It’s Okay To Question Your Patriotism

By
July 8, 2009

It's un-American, as well as prohibited to question the patriotism of those attempting to undermine a war effort, but question Obama's policies and this is what you get. Liberals have no shame when it comes to hypocrisy. And I really regret that we are going to be reaping the unpleasant benefits to our politics going forward. Much more of this and the Right is going to get just as angry and ugly as the Left. Twenty-ten is going to be a no holds barred blood match politically speaking.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who has had an eventful couple of weeks to say the least, believes House Republican opposition to climate change legislation and the stimulus indicates they’re cheering against the good ol’ US of A.

“It appears that the Republican Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Obama success, which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country, as well,” the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman told WAMU radio host Diane Rehm on Tuesday morning, promoting his new book, “The Waxman Report.”

Update: Conservative GPW's Congressman is Waxman? Well, that stinks.

… my Congressman, ever eager to frustrate Republican efforts at reform, (is) now criticizing Republicans for attempting to do to Democratic legislation today what he did to Republican legislation when the GOP was in the majority:….



AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
Comments:
  1. Slide says:

    For the right to complain about the left using the “patriotism” card is quite ironic to say the least.
    Bush and company used 911 to bludgeon anyone who disagreed with them with the charge of being for the terrorists. Cheney is still doing it. Don’t believe the fed gov’t should be able to tap your phone or read your emails without a warrant? Then you must be for the terrorists. Not for holding Americans as enemy combatants without the right to see an attorney? You must be in al Queada. Against torture? … yada yada yada.
    But if you are someone that wants to see Obama fail…. which means America fails… then no one can question your patriotism? Gov Rick Perry suggests Texas may want to secede from the union but he is a patriot? Sarah’s hubby Todd is a memeber of a party that wants Alaska to secede from the USA but don’t question if he is anti-American. I think the party pretty much defines anti-American doesn’t it?
    hey, what is that saying my mom used to say, “if the shoe fits, wear it” Ok, maybe it wasn’t my mom but still applicable.

  2. hoholder says:

    I personally do not think even ho holds should be barred in 2010.

  3. anon says:

    I have to say on this particular issue that it looks to me like the Republicans are reaping what they sowed over the last 8 years, I hate to agree w/Slide, but the GOP went pretty far in impugning the patriotism of anyone that didn’t support the Iraq War, the Patriot Act or any number of Bush’s other counter productive, largely unconstitutional policies as relating to national security.
    The Democrats, it appears, finally learned how to turn Rove’s tactics back onto Republicans, and for that, the Republicans have only themselves to blame for wholeheartedly supporting any whack idea that Bush came up with becuase Karl Rove had convinced them they were going to have a permanent marjority.
    The moral of the story is that when you give up your principles for expediency, pork or more power, its a bit hard to pick them back up, no harm/no foul when you want to.

  4. jana says:

    At least they’ve stopped calling us racists.

  5. O! says:

    Odd that neither Slide nor anon can cite any specific instances of people’s patriotism being impugned by Bush or “the GOP” because of disagreement over the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, or anything else.
    Also kinda odd, that Obama has continued the Iraq War, the Patriot act, warrantless wiretapping, predator drone attacks against innocent civilians, indefinite detention, etc. etc.
    Anon did pretty much nail the Democrats, though, with “The moral of the story is that when you give up your principles for expediency, pork or more power, its a bit hard to pick them back up, no harm/no foul when you want to.” And the Republicans keep calling them out on this.

  6. Jay says:

    “But if you are someone that wants to see Obama fail…. which means America fails”
    Faulty premises.

  7. Kelly says:

    I certainly question someones patriotism when they side with our enemy. Everything else is just policy disagreement.

  8. ExurbanKevin says:

    “Bush and company used 911 to bludgeon anyone who disagreed with them with the charge of being for the terrorists. Cheney is still doing it. Don’t believe the fed gov’t should be able to tap your phone or read your emails without a warrant? Then you must be for the terrorists. Not for holding Americans as enemy combatants without the right to see an attorney? You must be in al Queada. Against torture? … yada yada yada.”
    So now the acceptable standard of behavior is the one you previously despised. It’s ok to question patriotism now because Bu$Hitler (allegedly) did it first?
    I thought the idea of “progressivism” was to be, you know, *progressive* , and get beyond the old, tired ways of doing things.

  9. dan says:

    Just because the left complained about people questioning their patriotism, doesn’t mean that anyone, anywhere actually did. Show one time you saw, read, heard anyone on the right actually questioning someone’s patriotism.

  10. southdakotaboy says:

    Well the best thing for America is for Obama to fail. Obama and the Democrats are traitors to our country. As America starts to feel the effects of what the left wants to do to this country there will be a rising tide of anger.
    We on the right need to focus this anger on the leaders of the left and the people who have supported the left (NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC) THEN WE NEED TO PURGE THEM.

  11. Jeff says:

    I personally believe that if Obama fails, America wins in the long run. We’re still trying to recover from some of FDR’s statecraft. Obama is trying to write a check we can never cash.

  12. anon says:

    You must not have seen any of the GOP’s ads where the bombs were streaming toward the U.S. or even read Dan’s blog where he opined that the generals who criticized the war should be brought up on treason charges, or even read any coverage of the Iraq War where the patriotism of anyone who wasn’t in lock step with the GOP had their patriotism impugned.
    Obama has continued all the Bush policies because once you are in power you don’t give it up, especially not a craven empty suit narcisist like Obama. That was one of the major reasons why those Bush policies should have been opposed at the time, because once they are in place, just like any government program, its almost impossible to get them removed, the genie doesn’t go back in the bottle.
    I tried to tell my fellow conservatives that all of these crazy Bush policies could easily be turned on them or anyone in the future, when the Dems got back in power, but everyone was drunk on Rove kool aid of a long term unassailable majority and so nobody cared. Surely you remember when the GOP wanted to outlaw the filibuster? Ha, of course now it doesn’t even matter w/a 60 seat majority, but you probably get the point anyway.

  13. Henry Bowman says:

    The only way for America to succeed (dare I say survive?) is for Obama, and his far left/socialist claptrap ideas to fail, and soon.

  14. cubanbob says:

    Its unpatriotic to aid and abet the enemy during war time, something the Democrats and the left forgot during the second Bush term.
    The Constitution, something that Waxman and the Democrats seem to forget is something they swore to uphold against enemies, foreign and domestic.
    National defense is a constitutional requirement. AGW is not (besides it being fraudulent). Neither is national health care a requirement.
    Considering the massive violations of the Constitution by the Democrats and Obama and their continuing attempts to violate the Constitution denying them success is a patriotic duty and a requirement of the oath of office on the part of the Republicans.

  15. mad-as-H says:

    Make the left irrelevant. Cancel your print media and cable and unplug your TV. Only read blogs that are intelligent.
    If a tree falls in a forest and no one is present, will it make a noise?

  16. James Felix says:

    There are two problems with the Liberal responses here.
    First is that they’re starting from a false premise. Bush didn’t question anyone’s patriotism. He should have, but he didn’t.
    Second is that there’s no comparison between the two sets of policies. It arguable, if not obvious, that Obama’s policies would be to the detriment of this country. Therefore, working to deny him the successful implementation of those policies isn’t rooting against America, it’s an attempt to protect it.
    What Liberals did over the last 8 years, by contrast, was undermine our prosecution of an actual shooting war. There is no way to credibly argue that it is in your country’s best interest to lose a war. Absoulutely no way.
    Which means that even if Republicans had questioned Liberal’s patriotism they would have been entirely justified in doing so. For Liberals to do it now is not only hypocritical, it’s factually incorrect.

  17. Greg says:

    Anon- Bullshit. No one in Republican power did that , they just bent over and took the crap from the left. I am tried of that strawman and the whiners that repeat it. What happenned to “dissent is patriotic”? Oh thats right, it only works in your favor.
    And slide, Obama failing at this point means America succeeds but not having more Gov’t and unheard of debt. His policies on Wiretapping and the war are the same at this point no matter how much he has the media try to spin that it is not, so that part is the same.

  18. cubanbob says:

    To put short and sweet: What’s good for Obama and the left is bad for America.

  19. O! says:

    No, anon, I didn’t see those things.
    Can you provide some direct links / URLs to primary sources that support your assertions?
    I’m betting that you can’t and won’t, but heck, it doesn’t cost anything to ask.

  20. Mike K says:

    I tried to tell my fellow conservatives that all of these crazy Bush policies
    Say what ?
    So Cap and Tax is patriotic as we dismantle the American economy ?

  21. They can’t point to any of Bush’s “lies” either. Bush was so straight up and so squeaky clean that after eight years the only thing that they could possibly try to impeach Bush for was eating his breakfast, and it’s made the left totally bat-shit crazy.

  22. PA says:

    Yea, like democrats have never tried to “deny” a republican president success.

  23. Matt says:

    anon and Slide, if it was a horrible thing for the Republicans to do… why is it suddenly acceptable for the Democrats? Violating your own belief structure because someone else doesn’t believe the same thing you do, doesn’t seem like a winning strategy.
    So what is it going to be?? A person’s patriotism can be questioned based on their actions or statements or it can’t? Currently your position seems to be if you’re a Democrat it is alright because the Republicans did it, but if the Republicans act in the exact same manner it is a horrible and unfair attack.

  24. Greg Toombs says:

    Socialism is failure. The more we have, the more we fail.

  25. Max says:

    The left is an unreasoning beast.

  26. Slide says:

    “anon and Slide, if it was a horrible thing for the Republicans to do… why is it suddenly acceptable for the Democrats?”
    Tired of going to a gun fight with a knife. Sorry that we have to get down in the gutter with Rovian politics but we are NOT going to just turn the other cheek anymore. Sorry guys.

  27. megapotamus says:

    Obama and his lickspittles are the worst enemies this country has ever known. Obama’s success is the death of this nation. Damn right, I question their patriotism. I deny it flat out. These morons are loyal to a putrid fantasy of turning free men into draft animals with themselves holding the whip. They destroy our energy, they destroy our economy, they destroy our medicine, they destroy our wealth, they destroy our national principles, they destroy our legal system and all simply because they long, quite rightly, to destroy themselves. These vermin are the enemies of every decent citizen.

  28. spmat says:

    Slide, you Moby.

  29. Slide says:

    are you little wingnuts kidding? Bush and company didn’t question the patritotims of critics of the Iraq war or the Patriot Act?
    Nov 26, 2003 | What nerve of President Bush to question the patriotism of his Democratic opponents, two of whom are highly decorated Purple Heart and Bronze and Silver Star veterans and all of whom have labored long to make this a better country.
    But the television ad that the Republican Party is running on Bush’s behalf in Iowa this week does just that, making the outrageous insinuation that critics of the president’s policies are in fact supporters of terrorists.
    Although Cleland voted for the Iraq War authorization last year, that did not stop his Republican opponent, Saxby Chambliss — who avoided service in Vietnam — from defeating war hero Cleland in 2002 by using attack ads that questioned his patriotism.
    In those ads Cleland’s face was presented alongside pictures of bin Laden and Hussein as if they were one and the same. As has been famously said, the appeal to patriotism is often “the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
    “Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists,” the ad states. “Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others.” The ad urges viewers to tell Congress “to support the president’s policy of preemptive self-defense.”
    This is dirty politics at its absolute lowest, equating criticism with cowardice.
    http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/scheer/2003/11/26/cleland/index.html

  30. Good Lt. says:

    Leaving aside the fact that Bush nor the GOP “questioned anyone’s patriotism” (lefty code for “those GOP meanies questioned our judgment and over-the-top rhetoric during a shooting war waaaaaah”, shorter anon and Slide say:
    “Two wrongs make a right because Democrats say so!”
    OR TRY
    “Democrats doing what they once on principle decried is politically expedient, so it must be right!”
    Nice to see the left adheres to their “principles” when it’s their political backsides on the line.
    Always remember the mantra the left comforted itself with during the Bush years:
    “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism ~ Howard Zinn”

  31. mishu says:

    But if you are someone that wants to see Obama fail…. which means America fails.
    WRONG!!!

  32. Slide says:

    One of the most popular lines in the right-wing Republican playbook is, “I am not questioning his patriotism, I’m questioning his judgment.”–Spiro T. Agnew, 1970
    It’s a brilliant ju-jitsu chop of language that deflects criticism of attacks on patriotism by setting up a false choice. The practitioners are, of course, questioning both the patriotism and the judgment of the Democrat in question. The initial attack is invariably of the form “The Democrat will do what our enemies want, and America will suffer.”
    In the last month, Zell Miller used the line in his RNC speech to attack the leaders of the Democratic Party, Dick Cheney has used it repeatedly to attack John Kerry, and Henry Hyde used it to attack Rep. Gary Ackerman.
    The line was used to good effect by Reagan in 1984 and by Bush père in the Bush-Dukakis debate, but it came off poorly when he used it against Clinton in ’92. It didn’t resurface until the 2002 Senatorial races against Wellstone, Cleland, Carnahan, Alex Sanders, and Tim Johnson.
    But it began with the great American patriot Spiro Agnew in 1970, stumping for–guess-who–Poppy Bush, who was running against Lloyd Bentsen for Senate. Agnew attacked the anti-Vietnam War stance of McGovern and Hatfield, adding the infamous line to soften his fiery stump speeches.
    No publication quoting the line has mentioned Agnew since 1988; a few modern publications refer back to the Bush-Dukakis debate. Yet again our media has failed us.
    The long record of the line’s use is below, including the rare Democratic uses. Sources available online are linked. I’m not including the uses on the right-wing blogostan.

  33. Slide says:

    (CNN) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama defended himself and his wife Sunday against suggestions that they are insufficiently patriotic.
    Sen. Barack Obama defended himself and his wife against recent suggestions that they are not patriotic.
    After a town hall meeting in Lorain, Ohio, a reporter asked Obama about “an attempt by conservatives and Republicans to paint you as unpatriotic.”
    The reporter cited the fact that Obama once failed to put his hand over his heart while singing the national anthem.
    Obama replied that his choice not to put his hand on his heart is a behavior that “would disqualify about three-quarters of the people who have ever gone to a football game or baseball game.”
    The reporter also noted that the Illinois senator does not wear an American flag lapel pin, has met with former members of the radical anti-Vietnam War group, Weather Underground, and his wife was quoted recently as saying she never felt really proud of the United States until recently.

  34. TallDave says:

    “It appears that the Democrat Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Bush success, which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country, as well,” the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman told WAMU radio host Diane Rehm on Tuesday morning, promoting his new book, “The Burton Report.”
    Yeah, I don’t remember that happening either.
    Criticizing Democrats who were wrongly saying we’d lost the war while our troops were in harm’s way is one thing. But this is just a debate over economic policy.
    Apparently questioning Marxist economic theories is now treasonous. Welcome to the People’s Republic of America.

  35. Nasty Lefty says:

    Payback,s a bitch, ain’t it, Riehl?

  36. Good Lt. says:

    Salon is a leftwing rag. That’s like citing Daily Kos as a ligitimate source of information.
    And it’s an editorial. Editorials are OPINIONS by definition, not facts.
    Try again.
    >This is dirty politics at its absolute lowest, equating criticism with cowardice.
    You are cowards (and your President is continuing the same war(s) you marched against from 2003-2008), but that has nothing to do with “questioning your patriotism.”
    FAIL.
    >”Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others.”
    When you call for the UN (who authorized the Iraq war) to dictate our national security, you are calling for us to put our national security in the hands of others.
    When you call for use to GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW, you are calling for a military retreat.
    Truth hurts, but it has nothing to do with “questioning your patriotism.”
    FAIL. Again.
    No wonder your boy up there is flailing.

  37. Slide says:

    I could go on all day, but here is another one:
    Republican Inhofe Assails Obama’s “Love of Country”
    Senator James “Ice Age” Inhofe (R-OK), who has made a fool out of himself many times on the Senate floor by denying the existence of climate change — calling global warming a creation of “the media, Hollywood elites and our pop culture” — is at it again with a different kind of outrageous statement.
    Speaking to Oklahoma delegates at the Republican National Convention last week, Inhofe gave his guarantee that the GOP’s presidential nominee, John McCain, would win in November and said it would be because voters don’t believe Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is a true patriot.
    “Do you really want to have a guy as commander in chief of this country when you can question whether or not he really loves his country?” said Inhofe. “That’s the big question.”
    http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2008/09/republican-inhofe-assails-obamas-love.html

  38. Slide says:

    Let me know when you want me to stop:
    Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) displayed her demagoguery on MSNBC’s “Hardball” last Friday when she suggested that Obama harbored “anti-American” views. She also suggested a congressional witch hunt was needed — not unlike Joe McCarthy’s destructive 1950s campaign — to “find out if they are pro-America or anti-America.” Bachmann’s comments elicited a windfall of donations for her opponent, Elwyn Tinklenberg, and a campaign to censure her.
    Watch the video below:

  39. Slide says:

    This is not very hard to find guys:
    North Carolina GOP Representative Robin Hayes was caught in a lie on October 18 when said that “liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God.” Hayes’ campaign claimed he never uttered those words … until the tape showed up.

  40. anon says:

    I never said it was okay for the Democrats to question the patriotism of Republicans who don’t support Obama, what I said was that the Republicans did this to the Democrats already and so they were reaping what they sowed, and sorry, pretending that it was not insinuated and outright stated that being against the war was unpatriotic and treasonous by many Republicans in and out of office is just as disingenuous as pretending that the primary stated reason for the invasion was that Iraq posed a serious threat to the US and that the country was chock full of WMD.
    It is simply one in an unending series of examples as to why the country is falling apart and why it will continue to fall apart, because when push comes to shove, the GOP doesn’t care much more about its alleged principles than the Democrats do, if they did then they wouldn’t have gone along with raising the debt ceiling or supported the idea of detaining American citizens without trial or warrentless wiretapping or any of the other Bush policies that the did support.
    None of this makes Obama any less destructive for the country, it only makes it more plain why the GOPs image is now in the toilet, because the GOP didn’t adhere to its principles any better than the Democrats did and now they are in a very poor position to stop Obama.
    They’re all hypocrits of the highest order, with the possible exception of Ron Paul.

  41. Good Lt. says:

    >After a town hall meeting in Lorain, Ohio, a reporter asked Obama about “an attempt by conservatives and Republicans to paint you as unpatriotic.”
    So a sympathetic reporter who can’t produce a single quote to back up his fake question makes up one, asks his hero Barack Obama to respond to the made up quote, and he proceeds to respond to the softball. Cute, but inadequate.
    Can you cite a quote by any GOP politician, or Bush, or Cheney, calling any Democrat “unpatriotic” – or even using that word? If there are as many as you claim, you shouldn’t be having this much trouble producing one.
    The only people who have EVER used the phrase “stop questioning my patriotism” are liberals afraid of being perceived as unpatriotic. It’s your neurosis and mass paranoia that has you whining about this.
    Produce a direct quote or stop erecting straw men and then smashing them. It’s more impotent and pathetic than your President’s “economic policies.”

  42. Slide says:

    This was not that long ago guys remember?
    McCain Questioning Obama’s Patriotism?
    In a front page story this morning, the Washington Post examines Sen. John McCain’s repeated criticism of Sen.
    Barack Obama for failing to visit wounded troops while in Germany “because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true.” The attacks “come despite repeated pledges by the Republican that he will never question his rival’s patriotism.” Despite “serious and repeated queries about the charge over several days, McCain and his allies continued yesterday to question Obama’s patriotism by focusing attention on the canceled hospital visit.”
    Despite the Post’s judgment that the attacks are questioning Obama’s patriotism, the New York Times reports this morning that an ad based on the issue is generating considerable free press as it has “been shown fully or partly on local, national and cable newscasts” “hundreds” of times, costing the campaign not a dime. In contrast, the AP notes that the McCain campaign actually only paid to air the spot four times total, all on Sunday.
    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080730.htm

  43. Rusty Shackleford says:

    When two people get in a pissing contest, both get wet. Patriot? People in both parties love this country, they just go about showing that love in different ways. Get over yourselves.
    However! When POTUS and SecState both side against a friendly nation which is trying to uphold its Constitution in favor of a potential dictator who is supported by enemies of the U.S., it makes me wonder. The AP keeps calling it a coup when, in fact, the Honduran Supreme Court, Congress, and Atty General are upholding the Honduran Constitution they were sworn to defend.
    Look for an attempt to repeal the 22nd Amendment so Obama can become the next Chavez.

  44. megapotamus says:

    Here’s a question that takes us back to the original points. As most people know, the Democrats, otherwise known as domestic enemies, have a solid majority in both Houses. So what just what do Republicans and/or their leadership have to do with any of this? Democrats can do whatever they may Constitutionally do, and much besides, without a single Republican vote. Are the wobbly Democrats out to scuttle Obama? Are they practicing treason? No action of a Democrat should be interpreted as anything BUT treason until countering evidence is presented so I am certainly willing to believe that. But what do Democrats care about Reps on this issue or any other for? Waxman, like all the wretched lunatics of the Democratic party is a cowardly buffoon but even he knows that Cap and Trade is a fraud. Its aim is simply the destruction of the private economy which has been the great project of the Democrats since Roosevelt. Waxman desires to spread the inevitable blame around. The only chance that McCain or some number of other egomanical morons of the Rep leftwing will not give in is if they are personally insulted out of their usual agreeableness. So spout on, Waxman, Frank, Reid… all you scum. Spout on. Declare it at every opportunity. But we must do it too and we have the added advantage of telling the truth. The Democrats are the enemies of this nation. Every one.

  45. Slide says:

    This one is good. Claims republicans never attack Dems on patriotism and then does exactly that. Gotta love em.
    Almost two months after Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto made his April 19 pronouncement that “Republicans almost never question Democrats’ patriotism. … [T]o do so would look vicious and unseemly” — and just one month after doing precisely that — Taranto accused Democrats of engaging in “anti-American propaganda.” Taranto’s June 16 statement echoed a May 17 column in which he claimed, “[S]ome Democrats do not seem to be on the side of their own country.”
    From Taranto’s June 16 “Best of the Web” column on OpinionJournal.com, the website of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page:
    “If you listen to prominent Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and Al Gore, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that they’d rather see America lose the war than the president win re-election. It’s bad enough that one party is willing to engage in what as a practical matter amounts to anti-American propaganda.”

  46. Good Lt. says:

    >The attacks “come despite repeated pledges by the Republican that he will never question his rival’s patriotism.”
    And he didn’t he said this:
    “Sen. John McCain’s repeated criticism of Sen.
    Barack Obama for failing to visit wounded troops while in Germany “because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true.”
    Ironic that you can’t cite a single quotation of anybody questioning the patriotism of a single Democrat. Questioning their judgment? Hell yes. It would have been a dereliction of duty NOT to question the judgment of the American left. They deserve questioning, and even more so now that they’re flailing around in power, as you can see by their “stewardship” of the economy, for example.
    Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
    Speaking of pampered, privileged people who have a chip on their shoulder about America and want to CHANGE it,
    “FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY ADULT LIFE, I’M PROUD OF MY COUNTRY.”
    Who said that? Is that a statement of love for the country, or a statement of resentment for it? What happened before her husband was running for President? I guess she wasn’t proud of America?
    See, you fail, Slide. You’re leaders (at the very top) have openly admitted they don’t like America. They want it “changed.” Changed from what? They don’t say. Changed to what? Blank out. But all they know is that it isn’t good in their view.
    Hence, they don’t like the country as it is/was. That’s called a logical progression of thought. Unlike your blog posts and quotes which do not support your central allegations, which you’re citing as “evidence” of something.
    STOP QUESTIONING OUR PATRIOTISM, WINGNUTZ!@!

