys the message just as well as (maybe even better than) 62.


  159. buzzsawmonkey
    160 | March 15, 2013 10:39 am

    Rodan wrote:

    So lets use Government to impose your vision on society on others. That’s very Progressive/Leftwing.

    OK. When do we abolish the penalties for murder, robbery and rape? Mustn’t be judgmental, must we?


  160. Speranza
    161 | March 15, 2013 10:39 am

    @ Rodan:
    All I care about are jobs, taxes, inflation, the price of oil, infrastructure, national debt, the social safety net, crime, securing the borders, strengthening the healthcare system and a strong national defense.


  161. buzzsawmonkey
    162 | March 15, 2013 10:42 am

    Speranza wrote:

    All I care about are jobs, taxes, inflation, the price of oil, infrastructure, national debt, the social safety net, crime, securing the borders, strengthening the healthcare system and a strong national defense.

    You want to “strengthen the healthcare system?” Get the government out of it entirely.


  162. 163 | March 15, 2013 10:42 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Rand Paul is the spokesmen for Libertarianism. The founders of the modern Conservative movement were Libertarians Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley.

    You seem to think that he is. You spend more time attacking Santorum than you do Obama.

    Santorum is considered a Conservative leader when in fact he’s a Socialist. I go after him becasue people like him have hijacked Conservatism to persue a Socialist agenda.

    Obama is what he is and that is a 3rd world Liberation Marxist.


  163. Speranza
    164 | March 15, 2013 10:42 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Rodan wrote:
    So lets use Government to impose your vision on society on others. That’s very Progressive/Leftwing.
    OK. When do we abolish the penalties for murder, robbery and rape? Mustn’t be judgmental, must we?

    That is apples and oranges, civil society needs laws however peoples personal lives are just that -their personal lives.


  164. 165 | March 15, 2013 10:43 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Nice strawman. Explain how you would create your Utopian society?


  165. Speranza
    166 | March 15, 2013 10:43 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    All I care about are jobs, taxes, inflation, the price of oil, infrastructure, national debt, the social safety net, crime, securing the borders, strengthening the healthcare system and a strong national defense.
    You want to “strengthen the healthcare system?” Get the government out of it entirely.

    I agree and let’s open up competition.


  166. 167 | March 15, 2013 10:44 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    You want to “strengthen the healthcare system?” Get the government out of it entirely.

    Yet you want the government to dictate to people how they live their lives.


  167. buzzsawmonkey
    168 | March 15, 2013 10:44 am

    Speranza wrote:

    That is apples and oranges, civil society needs laws however peoples personal lives are just that -their personal lives.

    Yes. Which is why the abolition of sodomy laws was a good thing—and why the imposition of same-sex marriage is not.


  168. 169 | March 15, 2013 10:45 am

    @ Speranza:

    Let’s get government out of people’s wallet, but dictate to them how to live their personal lives. No wonder our side loses!


  169. buzzsawmonkey
    170 | March 15, 2013 10:46 am

    Rodan wrote:

    Yet you want the government to dictate to people how they live their lives.

    Where have I said that? I have merely pointed out that the “libertarians” who claim to support that position are, for the most part, not telling the truth—and aren’t even aware they aren’t telling the truth because they are focused on the capillary, not the jugular.


  170. 171 | March 15, 2013 10:47 am

    Many people considered Libertarian today would have been normal Conservatives back in the 80′s. But thanks to the Bushes, Santorum, Huckabee and others “Conservatism” means just another version of the nanny state.

    No thanks.


  171. 172 | March 15, 2013 10:48 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Lets just agree to disagree. Our common enemy are the Marxists Left and the GOP Corrupt Consultant Class.

    We can go back and forth all day here. It’s pointless.


  172. Bumr50
    173 | March 15, 2013 10:48 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    The chasm between a common sense legal and penal system and what we have now is HUGE.

    Becoming more libertarian doesn’t have to entail an isolationist foreign policy and becoming Amsterdam.

    You’re taking the most extreme position and applying it in context as though it were mainstream among libertarians.

