TwitterFacebook

Sen. Inhofe Says US is ‘Reaching a Revolution’

US News • Views: 1,148

Religious fanatic Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) told his constituents this week that the United States is on the verge of a revolution.

Inhofe took the opportunity to blame Democrats for a bevy of issues. He lashed out at democrats for overtaking the government and spending billions of dollars on unpopular packages. He said government is becoming too big and overreaching its boundaries.

“People are not buying these concepts that are completely foreign to America,” Inhofe said. “We’re almost reaching a revolution in this country.”

Inhofe also announced that he doesn’t intend to read the health care legislation before voting against it.

“I don’t have to read it, or know what’s in it. I’m going to oppose it anyways,” he said.

Republican leaders across the country denounced Inhofe’s radical rhetoric and determined ignorance … oh, wait. No, they didn’t.

Jump to bottom

767 comments

1 JamesTKirk  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:38:39am

If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

2 CIA Reject  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:39:31am

What's a circus without at least one clown?

3 Big Steve  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:39:54am

If you play it backwards does it say "Ron Paul is dead"?

4 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:41:26am

He's looking to be ron paul's running mate?

5 Baier  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:41:27am

This is the kind of reasonable debate our country needs to solve a serious issue/
What kind of revolution does this kook envision? What ever happened to voting?

6 jdog29  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:42:07am

Ringo for President

7 pat  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:42:10am

I guess that means no one has read the Bill. Wonderful. and today we learn that the Congressional Research Service confirms that illegal aliens will be covered. Another myth myth.

8 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:42:49am

"Anyways"...

Illiteracy is strong in this one.

9 pat  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:43:04am

Obama's approvals slipped below 50% today.

10 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:43:26am

He just needs to write "REVOLUTION" to work "LOVE" into it, and write the "R" backwards.

/luap nor!

11 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:44:16am

re: #2 CIA Reject

What's a circus without at least one clown?

I'd like to find a politician who isn't a clown.

12 [deleted]  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:44:26am
13 Baier  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:44:40am

re: #9 pat

Obama's approvals slipped below 50% today.

glistening with rain beside the red wheelbarrow...

14 Mike McDaniel  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:44:55am

Sorry, guys. It is not extremism to state the obvious - and the political climate today is one that I haven't seen since the fall of 1994. Kindly note that in November of that year, the first Republican Congress in 40 years was elected.

And one does not need to taste-test poison to know that it is unwise to eat it.

15 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:44:56am

Nuance.

Not just leftist anymore.

16 Baier  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:45:09am

re: #13 Baier

glistening with rain beside the red wheelbarrow...

Erm, beside the white chickens.

17 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:45:12am

Well, when the people Inhofe is egging on come out shooting, they'll find at least one old Roman who is just as well-armed as they are.

18 Kragar  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:45:26am

re: #9 pat

Obama's approvals slipped below 50% today.

Must have been because of that Cindy Sheehan protest.

/

19 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:45:32am

I could handle a "legislative revolution." Next election, a whole new wave of new faces, new ideas, no more toying with ideas that have failed else where (what is up with that?), a seriousness about our national security, cutting spending, maybe some honesty (okay, too much to ask for).

20 Lanzman  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:45:38am

Government is "becoming too big"? It's been too big since about the 1930s . . .

21 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:45:41am
“We’re almost reaching a revolution in this country.”

This thinking is so dangerous. People who talk like this make me think they actually want to see it. This would not only be bad for our country (duh!), but the entire planet. America is one of the most important cogs in the machinery that keeps this planet functioning. They not only want to tear down our society, but the global society as well. It won't just be Americans who die in this revolution.

22 Big Steve  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:46:04am

I have been trying to figure out if there are any Republican's of national stature that don't have at least one lunatic fringe appendage sticking out. Sadly there aren't many. Just want one Republican that stands up for fiscal soundness, strong national defense, and scientific enlightenment. To be honest, don't care where they stand on abortion.

Turns out there is at least one, and gosh dang, I get to vote for her this year for Governor of Texas...Kay Bailey!

23 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:47:00am

re: #21 Sharmuta

This thinking is so dangerous. People who talk like this make me think they actually want to see it. This would not only be bad for our country (duh!), but the entire planet. America is one of the most important cogs in the machinery that keeps this planet functioning. They not only want to tear down our society, but the global society as well. It won't just be Americans who die in this revolution.

I'm sorry, apparently but I'm not reading it the way everyone else is.

24 [deleted]  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:47:24am
25 Kragar  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:48:13am

BTW, anyone interested in buying a franchise to my torch and pitfork concession, I'll have pamphlets on the table by the door

26 Baier  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:48:27am

re: #24 buzzsawmonkey

re: #16 Baier

So much depends upon
High polling numbers
Glazed with boredom
About the right issues

--William Rasmussen Williams

I hate the health care plan that is in the congress,
Forgive me. It's loaded with pork and unsustainable.

27 SFGoth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:48:28am

Reading about Inhofe is just another reason to legalize medical marijuana. I really need a good high after that nonsense.

28 pat  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:49:42am

It is very clear from the article that he is referring to a voters revolution. I think some of the concerns voiced here are a bit over heated.

29 Killgore Trout  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:49:51am

re: #14 Mike McDaniel

Sorry, guys. It is not extremism to state the obvious - and the political climate today is one that I haven't seen since the fall of 1994.


I think we're looking at something more like the early 70's. Radical revolutionaries are very trendy these days. I don't think we'll see the revolution or civil war the right wing radicals are hoping for but we might see right wing versions on Weather Underground or symbionese liberation army. Probably from the Liberty or Militia movements.

30 SFGoth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:50:09am

re: #1 JamesTKirk

If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

OK pols make me sing and shout, that Georgia's always on my mi-mi-mi-mi-mi-mi-mind

31 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:50:39am

re: #23 Ben Hur

I'm sorry, apparently but I'm not reading it the way everyone else is.

I don't think it's nuance. I think some of these folks talking about revolution are quite serious and literal. The Senator is likely not being as literal as a gun toting paulbot calling the President hitler, but it's dangerous rhetoric.

32 [deleted]  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:50:49am
33 cronus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:50:59am

I'm pretty sure Inhofe was referring to a voting based revolution here. But regardless he's just another big government conservative suddenly concerned about the growth of government:

Inhofe’s earmarks outnumber rest of Oklahoma delegation’s

There’s a $91.6 million difference between Oklahoma Republican Sens. Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn.

Inhofe voted down a $410 billion federal omnibus spending bill Thursday and fervently blasted “Democrats’ billion-dollar spending spree” in a statement released soon after the Senate passed it.

But Inhofe — who said Thursday he has “refused to go along with big government spending or big government solutions” — sponsored or co-sponsored 74 earmarks worth more than $91.6 million.

Coburn — one of Capitol Hill’s most outspoken opponents of earmarking — asked for zero.

34 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:51:33am

re: #25 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

BTW, anyone interested in buying a franchise to my torch and pitfork concession, I'll have pamphlets on the table by the door

Pitfork?
Looks like you forked up that pitch.

35 Danny  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:52:02am

Definitively answers LGF Question 1.4...a big fat NO.

36 Charles Johnson  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:52:12am

re: #32 gatorbait

Get off my website.

37 JohnnyReb  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:52:39am

re: #33 cronus

I'm pretty sure Inhofe was referring to a voting based revolution here. But regardless he's just another big government conservative suddenly concerned about the growth of government:

Inhofe’s earmarks outnumber rest of Oklahoma delegation’s

I think a whole bunch of Congress critters are getting a bit jumpy and are quickly reviewing their voting records and the like in preparation of 2010. And I concur, he is talking about a ballot box revolution.

38 Killgore Trout  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:53:31am

re: #32 gatorbait

Go ahead and try to overthrow our democratically elected government if you want to. I'll cheer when I see our military and law enforcement kick your ass on the evening news.

39 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:53:37am

re: #33 cronus

I'm pretty sure Inhofe was referring to a voting based revolution here. But regardless he's just another big government conservative suddenly concerned about the growth of government:

Inhofe’s earmarks outnumber rest of Oklahoma delegation’s

He's one of those "compassionate" conservatives? Or as I call them, Christian Socialists. These are the people in the GOP who are NOT conservatives- they're the ones who were the first to toss fiscal responsibility under the bus when Newt got the heave-ho.

I'll sign up for a voter "revolution"- kick the Christian Socialists out of this party and don't let them back in.

40 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:54:32am

My largest complaint about congress and the senate - and this goes across both parties - is this notion that somehow they do not need to read the legislation they vote on.

Excuse me?

Your job is to make, debate and pass or reject legislation. How can you do that if you don't read it?

Whenever I turn on CNN and see some congress critter speechifying, the first thing I notice are all of the empty seats. What exactly other than their jobs, is congress doing?

Now I can forgive not making it to every session to hear every speech.

However, not reading the bills themselves and somehow assuming that is OK? THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO!

It infuriates me. It is also a sign of how messed up America is as a culture of anti-intellectualism. The average American has no particular sense that reading long and complicated things is something one should do, so therefore actually sees little wrong with leaders (who are just like them) being just as lazy.

If I had my way, I would lock them in the Hill, and force them to read all legislation and then force them to stay there until legislation was passed or shot down.

Because of their laziness, this would make speechifying shorter. Bills would have less crap as riders and last but not least, they would actually do their jobs.

I would also post very large and humorless marines at the doors of the chambers. The marines would taze any congress-critter attempting to escape his or her duty. The marines would be let the critters out for play time after they finished their chores.

41 Spartacus50  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:54:48am

Actually, I fully support Inhofe (with the exception of any revolution talk). If the Health Bill is written by Democrats without any input from Republicans, why bother?

42 ExCamelJockey  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:55:06am

I hope that any bill that allows the government to compete with private business is voted down. Government run regulatory agencies, fine. The military, fine. Post office, inefficient as hell, but constitutionally tricky to privatize, still fine. Government run, subsidized businesses, bad.

IMO, having a government subsidized business is such a critical flaw that no reading should have to be done if that is a provision of any bill.

43 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:55:18am

They're probably embarrassed of him. I wouldn't want to bring Inhofe up in polite conversation either.

44 Kragar  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:55:49am

re: #34 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Pitfork?
Looks like you forked up that pitch.

Nope, Pitforks are the new big thing. I wouldn't expect someone outside the industry to know about the latest innovations. For a modest fee, I can give you and your organization an all day seminar on the latest in rabble and unruly mob technology.

45 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:56:23am

re: #40 LudwigVanQuixote

*grin*
I love that post!

46 SFGoth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:56:45am

re: #39 Sharmuta

He's one of those "compassionate" conservatives? Or as I call them, Christian Socialists. These are the people in the GOP who are NOT conservatives- they're the ones who were the first to toss fiscal responsibility under the bus when Newt got the heave-ho.

I'll sign up for a voter "revolution"- kick the Christian Socialists out of this party and don't let them back in.

Chrazis?

47 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:56:49am

re: #44 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Nope, Pitforks are the new big thing. I wouldn't expect someone outside the industry to know about the latest innovations. For a modest fee, I can give you and your organization an all day seminar on the latest in rabble and unruly mob technology.

Can you throw in a few screaming toothless hags for free?

48 Charles Johnson  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:57:38am

Those of you who are trying to deny that Inhofe was talking about violent revolution should note that we've already had one reader who very definitely DID see it that way, and very much approved of it.

49 VioletTiger  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:57:49am

re: #40 LudwigVanQuixote
Not only should they read every bill, they should post a 'what this means to you' translation for the rest of this. It's their job, IMO.

Any any 'leader' repub or Dem, who says he/she has not or will not read any bill should be voted out of office post hast.

50 BlueCanuck  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:57:52am

re: #41 Spartacus50

So you can beat them over their heads with what they put in the thing in the first place. Information is always valuable and can be used as a weapon to bludgeon your enemy. If they read this bill and understand what is in it, then they can fight for what it stands for.

51 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:58:23am

The American Revolution was against the idea of laws being passed that affect you by people you hadn't had a chance to vote on. Also, the colonial leaders tried to get redress through legitimate channels.

We voted these clowns in, we'll have to live with them until 2010, until we get to live with the next batch of clowns we vote in.

52 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:58:36am

re: #41 Spartacus50

No. That's wrong. Good ideas can come from bad sources. It's congress' job to take these things seriously and at least read them. Even when the Dems are behaving badly, by not listening to Republicans, that's no excuse for the Republicans to behave badly too.

53 srb1976  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:58:40am

Afternoon folks!
Got sent home from work for a long weekend (it looks like)...got home just in time to see that the inmates are out of the asylum again...

That moat that better half wants to dig is looking better all the time
/

54 Flyovercountry  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:59:28am

re: #32 gatorbait

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security —

GOT IT?

Did you get this from one of those idiotic Thomas Payne videos? You know the ones where we are supposed to agree with the moronic hate speach just because the guy is wearing a costume which looks like it came from the time period of the Revolutionary war.

Come back to reality and take off the tin foil hat.

55 zombie  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:59:51am

re: #31 Sharmuta

I don't think it's nuance. I think some of these folks talking about revolution are quite serious and literal. The Senator is likely not being as literal as a gun toting paulbot calling the President hitler, but it's dangerous rhetoric.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy (1917 - 1963), In a speech at the White House, 1962

"Resolved, that the women of this nation in 1876, have greater cause for discontent, rebellion and revolution than the men of 1776."
-- Susan B. Anthony (1820 - 1906)

56 Diamond Bullet  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:59:58am

Is Inofe advocating/condoning armed revolt, or diagnosing a condition? It's not clear to me from that article.

The good news is that the New England Patriots' forthcoming undefeated season and triumphant Super Bowl win will soon soothe our jangled nerves, and unite the nation in the wondrous glow of familial love and respect that has been absent lo these many months. I will say, however, that it's a good thing Tom Brady was able to immediately see a knee specialist rather than spend 18 months trying to book an MRI machine.

57 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:00:04am

re: #36 Charles

Get off my website.

Was what he posted a quote from somebody?

58 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:00:12am

re: #44 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Nope, Pitforks are the new big thing. I wouldn't expect someone outside the industry to know about the latest innovations. For a modest fee, I can give you and your organization an all day seminar on the latest in rabble and unruly mob technology.

So you're saying that if the rabble has the right equipment and training, its members won't be Dante-ed?

/tryin' to figger out the "pit" reference

59 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:00:20am

re: #49 VioletTiger

Not only should they read every bill, they should post a 'what this means to you' translation for the rest of this. It's their job, IMO.

Any any 'leader' repub or Dem, who says he/she has not or will not read any bill should be voted out of office post hast.

No need for the "IMO." It's their job. Period.

60 Charpete67  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:00:21am

re: #54 Flyovercountry

Did you get this from one of those idiotic Thomas Payne videos? You know the ones where we are supposed to agree with the moronic hate speach just because the guy is wearing a costume which looks like it came from the time period of the Revolutionary war.

Come back to reality and take off the tin foil hat.

it's the declaration of independence...

61 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:00:31am

re: #54 Flyovercountry

Did you get this from one of those idiotic Thomas Payne videos? You know the ones where we are supposed to agree with the moronic hate speach just because the guy is wearing a costume which looks like it came from the time period of the Revolutionary war.

Come back to reality and take off the tin foil hat.

It's the Declaration of Independence, no?

Or parts of it.

62 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:00:34am

re: #46 SFGoth

I don't care what we call them. Big spending republicans need to go- they're part of the problem, and to try to spin their records to fake that they suddenly care about massive government spending is dishonest as hell. People will believe it without looking into it and re-elect the very republicans who are part of the problem then wonder what went wrong!

63 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:00:41am

re: #60 Charpete67

it's the declaration of independence...

Oh.

64 Danny  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:00:51am

re: #41 Spartacus50

Actually, I fully support Inhofe (with the exception of any revolution talk). If the Health Bill is written by Democrats without any input from Republicans, why bother?

Because the constituents deserve a representative who can tell them why the legislation should not be enacted, lest they become known as "the party of "no." Oh wait...

65 srb1976  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:00:59am

re: #54 Flyovercountry

Did you get this from one of those idiotic Thomas Payne videos? You know the ones where we are supposed to agree with the moronic hate speach just because the guy is wearing a costume which looks like it came from the time period of the Revolutionary war.

Come back to reality and take off the tin foil hat.

Actually, in reality, the quote in question is from the declaration of independence...I agree about the tinfoil hat part...just sourcing the quote

66 H8tank  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:01:13am

Religious fanatic? I don't think so. Rev.Wright is a religious fanatic.

67 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:01:18am

re: #60 Charpete67

it's the declaration of independence...

No it's not. Some is.

68 avanti  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:01:23am

re: #9 pat

Obama's approvals slipped below 50% today.

I thought Rasmussen was the rights "go-to" poll ? Now that he's gained 6 points from his lows last week on Rasmussen, do we have a new favorite ? BTW, he is has been hovering around 50-53 for a number of weeks, and that is down from his early highs. Here's some interesting data on approval drops.

Gallup.

Even Reagan had a big drop in the first year. as did Clinton and Ford.

69 Gretchen  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:01:36am

I think it's time for a legal overthrow of any clown that comes up for reelection, and I think the revolution the senator was referring to wasn't a violent one.

As for not reading the bill, obviously every member of congress should read the bill. However, no good will ever come from any bill with 1,000 pages. That's just a rule of thumb, but I can't use that to defend this clown. If he said, I read it and it is too long and bad legislation then fine. However, the more people read this thing the worse it looks. Read the bill(s), and in this case vote against it.

70 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:01:41am

re: #57 Ward Cleaver

Was what he posted a quote from somebody?

The Declaration of Independence (way out of context)

71 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:01:42am

re: #48 Charles

Those of you who are trying to deny that Inhofe was talking about violent revolution should note that we've already had one reader who very definitely DID see it that way, and very much approved of it.

Does he feel that by putting the brakes on this POS bill, we put the brakes on whatever "revolution" may otherwise be coming?
Do you take the Senator's tone as incitement or as warning?

72 Spartacus50  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:02:13am

re: #52 NukeAtomrod

No. That's wrong. Good ideas can come from bad sources. It's congress' job to take these things seriously and at least read them. Even when the Dems are behaving badly, by not listening to Republicans, that's no excuse for the Republicans to behave badly too.

What if Inhofe simply believes the Health Care System simply don't need fixin'? He's got to read it anyway? What if he simply doesn't read it and says he did?

73 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:02:36am

re: #38 Killgore Trout

Go ahead and try to overthrow our democratically elected government if you want to. I'll cheer when I see our military and law enforcement kick your ass on the evening news.

Hear, hear!

74 Charles Johnson  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:02:44am

re: #60 Charpete67

it's the declaration of independence...

And it was posted here to support having a revolution in the US. I know exactly where the quote came from, and that makes it worse.

75 MJ  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:02:46am

re: #32 gatorbait

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security —

GOT IT?

Now, let's quote the rest of the passage:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world...

Key phrase:
absolute Despotism

76 Charpete67  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:03:02am

re: #67 unrealizedviewpoint

No it's not. Some is.

...taken from it...don't split hairs...

not the point though, the poster was using it to infer violent revolution was in order...that was the offense.

although, I did find it interesting how many people didn't recognize it.

77 Lazarus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:03:06am

Yeah, down-ding the Declaration of Independence. Nice. Who needs individual rights?

78 Randall Gross  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:03:22am

There's even light repetition of this theme from other R's, even Romney

79 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:03:27am

re: #66 H8tank

Religious fanatic? I don't think so. Rev.Wright is a religious fanatic.

Inhofe is a creationist, and iirc, has ties to more than a few theocratic organizations who would like to replace the Constitution with Biblical law.

80 Spartacus50  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:03:32am

re: #52 NukeAtomrod

No. That's wrong. Good ideas can come from bad sources. It's congress' job to take these things seriously and at least read them. Even when the Dems are behaving badly, by not listening to Republicans, that's no excuse for the Republicans to behave badly too.

A good idea from the Democrats? Ha! I challenge you to name one...

81 SFGoth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:03:50am

re: #62 Sharmuta

I don't care what we call them. Big spending republicans need to go- they're part of the problem, and to try to spin their records to fake that they suddenly care about massive government spending is dishonest as hell. People will believe it without looking into it and re-elect the very republicans who are part of the problem then wonder what went wrong!

I wonder who tend to be bigger spenders, Christian conservatives/Republicans, or atheist/agnostic conservatives/Republicans? Seems the former take the line, god/goddess/turtles gave me your money to spend.

82 Killgore Trout  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:03:57am

re: #41 Spartacus50


Actually, I fully support Inhofe (with the exception of any revolution talk). If the Health Bill is written by Democrats without any input from Republicans, why bother?

I think your attitude is pretty common which is why I don't pay much attention to right wing criticism of healthcare reform anymore. They're going to oppose everything anyways so there's not much need for me to consider their position.

83 Charles Johnson  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:03:58am

re: #71 haakondahl

Does he feel that by putting the brakes on this POS bill, we put the brakes on whatever "revolution" may otherwise be coming?
Do you take the Senator's tone as incitement or as warning?

Inhofe is one of the most extreme religious kooks in the Senate. I have no doubt at all that he was intending to incite, not to warn.

84 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:04:13am

re: #77 Lazarus

Funny- I thought it was the Constitution that established individual rights.

85 Kenneth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:04:15am

re: #36 Charles

Why is quoting The Declaration of Independence unacceptable?

86 debutaunt  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:04:27am

re: #40 LudwigVanQuixote

Forcing people to read doesn't mean they will understand.

87 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:04:33am

re: #40 LudwigVanQuixote

And just to continue that thought, imagine being a scientist who has to explain science to these fools. This also cuts across both parties and cuts both ways.

On the one hand, it prevents and hinders needed programs. On the other, it give you cases where funding is ear-marked for perpetual motion machines.

A great example of this was a NASA project based on a defunct Russian paper. The idea was that somehow spinning a disk of superconducting materials would counter-act gravity.

The congress critters lit up with that because the frauds interested in this were selling it as an American, real live flying saucer.

The problem with that is if you created a region of anti gravity - in the way the supporter claimed, you could hang a chain loop half in the region and half out of the region. The heavy side would fall down and pull the lighter side up - forever.

That would be a perpetual motion machine.

Don't ever bet against thermodynamics.

But try explaining that to the congress critters.

some 50 million was earmarked for the project.

That money could have launched a probe or done some actual science.

88 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:04:51am

re: #45 pre-Boomer Marine brat

*grin*
I love that post!

thanks!

89 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:05:19am

re: #77 Lazarus

Yeah, down-ding the Declaration of Independence. Nice. Who needs individual rights?

The context in which it was posted is the operative fact here.

The Obama Administration is not billeting stormtroopers in private homes, ... et cetera.

90 pat  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:05:21am

Obama at 49% approval.
[Link: hotair.com...]

91 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:05:23am

re: #77 Lazarus

Yeah, down-ding the Declaration of Independence. Nice. Who needs individual rights?

Arise and recognize the context Lazarus.

92 Kragar  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:05:28am

re: #58 pre-Boomer Marine brat

So you're saying that if the rabble has the right equipment and training, its members won't be Dante-ed?

/tryin' to figger out the "pit" reference

Trade secret my friend, plus the fact I'll never admit to a typo.

SHIT, DAMN DAMN

93 Charles Johnson  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:05:35am

re: #85 Kenneth

Why is quoting The Declaration of Independence unacceptable?

Good grief. Are you kidding? Do you really not understand the purpose behind posting that quote?

94 Gus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:05:41am

Side note.

Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma says he will vote against the healthcare reform bill before reading it. The Republican insisted: "I don't have to read it, or know what's in it. I'm going to oppose it anyways.”

Granted a nay vote is in our best interest. However, admitting that he didn't or won't read the bill is not something we do not want from our representatives -- that's part of their job.

95 CIA Reject  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:05:52am

re: #84 Sharmuta

Funny- I thought it was the Constitution that established individual rights.

No, the Constitution confirms that the government will not infringe upon individual rights.

The rights themselves are established and conferred by G*d.

96 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:06:11am

re: #52 NukeAtomrod

No. That's wrong. Good ideas can come from bad sources. It's congress' job to take these things seriously and at least read them. Even when the Dems are behaving badly, by not listening to Republicans, that's no excuse for the Republicans to behave badly too.