  47. Slide says:

    Ok. I’m tired now. I’m not going to do your research for you. If you want to suggest that the right doesn’t portray the left as being Un-American or unpatriotic almost with every breath they take then there is nothing that will convince you. It is what i despise about the right most of all. Disagree with my policies. Disagree with my ideology. That is all fair and fine. But the right is never happy with that. They have to paint their opponents as not wanting what is best for the country. Not being patriotic enough (remember the flag pin controversy with Obama, or his hand not being over his heart for national anthem). Or not having family values (kinda funny now with what is going on with Vitter, Craig, Sanford, Ensign, Foley, et al).
    You demonize your opponents. Just read the comments from the right wing blogs and what is said about Obama. What was said about the Clintons.
    Never was Samuel Johnson’s phrase more apt: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”

  48. Chris says:

    G-d D-mn America! It’s in the Bible! Look it up. What? Never heard it? Me neither. Inside job on 9-11? The heck you say? Tower 7?
    No reason to question any of that. Move along.

  49. kwo says:

    Mark Tapscott had a good take on the whole “traitor” thing last week.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Let_s-leave-the-gutter-to-the-Left-7909439.html

  50. Good Lt. says:

    >Disagree with my policies. Disagree with my ideology.
    We do, thanks. Any fool can see that they’re destroying our economy right now, and they’re going to continue to do so while limiting freedom and destroying our health care system.
    >You demonize your opponents.
    Democrats, always playing the victim fighting again the tyranny of others opinions, never do this, though. Ever. They never have.
    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Bush+is+Hitler&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=G4bfF1vBNGY
    http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Bush%20is%20Hitler&sa=N&tab=wi&um=1
    But those sites and pics were obviously a Rovian plot to make you look like a gaggle of foul hypocrites, right?

  51. Jamie Gumm says:

    Samuel Johnson was referring to the acts of scoundrels, not opining on patriots. You’re a kind of johnson yourself, Slide. Take a nap, you must be tired with all the spinning.
    Waxman (D-Twilight Zone, pig-nose episode) just called the powerless minority party unpatriotic for not agreeing that the country needs to be remodeled in BHO’s grad school Alinskyite image. Deal with it.

  52. Good Lt. says:

    >”Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”
    Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. – Howard Zinn

  53. O! says:

    Thanks, Slide and anon for demonstrating that there aren’t any examples to support your initial assertions.
    Unless, of course, you want to revise your assertion from the initial, unsupportable claim to:
    “Liberal and democrat partisans and opinion columnists have claimed for years that the GOP has questioned their patriotism. The only support offered for their claims, however, are telephone-game-like-chains of citations to other partisans and opinion columnists who also claim to have been called unpatriotic. At no point is any primary source given which shows the GOP actually calling them unpatriotic.”
    Because I completely agree that the revised version happened, and that you can find pages of evidence supporting it.

  54. Good Lt. says:

    > Vitter, Craig, Sanford, Ensign, Foley
    So every politician with a moral or ethical problem means that all of their supporters do the same?
    I guess all Democrats are murderers, drunks, lechers, drug addicts, coke dealers, communists, prostitution-peddlers and customers, hypocrites, etc.
    You’re a child, Slide.
    Jamie’s right. You need a nap.

  55. Slide says:

    This is how stupid the right is. Good Lt. says this, “See, you fail, Slide. You’re leaders (at the very top) have openly admitted they don’t like America. They want it “changed.” Changed from what? They don’t say. Changed to what? Blank out. But all they know is that it isn’t good in their view.”
    So the right is completely happy with America? You guys never find fault with the country?????? lol That’s all you guys do. Bitch and moan about America. Do you want me to pull a million comments from this blog showing how you want America “changed”?
    So if a liberal wants change in America they are unpatriotic and un-American but if a conservative wants change in America.. well.. they just want what is best for the country. Unbelievable

  56. Anon says:

    This is why the GOP is out of power now.
    I am not going to find links to something that was that so widespread as to come under the rubric ‘prove the sky is blue’. It doesn’t matter whether the word “unpatriotic” was used or not, if you will note in Dan’s OP, Waxman doesn’t use either traitor or unpatriotic either, but the implication is clear, just like it was when the Republicans continued to insinuate that the Democrats were unpatriotic and wanted to “lose” in Iraq.
    It is the same stupid semantic arguement that you use to make the case that no one in the Bush Administration ever “lied” about anything, when it is crystal clear to anyone with a shred of sense or logic that while a legal “lie” may be provable it is obvious that they purposefully mislead and mis stated facts on just about everything having to do with the war on terror.
    If Republicans aren’t willing to look in the mirrow and admit where the made mistakes, then they’re never going to regain their credibility and they are certainly not going to regain their credibiliy in time to derail Obama’s all government all the time freight train.

  57. J. Rathburn says:

    What a world! Now we have lefties using George Bush as their moral compass.

  58. Jamie Gumm says:

    False choice: Not wanting to have America re-made into a Socialist nanny state (aka Obama’s “Change”) = “Never finding fault” and “being completely happy with America”.
    Take that nap…wake up smarter.

  59. Good Lt. says:

    o the right is completely happy with America?
    No – your policies are destroying it, not helping it.
    Here – open a newspaper, you dolt:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/07/AR2009070703182.html?wprss=rss_politics
    We’re unhappy with YOUR POLICIES BECAUSE THEY DON’T WORK AND DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD. Deal.
    That’s not the equivalent of calling you unpatriotic. That’s an asinine leap that you and your fellow Democrats made for yourselves.
    You’re just WRONG.
    It’s like teaching physics to a toad.

  60. Jamie Gumm says:

    “…just like it was when the Republicans continued to insinuate that the Democrats were unpatriotic and wanted to “lose” in Iraq…” – anon
    “This war is lost” – Harry Reid (D-Buttmunch)
    Harry was just insinuating that, eh? What a cunning linguist.

  61. Good Lt. says:

    >Do you want me to pull a million comments from this blog showing how you want America “changed”?
    O RLY? Who ran on the platform of HOPE AND CHANGE? McCain?
    HOPE AND CHANGE.
    Your boy, jackass, ran on CHANGE. He’s the one who wanted to “CHANGE” America.
    Seems like there’s a lot of “change” going on in Congress.
    Unfortunately, it’s CHANGE for the worse. Inconvenient truth, I know, but there it is.

  62. Agoraphobic Plumber says:

    “But if you are someone that wants to see Obama fail…. which means America fails… then no one can question your patriotism?”
    Rush Limbaugh is a blowhard, but he took unfair heat for his “wanting Obama to fail” remarks. I he was saying that he didn’t want Obama to succeed in turning the US into a socialist state. In that, I agree with him wholeheartedly.
    I also hope O fails at changing our healthcare to a socialist one.
    I also hope he fails at installing the ridiculous cap and trade scheme, and if he succeeds I hope the program itself is a miserable failure.
    Because most of his major policy choices represent things that have never fit with traditional American ideals. Hell yes, they’re unAmerican, and I hope they all fail.
    For the record, I never called anybody unAmerican for protesting the wars or bashing Bush. Those are their rights. It is NOT anybody’s right to take over private companies, even (and may especially) the government.
    And it is bad policy to spend billions and probably trillions of dollars trying to do something about the climate with absolutely no idea if it can have a measurable impact. If you believe that climate change is an urgent problem (I don’t) then the money would be MUCH better spent preparing to adapt to the changing climate rather than trying to derail a train with a spaghetti noodle.

  63. Good Lt. says:

    “This war is lost” – Harry Reid (D-Buttmunch)
    Wow. What patriotism. What support and recognition for the military’s successes IN REALITY.
    Slide will ignore it because he didn’t read it on a leftwing blog, but that doesn’t make it go away.

  64. Bill45 says:

    Slide posted at July 08, 2009 at 12:22 PM: ” But if you are someone that wants to see Obama fail…. which means America fails…”Of course, the left’s wishing for Bush to fail never meant American would fail.
    No, Slide, wanting to see Obama fail does not mean American will fail. Quite the opposite, in fact. Obama succeeding means America failing.

  65. TM says:

    “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. – Howard Zinn”
    Zinn is a left-wing nutcase who wraps his marxist attacks on traditional American values in
    the flag. – Me

  66. Ron says:

    So tired of looking at Waxman’s brain pan through his nostril’s, why can’t he take some bribes like the rest of the Democrats and get that pig snout taken care of, if he can’t make a couple of $billion$ after suppressing that EPA report he should be made a Republican.

  67. Jamie Gumm says:

    Hmmm… they must be busy “playing” Evony.

  68. Nahanni says:

    The left/liberal/progressives (or whatever they are calling themselves this week) can dish it out but can’t take it. I can not wait to hear them howl when the American people rise up against them. They laugh, scoff, make snarky comments that only serve to highlight their ignorance and think they have us beaten down but they do not. The sleeping giant is awaking and if they think that their petulant temper tantrums and arrogant ignorance will save them they will soon learn a very harsh lesson because the sleeping giant is about to open up a jumbo can of whoop ass on them.
    They do not understand the American people because they have lived too long in their gated community of the mind aka the “reality-based community” where they make presumptions assumptions about the American people and call them “bitter Klingons” and other such ignorant and arrogant nonsense.
    They have no idea of what is about to hit them.

  69. Drider says:

    I don’t question mu patriotism for even a second. I was one of those who “rightly” questioned the patriotism of others as they did their best to lose a war we we’re involved in and/or put lives of servicemen and women in danger so they could score some popularity points amongst their unpatriotic circles.
    As far as Waxman’s stupid comment, just because a party wins control of an election does not give them carte’ blanch freedom to destroy the country and make indentured slaves of our people, people like Waxman are doing this “despite” the wishes of many of their voters, might I add. The entire US Congress at this moment in time are nothing but Socialists(or worse, those who fear the Socialists) who’s intent is to reshape this Country into a much weaker version of “it takes a village” and it patriotic in highest degree to stop the enemy at the gate….or in our present state, stop them now that they have entered the gate.

  70. Spartee says:

    Slide, find some hobbies other than this one. Your discernment is terrible, and I have the impression you break many keyboards in typing your replies. (Please note, that is not a questioning of your patriotism.)

  71. anon says:

    I think its funny that people are trying to say that Republicans didn’t claim anyone against the war was unpatriotic while at the same time, continuing to say that anyone who was against the war was unpatriotic and/or put soldiers in harms way and/or wanted to lose the war.
    No wonder Obama feels like he can do whatever he wants.

  72. “It doesn’t matter whether the word “unpatriotic” was used or not”
    So Slide is accusing Republicans of calling Obama Party members unpatriotic; then, upon being asked to provide proof, insists that it doesn’t matter whether they actually called an Obama Party member unpatriotic or not for him to accuse them of doing it.

  73. Josh Reiter says:

    Slide,
    Good try but your only reinforcing the point that the left is begin hypocritical about this. The dems turned back flips at the notion that they were being labeled unpatriotic and that instead, dissent is in fact the highest form of patriotism. Yet, what was good for the goose does not appear to be good for the gander. What part of this do you not understand?
    You just want to drill in on one comment made and somehow leverage that in an attempt to de-legitimize this entire position. Sorry, it isn’t working.
    There is something in business called the Ladder of Accountability. People who do nothing but blame others, deny situations, make excuses, and have a wait and see attitude are people who are unable to escape their chronic anxieties — *cough* Obama. The goal is to rise above this type of abdicating behavior and instead accept accountable behaviors: acknowledge reality, own that reality, adopt realistic solutions, and effectively implement those solutions. People who get stuck on those lower rungs of accountability make ineffective leaders and generally retard the success of an overall project.

  74. Gabriel Hanna says:

    None of you actually cited an example of “questioning patriotism” of anyone who was against the Iraq war.
    All you did was cite somebody CHARACTERIZING an incident as “questioning patriotism”. But you never gave the actual quote.
    For example, the Saxby Chambliss ad was DESCRIBED as “questioning the patriotism” of Max Clelland. Did you give a transcript of the ad? No. For very good reason–it would destroy your case.
    There is a big difference between “questioning patriotism” and saying that a policy prescription is “bad for the country”. Your opponent may be advocating something that is bad for the country for many reasons, but most likely because he is mistaken. Your saying it is “bad for the country” is NOT questioning his patriotism unless you also say that he advocates it BECAUSE HE KNOWS it is bad for the country AND HE WANTS IT to be bad for the country.
    Dissent isn’t the “highest form of patriotism”. It can be patriotic, treasonous, or neutral, like virtually any other action. And leftists seem to unable to disagree with anyone about anything without characterizing them as stupid or evil.
    It was Paul Krugman who called voting against cap and trade “treason to the planet”. You will find no case of Bush or Cheney using those kinds of words about their opponents regarding Iraq.
    Cheney says Obama’s approach to the War on Terror is wrong and will make Americans unsafe. How many on the left used the exact same words about Iraq. He did NOT say Obama hates America and wants Americans to die.
    It was MoveOn.Org that ran the “General Betray-Us” ads.

  75. Rob Crawford says:

    “If you want to suggest that the right doesn’t portray the left as being Un-American or unpatriotic almost with every breath they take then there is nothing that will convince you.”
    That was never the argument.
    But then, lefties do so love the flavor of strawmen.

  76. Anon says:

    As far back as 2002, Rush Limbaugh, in words very close to those used by The Wall Street Journal last week, accused Tom Daschle, then the Senate majority leader, of a partisan “attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism.”
    December 2001: In response to Democratic plans to question parts of the USA Patriot Act during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, John Ashcroft suggests that people who disagree with the administration’s anti-terrorism policies are on the side of the terrorists. “To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies, and pause to America’s friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.”
    February 2002: Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle expresses mild disagreement with US anti-terror policies, saying US success in the war on terror “is still somewhat in doubt.” In response, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) says that Daschle’s “divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country.”
    May 2002: After the disclosure that President Bush received a general warning about possible Al Qaeda hijackings prior to 9/11, Democrats demand to know what other information the administration had before the attacks. In response, White House communications director Dan Bartlett says that the Democratic statements “are exactly what our opponents, our enemies, want us to do.”
    September 2002: Campaigning against Democrats who did not support his legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security (a department whose creation he had previously opposed), President Bush said that “the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people.”
    September 2004: As John Kerry steps up his criticism of the Bush administration’s handling of Iraq and the war on terror, Republicans repeatedly suggest that he is emboldening the enemy. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) says that “while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats’ manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.” President Bush says, “You can embolden an enemy by sending a mixed message… You send the wrong message to our troops by sending mixed messages.” And Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) claims that terrorists “are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry,” adding that Democrats are “consistently saying things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over there.”
    July 2005: Senator Dick Durbin states that a description of US interrogation procedures at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility sounds like something “done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others.” Presidential adviser Karl Rove responds by suggesting that Durbin and other liberals seek to put US troops in danger, saying that “Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.”
    November/December 2005: With critics of the war in Iraq growing increasingly vocal, Republicans lash out, suggesting that Democrats are encouraging the enemy and want to surrender to terrorists. President Bush says that “These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will.” Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) states that “Many on the Democratic side have revealed their exit strategy: surrender” and Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) says that “[T]he liberal leadership have put politics ahead of sound fiscal and national security policy. And what they have done is cooperated with our enemies and are emboldening our enemies.”
    After DNC chairman Howard Dean says “The idea that we’re going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong,” Republicans reiterate the same line of attack. House Speaker Dennis Hastert says Dean “made it clear the Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender” and GOP chairman Ken Mehlman says Dean’s statement “sends the wrong message to our troops, the wrong message to the enemy, the wrong message to the Iraqi people.”
    January 2006: President Bush suggests that “defeatists” on Iraq are disloyal by contrasting them with a “loyal opposition,” stating that the American people “know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.”
    March 2006: Senator Russ Feingold introduces a motion to censure President Bush. In response, Republicans suggest that he is harming national security and endangering US troops. RNC chairman Ken Mehlman says that “Democrat leaders never miss an opportunity to put politics before our nation’s security” and that they would “would rather censure the President for doing his job than actually fight the War on Terror,” refers to “repeated Democrat attempts to weaken these efforts to fight the terrorists and keep American families safe,” and states that “Democrats should to be focused on winning the War on Terror, not undermining it with political axe-grinding of the ugliest kind.” Senator John Cornyn adds that the resolution would “make the jobs of our soldiers and diplomats harder and place them at greater risk.”
    June 2006: In response to Democratic calls for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, President Bush suggests that Democrats want to surrender. “There’s a group in the opposition party who are willing to retreat before the mission is done,” he said. “They’re willing to wave the white flag of surrender. And if they succeed, the United States will be worse off, and the world will be worse off.” However, Bush adviser Dan Bartlett is unable to name a single Democrat to which this description applies.

  77. Anon says:

    Any questions?
    Or are you going to say that the list of quotes doesn’t attempt to paint Democrats as unpatriotic?

  78. kcom says:

    Yeah, Obama is trying to pull a Thelma & Louise on us (jump into the driver’s seat, aim for the cliff edge, and push the pedal through the floor) and we’re supposed to sit back and enjoy the ride. I don’t think so. I don’t know about you but I haven’t yet come down with Stockholm Syndrome and I don’t want my kidnapper to succeed. Whatever it takes to pry his crazy-ass lead foot off the gas pedal is what we need. And if we can do that, America can succeed and not fail. And we won’t wind up at the bottom of the cliff in a smoking pile of debris that used to be our prosperity. Call me crazy, but I think it’s patriotic to prevent something like that.

  79. Troll Hunter says:

    As Anon so ably demonstrates, Demos really do have proven track record of anti-patriotism. You go girl!
    H^ll, you just know a thread is gonna be fun when the first commenter is none other than Preparation “S”.

  80. Please tell me when patriotism meant supporting a government that is doing harm to the people of that country. I see patriotism as supporting the country itself, that means the people of the country, and the Constitution of that country. This country was born out of a rebellion against a government that abused the people and denied their rights. Of the people, by the people and FOR the people. NOT of the government, by the government and for the government.

  81. Slide says:

    ahhhh…. so revealing the posts of wingnuts. They practically froth at the mouth claiming how horrible and unpatriotic the left is while at the same time denying that they do that? Its truly remarkable reading the low level of intelligence and understanding exhibited by the wingnut segment of the right (not all conservatives, not all republicans, not all on the right).
    Lets take Good Lt. for example who exemplifies the moronic right. He said, “O RLY? Who ran on the platform of HOPE AND CHANGE? McCain? HOPE AND CHANGE. Your boy, jackass, ran on CHANGE. He’s the one who wanted to “CHANGE” America.”
    Yeah? So? The COUNTRY wanted change from the worst President in history. They craved change from the failed policies of right wing leadership. They voted for change in record numbers. That IS America. That is democracy. That is the very essence of what being a patriot means. This is somehow a bad thing? Don’t you want change NOW? What is your point ?
    North Dallas and Good Lt. are neck and neck in the running for the most idiotic and moronic comments. Who will win? Stay tuned. ND30 your up. Lets see if you can top Good Lt’s

  82. Jamie Gumm says:

    I have a question. Why do you insist on equating borderline treasonous statements by Democrats during a War with Republicans criticizing Obama’s policies? Are you just too stupid or just too ignorant to know the difference? That’s my question. Here’s another: Can you answer it without cutting and pasting more evidence that the Dems you cite would have been hung from trees 150 years ago?

  83. Dave Lawrence (please use mustanger80) says:

    Along with at least two or three of what I imagine must be hundreds of examples of attacks on the patriotism of those critical of the conduct of the war in Iraq, I’m really interested in actually seeing some of the examples of “Rovian tactics”. And I mean SPECIFIC, not implied examples.
    As for the AINOs (Americans in Name Only) declaring that they’ll no longer go into a gun fight with a knife or turn the other cheek: compared to the offensive and dishonest tactics of the left over the past eight years, the right has been a collective model of forbearance.
    mustanger80

  84. anon says:

    I think the point is that it is wrong to question people’s patriotism because they don’t agree with you, even if you believe that what they believe is going to destroy the country.
    Obama is not unpatriotic and neither are the Democrats.
    What they are is deluded and deeply wrong.
    The Republicans should never have insinuated that anyone who was against the Iraq War, against Gitmo, against waterboarding, against the Patriot Act was unpatriotic, treasonous, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They should have been able to come up with more logical and more adult criticisms.
    Now, when the Democrats question their patriotism for not supporting the Dems policies, its hard to take them too seriously, because they did exactly the same thing to the Democrats not too long ago.
    The goal should be to learn from history and to stop name calling whether you are in or out of power and focus on the wrongness of the policy not the patriotism of the person who champions it.
    I feel like I am talking to a bunch of fith graders.

  85. Jamie Gumm says:

    DNC chairman Howard Dean says “The idea that we’re going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong…”
    Senator Dick Durbin states that a description of US interrogation procedures at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility sounds like something “done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others.”
    Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle says US success in the war on terror “is still somewhat in doubt.”
    Harry Reid says ” This war is lost”.
    That kind of remark, from elected officials of my enemy, would give me aid and comfort and increase my desire to continue fighting.
    “Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort…”
    Of course, by their own words posted above, Libs thought Bush was the enemy, so they give themselves a pass. Lincoln would have handled them nicely.

  86. Slide says:

    “I feel like I am talking to a bunch of fith graders.”
    You are more generous than I am.
    It is clear that anon and I have differing viewpoints on Obama and the Dems. He thinks they are misguided and they will harm our country with their policies. I disagree with him but I can respect that opinion completely. No one has a crystal ball to know what will and what will not be in the country’s interest in the long run. I have no problem with those on the right that have differing views but unfortunately that is not enough for a good portion of the right. They have to demonize those of us that have differing views. They suggest that we WANT to destroy the country or LOSE the war.
    When you question my motives, my patriotism, my love of country, my morality or my principles just because you disagree with my view of the world well then you’ve created an enemy. You’ve created someone that wants to turn the tables and not only defeat you electorally but destroy you. That is where we are. It is unfortunate for the country. But I, and my liberal brethren, are NOT going to turn the other cheek and take it for the sake of comity. Too far gone for that.

  87. Good Lt. I would update that quote, as nationalism, and patriotism, were the new expansive ideas of the 18th C. Today I would say “Transnationalism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
    I think people disposed of slide’s and anon’s arguments pretty thoroughly, BTW. Just because an arguer hasn’t admitted defeat doesn’t mean he’s got anything left. Some bloggers eventually did question the patriotism of those on the left. That was well into the Bush years, not made by the Administration or anything close to its representatives (thought there were statements twisted to that effect), and…and…
    And absolutely true on the basis of what lefties eventually got around to saying.

  88. Slide says:

    Jamie Gumm lists a whole bunch of quotes from Dems and then suggests they give aid and comfort to the enemy and therefore are treasonous. Ok. Stupid, but ok. But… I though the whole argument here was that the right didn’t do this…. LOL
    Guys… guys…. guys.. you can’t have it both ways? make up your freakin mind. The wingnuts in this thread have basically said two things:
    1) you can’t prove that republicans ever called critics of the war unpatriotic
    2) dems are unpatriotic because they were critical of the war
    lol…… can both of these memes be correct? lol.. guys do you see how unbelievably foolish you all seem? You are becoming a joke… irrelevant to rational discussion. The Dems are going to be in power a long long time if this is any indication of the quality of your thinking

  89. Philip McDaniel says:

    “If you want to suggest that the right doesn’t portray the left as being Un-American or unpatriotic almost with every breath they take then there is nothing that will convince you.”
    The thing is, Slide, we don’t have to portray you leftist as anything — you do it so well yourselves. Feel cozy there, Slide, along side leaders of governments such as those in Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Cuba and other places around the globe that we are now apparently snuggling up with? Feel warm and fuzzy trashing Honduran Democracy for stopping a fascist takeover?
    But I’ll make it plain to you…just in case you don’t get the message: IMO, you leftists are a threat to world peace and to the United States of America. Your “members” of the Administration [lets not name names], Senators and Congresspersons should be tried for treason and at the very least thrown out of office.
    “Tired of going to a gun fight with a knife. Sorry that we have to get down in the gutter with Rovian politics but we are NOT going to just turn the other cheek anymore.”
    Oh really? OK, bring the gun!