    The “libertarian movement” is just wack as “conservatism” and “liberalism” are at the moment.

    Are you really that concerned that a shift to a more libertarian social policy would slide directly into wanton destruction?

    How else do we get the government out of our lives?


  173. lobo91
    174 | March 15, 2013 10:56 am

    @ Bumr50:

    Are you really that concerned that a shift to a more libertarian social policy would slide directly into wanton destruction?

    It’s worked so well over the past 50 years, hasn’t it?


  174. 175 | March 15, 2013 10:57 am

    @ Bumr50:

    Exactly. You have the whacky Ron Paul Libertarians just like you have the Socialist “Conservatives” like Santorum or Bush. There is much overlap between most Conservatives and Libertaarians. I’m more of a Libertarian-Conservatives than a Paulian Anarchist type.

    True Libertarianism does not result in Anarchy. True Conservatism does not result in a Theocratic Socialist nanny state. There is much common ground as both ideologies believe in freedom and free markets.


  175. buzzsawmonkey
    176 | March 15, 2013 10:58 am

    Rodan wrote:

    Our common enemy are the Marxists Left and the GOP Corrupt Consultant Class.

    Agreed.

    Rodan wrote:

    We can go back and forth all day here. It’s pointless.

    “Pointless?” Not in the least.

    You want to legalize drugs? Legalize prostitution? On the grounds that these are “personal choices which affect nobody but the people involved?”

    Fine: Let’s talk about that in terms of the social costs: welfare for drug users; for or against? Welfare at all—for or against? Any government subsidies for healthcare for addicts? For treating STDs (including long-term AIDS care) for prostitutes? What about the spread of infection in the general population from legalized prostitution? Have you thought that through?

    Get rid of moral considerations in legislation, and where is your basis for objecting to sex education at the grade-school level? For objecting to the content of it, at the grade- or highschool level? For objecting to leftist indoctrination in public schools, or in publicly-funded universities, or in private universities that seek public-money grants?

    Where is the basis for your objection to gay-rights activists seeking to shut down churches because they teach the Bible? Isn’t it “hate speech” under equal protection laws to teach that something is “a sin” if it is, after all, legal?

    Why should you object to abortion if you remove moral considerations from the legislative arena?

    I’m prepared to be convinced. Go to it.


  176. 177 | March 15, 2013 11:12 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    You want to legalize drugs? Legalize prostitution? On the grounds that these are “personal choices which affect nobody but the people involved?”

    Yes, Free Market Capitalism!

    Fine: Let’s talk about that in terms of the social costs: welfare for drug users; for or against? Welfare at all—for or against? Any government subsidies for healthcare for addicts? For treating STDs (including long-term AIDS care) for prostitutes? What about the spread of infection in the general population from legalized prostitution? Have you thought that through?

    Contraceptives solve the STD problems and I am for cutting off government subsides for addicts. Want to get high, that is on you!

    Get rid of moral considerations in legislation, and where is your basis for objecting to sex education at the grade-school level? For objecting to the content of it, at the grade- or highschool level? For objecting to leftist indoctrination in public schools, or in publicly-funded universities, or in private universities that seek public-money grants?

    Government should not be funding any of these programs. It goes against fiscal responsibility and its not in the government’s scope to promote any lifestyle. End the College centric model and destroy the Teacher’s unions, many of these issues goes away.

    Why should you object to abortion if you remove moral considerations from the legislative arena?

    That is up to religious leaders to persuade people against abortions. Not some politicians who bangs underage girls while preaching family values.

    Limited Governmnet means just that.

    Now I shoot the ball back to your court.

    How will you create this Utopian society without Bigger government?


  177. 178 | March 15, 2013 11:12 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    YOu can never really remove moral considerations from the legislative function of government. Child pornography is illegal, and most people agree with it being illegal, but that is because ofg the moral judgement that sex with children is wrong. It isn’t a question of removing morality from the legislative arena. It is in whose morality you will enforce. Libertarians believe that the State should enforce their morality, not Conservatives’ morality.