Nope. The ems are pushing a ridiculous piece of crap here. It's a nuclear reactor designed over a weekend, built by skateboard mechanics. No need to review this POS--there's no way it's a good system. It is simply not possible to do this MASSIVE OVERHAUL OF ONE SEVENTH OF THE WORLDS LARGEST ECONOMY IN LITERAL LIFE AND DEATH TERMS in the scant time we've given it. And the only reason we didn't already vote on the damned thing is the laudable obstruction of the opposition party.
If "First, Do No Harm" is a worthy dictate, then sometimes obstruction is the highest fulfillment of one's duty.

97 cronus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:06:19am

BBIAB

98 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:06:28am

And one really important note about the difference between moonbats calling for revolution and right wingers doing it. There has never been a moonbat SENATOR who spoke like this.

The issue is that the most extreme garbage is not mainstream in the GOP.

99 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:06:45am

re: #93 Charles

Good grief. Are you kidding? Do you really not understand the purpose behind posting that quote?

Willfully blind.

100 MJ  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:06:46am

re: #32 gatorbait

By the way, you'll note what Jefferson wrote:

..The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States...

He's referring to States, not individuals.

101 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:06:53am

re: #40 LudwigVanQuixote

Add to this they have to pass a test on their understanding of the legistlation before they get to vote on it.
If too few legislators pass the test, the bill goes back for revision. Say, 90% have to understand it, or the bill must be rewritten to be understandable.

102 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:06:57am

re: #85 Kenneth

Why is quoting The Declaration of Independence unacceptable?

I think it was the context in which the quote was put forward.

103 Spartacus50  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:06:59am

re: #82 Killgore Trout

I think your attitude is pretty common which is why I don't pay much attention to right wing criticism of healthcare reform anymore. They're going to oppose everything anyways so there's not much need for me to consider their position.

Exactly. Congress does best when it does nothing. Bring back gridlock

104 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:07:03am

re: #60 Charpete67

it's the declaration of independence...

No shit. You think you're the only fellow here who's familiar with such eldritch mysteries?

105 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:07:07am

re: #98 LudwigVanQuixote

And one really important note about the difference between moonbats calling for revolution and right wingers doing it. There has never been a moonbat SENATOR who spoke like this.

The issue is that the most extreme garbage is now mainstream in the GOP.

PIMF

106 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:07:33am

re: #101 Kosh's Shadow

Add to this they have to pass a test on their understanding of the legistlation before they get to vote on it.
If too few legislators pass the test, the bill goes back for revision. Say, 90% have to understand it, or the bill must be rewritten to be understandable.

And let me be the marine with the taser...

107 Randall Gross  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:07:52am

Quoting the declaration of independence in context of people talking about revolution here and now in America means you support overthrow of the Republic, the democracy we have, and everything else because we lost an election.

108 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:08:05am

re: #95 CIA Reject

No, the Constitution confirms that the government will not infringe upon individual rights.

The rights themselves are established and conferred by G*d.

Ok- we're getting very technical, and I'm not going to argue. However- it's not the DoI that should be cited, imo.

The DoI was a declaration of war. Our Founders knew that declaring our independence would mean bloodshed, and they did not enter into it lightly.

109 Flyovercountry  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:08:36am

We have to admit that there are morons on the right as well. I believe that the Senator from Oklahoma has pr oven that, (in case it was not previously pr oven true by Beck, Palin, Gellar, and a host of others.) Shrill alarmist rhetoric is not going to help the cause, whatever that cause is. The very real and intellectually valid points will get lost if everyone is laughing at your tin foil hat. My fellow conservatives, when we keep our arguments to actual facts, we win the debate. We lose on the basis of emotion.

110 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:08:37am

re: #98 LudwigVanQuixote

And one really important note about the difference between moonbats calling for revolution and right wingers doing it. There has never been a moonbat SENATOR who spoke like this.

The issue is that the most extreme garbage is not mainstream in the GOP.

Again with the "calling for". Where did Sen Inhofe "call for" revolution?
I lambasted NGU for his claim that Letterman "called for" statutory rape.

111 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:09:02am

The founders wrote the Declaration when they had no legal recourse to redress their wrongs.

We have legal recourse. We have a vote, right of petition, in some states right of initiative, and goodness knows we have shown we can show up at town halls and yell a bit.

People are paying attention, reading the bills that our congresspeople won't, exposing things they don't like, making noise, and getting results. I could do without the yelling, but this is how you impact your government.

112 BlackFedora  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:09:06am

It seems like in times when the opposition is in power... reason is sadly silent.

113 Lazarus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:09:08am

re: #84 Sharmuta

Funny- I thought it was the Constitution that established individual rights.

No. The Declaration of Independence recognizes that rights are proper to man. The Constitution doesn't establish rights, it delimits the powers of our government within the context of man's rights. No paper can give man rights, they are a requirement of his very existence as a man.

114 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:09:09am

re: #92 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Trade secret my friend, plus the fact I'll never admit to a typo.

SHIT, DAMN DAMN

Yes, of course.
I'll e-mail a glowing recommendation for the effectivity of your pitforks.

/gratuities gratefully accepted ... :D

115 SFGoth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:09:10am

re: #95 CIA Reject

No, the Constitution confirms that the government will not infringe upon individual rights.

The rights themselves are established and conferred by G*d.

They are? Did you actually ask Her? I recall that She outsourced the rights given to people on this planet to Her Turtle, and that Her Turtle subcontracted out to Dionysus, god of Fun.

116 Killgore Trout  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:09:12am

Ballot Box to Bullet Box?

Tea Party!

117 Charpete67  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:09:22am

re: #104 haakondahl

No shit. You think you're the only fellow here who's familiar with such eldritch mysteries?

huh?

118 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:09:34am

re: #86 debutaunt

Forcing people to read doesn't mean they will understand.

That's true. But it is a start. They should at least try to do their jobs.

119 scrubjay  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:10:03am

As long as the electoral process is functioning honestly I will opt for only voter and legislative revolution. I was in the Jarvis revolution.

120 pat  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:10:07am

re: #96 haakondahl

Nope. The ems are pushing a ridiculous piece of crap here. It's a nuclear reactor designed over a weekend, built by skateboard mechanics. No need to review this POS--there's no way it's a good system. It is simply not possible to do this MASSIVE OVERHAUL OF ONE SEVENTH OF THE WORLDS LARGEST ECONOMY IN LITERAL LIFE AND DEATH TERMS in the scant time we've given it. And the only reason we didn't already vote on the damned thing is the laudable obstruction of the opposition party.
If "First, Do No Harm" is a worthy dictate, then sometimes obstruction is the highest fulfillment of one's duty.

Pat Caddell has speculated that it is more than curious that a 1,250 page Bill with incredible detail was found on the shelf. No one in Congress professes to be the actual author. Likewise Cap and Trade. He suspects that these and other Bills in the wings are the product of far left special interest groups.

121 SFGoth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:10:11am

re: #113 Lazarus

No. The Declaration of Independence recognizes that rights are proper to man. The Constitution doesn't establish rights, it delimits the powers of our government within the context of man's rights. No paper can give man rights, they are a requirement of his very existence as a man.

That's rather circular. I have rights, therefore I am?

122 avanti  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:10:18am

re: #85 Kenneth

Why is quoting The Declaration of Independence unacceptable?

Quoting the right to a revolution just because you don't like the policies of the party legally elected is not appropriate. Even when the left was screaming about Bush when he had under 30 % support, it would be wrong, and even more so when it's a more typical 50% for this POTUS.

123 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:10:20am

re: #40 LudwigVanQuixote

My largest complaint about congress and the senate - and this goes across both parties - is this notion that somehow they do not need to read the legislation they vote on.

Excuse me?

Your job is to make, debate and pass or reject legislation. How can you do that if you don't read it?

Whenever I turn on CNN and see some congress critter speechifying, the first thing I notice are all of the empty seats. What exactly other than their jobs, is congress doing?

Now I can forgive not making it to every session to hear every speech.

However, not reading the bills themselves and somehow assuming that is OK? THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO!

It infuriates me. It is also a sign of how messed up America is as a culture of anti-intellectualism. The average American has no particular sense that reading long and complicated things is something one should do, so therefore actually sees little wrong with leaders (who are just like them) being just as lazy.

If I had my way, I would lock them in the Hill, and force them to read all legislation and then force them to stay there until legislation was passed or shot down.

Because of their laziness, this would make speechifying shorter. Bills would have less crap as riders and last but not least, they would actually do their jobs.

I would also post very large and humorless marines at the doors of the chambers. The marines would taze any congress-critter attempting to escape his or her duty. The marines would be let the critters out for play time after they finished their chores.

One hundred percent agree with you. Now back to our regularly schedule debate.

124 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:10:35am

All these people making noises about a revolution should just shut the hell up already. I haven't seen any clues that 0bama plans any kind of socialist takeover, and I've had enough of Glenn Beck and his insane czarophobia. The kooks are really coming out of the woodwork.

125 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:10:42am

re: #85 Kenneth

Why is quoting The Declaration of Independence unacceptable?

When throwing a hissy-fit at our elected government.

126 Lazarus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:10:43am

re: #89 pre-Boomer Marine brat

The context in which it was posted is the operative fact here.

The Obama Administration is not billeting stormtroopers in private homes, ... et cetera.


They don't have to to be obliterating rights in this country. They are doing it through legislation and the enthusiastic compliance of most Americans.

127 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:10:51am

re: #113 Lazarus

The DoI was a list of grievances with the King that justified our revolution and you want to cite it as giving people individual rights? I think that's nuts.

128 Wendya  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:11:00am

re: #5 Baier

This is the kind of reasonable debate our country needs to solve a serious issue/
What kind of revolution does this kook envision? What ever happened to voting?

I imagine the kind of revolution we had in 1994.

129 Randall Gross  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:11:38am

Revolution talk feeds the loony abolish the fed, don't pay taxes, be a Freeman contingent. It's everything the John Birchers, paleocons, neoconfederates, and dominionist crowd wants. They want chaos and disaffection with all parties and it's why they've steadily pissed bile on all things not extreme right wing the past four years.

130 sillyquiet  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:11:39am

I wish that the Democrats had a blogger that demanded intellectual honesty and ingenuousness from his or her party as rigorously as you do, Charles. I might respect liberal bloggers more. Even the best of them, like most Republican bloggers, turn a blind eye to their party's idiocies.
Thanks, and keep it up.

131 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:11:48am

re: #69 Gretchen

I think it's time for a legal overthrow of any clown that comes up for reelection, and I think the revolution the senator was referring to wasn't a violent one.

As for not reading the bill, obviously every member of congress should read the bill. However, no good will ever come from any bill with 1,000 pages. That's just a rule of thumb, but I can't use that to defend this clown. If he said, I read it and it is too long and bad legislation then fine. However, the more people read this thing the worse it looks. Read the bill(s), and in this case vote against it.

The problem is that you need people to run against the clowns in office.
And for that, you need people who can take the time (and hit on their wallet) to run, and who don't mind their private lives (real and imaginary) splashed across the front pages and on the news shows.
Unless they're Democrats, that is; the MSM doesn't go after them.

132 CIA Reject  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:11:50am

re: #108 Sharmuta

Ok- we're getting very technical, and I'm not going to argue. However- it's not the DoI that should be cited, imo.

The DoI was a declaration of war. Our Founders knew that declaring our independence would mean bloodshed, and they did not enter into it lightly.

Agreed on the DoI, but I did not mean to split hairs with my remarks.

It is a too common mis-conception that government is the grantor rather than the guardian of individual rights.

Our rights come from G*d, not the government- I think that is a very important thing to keep in mind.

133 Lazarus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:11:52am

re: #121 SFGoth

That's rather circular. I have rights, therefore I am?


No. You are a man, a being whose life depends on the free exercise of his own mind, therefore you have rights. Rights are the freedom to act on your own judgment.

134 SFGoth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:11:58am

re: #120 pat

Pat Caddell has speculated that it is more than curious that a 1,250 page Bill with incredible detail was found on the shelf. No one in Congress professes to be the actual author. Likewise Cap and Trade. He suspects that these and other Bills in the wings are the product of far left special interest groups.

Cha-Ching! You don't think that when we eventually invade Canada it'll be an off-the-cuff plan? Heck no; we've got plans for Canada, New Zealand, etc., that we've been sitting on for decades. I like Caddell a whole lot. An honest lib with a cantankerous streak.

135 Killgore Trout  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:12:17am
“I don’t have to read it, or know what’s in it. I’m going to oppose it anyways,” he said.

This quote also illustrates why there's no effort at bipartisan reform. It's just not realistic to negotiate with people who are never going to vote for any reform anyways. It would be a waste of time.

136 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:12:30am

re: #130 sillyquiet

I wish that the Democrats had a blogger that demanded intellectual honesty and ingenuousness from his or her party as rigorously as you do, Charles. I might respect liberal bloggers more. Even the best of them, like most Republican bloggers, turn a blind eye to their party's idiocies.
Thanks, and keep it up.

John Stewart fills that role more than you might imagine.

137 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:12:30am

re: #129 Thanos

Revolution talk feeds the loony abolish the fed, don't pay taxes, be a Freeman contingent. It's everything the John Birchers, paleocons, neoconfederates, and dominionist crowd wants. They want chaos and disaffection with all parties and it's why they've steadily pissed bile on all things not extreme right wing the past four years.

That's straight out of Rules for Radicals, btw.

138 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:12:34am

re: #56 Diamond Bullet

Is Inofe advocating/condoning armed revolt, or diagnosing a condition? It's not clear to me from that article.

Diagnosing.

139 srb1976  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:12:39am

re: #121 SFGoth

That's rather circular. I have rights, therefore I am?

My take on it has always been that since you exist, you have rights...your rights do not flow from the government, the governments power flows from the people it governs...
"we hold these truths to be self-evident"
Not sure how correct that is, but it's my understanding anyway

140 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:12:51am

re: #135 Killgore Trout

This quote also illustrates why there's no effort at bipartisan reform. It's just not realistic to negotiate with people who are never going to vote for any reform anyways. It would be a waste of time.

TORT REFORM.

141 Killgore Trout  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:12:54am

re: #137 Sharmuta

Good point.

142 Kenneth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:13:14am

re: #93 Charles

I don't really know what that poster's intentions were, but the assumption that it was a justification for revolution today seems likely. That aside, I am interested to know what are the unspoken guidelines for posting quotations from the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution or any other formative document. It does strike me as a dangerous gray area to ban people on the basis of such a quote, even one taken out of context and misapplied. The vigorous debate he would get from other LGFers seems to me a better course. In all likelihood, he would have posted something else overtly bannable anyway.

143 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:13:26am

re: #57 Ward Cleaver

Was what he posted a quote from somebody?

It's the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

I think Charles whacked him for using it in an inappropriate context to promote an unnecessary violent revolution.

144 SFGoth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:13:37am

re: #133 Lazarus

No. You are a man, a being whose life depends on the free exercise of his own mind, therefore you have rights. Rights are the freedom to act on your own judgment.

I don't recall studying about the rights men had in Campuchea. Let's drop the flowery poetry -- the rights stem from those with the capacity of enforcing them.

145 Ojoe  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:13:43am

Time for a center party, the country needs one badly.

146 Killgore Trout  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:13:49am

re: #140 Ben Hur

TORT REFORM.

Why take the effort to try to put it in the bill to appease Republicans who aren't going to vote for the bill anyways?

147 MJ  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:13:58am

By the way, Jefferson listed certain conditions as to why the States sought their Independence. Again, Jefferson is writing about States, not individuals:

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands...

148 CIA Reject  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:14:09am

re: #115 SFGoth

They are? Did you actually ask Her? I recall that She outsourced the rights given to people on this planet to Her Turtle, and that Her Turtle subcontracted out to Dionysus, god of Fun.

If not from G*d, then from whom?

The President?

The Congress?

The Supreme Court?

The Department of Motor Vehicles?

You?

Who?

149 MJ  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:14:23am
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

150 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:14:36am

re: #146 Killgore Trout

Why take the effort to try to put it in the bill to appease Republicans who aren't going to vote for the bill anyways?

They might if TORT Reform was a central part of it, I suppose.

151 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:14:43am

re: #130 sillyquiet

I wish that the Democrats had a blogger that demanded intellectual honesty and ingenuousness from his or her party as rigorously as you do, Charles. I might respect liberal bloggers more. Even the best of them, like most Republican bloggers, turn a blind eye to their party's idiocies.
Thanks, and keep it up.

How long do you think that dem blogger be read by the left? He'd need convert.

152 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:14:43am

re: #49 VioletTiger

Not only should they read every bill, they should post a 'what this means to you' translation for the rest of this. It's their job, IMO.

Any any 'leader' repub or Dem, who says he/she has not or will not read any bill should be voted out of office post hast.

Well, I would honestly be up for impeachment on the grounds of dereliction of duty.

153 MrSilverDragon  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:15:06am

re: #2 CIA Reject

What's a circus without at least one clown?

Less scary.

154 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:15:10am

re: #128 Wendya

I imagine the kind of revolution we had in 1994.

Exactly. The Democrats are overreaching again, just like they did in 1993 (only they've spent a hell of a lot more money doing it this time), and they'll get slapped down in the mid-term elections. Imagine the Dems losing the House, and 0bama's grand plans getting the heave-ho.

155 Kragar  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:15:23am

ROFLMA here. Who says the UN doesn't have a sense of humor?

UN's Ban: Palestinians must unite for peace talks to restart

Palestinian factions must reconcile in order for peace negotiations to restart, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was quoted as saying Friday.

Speaking at a Vienna press conference, the secretary-general said, "It will be crucially important that the Palestinian peoples are united among themselves and should be able to carry on these negotiations."

Ban voiced support for the Saudi-backed Arab peace initiative, but added, "at the same time we also value ... bilateral negotiations between Israel and Palestinian authorities."

156 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:15:41am

re: #96 haakondahl

Nope. The ems are pushing a ridiculous piece of crap here. It's a nuclear reactor designed over a weekend, built by skateboard mechanics. No need to review this POS--there's no way it's a good system. It is simply not possible to do this MASSIVE OVERHAUL OF ONE SEVENTH OF THE WORLDS LARGEST ECONOMY IN LITERAL LIFE AND DEATH TERMS in the scant time we've given it. And the only reason we didn't already vote on the damned thing is the laudable obstruction of the opposition party.
If "First, Do No Harm" is a worthy dictate, then sometimes obstruction is the highest fulfillment of one's duty.

Actually, I think the health care bill was very carefully crafted to give the government control through the to-be-defined committees, but without saying what they really want to do clearly.
And to be so long and obtuse that it really doesn't get read, and Democrat legislators just vote as their leaders tell them to.

Unfortunately for them, some people did their jobs, and most citizens have a distrust of the government.

157 CIA Reject  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:15:50am

re: #153 MrSilverDragon

Less scary.

I guess it does depend on the clown in question...

158 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:15:52am

re: #126 Lazarus

They don't have to to be obliterating rights in this country. They are doing it through legislation and the enthusiastic compliance of most Americans.

(just to to make a technical point) ... if most Americans are enthusiastically complying, then it's fitting that it's happening. That's the way our system works.

/now ask if I agree with what's happening

159 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:15:59am

re: #146 Killgore Trout

Why take the effort to try to put it in the bill to appease Republicans who aren't going to vote for the bill anyways?

To appease republicans? How about cause it's the thing to do?

160 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:16:12am

re: #117 Charpete67

huh?

dictionary.com - try it, you might learn something.

161 jcm  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:16:30am

Please note the DoI quote above also includes the phrase, light and transitory. Hold that thought and go on and read the list of grievances.

Compare our current situation to the list of grievances.

It is the list of grievances that sets the standard.

Go through the list, ask yourselves if those hold true now. While a few might, the key ones regarding Representative government, and redress of those grievance do not. We still have the ballot box, we still have the courts, we still have the power to change the government in '10.

There is no justification for invoking revolution other than at the ballot box in '10.

162 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:16:42am

re: #132 CIA Reject

Agreed on the DoI, but I did not mean to split hairs with my remarks.

It is a too common mis-conception that government is the grantor rather than the guardian of individual rights.

Our rights come from G*d, not the government- I think that is a very important thing to keep in mind.

Yes- I know. Totally agree. But if we're going to point to a founding document that supports individual rights, I would select the Constitution over the DoI. It's all fine and good to say my rights are not granted from the government but from a high power, but the DoI does nothing to protect them. The DoI was not intended to do anything other than justify our independence from tyranny. I think anyone who thinks the United States is currently experiencing tyranny has no idea what the hell they're talking about.

163 Charpete67  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:16:55am

re: #160 Cato the Elder

dictionary.com - try it, you might learn something.

no...I got it...I'm wondering why such an ass...

164 Kragar  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:16:58am

re: #157 CIA Reject

I guess it does depend on the clown in question...

Clowns are evil.

165 Charles Johnson  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:17:11am

re: #138 haakondahl

Diagnosing.

It doesn't matter what Inhofe's intent was. When elected officials use this kind of extreme rhetoric, it's appalling and irresponsible.

166 Ojoe  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:17:16am

... It does say alter or abolish ...

I vote alter at the moment.

167 sillyquiet  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:17:21am

re: #151 unrealizedviewpoint

How long do you think that dem blogger be read by the left? He'd need convert.

From all the melt-downs brought on by the evolution, Kennedy, etc, threads, our party can't claim too many more principled people than can the Democrats. That's why I am thankful for Charles.

168 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:17:35am

re: #163 Charpete67

no...I got it...I'm wondering why such an ass...

are you new?

169 vxbush  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:17:39am

re: #120 pat

Pat Caddell has speculated that it is more than curious that a 1,250 page Bill with incredible detail was found on the shelf. No one in Congress professes to be the actual author. Likewise Cap and Trade. He suspects that these and other Bills in the wings are the product of far left special interest groups.

That is almost certainly guaranteed. Most members of Congress don't have the time to write pages and pages of bills, but each special interest group will pre-write legislation for senators who are interested.

170 Charles Johnson  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:18:03am

re: #142 Kenneth

I don't really know what that poster's intentions were, but the assumption that it was a justification for revolution today seems likely. That aside, I am interested to know what are the unspoken guidelines for posting quotations from the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution or any other formative document. It does strike me as a dangerous gray area to ban people on the basis of such a quote, even one taken out of context and misapplied. The vigorous debate he would get from other LGFers seems to me a better course. In all likelihood, he would have posted something else overtly bannable anyway.

There are no guidelines for posting quotes from the Declaration of Independence. There don't need to be any guidelines.

The concept is simple; why are you trying to complicate it? If you post a quote like that for the specific purpose of promoting the idea of revolution, you're going to lose your LGF account. I won't put up with that crap at my site.

171 CIA Reject  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:18:17am

re: #162 Sharmuta

Yes- I know. Totally agree. But if we're going to point to a founding document that supports individual rights, I would select the Constitution over the DoI. It's all fine and good to say my rights are not granted from the government but from a high power, but the DoI does nothing to protect them. The DoI was not intended to do anything other than justify our independence from tyranny. I think anyone who thinks the United States is currently experiencing tyranny has no idea what the hell they're talking about.

Totally agree.

172 Killgore Trout  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:18:21am

re: #150 Ben Hur

They might if TORT Reform was a central part of it, I suppose.

Nope. Infohoe sez...

“I don’t have to read it, or know what’s in it. I’m going to oppose it anyways,” he said.


It doesn't make any difference what's in the bill. Republicans are going to oppose it even if it's the greatest bill ever. They don't care what's in the bill. They don't care if it's good or bad. They don't have the best interest of the country in mind. They are going to oppose it no matter what.

173 SFGoth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:18:25am

re: #148 CIA Reject

If not from G*d, then from whom?

The President?

The Congress?

The Supreme Court?

The Department of Motor Vehicles?

You?

Who?

I'm fairly certain that the things on your list above actually exist, whether I like them or not. OTOH, maybe rights come from [insert preferred hypothetical mystical thing here]. BTW, ask a Muslim and he'll tell you rights (to the extent Islam recognizes them) come from All*h, not G*D. A Buddhist would say... (There's a punchline in here somewhere.) As for me, the right to drink comes from Dionysus, the right to sunshine comes from Apollo, the right to swim in the ocean comes from Poseidon... Don't tell a Jew, who lost family in the Holocaust, that rights come from your god.

174 Mad Al-Jaffee  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:19:13am

OT: vomit-inducing quote of the day, from DU:

"A tip of the hat" to Scottish Justice Minister McAskill, and the Scots, who did not let another person's heinous act terrorize them into giving up their own deeply held values of compassion and humanity.