  90. Slide says:

    Half the comments from the wingnuts say that Dems are unpatriotic.
    The other half of the comments from the wingnuts say the right never calls Dems unpatriotic.
    LOL… guys do you see how unbelievably foolish you are? You are becoming totally irrelevant to rational discussion. You are delusional sore losers that whine and cry about everything… Poor babies… I feel your pain.
    VIVA REVOLUTION TEABAGGERS

  91. Fatty Bolger says:

    Thanks anon & slide for those examples. So what have we learned? Republicans might question your patriotism if you undermine the war effort, national security, or side with countries that are anti-American. Democrats might question your patriotism if you don’t support higher taxes, tax & cap schemes, bailouts, government officials running corporations, and other policies pushed by a President from an opposing party.
    By the way anon, that dastardly Patriot Act, foisted on an unsuspecting country by Bush and eeeevvilll Republicans? It passed the Senate 98-1, and the house 357-66. Just thought you should know.

  92. Respawn says:

    Well slide, y’all may not LIKE that some of us “question your patriotism,” but I guess my response to that is a heartfelt “So what? Big fuckin’ deal. Get the fuck over yourself. Grow a pair.” And, frankly, when economic and historical illiterates such as yourself espouse and try to impose policies which are PROVABLY and DEMONSTRABLY bad for the country, the economy, our individual rights and our personal liberty, guess what? I QUESTION YOUR FUCKING PATRIOTISM. And your judgment. And your good faith. Are there some on the left who TRULY believe that nationalized, government-run health care will somehow be “better”? Yeah, hard as it is to believe, there ARE a few people that stupid. Your Obamessiah may be one of them. His economic advisors most certainly are not. They want Obamacare, cap and tax, “stimulus” and similar socialist idiocies for one reason, and one reason ONLY: They will further shore up Democrat Party political power by increasing the ranks of those sucking at the government teat. I would question their patriotism, but they have none to question.
    So which is it? Are you just stupid, or are you unpatriotic???
    Anon, unfortunately, you are absolutely correct – the Republican Party abandoned any claim to principle, fiscal discipline, small government or intellectual honesty – that being why most of us conservative/libertarians are HOPING for another party – the Republicans are “Democrat-Lite.” They suck only SLIGHTY less than the Obamabots. But Ron Paul???!?!?!?! He’s an anti-semite, 9-11 troofer, gold standard whackjob. Just because he backs SOME positions that I happen to agree with does NOT make him sane – even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.

  93. Jamie Gumm says:

    And so Slide dissolves into feigned empathy, laughable contradictions and predictable projection, and the close with the favorite “LOL”…and thus another troll and his fellow travelers – moving goalposts and straw men – washes under the bridge. S’long, S’lide!

  94. Slide says:

    Philip McDaniel (got that Homeland Security, Philip McDaniel) said: “But I’ll make it plain to you…just in case you don’t get the message: IMO, you leftists are a threat to world peace and to the United States of America. Your “members” of the Administration [lets not name names], Senators and Congresspersons should be tried for treason and at the very least thrown out of office.”
    there you go. Our elected officials, doing what their constituents obviously want them to do, should be tried for treason. I guess because Philip McDaniel doesn’t agree with majority rule.
    Yes, lets all have a rational discussion about tax policy shan’t we? lol

  95. Gabriel Hanna says:

    Not one of those quote “questions patriotism”. They say only that their opponents are doing the wrong thing. Not one quote says or implies that Democrats are doing the wrong thing BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT IS WRONG. That actually would be “questioning patriotism”.
    Of course leftists can’t tell the difference–to them anyone who disagrees is stupid or evil.

  96. Jamie Gumm says:

    Another jackass who eats his weight in strawmen. The feigned empathy, the arrogant dismissal, the moving goalposts, the blatant projection…and so another troll floats by under the bridge, consumed by his own ignorance. S’long S’lide!

  97. Slide says:

    Ok. Now it is my turn. Philip Mcdaniel I think you are un-American, unpatriotic, and a little piece of scum. Now go an find some little fascist dictatorship that is more to your liking. Perhaps N. Korea will suit you as I think they will fit in quite nicely with your world view as you are certainly are not what I think of as an American. I have three words for you PHILIP MC DANIEL…. GFY

  98. Slide says:

    Hey Gabriel Hanna read the post two above yours and tell me again how no one is questioning patriotism. Are you all lunatics or just have the reading comprehension of a flea

  99. WVUinMN says:

    Slide is a typical left-wing slime merchant. Cite left-wing editorials, published in left-wing rags, who base their editorial opinions on what? At best, an unamed source with an axe to grind against the Administration. Here are the facts…Despite 4 investigations concerning pre-war intelligence, 3 of them bi-partisan, not a single shred of evidence was produced supporting the left-wing “Slide-approved” meme, “Bush lied, soldiers died”. Secondly, DC based Democrats, elected or selected, continually worked against the Bush Administration’s efforts regarding the WOT. Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson, Jay Rockefeller, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, Jack Murtha, Pete Starks, etc.
    Rockefeller admitted to informing the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan that “…in his opinion…” the US was going to invade Iraq…over ONE YEAR before we actually did!
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2005/11/012110.php
    This is a sitting US Senator, mind you, not Sean Penn or Fat Bastard shooting a documentary.
    And then we have Joe Wilson and his lovely wench. First off, how in the hell did the CIA determine that a former ambassador was qualified to lead a weapons inspection effort? Then the SOB comes home, lies about what he DID manage to find in order to embarass the President, and faces ZERO consequences for his disgraceful behavior.
    http://archive.redstate.com/story/2006/4/11/1475/16135
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/266weygj.asp
    http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp
    And yeah, his wife is a coniving bitch, whose own self promotion “blew her cover”, and the only person to pay a price…Scooter Libby.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200507181123.asp
    All of theses articles cite either A. Senate Intelligence Reports, B. News Paper sources independent of the writer’s employer.
    And btw, as for calling into question the patriotism of the left…I don’t question their patriotism, I simply refer to them as traitors, for that is what they truly are.

  100. Philip McDaniel says:

    “Ok. Now it is my turn. Philip Mcdaniel…”
    LOL! Son, you’re so far out of your league you’re pitiful.

  101. Slide says:

    I see that Philip Mc Daniel’s comment was deleted, removed, censored. Wonder why? Well, for those of you that missed it, let me repeat what mensa candidate had to say,
    “”But I’ll make it plain to you…just in case you don’t get the message: IMO, you leftists are a threat to world peace and to the United States of America. Your “members” of the Administration [lets not name names], Senators and Congresspersons should be tried for treason and at the very least thrown out of office.”
    Why do right wingers hate democracy? Are you all natural fascists?

  102. equitus says:

    ergo
    “Dissent is the highest and last refuge of a scoundrel.”
    I’d follow that with
    “Aphorisms are usually pretty useless.”

  103. Slide says:

    Lets repeat Philip Mc Daniel’s fascist rantings one more time,
    “But I’ll make it plain to you…just in case you don’t get the message: IMO, you leftists are a threat to world peace and to the United States of America. Your “members” of the Administration [lets not name names], Senators and Congresspersons should be tried for treason and at the very least thrown out of office.”

  104. SmokeVanThorn says:

    Here’s the point – it is and was absolutely fine to question the patriotism of Obama and his ilk. And it’s fine for clowns like Waxman to question the patriotism of his opponents. The real question is whether the criticisms are accurate or not.
    But it’s BS for liberals to claim that such criticisms are beyond the pale when directed at them, but are OK when they throw them at others.
    Got that, Slide?

  105. Slide says:

    Well, after spending some time here in a right wing blog I feel the need to shower. It was indeed a pleasure demonstrating the lack of rational thought that permeates the current right wing world. Truly a Bizarro world. And hey, PHILIP MC DANIEL sorry to hear how much you hate America. It must be difficult loathing your own country. Perhaps you should seriously give some thought to moving. Like getting the eff out of here. I’m sure we’ll all do quite nicely without your ilk stinking up the place.

  106. “I see that Philip Mc Daniel’s comment was deleted, removed, censored. Wonder why?”
    Because we’re very well aware of what leftists like yourself are doing, Slide.
    http://thedanashow.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/more-on-circle-of-concern/

  107. monkeyfan says:

    The number of skittish progressive hipsters trolling opposition blogs trying to BS away the taint of their leadership’s actions is directly proportional to the obviousness of the failures piling up at the feet of the “Objectively f a s c i s t” Obama “regime” and his merry band of “corrupt” “corporatist” “big business beholden” “rubber-stampers” controlling Congress.
    Their sharks are schooling everywhere hither and yon gnashing wildly over the bloodsport their party leadership has dialed to eleven during the last decade, but it’s apparent that the frenzied Obama sharklings are really only now beginning to intuit that it is their own political lifeblood that’s spilling out and percolating through the body politic.
    The acclaimed progressive vision is failing in the dull gray CO2 laden fog of their legislative agenda. Their cruel sky is literally falling so stock up on your popcorn (and other man-caused disaster essentials) to watch the spectacle of their unsinkable leadership-wreck bashing their collective mind-thoughts against the cruel reefs of reality. Real reality…Not their accustomed community-based reality…The hurtey kind.

  108. Philip McDaniel says:

    “Lets repeat Philip Mc Daniel’s fascist rantings one more time…”
    Kind of spinning out of control there aren’t you, Slide? An apt moniker, at least.
    By the way, [“I see that Philip Mc Daniel’s comment was deleted, removed, censored…”] try the scroll up button.

  109. Slide says:

    SmokeVanThorn… when you say, “But it’s BS for liberals to claim that such criticisms are beyond the pale when directed at them, but are OK when they throw them at others.” you have it ass backwards. Read Riehl’s original post. It was the right complaining about the criticisms. I just brought up the fact that we on the left have been living with that BS for years and years. It’s BS on both sides but don’t complain now after all that has been said on your side of the aisle.

  110. Slide says:

    SmokeVanThorn said, “But it’s BS for liberals to claim that such criticisms are beyond the pale when directed at them, but are OK when they throw them at others.”
    You have it completely backwards. Your comments should be directed at Riehl, read his initial post.
    Got that Smokey?

  111. Respawn says:

    slide, would you PLEASE quit proving the wisdom of S.L. Clemens advice to “Keep your mouth shut and let people THINK you are stupid; don’t open it and remove all doubt.”
    Since you either never took, or flunked, Civics (or maybe you simply took Civics in one of our leftist public “schools”), let me put you some truth: THE U.S. IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, dunderhead. The U.S. is a constitutional republic. Go look it up (on something besides Wikipedia).
    The U.S. Government DOES NOT operate on a “majority rules” basis, dumbfuck. The U.S. Government was DESIGNED, by men FAR more brilliant than anyone in politics today, to be a government of LIMITED and ENUMERATED powers. Go read the Constitution. Show me where “stimulus,” cap and trade, health care, car company bailouts or any of the rest of the socialist shit you idiots are pushing are authorized. Go ahead, I’ll wait. Oh, can’t find it???? Lemme help you: IT AIN’T IN THERE, FUCKWAD.
    No, I DON’T want a “democracy,” asswipe. I, like our brilliant Founding Fathers, know better than to trust the tyranny of the majority. I want a limited government that is forced to recognize and respect my individual rights. I don’t want to pay for your fucking health care, your retirement, your house, your name-the-stupid-program-of-your choice – but YOU believe that you have the right to force me to do so, literally at the point of a gun, because you can count more noses of fellow thieves than I can of fellow productive victims of your “democratic” theft. So fuck right the hell off and die, socialist shitstain. I am not obligated to respect your idiotic opinions (and I don’t) nor am I morally or constitutionally obliged to pay for your socialist programs. You may, temporarily, have the POWER to force me to pay taxes for blatantly unconstitutional government programs – for the time being. TRUE patriots will get tired of this “democratic” theft sooner or later – and we have all the guns. Sucks to be you, don’t it????

  112. Mark_0454 says:

    It’s important to understand that the estimates thrown about that cap-and-trade will cost less than $0.50 a day are misleading. This cost estimated by the CBO ignores the amount taken in by the government. If electricity rates rise by 40% and gas goes up $0.75/gallon, that is not counted because the money is eventually taken in by the government and you will receive a service for the money you pay in. So even though you pay you will be receiving $3.5 billion for battery research in Ohio, or fuel-efficient car research in Michigan. This is like saying that your income taxes or property taxes don’t count against the amount of money you have. It’s a big assumption and should be pointed out whenever the “….for less than the cost of a postage stamp…” argument is used.
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/energyandenvironment/wm2503.cfm
    “CBO mistakenly assumes that the government spending and distribution of allowance revenue is the dollar-for-dollar equivalent to a direct cash rebate to energy consumers–that is, that the carbon tax is not a tax if the government spends the money, which is simply preposterous.”

  113. Fen says:

    No Slide. Your links don’t support your assertions. You’re spinning.
    As for patriotism, the Left wanted us to fail in Iraq – solely to gain polticial traction and damage Bush. You guys deliberate wished for high body counts to end the war. If this wasn’t a civilized society, you would have been shot in the streets for your treachery.
    “So now the acceptable standard of behavior is the one you previously despised. It’s ok to question patriotism now because Bu$Hitler (allegedly) did it first? ”
    The Left has always done this – the define themselves by their enemy, or what they “believe” their enemy does. And don’t buy into the Left’s false outrage: they don’t really beleive in the things they lecture us about.

  114. Slide says:

    the brilliance of Respawn
    “Since you either never took, or flunked, Civics (or maybe you simply took Civics in one of our leftist public “schools”), let me put you some truth: THE U.S. IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, dunderhead. The U.S. is a constitutional republic. Go look it up”
    ahhh…thanks for the civics lesson. Didn’t know that all all. Wow…. your smart. So then we can and should try for treason any elected officials when Philip McDaniel’s disagrees with their ideology? Is that how a Republic works?

  115. Slide says:

    Fen, “As for patriotism, the Left wanted us to fail in Iraq – solely to gain polticial traction and damage Bush. You guys deliberate wished for high body counts to end the war. If this wasn’t a civilized society, you would have been shot in the streets for your treachery.”
    ohhhhh…. yikes. Glad this is a civilized society then. I wont’ want to be shot in the streets for having a view different than the President. I think maybe you wingnuts too would hope we are civilized no?

  116. anony mouse says:

    Hey slide, please provide specific instances where someones patriotism was directly questioned. Bush made a declaration TO OTHER COUNTRIES that if you harbor terrorists you are with the terrorists, but please site specific instances, if you can, where individuals patriotism was directly questioned by Bush or republicans in general. Start with 3 specific instances and cite the exact quote.
    Also, what ever happened to “Speaking truth to power” I thought “Dissent was the highest form of patriotism”? What’s the matter? All your old talking points suddenly developed expiration dates?

  117. Fen says:

    “from defeating war hero Cleland in 2002 by using attack ads that questioned his patriotism.”
    See Slide, your sources are bs. Cleland is not a “war hero”, He’s a casualty of an accident, picking up a grenade he didn’t know was armed. Its not even like he dove on it to save the people around him. Cleland himself has admitted to this, although he still allows others to introduce him as a “hero” without correcting them. He’s a fraud.
    Second, his patriotism wasn’t questioned – he was attacked for putting Union interests above national security when TSA was gearing up. When it got to hot for him, he played the victim by falsely claiming his patriotism was attacked. And people like you swallowed it all up.
    So Slide, you’re using propaganda bs to promote more propraganda bs. Bit incestuous of you.

  118. Slide says:

    Thank you all for proving my point. Which.. if you look way way back in this thread, was that the right has always portrayed the left as being unpatriotic and un-American. The comments here prove I was right without a doubt. We have Fen suggesting we should be shot in the streets. We have PHILIP McDaniel arguing that elected Dems should be tried for treason… and countless others have had one variation or the other.
    I’d say that I had a prima facia case. Whataya think? lol

  119. Respawn says:

    Well, slide, since you didn’t need my brilliant teaching, and you CLEARLY understand the nature of U.S. government, I guess someone was nickjacking you when these gems of stupidity were posted, right????
    “Why do right wingers hate democracy? Are you all natural fascists?”
    “there you go. Our elected officials, doing what their constituents obviously want them to do, should be tried for treason. I guess because Philip McDaniel doesn’t agree with majority rule.”
    “Yeah? So? The COUNTRY wanted change from the worst President in history. They craved change from the failed policies of right wing leadership. They voted for change in record numbers. That IS America. That is democracy.”
    You are dumber than dirt, shithead.

  120. Dan Riehl says:

    Hello Patriots! Oh, and hi to the liberals and Slide, too!

  121. anony mouse says:

    And Slide,
    What is the Truther movement? That isn’t questioning George Bush’s patriotism AMONG OTHER THINGS? Lets see, they’re accusing the President of non only knowing about an attack that is going to take place, but actively planting charges at 7WTC to bring it down and kill Americans, all to start a war to get rich through Haliburton contracts. That’s not only questioning his patriotism, thats calling him and other govt officials saboteurs, war profiteers, enemies of the state. And you’re outraged that James Taranto questioned policy decisions of democrats where they spoke out to actively undermine a war we were actively fighting?
    You libs are so full of it it’s scary, and the biggest hypocrites this country has ever seen.You libel the president and republicans with the worse scare mongering and fear mongering I’ve ever seen, lay the most extreme accusations out and start whole industries feeding this propaganda all directed at a president (including producing movies and Books about assassinating Bush) actively work to undermine a war while our people are being killed shitting all over their efforst and rooting for them to lose (and I’m talking about politicans mind you like say Harry Reid with his “The war is lost”), and it was all about speaking truth to power.
    Suddenly people question spending trillions on a cap and trade program and dems have no problem questioning peoples patriotism. the dems are projecting their own evil onto their opposition. It’s they that have been fear mongering, stifling dissent and questioning peoples patriotism, just as now you’re excusing them doing it, like the hypocrite you are.

  122. Gabriel Hanna says:

    Slide, they would only be “questioning patriotism” if they accused Democrats of WANTING Al Qaeda to win, or something like that. Treason is not an unintended consequence, it is WILLFUL.
    It’s the same reason why you don’t try someone who hit a pedestrian by accident for first-degree murder.
    You are the one with the comprehension problem.

  123. Gabriel Hanna says:

    Philip McDaniel and WVUinMN actually are questioning your patriotism, Slide.
    Bush and Cheney are not, and never were, and neither am I.

  124. anony mouse says:

    Slide wrote:
    Now go an find some little fascist dictatorship that is more to your liking. Perhaps N. Korea will suit you as I think they will fit in quite nicely with your world view as you are certainly are not what I think of as an American.
    Hey, Slide. Do you know who seems to find a bunch of facist dicatorships to his liking? OBama? Lets’ see, he wants to deal with Iran even though they are killing people in the street and undermining democracy. The neocons called Iran dicators, but YOUR side called Bush the dicator and insinuated that the only reason acted the way they did is becaause they were responding to Bush’s aggression (regardless of the fact that they started their nuke program under Clinton and were on the terrorist watch list for 30 years). Obama seems ok with them as a facist dictatorship. Or take Honduras. There a president who can’t serve anymore tries to force an election that gives him power to run again despite the fact that its against the consitution. The army removes him at the order of the supreme court which is acting from the Honduras constitution. The army doesn’t take control but gives power to the head of congress who will only act transitionally as president until a lawful election takes place later this year as it was scheduled. And who does Obama side with? The dictator. Or, take the argument the NYTimes and various lefties and democrats used when Bush was pushing for the surge.
    As per the NYT. We need to leave “Even if a genocide were to occur”. And various lefties were suddenly acting as realists and saying we need to put a strong man in charge of Iraq because they can’t handle democracy. So you lefties have NO problems with dicators. And apparently undermining wars we’re fighting. Or are you suggesting that the libs and dems were actually trying to win the Iraq war?

  125. wally sadaber says:

    Democrats always playing the victim? Hmmm. As I understand it, Sarah Palin quit her job halfway through her 1 term commitment to the voters because she was a victim of bloggers, the media, democrats, the beltway, ethics rules, lawyers, the Alaska newspaper, Republican and Democratic legislators, and on and on.
    Working class white men are in the middle of an economic downward spiral because of not keeping up in the education needed for the 21st century. But while they are going down, they will claim to be victims of …. women’s rights, affirmative action, immigrants, leftists, Muslims, and anyone else to blame.

  126. Jones says:

    Waxman and Obama, et al, are waging war against the US from within. They are using legislation instead of bombs and guns. They must be stopped. They are traitors. I don’t question their patriotism because they’d have to have shown at least a smidgen of patriotism at some point in the past, but they have not. Waxman, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc, owe their allegiance to one entity only: the Democrat Party. For Dems, the Party comes first, last, and always, and America be damned.
    These people are a cancer on our Country and must be defeated.

  127. wally sadaber says:

    On Friday, Lynne Cheney criticized CNN for “running terrorist tapes, terrorists shooting Americans” and asked Wolf Blitzer, “Do you want us to win?” She also repeatedly asked Blitzer to end his line of questioning and focus on her new children’s book.
    Representative Jean Schmidt of Ohio lectured her congressional colleague, retired Marine Colonel John Murtha of Pennsylvania, about how ”cowards cut and run, Marines never do.” White House spokesman Scott McClellan compared Murtha to the lefty filmmaker Michael Moore after Murtha suggested a six-month timetable pulling troops out of Iraq. House Speaker Dennis Hastert said that war critics would ”prefer that the United States surrender to terrorists who would harm innocent Americans,” and, as usual, Vice President Cheney played the heavy. When asked about Cheney’s criticism, Murtha, a combat veteran, said: ”I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war and then don’t like suggestions about what needs to be done.” Murtha was referring to the fact that Cheney, who had ”other priorities” than fighting for his country, sought and received five deferments during the Vietnam War.

  128. Neely says:

    I think it’s great. Let each side question the other’s patriotism and at the end of the day we’ll see who it sticks to.
    E.g.: Who’s the patriot, McCain or Obama? Inhofe or Reid? Bachmann or Waxman? Laura Bush or Michelle Obama? Etc., etc.
    What’s the point in arguing with lefty trolls about it? The calls aren’t even close now, folks. After a year or two of Obama’s policies….

  129. Techie says:

    Treason = disagreeing with a Leftist.
    It’s the new “Racist”.

  130. SacTownMan says:

    “Let me know when you want me to stop:”
    Okay Slime, you can stop your Astroturfing campaign anytime!!
    I take a few days off and another troll shows up with the Soro’s talking points and linking moonbat media rags like Salon. Do these asshats really think that normal people read rags like Salon, The Alantic or their mothership Daily Koz?
    What CoNar wasn’t available to show us all his superior grasp of politics this time?
    “Never was Samuel Johnson’s phrase more apt: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”
    For our latest Soro’s tool I would quote Forrest Gump,
    “Stupid is as stupid does!