  178. 179 | March 15, 2013 11:15 am

    (Putting popcorn on the grocery list…)


  179. Bumr50
    180 | March 15, 2013 11:16 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Do you view libertarianism as toxic?


  180. Tanker
    181 | March 15, 2013 11:18 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Now there is a conversation I’d like to see. A Point by point discussion as to what a libertarian/Libertarian society would look like. Most libertarians or those that say they are libertarian never want to actually look at it point by point.

    Most common answer given is “Live and let live”. way to vague an answer for me, so most will just walk away.

    I can have an open mind, but one most be willing to truly take me through their thought of what that society will look like.


  181. 182 | March 15, 2013 11:19 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Libertarians believe that the State should enforce their morality, not Conservatives’ morality.

    Some Libertarians are like that. You can make the case for that with some Conservatives as well. I am personally Socially Conservative, but I do not want to impose it on others.. Like wise I do not want the Left imposing their degenerate view on others either.

    You are for Drug legalization such as I because we both oppose Prohibition and the Police State. Hence much of what we call Libertarianism or Conservatism actually overlaps. There are extremes on both sides like Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. But then you have Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, who agree on much.

    If you sit back an analyze it’s a very grey area between Conservatism and Libertarianism.


  182. 183 | March 15, 2013 11:20 am

    @ Mike C.:

    Hey you are Federalist, what is your take on this?

    Chime in, this is agood discussion.


  183. 184 | March 15, 2013 11:21 am

    I think I will do this as a thread next week. this is a fascinating discussion.


  184. buzzsawmonkey
    185 | March 15, 2013 11:22 am

    The problem is that “libertarianism” has basically bought into the Leftist viewpoint that “morality” is something that must be removed from public discourse.

    The Left, to the extent it references the Constitution at all, has adopted an Alinsky stance that takes, for example, the First Amendment ban against established religion and says that, according to this, any expression of religion in a public context represents an “establishment of religion” and must therefore be banned. The Left consistently uses the reductio ad absurdum to achieve its most extreme ideological goals.

    “Libertarianism” has bought into this, since it is basically the wolf of leftwing anarchism tricked out in the sheep’s clothing of a conservative suit and tie.

    The “liberty” conceived of by the Founders contemplated everyone bringing their personal—which included religious—morality into the public sphere, not removing that morality from it, and then hammering out compromises between/among these competing moralities that everyone could more or less live with. And that worked fine for us, up until the mid-late Fifties. For the last forty-fifty years, however, we’ve been expected, nay, mandated to check any such moral considerations at the door when entering the Public Sphere, and anyone who has been so crass as to not publicly and reflexively do so has been vilified.

    This has left a moral vacuum in public life—and nature abhors a vacuum. A vacuum will be filled. And what better to fill this vacuum than the vacuous platitudes of the Left?


  185. Bumr50
    186 | March 15, 2013 11:26 am

    @ Tanker:

    What would a “conservative society” look like?

    Why do I, as a libertarian leaning past-GOP voter, have to outline how my preferred philosophy in an elected official will manifest itself into some unknown eventuality while many “Republicans” can’t even figure out what they stand for ten minutes from now?


  186. Speranza
    187 | March 15, 2013 11:28 am

    Bumr50 wrote:

    Why do I, as a libertarian leaning past-GOP voter, have to outline how my preferred philosophy in an elected official will manifest itself into some unknown eventuality while many “Republicans” can’t even figure out what they stand for ten minutes from now?

    Bravo. When I ask many social conservatives what their “New Jerusalem” would look like I never get an answer.
    Rodan has a good thread up now.


  187. 188 | March 15, 2013 11:28 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    No you are wrong. Libertarians believe government should not impose anyone’s morality. It was Government that began to push the Left’s degenrate morality by rewarding bad behavior and teachinmg heather had 2 mommies. Government is the problem, not the answer. They answer is not to push theocracy lite, but to reduse the influence of government in people’s lives and crush the Left.

    Libertarians do not believe in utopia, Conservatives it seems do.


  188. buzzsawmonkey
    189 | March 15, 2013 11:29 am

    Rodan wrote:

    Now I shoot the ball back to your court.