If only we American's had been that strong, and that true to our professed "American values" - of freedom and adherance to the rule of law - after 9/11.

175 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:19:32am

re: #163 Charpete67

no...I got it...I'm wondering why such an ass...

Haakondahl and I share one thing in common, at least: we both love using words as weapons.

176 Kenneth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:19:42am

re: #102 pre-Boomer Marine brat

re: #122 avanti

re: #125 haakondahl

re: #107 Thanos

I agree with all of you in your arguments. It is my opinion arguments are a better response. the devil can cite scripture for his purpose.

177 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:19:46am

re: #83 Charles

Inhofe is one of the most extreme religious kooks in the Senate. I have no doubt at all that he was intending to incite, not to warn.

Gotta disagree with you on this one. In the article, he tries to pull people back from that precipice, and indicates that he will of course continue to work in Washington to represent the interest of his constituents. These are not the hallmarks of a break with the system.
I don't often agree with Senator Inhofe, but in this case, I'm surprised at your wilingness to accept the worst possible interpretation of a politician's words. If the same approach toward the President were welcome here, this place would been crawling with the Paulians/Birchers/Whatever.

178 CIA Reject  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:19:49am

re: #173 SFGoth

I'm fairly certain that the things on your list above actually exist, whether I like them or not. OTOH, maybe rights come from [insert preferred hypothetical mystical thing here]. BTW, ask a Muslim and he'll tell you rights (to the extent Islam recognizes them) come from All*h, not G*D. A Buddhist would say... (There's a punchline in here somewhere.) As for me, the right to drink comes from Dionysus, the right to sunshine comes from Apollo, the right to swim in the ocean comes from Poseidon... Don't tell a Jew, who lost family in the Holocaust, that rights come from your god.

And who, pray tell, is my G*d.

179 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:19:56am

re: #172 Killgore Trout

It doesn't make any difference what's in the bill. Republicans are going to oppose it even if it's the greatest bill ever. They don't care what's in the bill. They don't care if it's good or bad. They don't have the best interest of the country in mind. They are going to oppose it no matter what.

You don't think Inhofe knows whether or not there's TORT reform in the bill?

And why do the Dems need the Republicans to pass the bill?

180 Walter L. Newton  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:20:23am

re: #172 Killgore Trout

It doesn't make any difference what's in the bill. Republicans are going to oppose it even if it's the greatest bill ever. They don't care what's in the bill. They don't care if it's good or bad. They don't have the best interest of the country in mind. They are going to oppose it no matter what.

Well, now we have politicians on BOTH side refusing to read the bill.
In that case, I think this bill should be recalled all together.

181 srb1976  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:20:30am

re: #178 CIA Reject

And who, pray tell, is my G*d.

Pretty much whoever you say it is...

182 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:20:43am

re: #178 CIA Reject

And who, pray tell, is my G*d.

ZOD!!

183 zombie  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:20:44am

re: #147 MJ

By the way, Jefferson listed certain conditions as to why the States sought their Independence. Again, Jefferson is writing about States, not individuals:

Interesting. Jefferson included these as rationales for a revolution again the British King:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:"

"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:"

Some of that does sound a little familiar!

184 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:20:45am

re: #167 sillyquiet

From all the melt-downs brought on by the evolution, Kennedy, etc, threads, our party can't claim too many more principled people than can the Democrats. That's why I am thankful for Charles.

I could possibly tell you what I think of Dem principles, but I really can't.
/

185 laZardo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:20:51am

It's moments like these that keep convincing me that conservatives really have done nothing good for the United States in its 200+ year history.

/also, good evening.

186 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:21:16am

re: #155 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

ROFLMA here. Who says the UN doesn't have a sense of humor?

UN's Ban: Palestinians must unite for peace talks to restart

Actually, I like that idea. It will keep a disastrous "peace" plan from being forced on Israel, because Hamas and Fatah will have to get together first, and that won't happen until one side has largely annihilated the other, or they both agree on destroying Israel, in which case the "peace" talks will be obviously pointless. (Unlike now, when people believe Fatah's pretense that they do want peace with Israel, but won't recognize Israel's right to exist.)

187 alegrias  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:21:18am

The bill isn't bipartisan and no Republicans were consulted (except for 3) said Sen. John McCain yesterday.

The bill doesn't contain any TORT REFORM because Dems didn't want to take on trial lawyers, said Dr. Howard Dean. ( 3 days ago at the Fairfax, VA town hall with antisemite Rep. Jim Moran.)

The bill doesn't require opening up the health insurance market monopoly that keeps insurance costs high.

The bill doesn't give individuals the right to buy their choice of insurance & get the tax deduction which only employers can take.

The bill will wipe out Health Savings Accounts for private individuals.

The bill is a crap sandwich for anyone truly interested in empowering Americans to lower their medical expenses, increase access & motivate bright people to study & go into healthcare.

188 tfc3rid  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:21:25am

The Obama Administration advocated revolution by running on 'fundamentally transforming America'... Of course, their idea of transforming America is to spread the wealth, make the American people reliant on big government to help solve their problems and turn people against big business and 'evil' of profit-taking. The sad part here is that they had a willing accomplice in George W. Bush to make it come about.

Of course, they did not bank on the people finally waking up.

189 SFGoth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:21:37am

re: #178 CIA Reject

And who, pray tell, is my G*d.

That's up to you. [shrug] My god is a beautiful 15# tabby. It's kittens, all the way down.

190 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:21:47am

re: #174 Mad Al-Jaffee

OT: vomit-inducing quote of the day, from DU:

Insane. Actually, I think the whole "He's dying from cancer" thing was BS. I think it's all about oil, the same thing the DUmmies screamed about while W was in office. Talk about hypocrisy.

191 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:21:50am

re: #185 laZardo

It's moments like these that keep convincing me that conservatives really have done nothing good for the United States in its 200+ year history.

/also, good evening.

It was a conservative who brought down the Berlin Wall.

192 MrSilverDragon  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:21:51am

re: #182 Ben Hur

ZOD!!

Kneel before him!

193 Gus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:22:08am

re: #172 Killgore Trout

It doesn't make any difference what's in the bill. Republicans are going to oppose it even if it's the greatest bill ever. They don't care what's in the bill. They don't care if it's good or bad. They don't have the best interest of the country in mind. They are going to oppose it no matter what.

To amend a bill I think our congressmen would have to at least make an effort to read the legislation. I was just thinking that the reverse could be true: supporting a bill without reading it (which I imagine is something that is done frequently in congress).

How can they re-construct or de-construct legislation without reading? It's as if though an architect wanted to re-model a home without consideration to the existing structure and floor plan.

194 Wendya  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:22:25am

Let us also remember Obama's election was described as a "revolution" by many on the left.

195 ShanghaiEd  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:22:31am

re: #58 pre-Boomer Marine brat

So you're saying that if the rabble has the right equipment and training, its members won't be Dante-ed?

/tryin' to figger out the "pit" reference

I'm guessing a "pit-fork" is used for jabbing people in that very tender place under their arms. The jabbees have to cooperate by raising their arms, though, so it's not as foolproof as a pitchfork.

Just a guess. :)

196 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:22:50am

re: #146 Killgore Trout

Why take the effort to try to put it in the bill to appease Republicans who aren't going to vote for the bill anyways?

Why not craft a plan that the public wants? You'd get Republican votes then!

197 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:23:00am

re: #190 Ward Cleaver

Insane. Actually, I think the whole "He's dying from cancer" thing was BS. I think it's all about oil, the same thing the DUmmies screamed about while W was in office. Talk about hypocrisy.

The Scots and Brits are disgusted by their own leaders because of this incident.

But the 12 yr old at DU knows what's better for them.

198 Wendya  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:23:02am

re: #172 Killgore Trout

It doesn't make any difference what's in the bill. Republicans are going to oppose it even if it's the greatest bill ever. They don't care what's in the bill. They don't care if it's good or bad. They don't have the best interest of the country in mind. They are going to oppose it no matter what.

Right, because nationalized health care is just sooo compatible with conservatism.

199 Ojoe  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:23:07am

re: #180 Walter L. Newton

Well, now we have politicians on BOTH side refusing to read the bill.
In that case, I think this bill should be recalled all together.

along with all the incumbents.

The D and R parties have had the government between them for a long time. It looks like, considered together, they cannot govern; the country is not on an even keel. I give them "FAIL" as a group.

200 Charles Johnson  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:23:07am

re: #177 haakondahl

Gotta disagree with you on this one. In the article, he tries to pull people back from that precipice, and indicates that he will of course continue to work in Washington to represent the interest of his constituents. These are not the hallmarks of a break with the system.

How is it "pulling people back from the precipice" to announce that he isn't even going to read the bill? And then announce that the US is on the verge of a revolution?

Sorry - you're trying to put a charitable interpretation on this story that it simply doesn't deserve.

201 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:23:20am

re: #135 Killgore Trout

This quote also illustrates why there's no effort at bipartisan reform. It's just not realistic to negotiate with people who are never going to vote for any reform anyways. It would be a waste of time.

You mean like Tort reform? Which Republicans have been seeking for a long time? And which would do more to preserve solvency in medical care than any other single measure? And nary a word of which is in this bill? Gee, KT, what's to negotiate? We've already been told to screw ourselves, and now we're in trouble for not getting it done fast enough!
No, screw this bill, and the whiplash process it came from. Why is it that no Representative can answer the question "Who wrote this bill?"

202 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:24:04am

re: #195 ShanghaiEd

I'm guessing a "pit-fork" is used for jabbing people in that very tender place under their arms. The jabbees have to cooperate by raising their arms, though, so it's not as foolproof as a pitchfork.

Just a guess. :)

Actually, a pit-fork is for barbecue pits. It's gonna be a troll roast all the way, bringout your sauce!

203 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:24:09am

After reviewing some of these posts, how about we get really clear here.

There is a senator of the United States of America whose present speech is just this side of sedition. Rather than quelling the fears that his party's propaganda have engendered in the nut roots, he is instead legitimatizing insurrection - and for what? Your rights? Over the idea of health insurance? Did the colonies see such grievance as to revolt against the idea of paying for national healthcare? Please.

This is an engineered hysteria that can only lead to tragedy for our nation.
There is no excuse - yet I see mealy mouthed excuse after mealy mouthed excuse for it. I see the same pedantic word games that try to dodge the real issue.

Saying that he is not calling for revolution is like saying that Jihad means a peaceful inner struggle. You have learned all to well from those you despise.

And all of you who defend it are the same hypocrites, who think that the government can be trusted to torture people. You are all the ones who think it is OK for the government to spy on you. Such a love of liberty here from such patriots!

It is the same. It is all the same.

Now let's be really real. A SENATOR who calls for insurrection or even breathes of it needs to be impeached.

204 Gus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:24:31am

re: #201 haakondahl

You mean like Tort reform? Which Republicans have been seeking for a long time? And which would do more to preserve solvency in medical care than any other single measure? And nary a word of which is in this bill? Gee, KT, what's to negotiate? We've already been told to screw ourselves, and now we're in trouble for not getting it done fast enough!
No, screw this bill, and the whiplash process it came from. Why is it that no Representative can answer the question "Who wrote this bill?"

What's the congressional record regarding tort reform when Republicans held the majority?

205 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:24:42am

re: #194 Wendya

Let us also remember Obama's election was described as a "revolution" by many on the left.

Yes, but there's a difference between "Revolución" and "Revolution."

206 laZardo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:24:48am

re: #191 Sharmuta

And supported some very nasty people on the other hand, one of whom essentially institutionalized nepotism in my country.

That and Reaganomics wasn't exactly fiscal conservatism...

207 alegrias  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:24:59am

re: #139 srb1976

My take on it has always been that since you exist, you have rights...your rights do not flow from the government, the governments power flows from the people it governs...
"we hold these truths to be self-evident"
Not sure how correct that is, but it's my understanding anyway

* * * *

The US Declaration of Independence of 1776 says in paragraph 2, "We hold these truths to be self evident... that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...

208 Mad Al-Jaffee  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:25:04am

re: #195 ShanghaiEd

I'm guessing a "pit-fork" is used for jabbing people in that very tender place under their arms. The jabbees have to cooperate by raising their arms, though, so it's not as foolproof as a pitchfork.

Just a guess. :)

No, a pit fork is what you use to eat pit beef.

209 laZardo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:25:26am

re: #201 haakondahl

You mean like Tort reform? Which Republicans have been seeking for a long time? And which would do more to preserve solvency in medical care than any other single measure? And nary a word of which is in this bill? Gee, KT, what's to negotiate? We've already been told to screw ourselves, and now we're in trouble for not getting it done fast enough!
No, screw this bill, and the whiplash process it came from. Why is it that no Representative can answer the question "Who wrote this bill?"

My question on tort reform is what will stop the insurance companies from turning up the heat even more on patients without such regulations to stop them?

210 calcajun  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:25:43am

re: #32 gatorbait

The operative language so many miss is:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; .

There is little that one administration can do that cannot be undone in subsequent administrations. The reason for the strong reaction to the health care plan is that this cannot be undone so easily. But, to call for a revolt is silly. What is happening is the electorate is letting their public servants know how they feel and what will happen to them if they do not heed the warnings--namely that they will be voted out next time round.

Any calls, as I have said before, for any sort of armed insurrection, are acts of sheer folly- if not stupidity.

211 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:25:58am
It doesn't make any difference what's in the bill. Republicans are going to oppose it even if it's the greatest bill ever.

It doesn't make any difference what's in the Social Security Reform bill. Democrats are going to oppose it even if it's the greatest bill ever.

Bizarro World.

212 wrenchwench  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:26:00am
“I don’t have to read it, or know what’s in it. I’m going to oppose it anyways,” he said.

Sheesh, and I thought it was bad to post a comment without reading the link! I didn't realize to what levels that sort of incompetence could be taken!

213 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:26:11am

re: #188 tfc3rid

The Obama Administration advocated revolution by running on 'fundamentally transforming America'... Of course, their idea of transforming America is to spread the wealth, make the American people reliant on big government to help solve their problems and turn people against big business and 'evil' of profit-taking. The sad part here is that they had a willing accomplice in George W. Bush to make it come about.

Of course, they did not bank on the people finally waking up.

Well, people were so hypnotized during the campaign, why would they expect them to wake up?

Now, if there only the Republican candidate had actually run...

214 Digital Display  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:26:19am

re: #148 CIA Reject

If not from G*d, then from whom?

The President?

The Congress?

The Supreme Court?

The Department of Motor Vehicles?

You?

Who?


Hi CIA.. Maybe I'm reading this wrong..(surprise) I thought our rights came from the Bill of Rights.

215 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:26:24am

BBL

216 Wendya  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:26:35am

re: #203 LudwigVanQuixote

There is a senator of the United States of America whose present speech is just this side of sedition.

You are allowing your emotions to dictate his intent.

217 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:26:46am

re: #185 laZardo

It's moments like these that keep convincing me that conservatives really have done nothing good for the United States in its 200+ year history.

/also, good evening.

Except ending slavery, defeating communism in the U.S.S.R., and rebuilding the economy and preventing multiple terrorist attacks after 9/11.

218 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:27:16am

re: #209 laZardo

My question on tort reform is what will stop the insurance companies from turning up the heat even more on patients without such regulations to stop them?

I'm not sure I follow you. I always thought that tort reform was about reigning in malpractice awards.

219 Bagua  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:27:29am

A Senator musing about us being near "a revolution in this country" is irresponsible.

220 lawhawk  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:27:43am

Inhofe is simply doing what his fellow Democrats are doing - going to vote regardless of what is put before them. I don't expect Democrats to read the bill any more than GOPers, even though there's plenty in there to oppose. Inhofe gives Democrats ammunition to rail against the GOP claiming that they're opposing legislation they haven't bothered to read (even though as I just pointed out, Democrats can't be bothered to read it either).

This is politics as usual, and it is sickening that voters continue to put up with this crap.

Hysterical rhetoric that passes as substantive criticism of important legislation? That's great Sen. Inhofe. Just brilliant. I can't wait to see your next act as part of a shrinking minority in the Senate unless you and your fellow GOPers get their acts together and start doing more.

221 CIA Reject  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:27:44am

re: #181 srb1976

re: #182 Ben Hur

re: #189 SFGoth

Hmm- I think that in a left-handed way all of us are in agreement: whoever G*d may be He (or She) is Someone outside of ourselves.

And with that my lunch hour is over and I have to get back to work.

/Later all...

222 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:28:07am

re: #218 EmmmieG

I'm not sure I follow you. I always thought that tort reform was about reigning in malpractice awards.

Those two words get me every time. Reining in.

223 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:28:12am

re: #202 EmmmieG

Actually, a pit-fork is for barbecue pits. It's gonna be a troll roast all the way, bringout your sauce!

I like this kind (Sweet Baby Ray's). Was introduced to it while visiting Illinois.

224 alegrias  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:28:30am

re: #183 zombie

Interesting. Jefferson included these as rationales for a revolution again the British King:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:"

"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:"
* * * *
Thank you for researching this historic reminder about what distinguishes US Citizenship from all the others.

PS, yesterday The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation sent me a pocket copy of the US Declaration of Independence & the Constitution, which I enjoyed reading last night by the pool. Good stuff!


Some of that does sound a little familiar!

225 srb1976  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:28:30am

re: #214 HoosierHoops

Hi CIA.. Maybe I'm reading this wrong..(surprise) I thought our rights came from the Bill of Rights.

Actually, the bill of rights exists to limit government, it doesn't give you rights, it protects your rights from the people in charge

226 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:28:36am

re: #205 Ben Hur

Yes, but there's a difference between "Revolución" and "Revolution."

Cool t-shirts?

227 Randall Gross  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:28:55am

re: #217 NukeAtomrod

Except ending slavery, defeating communism in the U.S.S.R., and rebuilding the economy and preventing multiple terrorist attacks after 9/11.

Don't forget the Civil Rights act, More Republicans voted for it than Dems, and Martin Luther King was a Republican. Since that time of course the party seems to have been taken over by those self same Neoconfederate democrat populists.

228 Ojoe  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:29:05am

Modern Whig Party

An alternative to this madness.

229 SFGoth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:29:06am

re: #214 HoosierHoops

Hi CIA.. Maybe I'm reading this wrong..(surprise) I thought our rights came from the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights limits the Federal Government. I think our rights come from an "enlightened" understanding that a free society is better than any other one. Limited government preserves that understanding. Not all cultures are capable of groking that - see, Arabs.

230 kansas  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:29:40am

John Conyers said he wasn't going to the read the bill. Said no one could read the bills, they are too big and complicated. I guess he is going to vote for it anyway. Both sides are idiots.

231 wahabicorridor  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:29:49am

Didn't John McCain say something similar in his town hall - something like "My friends, we are looking at a peaceful revolt" ??

232 brazilofmux  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:29:51am

re: #21 Sharmuta

A violent revolution would be bad for a lot of people for a long time. You could pretty kiss the rest of your life goodbye because it would take that long to put all the pieces back together again. And crawling out of it, we would realize that the world center had shifted to China.

The young and dumb may fall under the spell of revolution, but I don't think they really have the stomach or attention span to see it through.

I would tolerate a great deal of dysfunction in my government before I would support that kind of revolution. Besides, if you can't persuade your fellow citizens to use their vote, a revolution just turns into a civil war.

233 Kenneth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:29:52am

re: #170 Charles

There are no guidelines for posting quotes from the Declaration of Independence. There don't need to be any guidelines.

The concept is simple; why are you trying to complicate it? If you post a quote like that for the specific purpose of promoting the idea of revolution, you're going to lose your LGF account. I won't put up with that crap at my site.

I'm not trying to complicate anything. Just asking for clarity. I assume your use of the word "you" is in the general purpose pronoun, as I have never advocated revolution, violence or any other crimes on this website. In fact, I stood up and argued back at the genocidal "nuke M*cc*" posters long before that became a bannable offense here.

Just for the record.

234 TheOtherCanadian  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:29:55am

On a brighter note, Canada's PM Stephen Harper is experiencing ever increasing popularity in polls. I think the Beck programs are having an effect on me, and I'm concerned about what Obama is doing to your country. Still, you have the greatest country on G*d's green earth.

235 Ojoe  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:30:18am

re: #230 kansas

Both sides are idiots.

236 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:30:46am

re: #206 laZardo

I really can't defend my country's foreign policy throughout history. But if you think conservatives have been worse than some liberals, then I can't help you. You're not being intellectually honest, imo. Both parties have made mistakes by other people in other countries.

237 laZardo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:30:46am

re: #217 NukeAtomrod

Except ending slavery


That was a pretty liberal thing to do by the standards of the early- to mid-1800s.

defeating communism in the U.S.S.R.,
Partially through supporting vicious dictators and the monsters that bit the hand that fed them. At least we're taking responsibility to kill those monsters off.

rebuilding the economy


I don't consider the current state of the economy to be rebuilt.

preventing multiple terrorist attacks after 9/11.


At the general cost of the relations with almost everyone else in the world. Madrid etc. essentially told them that they're meatshields against the terrorists.

238 alegrias  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:30:55am

re: #209 laZardo

My question on tort reform is what will stop the insurance companies from turning up the heat even more on patients without such regulations to stop them?

* * * *
In an OPEN insurance market--that we deserve but DON'T have-- many more insurance companies would be out there competing for YOUR business.

Insurance companies would be hustling to please you instead of piss you off.

239 Gus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:30:59am

re: #235 Ojoe

Both sides are idiots.

Yes.

240 zombie  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:31:02am

re: #98 LudwigVanQuixote

And one really important note about the difference between moonbats calling for revolution and right wingers doing it. There has never been a moonbat SENATOR who spoke like this.

re: #219 Bagua

A Senator musing about us being near "a revolution in this country" is irresponsible.

“History teaches us that the great revolutions aren't started by people who are utterly down and out, without hope and vision. They take place when people begin to live a little better - and when they see how much yet remains to be achieved.”
-- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey

241 Son of the Black Dog  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:31:07am

re: #172 Killgore Trout

It doesn't make any difference what's in the bill. Republicans are going to oppose it even if it's the greatest bill ever. They don't care what's in the bill. They don't care if it's good or bad. They don't have the best interest of the country in mind. They are going to oppose it no matter what.

Don't agree with you. A well crafted, reasonable approach to health care reform would be attracting a lot of Republican support. The present bill is neither. It is like a cesspool, the more you stir it, the more it stinks. Witness the sections that require the IRS to turn your tax data over the the state and federal health care commissions. That's only come out in the last couple days.

242 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:31:31am

Part of this whole revolution meme that's distressing is the undercurrent of outrage that "the wrong side" won the election. Nirthers, dearthers, and people with FCBBHODS all feel like their country has been stolen.

So did a lot of moonbats under Bush, and given what happened in Florida, they had more reason to think that way than the sore losermen of today.

They did not go out and empty the shelves of ammo. They did not show up at Crawford with assault rifles.

There are two ways of getting rid of a president under our constitution. Regularly scheduled elections, and impeachment. Our basic law does not give us the option of do-overs, recalls, popular uprisings or violence. Rhetoric to the contrary is not found in the constitution. The declaration of independence preceded the hammering out of our basic law.

So anyone flirting with revolution in the sense (nudge, wink) hinted at in these statements is talking about abolishing the constitution.

Which is also free speech. Go for it. Just don't pretend it's something else.

243 Digital Display  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:31:48am

re: #229 SFGoth

The Bill of Rights limits the Federal Government. I think our rights come from an "enlightened" understanding that a free society is better than any other one. Limited government preserves that understanding. Not all cultures are capable of groking that - see, Arabs.

I see...and as usually there is an exception..I think
The right for Women to Vote
The right to drink booze...
( that's all I know) literally *wink*

244 KingKenrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:31:53am

re: #234 TheOtherCanadian

On a brighter note, Canada's PM Stephen Harper is experiencing ever increasing popularity in polls. I think the Beck programs are having an effect on me, and I'm concerned about what Obama is doing to your country. Still, you have the greatest country on G*d's green earth.

So Eucharistgate didn't do him in? That's good to hear.

245 alegrias  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:31:54am

re: #219 Bagua

A Senator musing about us being near "a revolution in this country" is irresponsible.

* * * *
It's just another word for change.

What, only one party can use certain words?

246 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:31:56am

re: #222 EmmmieG

Those two words get me every time. Reining in.

I support tort reform as long as it's used to stop juries from handing out outrageously large awards, and doesn't stop people who have truly been harmed from getting justice.