  131. Chris says:

    Nice to see the mention of Betray-Us and Rockefeller. I’d also add McDermott and Bonior traveling to Iraq prior to the war and conducting their own independent foreign policy as well. How about falsely slandering servicemen in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a fashion reminiscent of Jenjiiis Khan. Raping, burning down villages, slaughtering livestock etc. That’s way up there on my patriot-meter, perhaps the sine qua non.
    But wait, there’s more! And I’m just working from memory here, so bear with me. The Speaker of the House, conducting foreign policy, again in violation of the Logan Act (see also Bonior, McDermott and Kerry ca. around 1971), on a little journey to coddle Bashar the baby butcher of Syria shortly after ascending to her throne.
    And then there’s slow-Joe, God love him, calling directly into question the patriotism of every American who thought they already payed enough in taxes. Time to be patriotic, pal! Pay your fair share. Stand up Chuck! This was a few weeks before his admin nominated notably un-patriotic (based on Biden’s own description) Americans like Geithner, Sebelius Daschle and other assorted scofflaws who, how shall we say it, were less than forthright in displaying the patriotism demanded of Joe and Jane lunch-bucket by the VP of the USA.
    I could go on, and you know what, I think I will. We were given a new and improved definition of patriotism prior to Sandy Berger’s testimony before the 9-11 commission. You remember when he patriotically purloined documents from the national archives in his socks and underwear, no? Documents that he finally had to admit stealing but mysteriously couldn’t come up with. That is some high minded patriotism there. Not to worry, we were told. Just Sandy being Sandy. What harm could possibly come from it?
    Here’s another great moment in leftist patriotism;
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30980
    [I]t was a May 14, 1983 letter from the head of the KGB, Viktor Chebrikov, to the head of the USSR, the odious Yuri Andropov, with the highest level of classification. Chebrikov relayed to Andropov an offer from Senator Ted Kennedy, presented by Kennedy’s old friend and law-school buddy, John Tunney, a former Democratic senator from California, to reach out to the Soviet leadership at the height of a very hot time in the Cold War. According to Chebrikov, Kennedy was deeply troubled by the deteriorating relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which he believed was bringing us perilously close to nuclear confrontation. Kennedy, according to Chebrikov, blamed this situation not on the Soviet leadership but on the American president—Ronald Reagan. Not only was the USSR not to blame, but, said Chebrikov, Kennedy was, quite the contrary, “very impressed” with Andropov[.]
    Al Gore:
    “He (Bush) betrayed ouuuuur cooounnnttttrrry! He played on our fears!”
    Nothing inflamatory or over the top there. No sir.
    “John Ashcroft is not a patriot, John Ashcroft is a descendant of Joseph McCarthy.”
    Howard Dean-nice one, huh?
    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/howarddean148045.html
    “This is a struggle of good and evil. And we’re (Democrats) the good.”
    Howard Dean
    That’ll do for now.

  132. Respawn says:

    Well, come on, folks, what do you expect???? Slide apparently believes the U.S. is a “democracy,” and because we don’t agree that Obama’s election overrides the Constitution and allows him to saddle us with socialist programs that will LITERALLY impoverish our children, we’re “fascists.”
    What a farging idiot. But what a typical lefty. Serious question: Do any of you know any lefties that know enough economics and history to have the faintest clue what the fuck they are talking about? I certainly don’t. All my lefty friends just go glassy-eyed when I start hitting them with arguments based on economics and/or history. I know learning econ and history takes some skull sweat, but these guys CAN’T be that lazy, can they???

  133. Slide says:

    ahhhh Respawn, methinks thou protesteth too much.
    you make such a big deal of semantics…. representative democracy, Republic. Same as Obama thinks there are only 57 States. Sheer stupidity on the part of a wingnut… but then again I’m being redundant.
    You say you hit your glassy-eyed left friends with arguments based on economics and/or history. What arguement have you put forth here? That we are a Republic and not a Democracy? Is that your argument ? Or maybe its your contention that Obama’s programs will impoverish our children. Is that an argument or a contention? Where are your arguments Einstein? All I hear from you is ad hominem attacks and insults…. come out bucko, lets hear some of your brilliant economic arguments. I’m all ears.

  134. Mars vs Hollywood says:

    Slide, I can understand being upset at having your patriotism maligned when you take a contrary position. Really, I can.
    It’s like being a conservative and being called a racist every time you take a contrary position.
    But, seriously, Waxman’s position is simply ridiculous. This idea that a politician’s success in domestic politics is inextricably linked to the fate of the country is laughable. Anyone defending it should be embarrassed.

  135. anony mouse says:

    Anon posted a bunch of examples of republicans supposedly questioning the patriotism of democrats, but the quotes he provides show in fact the republicans questioning why the Dems are acting like such a bunch of assholes and undermining the war, or the patriot actu and not questiong their patriotism at all. Further it suggests that anon feels that liberals have an absolute moral authority on all issues, and to even question the veracity of their beliefs is grounds for villification In other words, hes doing exactly what he says the republicans did. anon seems to feel I guess that democrats should be able to undermine a war (because they have absolute moral certainty) and not be questioned about doing so, and any objections to undermining of said war is in fact “questioning peoples patriotism”. Basically anon feels that noone dares question any of his assertions, otherwise they are evil Mcarthyites

  136. anony mouse says:

    I wont go through all the quotes you provide anon, but I will respond to a few of your quotes that supposedly are republicans questioning liberals patriotism.
    You say:
    but the implication is clear, just like it was when the Republicans continued to insinuate that the Democrats were unpatriotic and wanted to “lose” in Iraq. Republicans didn’t say that democrats were unpatriotic, but they did question whether the dems were undermining the war. Do you think saying “The war is Lost” is not undermining the war Anon? Can republicans not question that assertion without you labeling it as an attack on Harry Reid’s patriotism? It just so happens that saying we can’t win a war is in fact undermining it, and its not questioning Harry Reids patriotism to call him out on his position. You lefties seem to think that you have a monopoly on virtue and answers to policy decisions, that can’t even be questioned. If someone is actively trying to undermine a war and you say, “he wants us to lose” is that questioning his patriotism or arguing that merely stating his position? Or are you honestly suggesting to us that democrats were trying to win in Iraq? If so that would be the most laughable assertion I’ve ever heard.To whit, if you go around saying a war is lost, it can’t be won, every attack only makes our enemy stronger, the war is unjust to begin with, then we can say with absolute certianty that you don’t want us to win that war. If we feel it is important to actually win the war, then we’d find your undermining of it to be, charitably, problematic. Why can’t people then question your, or democrats, or liberals suggestion that in fact the war is unwinnable and declare that such a suggestion unermines our efforts. Doesn’t it? Again, you anon seem to think that you have absolute moral authority and you can question policies and say such policies are damaging to the country but that noone can question your assertions if they feel that THEY are damaging to the country.You anon can dissent, but no one can dissent from your dissent, or question your dissent? Right anon?

  137. anony mouse says:

    Here’s a few more of your quotes that you say question people patriotism:
    “To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies, and pause to America’s friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.”
    How is this quote questioning someones patriotism. It is a response to absolutists scare mongering people about the Patriot Act and lost liberties, and how its turning the US into a Police state. Seriously anon, do you think that those making such charges cannot have that assertion rebutted? if in fact they think you are scaremongering about lost liberties, can they not rebut you? If they He’s saying, YOU’RE WRONG. Scaring people about the govt stealing their liberties means that govt cant’ actively monitor terrorists trying to harm this country, meaning that it makes terrorists jobs easier. whether you agree or disagree that Is Tom’s rebuttal of an argument he feels undermines our security. Are those making the arguments immune from people saying the arguments are stupid and undermine our security? AGIN, you lefties seem to think you have absolute moral authority simply because you hold your views, and any questioning of the veracity of your views is “questioning your patriotism”. Basically it boils down to anon is absolutely right, and no one can question his views or say they are not absolutely right, otherwise they are vicious fascists. When if you actually look at the argument your side is making vis a vis the Patriot Act you’re basically arguing the same thing as Ridge was, namely that to implement these changes will weaken the country (ie undermine our liberties and weaken our democracy). And you are rebutting his argument that the Patriot Act is necessary. You seem to think that you have the right to question his arguments and claim that they are harmful to the country, and that doing so is not questioning his patriotism, but when he questions your assertions all of a sudden its an absolute evil. Because you anon feel you have absolute moral authority and noone can question your views.
    How about another one:
    “Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists,” the ad states. “Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others.” The ad urges viewers to tell Congress “to support the president’s policy of preemptive self-defense.”
    So to anon it’s apparently a given that undermining a war is ok and can’t be rebutted. The argument that we should support the President policy is a position that noone can possibly hold because apparently anon thinks that any rebuttal of this argument is an assault on his patriotism. Get it through your head anon, people are allowed to hold positions counter to yours. If they think that supporting the presidents policy is a good thing, then they’d think that you unermining that policy is a bad thing. If they think its a bad thing, they may even say it’s harmful to the country because that is a position they believe is true. Just as you believe that to support the presidents policy of preemptive self defense is harmful to the country. Fine. Only you seem to think that you can hold that position and that noone can rebut it without being villified.
    Kind of like Maureen Dowd saying we should listen to Cindy Sheehan because she has absolute moral authority because her son died, and therefore because she was against the war, it was the absolutely moral case that we can’t in fact question her. Of course Maureen Dowd never bothered talking to mothers of soldiers who died who were supportive of the war who I guess also had absolute moral authority. No, to Maureen beucase Cindy held that position it could not be question. To question that position, or disagree with it meant that you were now “questioning Cindy Sheehans patriotism. It’s the most dishonest type of arguments you could possibly have. Further, you were arguing that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” and that too could not be rebutted bcuas you have absolute moral authority and thus any rebuttals to your arguments means that we are questioning your patriotism.
    Its the same with the chicken hawk argument which was ad hominem argument that assumes that you ANON have ABSOLUTE MORAL AUTHORITY and can’t be questioned. Heres how it works – basically if you were for the iraq war lefties would make the claim that you’re a chicken hawk and suggest “if you’re for the war you have to serve, or how can you support the war if you’re not fighting it yourself” argument which roughly translated to “Shut up”. I do notice that that argument isn’t used much anymore by you lefties these days now that Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. I suppose I could use that argument against you? If you are supportive of the war in Afgahnistan then you should be over there fighting it. Are you? Are you for sending other people to die for a war Obama supports? Is Obama a warmonger fighting an illegal war. I notice that he didn’t pass the global test when invading Pakistan and I notice he is air raiding villages with his targeted bombings. He might even be using phosphorous. Any attacks on Palistanis only make them stronger. THe leaked NIE report suggests that every attack in Afghanistan is only increasing terrorism, and anyway Obama is only in Afghanistan to start up that UNOCOL pipeline that Michael Moore argued was the REAL reason Bush invaded. Just listing off the various fake and bullshit arguments you guys leveled at us. Why aren’t you gays making similar argumetns towards Obama? because theyre all bullshit and you are absolutely full of shit?

  138. anony mouse says:

    To reiterate for anon, in case it wasn’t clear, ANON seems to think he has absolute moral authority and it is he who believes noone can question his beliefs without villification. And in fact, if you argue that the president is invading a country solely for profit, or that the president is implemeinting policies not to monitor terrorists but to impose a police state and your are insinuating that the president was involved in 9/11 and betrayed us and was warned but did nothing intentionally, YOU are questioning a lot more than simply Bushs (and those who supported the war in Iraq and afghinstan) patriotism. But again, you feel that becuase of your absolute moral authority your assertions and demagogic claims and character assasssination is absolutely true and unquestionable. In fact though you are doing exactly what you say the republicans have been doing, and you did it since Bush took office. If you can say dissent is the highest form of patriotism, and I say your dissent is harmful to the country (not because you’re dissenting but because the outcome of your dissent will lead to harmful results) I am in fact questioning your patriotism. When in fact what you are really arguing is noone can disagree with your dissent. Right anon?

  139. Slide says:

    Mars I appreciate your comments and you will find that nowhere did I condone Waxman’s position. I don’t think anyone’s patriotism should be judged because of what they believe is best for the country. I only thought it was ironic that the right is all riled up when this was a tactic used by their side many many times over the years.

  140. Chris says:

    Slide,
    This thread is about stupid arguments presented by flailing democrats. They are slowly realizing that even with super majorities in both houses they probably aren’t going to get their POS legislation passed. Why else would Waxman have any beef with Republicans? He doesn’t need them. I’ll repeat it slowly. He. does. not. need. them/us. They can pass whatever they want. Why not put a pedophile on a postage stamp while we’re at it?

  141. Slide says:

    anony mouse said, ” republicans questioning why the Dems are acting like such a bunch of assholes and undermining the war, or the patriot act”
    Ok that is your view. I disagree with it. My view is that many of the things the right supported undermined the war and put our soldiers at risk. Like Bush saying, “Bring it On”. Like Bush saying we were on a “crusade”. Like Gitmo. Like “enhanced interrogation”. Like abu Ghraib. But see here is the difference. I don’t suggest that these actions, which most reasonable people believe hurt our war effort, did not indicate that the right WANTED to cause American deaths. The right though is always quick to suggest that dems, agree or disagree with them, INTENTIONALLY want America to lose. That is just stupid, vile and insulting and I am not going to take it from anyone. Period.

  142. Slide says:

    “Why not put a pedophile on a postage stamp while we’re at it?”
    Why would we want to put GOP ex-congressman Foley on a stamp?

  143. hM says:

    That was a lovely trouncing, Good Lt. It does my heart good to see lefties have their hindquarters handed to them. And it was all very civil.
    (And no, I’m not being sarcastic in any way, shape, or form.)

  144. Slide says:

    “That was a lovely trouncing, Good Lt.”
    would you two like to get a room?

  145. Respawn says:

    Yes, slide, educating you on the fact that the U.S. is a constitutional republic, rather than a democracy, IS an argument, since you cite your love of “democracy” as your basis for asserting that what the Obamorhhoid is doing is “proper.” And, I note, you asserting that this rather large and significant distinction is “semantics” is further proof of your stupidity.
    I already laid out the argument, historically, for you once, but you obviously have a reading comprehension problem, so I’ll do it again, using small words that your tiny mind might be able to grasp:
    A “democracy” is a system in which governmental decisions are made by direct plebiscite (oh, shoot, I’m using technical words again! Sorry)
    OK, a “democracy” is where the people vote directly to make decisions on what the government should do. The majority controls, even when what the majority votes for is bad for the minority – this is called the “tyranny of the majority.” (I know, “tyranny” is a big word – look it up.)
    When Jefferson, Adams, Monroe, Franklin and the rest of our Founding Fathers created our government, they were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority, and they intentionally (oops, did it again) they decided to have a system where the people voted for representatives, who would (they hoped) represent the people’s interests in the government. These representatives vote on decisions, and USUALLY the majority rules.
    But the Founding Fathers were also smart enough to know that governments, like most institutions, tend to become authoritarian (oops, sorry) bossy over time, and stick their noses in where they don’t belong. So they came up with this GREAT idea – government would be defined by a document (the Constitution) that reserved in the people ALL rights, holding them to be inherent (oops) saying that people are BORN with these rights, and don’t get their rights from the government. The government, on the other hand, DOES get its powers from the people (“deriving their JUST powers from the consent of the governed”), and those powers are specifically enumerated (dammit!) listed in the Constitution. The Constitution even has a specific amendment (the Tenth, or “forgotten” Amendment) saying that any powers NOT specifically granted to the government are EXPRESSLY RESERVED to the people and the states.
    Now, dipshit, go find me the place in the Constitution where ANY of what Obamorrhoid is doing is authorized. I’ll be waiting right here.
    That, by the way, you pathetic retard, was an argument based on actual history. Learn or shut the fuck up.

  146. anony mouse says:

    Slide wrote:
    Thank you all for proving my point. Which.. if you look way way back in this thread, was that the right has always portrayed the left as being unpatriotic and un-American. The comments here prove I was right without a doubt. We have Fen suggesting we should be shot in the streets. We have PHILIP McDaniel arguing that elected Dems should be tried for treason… and countless others have had one variation or the other.
    I’d say that I had a prima facia case. Whataya think? lol
    When the left asserted that Bush intentionally started the war, and was involved with 9/11 and betrayed us and that anyone who supported the war but wasn’t fighting it were chicken hawks, what ws the left suggesting. Are those positive things? Calling someone a war profiteer, doesn’t sound very patriotic, nor very virtuous. Saying a president knew about 9/11 and actually had a hand in brinnging down the WTC (ask Rosie O’Donnell for particulars) doesnt’ sound particularly patriotic. Isn’t the left saying that Bush was in fact guilty of killing thousands of people INTENTIONALLY. Every time there was a threat elevation wasn’t the left saying that Bush was deliberatley scaring people, not becuase there was legitimate threat, but because he was evil? Though when 9/11 occured wasn’t the left saying that Al Qaeda was the biggest threat we could possibly face and brought our Richard Clarke to show that Bush ignored the threat (and tying that in to the truther movement did so deliberately). What is that saying about Bush and republicans? When the left said that Bush (and republicans) had Osama bin laden already and was merely holding him for an october surprise is that not impugning the republicans? So where do you get off that somehow democrats and liberals weren’t “questioning peoples patriotism” Your side routinely has slandered BUsh and republicans for 8 years! Some of these charges are frankly obscene. Yet you seem oblivous to the fact that the left has been doing so since Bush took office and in fact that these are slanderous charges which imply that Bush and republicans are damaging the country. Consdidering the vast majority of these are not even true, it shows you to be liars and demagogues. But even worse, you reveal yourself to be the biggest hypocrite in the world as you most likely have no problem with the left using such demagoguery to bring down the president and republicans and don’t see the paralel that you are doing the exact thing you accuse others of.
    This is my impression of you liberals and you in particular slide “The Iraq War is illegal and can’t be won. Bush is a war monger who is only fighting the war to get rich from Haliburton. Bush knew about 9/11 and had a hand in bringing down the WTC. Every threat level posed was a fabrication designed to scare us (even though Al Qaeda was the biggest threat which Bush ignored), Bush deliberately let OBL escape into Torah Borah and isn’t even trying to get him. We can’t defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq or Afghanistan as any time we attack them we only make them stronger. What? YOu say I’m wrong about my assertions? You say my argument that we should leave Iraq even if a genocide will occur is suggesting I’m undermining the troops.HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY PATRIOTISM!!!!!!”
    Sounds about right?
    Again, as with anon, the real issue is you think you have absolute moral authority and can impugn anyone and question their patriotism, their virtue, their ethics. If anyone says your statement are harmful they are fascists.
    Sounds about right?

  147. Slide says:

    oh Respawn… nice try, but going on and on about the “type” of democracy shows a small minded fixation which doesn’t quite shed any light on anything, let alone what Obama is doing. But if we must go down this path, lets.
    Wikipedia: In the United States Founding Fathers like James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy
    Fortunately (for the democrats), the early federal government was not very powerful. In state after state it became easier for white males to qualify to vote. And slowly, decade after decade, our republic became a democratic republic.
    At the national level the major steps toward democracy can be marked by amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights guaranteed limits to the power of the federal government. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment effectively extended the vote to all adult male citizens, including ex-slaves, by penalizing states that did not allow for universal male suffrage. The Fifteenth Amendment explicitly gave the right to vote to former slaves. After the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments did not extend suffrage to women, a vigorous campaign for the vote was launched by women, who received the vote through the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.
    But the main Amendment that tipped the scales from the national government of the United States being a mere republic to being a true representative democracy was the often-overlooked Seventeenth Amendment, which took effect in 1913. Since 1913 the U.S. Senate has been elected directly by the voters, rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. That makes the national government democratic in form, as well as being a republic.
    http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.html
    Modern American democracy is in the form of a democratic republic or a representative democracy. A representative democracy came about in the United States because the colonists were tired of taxation without representation and wanted a more fair system where the people had more say in the rule of the country. They did not desire the Athenian form of democracy however; as they feared it would give the people too much power and would lend control of the government to the uneducated masses. What they came up with was a representative democracy wherein elected representatives rather than direct rule by the people rule the government. These representatives are elected with the idea that they will accurately represent their constituents, but in case some don’t, the U.S. government is divided into three branches to keep corruption in check. These three branches are the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. No one branch contains absolute power, rather, each branch is balanced off of the others creating a system of checks and balances to protect the principals of democracy. This system is in no way perfect, and this is why we must pursue a more perfect form of democracy and a more perfect union between our citizens, states and country (Pious; Sanford 20-27).
    http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:mAxtbuVweCUJ:library.thinkquest.org/26466/history_of_democracy.html+is+a+republic+a+form+of+democracy&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

  148. Slide says:

    ridiculous post by anony mouse: “This is my impression of you liberals and you in particular slide “The Iraq War is illegal and can’t be won. Bush is a war monger who is only fighting the war to get rich from Haliburton. Bush knew about 9/11 and had a hand in bringing down the WTC. Every threat level posed was a fabrication designed to scare us (even though Al Qaeda was the biggest threat which Bush ignored), Bush deliberately let OBL escape into Torah Borah and isn’t even trying to get him. We can’t defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq or Afghanistan as any time we attack them we only make them stronger. What? YOu say I’m wrong about my assertions? You say my argument that we should leave Iraq even if a genocide will occur is suggesting I’m undermining the troops.HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY PATRIOTISM!!!!!!”
    Sounds about right?”
    No, that is not right at all. You, are incredibly wrong as a matter of fact.
    1)I don’t believe Bush fought the war to get rich.
    2)I don’t belive Bush knew about 911.
    3)I don’t belive Bush had a hand in 911.
    4)I don’t belive every threat level was a fabrication to scare us.
    5)I don’t believe Bush deliberately let OBL escape from Torah Borah.
    6)I DO believe that wars of occupation are rarely successful and that the price we would have to pay to “win” in Iraq and Afghanistan was not worth the lives of the brave Americans that we sent there. It made us weaker. It made us less able to fight al Queda (you know, the guys that attacked us)
    So you were wrong on just about everything in your cartoon version of what you think a liberal is. Oh, I am sure there are some that hold the views you listed, but ascribing them to me or liberals in general would be the equivalent of me saying that you are probably a white supremacist, that you think Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster killed. That you believe that Bill Clinton was a drug dealer and he had scores of people killed in Arkansas to hide his crimes.
    why don’t you debate and argue what I actually say rather than your simplifying guess of what my beliefs are.

  149. Slide says:

    Oh, and this has absolutely nothing to do with this thread but I know it will irritate the crap out of all you wingnuts:
    “The Minnesota Republican Party wrote and sent Democratic Sen. Al Franken’s campaign a check for almost $96,000 after a court ordered it pay part of his legal fees.”
    Damn that is sweet.