    How will you create this Utopian society without Bigger government?

    I have absolutely no interest in creating a Utopian society. I’ve never expressed such a desire, and don’t believe it possible or desirable.

    I’m merely pointing out that “libertarian” programs for the most part are ass-backwards. First you end the government subsidies for health care—then you get rid of the prohibitions against drugs or prostitution. You don’t legalize personally-destructive behavior while the government-teat programs are in place, because that entrenches the programs rather than creating personal responsibility.


  189. 190 | March 15, 2013 11:29 am

    Rodan wrote:

    I think I will do this as a thread next week. this is a fascinating discussion.

    Constitutional federalist. A lot of this stuff is none of the federal government’s business. Turn it back over to the states. Your state wants to be Nuevo Soddom, not my problem.

    But note that that also implies I believe in the P&I clause of the 14th, which is today essentially a dead letter.


  190. 191 | March 15, 2013 11:29 am

    New Thread.

    I will do this as a thread next week, because its a good discussion.


  191. 192 | March 15, 2013 11:33 am

    @ Mike C.:

    I am in your camp!


  192. buzzsawmonkey
    193 | March 15, 2013 11:38 am

    Mike C. wrote:

    Constitutional federalist. A lot of this stuff is none of the federal government’s business. Turn it back over to the states. Your state wants to be Nuevo Soddom, not my problem.

    But note that that also implies I believe in the P&I clause of the 14th, which is today essentially a dead letter.

    What you are talking about would result in genuine diversity among the states, permitting each state its own character, rather than the perversity of faux “diversity” to which the Left pays lip service, and the uniformity which it seeks to impose under cover of “diversity” rhetoric.


  193. Tanker
    194 | March 15, 2013 11:42 am

    Bumr50 wrote:

    @ Tanker:
    What would a “conservative society” look like?
    Why do I, as a libertarian leaning past-GOP voter, have to outline how my preferred philosophy in an elected official will manifest itself into some unknown eventuality while many “Republicans” can’t even figure out what they stand for ten minutes from now?

    If we can’t explain what we want to see from any society, we will get no where.

    We can’t get any where if we can can’t look at it point by point. I’m not knocking your stance, because for the most part I don’t know your stance issue by issue “live and let live isn’t an answer”. Do I believe conservatives and libertarians can meld into a society worth living in, sure! I still want to understand what it will look like, somewhat. But, hey if you don’t fine the need or want to go there, then we are both stuck with no change!


  194. 195 | March 15, 2013 11:44 am

    @ Tanker:

    That is a very fair assesment.


  195. 196 | March 15, 2013 11:46 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Maybe Mike C’s Constitional Federalism is the answer and the way to bridge Conservatism and Libertarianism.


  196. 197 | March 15, 2013 11:47 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Within the limits of contitutional rights, yes. That was the original idea. A laboratory experiment in representative government.


  197. buzzsawmonkey
    198 | March 15, 2013 11:49 am

    Mike C. wrote:

    A laboratory experiment in representative government.

    We are all lab rats in James Madison’s maze, but the Left has figured out how to jimmy open the food pellet dispenser.


  198. Bumr50
    199 | March 15, 2013 11:56 am

    Tanker wrote:

    But, hey if you don’t fine the need or want to go there, then we are both stuck with no change!

    I will absolutely go there!


  199. 200 | March 15, 2013 11:59 am

    @ Mike C.:

    Would you like to do a guest post on Constitutional Federalism?


  200. 201 | March 15, 2013 12:02 pm

    @ Rodan:

    Up to my ass in alligators at the moment.


  201. Bumr50
    202 | March 15, 2013 12:03 pm

    @ Tanker:

    It’s going to be challenging.

    The idiot GOP did us no favors by nominating McCain and Romney.

    Now EVERYONE is resentful because EVERYONE feels as though they compromised greatly by pulling the lever for those guys.

    I don’t know what else they were expecting, having nominated both of them based ostensibly on seniority and the fact that they were the “least scary” candidate for undecided voters.