247 JohnnyReb  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:32:16am

re: #232 brazilofmux

A violent revolution would be bad for a lot of people for a long time. You could pretty kiss the rest of your life goodbye because it would take that long to put all the pieces back together again. And crawling out of it, we would realize that the world center had shifted to China.

The young and dumb may fall under the spell of revolution, but I don't think they really have the stomach or attention span to see it through.

I would tolerate a great deal of dysfunction in my government before I would support that kind of revolution. Besides, if you can't persuade your fellow citizens to use their vote, a revolution just turns into a civil war.

Actually I feel that the balance of power has already shifted to Asia. Not so much China by itself but Asia in general. They are the up and coming powerhouse. All that cheap junk we buy at Walmart lets China build a couple of new nuclear submarines every year or so for the last ten years.

248 laZardo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:32:19am

re: #236 Sharmuta

I can definitely say that not all liberals are saints, that's for sure. I just can't really think of any major event in American history that turned out well through the help of conservatives. FDR and Truman were both liberals and they helped win WWII.

249 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:32:26am

the system is 'so broken' because of govt, the govt's answer: more govt.


John Stossel

250 Randall Gross  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:32:36am

re: #231 wahabicorridor

Didn't John McCain say something similar in his town hall - something like "My friends, we are looking at a peaceful revolt" ??

Romney has said similar things as well. In a contextual sense it's clear that they are referring to the modern diffused meaning of the word "revolution" just like geeks use it when they talk about a simple change in technology being a "revolution". Inhofe's statement is clearly not using the diffused modern meaning, but rather the old "blood in the streets" meaning.

251 Wendya  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:32:39am

re: #214 HoosierHoops

Hi CIA.. Maybe I'm reading this wrong..(surprise) I thought our rights came from the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights protects certain specific rights. It was the founder's position that certain rights exist naturally and can't be granted or taken away by government. If your rights have to be given to you, you're not a citizen but a subject.

252 Danny  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:32:44am

re: #173 SFGoth

I'm fairly certain that the things on your list above actually exist, whether I like them or not. OTOH, maybe rights come from [insert preferred hypothetical mystical thing here]. BTW, ask a Muslim and he'll tell you rights (to the extent Islam recognizes them) come from All*h, not G*D. A Buddhist would say... (There's a punchline in here somewhere.) As for me, the right to drink comes from Dionysus, the right to sunshine comes from Apollo, the right to swim in the ocean comes from Poseidon... Don't tell a Jew, who lost family in the Holocaust, that rights come from your god.

I think CIA Reject's point is, regardless of your religious beliefs, do you need a written document to tell you that you have human rights? Or do you believe that you are born with and posses certain inalienable rights, regardless of where you live?

253 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:32:51am

re: #230 kansas

John Conyers said he wasn't going to the read the bill. Said no one could read the bills, they are too big and complicated. I guess he is going to vote for it anyway. Both sides are idiots.

Conyers has probably been paid not to read it.

254 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:33:06am

re: #216 Wendya

You are allowing your emotions to dictate his intent.

You are allowing your blind obedience to party loyalty to blind you to his game. I suppose that you are right in the sense that he doesn't really want an insurrection. He just wants to threaten it as a base political move, without thinking of the potential consequences of a man in his office saying such stuff might have.

G-d forbid he sees that he is part of a machine that legitimatizes bringing weapons to political rallies.

G-d forbid you see that you are doing the same by defending him at all.

I get very emotional about preserving America. You are correct about that. So stop aiding and abetting snakes who would tear the nation I love down.

Not on my watch.

255 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:33:12am

re: #200 Charles
I'm gonna bold everything that I think helps cool down the angry ones, direct from Senator Inhofe or as reported.
At a town hall meeting Wednesday Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) told Chickasha residents he does not need to read the 1,000 page health care reform bill, he will simply vote against it.

"I don't have to read it, or know what's in it. I'm going to oppose it anyways," he said.

Inhofe said public opinion and information provided by news media have helped him become a staunch non-supporter of the bill. He said he would prefer waiting until after mid-term elections in 2010 to enact reforms. He did not say nothing should be done. He simply feels that a topic as important as healthcare should not be rushed through the Senate or House of Representatives.

City Council Member Hank Ross agreed with Inhofe. Ross owns a medical care company in Chickasha. He said he does not believe the government would be efficient in providing care and would like to see reforms happen at a slower pace.

"I personally think Obama has over reached," Ross said. "I think we need to treat this with kid gloves and do it right."

Inhofe also spoke about the diminishing military budget and the closing of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, but healthcare was the hot button subject.

Inhofe took the opportunity to blame Democrats for a bevy of issues. He lashed out at democrats for overtaking the government and spending billions of dollars on unpopular packages. He said government is becoming too big and overreaching its boundaries.

"People are not buying these concepts that are completely foreign to America," Inhofe said. "We're almost reaching a revolution in this country."

Many in the meeting agreed and were vocal about their disdain for the current climate in Washington.

"No more compromise," Chickasha resident Ed Hicks said. "We're losing our country."

Inhofe's town hall meeting was much like others happening during the Senate's recess. Except there was no dissent, just concerns about change and what is happening in Washington. Health care reform was the main topic of discussion, but some voiced their worries that the Cap and Trade bill would hurt local oil producers. Others were worried about their Second Amendment right and their ability to own and carry firearms.

Inhofe tried to squelch the concerns, but until Republicans take control of at least one branch of the government it will be an uphill battle. He said he will do anything he can to keep fighting and promote the wants and needs of his constituents when he returns to Washington next month.

That's the whole article. These are things that frankly I find it reassuring to hear from an elected Republican, and these days, that's rare. This leaves only the "revolution" remark as not exactly helpful. Still, calling that skinny little remark "incitement", especially in the context of that article, is a bit of a reach.

If you don't mind, I'll ask folks to weigh in on this, a few comments from now.

256 kansas  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:33:20am

re: #235 Ojoe

Both sides are idiots.

Really they should just go home until 2010 and maybe some people with IQ's over that of a carrot and who actually care about this country could be elected.

257 laZardo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:33:41am

re: #218 EmmmieG

I'm not sure I follow you. I always thought that tort reform was about reigning in malpractice awards.

Isn't tort reform about removing some of the legal obstacles that insurance companies claim harm their business?

258 alegrias  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:34:21am

re: #194 Wendya

Let us also remember Obama's election was described as a "revolution" by many on the left.

* * * *
Shhh, Obama's election was all about CHANGE! What's not to like?

He didn't say EVOLUTIONARY change, therefore he meant revolutionary change, in my opinion.

Alinsky, Marx & Mao didn't believe in kindly evolution, just letting change happen. Oh no.

259 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:34:35am

re: #248 laZardo

I can definitely say that not all liberals are saints, that's for sure. I just can't really think of any major event in American history that turned out well through the help of conservatives. FDR and Truman were both liberals and they helped win WWII.

First of all- "conservatives" and "republicans" are not the same thing. Just like "democrat" and "liberal" are not the same thing. They often align with each other, but there is still a distinction. "Conservatives" in my opinion started with Barry Goldwater and he was very much opposed to the sorts of people who have hijacked his movement- people like Inhofe.

260 Flyovercountry  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:34:41am

re: #60 Charpete67

it's the declaration of independence...

Here's the problem. Like most people peddling crap, they start off with something that sounds reasonable. This quote from one of our founding documents was not given in its full context. That makes the quote dangerous. In its full context, there is a littany of grievances listed in which the Crown was guilty of imposing conditions on the Colonies which were not bearable. It wasn't just a political disagreement like we have today. These morons are advocating for armed revolution, simply because they don't like the direction the country is taking today. There is a huge difference between what the founders of this country were trying to say with that document and the context it is being used for here.

One or two of my friends have forwarded those idiotic Payne videos to me. They all start off with a statement which taken alone makes actual sense. They even quote our founding documents. This does not mean that I should take them seriously, as the context is somewhat different.

261 KingKenrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:35:15am

re: #257 laZardo

Isn't tort reform about removing some of the legal obstacles that insurance companies claim harm their business?

I think it's about lowing malpractice premiums and the use of defensive medicine.

262 SFGoth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:35:16am

re: #243 HoosierHoops

I see...and as usually there is an exception..I think
The right for Women to Vote
The right to drink booze...
( that's all I know) literally *wink*

Well, those were amendments to the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights originally (the first 10) were limits on Federal power. The 2nd one you mentioned is unfortunate since it never should have been necessary in the first place -- why I was against a balanced budget amendment ("gee, it seemed like a good idea at the time"), and the first, well, it's fertile territory for jokes. ;->
Getting rid of letting 18 y.o.s vote may be a good idea.

263 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:35:33am

re: #240 zombie

“History teaches us that the great revolutions aren't started by people who are utterly down and out, without hope and vision. They take place when people begin to live a little better - and when they see how much yet remains to be achieved.”
-- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey

Zombie he was talking about social reform not insurrection in the context of gun toting protesters to health care reform.

You know that. That's a really cheap shot.

264 Wendya  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:35:40am

re: #242 Cato the Elder

They did not go out and empty the shelves of ammo. They did not show up at Crawford with assault rifles.

They also didn't have a President and AG who supported banning handguns.

Let's not forget that aspect, okay?

265 laZardo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:35:41am

re: #227 Thanos

Don't forget the Civil Rights act, More Republicans voted for it than Dems, and Martin Luther King was a Republican. Since that time of course the party seems to have been taken over by those self same Neoconfederate democrat populists.

There was a time (post-Civil War, I believe) when the Republicans were liberal and the Democrats were conservative, by the standards of those times, anyway. Somewhere in the mid-20th century those lines changed.

Either way the Civil Rights Acts would not have been passed if the people protesting for those rights didn't make their elected representatives listen to them.

266 alegrias  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:36:01am

re: #231 wahabicorridor

Didn't John McCain say something similar in his town hall - something like "My friends, we are looking at a peaceful revolt" ??

* * * *
Hi, Wahabicorridor! Yes I believe he did! Geriatric revolt.

I'll bet McCain's 97 year old mother was the head of the insurgency!

267 SFGoth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:36:10am

re: #252 Danny

I think CIA Reject's point is, regardless of your religious beliefs, do you need a written document to tell you that you have human rights? Or do you believe that you are born with and posses certain inalienable rights, regardless of where you live?

I believe chocolate is yummy. Disprove me.

268 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:36:31am

Unless Charles quashes this little test...

If you think Inhofe is "inciting" or "calling for" revolution, DOWNDING this post.

If you think Inhofe is "diagnosing" or "warning of" revolution, UPDING this post.

269 Kenneth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:36:44am

re: #244 KingKenrod

So Eucharistgate didn't do him in? That's good to hear.

The reporter who claimed Harper pocketed the wafer later recanted. The priest who gave Harper communion came forward and said he saw Harper eat it at the time.

By the way, Harper has just appointed Gary Doer, who resigned as Premier of Manitoba yesterday as our next Ambassador to the US. The surprising thing is Doer is in the NDP (socialist party).

270 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:37:09am

re: #227 Thanos

Don't forget the Civil Rights act, More Republicans voted for it than Dems, and Martin Luther King was a Republican. Since that time of course the party seems to have been taken over by those self same Neoconfederate democrat populists.

There is some truth to this, but I think the greatest change was on the part of the Democrats. Originally they wanted to deny rights to people they deemed inferior, somewhere in the 1960's they decided they'd get more votes if they gave handouts and special rights to those people they deem inferior. And modern liberalism was born! Huzzah. :(

271 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:37:18am

re: #264 Wendya

They also didn't have a President and AG who supported banning handguns.

Let's not forget that aspect, okay?

We don't have that now. No more than "death panels". Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

272 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:37:18am

re: #257 laZardo

Isn't tort reform about removing some of the legal obstacles that insurance companies claim harm their business?

We may have a break-down in communication over words here.

When I say tort reform, and when I have read about it on sites like NRO, it refers to limiting the "pain and suffering" awards with the intent of keeping malpractice insurance rates low.

As those two words don't necessarily have to refer to this particular effort, it could mean something else, but whenever I have seen it in conservative writing, this was what it referred to. I will try to find a link.

273 Randall Gross  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:37:23am

The other thing folks need to consider: How many revolutions actually resulted in good outcome? If you did a bayesian analysis of the historic data of all revolutions looking for potential of good outcome vs bad outcome you would walk quickly away from revolution.

274 kansas  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:37:23am

re: #257 laZardo

Isn't tort reform about removing some of the legal obstacles that insurance companies claim harm their business?

Tort reform is about limiting frivolous lawsuits. Here in Kansas providers have to have malpractice insurance by law and pay into a general fund that covers amounts over their basic limits. The legislature passed a tort reform law that limits pain and suffering amounts to 250,000. Malpractice premiums here stabilized for about 7 years. There are two juries that awarded more, and those people are going to the Supreme Court arguing the constitutionality of the these limits. Every provider in the state has been notified to plan on a 12% increase if either of these cases result in overturning the limit. Every provider in Kansas will pay 12% more for 2 cases.

275 Digital Display  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:37:37am

re: #268 haakondahl

Unless Charles quashes this little test...

If you think Inhofe is "inciting" or "calling for" revolution, DOWNDING this post.

If you think Inhofe is "diagnosing" or "warning of" revolution, UPDING this post.


What do I click if I think he's a complete loon?

276 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:37:42am

Everyone knew dem healthcare was coming. Idiots should have addressed it a couple Congresses ago when the R's had power? Should'a done a Clinton like Welfare Reform.
/if wishes were horses...

277 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:37:45am

re: #264 Wendya

They also didn't have a President and AG who supported banning handguns.

Let's not forget that aspect, okay?

They also don't like guns. They'd rather use the Federal courts to pull an end run on the voters.

278 ladycatnip  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:37:47am

#230 kansas

John Conyers said he wasn't going to the read the bill. Said no one could read the bills, they are too big and complicated. I guess he is going to vote for it anyway. Both sides are idiots.

Read a few dems who admitted they hadn't read the bill - including The Won. That totally frosted me, that they would for FOR something w/o reading it first. Lame and stupid.

The only way the repubs can fight this is to read it, know it, then debate it.

279 tfc3rid  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:37:48am

re: #269 Kenneth

The reporter who claimed Harper pocketed the wafer later recanted. The priest who gave Harper communion came forward and said he saw Harper eat it at the time.

By the way, Harper has just appointed Gary Doer, who resigned as Premier of Manitoba yesterday as our next Ambassador to the US. The surprising thing is Doer is in the NDP (socialist party).

Takes a socialist to know how to deal with a fellow socialist.

280 alegrias  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:37:51am

re: #140 Ben Hur

TORT REFORM.

* * *
NOW you're talking!

But Dr. Howard Dean said Dems don't want any tort reform in their 1200-page illegible.

281 Danny  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:38:07am

re: #267 SFGoth

I believe chocolate is yummy. Disprove me.

I don't like chocolate, but I have no reason to disbelieve that you do. However, I know you have certain inalienable rights.

282 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:38:17am

Oh, and nowhere in the constitution does it say "thou shalt not have large government programs".

283 laZardo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:38:18am

re: #259 Sharmuta

First of all- "conservatives" and "republicans" are not the same thing. Just like "democrat" and "liberal" are not the same thing. They often align with each other, but there is still a distinction. "Conservatives" in my opinion started with Barry Goldwater and he was very much opposed to the sorts of people who have hijacked his movement- people like Inhofe.

Again, I agree with you with the parties' alignment with ideologies (see #265). And as I've said before I also do not see libertarianism (lowercase 'l') as specifically conservative. There is a lot of bureaucracy in government that both ostensibly left and right are helping perpetuate that needs to be ironed out before progress can be made.

284 Wendya  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:38:56am

re: #254 LudwigVanQuixote

You are allowing your blind obedience to party loyalty to blind you to his game.

Yeah, right.

You dislike Inhofe so anything he says will be colored by your prejudice. I happen to despise Pelosi but if she had suggested the country was ready for a revolution prior to the 2007 election, I wouldn't have a knee jerk reaction hard enough to knock my teeth out and assume she meant overthrowing the government.

285 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:39:09am

re: #268 haakondahl

Unless Charles quashes this little test...

If you think Inhofe is "inciting" or "calling for" revolution, DOWNDING this post.

If you think Inhofe is "diagnosing" or "warning of" revolution, UPDING this post.

What he is doing is the sort of prevarication and equivocation that allows people to claim that he didn't mean the message that his nutroots base clearly hears. It is very Yasser Arafat.

286 KingKenrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:39:09am

re: #269 Kenneth

The reporter who claimed Harper pocketed the wafer later recanted. The priest who gave Harper communion came forward and said he saw Harper eat it at the time.

By the way, Harper has just appointed Gary Doer, who resigned as Premier of Manitoba yesterday as our next Ambassador to the US. The surprising thing is Doer is in the NDP (socialist party).

That's smart, sounds like Doer and Obama speak the same language.

287 garycooper  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:39:12am

Not for nothing, but didn't we just endure a long campaign last year that was all about "revolution?"
[Link: literaryobama.com...]

Yeah, I thought so.

288 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:39:16am

Tort reform usage link:

[Link: search.nationalreview.com...]

289 laZardo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:39:19am

re: #273 Thanos

The other thing folks need to consider: How many revolutions actually resulted in good outcome? If you did a bayesian analysis of the historic data of all revolutions looking for potential of good outcome vs bad outcome you would walk quickly away from revolution.

Violent or non-violent? Because 20 years ago there were a lot of revolutions of the latter variety that resulted in what could be considered "good outcomes."

290 Bagua  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:39:24am

re: #263 LudwigVanQuixote

Zombie he was talking about social reform not insurrection in the context of gun toting protesters to health care reform.

You know that. That's a really cheap shot.

I agree with Ludwig, context is very important. Speaking about how a new computer program is going to "revolutionize" a certain task would be quite different from using the phrase the Senator used at a time when kooks are talking about "water the tree of liberty."

291 zelnaga  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:39:30am

re: #107 Thanos

Quoting the declaration of independence in context of people talking about revolution here and now in America means you support overthrow of the Republic, the democracy we have, and everything else because we lost an election.

Texas governor Rick Perry advocated secession a month after Obama was sworn in. Honestly, I think it's all just a bit over the top. What's next? Are you going to secede every time a Democrat wins and rejoin every time a Republican wins?

Besides, through elections, the government can be peacefully overthrown every four years. If Democrats can endure eight years of Bush, surely Republicans can endure four years of Obama?

292 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:39:39am

re: #268 haakondahl

Unless Charles quashes this little test...

If you think Inhofe is "inciting" or "calling for" revolution, DOWNDING this post.

If you think Inhofe is "diagnosing" or "warning of" revolution, UPDING this post.

You're expecting Charles to take away the thread dings if he gets a few negatives? You surprise me.

293 lawhawk  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:40:07am

Yippeee.. Tim Pawlenty is coming to stump for GOPer Chris Christie in NJ. Guess Pawlenty is looking to increase his visibility going into the 2012 sweepstakes.

294 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:40:10am

re: #267 SFGoth

I believe chocolate is yummy. Disprove me.

You are wrong. It's self-evident.

295 cliffster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:40:30am

Wow, walked into a firestorm on this one. Was it just the one dude cherry-picking the DOI, or is it a theme? Silly - if you are a Rights of Man type, then that day will inevitably come because governments always get bigger, not smaller. But it's nowhere near that now.

296 Wendya  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:40:34am

re: #271 Cato the Elder

We don't have that now. No more than "death panels". Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

And don't hand me a pile of shit and claim it's Belgian chocolate.

Both of their records are very clear on this issue.

297 MrSilverDragon  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:40:53am

re: #294 haakondahl

You are wrong. It's self-evident.

You are also wrong. I've had bad chocolate.

298 zombie  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:41:00am

re: #263 LudwigVanQuixote

Zombie he was talking about social reform not insurrection in the context of gun toting protesters to health care reform.

You know that. That's a really cheap shot.

Democratic Sentor Christopher Dodd, just last year, promoting the stimilus bailout package with a veiled threat:

“If it turns out that they are hoarding, you’ll have a revolution on your hands. People will be so livid and furious that their tax money is going to line their pockets instead of doing the right thing. There will be hell to pay.
--Senator Christopher Dodd

Just pointing out that your contention that "There has never been a moonbat SENATOR who spoke like this" is inaccurate.

I've also found several from Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders, but I'll spare you.

299 kansas  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:41:06am

re: #276 unrealizedviewpoint

Everyone knew dem healthcare was coming. Idiots should have addressed it a couple Congresses ago when the R's had power? Should'a done a Clinton like Welfare Reform.
/if wishes were horses...

Yeah, I wish Bush would have issued blanket pardons to everyone involved in the war and terror to keep these assholes from this idiotic witch hunt.

300 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:41:08am

re: #7 pat

Another myth myth.

Yeth?
-The Muppet Movie

301 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:41:10am

re: #290 Bagua

I agree with Ludwig, context is very important. Speaking about how a new computer program is going to "revolutionize" a certain task would be quite different from using the phrase the Senator used at a time when kooks are talking about "water the tree of liberty."

lol, I am happy to be on the same side on this one. It's a refreshing change.

302 laZardo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:41:13am

re: #274 kansas

Tort reform is about limiting frivolous lawsuits. Here in Kansas providers have to have malpractice insurance by law and pay into a general fund that covers amounts over their basic limits. The legislature passed a tort reform law that limits pain and suffering amounts to 250,000. Malpractice premiums here stabilized for about 7 years. There are two juries that awarded more, and those people are going to the Supreme Court arguing the constitutionality of the these limits. Every provider in the state has been notified to plan on a 12% increase if either of these cases result in overturning the limit. Every provider in Kansas will pay 12% more for 2 cases.

Greenhearting for reference.

303 Bagua  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:41:14am

re: #268 haakondahl

Unless Charles quashes this little test...

If you think Inhofe is "inciting" or "calling for" revolution, DOWNDING this post.

If you think Inhofe is "diagnosing" or "warning of" revolution, UPDING this post.

Now I see where the term "dingbats" originates.

304 cliffster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:41:21am

One part of his rambling I will agree with.. "government is becoming too big and overreaching its boundaries" Now, if you could get enough people together for a successful revolution, surely you could talk those same people into going to the voting booth?

305 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:41:23am

speaking of zombie

306 Kenneth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:41:42am

re: #286 KingKenrod

That's smart, sounds like Doer and Obama speak the same language.

It also removes as a possible new leader for the federal NDP, a popular moderate Westerner who could do far more damage to Harper's electoral future than the hapless Jack(ass) Layton.

307 pat  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:41:43am

From the Strategy Page:

August 24, 2009: A Swedish newspaper admitted that, a story it published, where it's reporter in the Palestinian territories passed on an old Palestinian libel, that Israeli troops regularly killed Palestinians to steal their organs for transplants, was false. When the article was published a week earlier, there was outrage in Israel, and jubilation in the Arab world. The Israelis demanded proof, and the Arabs didn't care (and never did when it came to stories like this). The Swedes found that there was no proof, and the editor of the newspaper apologized. But Europeans are becoming more tolerant of these anti-Semitic slurs. Many Israelis see the pattern of violent anti-Semitism, which last peaked during World War II, building again, as Europeans become more tolerant of violence against Israel, and Jews in general.
308 Mad Al-Jaffee  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:41:44am

re: #297 MrSilverDragon

You are also wrong. I've had bad chocolate.

What kind? Crunchy Frog? Spring Surprise?

309 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:42:04am

re: #297 MrSilverDragon

You are also wrong. I've had bad chocolate.

I'm going to use the "No true Scotsman" for the first time in my life...

Bad chocolate is chocolate-flavored wax, not chocolate.

310 Killgore Trout  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:42:06am

Ed morrisey and Hot Air readers are praising Michele Bachmann today. The Paulification of the Republican party is pretty much complete.

311 tfc3rid  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:42:12am

re: #291 zelnaga

I understand you line of thought but I would say that the programs and overall ideology of the current Administration are much more dangerous to American prosperity and power than anything George W. Bush ever did (as much as I disagreed with him).

312 alegrias  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:42:13am

re: #230 kansas

John Conyers said he wasn't going to the read the bill. Said no one could read the bills, they are too big and complicated. I guess he is going to vote for it anyway. Both sides are idiots.

* * * *
John Conyers use his position as chair of some judicial committee to hold imaginary "impeachment hearings against George Bush in the Capitol basement for months and months. Presumably Conyers was just practicing and doing his "homework" as demanded by liberal pressure groups.