  150. Respawn says:

    Oh, I’m sorry, slide also asked for an economic argument. OK, cupcake, I’ll school you on economics, too. Only this time, I’ll use proper language – go buy yourself a fucking dictionary, and learn some vocabulary.
    Obamacare not only will not work, it is being sold based on intentional lies. It will cost more than represented, provide less (and lower quality) care, and rationing.
    Analysis:
    Our current health care “crisis” is of government origin. Back in the late 40’s, President Truman began a trend (which continues to this day) of jawboning employers to provide health “insurance” (it isn’t, by the way) as a benefit of employment. This trend was subsidized by allowing employers to deduct the cost of such benefits from their income to reduce their taxes – the benefit was paid with from “pre-tax” dollars (do you understand that concept, or do I have to explain that to you, as well?).
    Because the individual “consumers” of health care were not paying for the health care the consumed, consumption went up, dramatically (it’s called “price elasticity of demand” – if a good is cheaper, people buy/consume more of it – if you artificially make a good cheaper, by subsidizing it or allowing costs and consequences to be borne by other parts of the market – a concept called “externalities” you artificially increase demand.
    Now, follow me, here. We now have a substantial percentage of the country getting “free” health care (their employer pays for the “insurance,” they pay a minimal or non-existent “co-pay”), so the demand for care goes up. This requires that more resources (doctors, nurses, medicine, diagnostic equipment, buildings) be allocated to meet this demand. Now the government comes along and decides that it isn’t FAIR that poor people and old people (who are no longer working) don’t get this great benefit, so the government institutes Medicare and Medicaid. Because there are quite a few “poor” people and a LOT of old people, these two programs rapidly become the largest health care provider (a single payer system WITHIN the existing health care system) in the world. This gives them de facto market power of oligopolistic proportions – because they ARE the 800 pound gorilla, they can dictate “market” prices for the care their members consume. Doctors are forced to take reimbursements that are less than “market” – so they make it up by INCREASING the price they charge to everyone else (they are REQUIRED, by LAW, to accept Medicare scheduled rates for their services) – thus increasing the cost of health care for everyone NOT part of Medicare and Medicaid.
    Current estimates are that at least 10% of Medicare reimbursements are fraudulent. Over HALF of all Medicare expenditures are for “crisis” care delivered in the last six months of life. When people use their OWN money to acquire a scarce resource (oops, another concept you need explained – economics is the science of allocating “scarce resources,” and all resources that are not INFINITE are, by definition, “scarce” resources – including health care), they make what is called a “cost/benefit analysis” before making a purchase. If you are a 75 year old man with heart problems and cancer, you might very well decide NOT to spend a few hundred thousand dollars on extreme treatments to prolong your life by 6 months – but that’s YOUR decision. You might decide to piss away all your money and leave your wife destitute – that’s between you and her. Medicare, OTOH, since it is NOT spending its own money -its spending MINE – need not make a cost/benefit analysis. You want $200K of extreme care in the last six months of your life? No problem.
    Once again, we are increasing consumption of health care, requiring the allocation of more scarce resources, and raising the cost (for everyone else – when more resources are consumed, they must be allocated away from other uses, which raises their cost throughout the market – when we need more people to be doctors, that means those same people can’t be engineers or whatever – wages for doctors go up, to attract more people into medicine, but indirectly, wages in OTHER sectors go up, as well). However, in this case, we have countervailing forces, NOT arising from the market, working against this tendency – the AMA, which controls and limits the number of doctors artificially, and Medicare, which controls their income artificially. Result – fewer people become doctors (do a little research on doctor’s incomes, and the number of people going into primary care medicine, over the last 20 years. Very illuminating.)
    So, we have introduced non-market influences to regulate pricing, we have divorced the buying decision from the people whose money is actually being spent (you’re spending MY money, via taxes, to get your government health care, but I have no say in how that money is spent), and we have huge externalities (doctors are seen as deep pockets, so they are sued frequently, driving up the cost of health care, but this influence is separated from the market – malpractice insurors pay it, many players, such as Medicare (which DOES make treatment decisions, by paying or refusing to pay for specific treatments) are not subject to suit, etc.
    All of these factors create a market in which normal market factors – cost/benefit analysis, price elasticity of demand, etc. – are either not present, or are divorced from the payer vs. the decider. In short, a manipulated market. We, in our infinite wisdom, have decided that this is a “crisis,” and must be addressed. The “solution”???? More government. (“What, you’re dying from cyanide? Here, have some more!”)
    Obama CLAIMS he does not want to force private insurance out of the market (but he lies), but he wants a “public option.” This, of course, is insanity. In the first instance, Obamorrhoid is on record as being a major proponent of “single payer,” and a fan of the Canadian system. Second, his so-called “public option” is a sham – for one example, employers who DON’T provide health insurance will pay a fee, or tax, of $750 per worker. Ever try to buy health insurance for $750 per worker?? So what will employers do? They will make the rational economic decision (or at least a large percentage of them will) and terminate their private plans, and send their employees to Obamacare. In addition, the “public option” has one “advantage” that makes it impossible for private plans to compete – it need not make a profit, and it cannot go broke (at least until the whole federal government does – which won’t be too far away, if you economic illiterates keep running things). Finally, this will introduce more “externalities” into the pricing of health care – the public plan will become the de facto determiner of “market” prices for care, and costs will be shifted to private plans, making them even less competitive.
    So, this will (i) increase the cost of health care, (ii) further divorce the decision making from the payer, and (iii) exacerbate waste and fraud.
    Because the U.S. government can’t CONCEIVABLY pay for all this (CBO estimate is that the current Obamacare plan will cost over a TRILLION dollars in the next ten years, to cover less than two-thirds of the allegedly “uninsured”), so the government will be FORCED to ration care. How will this happen? Many possibilities – new (often more effective, but also often more expensive) treatments will be discouraged (resulting in worse outcomes – take a look at recent trends in cancer cure and survival rates, deriving from new drugs and treatment modalities), “extreme” end of life care will be cut out (which is a rational economic decision if I make it for myself, but is what is know as “rationing” when you or the government force it on me). Finally, people will be indirectly rationed by scarcity – if there aren’t enough doctors to treat everyone, some “triage” system will be put in place – your broken toe has to wait for Aunt Sadie’s broken hip, etc.
    If, in fact, there are so many people who are not insured, and they are covered by Obamacare, what happens? More health care is consumed, requiring the allocation of more resources, and increasing the price. But the government can’t LET the price increase – hell, they can’t pay for it at current prices – so they must further control prices. This results in further misallocation of resources (imagine how many smart young folks will want to be doctors when Obamacare is the only game in town?) Quality of care will be reduced (by rationing, misallocation of resources, and reduction of new treatments), cost will go up (directly, in the case of any remaining private plans, by having to shift costs NOT reimbursed by the government to the few remaining private payors, and indirectly, but the government simply raising taxes to fund the new bureaucracy), and choice will be reduced.
    Question for you, cupcake: What are the two areas of current U.S. healthcare that (i) are areas of CONSTANTLY improving treatments and technology (which, we are told, is one of the drivers of increasing health care costs), (ii) are uncovered and unregulated by any government reimbursement system (and by MOST private ones), and (iii) are areas of constantly improving quality and PRICE WARS among providers????? Cosmetic surgery and LASIK. Why, you ask? Because, pissbrain, THE PEOPLE CONSUMING THE RESOURCES ARE SPENDING THEIR OWN MONEY. They make more informed, and more efficient, buying decisions. Providers actually have to compete for business, which they do on the basis, as predicted by traditional microeconomic theory, of improved quality and reduced prices.
    Whoda fuckin’ thunk it?????? The two areas of health care that are the CLOSEST to free market are the two areas where (i) costs are going down, (ii) quality of care and innovation is going up???? It’s a FUCKIN’ MIRACLE!!!!!! Well, no, actually it’s basic economics – which is a foreign fucking concept to libtards such as yourself.
    Guaranteed, socialist, you give everyone the ability to pay for their own BASIC health care via a health care savings account, and make REAL catastrophic health care INSURANCE available (priced based on health factors, coverage, deductibles, etc.), and get the fuckin’ government the hell OUT of the health care business, and (i) costs will go down, (ii) quality will go up, and (iii) people will make their OWN health care decisions.
    See how fuckin’ easy that is, when you’re not stupid? No, you probably don’t – because you ARE stupid.

  151. monkeyfan says:

    Meanwhile…In other news.
    Jury sees videos of La. congressman accepting cash
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gAhJ_ijKsVNeqkiH39KhnCUNj-fQD999OKUO0
    Democrats Split on Stimulus as Job Losses Mount, Deficit Soar
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aIHpsBT0JHFc

  152. Respawn says:

    Posted by: Slide | Wednesday, July 08, 2009 at 08:58 PM
    Wow, I’m impressed. You find two libtard sites that are as monumentally cluefucked as you are about the meaning of “republic” and “democracy” and that refutes my argument? Not fuckin’ really, cupcake. And, by the way, you totally ignored (why do I think, “totally didn’t understand”???) my MAIN point, which is, contrary to your stupid, ahistorical assertion, that the election of Obamorrhoid by a MAJORITY of the electorate somehow legitimizes his unconsitutional usurpation of powers not granted to the federal government. Way to prove how smart you are, libtard.

  153. Ken Hahn says:

    I don’t question the Democrats’ patriotism. They have none. There is no question.

  154. red says:

    Obama supporters desecrate American Flag in Baltimore
    http://insidecharmcity.com/2009/01/17/obama-supporters-desecrate-american-flag-in-baltimore/
    on March 18th 2007; Anti-war demonstrators burned an American flag and a United States soldier in effigy. Also shown was the charming photograph of a large white sign that read, “F**k the troops!”
    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/184238/peace_protestors_in_portland_burn_an.html?cat=9
    It is Seattle where not one politician, progressive pastor or academic has complained about a sign hanging in a storefront on Rainier Avenue urging “Victory to the Iraqi Resistance!” It is Seattle where a militant black Muslim, James Ujaama, who eventually pleaded guilty to aiding the Taliban, was initially defended by some journalists and civil rights leaders because of his previous community activism.
    If you are a supporter of George W. Bush, or a Republican, or even just an old fashioned, flag-waving patriot, you are not welcome in The Emerald City.
    Ken Potts, a veteran of three tours of duty in Vietnam, lives in Seattle’s Shoreline area, where his property and truck have been repeatedly vandalized. The reason? He supports George Bush.
    His house has been bombarded with eggs, both front and back, his truck scarred with a one-foot scratch. Mail containing left-wing and anti-American literature was sent anonymously to “The Patriot.”
    http://michellemalkin.com/2004/07/10/seattle-hates-america/
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Really this is too easy. Leftists suffer from Patriotism Deficit Disorder.

  155. John says:

    …but it’s still OK to question Henry’s judgment on under-the-nose hair, right?

  156. anony mouse says:

    slide wrote:
    Ok that is your view. I disagree with it. My view is that many of the things the right supported undermined the war and put our soldiers at risk. Like Bush saying, “Bring it On”. Like Bush saying we were on a “crusade”. Like Gitmo. Like “enhanced interrogation”. Like abu Ghraib. But see here is the difference. I don’t suggest that these actions, which most reasonable people believe hurt our war effort, did not indicate that the right WANTED to cause American deaths. The right though is always quick to suggest that dems, agree or disagree with them, INTENTIONALLY want America to lose. That is just stupid, vile and insulting and I am not going to take it from anyone. Period.
    Ok, I posted a bunch of assertions that the left made that were the equivalent of questioning peoples patriotism and FAR worse. The left accused Bush of deliberately invading a country simlpy to steal their oil and resources, or because of his daddy. Don’t know if you realize it Slide, but thats a pretty incendiary charge. You may agree with it, but don’t suggest that somehow its a neutral statement.And the left has been leveling those charges (And Far worse) for the entire duration of the war.If you are accusing Bush and republicans of invading Iraq intentionally then you are arguing that they WANT to cause Americans deaths. Or if they don’t want to cause Americans deaths, they certainly don’t care that americans are dying for purely selfish reasons. Objectively, I don’t see why if you can call someone a warmonger, why you couldn’t question someone’s patriotism. Because it’s the same thing. The argument is not simply that questioning someones patriotism is wrong. its that someone is engaging in demagoguery. Someone could question someones character,someones veracity, someones honesty and its the same thing. You libs seem to think you can question, and not even question but ASSERT, that Bush and republicans are unpatriotic, warmongering, war profiteering why are you getting mad if people are questioning your patriotism? You seem to have no problem insinuating all sorts of nefarious things about your enemies. Or Is it just patriotism that can’t be questioned in your mind? Saying someone only invaded a country to get their oil thats not an extreme statement to you? Now you can believe that but if someoen says you’re full of shit does that mean they are questioning your patriotism? Why can only you speak truth to power? Also, if someone truly believes you are unpatriotic, based on your own conduct how can you object if someone says so to you? Unless you’re suggesting that you and only you (or only libs) have the moral authority to know the truth and speak truth to power. You don’t. ANd, sorry, but if there are demagogues here its you on the left.
    Further you suggest that democrats intentinoally want America to lose. I can say with absolute certainty, that in Iraq many Democrats do want us to lose. It may be insulting but it’s also a fact. When we have troops in a battle and Harry Reid stands up in congress and says “The Battle is Lost” that is saying we can’t win the fight and he is potentially causing us to lose the war. If you think it’s a war worth fighting for this is a harmful act, if you think that the war was unjust to begin with you may WANT us to lose because you think the war shouldn’t be fought. I dont deny that you can have that view. I just disagree with it. But if you think that the war should be lost, or can’t be won and say so in congress, why can’t republicans say that that is harmful to troop morale? Do you think that’s beneficial to troop morale? You can’t possibly say that the war is immoral, fought for ill gotten gains, can’t be won, that any attacks only emboldends the terrorists and makes them stronger (and thus is futile) that we need to get out even if a genocide should occur and at the same time say “HOw dare you say I want us to lose this war”. Well what the hell else should we say about your stance? Imagine if you were a chearleader at a football game and your cheers went along the lines of “Our team sucks! Our team can’t win! Every touchdown we get only makes them better.” how could you possibly suggest that you are rooting for our team to win? And if someone said “You know, we’re trying to win a game here, all this negative cheering is hurting the teams morale” would you argue “Dont you dare question my team spirit.”? That though is exactly what you are doing. All the negative arguments your side made to declare the war undermined our effort (which was the intention) and undermined our troops who were there TRYING to stay alive and actually win a war. If I point out the fact that your stance is in fact harmful to the war effort, how is that questioning your patriotism? No, that’s saying, I disagree with your position that the war can’t be won and think that your position is harming our ability to fight a war that could be won. You seem to want to be able to speak truth to power, and dissent, but also seem to think that your dissent canot be questioned.

  157. Respawn says:

    anony mouse,
    I am impressed by your dedication, but you must have figured out, by now, that a thought cannot be introduced into the head of a true, dyed-in-the-wool liberal with even the most spirited application of a cluebat. Slide is dumb as a fucking sack o’ hammers, and he is the WORST kind of dumb – intentionally ignorant and willfully stupid. But I respect you for trying.

  158. wally sadaber says:

    What is patriotism? Is it the Tories who supported taxation or tax breaks without representation? Remember that the real tea parties were an objection to corporate tax breaks (for the East India Company). Or is patriotism the progressive rebels who challenged the king and the government by objecting to unfair taxation? Was it the Colonial empires who exploited people and resources to preserve a way of life at home. Or is patriotism in those social liberals like Gandhi and Morazan and Bolivar who challenged empire. Was patriotism those who enforced Jim Crow apartheid laws and beat those who disagreed or was it those people who sat in at lunch counters and were beaten?
    Conservatives have been on the wrong side of history for about 500 years and have been screaming and kicking the whole way down that the progressives are not loyal or patriotic or good citizens. You guys keep up the screaming. The progressives will keep changing your hidebound, almost extinct world.

  159. anony mouse says:

    Slide,
    “The war is lost” if someone says that Can I say they are undermining the troops and/or that it appears that they want us to lose the war?
    As to your assertion that I’m lumping you in with all liberals, sorry to not wade through all the various shades of liberals who agree and disagree on various topics to come up with your exact stance.The fact is that all the statements I made are not atypical of average liberal thought and various liberals both obscure and prominent have uttered the same talking points. You’re simply trying to move the goal post so as to not answer the questions or answer for your side. When some on your side was saying “Bush let OBL escape in Torah Borah” where was the large contingent of liberals you say you represent who said “now now people that’s just extreme talk. Clearly Bush isnt’ a monster”. When Rosie O’Donnell says “fire doesn’t melt steel” Where are all the liberals such as yourself saying “Now now Rosie that’s crazy talk”. When Al Gore says “They Betrayed us” where are all the liberals saying “Al Gore doesn’t speak for me”. When Michael Moore said Bush only invaded Afghanistan becuase of the UNOCOL pipeline where were all the democrats in the democratic convention saying “You don’t speak for us”. You as part of the liberal movement had no problem with any attacks on Bush, no matter how extreme, by the vast majority of your side and there was no massive outpouring of moderate libs holding the extremists back saying that they’re making outlandish accusations. This moderate liberal of which you speak certainly wasn’t found on Bill Mahers’ show, on DKOS, ond Democratic Underground, Keith Olbermann, in fact nearly any prominent liberal blog, publication, movie or tv show had BDS as its prominent theme. So don’t make up shit about liberals who didnt’ exist.Spare me. Are you saying that these aren’t prominent views held by a huge number of people and that this shit hasn’t been making its way across the airwaves for years? You libs through everything and the kitchen sink at Bush and dind’t care if it was true or not, you just cared taht it was effective. So those things you say you don’t agree with you certainly weren’t vocal about your disagreement. And if you were, you certainly weren’t effective. But that raises another point.
    You distinguish yourself from the rabid extremist liberals making the extremist points and outlandish characterizations. Were THEY suggesting that Bush was a warmonger and so were they in effect questioning his patriotism? Got a problem with that? And if THEY were engaging in extremist language and making outlandish claims that were not based on fact and republicans said such claims are harmful to the war effort or troop morale or even public discourse are those valid criticisms to make? For example, you are the lone liberal who stood on the sidelines while the crazies were foaming at the mouth. If Harry Reid said “The war is Lost” and someone said “Harry is undermining the war by making such a statement and potentially harming our troops and emboldening the enemy (because they think that they are winning because Harry says we are losing) can Republicans make such statements to the crazy liberals (excepting you of course)wihtout you saying republicans are saying all liberals are unpatriotic? How about just Harry Reid? This is not even to say that anyone said he was unpatriotic, what they did say was Harry is undermining the war effort and emboldening the enemy. Why is that wrong? It’s not saying that YOU are unpatriotic and emboldeining the enemy, but the statement is stating Harry is? Got a problem with that?
    One more thing. Remember when the NIE was leaked and the libs (though surely not you) used that as a talking point to say that our attacks were only making the enemy stronger, thus emoldening them? Isnt’ that arguing the exact same thing that you accuse Republicans of doing? Its literally the same argument? So to liberals those who are emboldening terrorists, by continuing the war are unpatriotic. Though you would argue, that’s not what liberals said, they merely said that our actions were harming our troops. Well that’s exactly what republicans said about Harry’s argument and it wasn’t questioning his patriotism!!!
    And what’s even funnier is that you say “How dare I lump you in with all liberals” and in the very next breath say “nearly all republicans were questioning liberals patriotism”. So again, you do exactly what you say your opponents do.

  160. Thomas says:

    Posted by: Slide | Wednesday, July 08, 2009 at 12:22 PM
    “Bush and company used 911 to bludgeon anyone who disagreed with them with the charge of being for the terrorists. Cheney is still doing it.”
    BS… I’ve been calling BS on this meme since it started and demanded examples. At best you get some bumbling sputtering by Bush about people not wanting what’s best for America (and he’s said the same things about his own side at times). At its lamest, Bush and Cheney get traded in for some dumbass blog poster calling someone a terrorist for being a lefty… It’s a BS meme and you’re full of cr*p at best… probably just liar in reality…

  161. anony mouse says:

    Hey Slide,
    What do think of these statements?
    “Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California – these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!”
    This was Michael Moore on 9/11 before Iraq, before Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, the Patriot Act. Agree disagree? Patriotic, unpatriotic? Whats the rationale for this statement which is full of Bush hate before he actually did any of the things you lefties hate him for? And is it not implying that the red states, who did vote for Bush, deserved to die? Now supppose someone said Michael Moores statement is inflammatory, unpatriotic (though technically he’s not an american citizen). Note that even at the early stages, its not that Al Qaeda hates the US beause Al Qaeda is a radical Islamist group. No, to Moore he Al Qaeda hates us beause Bush is a republican. Well duh? Is this over the line. can we question the patriotism of someone who would utter such tripe or is this speaking truth to power? Just trying to guage where you’re coming from. Also, when he was invited to the Democratic Convention as a guest of honor seated with Jimmy carter I’m sure the vast majority of dems rose up and said “You sir have gone over the line and are engaged in partisan demagoguery at a time of national tragedy and are not welcome here”. No didn’t happen? Oh wait, he got a standing ovation? Never, mind. What if instead we were attacked during Obama’s time and a red state was hit and a republican said “Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Obama, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! – these were places that voted AGAINST Obama”. Would you think that liberals would have a positive or negative reaction? Would that be hate speech?
    How about this one from the same meat head:
    Halliburton is not a “company” doing business in Iraq. It is a WAR PROFITEER, bilking millions from the pockets of average Americans. In past wars they would have been arrested — or worse.
    The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win. was this a voice from the fringe speaking things that no other democrat dared utter? or was this pretty mainstream thought at the time from a good number of liberals? If you disagreed were you the sole liberal to do so, or is there some contigent of Pro Haliburton Iraq War liberals that we aren’t aware of (and if so how representative are you and how many people in your group – 10?)Second and more importanly? Can critics of this statement call it seditious, unpatriotic? can they say that by saying they will win that Moore is suggesting in fact that we will lose? And that such talk might be demoralizing to our troops and embolden our enemy? You know, the Minute Men?
    By the way, he was wrong, the minute men were routed and Iraq is a far tamer place, but that’s neither here nor there. But the point is I’m sure when a republican heard this he made a statement that this is unpatriotic, and demoralizing? And I’m sure Michael Moore would say that this was dissent which is the highest form of patriotism. But I ask you slide, could we have questioned Michael Moore’s patriotism in this instance? Could we assume and state for the record that we think his statement suggests he wants us to lose the war? I mean for god sakes he calls the insurgents, Minute Men which implies some moral classification. He can’t be calling them the Minute Men without suggesting that we are the British and that they are the good guys or us? Right? So if he thinks they are the good guys and that we will lose, isn’t he in effect hoping that it happens? I’m sure he’d say he doesn’t want any American troops to die, but the fact is its pretty clear he is expecting and hoping for a victory.
    What is your stance on questioning Michael Moore’s patriotism in this case and what is your stance on whether he hopes to win or lose the war? Please enlighten us? And again, is he an extreme figure or does he represent a large contingent of liberal thinking? If there are a large group o liberals who feel the same way as Michael Moore does about the war and label the insurgents as the Minute Men, can we question their patriotism (if for example we feel that caling insurgents fighting us in Iraq The Minutemen is in fact unpatriotic) and/or opine about how we think they want us to lose and such talk is undermining the troops?
    Just trying to get where you’re coming from and see if you can be honest.

  162. anony mouse says:

    Slide actually I lied. I wrote:
    This moderate liberal of which you speak certainly wasn’t found on Bill Mahers’ show, on DKOS, ond Democratic Underground, Keith Olbermann, in fact nearly any prominent liberal blog, publication, movie or tv show had BDS as its prominent theme. So don’t make up shit about liberals who didnt’ exist.
    There actually was one. His name was Joe Lieberman. And democrats and libs were so angry at his stance on the war they drove him out of the party and he had to run as an independent. Are you a liberal like that? Kicked out of your party and a maverick to the cause?

  163. anony mouse says:

    Wally wrote:
    those who enforced Jim Crow apartheid laws and beat those who disagreed or was it those people who sat in at lunch counters and were beaten?
    Ummmm….. the south back then was run by democrats you jackass! The party that freed the slaves was the Republican party.
    And was progressivism also Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge restarting the clock at 0? Was the progessives also Stalin and the gulags and the purges? Was progressivism the National Socialists? (or as we like to refer to them – the Nazis)as well as the Fascists?
    How about the abolition of slavery by the brits who were also an empire and who patrolled the seas and smacked the hell out of any slave ships they found (in a decidedly go it alone manner). Were they conservatives or progressives? it’s so confusing. Because on one hand freeing the slaves, thats kind of progressivisy, as per progressives, yet at the same time thats also a country telling other countries how to behave unilaterally based on , some might say, chauvanistic, princples. Ok I’ll say it, christian principles. Sounds kind of conservative. What say you?
    Or how about Iraq? Taking out the dictator or leaving the dictator in place to continue to defy the world and stick his boot on Iraqi peoples faces. again, freeing people from a dicator, pretty progressivy, has that whole human rights and promotion of democracy thing going and sounds like some shit Amnesty international would talk about. Or, keeping the Strongman in place because those dumb Iraqis can’t handle democracy. Sounds kind of, I don’t know Kissingerian? Or, removing the strong man and then leaving even if a genocide would occur. Genocide is bad so that has to be anti progressive. But wait, that was the NYTimes? Arent they liberal? Man this is so confusing….
    or take Iran. Hmm, theocracy that stones women. Sounds bad. President says they are an evil regime and needs to not develop nukes and needs to do better on human rights. Progressive….no conservative! Crap I don’t know…How about, a president who wants to negotiate with said regime htat stones women without preconditions. Surely that’s Pat Buchanan, so conservative…Oh wait..its the new guy, the Hope and change guy who still wants to negotiate with the dictator after they start killing people in the street for trying to get some democratic refore. Ok…that HAS to be the conservative….no, foiled again.
    You take the good you take the bad you take them both and there you have the facts of life.