  202. lobo91
    203 | March 15, 2013 12:05 pm

    Mike C. wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Within the limits of contitutional rights, yes. That was the original idea. A laboratory experiment in representative government.

    Precisely.


  203. 204 | March 15, 2013 12:09 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    One of the problesm with a return to anything resembling constitutional federalism is centuries of SCOTUS decisions. Those are what have essentially killed the P&I clause of the 14th. Roe v Wade is another example. It will take a long time to untie that Gordian knot, if it can be done at all.


  204. Tanker
    205 | March 15, 2013 12:15 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    The idiot GOP did us no favors by nominating McCain and Romney.

    See, we do have agreement, other than we may disagree on how they were nominated. The establishment GOP could only nominate these guys by allowing open primaries. Also the process is rigged in a way that many conservatives/libertarians never have a say in the process. Closed primaries, shorter primary season would go a long way in this.

    And please do away with this electability crap. It really carries little weight, and plays right into the OFA/left wants!


  205. buzzsawmonkey
    206 | March 15, 2013 12:16 pm

    Mike C. wrote:

    Roe v Wade is another example. It will take a long time to untie that Gordian knot, if it can be done at all.

    It must be remembered that our civil rights under the Constitution are all personal rights held against the government. They are the rights of free individuals to hit the government on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper when it starts to hump your leg.

    The problems start when the definition of “rights” becomes expanded to include what Obama calls “positive rights” and which are, actually, “human rights”—i.e., privileges granted by the government to this or that favored constituency.

    Roe v. Wade was a landmark in creating such a “positive right”—and that is what underlies its problematic status. The reason for opposing same-sex marriage is that it, too, is not the pursuit of a civil right but the quest for a “positive right”, a “human right”—i.e., a special privilege. It has nothing to do with morality, or libertarianism.


  206. Speranza
    207 | March 15, 2013 12:55 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    The idiot GOP did us no favors by nominating McCain and Romney.

    You are only 1/2 right. If we had any chance at all to win in 2012 it was with Romney. However Romney ran in retrospect a poor campaign, allowed Obama to define him early as a vulture capitalist and then there were things out of his control like the storm in Tampa and Hurricane Sandy. Romney would’ve made a decent president.

    The less said about McCain the better.


  207. 208 | March 15, 2013 2:15 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Rodan wrote:
    @ Speranza:
    I know the Left because I work with them. I also use to troll Think Progress, Kos and DU. It gave me a great insight into them. I read leftist comments to get how they think.

    I work with them too. My boss is a red diaper baby.

    I am a second generation red diaper baby.
    Amazing how far the apple sometimes rolls from the tree.
    That doesn’t happen very often, though.


  208. 209 | March 15, 2013 2:24 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    @ Tanker:
    It’s going to be challenging.
    The idiot GOP did us no favors by nominating McCain and Romney.
    Now EVERYONE is resentful because EVERYONE feels as though they compromised greatly by pulling the lever for those guys.
    I don’t know what else they were expecting, having nominated both of them based ostensibly on seniority and the fact that they were the “least scary” candidate for undecided voters.

    Undecided voters NEVER vote for the “least scary” GOP candidate. They are muddleheads who vote for the candidate whose campaign volunteers give them a ride to the polls or fill out absentee ballots for them.

    Rodan wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    No you are wrong. Libertarians believe government should not impose anyone’s morality. It was Government that began to push the Left’s degenrate morality by rewarding bad behavior and teachinmg heather had 2 mommies. Government is the problem, not the answer. They answer is not to push theocracy lite, but to reduse the influence of government in people’s lives and crush the Left.
    Libertarians do not believe in utopia, Conservatives it seems do.

    We don’t believe in utopia -- in fact, we reject the idea that any semblance of it can exist on earth. What we want is an end to the practice of ratifying debauchery.

    We don’t consider it theocracy when a candidate discusses his faith. If a candidate has no faith, then his decisions will be based on the seven deadly sins -- selfishness in manifold forms. If a candidate is under the sway of an evil ideology, then his decisions will be based on that evil ideology. So we want to know about the candidates’ belief systems, and to what extent they take them seriously.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David