Conyers and his crooked wife are criminal & insane idiots.

313 ladycatnip  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:42:14am

#268 haakondahl

Unless Charles quashes this little test...

If you think Inhofe is "inciting" or "calling for" revolution, DOWNDING this post.

If you think Inhofe is "diagnosing" or "warning of" revolution, UPDING this post.

Pretty clever way to get updings.

/ for that I updinged you. ;-)

314 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:42:23am

re: #292 Cato the Elder

You're expecting Charles to take away the thread dings if he gets a few negatives? You surprise me.

Not at all. I started at the end of the previous comment by asking if he minded. After all, it's his blog, and if he wanted a poll, he'd bloody well have posted one. So I just don't ewant to give the impression that I;m running my own little mini-blog as hosted comments.
I do NOT feel oppressed, and my flounce-o-meter hasn't even budged.

315 garycooper  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:42:30am

re: #284 Wendya

Yeah, right.

You dislike Inhofe so anything he says will be colored by your prejudice. I happen to despise Pelosi but if she had suggested the country was ready for a revolution prior to the 2007 election, I wouldn't have a knee jerk reaction hard enough to knock my teeth out and assume she meant overthrowing the government.

Didn't you see all the revolutionaries storming into Congress with their AR-15's and sidearms? And giant papier-mache birdies?

It was beautiful, man.

316 jdog29  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:42:45am

re: #297 MrSilverDragon

You are also wrong. I've had bad chocolate.

My daughter got a hold uv a spirlt Yoo-Hoo and its ruint 'em for me ever since.

317 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:42:51am

re: #296 Wendya

And don't hand me a pile of shit and claim it's Belgian chocolate.


That's German chocolate.

318 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:43:12am

re: #274 kansas

Tort reform is about limiting frivolous lawsuits. Here in Kansas providers have to have malpractice insurance by law and pay into a general fund that covers amounts over their basic limits. The legislature passed a tort reform law that limits pain and suffering amounts to 250,000. Malpractice premiums here stabilized for about 7 years. There are two juries that awarded more, and those people are going to the Supreme Court arguing the constitutionality of the these limits. Every provider in the state has been notified to plan on a 12% increase if either of these cases result in overturning the limit. Every provider in Kansas will pay 12% more for 2 cases.

Texas passed a similar thing (constitutional amendment) awhile back, and it's basically ended malpractice suits, since lawyers won't take cases that might take a long time to litigate, and if they win, only get a chunk of $250,000. I think that limit is way too low, and the effect has been that it's squashed the good cases along with the frivolous ones.

319 itellu3times  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:43:16am

Waitaminute, maybe Inhofe is right, and this could be the trigger:

$4,500 clunker rebate taxable!?!

320 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:43:33am

re: #242 Cato the Elder

I think this bears repeating.

There are two ways of getting rid of a president under our constitution. Regularly scheduled elections, and impeachment. Our basic law does not give us the option of do-overs, recalls, popular uprisings or violence. Rhetoric to the contrary is not found in the constitution. The declaration of independence preceded the hammering out of our basic law.

So anyone flirting with revolution in the sense (nudge, wink) hinted at in these statements is talking about abolishing the constitution.

321 harpsicon  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:43:52am

re: #120 pat

Pat Caddell has speculated that it is more than curious that a 1,250 page Bill with incredible detail was found on the shelf. No one in Congress professes to be the actual author. Likewise Cap and Trade. He suspects that these and other Bills in the wings are the product of far left special interest groups.

Exactly. Isn't it amazing that these things are just ready to go?

Of course they're being written by extremely clever, extremely left-wing lawyers. I suspect that they may have been years in the making.

The persistence and indeed the unbelievable determination of these people is formidable, as well as really scary. Right now is the one chance in a million, which they probably had given up, in their heart of hearts, on ever getting in real life.

Be assured they are going to make the most of it!

The basic tactic will be reverse of Reagan. Reagan was "starve the beast" - lower taxes so much that the govt programs will die. Didn't work all that well.

This one is the opposite. Spend so much money that even the most conservative people will agree that taxes will have to be raised a great deal to avoid financial catastrophe.

And so, oddly, we are going to have to rely on the Chinese not to buy our debt, so that the spending will be controlled. Somehow.

322 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:44:05am

re: #293 lawhawk

Yippeee.. Tim Pawlenty is coming to stump for GOPer Chris Christie in NJ. Guess Pawlenty is looking to increase his visibility going into the 2012 sweepstakes.

He's the right's answer to al gore- he's a tree.

323 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:44:16am

re: #310 Killgore Trout

Ed morrisey and Hot Air readers are praising Michele Bachmann today. The Paulification of the Republican party is pretty much complete.

Captain Ed ran that ship aground a long time ago, I'm afraid. Still, your cheerful analysis is appreciated as always.

324 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:44:28am

re: #296 Wendya

And don't hand me a pile of shit and claim it's Belgian chocolate.

Both of their records are very clear on this issue.

They may have personal opinions on the matter. When you see "gun grabbing" legislation introduced, come and pound on my door.

325 tfc3rid  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:44:54am

re: #320 Cato the Elder

No one said flat out an advocation for overthrow of the President.

Calm down.

326 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:45:06am

re: #268 haakondahl

Unless Charles quashes this little test...

If you think Inhofe is "inciting" or "calling for" revolution, DOWNDING this post.

If you think Inhofe is "diagnosing" or "warning of" revolution, UPDING this post.

An up & down ding total (2 #'s side by side) would possibly be useful in this LGF age of bipartisan participation.

327 itellu3times  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:45:32am

re: #274 kansas

Tort reform is about limiting frivolous lawsuits.

Just a quibble, that it certainly affects serious lawsuits, too, but limits the damages to direct compensation rather than the fantastic amounts that are generally supposed to "send messages".

328 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:45:34am

re: #314 haakondahl

I do NOT feel oppressed, and my flounce-o-meter hasn't even budged.

Neither has mine, you'll be sorry to learn.

329 Charpete67  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:45:41am

re: #304 cliffster

One part of his rambling I will agree with.. "government is becoming too big and overreaching its boundaries" Now, if you could get enough people together for a successful revolution, surely you could talk those same people into going to the voting booth?

exactly...no need for armed revolution since if the majority is unhappy...we just vote the bastards out. The problem is, some nutbag group will arm themselves and do something stupid. Those types of groups don't realize they are the fringe minority.

330 alegrias  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:45:53am

re: #203 LudwigVanQuixote

After reviewing some of these posts, how about we get really clear here.

There is a senator of the United States of America whose present speech is just this side of sedition. Rather than quelling the fears that his party's propaganda have engendered in the nut roots, he is instead legitimatizing insurrection - and for what? Your rights? Over the idea of health insurance? Did the colonies see such grievance as to revolt against the idea of paying for national healthcare? Please.

This is an engineered hysteria that can only lead to tragedy for our nation.
There is no excuse - yet I see mealy mouthed excuse after mealy mouthed excuse for it. I see the same pedantic word games that try to dodge the real issue.

Saying that he is not calling for revolution is like saying that Jihad means a peaceful inner struggle. You have learned all to well from those you despise.

And all of you who defend it are the same hypocrites, who think that the government can be trusted to torture people. You are all the ones who think it is OK for the government to spy on you. Such a love of liberty here from such patriots!

It is the same. It is all the same.

Now let's be really real. A SENATOR who calls for insurrection or even breathes of it needs to be impeached.

* * * *
You go & ask Democrat John Conyers to start up impeachment proceedings in the Capitol's basement, then. He's been practicing during the 8 Bush years, and he hasn't had time to read the 1200 page bill we're talking about here.

331 Wendya  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:46:06am

re: #324 Cato the Elder

They may have personal opinions on the matter. When you see "gun grabbing" legislation introduced, come and pound on my door.

Why Cato, didn't you know the Congress introduces legislation, not the President?

332 gonecamping  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:46:07am

Please don't vote out of ignorance Senator. Read the blasted bill, then vote against it and cite the reasons why you are against it, not "just because"!

333 rain of lead  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:46:16am
334 SFGoth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:46:23am

re: #281 Danny

I don't like chocolate, but I have no reason to disbelieve that you do. However, I know you have certain inalienable rights.

Again, the concept of inalienable rights is circular. Funny how most governments over the history of mankind have been authoritarian at best, and despotic at worst. Kind of puts the lie to inalienable rights. Inalienable rights did not exist until people were enlightened enough to "discover" them.

335 Bagua  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:46:26am

re: #301 LudwigVanQuixote

lol, I am happy to be on the same side on this one. It's a refreshing change.

The threads still young my friend, I'm sure I'll manage to find something to scold your for.

/

336 Gus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:46:30am

Lawsuits account for "less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending." According to Tom Baker author of "The Medical Malpractice Myth." Other reading reveals that tort reform in Texas did not result in lowering health care costs in that state.

I am sure there are counter arguments.

337 garycooper  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:46:45am

re: #298 zombie

Democratic Sentor Christopher Dodd, just last year, promoting the stimilus bailout package with a veiled threat:

“If it turns out that they are hoarding, you’ll have a revolution on your hands. People will be so livid and furious that their tax money is going to line their pockets instead of doing the right thing. There will be hell to pay.
--Senator Christopher Dodd

Just pointing out that your contention that "There has never been a moonbat SENATOR who spoke like this" is inaccurate.

I've also found several from Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders, but I'll spare you.

Speaking of Dodd, I was marvelling at his depiction in the Michael Kelly piece on Teddy K that's making the rounds again. Quite a piece of work. :o

[Link: men.style.com...]

338 Kenneth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:46:58am

re: #317 haakondahl

That's German chocolate.

You haven't had bad chocolate until you've tasted Russian chocolate. The crap is made with beef tallow! Blech.

339 pat  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:47:24am

re: #321 harpsicon

Exactly. Isn't it amazing that these things are just ready to go?

Of course they're being written by extremely clever, extremely left-wing lawyers. I suspect that they may have been years in the making.

The persistence and indeed the unbelievable determination of these people is formidable, as well as really scary. Right now is the one chance in a million, which they probably had given up, in their heart of hearts, on ever getting in real life.

Be assured they are going to make the most of it!

The basic tactic will be reverse of Reagan. Reagan was "starve the beast" - lower taxes so much that the govt programs will die. Didn't work all that well.

This one is the opposite. Spend so much money that even the most conservative people will agree that taxes will have to be raised a great deal to avoid financial catastrophe.

And so, oddly, we are going to have to rely on the Chinese not to buy our debt, so that the spending will be controlled. Somehow.

Yes. Caddell said it is clear someone spent a million dollars writing the Obamacare Bill.

340 laZardo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:47:31am

re: #333 rain of lead

gorebull warming solar update
48 days straight no sunspots

Which means we're long overdue for THE BIG ONE.

/so much the better, I'm actually getting a bit sick of the rain...

341 itellu3times  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:47:50am

re: #333 rain of lead

gorebull warming solar update
48 days straight no sunspots

don't it always seem to go,
that you don't know what you've got 'till it's gone.

342 Flyovercountry  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:48:03am

Lost in this so far, is that a GOP Senator has made the statement that he intends to vote on a bill without reading it. While I agree with his vote, he has placed himself in the category of an elected official who needs to be replaced. Like I've said, we have our idiots on the right also.

343 MJ  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:48:04am

re: #336 Gus 802

Lawsuits account for "less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending." According to Tom Baker author of "The Medical Malpractice Myth." Other reading reveals that tort reform in Texas did not result in lowering health care costs in that state.

I am sure there are counter arguments.

Didn't Tom Baker play Dr. Who?

344 wrenchwench  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:48:14am

re: #336 Gus 802

Lawsuits account for "less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending." According to Tom Baker author of "The Medical Malpractice Myth." Other reading reveals that tort reform in Texas did not result in lowering health care costs in that state.

I am sure there are counter arguments.

Does it say anything about the cost of insurance bought because of the threat of law suits?

345 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:48:17am

re: #295 cliffster

Wow, walked into a firestorm on this one. Was it just the one dude cherry-picking the DOI, or is it a theme? Silly - if you are a Rights of Man type, then that day will inevitably come because governments always get bigger, not smaller. But it's nowhere near that now.

And we have the ability to reform our government without taking up arms- we have elections and the ability to amend our Constitution. I suggest we do both- elect some people who will pass a balanced budget amendment, so the real power of the government is better controlled- the power to spend. Restrict the purse strings, and you restrict their power.

346 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:48:25am

re: #237 laZardo

That was a pretty liberal thing to do by the standards of the early- to mid-1800s.

Here are the political party platforms going back to 1840. Peruse them to see how deeply mistaken you are.

I don't consider the current state of the economy to be rebuilt.

It was until the Democrat-regulated (through Barney Frank) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed due to bad loans created by government interference.

At the general cost of the relations with almost everyone else in the world. Madrid etc. essentially told them that they're meatshields against the terrorists.

Not really true, but even if it were-- So what? Would you rather have good security, or be "liked" by a bunch of countries that eagerly stab you in the back at every opportunity?

347 jdog29  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:48:36am

re: #268 haakondahl

Unless Charles quashes this little test...

If you think Inhofe is "inciting" or "calling for" revolution, DOWNDING this post.

If you think Inhofe is "diagnosing" or "warning of" revolution, UPDING this post.

The inmates have taken over the asylum. :-)

348 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:48:51am

re: #319 itellu3times

Waitaminute, maybe Inhofe is right, and this could be the trigger:

$4,500 clunker rebate taxable!?!

From what I have read about the bill, it specifies that the rebates aren't taxable income for the buyers, but they are for the dealers.

349 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:49:30am

re: #298 zombie

Democratic Sentor Christopher Dodd, just last year, promoting the stimilus bailout package with a veiled threat:

If it turns out that they are hoarding, you’ll have a revolution on your hands.People will be so livid and furious that their tax money is going to line their pockets instead of doing the right thing. There will be hell to pay.”
--Senator Christopher Dodd

Just pointing out that your contention that "There has never been a moonbat SENATOR who spoke like this" is inaccurate.

I've also found several from Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders, but I'll spare you.

Zombie please. CONTEXT. He is talking about economic stimulus in the case of collapse where the revolution is everyone gets thrown out of office.

Now, we can go back and forth and parse words all you wish. The elephant in the room for your arguments is the presence of fools with assault rifles at political rallies spurred on by a real fear of death panels that was engineered by the right wing.

The elephant in the room is the legitimization of insane conspiracy theories, by national figures, as opposed to SF street corner revolutionaries, to the extent that violence against a government that is out to kill your granny, now sounds almost reasonable.

The elephant in the room is that the GOP is raising a tiger and hoping to hold it by the tail when it grows up.

Please. I know and I respect your research skills, but every quote you find will be nothing like the present situation because of the engineered hysteria.

350 Mad Al-Jaffee  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:49:36am

re: #275 HoosierHoops

What do I click if I think he's a complete loon?

Ron Paul!

351 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:49:43am

re: #298 zombie

Democratic Sentor Christopher Dodd, just last year, promoting the stimilus bailout package with a veiled threat:

“If it turns out that they are hoarding, you’ll have a revolution on your hands. People will be so livid and furious that their tax money is going to line their pockets instead of doing the right thing. There will be hell to pay.
--Senator Christopher Dodd

Just pointing out that your contention that "There has never been a moonbat SENATOR who spoke like this" is inaccurate.

I've also found several from Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders, but I'll spare you.

Again, more warning than incitement to violence. He's bought and paid for by some big money, and he was wrong on the war, so he's just about one useless twat. And I just don't see his speech as "actionable".

352 Charles Johnson  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:50:00am

re: #268 haakondahl

Unless Charles quashes this little test...

If you think Inhofe is "inciting" or "calling for" revolution, DOWNDING this post.

If you think Inhofe is "diagnosing" or "warning of" revolution, UPDING this post.

I hope you realize, though, that whatever the outcome of your little test, it will have no effect on my opinion about this.

James Inhofe is a disgrace. He's an anti-science creationist with ties to the Dominionist movement. He's demonstrated who he is many times with extremist statements about many subjects, and he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt you're trying to give him by carefully parsing his statements. To put this charitable spin on what he said, you have to pretty much ignore his entire history.

353 jcm  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:50:05am

re: #348 Ward Cleaver

From what I have read about the bill, it specifies that the rebates aren't taxable income for the buyers, but they are for the dealers.

Peter, meet Paul.

354 Randall Gross  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:50:11am

re: #336 Gus 802

Lawsuits account for "less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending." According to Tom Baker author of "The Medical Malpractice Myth." Other reading reveals that tort reform in Texas did not result in lowering health care costs in that state.

I am sure there are counter arguments.

The counters hinge on defensive medicine practiced to fend off potential suits, and the fact that even a one percent chance can affect actuarial tables mightily.

355 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:50:25am

re: #325 tfc3rid

No one said flat out an advocation for overthrow of the President.

Calm down.

Nudge, wink. We are facing the end of America as we know it. Ahem. Trig will go before Obama's death panels. Hint. Our government is the problem. Catch my drift? We're having a meeting over at the VFW. Bring your Garand. Cough. Tree of liberty, ya know? I'm not implying anything, but if things keep on this way, there could be trouble. What? Nothing. Keep walking. That person over there may be a Democrat. Now, as I was saying...

356 Gus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:50:26am

Tort reform at Wiki.

Excerpt.

The United States Supreme Court sometimes weighs in on tort reform debates, but here too, the justices do not always vote according to their predicted ideological stereotypes.[dubious – discuss] In the seminal case of BMW v. Gore, the court ruled that the Constitution placed limits on punitive damages, with liberal justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens in the majority and Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting. Under Chief Justice John Roberts, some expect the court to be more likely to take cases that could resolve tort reform debates.

Scalia dissented on limiting punitive damages.

357 garycooper  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:50:36am

re: #330 alegrias

* * * *
You go & ask Democrat John Conyers to start up impeachment proceedings in the Capitol's basement, then. He's been practicing during the 8 Bush years, and he hasn't had time to read the 1200 page bill we're talking about here.

It is pretty clear that Ludes learned his dance-moves at Daily Kos, or Democratic Underground. :)

358 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:50:42am

re: #299 kansas

Yeah, I wish Bush would have issued blanket pardons to everyone involved in the war and terror to keep these assholes from this idiotic witch hunt.

I guarantee ya Bush never envisioned this witch hunt. Who would think it. It's total madness. I actually don't think it will go anywhere. The folks will storm the castle.
/figuratively

359 Spartacus50  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:50:45am

re: #342 Flyovercountry

Lost in this so far, is that a GOP Senator has made the statement that he intends to vote on a bill without reading it. While I agree with his vote, he has placed himself in the category of an elected official who needs to be replaced. Like I've said, we have our idiots on the right also.

James Inhofe does not need to be replaced. He is one of the few Republican senators willing to stand by his principles (even if a few of them may be distasteful).

360 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:51:01am

re: #328 Cato the Elder

Neither has mine, you'll be sorry to learn.

Darn.

361 KingKenrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:51:09am

Speaking of revolution, we have an FCC "Chief Diversity Officer" Czar who actually endorsed Chavez's revolution against free media in Venezuela:

"In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.

"The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.

"And we've had complaints about this ever since."


[Link: newsbusters.org...]

362 itellu3times  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:51:17am

re: #348 Ward Cleaver

From what I have read about the bill, it specifies that the rebates aren't taxable income for the buyers, but they are for the dealers.

But ... don't the dealers incur a $4,500 expense for every $4,500 revenue? That is, as long as they do pass it thru, there should be no real consequence?

But that article seems to suggest the state of South Dakota was considering it income to the buyer.

363 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:51:28am

re: #353 jcm

Peter, meet Paul.

The automakers loved it, but the dealers, not so much.

364 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:51:33am

re: #359 Spartacus50

James Inhofe does not need to be replaced. He is one of the few Republican senators willing to stand by his principles (even if a few of them may be distasteful).

Yes- he does need to be replaced. He's a big spending anti-conservative.

365 jcm  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:52:22am

re: #363 Ward Cleaver

The automakers loved it, but the dealers, not so much.

Lot of dealers are still waiting for reimbursement.

366 alegrias  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:52:23am

re: #261 KingKenrod

I think it's about lowing malpractice premiums and the use of defensive medicine.

* * *
Tort reform is also about NOT driving ob-gyn doctors out of your town & state!

Who wants to be like Britain where pregnant people drive far & then line hospital halls waiting for the government doc to deliver babies assembly style?

367 Bagua  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:52:23am

re: #349 LudwigVanQuixote

Just to add to that... it is also utterly irrelevant what irresponsible thing a Democrat may have said. This goes beyond partisan politics.

368 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:52:27am

re: #320 Cato the Elder

I think this bears repeating.

There are two ways of getting rid of a president under our constitution. Regularly scheduled elections, and impeachment. Our basic law does not give us the option of do-overs, recalls, popular uprisings or violence. Rhetoric to the contrary is not found in the constitution. The declaration of independence preceded the hammering out of our basic law.

So anyone flirting with revolution in the sense (nudge, wink) hinted at in these statements is talking about abolishing the constitution.

Actually, I think Jefferson's suggestion was to purge the tyrannical politicians and restore the constitution as written...

369 Gus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:52:29am

re: #344 wrenchwench

Does it say anything about the cost of insurance bought because of the threat of law suits?

re: #354 Thanos

The counters hinge on defensive medicine practiced to fend off potential suits, and the fact that even a one percent chance can affect actuarial tables mightily.

You would have to read through his papers provided at the link to his site at Penn Law.

[Link: www.law.upenn.edu...]

370 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:52:42am

re: #342 Flyovercountry

Lost in this so far, is that a GOP Senator has made the statement that he intends to vote on a bill without reading it. While I agree with his vote, he has placed himself in the category of an elected official who needs to be replaced. Like I've said, we have our idiots on the right also.

please note that he intends to vote AGAINST a bill without reading it. I'd have to use the Buckley bus to discern this from voting FOR a bill without reading it.

371 garycooper  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:52:47am

re: #340 laZardo

Which means we're long overdue for THE BIG ONE.

/so much the better, I'm actually getting a bit sick of the rain...

Week after week of abnormally-cool temps in MI. We had about two weeks of "summer," this summer. Gorebull Warming!

372 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:53:12am

re: #331 Wendya

Why Cato, didn't you know the Congress introduces legislation, not the President?

The president can propose legislation that the congress introduces. See the dread health-care push. If you spot something similar on guns from either the executive or legislative branch, send me a smoke signal, mmkay?

That should be plain enough even for you.

373 wahabicorridor  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:53:17am

re: #250 Thanos

Romney has said similar things as well. In a contextual sense it's clear that they are referring to the modern diffused meaning of the word "revolution" just like geeks use it when they talk about a simple change in technology being a "revolution". Inhofe's statement is clearly not using the diffused modern meaning, but rather the old "blood in the streets" meaning.

Well, it's not clear to me.

374 KingKenrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:53:28am

re: #342 Flyovercountry

Lost in this so far, is that a GOP Senator has made the statement that he intends to vote on a bill without reading it. While I agree with his vote, he has placed himself in the category of an elected official who needs to be replaced. Like I've said, we have our idiots on the right also.

I don't see why. If you know a bill has the public option, and your constituents clearly do not want a public option, what's the point? I'd rather he spend his time working on a better solution.

375 Rancher  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:53:31am
He said government is becoming too big and overreaching its boundaries.


Just as it did under Bush and the GOP, if not on as massive a scale.

376 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:53:52am

When people are led to believe their government wants to kill them, then the foundation, the justification for self-defense from the government has been laid.

377 TheOtherCanadian  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:54:15am

re: #244 KingKenrod

Thankfully, journalists were fired as a result of that false accusation. Not to worry though...there will be some sort of "gate" coming down the pike for Prime Minister Harper, I guarantee it.

“Journalists say a thing that they know isn't true, in the hope that if they keep on saying it long enough it will be true.”
Arnold Bennett quotes

378 kansas  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:54:40am

< re: #318 Ward Cleaver

Texas passed a similar thing (constitutional amendment) awhile back, and it's basically ended malpractice suits, since lawyers won't take cases that might take a long time to litigate, and if they win, only get a chunk of $250,000. I think that limit is way too low, and the effect has been that it's squashed the good cases along with the frivolous ones.

Here there is no limit to actual damages. Just the pain and suffering.

379 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:54:49am

re: #285 LudwigVanQuixote

What he is doing is the sort of prevarication and equivocation that allows people to claim that he didn't mean the message that his nutroots base clearly hears. It is very Yasser Arafat.