  164. Chris says:

    AM,
    I’m humbled and in awe!

  165. Ken Mitchell says:

    Slide, you cannot pretend to believe that the Earth is warming because of human actions, can you? Well, I suppose a fantasist can believe anything he chooses to, but the actual evidence is very greatly against you. And we don’t have to dicker all that much about Jim Hanson’s bogus “hockey stick” graph or the falsified Russian data, or the hidden algorithms, or the warmies studiously ignoring the corrupt climate data from weather stations that used to be surrounded by fields but are now in town. Read your history books – if you dare!
    The global climate is variable; it gets hotter, and it gets colder, and in general, warmer is better for humans. The Romans grew wine grapes in London 2000 years ago, and Lief Erikson called Labrador “Vinland” for the grape vines. Go ahead, we’ll wait; where are the Labradorean vineyards now? It was warmer then. It’s been colder, too; there was a mini-ice age 500 years ago, and we’re just now getting out of it.
    Google “Maunder Minimum”, and then go to spaceweather.com and check the sunspot numbers for the last two years. We’re in for colder weather even WITHOUT “cap and trade” scuttling the American economy.

  166. Respawn says:

    Well, Wally is at least a more articulate airhead than slide – but no more honest, historically accurate, or logical. anony has already put you some truth, Wally, but let me pile on – The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act were passed OVER DEMOCRATS STRENUOUS OBJECTIONS (KKK Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond ring any bells, cupcake??? What party was it that George Wallace belonged to????)
    No, you assholes have run that “Southern Strategy” bullshit for years, and we’ve let you get away with it. YOU ARE FUCKING LIARS. The Democrat Party is the worst enemy blacks in the U.S. ever had. You have done more damage to blacks than the KKK. It is not the conservatives who are the racists; it is the Democrat politicians who somewhat pander to black voters during election season, than promptly ignore them until the next election. Which side characterizes any black who doesn’t toe the liberal line as an “Uncle Tom”? Which side pretends to back gay rights, and then titters and makes idiot jokes whenever a conservative politician does ANYTHING which might indicate they are homosexual or bi??? Bunch of fucking lying, racist, homophobe, fascist ASSHOLES – and I hereby call BULLSHIT on all your lying memes.
    You want an HONEST debate??? Then BE honest, mofo, or STFU.

  167. Slide says:

    Respawn I guess is of the belief that the more you write the more weight your argument you will have. But his argument boils down to this line in his diatribe, “Once again, we are increasing consumption of health care, requiring the allocation of more scarce resources, and raising the cost”
    Increasing consumption of health care. translation: More Americans actually will have health care under an Obama plan. Oh damn, can’t have that. We don’t want all that riff raff to actually have health care now do we? We just want them to show up at the Emergency Room when their previously treatable ailments become critical. (who pays for that anyway?)
    But, I’m not even going to go into the whole debate about a Health Plan. We disagree. That is fine. But there was an election. Obama clearly stated that was a priority. He won. Democrats that also had this as part of their platform won. Poll after poll say that Americans in large majorities want this. That is how democracy….. wait.. wait… wait.. so sorry.. so sorry… that is how a Republic based on representative democracy works.
    you lost. Get over it. Stop whinning like a freakin two year old.

  168. Slide says:

    Respawn showing how delusional he is when he says: “The Democrat Party is the worst enemy blacks in the U.S. ever had.”
    The arrogance of this moron to tell blacks what is or is not their self interest. I think the GOP’s share of the black vote to be around 9%. But Respawn knows better. How insulting. How condescending. But he is a wingnut, those are redundant statements.
    And now, with the expected attacks on Sotomayer due on Monday, lets see if we can get the Hispanic vote to about 9% as well.
    Lets face it little boys and girls, the GOP party is now the party of angry white males mainly driving around in their pick-up trucks in some hick Southern town. The Red States. You know.. the states that always get more from the Federal Government than they give in taxes unlike the Blue States that pay in more than they receive. So in essence, us elites in the Blue States are supporting your backward asses. And we’re happy to do it because we understand how dysfunctional and inbred you all are and we are an empathic group as a whole. Have a great day my little lost sheep. Don’t worry, perhaps a David Duke will come along and save you all from your ignominy.
    Viva Revolution TEABAGGERS

  169. Slide says:

    another mensa wingnut spewed this: “Slide, you cannot pretend to believe that the Earth is warming because of human actions, can you? Well, I suppose a fantasist can believe anything he chooses to, but the actual evidence is very greatly against you.”
    uh huh…. ok… fine…. yes….. now put on your paper slippers and go back to your room and everything will be just fine.

  170. Slide says:

    little mouse boy said: “Ummmm….. the south back then was run by democrats you jackass! The party that freed the slaves was the Republican party.”
    that was a long long time ago my friend and really has no bearing as to where we are now. Many of those Southern Democrats, led by Strom Thurman, switched parties in the 70’s and 80’s and became Republicans. You do know that right? You see the so called “Southern Strategy” (racism) of Lee Atwater was more to their liking. The GOP’s support by blacks have decreased every since.

  171. Slide says:

    how stupid exactly is anon mouse? This stupid: “Or how about Iraq? Taking out the dictator or leaving the dictator in place to continue to defy the world and stick his boot on Iraqi peoples faces. again, freeing people from a dicator, pretty progressivy, has that whole human rights and promotion of democracy thing going and sounds like some shit Amnesty international would talk about.”
    So, invading a sovereign nation to replace the regime that we don’t like is now somehow a progressive idea? or something that Amnesty International would want? lol… jeeze you guys are wacked. What arrogance to think that that is the role of the United States. But more than arrogance, how stupid. Don’t we ever learn from history. The first Bush administration understood that the problems an occupying army would face in Iraq but the little bush and his cronies displayed a level of ignorance and incompetence that will not be matched for a long long time.

  172. Bill Clinton says:

    We recognized, once again, that we can’t love our country and hate our government.

  173. Slide says:

    Thomas said, “BS… I’ve been calling BS on this meme since it started and demanded examples. At best you get some bumbling sputtering by Bush about people not wanting what’s best for America”
    Well, that is basically what Waxman said right? This is Waxman’s quote, ““It appears that the Republican Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Obama success, which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country, as well,”
    so whats the beef?

  174. Bilwick says:

    Submit to Our Beloved Leader, “Il Dufe,”, or feel the stinging wrath of the Hive!
    “Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State.”–Mussolini

  175. Dan Riehl says:

    Slide wrote: “I see that Philip Mc Daniel’s comment was deleted, removed, censored. Wonder why?”
    Um, no. Only I can do that. And I didn’t.

  176. Respawn says:

    “Respawn I guess is of the belief that the more you write the more weight your argument you will have. But his argument boils down to this line in his diatribe, “Once again, we are increasing consumption of health care, requiring the allocation of more scarce resources, and raising the cost””
    Slide, you are not even a FUNCTIONING retard; you are full on ancephalic. If you read my post (and that is assuming you CAN read – or have someone read it to you) and that is all you got out of it, you are too fucking stupid to draw breath. I explained to you, in great detail, why GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION caused misallocation of resources, rising prices, and lowered quality of care, and how a market based approach could cure ALL of these ills – lower prices, better allocate resources, and increase quality of care – AS IT ALREADY DOES IN COSMETIC SURGERY AND LASIK, which markets are NOT subject to extensive government intervention.
    By the way, douchebag, health care is NOT a right – check the Constitution. Health care is a service – you are entitled to exactly as much of it as you can afford.
    Fucking liberals CANNOT think, read or reason.

  177. Bilwick says:

    I demonize my opponents. I’m a libertarian. My opponents are people who believe in pointing a gun at my head to submit to my will. People who go around pointing guns at other people (except in self-defens, or in defense of others) are the demons who turn life on Earth into living Hell. Want to be an angel and not a demon? THEN TAKE YOUR #$%*ING GUN OUT OF MY FACE! It’s really not that difficult.

  178. “o, invading a sovereign nation to replace the regime that we don’t like is now somehow a progressive idea?”
    And again, the utter and complete lack of principles of the Obama Party shows in this case, as they support and endorse Saddam Hussein while screaming and whining about “torture” in the United States.
    What’s even funnier is how the screaming Obama is now supporting the crushing of dissidents in Iran and the illegal machinations of the former President of Honduras, who directly violated his country’s constitution, but who Obama, like a screaming child, insists be put back in power.

  179. But, I’m not even going to go into the whole debate about a Health Plan. We disagree. That is fine. But there was an election. Obama clearly stated that was a priority. He won. Democrats that also had this as part of their platform won. Poll after poll say that Americans in large majorities want this.
    Incorrect. Obama stated that he would give free healthcare to all Americans without raising taxes. The Obama Party said they would give free healthcare to all Americans without raising taxes.
    They lied. They lied to the American people. Now they’re having to admit that this will cost trillions of dollars in new taxes. Suddenly the lie is unraveling. Polls clearly show that Americans will not accept crushing new taxes for Obama’s giveaways.
    Furthermore, why should illegal immigrants get free healthcare? Why does Obama support his criminal aunt, who is illegally employed, illegally receiving subsidized housing, illegally making campaign contributions, and illegally getting free healthcare?
    Because she’s also illegally voting. Obama opposes citizenship as a requirement for voting. Obama has tried to block any attempt to require proof of identity and citizenship while voting and registering to vote.

  180. The arrogance of this moron to tell blacks what is or is not their self interest.
    How true; that’s the right of Slide and the Obama Party.
    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=CCBAAC9C-3048-5C12-004D4CE9E6FF5F48
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/nov/01/20051101-104932-4054r/print/
    Blacks are Slide’s slaves, and don’t you forget it. How dare you tell black people that they can succeed without affirmative action, that not everyone hates them, and that you don’t care what they support politically as long as they do the job. That might give them ideas, and they’d be leaving the plantation kindness that the Massa Slide gives them.
    That’s why the Massa Slide supports racial attacks on conservative blacks. Heck, even the Massa Slide calls them Uncle Toms and oreos. That’s because blacks must vote Obama Party, and voting against the Obama Party is against their best interests. Massa Slide says so.
    Meanwhile, I find it amusing that Slide thinks all Hispanics are racist unethical liars like Sotomayer.

  181. Respawn says:

    NDT,
    Frankly, it wouldn’t matter to me if the Democrats and Obama had been truthful about their stupid, socialist schemes (although no one voluntarily chooses socialism when they know the truth), THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO VALID RIGHT, POWER OR AUTHORITY TO DO THIS. Period. End of fucking story. I don’t give a rat’s ass if every wet dream the liberals have regarding “single payer” health care were the absolute, gospel truth – IT AIN’T THE GUMMINT’S FUCKING JOB.
    Sorry, but I have kind of a strong belief in a limited government of enumerated powers. Something about a “social compact,” ya know.

  182. Slide says:

    Respawn regurgitated, “I explained to you, in great . . .” yeah yeah yeah, I know. So what? Big shit. That supposed to be the definitive somehow because respawn thinks it’s a bad idea for all the reasons you articulated. There are plenty of people who have studied this and have concluded otherwise. I’m not going to get in the policy weeds to refute every assertion you make regarding health care. I support health care. I think it is good for the nation. I think the country thinks it is a good idea. Maybe we are all wrong but that is what debate is all about isn’t it. You state your option, other’s state there’s, there are elections, votes, bills, etc.. It seems you have a disagreement with the very process.
    Oh, and I NEVER said health care was a RIGHT in the Constitution. Stop setting up straw dogs. If you say the president can’t do this then I guess Medicare, Medicade, Social Security, etc. are all figments of our imagination. They WERE done and Health Care, in some form, will be enacted. Get over it

  183. Slide says:

    North Dallas 30 outdoes himself in stupidity with this stream of consciousness: “Blacks are Slide’s slaves, and don’t you forget it. How dare you tell black people that they can succeed without affirmative action, that not everyone hates them, and that you don’t care what they support politically as long as they do the job. That might give them ideas, and they’d be leaving the plantation kindness that the Massa Slide gives them.”
    Boy you really have a low opinion of African-Americans don’t you? Your post reeks with it. I have a little more confident that people can figure out what is in their best interest without being lectured by a moron like you. Like I said, you all sound like a bunch of angry white males that feel oh so threatened by a President of color. Don’t know how else to explain the vehemence of your arguments. You remind me of the old geezer in my neighborhood yelling at the kids, “Get off my lawn”

  184. jr565 says:

    how stupid exactly is anon mouse? This stupid: “Or how about Iraq? Taking out the dictator or leaving the dictator in place to continue to defy the world and stick his boot on Iraqi peoples faces. again, freeing people from a dicator, pretty progressivy, has that whole human rights and promotion of democracy thing going and sounds like some shit Amnesty international would talk about.”
    So, invading a sovereign nation to replace the regime that we don’t like is now somehow a progressive idea? or something that Amnesty International would want? lol… jeeze you guys are wacked. What arrogance to think that that is the role of the United States. But more than arrogance, how stupid. Don’t we ever learn from history. The first Bush administration understood that the problems an occupying army would face in Iraq but the little bush and his cronies displayed a level of ignorance and incompetence that will not be matched for a long long time.
    Slide, one thing about modern liberals is… they aint that liberal.There is a strain of Buchananite isolationism which doesn’t give two shits about human rights but the libs being the hypocrites they are still give lip service to it.
    Thus you have Amnesty International cataloging all these evil regimes doing bad things, but nothing is actually done about it. Darfur the same. It’s very easy to say you are for human rights, yet when push comes to shove modern liberals are perfectly fine with people like Sadaam Hussein killing citizenry. Meanwhile under Bush Iraqis actually are able to vote and can write their constitution, and can set up contracts with foreign countries t sell their oil AND WE’RE NOT TAKING IT (so there’s goes that no blood for oil argument). And now that the “Minutemen” are not cutting peoples heads off anymore becuase we expended great amounts of blood and treasure to kill them, Iraqis can go about their business in peace. Meanwhile, Iran is killing people in the street, and the liberal reaction, the so called smart reaction, is to try to do business with the regime, even after we see everyday people getting killed trying to achieve basic democratic reform. So I was being SARCASTIC and suggesting that you libs engage in double speak when it comes to human rights. You’re only for human rights when it costs nothing.
    Also, I disagree with your characterization that we merely removed a dictator that we didnt’ like. This particular dictator had racked up 16 resolutions for violating a cease fire from a war we had fought, and was threatening the world with potential WMD’s and was a terrorist state and was already in the docket for its transgressions.There were perfectly valid reasons to remove Sadaam Hussein and in fact the only three options were continue containing Sadaam (and containment was falling apart) stop containining Sadaam (and letting Iraq rebuild its WMD’s in earnest) or take out the regime causing all the problems and then helping Iraq transition to a more democratic govt. Kind of like what’s suggested in the Iraq Liberation Act signed by Clinton back in 1998. Which just so happened to envision a regime change in Iraq followed by a transition to democracy. The difference between the dems and Bush? Bush got it done.
    You see, if you or Amnesty Internatlional are going to catalog all the human rights abuses of a country, like say Darfur, or Iran, but then when push comes to shove you say “we can talk to them without preconditions even iff they are slaughtering their people in the streets” why then, I question the point of cataloging the human rights abuses. Becuase it sounds like you don’t give a shit. If we were to invade Iran within the next year, I’m sure we’d get a nice assortment of anti war pro human rights liberals who would actually go in there and act as human shields (until of course bombs started dropping,then they’d get out of there as fast as possible as they’re chicken shits). They’d also be the ones arm wrestling with Bush when he tried to hold them accountable and NOT invade Iran but merely to make them adhere to some basic international consensus (ie stop with the nuclear program and stop saying death to Israel or we wont negotiate with you), and not just arm wrestling but you libs would accuse Bush of being the belligerent one. See, they are just responding to Bush’s aggression. If Bush weren’t so much like Hitler, Iran wouldn’t have to act so negatively. So the left demagogues Bush while letting Iran get a free pass. Again, YOU JUST GIVE LIP SERVICE TO HUMAN RIGHTS.

  185. Slide says:

    the always entertaining ND30 spewed this nonsense: “Incorrect. Obama stated that he would give free healthcare to all Americans without raising taxes. The Obama Party said they would give free healthcare to all Americans without raising taxes.”
    I’m going to use a tactic of the right. PROVE IT. Show me an actual quote from BO that he will give free health care to all Americans without paying taxes. PROVE IT.

  186. Slide says:

    Dan Riehl said, ” Slide wrote: “I see that Philip Mc Daniel’s comment was deleted, removed, censored. Wonder why?” Um, no. Only I can do that. And I didn’t.
    You are absolutely correct. I apologize. Your blog does some weird stuff when I hit refresh. It looked like the comment was missing but it is indeed there.

  187. jr565 says:

    By the way slide you still didn’t respond to my question about Michael Moores quote about the insurgency in Iraq being the minutemen and the revolution and how they would WIN.
    Would you suggest that that was a statement that might cause soldiers to view Moore to be unsupportive of their efforts? And if he was could critics of his statement say that mabye Moore wanted us to lose said war?
    Please enlighten us as to what you think of this statement.

  188. Slide says:

    jr565 I’m not going to debate the wisdom of invading Iraq. Been there, done that. I think collectively as a nation we have come to the conclusion that that was a huge, huge blunder. But to your point that liberals are somehow inconsistent about invading sovereign nations for regime change that is just nonsense. Conservatives don’t even support that position I thought. It’s only the neo-cons that were pushing for it and we all know they have their own agenda.

  189. Slide says:

    “By the way slide you still didn’t respond to my question about Michael Moores quote about the insurgency in Iraq being the minutemen and the revolution and how they would WIN.”
    Why am I being asked to justify what Michael Moore said? Two can play that game. I can dig up a whole bunch of crazy quotes from people on the right and DEMAND that you respond to them but that would be rather silly and unproductive won’t it?
    But, since you asked. Yes, MM could have phrased that differenty, but the point I think he was trying to make is what lots and lots of people have said in opposition to invading Iraq. People don’t like occupying armies. PERIOD. You can say all you want that we went in there to FREE them to but a lot of Iraqis we went in there to control their country (oil) and they were going to resist much like our revolutionaries resisted King George. The right always forgets that people become very nationalistic when an army from another country invaded their nation. The lessons of history seems to be lost on those on the right.

  190. “I have a little more confident that people can figure out what is in their best interest without being lectured by a moron like you.”
    Which is why you and your Obama Party namecall and attack black people who dare to vote and think differently.
    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=CCBAAC9C-3048-5C12-004D4CE9E6FF5F48
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/nov/01/20051101-104932-4054r/print/
    Worried that a few of your slaves might wander off the plantation, Massa Slide?
    And this is funny:
    “Boy you really have a low opinion of African-Americans don’t you?”
    Which is why I was pointing out how upset you were that Republicans like myself are telling black people that they can succeed without affirmative action, that not everyone hates them, and that we don’t care what they support politically as long as they do the job.
    Meanwhile, you’re the one who tells blacks that they can’t succeed without quotas and special points for skin color, that everyone hates them and their only hope is to support the Obama Party, and that if they don’t support the Obama Party, they’re not acting in their best interests.

  191. Slide says:

    “Meanwhile, you’re the one who tells blacks that they can’t succeed without quotas and special points for skin color, that everyone hates them and their only hope is to support the Obama Party, and that if they don’t support the Obama Party, they’re not acting in their best interests.”
    oh please, don’t be such an ass, you’re embarrassing yourself.

  192. “I’m going to use a tactic of the right. PROVE IT. Show me an actual quote from BO that he will give free health care to all Americans without paying taxes. PROVE IT.”
    With pleasure.
    http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_12050511
    Did you read again what the Obamamessiah said, puppet Slide?
    “I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital-gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
    He repeatedly vowed “you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.”
    Oops. Guess you never expected to be held accountable for that. After all, holding a black man accountable for anything he says or does is racist, according to the Obama Party — unless said black man dares to be something other than an obedient Obama Party house slave.
    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=CCBAAC9C-3048-5C12-004D4CE9E6FF5F48
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/nov/01/20051101-104932-4054r/print/
    And do you also believe that a Latina woman will always have a better answer than a white man, as your racist Sotomayer has stated on multiple occasions? How do you explain your Obama’s lie, when he said that she had only stated that once and didn’t mean it, given her repeated use of the phrase?

  193. Respawn says:

    Folks, slide has now definitively proven himself to be nothing more than a low-grade troll. “I’m not going to get in the policy weeds to refute every assertion you make regarding health care.” BECAUSE YOU CAN’T, YOU IGNORANT FUCK.
    Folks, stop wasting Dan’s bandwidth in this idjit. Just GAZE at the troll.

  194. “Why am I being asked to justify what Michael Moore said? Two can play that game. I can dig up a whole bunch of crazy quotes from people on the right and DEMAND that you respond to them but that would be rather silly and unproductive won’t it?”
    Like you did before with Philip McDaniel?
    http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/07/its-okay-to-question-your-patriotism.html?cid=6a00d83451c1db69e2011570e85cf2970c#comment-6a00d83451c1db69e2011570e85cf2970c
    Typical liberal; demand people do things that you never do yourself. Sort of like how liberals always want to increase taxes, but dodge paying them.

  195. Slide says:

    ND30 moronically asked, “Like you did before with Philip McDaniel?”
    Philip McDaniel was responding to me moron, I think I have a right to quote him won’t you say sweete lips?

  196. Slide says:

    North Dallas 30 do you know how to read? Truly? do you know how to read. You said, “Incorrect. Obama stated that he would give free healthcare to all Americans without raising taxes. The Obama Party said they would give free healthcare to all Americans without raising taxes.”
    FREE HEALTH CARE TO ALL AMERICANS…… that is what you said. Where has Obama EVER said that he intends to supply FREE HEALTH CARE TO ALL AMERICANS???? the quotes you supply have nothing to do with FREE HEALTH CARE TO ALL AMERICANS.
    God you guys are truly dense.

  197. Slide says:

    “And do you also believe that a Latina woman will always have a better answer than a white man, as your racist Sotomayer has stated on multiple occasions?”
    Of course that is not exactly what she said but why quibble over facts right? She basically said what Alito said when he was confirmed:
    “And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.
    And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
    But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.”
    And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who’s been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I’ve known and admire very greatly who’ve had disabilities, and I’ve watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn’t think of what it’s doing — the barriers that it puts up to them.
    So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.”

  198. Slide says:

    the always intellectual peeSpawn: :”BECAUSE YOU CAN’T, YOU IGNORANT FUCK.”
    I’m rubber, your glue, what you say . . .

  199. Slide says:

    North Dallas 30 find them quotes yet? I’m waiting. . . tick… tock… tick… tock….

  200. Slide says:

    We’re going to have to put you on milk carton ND30…… getting concerned for your safety.