Speaking in code, is he? I thought that the speaking-in-code meme was pretty looked-down upon here as well?

380 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:55:07am

re: #284 Wendya

Yeah, right.

You dislike Inhofe so anything he says will be colored by your prejudice. I happen to despise Pelosi but if she had suggested the country was ready for a revolution prior to the 2007 election, I wouldn't have a knee jerk reaction hard enough to knock my teeth out and assume she meant overthrowing the government.

Pelosi's adherents don't tote guns to political rallies and think that is OK. There is a very major substantive difference.

381 horse  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:55:22am
Inhofe took the opportunity to blame Democrats for a bevy of issues. He lashed out at democrats for overtaking the government and spending billions of dollars on unpopular packages. He said government is becoming too big and overreaching its boundaries.

"People are not buying these concepts that are completely foreign to America," Inhofe said. "We're almost reaching a revolution in this country."

When I first read the article, I thought he was accusing the democrats of overtaking the government and attempting a revolution via their big government type overreaching policies. I don't agree with him it is revolutionary, but I do believe they are trying to significantly change the nature and size of our government. I don't think he wants to see it happen, but I do think he used excessive polemic speech in a failed attempt to argue against it.

382 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:56:03am

re: #268 haakondahl

Unless Charles quashes this little test...

If you think Inhofe is "inciting" or "calling for" revolution, DOWNDING this post.

If you think Inhofe is "diagnosing" or "warning of" revolution, UPDING this post.

I think Inhofe is a stupid dickweed and an embarrassment. What do I click for that?

383 zombie  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:56:18am

re: #349 LudwigVanQuixote

The elephant in the room for your arguments is the presence of fools with assault rifles at political rallies

Exactly how many of those have there been -- rallies where people showed up with assault rifles? I don't think it's a national movement -- it's happened only once or twice, hasn't it? Like I pointed out in my ztime essay, it's just a matter of media bias and spotlighting certain things over others. One can always find wackos, creeps and morons at any rally supporting any cause. It's all about who one chooses to highlight, over others.

8 guys do something really idiotic, and then suddenly half the voters in the country are discredited? Neither I nor anyone I know gave permission to those gun guys to do what they did, nor do we agree with their actions.

384 Killgore Trout  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:56:19am

re: #359 Spartacus50

James Inhofe does not need to be replaced. He is one of the few Republican senators willing to stand by his principles (even if a few of them may be distasteful).

Ok, let's suppose a group of right wingers are inspired by his words, take up arms and attempt to overthrow our government. What are their chances of success? None. They'll be crushed immediately. How do you think the public is going to view this? The political repercussions would be huge. The American public is not going to vote for a party that advocates overthrowing democratically elected government. It's never going to happen.

385 Rancher  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:56:24am

re: #376 Sharmuta

When people are led to believe their government wants to kill them, then the foundation, the justification for self-defense from the government has been laid.

Where not at the kill stage but what about enslavement?

386 Bagua  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:56:37am

re: #380 LudwigVanQuixote

Pelosi's adherents don't tote guns to political rallies and think that is OK. There is a very major substantive difference.

Neither do McCains or any mainstream republican, those people were proved to be fringe nuts by the video Thanos posted.

387 ladycatnip  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:56:49am

Anybody read about this piece of proposed legislation by our illlustrious dems? Anyone still doubt what their motivation is?

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

What the leftists drool over and dream about - c.o.n.t.r.o.l.

388 Spartacus50  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:56:56am

re: #364 Sharmuta

Yes- he does need to be replaced. He's a big spending anti-conservative.

How 'bout we focus on the Democrats who need replacing before we turn our attention to finding "ideal" Republicans?

389 jdog29  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:57:22am

re: #352 Charles

I hope you realize, though, that whatever the outcome of your little test, it will have no effect on my opinion about this.

James Inhofe is a disgrace. He's an anti-science creationist with ties to the Dominionist movement. He's demonstrated who he is many times with extremist statements about many subjects, and he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt you're trying to give him by carefully parsing his statements. To put this charitable spin on what he said, you have to pretty much ignore his entire history.


Don't kid yourself, this will prove it ALL, this say it ALL and is the end ALL be ALL. ///

390 alegrias  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:57:35am

re: #293 lawhawk

Yippeee.. Tim Pawlenty is coming to stump for GOPer Chris Christie in NJ. Guess Pawlenty is looking to increase his visibility going into the 2012 sweepstakes.

* * * *
So glad Pawlenty got a decent haircut & removed his mullet hair.

391 Bagua  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:57:35am

re: #384 Killgore Trout

Agreed. The media is framing the story by way of selection bias.

392 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:57:41am

re: #388 Spartacus50

How 'bout we focus on the Democrats who need replacing before we turn our attention to finding "ideal" Republicans?

Because we can't defeat the democrats with sub-par republicans.

393 Kenneth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:57:55am

re: #268 haakondahl

Unless Charles quashes this little test...

If you think Inhofe is "inciting" or "calling for" revolution, DOWNDING this post.

If you think Inhofe is "diagnosing" or "warning of" revolution, UPDING this post.

I think Inhofe was cleverly straddling the issue. While avoiding outright calling for a revolution, he did make reference to the growing phenomenon of revolutionary rhetoric as a means to underline and justify his opposition to the bill. The is certainly a case of populist grandstanding and provocative rhetoric. Anybody in the audience who was given to the revolutionary rhetoric had no reason to feel Inhofe wasn't with them in spirit. More than diagnosing the phenomenon as a problem, he was using it as a justification.

394 Ringo the Gringo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:58:08am

Well, not reading it, and voting against it, makes slightly more sense than not reading it and voting for it...but only slightly.

395 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:58:19am

re: #362 itellu3times

But ... don't the dealers incur a $4,500 expense for every $4,500 revenue? That is, as long as they do pass it thru, there should be no real consequence?

But that article seems to suggest the state of South Dakota was considering it income to the buyer.

Actually, some of them had to take out loans in order to front the money to consumers, so they're on the hook for interest on those loans. Dealers here in Texas were especially peeved, since there's been a similar state program here that's been around for a few years, that helps lower-income people whose older cars fail emissions, with a check for up to $3500 to help pay for a new car. That program is much less bureaucratic, and dealers get reimbursed quickly.

396 shortshrift  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:58:35am

re: #203 LudwigVanQuixote

After reviewing some of these posts, how about we get really clear here.

There is a senator of the United States of America whose present speech is just this side of sedition. Rather than quelling the fears that his party's propaganda have engendered in the nut roots, he is instead legitimatizing insurrection - and for what? Your rights? Over the idea of health insurance? Did the colonies see such grievance as to revolt against the idea of paying for national healthcare? Please.

This is an engineered hysteria that can only lead to tragedy for our nation.
There is no excuse - yet I see mealy mouthed excuse after mealy mouthed excuse for it. I see the same pedantic word games that try to dodge the real issue.

Saying that he is not calling for revolution is like saying that Jihad means a peaceful inner struggle. You have learned all to well from those you despise.

And all of you who defend it are the same hypocrites, who think that the government can be trusted to torture people. You are all the ones who think it is OK for the government to spy on you. Such a love of liberty here from such patriots!

It is the same. It is all the same.

Now let's be really real. A SENATOR who calls for insurrection or even breathes of it needs to be impeached.

Reading these posts I see people who believe that the Senator is inciting or at least showing approval for, violent overthrow of the government. They reach this conclusion through a reading of his words, "We are almost reaching a revolution in this country." Later on he also says he will "continue fighting" (which is how politicians always refer to their jobs.)
I see other people disagreeing with this reading. Do you really think that this is equivalent to denying violent Jihad (for which we have at least the evidence of 9/11)? Do let's be really real, to use your phrase. Cancel all metaphors, by all means.
The legal threshold for sedition and incitement, let alone insurrection has not been met.
In some jurisdictions the legal threshold for slander per se is met when a person untruthfully spreads the accusation that another is guilty of a crime.
You are, once again, very emotional. Perhaps even hysterical.

397 marge45b  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:58:44am

My take is the American people are getting fed up with the threat of their freedoms being taken away. My hope is We the people will take our revolt to the ballot box and vote the scumbags out of office. Its for us and our kids future is at stake.

398 jdog29  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:58:53am

re: #389 jdog29

Don't kid yourself, this will prove it ALL, this says it ALL and is the end ALL be ALL. ///

Well, I guess its not ALL that after all.

399 Spartacus50  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:58:54am

re: #384 Killgore Trout

Ok, let's suppose a group of right wingers are inspired by his words, take up arms and attempt to overthrow our government. What are their chances of success? None. They'll be crushed immediately. How do you think the public is going to view this? The political repercussions would be huge. The American public is not going to vote for a party that advocates overthrowing democratically elected government. It's never going to happen.

Call me when this happens

400 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:58:55am

re: #330 alegrias

* * * *
You go & ask Democrat John Conyers to start up impeachment proceedings in the Capitol's basement, then. He's been practicing during the 8 Bush years, and he hasn't had time to read the 1200 page bill we're talking about here.

I'm sure you think that is clever. This is an issue that goes beyond party lines. If there were democrats who were busy skinning and eating girl scouts on the capital steps, it would not mitigate the present GOP faults at all. It doesn't matter at all to this discussion what the Dems are doing or not doing, and honestly, if they had any balls at all, they would impeach this cretin.

This is not a game. Stuff like this, in a climate like this, is how liberty dies.

401 victor_yugo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:59:09am

Ok, about all this "inalienable" claptrap:

What rights enumerated in the Constitution are declared "inalienable"?

402 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:59:16am

re: #272 EmmmieG

We may have a break-down in communication over words here.

When I say tort reform, and when I have read about it on sites like NRO, it refers to limiting the "pain and suffering" awards with the intent of keeping malpractice insurance rates low.

As those two words don't necessarily have to refer to this particular effort, it could mean something else, but whenever I have seen it in conservative writing, this was what it referred to. I will try to find a link.

Agreed.

403 laZardo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:59:19am

re: #346 NukeAtomrod

Here are the political party platforms going back to 1840. Peruse them to see how deeply mistaken you are.


In 1868 the Democrats were railing against "negro supremacy" while little if any mention of race in the Republican platform.

In 1940 both parties were staunchly isolationist (though that would obviously change a couple of years later). Though to be honest, I'm not sure exactly where isolationism stood on the political scales of the time.

It was until the Democrat-regulated (through Barney Frank) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed due to bad loans created by government interference.


It was flawed deregulation in governments (both parties guilty) past that enabled the conditions for this collapse. By that time it was a dam waiting to burst.

Not really true, but even if it were-- So what? Would you rather have good security, or be "liked" by a bunch of countries that eagerly stab you in the back at every opportunity?

That's a bit extreme, isn't it. It's not an "everybody or nobody" when it comes to trust.

404 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:00:00am

re: #382 NukeAtomrod

I think Inhofe is a stupid dickweed and an embarrassment. What do I click for that?

Well, I guess you would click on is website for that. meanwhile, what about his statement?

405 zombie  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:00:28am

re: #394 Ringo the Gringo

Well, not reading it, and voting against it, makes slightly more sense than not reading it and voting for it...but only slightly.

So true. Senators should be REQUIRED to read it before voting on it. Since most of them have admitted to never reading it, the final vote tally will probably be about 3 "Yea"s vs 5 "Nay"s, with 92 "Compulsory Abstention Due to Self-Imposed Ignorance."

406 alegrias  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:00:56am

re: #310 Killgore Trout

Ed morrisey and Hot Air readers are praising Michele Bachmann today. The Paulification of the Republican party is pretty much complete.

* * *
Two people I've never heard of constitute the GOP?

Do math much?

407 OldLineTexan  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:01:00am

re: #399 Spartacus50

Call me when this happens

Crap, the call list for this blog is getting longer and longer ...

408 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:01:00am

re: #401 victor_yugo

Ok, about all this "inalienable" claptrap:

What rights enumerated in the Constitution are declared "inalienable"?

First of all- do you read it as "alien" or "lien" when you see "inalienable"?

409 OldLineTexan  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:01:20am

re: #400 LudwigVanQuixote

I'm sure you think that is clever. This is an issue that goes beyond party lines. If there were democrats who were busy skinning and eating girl scouts on the capital steps, it would not mitigate the present GOP faults at all. It doesn't matter at all to this discussion what the Dems are doing or not doing, and honestly, if they had any balls at all, they would impeach this cretin.

This is not a game. Stuff like this, in a climate like this, is how liberty dies.

This is weather, not climate.

410 Spartacus50  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:01:52am

re: #392 Sharmuta

Because we can't defeat the democrats with sub-par republicans.

Last I checked, Democrats hold supermajorities in both Houses. I think they pose a far greater threat to our freedoms and finances than lil' old Inhofe.

411 [deleted]  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:02:02am
412 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:02:06am

re: #383 zombie

Exactly how many of those have there been -- rallies where people showed up with assault rifles? I don't think it's a national movement -- it's happened only once or twice, hasn't it? Like I pointed out in my ztime essay, it's just a matter of media bias and spotlighting certain things over others. One can always find wackos, creeps and morons at any rally supporting any cause. It's all about who one chooses to highlight, over others.

8 guys do something really idiotic, and then suddenly half the voters in the country are discredited? Neither I nor anyone I know gave permission to those gun guys to do what they did, nor do we agree with their actions.

You know full well, that there are a lot more than 8 voters who sympathize with them. You know full well that Rush and Beck and Palin and various senators and congresscritters and other major right wing voices with national prominence and millions of listeners have been promoting this hysteria.

The only reason to bring up moonbats at all is to point out that the right wing manifestation is just as crazy, but better organized, given vastly more legitimacy in the mainstream, and much more scary.

413 harpsicon  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:02:16am

re: #290 Bagua

I agree with Ludwig, context is very important. Speaking about how a new computer program is going to "revolutionize" a certain task would be quite different from using the phrase the Senator used at a time when kooks are talking about "water the tree of liberty."

But Humphrey specifically said "the great revolutions" and how they happen when people actually are better off, not horribly downtrodden.

This fact is always cited with regard to the French Revolution (one of the "greats" to be sure) - how even though the country was enjoying unheard of prosperity, it went completely crazy.

And no, it was not a few social reforms...

414 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:02:41am

re: #397 marge45b

My take is the American people are getting fed up with the threat of their freedoms being taken away. My hope is We the people will take our revolt to the ballot box and vote the scumbags out of office. Its for us and our kids future is at stake.

What freedoms are you losing? Be specific.

415 victor_yugo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:02:46am

re: #408 Sharmuta

"Unforfeitable."

416 SixDegrees  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:02:54am

re: #253 Ward Cleaver

Conyers has probably been paid not to read it.

Conyers can read?

417 Wendya  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:03:04am

re: #333 rain of lead

gorebull warming solar update
48 days straight no sunspots

Hey, wasn't cycle 24 supposed to start in march?

[Link: www.swpc.noaa.gov...]

Oops... it appears the computer models were wrong.

418 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:03:20am

I really like these impromptu LGF commenter polls. They could be quite useful in ascertaining the will of the lizard.

419 OldLineTexan  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:03:20am

re: #392 Sharmuta

Because we can't defeat the democrats with sub-par republicans.

And even if "we" did, "we" would still have a bunch of sub-par representation. Bleccch.

420 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:03:29am

There are a lot of very good people who could do a great job in government.

They just don't want the media picking through their trash, and finding ways to embarrass their children.

This is a problem, IMHO.

421 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:03:48am

re: #293 lawhawk

Yippeee.. Tim Pawlenty is coming to stump for GOPer Chris Christie in NJ. Guess Pawlenty is looking to increase his visibility going into the 2012 sweepstakes.

I saw him speak at CPAC. He was very persuasive there. Maybe as we get to know him, he'll become acceptable. I go out on a limb and say he's about 1000 times better a presidential candidate that John McCain.

422 laZardo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:03:56am

re: #420 EmmmieG

There are a lot of very good people who could do a great job in government.

They just don't want the media picking through their trash, and finding ways to embarrass their children.

This is a problem, IMHO.

In the age of the Internet, it's an impossibility.

423 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:03:59am

re: #418 unrealizedviewpoint

I really like these impromptu LGF commenter polls. They could be quite useful in ascertaining the will of the lizard.

The Will of the Lizard!

Sounds like a bad-good sci fi movie from the 50's.

424 Rancher  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:04:39am

Everyone remember the bloodbath from the Reagan Revolution? I don't. When the tax burden on the populace exceeds 50% you're working more for the government than for your own family. If not slavery it's at least serfdom. To fight against that is not sedition unless you take up arms against your own government. Fortunately we can take the fight to the ballot box.

425 Randall Gross  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:04:49am

So far only Icculus, a long time stealth downdinger has dinged this thread down.

426 jcm  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:04:54am

OT...

Posting from MacBook Pro with Snow Leopard MacOS 10.6 installed.

/ geek mode

427 victor_yugo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:04:58am

re: #423 EmmmieG

If I ever nym-shift, my new nick will be:

"Steppenpug".

428 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:05:02am

re: #379 haakondahl

Speaking in code, is he? I thought that the speaking-in-code meme was pretty looked-down upon here as well?

No actually, there was a time when Lizards were expert at deciphering it and took great sport in denouncing it with much elan. - particularly when it was the exact same type of equivocation from the Jihad world. These days though, too many lizards are incapable of using those same skills on the GOP.

429 cliffster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:05:05am

re: #400 LudwigVanQuixote

skinning and eating girl scouts

o m g

430 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:05:20am

re: #410 Spartacus50

Last I checked, Democrats hold supermajorities in both Houses. I think they pose a far greater threat to our freedoms and finances than lil' old Inhofe.

Do you think I'm somehow enjoying the democratic majorities? We don't bring that to a stop by continuing to nominate big spending theocrats to office.

431 Jewels (AKA Julian)  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:05:28am

I think what The Senator is trying to say really is that Both parties have cranked the Rhetoric into a Saturnian Orbit and now the monster they have created with thier cheap and inflammatory gibberish is in danger of breaking out of control and consuming both the Dems and the Reps.

My thoughts are is that the Mask has fallen and few, except the Party Grognards are buying anything coming out of washington at this point.

Universal health care is a joke of a concept. I've got three freinds in the medical profession who are leaving it as they can see the tidalwave of stupidity coming. a lot of people are going to snivel and whine that Medicare/Medicaid and SS are about to collapse into the black hole of terminal stupidity they have grown into. No point trying to save it at this point, so I'll just wait on the sidelines and come pick up the pieces. It's what WILL happen, inspite of the Gibberish from washington.


We really need to clear out both parties. all the fossils in it are proving to bea big problem

432 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:05:29am

re: #393 Kenneth

I think Inhofe was cleverly straddling the issue. While avoiding outright calling for a revolution, he did make reference to the growing phenomenon of revolutionary rhetoric as a means to underline and justify his opposition to the bill. The is certainly a case of populist grandstanding and provocative rhetoric. Anybody in the audience who was given to the revolutionary rhetoric had no reason to feel Inhofe wasn't with them in spirit. More than diagnosing the phenomenon as a problem, he was using it as a justification.

Wouldn't it in fact be his job, if he feared revolution, to vote in such a way that tended to forestall said revolution? We're not talking about the indigent Romans voting themselves bread and circuses here, quite the opposite. It's the people who grow the wheat, saying oh-no-you-don't.

But about "justification", can you think of a better justification for a legislator to use than "my constituents are mad as hell, and they told me to vote this way or don't bother to come back"?

Sounds like a Republic!

433 victor_yugo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:05:38am

re: #429 cliffster

o m g

Really, why do you think they're called "Girl Scout Cookies"?

434 laZardo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:05:45am

a href="[Link: www.google.com.ph...]>Tim Pawlenty is a Creationist.

435 alegrias  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:05:46am

re: #332 gonecamping

Please don't vote out of ignorance Senator. Read the blasted bill, then vote against it and cite the reasons why you are against it, not "just because"!

* * * *
The bill doesn't contain ANY GOP-suggested free market based changes.

The bill is 100% Democrat boiler plate government takeover dogma that Democrats said they wanted to enact.

That's just two of 1200 reasons to vote against crap even Democrats don't bother to read.

436 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:06:09am

re: #425 Thanos

So far only Icculus, a long time stealth downdinger has dinged this thread down.

Icculus? The obscure Greek god of garbage?

437 Wendya  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:06:11am

re: #372 Cato the Elder

The president can propose legislation that the congress introduces. See the dread health-care push. If you spot something similar on guns from either the executive or legislative branch, send me a smoke signal, mmkay?

That should be plain enough even for you.

No need to get testy just because I pointed out that the President SIGNS legislation introduced BY the congress. That grade school level stuff, Cato.

438 Danny  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:06:15am

re: #334 SFGoth

Again, the concept of inalienable rights is circular. Funny how most governments over the history of mankind have been authoritarian at best, and despotic at worst. Kind of puts the lie to inalienable rights. Inalienable rights did not exist until people were enlightened enough to "discover" them.

Humans have rights whether or not they are aware of them. I don't follow how that is a circular concept.

439 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:06:39am

re: #415 victor_yugo

"Unforfeitable."

Thanks. I've always wanted to have a discussion on LGF about that one little word after watching a debate with two friends who took opposing views.

440 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:06:41am

re: #436 EmmmieG

Icculus? The obscure Greek god of garbage?

Eyes

441 laZardo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:06:43am

re: #434 laZardo

Huh. HTML screwed up. Googled "Tim Pawlenty creationism" and didn't know which link to pick so I don't end up posting a pro-creationist blog.

442 Flyovercountry  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:06:44am

re: #359 Spartacus50

James Inhofe does not need to be replaced. He is one of the few Republican senators willing to stand by his principles (even if a few of them may be distasteful).

I must disagree with you. Voting on a bill without reading it first should be automatic grounds for the voters in his state to remove him from office. I would say this is true for both Liberals and Conservatives alike.

Flaunting that fact shows a complete disreguard for those people he represents. this kind of arrogance is astounding. He is one of many who need to go.

443 alegrias  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:07:05am

re: #400 LudwigVanQuixote

I'm sure you think that is clever. This is an issue that goes beyond party lines. If there were democrats who were busy skinning and eating girl scouts on the capital steps, it would not mitigate the present GOP faults at all. It doesn't matter at all to this discussion what the Dems are doing or not doing, and honestly, if they had any balls at all, they would impeach this cretin.

This is not a game. Stuff like this, in a climate like this, is how liberty dies.

* * * *
Cry me ein river Ludwig van Weepster

444 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:07:26am

re: #400 LudwigVanQuixote

I'm sure you think that is clever. This is an issue that goes beyond party lines. If there were democrats who were busy skinning and eating girl scouts on the capital steps, it would not mitigate the present GOP faults at all. It doesn't matter at all to this discussion what the Dems are doing or not doing, and honestly, if they had any balls at all, they would impeach this cretin.

This is not a game. Stuff like this, in a climate like this, is how liberty dies.

Most people settle for the cookies.
"Are they mad with real girl scouts?"

445 ladycatnip  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:07:26am

#400 LudwigVanQuioxte

This is not a game. Stuff like this, in a climate like this, is how liberty dies.

Liberty dies when dems pass legislation denying our choices. I posted upthread #387, there is a bill proposed to give the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

THAT'S how liberty dies a slow death - behind closed doors, one bill at a time.

446 Kenneth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:07:28am

What do people think about this:

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

447 MrSilverDragon  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:07:30am

re: #433 victor_yugo

Really, why do you think they're called "Girl Scout Cookies"?

Of course, which leads me to this chain of thought... if olive oil is made from olives, and sunflower oil is made from sunflowers... from what is baby oil made?

448 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:07:31am

re: #404 haakondahl

Well, I guess you would click on is website for that. meanwhile, what about his statement?

That is my opinion on his statement.

449 brazilofmux  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:07:39am

re: #417 Wendya

How did those computer models in the financial sector work out?

450 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:07:58am

re: #444 Kosh's Shadow

made pimf

451 Charles Johnson  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:08:01am

Meet James Inhofe:

After 9/11, Inhofe's position was pretty close to Pat Robertson's -- he thought the attacks were divine retribution against the US. He's compared climate scientists to Nazis. He thinks that US policy toward Israel should be based on the literal text of the Bible.

And that's just scratching the surface. I'm not just spouting off when I call him a "religious fanatic" -- he's somewhat to the right of Jerry Falwell.

452 zombie  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:08:02am

re: #426 jcm

OT...

Posting from MacBook Pro with Snow Leopard MacOS 10.6 installed.

/ geek mode

Ooooh!

Impressions? Is it worth buying?

453 [deleted]  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:08:04am
454 Randall Gross  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:08:07am

Every one keeps saying that what Obama is doing is wrong and unconstitutional, however I don't see them racing to remedy through through the one branch of gov't we still hold a modicum of power and influence in. If what he's doing is sooo unconstitutional, then where are the suits before the Supes? I remember a couple over the GM bailout that got thrown out, but that's it.

455 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:08:15am

re: #400 LudwigVanQuixote

This is not a game. Stuff like this, in a climate like this, is how liberty dies.

And what of nationalizing another seventh of the economy?

Do you still say that Inhofe "called for" revolution, or will you climb down from that?

456 Danny  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:08:32am

re: #451 Charles

Meet James Inhofe:

After 9/11, Inhofe's position was pretty close to Pat Robertson's...

Say no more.

457 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:08:33am

re: #411 buzzsawmonkey

I'm not worried. There will be a man-made climate change at any moment.

That is so not funny buddy. You know I love you, but seriously, what will likely happen is that crap like this, will prevent any actual effort to do anything. Perhaps the fascist nation of the United States of Beck will simply be drowned and starved when the eco-collapse comes.

458 doppelganglander  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:08:51am

re: #384 Killgore Trout

Ok, let's suppose a group of right wingers are inspired by his words, take up arms and attempt to overthrow our government. What are their chances of success? None. They'll be crushed immediately. How do you think the public is going to view this? The political repercussions would be huge. The American public is not going to vote for a party that advocates overthrowing democratically elected government. It's never going to happen.

Then it's a lucky thing no political party is advocating overthrowing a democratically elected government, isn't it?

459 The Shadow Do  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:09:08am

re: #336 Gus 802

Lawsuits account for "less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending." According to Tom Baker author of "The Medical Malpractice Myth." Other reading reveals that tort reform in Texas did not result in lowering health care costs in that state.

I am sure there are counter arguments.


I clocked in to tell a little story because I suspect the less than 1/2 of one percent figure does not calculate the cost of defensive medicine.
I had terrible pain in my groin so went to see my Doc. He found nothing so had me wear bike shorts to see if it was just a soft tissue tear or somesuch. No such luck, so he referes me to a Doc to examine me for a possibloe deep tissue hernia. This Doc said he could operate to find out but that he would not do that. So now what? I picked out an ortho guy from the phone book and made an appointment. After a quick consult he orders me out to get an MRI. At the follow up he points out degenerating bone in my hips and said I would need hip replacement which he could do but said I should see another Ortho first who was skilled with some new fangled procedure. So I make the appointment with the Super Ortho who, before even looking at the MRI or anything else has me X-rayed on the spot. One cheap X-ray told him all he needed to know. It cost thousands before anyone took a damn x-ray!

460 Gus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:09:14am

re: #293 lawhawk

Yippeee.. Tim Pawlenty is coming to stump for GOPer Chris Christie in NJ. Guess Pawlenty is looking to increase his visibility going into the 2012 sweepstakes.

New Jersey Prosecutor Who Got Loan From Christie Quits

Governor Corzine is a disaster. Unfortunately Christie has a big problem now regarding an unreported 46,000 dollar loan: The No. 2 official in New Jersey’s United States attorney’s office resigned on Tuesday, less than two weeks after revelations that she borrowed $46,000 from her former boss, Christopher J. Christie, who is now the state’s Republican candidate for governor.

461 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:09:17am

re: #428 LudwigVanQuixote

No actually, there was a time when Lizards were expert at deciphering it and took great sport in denouncing it with much elan. - particularly when it was the exact same type of equivocation from the Jihad world. These days though, too many lizards are incapable of using those same skills on the GOP.

I'm not sure if it's "incapable".

462 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:09:18am

re: #440 Creeping Eruption

Eyes

I thought that would be Occulus.

463 ladycatnip  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:09:24am

#446 Kenneth

See my # 387 - we're on the same page. ;-)

464 Kenneth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:09:37am

re: #432 haakondahl

If he had said it that way, then yes. But the way he said it was inflammatory, using the threat of revolution as, well, a threat. That was irresponsible.

465 victor_yugo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:09:37am

re: #439 Sharmuta

Thanks. I've always wanted to have a discussion on LGF about that one little word after watching a debate with two friends who took opposing views.

Semantic connection between "alien" and "lien" suggests a common Indo-european root.

466 laZardo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:09:38am

re: #446 Kenneth

What do people think about this:

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

I hear Ruddnet isn't doing so good in Australia. If it doesn't work there then it surely won't work here.

There's also an Al Gore joke for this, but I can't think of one.

467 Mad Al-Jaffee  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:09:41am

re: #366 alegrias

* * *
Tort reform is also about NOT driving ob-gyn doctors out of your town & state!

Who wants to be like Britain where pregnant people drive far & then line hospital halls waiting for the government doc to deliver babies assembly style?

I keep picturing the Birth sequences from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.

468 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:09:46am

re: #446 Kenneth

What do people think about this:

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

It depends on the details.
If some computers were causing a disruption in the internet, then I can see the government should have the ability to get them disconnected until they are no longer a problem, just like people can be arrested for blocking traffic, and objects used to block roads can be removed by the government.

469 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:10:07am

re: #446 Kenneth

What do people think about this:

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

I think I am glad that they are at least taking the threat seriously. Wasn't Richard Clark screaming about cybersecurity after 9/11? I didn't read the bill, but they sure as hell need to be addressing it.

From yesterdays NYT: Defying Experts, Rogue Computer Code Still Lurks

470 kansas  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:10:50am

re: #414 Cato the Elder

What freedoms are you losing? Be specific.

The same ones that Bush was taking away?

471 [deleted]  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:10:58am
472 wahabicorridor  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:11:00am

re: #406 alegrias

check yer mail

473 lawhawk  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:11:12am

re: #412 LudwigVanQuixote

You know full well, that there are a lot more than 8 voters who sympathize with them. You know full well that Rush and Beck and Palin and various senators and congresscritters and other major right wing voices with national prominence and millions of listeners have been promoting this hysteria.

The only reason to bring up moonbats at all is to point out that the right wing manifestation is just as crazy, but better organized, given vastly more legitimacy in the mainstream, and much more scary.

Right wing is better organized? MoveOn.org ring a bell? Heck, they're a mouthpiece for the DNC these days, and they were bashing Bush on legitimacy issues from the outset.

And what about Daily Kos, whose proprietor is now providing editorials for Newsweek and gets to throw his weight around DC?

I question your claim that the right wing is somehow more legitimacy in the mainstream when evidence suggests that the left is far more entrenched (starting with the fact that most journalists self-identify with the left).

474 laZardo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:11:21am

It's 2 AM and I have to head to bed. Still paying for the H1N1-forced vacation from a couple months back by having my Monday schedule for classes later this morning. Cheers.

475 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:11:34am

re: #459 The Shadow Do

I clocked in to tell a little story because I suspect the less than 1/2 of one percent figure does not calculate the cost of defensive medicine.
I had terrible pain in my groin so went to see my Doc. He found nothing so had me wear bike shorts to see if it was just a soft tissue tear or somesuch. No such luck, so he referes me to a Doc to examine me for a possibloe deep tissue hernia. This Doc said he could operate to find out but that he would not do that. So now what? I picked out an ortho guy from the phone book and made an appointment. After a quick consult he orders me out to get an MRI. At the follow up he points out degenerating bone in my hips and said I would need hip replacement which he could do but said I should see another Ortho first who was skilled with some new fangled procedure. So I make the appointment with the Super Ortho who, before even looking at the MRI or anything else has me X-rayed on the spot. One cheap X-ray told him all he needed to know. It cost thousands before anyone took a damn x-ray!

Thats not defensive medicine. That is a doc who doesnt know what he is doing.

476 Bagua  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:11:43am

re: #457 LudwigVanQuixote

That is so not funny buddy. You know I love you, but seriously, what will likely happen is that crap like this, will prevent any actual effort to do anything. Perhaps the fascist nation of the United States of Beck will simply be drowned and starved when the eco-collapse comes.

I see that we agree once more, we are indeed in danger of economic collapse from the misguided policies of the environmental fanatics.

477 avanti  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:12:16am

re: #299 kansas

Yeah, I wish Bush would have issued blanket pardons to everyone involved in the war and terror to keep these assholes from this idiotic witch hunt.

Then the guy convicted of beating a prisoner to death should have been pardoned ?

478 Gus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:12:37am

re: #460 Gus 802

Messed that up. Should have read:

Governor Corzine is a disaster. Unfortunately Christie has a big problem now regarding an unreported 46,000 dollar loan:

The No. 2 official in New Jersey’s United States attorney’s office resigned on Tuesday, less than two weeks after revelations that she borrowed $46,000 from her former boss, Christopher J. Christie, who is now the state’s Republican candidate for governor.

479 lawhawk  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:12:51am

re: #460 Gus 802

And mrs. lawhawk pointed out that Christie and Brown were pulled over for speeding - and Brown apparently didn't have a license or registration. Christie tried to get the cop to wave them along, but managed to get the ticket listed as a fine for unsafe driving.

480 [deleted]  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:13:01am
481 cliffster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:13:20am

re: #446 Kenneth

What do people think about this:

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

So what does that mean - in case of emergency, everyone gives the President root access?

482 Charles Johnson  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:13:45am

re: #471 earlwer

And now the Spencer-Geller crowd pops up its head. Lovely.

Get off my site.

483 laZardo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:13:49am

re: #426 jcm

OT...

Posting from MacBook Pro with Snow Leopard MacOS 10.6 installed.

/ geek mode

I've managed to get access to the Philippine MSDNAA. Basically it means I might be able to get myself Windows 7 before its official release. :D

/and not just the Release Candidate I'm using now...

484 The Shadow Do  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:13:56am

re: #475 Creeping Eruption

Thats not defensive medicine. That is a doc who doesnt know what he is doing.

Make that several Docs, I will now practice defensive patientry.

485 Son of the Black Dog  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:14:00am

re: #204 Gus 802

What's the congressional record regarding tort reform when Republicans held the majority?

IIRC, the Democrats always blocked it, albeit with help from some lawyer RINO's.

486 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:14:13am

re: #428 LudwigVanQuixote

No actually, there was a time when Lizards were expert at deciphering it and took great sport in denouncing it with much elan. - particularly when it was the exact same type of equivocation from the Jihad world. These days though, too many lizards are incapable of using those same skills on the GOP.

I would also like to point out that the founder of the Conservative movement- Barry Goldwater- did not hesitate to take his fellow republicans to task when he thought they were wrong. It's a conservative tradition:

"It is in the area of spending that the Republican Party's performance, in its seven years of power, has been most disappointing." -Barry Goldwater

For those who think it's unacceptable to criticize our own- you are, frankly, part of the problem, imo.

487 MJ  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:14:15am

re: #446 Kenneth

What do people think about this:

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

I think if the Bush Administration had come up with something like this, the MSM would be going crazy.

488 horse  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:14:21am

re: #414 Cato the Elder

What freedoms are you losing? Be specific.

We have had erosion on our property rights/freedoms via unreasonable limits and confiscation. We have had some erosion of our speech and religious freedom rights via hate speech rules and religion in public education. We have had some erosion of our rights to be secure in our houses via excessive and false searches and seizures. Some erosion comes from the left, some erosion comes from the right. All erosion is bad.

489 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:14:32am

re: #484 The Shadow Do

Make that several Docs, I will now practice defensive patientry.

Too many people do not.

490 kansas  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:14:33am

re: #336 Gus 802

Lawsuits account for "less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending." According to Tom Baker author of "The Medical Malpractice Myth." Other reading reveals that tort reform in Texas did not result in lowering health care costs in that state.

I am sure there are counter arguments.

Did you check Tom Baker's CV? Fox says need for henhouse safety exaggerated. Says no evidence of need for closing door.

491 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:14:36am

re: #384 Killgore Trout

Ok, let's suppose a group of right wingers are inspired by his words, take up arms and attempt to overthrow our government. What are their chances of success? None. They'll be crushed immediately. How do you think the public is going to view this? The political repercussions would be huge. The American public is not going to vote for a party that advocates overthrowing democratically elected government. It's never going to happen.

You are ascribing your own "incitement" POV to Spartacus50, changing the meaning of what he said, or replying to something he manifestly DID NOT SAY, as you like.

Dishonest.

492 Bagua  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:14:38am

re: #481 cliffster

So what does that mean - in case of emergency, everyone gives the President root access?

I believe it is anticipating a cyber-attack, something which could prove a genuine threat to national security.

493 victor_yugo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:14:43am

re: #468 Kosh's Shadow

It depends on the details.
If some computers were causing a disruption in the internet, then I can see the government should have the ability to get them disconnected until they are no longer a problem, just like people can be arrested for blocking traffic, and objects used to block roads can be removed by the government.

You mean, like sharing notes about what senators have and have not read the 0bamacare bill?

How about people being reported for posting criticisms of 0bamacare?

The Internet treats censorship as a network fault, and routes around it.

494 AllanHateMe  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:14:58am

Do you think that he means 'revolution' in a violent sense? Could he not just as well mean 'revolution' in an electoral sense? As for his religious fanaticism, the followers of Obama are no less fanatical and follow an ideology no more founded in reality than Inhofe's religion.

495 Gus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:15:21am

re: #479 lawhawk

And mrs. lawhawk pointed out that Christie and Brown were pulled over for speeding - and Brown apparently didn't have a license or registration. Christie tried to get the cop to wave them along, but managed to get the ticket listed as a fine for unsafe driving.

That's not going to help. I read that the negative campaigning has begun in earnest. Corzine has access to a great deal of funds. These two pieces of news may not bode well for Christie.

496 Ringo the Gringo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:15:44am

This one's for all the Okies in the house:

497 wahabicorridor  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:16:00am

re: #454 Thanos

Every one keeps saying that what Obama is doing is wrong and unconstitutional, however I don't see them racing to remedy through through the one branch of gov't we still hold a modicum of power and influence in. If what he's doing is sooo unconstitutional, then where are the suits before the Supes? I remember a couple over the GM bailout that got thrown out, but that's it.

They probably should rephrase to say 'what Obama is trying to do" - can't go before the Supes on laws that haven't been passed - yet.

498 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:16:50am
499 Gus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:17:23am

re: #490 kansas

Did you check Tom Baker's CV? Fox says need for henhouse safety exaggerated. Says no evidence of need for closing door.

That's for you to decide not me.

500 jcm  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:17:24am

re: #452 zombie

Ooooh!

Impressions? Is it worth buying?

Install went seamlessly, took about an hour.

Minor speed bump.
Haven't really given it a workout.

Dissappointed no SATA 3.0 support, my machine has a 3.0 chip set, but it's still at 1.5. That denies some read write speed with the HD. I grip about that at the apple forums later.

Some nice little tweaks here and there. For $30, so far not disappointed.

501 Randall Gross  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:18:00am

re: #497 wahabicorridor

They probably should rephrase to say 'what Obama is trying to do" - can't go before the Supes on laws that haven't been passed - yet.

Correct, but there are several laws that have passed that remain untested. I'm serious in this query, not trying to start a fight. It's strategery.

502 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:18:04am

re: #468 Kosh's Shadow

It depends on the details.
If some computers were causing a disruption in the internet, then I can see the government should have the ability to get them disconnected until they are no longer a problem, just like people can be arrested for blocking traffic, and objects used to block roads can be removed by the government.

Absolutely not. If we ever get attacked bigtime, we'l want all the little hackers doing what they can--which is to provide cover for the few who can actually help, who don't work for the government, and who will do a lot better job than anything FEMA can come up with. Sorry, guys, but FEMA is the wrong tool for this emergency.
If we survive a potentially crippling attack, it will be due to a distributed, briefly anonymous base of support.

503 harpsicon  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:18:20am

re: #414 Cato the Elder

What freedoms are you losing? Be specific.

Have you ever given a glance at Hayek's The Road to Serfdom?

The scary thing is how what he was writing about in 1940 is exactly what's going on now, with all the extra-legislative "expert panels" and "czars" who aren't strictly illegal, if authorized by legislation, but which nonetheless do away with freedom just as well as the most determined dictator.

504 avanti  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:18:46am

re: #446 Kenneth

What do people think about this:

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

It makes perfect sense in the even of a massive cyber attack in order to respond effectively.

505 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:18:50am

re: #492 Bagua

I believe it is anticipating a cyber-attack, something which could prove a genuine threat to national security.

That's what I figure.

If some hostile virus that was spreading quickly, or something.

Someone may need to reboot the whole internet.

506 lawhawk  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:18:52am

Should it surprise anyone that the NYT is busy cheering for the very thing that got the nation into the big mess we're in in the first place? They're cheering that we're spending more - both the claimed result of the cash for clunkers program and the homeowners tax credit.

Right.

We got into this mess because people spent more than they should have based on their income. They overextended themselves and "forgot" that they had to pay for it. So they didn't. And taxpayers had to pick up the tab.

Now, with homeowner tax credits, it looks like spending picked up in July because of the homeowner tax credit and the cash for clunkers.

Really. A temporary pop because spring sales are finally closing in real estate transactions, when they're usually a 90 day lag between the offer and closing, and the shift in sales as a result of the cash for clunkers, and somehow we're going to say that things are better?

That's fanciful.

Right up there with Krugman now saying that deficits aren't so bad, when he was busy slamming them in 2004 when someone from across the aisle was running up deficits a fraction of the size of the current occupant in the White House - it's partisan politics as usual, and the public suffers as a result of such myopia.

507 brazilofmux  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:18:53am

re: #494 AllanHateMe

When pinned down, he would probably say that he meant it in an electoral sense. But, he intentionally left it open as a possibility to stoke the fires of the electorate. It's a dangerous game to play.

508 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:19:14am

re: #498 Ben Hur

Qaddafi Son: 'Obvious' Lockerbie Bomber's Release Tied to Oil

8 years of Europrojection.

Fucking pussies!

509 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:19:26am

re: #451 Charles

Meet James Inhofe:

After 9/11, Inhofe's position was pretty close to Pat Robertson's -- he thought the attacks were divine retribution against the US. He's compared climate scientists to Nazis. He thinks that US policy toward Israel should be based on the literal text of the Bible.

And that's just scratching the surface. I'm not just spouting off when I call him a "religious fanatic" -- he's somewhat to the right of Jerry Falwell.

Inhofe is a total disgrace.

Just as a personal note about calling people Nazis...

I am a Zionist.
I am an American.
I support the facts of AGW.
I support Israel.
I am anti-creationist.
I am anti-Jihadi.
I am eco-friendly and advocate it.
I am pro-nuclear.
I am pro-military.

On each and every one of those fronts, there are thousands of people around the world who would call me a Nazi. Hmmm. I had family murdered by nazis. I am a Jew.

As a new matter of policy. If I see anyone use the word Nazi to describe anything other than a fascist adherent of Hitler, I will automatically down ding them.

Nazi is a word like rape. It is a word like pedophile. It is not a word to be bandied about by morons in cheap political discourse.

510 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:19:52am

re: #403 laZardo

In 1868 the Democrats were railing against "negro supremacy" while little if any mention of race in the Republican platform.

In 1940 both parties were staunchly isolationist (though that would obviously change a couple of years later). Though to be honest, I'm not sure exactly where isolationism stood on the political scales of the time.

If you read all platforms sequentially, you'll find the GOP to consistently state blacks are equal under the law and the Dems think blacks' rights need to be limited.

It was flawed deregulation in governments (both parties guilty) past that enabled the conditions for this collapse. By that time it was a dam waiting to burst.

Barney Frank was simultaneously overseeing those quasi-government controlled companies and carrying on an 8-year affair with a Fannie Mae executive. Can you say that about any Republicans?

That's a bit extreme, isn't it. It's not an "everybody or nobody" when it comes to trust.

No. It's a pattern of behavior well demonstrated during the last century.

511 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:19:59am

re: #464 Kenneth

If he had said it that way, then yes. But the way he said it was inflammatory, using the threat of revolution as, well, a threat. That was irresponsible.

Wow. I just don't get all that from the article.

512 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:20:26am

re: #437 Wendya

No need to get testy just because I pointed out that the President SIGNS legislation introduced BY the congress. That grade school level stuff, Cato.

So, with no push from the White House or the AG's office on firearms, and no legislation pending in House or Senate, tell me again why those losers are strutting around with guns at presidential rallies and sweeping the stores clean so that I can't even buy .22 LR at a reasonable price anymore.

513 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:21:33am

re: #512 Cato the Elder

So, with no push from the White House or the AG's office on firearms, and no legislation pending in House or Senate, tell me again why those losers are strutting around with guns at presidential rallies and sweeping the stores clean so that I can't even buy .22 LR at a reasonable price anymore.

It was all another plan to stimulate the economy and the bitter clingers played into Obamas hands.//

514 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:22:00am

re: #473 lawhawk

Right wing is better organized? MoveOn.org ring a bell? Heck, they're a mouthpiece for the DNC these days, and they were bashing Bush on legitimacy issues from the outset.

And what about Daily Kos, whose proprietor is now providing editorials for Newsweek and gets to throw his weight around DC?

I question your claim that the right wing is somehow more legitimacy in the mainstream when evidence suggests that the left is far more entrenched (starting with the fact that most journalists self-identify with the left).

Did you ever notice that getting lefties moving in the same direction is like herding cats?

Yes, the right is better organized and stop changing the subject. We have dozens of threads here talking about the idiocy of the moonbats - hell we invented the word.

We are talking about a different, and more malignant cancer at the present time.

515 Wendya  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:22:02am

re: #505 Ben Hur

Someone may need to reboot the whole internet.

I sure as hell don't want the same people who brought us the social security administration and the IRS to be responsible for "rebooting" the internet.

516 lawhawk  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:22:04am

re: #495 Gus 802

Corzine has the DNC and every Democrat working to keep him in office - because if Corzine falls to the GOP, that is a sign of things to come in 2010. Corzine still has more money at his disposal than Christie.

Thing is that Christie hasn't even begun slamming Corzine in earnest. And Christie remains ahead in polling.

People are sick of Corzine, and may decide that it's time for a change.

Christie is doing himself no favors with this kind of stuff though (not like Corzine can complain much - given that he was nearly killed when his car was going 90+ mph to make a political gathering and flipped in an accident on the GSP). And that doesn't even touch on the corruption within Trenton.

517 Bagua  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:22:13am

re: #505 Ben Hur

That's what I figure.

If some hostile virus that was spreading quickly, or something.

Someone may need to reboot the whole internet.

Exactly, it is simply paranoid to assume that absolutely everything the president proposes is part of some sinister plot to remove our freedoms.

Part of the agenda Obama was elected to pursue involved modernisation and updating of technology.

518 JamesWI  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:22:34am

On the idea of tort reform:

It amazes me that so many people who claim to be conservatives are in favor of an idea that flies in the face of what conservatism is supposed to mean - limited government. With tort reform, the gov't is specifically telling the people, that no matter how much pain and suffering the doctor's incompetent acts caused, the gov't only deems you worthy of, (using a previous poster's state as an example) $250K. Can you really not envision plenty of cases where the patient's pain and suffering is easily worth plenty more than that?

I'm not saying there isn't an argument for tort reform - i.e. limits on judgments would discourage frivolous lawsuits by people hoping to exploit a minor mistake by a doctor. What I'm saying is that this is a far cry from a "conservative" argument - you are infringing on the rights of the deserving malpractice victim for the greater good of the medical community

519 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:22:44am

Haakon, I see not many people buy the "just diagnosing" diagnosis.

520 shmuli  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:22:47am

Inhofe is absolutely right. Only a fool who has been asleep for years and not aware of the Leftist Democrats' position on health care (against: MSA's, insurance competition across state lines, de-linking employment and health insurance, establishing blind pools, etc) would need to read a bill made up by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their acolytes to know, AHEAD of time, that it is a BAD. Inhofe has been watching these fools for years and knows what they think. Charles is wrong on this one (unless I am missing some satire in his post). We have enough excerpts, there is certainly no need to read the bill. Any "Health Care" bill that Teddy Kennedy would have supported HAS to be a bad deal, QED.

Regardless of one's opinion of Inhofe's religious beliefs, he has led the battle against the Secularist Religion of Global Warming. He would get my support and money for that alone. Environmentalism (not concern for the environment, but the movement) is a movement which seeks to control you and your life. That is pretty obvious. If you cannot figure that out, you are mentally challenged, indeed.