  201. Slide says:

    oh by the way for those that DEMANDED a DIRECT QUOTE of any Republican Questioning the patriotism of Democrats, I give you Tom Delay (please see the very last line):
    “So go ahead and apologize, if you’re really sorry, but the question begs: Sorry for what? For liberating 25 million people? For removing a tyrannical psychopath from the world stage? For ending a verified weapons of mass destruction program? For fighting the war against terror? Or are you really just sorry that you’re saddled with the consequences of an insincere vote in the first place?
    With such men and women leading Congress, the United States would have surrendered the Revolutionary War after New York, the Civil War after Bull Run, World War II after Kasserine Pass and the Cold War after Vietnam (come to think of it, that’s exactly what they did propose).
    Now there’s something to apologize for. And yes, I am questioning their patriotism.
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/2984.html

  202. Swamp Rabbit says:

    Must not upset the OsamaHusseinIslamObama supporters.

  203. LOL….and, as always, Slide lies.
    http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_12050511
    Did you read again what the Obamamessiah said, puppet Slide?
    “I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital-gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
    Obama promises free healthcare for all without an increase in taxes. Why not just admit that Obama lied to get elected?
    “Of course that is not exactly what she said but why quibble over facts right? She basically said what Alito said when he was confirmed:”
    Wrong. She said that a wise Latina would always come up with a better answer than a white male.
    But of course, again, the lack of principles shows. Slide attacks Alito as a racist, but then, despite his own admission that Sotomayer said the same thing, insists that her statements are not racist.

  204. “ND30 moronically asked, “Like you did before with Philip McDaniel?”
    Philip McDaniel was responding to me moron, I think I have a right to quote him won’t you say sweete lips?”
    Ah, but that’s not what you said. You were whining and screaming about how you shouldn’t be held accountable for other peoples’ behavior. As I pointed out in that link, you were trying to hold the rest of us accountable.
    And now, let’s show the world exactly what Slide and his Obama Party support and endorse.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aWPO.6oKgMsw&refer=us
    “New York lawyer Lynne Stewart was convicted of helping a radical Egyptian sheik pass secret messages to his followers urging violent terrorist attacks.
    Stewart, 65, was charged with aiding a U.S.-designated terror organization, the Islamic Group, wage a broad murder and kidnapping conspiracy. Prosecutors say she and two co-defendants helped her former client, imprisoned blind cleric Omar Abdel Rahman, transmit messages to the group’s leaders in defiance of prison restrictions.”
    A perfect example of the Obama Party’s beliefs and behavior.

  205. Furthermore, shall we show what Slide and the Obama Party believe about our troops?
    http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/02/371741.shtml
    “Hey-hey, ho-ho, the Marines in Berkeley have got to go.
    That’s the message from the Berkeley City Council, which voted 6-3, with Gordon Wozniak, Betty Olds and Kriss Worthington dissenting, to tell the Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station “is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders.”
    It also voted 7-2, with Wozniak and Olds dissenting, to explore enforcing its law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against the Marines and to encourage the women’s peace group Code Pink to protest in front of the station.
    In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m.
    Councilman Gordon Wozniak opposed both items.
    The Marines have been in Berkeley for a little more than a year, having moved from Alameda in December 2006. For about the past four months, Code Pink has been protesting in front of the station.
    “I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don’t belong here, they shouldn’t have come here, and they should leave,” Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates said after votes were cast.”
    Turns out they’re not the only ones who believe in the Code Pink cause; so do Barack Obama and the Obama Party.
    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/12/jodie-davis-code-pink-founder-obama-bundler-osama-apologist/
    So we have little Slide and his Obama Party sitting there screaming that our troops are “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” in their own country and giving full encouragement to terrorist-supporting groups that verbally and physically assault our soldiers and vandalize their areas…but then acting surprised when people question their patriotism.

  206. anony mouse says:

    Slide wrote:
    But, since you asked. Yes, MM could have phrased that differenty, but the point I think he was trying to make is what lots and lots of people have said in opposition to invading Iraq.
    No shit,that’s the whole point which you seem to try to weasel out of.This was common discussion by people on your side of the aisle who said similar things. Like “The War is Lost”. You and anon keep saying that republicans routinely question people patriotism and when pressed to provide examples come up with examples of republicans saying what liberals are suggesting is dangerous, stupid or harmul to the war effort/troop morale. Which YOU say is questioning peoples patriotism. Which seems to suggest that you just don’t want anyone to address said arguments with criticisms and want, based on your status as an enlightened liberal, to have all truth to power talking points to go unrefuted by default. Because otherwise, if A LOT of people are saying that insurgents are the equivalent of the minute men or that the war can’t be won, can we who think the war can and should be won argue that you want the war to be lost, or arguing that the war is lost. And yet you are outraged that someone is actually taking your points at face value.
    You write:
    But see here is the difference. I don’t suggest that these actions, which most reasonable people believe hurt our war effort, did not indicate that the right WANTED to cause American deaths. The right though is always quick to suggest that dems, agree or disagree with them, INTENTIONALLY want America to lose. That is just stupid, vile and insulting and I am not going to take it from anyone. Period.
    Ok, except how is saying we can’t win the war not saying you want us to lose. In Michael Moore’s case And in many other peoples case, when you define one side as the minute men you are picking sides and hoping that the good side wins. Ok? SO I don’t see how people can’t come to the conclusion that you want us to lose there. You might frame it differently and say “We can’t win”.However, people can rightly point to your statements and say objectively that it appears you are doing everything in your power, and making every argument you can make that will ultimately cause us to lose there. You think us losing there is in fact a net positive (because we don’t belong there, and it will teach us to not invade other countries, or america is too arrogant and needs to be taken down a peg, or this war is illegal therefore we need to lose it) we think you advocating for defeat suggests that you want us to INTENTIONALLY lose this war. So don’t hide from your words, Slide. You are advocating, while troops are in harms way that we should lose, can’t win, and its impossible, and immoral and illegal. It’s pretty clear where you’re coming from on this, but you shouldn’t ALSO be able to argue that somehow we as critics of your platform have no right to conclude that just because you are advocating for us to lose that therefore you are advocating for us to lose. I’ll ask it a different way. “Now that we’re in Iraq do you want us to win?” It’s impossible, if you hold the stance that we can’t win and in fact our enemies are the Minutemen to suggest that somehow you want us to win. No, you don’t and all your arguments are your enunciations of why we can’t and shouldn’t. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
    People don’t like occupying armies. PERIOD. You can say all you want that we went in there to FREE them to but a lot of Iraqis we went in there to control their country (oil) and they were going to resist much like our revolutionaries resisted King George.And this is one of the reasons you and others wanted us to lose.
    Just say it.And for those of us who don’t in fact want to lose, can we call you out on your, in our opinion desire to see us fail?

  207. Slide says:

    Nice try North Dallas 30 but NOTHING you have shown me shows that Obama promised Americans FREE health care. The quote you keep posting says NOTHING about FREE HEALTH CARE….. .wanna try about bucko? LOL…LOL
    Again this is what ND30 said, “Obama promises free healthcare for all without an increase in taxes.”
    And I ask you AGAIN to prove it. Show me one quote where Obama PROMISED FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL. C

  208. Slide says:

    You know I’m starting to feel a little guilty showing ND30 for the complete moron that he is. It’s just so easy. Maybe I’ll let up. …… naaaaaahhhhh

  209. “Nice try North Dallas 30 but NOTHING you have shown me shows that Obama promised Americans FREE health care.”
    That’s because you simply aren’t able to reconcile facts and direct quotes with the lies your Obama tells you.
    http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_12050511
    Did you read again what the Obamamessiah said, puppet Slide?
    “I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital-gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
    Obama promises free healthcare for all without an increase in taxes. Why not just admit that Obama lied to get elected?

  210. Slide says:

    WHERE DOES HE SAY FREE HEALTH CARE
    WHERE DOES HE SAY FREE HEALTH CARE
    WHERE DOES HE SAY FREE HEALTH CARE
    WHERE DOES HE SAY FREE HEALTH CARE
    you are giving me a quote about taxes. Nothing about FREE HEALTH CARE
    Nobody is talking about socialized medicine…. Health care will not be FREE. It is an insurance approach. Yes, there might be some subsidies to help poor families PAY for health insurance but nobody is suggesting FREE HEALTH CARE
    GOD HOW DUMB ARE YOU??????

  211. wally sadaber says:

    You guys do confuse me for two reasons. One is all the vindictive, angry and vicious responses to me. I am just debating politics, not stealing your job or child. The second reason I am confused is the odd interpretation of civil rights history. I mentioned that liberals and progressives have been the force for change in the United States and your response is that Strom Thurmond was once a democrat. Hmmm. So does that mean that Strom Thurmond, a vicious right wing racist is actually a progressive? The actual U.S. history is that right wing racist Southern politicians were democrats because of Lincoln. When that system came unravelled in the 60s due to LBJ’s desegregation efforts, those right wing racists quit the Democratic party and joined the Republican Party thus firmly cleansing the Democratic Party of the Southern racists. That was 40 YEARS AGO. Those southern right wing racists are now Republicans. Indeed, they now constitute the rump of what was once a proud effective Republican party but that is now a regional, dying party.
    Now, if I am distorting history somehow, please feel free to point out how. The insults and swear words and bitterness, btw, are not going to make your arguments more effective.

  212. Slide says:

    wally…. save your breath. There is no room for rational argument with these wingnuts. I am truly beginning to believe that they live in an alternative universe. You know.. like Superman’s Bizarro world. It is a strange place we have come to where every single news item becomes a Rorschach test. The right sees one thing while the left sees something else. Now, while both sides are guilty to a certain extent, the right has gone off the deep end. It is truly scary the way they think. The Dept of Homeland Security was right on the mark when they said the Obama election is going to push some of these racist wackjobs off of the deep end.
    wally you have always made comments that were right on the money which means you have probably been attacked mercilessly here. They don’t want to hear the truth.

  213. “nbody is talking about socialized medicine”
    O course they are. That’s what the “public plan” is. Obama and his puppet leftists lied and told us none of our taxes would go up to pay for healthcare. He promised us free healthcare at no cost, and now he’s reneging on his promise.
    http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_12050511
    Did you read again what the Obamamessiah said, puppet Slide?
    “I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital-gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

  214. Slide says:

    lol……. poor ND30… .he got caught and doesn’t know what to do, so he just repeats his nonsense and posts the same quote having nothing to do with the point in contention. The Public Option is still an Insurance Plan, its not FREE HEALTH CARE. But obviously you don’t understand that. I know that its tough to understand for someone of your rather limited capabilities but let me say it again and please prove me wrong if you can:
    OBAMA NEVER PROMISED FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS.

  215. “One is all the vindictive, angry and vicious responses to me. I am just debating politics, not stealing your job or child.”
    More like you’re calling us all racists.
    Since you want to do that, we’re merely pointing out how it is your party that believes in discrimination on the basis of skin color and who supports racist attacks on Hispanic and black Americans who commit the unpardonable sin of not voting for your party.
    Furthermore, we should look at what is acceptable and endorsed behavior by Obama Party politicians.
    “White testified that the mayor shoved him into Kinney when he was trying to deliver the subpoena. He and Kinney also testified that Kilpatrick used profanity and made a racial remark during the confrontation.
    “You’re a black woman,” Kinney said the mayor told her. “You should be ashamed of yourself being with a man with the last name White. You should not be a part of this.”
    The mayor and Kinney are black. White is white.”
    http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/LawPolitics/wireStory?id=5585718
    This man was fully endorsed and supported by the head of the Congressional Black Caucus and by Barack Obama, by the way.
    Shameful what you and Slide endorse and support, Wally. But it’s not unexpected, given your devotion to Barack Obama, who himself is a racist.

  216. Slide says:

    ND30 must be pretty embarrassing for the rest of you wingnuts. None of you are even coming to his defense. Understandable. You’re all on your own ND30. Why don’t you just admit that you were mistaken about the FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL nonsense and I’ll leave you alone. I don’t want to inflict any more trauma than necessary but you are leaving me no choice if you persist in repeating lies about Obama.

  217. The Public Option is still an Insurance Plan, its not FREE HEALTH CARE.
    Lies again. You just admitted that people would not have to pay for health care because they would receive “subsidies”.
    Your Obama’s lies have already unraveled, Slide. You simply can’t acknowledge that.
    http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_12050511
    “I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital-gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

  218. Slide says:

    ND30, I’m soooooooo glad you’re not on my side of the aisle.

  219. You should be, Slide. If I were there, lying racists like yourself wouldn’t last five minutes. Fortunately, you’re in a party that rewards and supports liars and racists like Obama, Kwame Kilpatrick, and yourself.

  220. Respawn says:

    Yes, Wally, you are completely confused about your civil rights history. Nice of you to acknowledge it.
    “When that system came unravelled in the 60s due to LBJ’s desegregation efforts, those right wing racists quit the Democratic party and joined the Republican Party thus firmly cleansing the Democratic Party of the Southern racists.”
    Which efforts were those, Wally? Civil Rights Act? Passed with REPUBLICAN votes, in the face of a Strom Thurmond (Democrat, remember) filibuster. Voting Rights Act? Same thing.
    Now, NAME all those “those right wing racists quit the Democratic party and joined the Republican Party.” Go ahead, I’m waiting right here. Name them. Robert “Grand Kleagle” Byrd? Nope, still a Democrat. George Wallace? Nope. Bull Connors? Nope. Who are they all, Wally? Where are all these rabid racist Democrats who jumped ship and became Republicans? Hint: Look in your own party; they’re still there.
    And as for “firmly cleansing the Democratic Party of the Southern racists,” you seriously don’t know shit from Shinola. Are you from the South? Do you live there? I didn’t think so. Believe me, cupcake, the “rabid racists” in the South are STILL Democrats. The KKK was FOUNDED by Democrats, and to the extent it is still in existence, you can bet your sweet ass its membership is still overwhelmingly Democrat.
    But you are surprised when you come in here, spout a bunch of untrue, ahistorical horseshit, call US racists (when it’s YOUR party that treats blacks like plantation slaves), well, yeah, pretty much we jump in your shit. Sorry about that – learn some friggin’ history, and get your facts straight, and you might get a more cordial welcome.
    As for slide, NDT, you are wasting your time. He’s a moron, knows no history, no economics, and thinks our government is a democracy, and that if you win an election, you can do anything you want to do, Constitution be damned. Sorta like his Obamessiah. Unprincipled, and dumb as a fucking box of rocks. Just GAZE at the troll. All he’s here for is attention, like a six year old throwing a tantrum – so ignore him.

  221. wally sadaber says:

    NDallas40.
    Man-up dude, noone called you racist. Try to argue the point without “pullin a Palin” and playing the victim and quitting. What I said was that all the southern racist [politicians] are now in the Republican Party. If you think you are a racist, then please, do that on your own with no help from me. Also, if you like flinging the word racist around, you might want to check on your anger and vindictiveness. Slide is right. This kind of language – calling Supreme Court nominees and Presidents the most despicable terms possible (e.g. “racist” and “Nazi”) – really has no precedent in American history. There is only one event that has occurred that could have prompted this leap to call our elected/appointed, accomplished, family oriented, high achieving and honest citizens such horrible words: a black man was elected President. Does this mean I am calling you a racist? No, of course not. I am saying that the cultural change where a non white male is in charge (or a latina is extemely influential) threatens you so much, that you resort to words of violence due to your fear of change from the power structure/culture you grew up with. This is the kind of resentment that leads to shooting one’s estranged wife, museum guards or police officers. And yes Slide, sites like this, instead of helping people see different points of view, instead seem to intensfiy the feelings of victimization and resentment.

  222. Slide says:

    well put wally, you said what I was feeling better than I could. these low achieving resentful white guys are really blowing their gaskets with Obama getting elected. Scary shit. Won’t be surprised if we see ND30’s photo above the Breaking News logo on CNN sometime soon.

  223. anony mouse says:

    This is par for the course, Slide and the other lib fall back on the standard call someone a racist and then get angry that someone questions the assumption. Those rieh world poster are tea bagging rednecks straight up! Ok jeanine garofolo. whatever. Play the race card then feign shock outrage that people are angry at your calling them racists.
    And wallly, you said noone called you a racist. What does “these low achieving resentful white guys are really blowing their gaskets with Obama getting elected” imply? Maybe you have trouble reading between the lines but slide is implying that the only reason ND30 and others are mad at Obama is becuase they are racists. SOunds kind of like slide is calling people racists.
    Maybe you libs questioning why others are constantly questioning democrats patriotism, should wonder why you constantly call people racists?

  224. anony mouse says:

    Hey Slide,
    The whole premise of Obama’s health care plan is that there are people who can’t afford health care now correct? For some the price for health care is too high though they have jobs but for others they simply do not have the means to pay. Since health care is not going to be free under Obama are you saying that if you can’t pay for health care that is supposedly affordable under Obama’s plan that you are shit out of luck under Obama’s plan and will not get health care?

  225. Slide says:

    anony mouse… let me ask you a question and lets see if you give me an honest answer. Are there ANY racists in the United States. And if there is such a thing as a racist, do any of those racists oppose Obama because of his race? Yes or no? Just curious on your sociological take.

  226. anony mouse says:

    Further, you don’t address that Obama is violating his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge to not raise anyones’ taxes? Was he lying during the campaign?

  227. Slide says:

    “Further, you don’t address that Obama is violating his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge to not raise anyones’ taxes? Was he lying during the campaign?”
    He never said he wasn’t going to raise ANYONE’S taxes – just those making less that $250K a year. So show me what taxes on that population he has raised.

  228. Slide says:

    now answer my question anon…. any racists in USA? do you think that ANYONE opposes Obama because of Obama’s race? anyone?

  229. anony mouse says:

    slide wrote –
    let me ask you a question and lets see if you give me an honest answer. Are there ANY racists in the United States. And if there is such a thing as a racist, do any of those racists oppose Obama because of his race? Yes or no? Just curious on your sociological take.
    OF course there are. ANd there are probably even some that hate Obama because he’s a black man. But that’s a far cry for calling anyone who appears at a tea party a racist straightup merely because people appearing there are having issues with the way the govt is handling the economy. ANd just beecause there are racists in the US doesn’t mean that YOU can’t also be demagoging any republicans who disagree with you or Obama as racists, simply because its easier to call someone a racist then address their arguments. And again, you just got through telling us how evil republicans are for questioning anyones’ patriotism yet you have absolutely no problem demagoging huge swaths of the population and calling them racists.
    Back to questioning patriotism I’ll ask this.Are there ANY unpatriotic liberals in the United States. And if there is such a thing as an unpatriotic democrat/libera, can they be called unpatriotic?
    Also, please respond to the other arguments you ignored.
    Specifically, if somone says a war can’t be won, or that we are on the wrong side, is it questioning their patriotism to say they are suggesting that we can’t or shouldn’t win? Hmmmm?

  230. Slide says:

    anony. I don’t call people racists. If you are referring my exchange with ND30 please look at the thread closely. ND30 bizarrely called me (as well Democrats in general and Obama specifically) the REAL racists. I think he called me Maaastar Slide or something like that. You know, plantation guy with slaves. Lol HE was the one that starting calling people racists. Funny but I found that rather revealing, didn’t you? lol

  231. anony mouse says:

    Slide,
    Except you did call people racists. YOu just seem to think that when you do it its not calling people racist, apparenlty because you, as a liberal, cnanot be racist, and therefore whatever you say can only be absolutely true.

  232. Slide says:

    yeah anon… that’s it. thanks for your insight

  233. anony mouse says:

    Hey answer some of my questions why don’t you?

  234. Slide says:

    that wasn’t a question it was a statement on your part. You said I called people racists. Who have I called a racist. Show me. You make the declarative statement, “Except you did call people racists.” Show me.

  235. anony mouse says:

    Furhter slide,
    What ND30 was referring to is the liberals belief that blacks must behave a certain way or they will otherwise be targets of liberal racism. YOu see that with Clarence Thomas and for example Michael Steele who had oreo cookies thrown at him and if you actually bother reading the link provided by ND30 shows an example of a liberal weblog that had Mr Steele depctied as a black faced minstrel with the caption “Simple sambo wants to move to the big house and caption below that tahta reads “I’s Simple Sambo and I’s running for the big house.
    Negroes are welcome, but they have to toe the line. Any negro not down with democratic ideas of how blacks should behave should be targeted racially. Beacaseu after all they are uncle toms and therefore liberals can be as racist as they want. Same is true of women who liberals don’t like. If they are not down with the liberal orthodoxy, they can be targeted with as sexist language as is possible, language that would never be acceptable were it directed towards a feminist or female candidate (though of course, when it came to the election off Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton dems and libs had no problem directing their sexism towards Hillary too. because at that point Barack was their guy, and the old fogey had to be taken down a peg and put in her place.
    As for republicans being racist, republicans stand against affirmative action BECUASE IT’S RACIST. If you want a color blind society you don’t set up racial quotas that discriminate against one race to reward another. It is demeaning and condesending to racial minorities to assume that they can’t hack it or change tests to accomodate them if they dont’, bcause the assumption is of course that they need that handout to get ahead because otherwise they are inferior. Republicans are against quotas and affirmative action not because they hate minorities but because they think minorities are capable enough to get what they need. Remember James Browns old song “I don’t need nobody to get me nothing, open the door I’ll get it myself” that is the Republicans belief. If that were rewritten by democrats it would be “We need to open the door for you because you can’t get it yourself.”. You don’t invalidate test scores of white people and other minorities because other minorities fail the test, Because that discriminates against the people who pass the test. So you say republicans are racist because they don’t support affirmative action and I say democrats are racist because they do.
    There’s an old Good Times episode where the wife is hired to be the token negro of the company and she is treated condescendingly by the company and it is assumed by them that the only reason she is hired is because they need to fill a quota. And she quits the job because she feels its demeaning to hire her not for her qualifications but simply because the company needs a black person. Back in the 70’s that was considered a “progressive” show and not at all conservative. But slide, the democratic party is that company, and they think apparently that blacks need to be given a hand because they are just incapable of succeeding otherwise. And need the help of the well meaning heart of gold liberals to do anything. GOd liberals are such condescending pricks.

  236. anony mouse says:

    slide wrote:
    Show me.
    these low achieving resentful white guys are really blowing their gaskets with Obama getting elected. Scary shit. Won’t be surprised if we see ND30’s photo above the Breaking News logo on CNN sometime soon.
    Resentful White guys. Plural. ND30 is one of those white guys and you wont be surprised if he tries to kill Obama or someone else (probably a black) based on his racism. We can read between the lines slide. Did you use the words racist, no but you certainly implied it. Why didn’t you throw in that they were teabagging rednecks while you were at it?

  237. Slide says:

    you go on and on about how Dems are the real racists not Republicans. ok…. if you say so, but I have seen all the GOP “humor” of late. Like the picture of all the Presidents with Obama’s just being some goggly eyes staring out of the dark. Oh and the joke about “coons” on the Young Republicans of Virgina Website… oh and “Obama the Magic Negro” lol.. funny funny shit you republicans have. Oh and then there is Florida GOP official who had this joke, “How can 2,000,000 blacks get into Washington, DC in 1 day in sub zero temps when 200,000 couldn’t get out of New Orleans in 85 degree temps with four days notice?” ROFLOL.. wow…. what a bunch of comediens you right wingers are…not racism…. just good natured humor. Then there is the GOP DA in Texas that had this on his computer, “a cartoon depicting an African-American suffering from a “fatal overdose” of watermelon and fried chicken.”
    What is that old saying, When it looks like a duck… walks like a duck… smells like a duck….
    by the way anon, can you tell me how many African-American GOP congressmen there are? Just curious.
    http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/humphrey/2009/06/republican-staffers-email-deno.html
    http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/local/article973513.ece
    http://crooksandliars.com/2008/02/27/republican-da-resigns-after-porn-racist-humor-found-on-computer

  238. Slide says:

    anon, “Did you use the words racist, no but you certainly implied it” Really… ahhhh… so you get to decide what I IMPLIED… gotcha. I never called anyone a racist. My comments about white males that feel threatened by Obama is not calling them racist….. it more cultural, economic, sociological. Don’t put words into my mouth. I never called ANYONE a racist.

  239. “He never said he wasn’t going to raise ANYONE’S taxes – just those making less that $250K a year. So show me what taxes on that population he has raised.”
    You really should read that link, silly racist Slide.
    “One of President Barack Obama’s campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.
    The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama’s promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.
    This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich, research says.”
    http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_12050511

  240. you go on and on about how Dems are the real racists not Republicans. ok…. if you say so, but I have seen all the GOP “humor” of late.
    And again, notice how Slide doesn’t condemn the racist beliefs and actions of the Obama Party that we have cited; instead, he only attacks Republicans.
    The rule here is obvious; Slide supports and endorses racist Obama Party members. He does not oppose racism and violence at all; he opposes Republicans. He fully supports and endorses racist actions by Obama Party members.

  241. “Slide is right. This kind of language – calling Supreme Court nominees and Presidents the most despicable terms possible (e.g. “racist” and “Nazi”) – really has no precedent in American history.”
    Except for the past eight years or so of it.
    http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler.html
    http://nyc.indymedia.org/or/2005/09/56901.html
    http://www.hicktownpress.com/george-bush-buys-house-in-racist-texas-neighborhood/
    And yet Barack Obama, who endorses and supports telling a black woman that she should be ashamed for riding in a car with a white male, is immune from any such criticism.

  242. jr565 says:

    slide wrote:
    Obama the Magic Negro? I have to stop you there, because you do know where that came from? (Hint, it wasn’t started by Rush Limbaugh). It was written by a black LIBERAL named DavidEhrenstein. It made fun of Obama for being a safe black in the eyes of whites and suggested that whites voted for Obama to assuage their white guilt. Rush Limbaugh then made a parody song that used this article sung to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon and used it to parody the idea of an inauthentic black.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story
    By the way, that whole inauthentic black thing? That’s what LIBERALS and democratic blacks use CONSTANTLY to demonize republicans and particularly black republicans who are OREOS and UNCLE TOMS and inauthentic blacks. You see if the blacks get uppity and go off the plantation their character has to be destroyed and impugned (similarly if there is a female who is pro life or gay republicans). Sorry you thought this was republicans making racial statements about OBama. no it was a black lib.
    Now, republicans have no problem with “Uncle Toms” as you liberals like to describe them. You know why? Because they are are free willed americans who play the game in the US and aren’t part of the grievance merchant industry. Or to put it another way, they are postracial blacks.In other words. Race is not a grievance issue to shake down companies to them they are not using race constantly as a means to demonize whites and or constantly paint themselves as victims. They have the republican ethic of self reliance,and arent’ looking for the democratic party to give them things. Not saying that all democratic blacks do this, but I am saying that there is a racial industry within the liberal establishment that does nothing but portray blacks as victims of the evil racist America and seeks to turn them into victims. And not just blacks. Women, gays hispanics. All the various identity politics groups who do not melt into Americas maintstream as it were,but who instead make it their business to constantly suggest that society (typically white male establishment) is out to get them and is keeping them down. The man is keeping them down. What does this do? It in fact balkanizes all the groups and the country and so the democratic party ends up being made up a coaliton of identity politics at war with THE MAN, but also with each other. And the democrats play favoritism and play one group against the other as needed to get votes. You constantly hear various black leaders talk about how the democrats take advantage of the blacks and simply assume they will get their votes but don’t actually deliver on promises,and you’re hearing it now from varoius gay groups saying that Obama promised to undo DOMA and DADT and fight for gay marriage and is now going back on his word. And he is because that is what the democrats do.
    Now here is the great irony slide and maybe you should write this down. Barack Obama won the election as the first post racial candidate. What does that mean Slide? HE’s the candidate who supposedly moved past the various racial divisions. In fact here’s Cornel West talking about his fears of Barack Obama not being authentic at the time and not being black enough (is this starting to sound familiar). He’s basically accusing Obama of being an Uncle Tom or worried that he’s going to be the safe candidate who sells out the brothers.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXj3_pjTTwg
    Now Cornel West is a lefty black democrat steeped in the black power mentality so common in the democrat party. Post racial means Barack Obama supposedly transcends such questions of authentic blackness and america as the oppressor. In other words, by post racial Obama is essentially arguing what republicans have been arguing about race for ages!! Republicans are post racial. They have been saying for the longest, we shouldn’t be divided along racial lines or sex lines but simply act as americans. That is Republican philosophy. Its’ the difference between a Melting Pot and Multiculturalism. One is post racial and one separates specifically by race? WHich one does the democrat party support? The one that divides everyone up into race! They’re the ones that want racial quoatas and categorizing everything along racial lines. If in fact Obama were the post racial candidate, about freaking time that the democrats threw away those stupid and RACIST ideologies that have divided America for ages. Maybe they can tell Al Sharpton to f off and get the hell out of the democratic party. Too bad though that all that post racial stuff was just lip service (as was nearly every other promise Obama made). First Supreme Court nominee nominated, why she discriminates against white people and various minorities because some other minority couldn’t pass the test and throws out their bonuses which they earned.
    You dems are complete racists, classify everything racially. Hint, Slide. If you want a color blind society, the last thing you’d be for is affirmative action and quotas especially those based on race. And now that there is a black president who is post racial democrats no longer have any excuse to continue to engage in racial politics do they?

  243. jr565 says:

    Slide wrote:
    He never said he wasn’t going to raise ANYONE’S taxes – just those making less that $250K a year. So show me what taxes on that population he has raised.
    That was the first figure. Then it went down to 225K then 200K then 150K. what is the tally at now? Anyone making anything above the poverty line?
    Here’s some nice quotes for ya slide:
    Obama: “If You Make $250,000 A Year Or Less, We Will Not Raise Your Taxes. We Will Cut Your Taxes.”
    Advisors Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee: “Sen. Obama believes that one of the principal problems facing the economy today is the lack of discretionary income for middle-class wage earners. That’s why his plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000 — not income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend or payroll taxes.” (Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, Op-Ed, “The Obama Tax Plan,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/14/08)
    Joe Biden: “Spreading the wealth was not — he was talking about is all of the tax breaks have gone to the very, very wealthy. For example you have right now, this year, under the old tax policy that was just — that was put in by George Bush, people making an average $1.4 million a year, good people, decent people, patriotic — they’re going to get an $87 billion tax break. What we’re saying is that $87 billion tax break doesn’t need to go to people making an average of $1.4 million, it should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people — people making under $150,000 a year.” (WNEP-Scranton, Interview With Sen. Joe Biden, 10/27/08)
    Claire McCaskill called Obama middle-class tax cut ‘massive’ and stressed that those making ‘under $150,000 a year would see no tax increase of any kind’ — not payroll tax, not capital gains, ‘not a single tax,’ [New Hampshire Congressman Paul] Hodes said.” (Domenico Montanaro, “Obama V. McCain On Middle Class,” MSNBC’s “First Read” Blog, firstread.msnbc.msn.com, 6/12/08)
    That is one rapidly sliding tax scale. Any comments slide?
    Oh and just in case you actually believe hope and change rhetoric, he already tried to raise taxes on the middle class earning as little as 42,000 (quick slide is 42,000 less than 250,000k?)
    Obama Voted In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48-45: R 2-44; D 44-1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)
    FactCheck.org: The Budget Resolution Would Have Allowed Most Of The Provisions Of The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts To Expire, Effectively Raising Taxes On Those Making $41,500 In Total Income. “What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple. … But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, that’s not actually how income taxes work. We don’t pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our ‘taxable income.
    This in additon to the taxes already mentioned which you ignored repeatedly.
    So what say you slide is Obama just a big liar?
    And lets not forget his cap and tax proposals where he promised to bankrupt the coal industry and NECESSARILY raise prices for
    engery (and because industry relies on energy the cost of EVERYTHING ELSE as well). Here’s Obama himself talking about his proposal:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f-Jf_LGi-c&feature=related
    And I quote. AHEM: “Under my plan, electricity rates will NECESSARILY skyrocket, regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad…blah blah blah, whatever industry (be it coal or natural gas) will have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money, they will pass that cost onto consumers”.
    So, slide is the argument that somehow Americans are ok with being gouged so long as its not a tax? He’s saying he will NECESSARILY cause prices to skyrocket? My guess,the poor and middle class will be the hardest hit.
    Care to make any comments slide?

  244. jr565 says:

    Slide,
    What’s this? The dems are mulling raising taxes to fund health care….BUT BUT BUT I thought they weren’t going to raise taxes on anyone over 250k,er 200k er 150k?
    http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/07/09/the-trouble-in-the-senate.aspx
    Taxes on soda, a value added tax. Hey Slide didn’t Obama demagogue Mccain during the campaign for proposing this? Don’t the democrats generally oppose this because older union members would have to pay MORE in taxes? But I though there weren’t going to be any taxes hiked? Wait a second I thought it was patriotic to pay more in taxes. What is up with those unpatriotic union members?
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=axUPrlex8juQ
    There ya go slide. But if the dems want to tax soda and capital gains wont that just move money to areas where people aren’t being taxed? If you tax capital gains wouldn’t that mean fewer people invested in things where they would be taxed on their capital gains, thus wouldn’t this spur negative growth? and wouldn’t that mean that it would be harder to actually fund this health care bill. They’d have to find the money somewhere right Slide? And it would quickly become apparent that even if you taxed the top 5% at 99% you still wouldn’t come close to raising the money needed to fund this monstrosity, so where do you think this money will come from? THat’s right Obama will raise taxes on those making under 250k er 200k er 150k..
    You guys are such economic illiterates it’s not even funny. I almost hope Obama does get this passed so that Americans get to see first hand how destructive statism. That would mean of course that unlike Rush LImbaugh I’m hoping Obama succeeds. Then again, since I would have to live in this country while this is occuring and while my energy bills (and food bills and rent etc) are all going to NECESSARILY skyrocket maybe its not such a good idea. Its almost enough to give someone a heart atack. Good think we’re going to have some free healthcare (ok, you win subsidized health care). Since all of my money will be going to my heating bill at least those rich sobs can subsidize my free health care while I recover.

  245. Slide says:

    oh Jr bringing up that bogus “Obama voted to raise taxes on those making $42K has been debunked time and time again. Even Chris Wallace (you know of Faux News) said that the claim was misleading:
    DEBATE REALITY CHECK: $42,000 A Year
    October 15, 2008 | debatefactcheck2
    http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:uhx-xyj-720J:therecord.barackobama.com/%3Fp%3D2628+did+obama+vote+for+tax+increases+on+middle+class&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
    Tonight, Barack Obama said: “Now, with respect to a couple of the things Senator McCain said, the notion that I voted for a tax increase for people making $42,000 a year has been disputed by everybody who has looked at this claim that Senator McCain keeps on making. Even Fox News disputes it, and that doesn’t happen very often when it comes to accusations about me.” [Presidential Debate, 10/15/08]
    The Facts: Fox News Called The $42,000 Vote Attack “Misleading”
    Chris Wallace: The $42,000 Vote Attack Was “Misleading” And It Was A Non-Binding Resolution That Talked About Doing Away With The Bush Tax Cuts. WALLACE: “All right. Let’s take a look at one of your campaign’s recent ads. Here it is.” NARRATOR: “Life in the spotlight must be grand. But for the rest of us, times are tough. Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.” WALLACE: “Mr. Davis, especially that last sentence, isn’t that misleading?” DAVIS: “Nothing misleading about it. Barack Obama voted for a budget resolution that would have increased taxes on people, families, making $42,000. What’s misleading about that?” WALLACE: “Well, in fact, it only would be single people making $42,000. It would be families making over $60,000. But Obama — as you say, he voted for a non-binding budget resolution that overall talked about doing away with the Bush tax cuts. In fact, he says, that’s not his tax plan, that he supports a middle- class tax cut. And I want to put something up on the screen. The non- partisan Tax Policy Center says someone making $37,000 a year under Obama’s plan would get a tax cut of $892. Under McCain’s plan, they get a tax cut of $113.” [Fox News Sunday, 8/10/08]
    Washington Post: Claim That Obama Voted To Increase Taxes On Those Earning Over $42,000 Is “A Considerable Stretch.” “Sarah Palin repeated John McCain’s claim that Barack Obama voted to increase taxes for every American earning more than $42,000 a year. This is a considerable stretch. Obama voted for a non-binding budget resolution that laid down general budgetary guidelines based on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts will expire, as scheduled, in 2011. The budget resolution did not represent a vote to raise taxes. Obama has said that he is in favor of continuing the Bush tax cuts for all but the wealthiest Americans.” [Washington Post, 10/3/08 ]
    New York Times: The Vote For Budget Resolution Was “Not A Tax Increase.” “Just as in the debate, for example, Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of voting to raise taxes on people making as little as $42,000 a year. But that vote was in favor of a non-binding budget resolution that would have allowed the tax cuts President Bush pushed through Congress in 2001 and 2003, which mainly benefitted the wealthy, to expire. It was not a tax increase and as a resolution, it did not have force of law.” [New York Times, 10/6/08 ]
    Politifact: “Neither Of These Votes Actually Raised Taxes, Nor Were They Expected To” And McCain’s Ad “Gives An Overall False Impression” That Obama Would Raise Taxes On People Making $42,000.” Politifact, a service of CQ and the St. Petersburg Times wrote, “So did Obama ‘vote to raise taxes on people making just $42,000’? Not exactly. To support this statement, the McCain campaign points to two Obama votes on budget resolutions, one in March 2008 and another in June 2008. Problem is, neither of these votes actually raised taxes, nor were they expected to. Instead the votes approved budget resolutions, which are blueprints for the federal budget. The resolutions set targets for the committees that write legislation on taxes and spending. Obama joined Democrats on what were largely party-line votes expressing the desire to roll back the Bush tax cuts in order to fund popular programs. The McCain campaign may be technically correct that Obama voted for the measures, which did express support for tax increases, but they are non-binding documents that cannot be viewed as the equivalent of legislation that establishes law. The ad gives an overall false impression that Obama as president would favor tax increases for incomes of $42,000. He does not.” [Politifact, 8/8/08 ]
    OBAMA’s PLAN PROVIDES A BIGGER TAX CUT FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS THAN MCCAIN’s TAX CUT, WHICH LEAVES OUT 101 MILLION MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES AND 37 MILLION SENIORS
    Tax Policy Center: 95% Of Families Would Get A Tax Cut Under Obama’s Plan. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Obama’s plan gives 95% of households a tax cut. [Tax Policy Center, Table T08-0242, 10/14/08 ]
    Heritage Foundation Calls Obama Tax Plan A “Great Step” And Confirms That “The Middle Class Will Likely Pay Less Under Obama’s Plan.” “A senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, Rea Hederman Jr., praised Mr. Obama for proposing a 20% tax rate on dividends and capital gains, lower than a 28% rate he had initially floated, though still more than the current 15% rate. “That’s a great step in the right direction,” Mr. Hederman said. “It’s a big change from what we thought the Obama tax plan would be at the beginning of the summer. Mr. Hederman said the middle class would likely pay less under Mr. Obama’s plan than Mr. McCain’s.” [New York Sun, 8/15/08 ]
    Obama’s Plan Would Cut Taxes On The Middle Class Three To Almost Eight Times More Than McCain’s Would. “But when it comes to promises, it’s worth pointing out that, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center’s analysis of both candidates’ proposed plans, Obama would cut taxes for those making in the range of $38,000 to $66,000 three to almost eight times more than McCain would.” [MSNBC, “First Read,” 8/8/08 ]
    McCain’s Plan To Cut Taxes Leaves Out 101 Million Households. “McCain’s plan is tilted toward corporations and the most affluent, neglects middle-class Americans and lacks immediate solutions, Obama’s advisers said today in a conference call with reporters held to unveil a report critical of the Arizona senator’s proposals. … McCain’s plan to cut taxes for the middle class by increasing the dependent exemption leaves out 101 million households without children, according to Obama’s report. His plan gives tax cuts to the nation’s wealthiest 2 percent and to large corporations, the report said.” [Bloomberg, 7/6/08 ; Tax Foundation Tax Policy Blog, 8/14/08 ]
    We expect that for the third debate in a row, John McCain will lie about Obama’s tax plan, well now, the American people can check out their savings under Obama’s plan for themselves, by going to taxcut.barackobama.com.
    You can find the tax calculator at http://www.TaxCut.BarackObama.com . The vast majority of voters will discover that they’ll pay less in taxes with Obama as President. John McCain has spent months trying to mislead voters –and often flat-out lying about Barack Obama’s tax plan. But this election is too important to let lies carry the day.

  246. Slide says:

    Now this is an example of how crazy the wingnuts are. ND30 said this: “And yet Barack Obama, who endorses and supports telling a black woman that she should be ashamed for riding in a car with a white male, is immune from any such criticism.”
    Ok… now is there really anyone that REALLY thinks Obama is so racist that he woul castigate a black women for riding in a car with a white male? Really guys, get a grip. I’m not even going to respond to asinine attacks like this but once again I think it is very revealing of the mindset of someone like ND30. Wow, you are so threatened by Obama aren’t you. You think he is some sort of black extremist that hates whites and will upset your little world. Wow…. wow…. damn you are off the reservation. There is help you can get you know. Free counseling…. mental health clinics…. Dial a freakin Prayer…. something, get some help.

  247. Slide says:

    some more convenient history, “Obama the Magic Negro? I have to stop you there, because you do know where that came from? (Hint, it wasn’t started by Rush Limbaugh)”
    I don’t care about Rush Limbaugh. he is the best thing we liberals have. He says what most right wingers think and it shows where they are coming from and that is exactly fine with me. What is his approval ratings again? Yep, the more he is out front representing the GOP the more they will become a fringe lunatic party. No, I wasn’t talking about Limbaugh I was talking about Chip Saltsman, a candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, sent the song on a CD with 40 other songs, in a Christmas mailer to committee members. Guess he figured all those GOP officials would get a nice chuckle out of the racist parody.

  248. joyMc says:

    Oh darn we are out of toilet paper. Honey, where’s that Waxman Report?

  249. Slide says:

    jr with some more misleading information: “Then again, since I would have to live in this country while this is occuring and while my energy bills (and food bills and rent etc) are all going to NECESSARILY skyrocket maybe its not such a good idea. Its almost enough to give someone a heart atack.”
    It might give someone a heart attack, if true that is, but your belief that Cap and Trade will make energy bills skyrocket is not shared by the non-partisan CBO who did an extensive study and predicted that the cost to the average household would be $175 per year.
    Here is the entire report, but it actually invoves some heavy reading. You know… not as easy as just listening to Rush while driving to the local bar.
    http://www.eenews.net/public/25/11455/features/documents/2009/06/22/document_daily_01.pdf

  250. Respawn says:

    Guys, WHY are you bothering to argue with sludge??? He is a liberal, and therefore immune to facts or logic. He can’t even figure out that the “non-partisan” CBO (boy, is THAT a laugh riot!! Non-partisan, my ass.) report does, indeed, claim that “crap and tax” will only cost the average household $175 – which conclusion it arrives at only by totally ignoring all externalities – increased cost of goods, etc., etc.
    It has already been debunked:
    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/22/cbo-grossly-underestimates-costs-of-cap-and-trade/
    Don’t know if sludge is an intentional liar, or simply can’t learn, but arguing with him is a waste of time – your cluebat isn’t large enough to drive a fact through that skull.
    Wally, what up, dude? You wanted to know why we reacted angrily to your (bullshit) accusations of Republican racism. I told you, with specifics. Get the picture?
    And as for your claim that the current tone of political discourse in America is “unprecedented,” only a person with NO knowledge of history WHATSOEVER could possibly make such a silly, inaccurate, ahistorical and thoroughly untrue comment. Take a look at some of the major newspaper editorials and editorial cartoons about Lincoln during the Civil War. About Hoover and FDR during the Depression (and, with FDR, up to the beginning of WW II – after that, the American press still had enough love of country that they mostly rallied behind the President). Check out the editorials, comedians and talk show host commentaries, etc. about Reagan and Nixon. YOUR OWN SIDE has complained incessantly about the treatment afforded to Billy Zipperpants. Bottom line: This shit has been going on since the beginning of the Republic, and it has frequently been MORE virulent than it is now. Just thought you should know.

  251. anony mouse says:

    Slide wrote:
    It might give someone a heart attack, if true that is, but your belief that Cap and Trade will make energy bills skyrocket is not shared by the non-partisan CBO who did an extensive study and predicted that the cost to the average household would be $175 per year.
    Here is the entire report, but it actually invoves some heavy reading. You know… not as easy as just listening to Rush while driving to the local bar.
    I’m not listening to Rush to get the idea that energy prices will NECESSARILY skyrocket, That is directly from Obama’s mouth. Did you not look at the link pointing to Obama saying it directly? C’mon this is getting ridiculous here. Slide, it’s on tape. Obama is saying it. Why are you passing it off as something Rush Limbaugh made up. I’m sure Rush Limbaugh referred to it, as its pretty shocking that someone would be so up front about his intention to drive up energy prices. But then agian, even when its presented to you ON TAPE you deflect and dissemble. Are you like the most disingenous person on the internet?
    Slide, lets get you down to particulars here. Did Obama, or did Obama not say that his cap and trade proposals will “NECESSARILY” cause energy prices to skyrocket? Isn’t that the intention of the proposal? This is the secret of the dems. They are intending to cause gas prices to skyrocket, They also refuse to drill as much as possible. Now they may say it’s for good intentions (ie to cause us to move to alternate sources, to reduce green house gas emissions) but if you are intentionally causing energy prices to rise, then that is your intention and that is what you are actively doing.
    Care to respond to this slide?

  252. Slide says:

    “Slide, lets get you down to particulars here. Did Obama, or did Obama not say that his cap and trade proposals will “NECESSARILY” cause energy prices to skyrocket? Isn’t that the intention of the proposal?”
    Yes he said that, but you conveniently left out the other provisions of the Cap and Trade legislation that will offset those energy prices to the consumer. Don’t take it from me, take it from PolitiFact
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/25/edward-markey/claims-cbo-predicts-cap-and-trade-will-cost-about-/
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/11/mike-pence/pence-claims-obama-said-energy-costs-will-skyrocke/
    t is worth noting that the climate debate has changed substantially since Obama sat down with the Chronicle nearly a year and a half ago. Legislators have opted to give 85 percent of the polluting permits away for free instead of putting them up for sale, as Obama pledged to do on the campaign trail. In theory, this approach should reduce costs to consumers. Furthermore, revenue from auctioned permits will help consumers pay for increased energy prices, according to Obama’s first budget.
    What’s fuzzy, however, is how costly. PolitiFact has already looked into the issue and found that estimates vary. Republicans say each household will pay $3,100 a year, a figure they came up with based upon a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study that predicted a cap-and-trade proposal would generate $366 billion annually. On March 24, 2009, we gave the claim a Pants on Fire ruling because the GOP’s calculation was badly flawed and because the GOP used the figure even though the author of the MIT study had told them it was wrong. And in an April 1 letter to House Republicans, authors of the MIT study said that the report was being misinterpreted; by their count, estimates hover closer to $340 per family.
    The CBO’s estimate includes several assumptions about important decisions that still must be made by Congress, such as how much energy companies will pay to buy and trade polluting credits. But it’s worth reading the fine print on this one, because CBO notes that the actual cost per family will vary depending on income. For example, low-income consumers could expect to save $40 a year, while wealthy people will see a net increase for energy costs of $235 to $340 every year. And the analysis does not include the costs or benefits of other parts of the bill, such as government efforts to quickly develop new technology, wrote CBO director Douglas Elmendorf in a June 20 blog post.