Far Left politicians are, by definition, screwing you, or planning to do so (not that Republicans are so great) to you, your children and the entire nation. Their purpose is to acquire power and control you. That is their mindset. It is called tyranny, because only they know what is best for you and think that YOU cannot be allowed the freedom to decide for yourself. That is why they make war on religious Christians.

Seems the problem on this board is the unfortunate use of the phrase "almost reaching a revolution." OK, so he misspoke, alright? He characterized an impressive outpouring against the cesspool of a bill the Democrats term "health care reform" as a "revolution." EH. Big EFFIN Deal. Let it go. Don't get your knickers in a twist. So you never misspoke when riled up or emotionally involved in a discussion? Nobody is perfect. It is childish to demand that those, like Inhofe, who essentially on OUR side (freedom and liberty from the statists who want to run our lives) on most of the issues which matter, measure up to perfectly match your own beliefs and needs.

Perhaps it is time to rethink who are our allies, however imperfect they may be, and who are the enemies of freedom and liberty. Believe me, the Christian Right is not the enemy, nor is Beck. Not everyone is going to please you all the time.

521 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:23:34am

re: #519 Cato the Elder

Haakon, I see not many people buy the "just diagnosing" diagnosis.

check your click... I think you missed...

522 Kenneth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:23:48am

re: #469 Creeping Eruption

That's my first take on the issue. The intention of the bill is to deal with a serious cyberwar threat, not gov't censorship of Twitter or critical blogs. But there is a potential for abuse. These are serious issues and I hope congress and the media will have a serious debate about it and avoid the hysterics.

Fat chance.

523 Wendya  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:23:59am

re: #518 JamesWI

On the idea of tort reform:

It amazes me that so many people who claim to be conservatives are in favor of an idea that flies in the face of what conservatism is supposed to mean - limited government. With tort reform, the gov't is specifically telling the people, that no matter how much pain and suffering the doctor's incompetent acts caused, the gov't only deems you worthy of, (using a previous poster's state as an example) $250K. Can you really not envision plenty of cases where the patient's pain and suffering is easily worth plenty more than that?

Since the government sets up the legal system, I can see a responsibility for them to regulate it.

524 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:24:09am

Simple tort reform. If the plaintiff loses the case, the plaintiff's lawyer (not the plaintiff) has to pay the defendent's legal fees.

525 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:24:12am

re: #505 Ben Hur

That's what I figure.

If some hostile virus that was spreading quickly, or something.

Someone may need to reboot the whole internet.

re: #504 avanti

It makes perfect sense in the even of a massive cyber attack in order to respond effectively.

Nope, nope nope. This draconian nonsense would preclude the only plausible hope, that of loosely confederated agencies and agents working together but autonomously. Meanwhile, why don't they do something that might actually help, and require source IP validation? This would cut down on spam AND botnets.

526 wahabicorridor  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:24:37am

re: #519 Cato the Elder

Haakon, I see not many people buy the "just diagnosing" diagnosis.

I do. I didn't 'hear' any language that sounded like incitement - just an observation/diagnosis

527 lawhawk  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:24:47am

re: #514 LudwigVanQuixote

Did you ever notice that getting lefties moving in the same direction is like herding cats?

Yes, the right is better organized and stop changing the subject. We have dozens of threads here talking about the idiocy of the moonbats - hell we invented the word.

We are talking about a different, and more malignant cancer at the present time.

Changing the subject? I just pointed out that the left is better organized (and which I should add was a major reason that Obama was able to not only win the nomination for the Democrats but the general election - ground game). You now claim that my pointing out this very fact is off topic?

Funny.

Even funnier is the claim that the left is herding cats. Ever try to get the right to agree on anything. Three words- Not.Gonna. Happen.

You are right about one thing - there is a malignancy in the GOP and they do need to deal with it - just as surely as the left has a similar issue - and their answer is always the same - Blame Bush.

528 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:24:53am

re: #524 SnowMonster

Simple tort reform. If the plaintiff loses the case, the plaintiff's lawyer (not the plaintiff) has to pay the defendent's legal fees.

Asinine

529 gonecamping  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:25:21am

My wife says "man-made climate change is something we cannot afford to ignore".

Unfortunately, after getting this months electric bill, I have to agree, and now turn up the thermostat on the AC when I leave the house for hours on end. That is right...imposing man-made climate change in your house will cost you money;-)

re: #411 buzzsawmonkey

I'm not worried. There will be a man-made climate change at any moment.

530 kenufive  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:25:42am

#178 CIA reject

If you don't want the rights granted by G-D, feel free to relinquish them.

531 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:26:03am

re: #357 garycooper

It is pretty clear that Ludes learned his dance-moves at Daily Kos, or Democratic Underground. :)

And it is pretty clear that you never learned reading comprehension skills beyond the fifth grade.

But that is at least a little better than your mathematical ability.

532 Killgore Trout  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:26:15am

re: #520 shmuli

It is childish to demand that those, like Inhofe, who essentially on OUR side (freedom and liberty from the statists who want to run our lives) on most of the issues which matter, measure up to perfectly match your own beliefs and needs.

Perhaps it is time to rethink who are our allies, however imperfect they may be, and who are the enemies of freedom and liberty. Believe me, the Christian Right is not the enemy, nor is Beck.

Infohoe and Beck are most certainly my enemies.

533 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:26:20am

re: #512 Cato the Elder

So, with no push from the White House or the AG's office on firearms, and no legislation pending in House or Senate, tell me again why those losers are strutting around with guns at presidential rallies and sweeping the stores clean so that I can't even buy .22 LR at a reasonable price anymore.

If Obama believed he could pass stricter gun controls he would do it. His statements & history demonstrates this. Obama saw what happened when Clinton went after the guns, he's not going to take that on right now. He will though and the folks know it. It's just his nature.

BTW - the economy is also a major driver when it comes to the run on guns and ammo. Folks think they might just need em.

534 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:26:56am

re: #486 Sharmuta

I would also like to point out that the founder of the Conservative movement- Barry Goldwater- did not hesitate to take his fellow republicans to task when he thought they were wrong. It's a conservative tradition:

"It is in the area of spending that the Republican Party's performance, in its seven years of power, has been most disappointing." -Barry Goldwater

For those who think it's unacceptable to criticize our own- you are, frankly, part of the problem, imo.

Amen.

535 Wendya  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:27:24am

re: #524 SnowMonster

Simple tort reform. If the plaintiff loses the case, the plaintiff's lawyer (not the plaintiff) has to pay the defendent's legal fees.

I hadn't thought about the lawyer paying. I do like the idea of loser-pays. Where the hell is justice when someone is allowed to file frivolous lawsuits and you have to pay to defend yourself against something that should never have made it to court in the first place?

536 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:27:36am

re: #528 Creeping Eruption

re: #524 SnowMonster


Asinine


That was deep and compelling.

If a person has truly been wronged, they will win the case. If they are just trying to hit the lottery, the lawyer has to think about it because it will cost him if he fails

537 Bagua  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:28:16am

re: #520 shmuli

[...]
Seems the problem on this board is the unfortunate use of the phrase "almost reaching a revolution." OK, so he misspoke, alright? [...]

Mispoke? Are you the Senator's spokesman? Did he retract or clarify his words, or are you simply putting words in his mouth to suit your agenda?

[...]
Perhaps it is time to rethink who are our allies, however imperfect they may be, and who are the enemies of freedom and liberty. Believe me, the Christian Right is not the enemy, nor is Beck. Not everyone is going to please you all the time.

Bull, Beck is my enemy for the simple fact that he weakens any valid concerns through his support, ditto for Inhofe.

538 KingKenrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:28:23am

re: #520 shmuli

For the most part I liked your rant. But it's important to remember the religious right is up to plenty of no-good shenanigans. They are a mixed bag.

I occasionally remind people that without the religious right Israel would have been under the bus a long time ago.

539 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:28:58am

re: #520 shmuli

It is called tyranny, because only they know what is best for you and think that YOU cannot be allowed the freedom to decide for yourself.

NEVER MIND the Christians who want to do the same thing by forcing us to live under Biblical law!

540 SixDegrees  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:29:09am

re: #492 Bagua

I believe it is anticipating a cyber-attack, something which could prove a genuine threat to national security.

Correct. It's no different from other emergency powers already in place that allow the Feds, for example, to ground all commercial air traffic, as they did following the 9/11 attacks; or to commandeer highways, ports, railroads, ships and other commercial vehicles; to seize control of television and radio broadcasting facilities; to take over power stations; and countless other resources that can be placed under Federal control in times of emergency. It's always best to plan for such things before action is needed.

541 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:29:09am

re: #532 Killgore Trout

Infohoe and Beck are most certainly my enemies.

That's some revolutionary rhetoric right there!

542 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:29:15am

re: #541 Ben Hur

That's some revolutionary rhetoric right there!

/

543 Kenneth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:29:26am

re: #504 avanti

It makes perfect sense in the even of a massive cyber attack in order to respond effectively.

It makes sense, but does this particular bill do it properly?

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

I sure as hell don't want to be at a point after some kind of devastating 9-11 cyberattack wondering why we didn't so something about this when we had the chance. Let's get it right and do it soon.

544 brazilofmux  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:29:34am

re: #533 unrealizedviewpoint

I've read of three reasons for the increase in sales: 1) threat of new restrictions by the present administration, 2) risks associated with a downturn in the economy, 3) investment.

545 Gus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:29:39am

re: #516 lawhawk

Corzine has the DNC and every Democrat working to keep him in office - because if Corzine falls to the GOP, that is a sign of things to come in 2010. Corzine still has more money at his disposal than Christie.

Thing is that Christie hasn't even begun slamming Corzine in earnest. And Christie remains ahead in polling.

People are sick of Corzine, and may decide that it's time for a change.

Christie is doing himself no favors with this kind of stuff though (not like Corzine can complain much - given that he was nearly killed when his car was going 90+ mph to make a political gathering and flipped in an accident on the GSP). And that doesn't even touch on the corruption within Trenton.

Corzine had those shenanigans with his ex-girlfriend, Carla Katz, and the alleged 6 million dollar payout.

I try to convince my father from time to time to give the Republicans a shot since he's not to happy at all with Corzine's performance. My uncle should double think his vote because they nearly doubled his property taxes -- he lives somewhere in Monmouth County.

546 Charles Johnson  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:29:56am

re: #519 Cato the Elder

Haakon, I see not many people buy the "just diagnosing" diagnosis.

I also see a lot of the usual stealth dingers.

547 ArchangelMichael  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:30:01am

re: #505 Ben Hur

That's what I figure.

If some hostile virus that was spreading quickly, or something.

Someone may need to reboot the whole internet.

That giant Linksys Router in the government bunker somewhere?

/

548 lawhawk  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:30:41am

re: #546 Charles

I also see a lot of the usual stealth dingers.

If you see stealth dingers, are they really that stealthy? /

549 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:30:55am

re: #539 Sharmuta

NEVER MIND the Christians who want to do the same thing by forcing us to live under Biblical law!

[loud WHUMP! from behind curtain]

"What was that?"

"Nothing."

550 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:31:26am

re: #544 brazilofmux

I've read of three reasons for the increase in sales: 1) threat of new restrictions by the present administration, 2) risks associated with a downturn in the economy, 3) investment.

Investment makes sense.**

**Well until the govt comes to collect them and you lose everything.
/

551 jcm  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:31:32am

re: #508 Creeping Eruption

Fucking pussies!

It seems there is a medical dispute about his condition...

Pressure mounts on Kenny MacAskill after four medical experts say Lockerbie bomber was not sick enough to be released

552 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:32:05am

re: #547 ArchangelMichael

re: #505 Ben Hur

The whole thing is preposterous. The military invented the internet as a prototype for the military version which is hardened. If there was real concern for cyber attacks on our infrastructure, make them use the hardened version.

That giant Linksys Router in the government bunker somewhere?

/

553 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:32:16am

re: #536 SnowMonster

That was deep and compelling.

If a person has truly been wronged, they will win the case. If they are just trying to hit the lottery, the lawyer has to think about it because it will cost him if he fails

So you think justice was served with OJ? You think that people who have been truly wronged don't lose in life. I apologize for my previous comment, you are simply the most idealistic person I have ever come across. I applaud your deep faith in our legal system. I too have deep faith in out legal system, and an abiding faith that the good guy rarely wins.

554 srb1976  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:32:21am

re: #548 lawhawk

If you see stealth dingers, are they really that stealthy? /

I will freely admit to being a stealth dinger (not really stealthy, but hey)
But 99% of the dings I give are updings...I seldom ding anything down by stealth = )

555 ArchangelMichael  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:32:25am

re: #548 lawhawk

If you see stealth dingers, are they really that stealthy? /

They are using faulty Ronulan Cloaking Devices.

556 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:32:28am

re: #546 Charles

I also see a lot of the usual stealth dingers.

Stealth dingers should be dealt with!

557 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:32:41am

Religious fundamentalists, like many on the left, have an unconstrained vision- that is, they think they know better than you at how to live life, and they are willing to use the power of government to make you live that way whether you agree or not.

DO NOT think right-wing religious fundamentalists are any different than the lefties you claim to oppose at their core. They have different answers, but the same mindset- to make you live the way they think you should.

558 Bagua  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:33:00am

re: #554 srb1976

Sneaky.

559 Oh no...Sand People!  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:33:09am

re: #532 Killgore Trout

Infohoe and Beck are most certainly my enemies.

Personally I really enjoy Beck: Loser

Such a catchy tune.

560 srb1976  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:33:20am

re: #558 Bagua

Sneaky.

= )

561 Danny  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:33:35am

re: #548 lawhawk

If you see stealth dingers, are they really that stealthy? /

I was wondering that myself.

562 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:33:36am

re: #521 LudwigVanQuixote

check your click... I think you missed...

You're right. And I also missed the point - I thought Haakon meant we were to up- or down-ding the thread itself, not Haakon's post. I stand corrected.

563 cliffster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:33:58am

re: #553 Creeping Eruption

What are you talking about? OJ was innocent!

564 Son of the Black Dog  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:34:22am

re: #291 zelnaga

...

Besides, through elections, the government can be peacefully overthrown every four years. If Democrats can endure eight years of Bush, surely Republicans can endure four years of Obama?

The country still hasn't fully recovered from 4 years of Jimmy Carter.

565 Charles Johnson  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:34:22am

Haakondahl:

Hah! That was a clever way to draw out the trolls!

You had me going there for a minute. I thought you actually believed Inhofe was trying to talk America down from the brink.

566 wahabicorridor  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:34:23am

re: #535 Wendya

Where the hell is justice when someone is allowed to file frivolous lawsuits and you have to pay to defend yourself against something that should never have made it to court in the first place?


Often, there IS not defense mounted. The insurance companies don't want to deal with the cost of litigation and just negotiate a settlement. I've forgotten the nic of the poster here who said his sister is a trauma surgeon in San Jose - gang members come in all shot up and find an ambualnce chaser to sue her and the hospital for damages - the insurance company just settles.

567 BlueCanuck  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:34:25am

re: #556 unrealizedviewpoint

Stealth dingers should be dealt with!

Don't *whack* me bro. I am busy lurking and have nothing to contribute at the moment...

568 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:34:26am

re: #562 Cato the Elder

You're right. And I also missed the point - I thought Haakon meant we were to up- or down-ding the thread itself, not Haakon's post. I stand corrected.

I thought your vote was out of character for you.

569 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:34:28am

re: #551 jcm

It seems there is a medical dispute about his condition...

Pressure mounts on Kenny MacAskill after four medical experts say Lockerbie bomber was not sick enough to be released

I don't need a doctors diagnosis to let me know that serving less than 11 days per victim is an affront to all that is good in this world. That scum should have rotted in jail for the rest of his miserable life.

570 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:34:28am

re: #553 Creeping Eruption

Actually, I do. I watched the whole OJ affair (live court case) as I was working from home at the time. I actually don't think he did it. I won't rule out that he hired someone to do it or that he wasn't capable, but given the evidence, he didn't personally do it.

571 Dianna  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:34:31am

Are we at all on topic, still?

If so, I hope Inhofe's constituents listen to this, look at each other, and find a new candidate.

When is he up for re-election?

572 ArchangelMichael  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:35:15am

re: #557 Sharmuta

Not only do they try to abuse the power of government to do so, they believe that it is the whole purpose of government in the first place.

573 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:35:21am

re: #533 unrealizedviewpoint

If Obama believed he could pass stricter gun controls he would do it. His statements & history demonstrates this. Obama saw what happened when Clinton went after the guns, he's not going to take that on right now. He will though and the folks know it. It's just his nature.

BTW - the economy is also a major driver when it comes to the run on guns and ammo. Folks think they might just need em.

He may. He won't get anywhere with it. Congress won't pass "gun grabbing" laws.

It's a decoy argument.

574 srb1976  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:35:24am

re: #558 Bagua

Sneaky.

Actually, I'm almost never online this time of day...and only am today because I've been sent home from work pending the results of a drug test (long story...just takes time, no trouble)

575 KingKenrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:35:46am

re: #551 jcm

It seems there is a medical dispute about his condition...

Pressure mounts on Kenny MacAskill after four medical experts say Lockerbie bomber was not sick enough to be released

I would say "heads will roll" for the travesty of releasing the Lockerbie bomber, but I might be mistaken for a violent revolutionary. Instead I will say "My, some of these fine fellows will be enjoying the unemployment line soon!"

576 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:36:28am

re: #563 cliffster

What are you talking about? OJ was innocent!

I am one of those who does not believe that he was innocent, but in the eyes of the law he didn't do it (or at least the State couldn't prove it) and so I have to respect the verdict.

577 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:36:52am

re: #572 ArchangelMichael

Not only do they try to abuse the power of government to do so, they believe that it is the whole purpose of government in the first place.

And it's slightly worse with the religious angel, because they think they have the God given duty to impose this.

578 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:37:03am

re: #575 KingKenrod

I would say "heads will roll" for the travesty of releasing the Lockerbie bomber, but I might be mistaken for a violent revolutionary. Instead I will say "My, some of these fine fellows will be enjoying the unemployment line soon!"

You could say "Political heads* will roll, in a figurative way."

*As opposed to a physical head.

579 Digital Display  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:37:08am

re: #525 haakondahl

Nope, nope nope. This draconian nonsense would preclude the only plausible hope, that of loosely confederated agencies and agents working together but autonomously. Meanwhile, why don't they do something that might actually help, and require source IP validation? This would cut down on spam AND botnets.


Agreed...Shut down the Net..How do you find the source of the Attack?
This may be a little over the top but any Government agency that doesn't employ 802.1x Security and valid Root Government issued root certs on extranet portals deserves to be hacked. This is how we keep our secret safe..

580 JamesWI  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:37:25am

re: #523 Wendya

Since the government sets up the legal system, I can see a responsibility for them to regulate it.

I don't necessarily disagree with this point, but the idea that setting strict limits on what the victim can recover, regardless of the individual facts of the case, is a "conservative" way of regulating the system is preposterous.

Let's take a relatively extreme example - A patient needs to have an arm amputated (due to gangrene, cancer, etc.) The doctor accidentally removes the wrong arm in the initial surgery, so then he must go back and remove the right arm as well. (As ridiculous as it sounds, surgeons operating on the wrong side is relatively common. When I had to have kidney stones removed, the nurses had me make a large note with sharpie on the right side of my abdomen to make sure they went to the correct kidney).

Now the patient is left with no arms instead of one, all due to the surgeon's mistake. The pain and suffering this patient has and will continue to go through is probably worth exponentially more than $250K, yet the government is there to tell him that is all he deserves, because if he were allowed more, undeserving plaintiffs might get more than what they should.

Does that sound like a "conservative" government?

581 Gus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:37:36am

re: #573 Cato the Elder

He may. He won't get anywhere with it. Congress won't pass "gun grabbing" laws.

It's a decoy argument.

Yes. I would call it a wedge issue.

582 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:37:48am

re: #577 Sharmuta

Er- angle. Although "angel" is pretty funny in this context.

lol @ me.

583 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:37:55am

re: #570 SnowMonster

Actually, I do. I watched the whole OJ affair (live court case) as I was working from home at the time. I actually don't think he did it. I won't rule out that he hired someone to do it or that he wasn't capable, but given the evidence, he didn't personally do it.

I can live with that.

584 [deleted]  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:37:55am
585 Kragar  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:38:43am

Some Surprised By 'Clunker' Tax

many of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer's office windows. That's because the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable.

"They didn't realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don't realize that. So they're not happy and kind of surprised when they find that out," Nelson said.

586 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:38:56am

re: #581 Gus 802

The Wedgies are everywhere!

587 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:39:49am

re: #579 HoosierHoops

Agreed...Shut down the Net..How do you find the source of the Attack?
This may be a little over the top but any Government agency that doesn't employ 802.1x Security and valid Root Government issued root certs on extranet portals deserves to be hacked. This is how we keep our secret safe..

I recently got an email from Social Security directly me to a link where I was asked to fill out a form.

Link too me to a big-ass Firefox warning page about the security certificate for that site having been revoked.

I went and did it at the local office instead.

Most government websites dealing with the public are approximately at the level of 1998.

588 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:40:02am

re: #586 Sharmuta

The Wedgies are everywhere!

I see you were at my house yesterday. (Four boys.)

589 Bagua  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:40:08am

re: #574 srb1976

Actually, I'm almost never online this time of day...and only am today because I've been sent home from work pending the results of a drug test (long story...just takes time, no trouble)

Ha! a drug crazed stealth dinger, double-sneaky.

590 Gus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:40:13am

re: #582 Sharmuta

Er- angle. Although "angel" is pretty funny in this context.

lol @ me.

The Blue Angles!

//

591 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:40:15am

re: #580 JamesWI

I don't necessarily disagree with this point, but the idea that setting strict limits on what the victim can recover, regardless of the individual facts of the case, is a "conservative" way of regulating the system is preposterous.

Let's take a relatively extreme example - A patient needs to have an arm amputated (due to gangrene, cancer, etc.) The doctor accidentally removes the wrong arm in the initial surgery, so then he must go back and remove the right arm as well. (As ridiculous as it sounds, surgeons operating on the wrong side is relatively common. When I had to have kidney stones removed, the nurses had me make a large note with sharpie on the right side of my abdomen to make sure they went to the correct kidney).

Now the patient is left with no arms instead of one, all due to the surgeon's mistake. The pain and suffering this patient has and will continue to go through is probably worth exponentially more than $250K, yet the government is there to tell him that is all he deserves, because if he were allowed more, undeserving plaintiffs might get more than what they should.

Does that sound like a "conservative" government?

Now what if that patient is a surgeon, or an artist, or . . . One size does not fit all.

592 BlueCanuck  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:40:55am

re: #587 Cato the Elder

I bet that link would have worked in Internut Exploder...

593 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:41:51am

re: #520 shmuli

Perhaps it is time to rethink who are our allies, however imperfect they may be, and who are the enemies of freedom and liberty. Believe me, the Christian Right is not the enemy, nor is Beck. Not everyone is going to please you all the time.

Christians are not my enemies. People who want to replace the Constitution with a religious text, however, are the enemies of all Americans.

594 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:42:36am

re: #590 Gus 802

The Blue Angles!

//

They're smurftastic!

595 [deleted]  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:43:02am
596 zombie  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:43:27am

re: #590 Gus 802

The Blue Angles!

//

Non Angli, sed Angeli.

597 lostlakehiker  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:43:34am
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

including the light and transient cause of avoiding an NHS-style despoliation of our health-care system.

The last time we had a fight with ourselves, it ran four years, killed several whole percentage points of the adult males, and extensively devastated whole regions. Now, of course, we can get all that done in 30 minutes.

Granted, the imposition of an NHS on the U.S., and that is what any version of this health-care bill would do, would be a bad thing for the country. But substandard health care won't make or break the pattern of life in America. All the medical care in the world cannot do us what we can more easily do for ourselves: take care of diet and exercise, and collectively, keep up with sanitation, highway safety, and so forth.

Revolutions mostly end badly, even if they succeed. Iran, Russia, France, take your pick. Unless, as the founders of our own republic wrote, things are really intolerable, prudence dictates that efforts be directed towards reform, not revolution. Reform can, on occasion, morph into revolution without a shot fired, so working on reform does not necessarily mean settling for piecemeal and inadequate reform.

Our Constitution is a good one. Our government has secured to us, and will secure to our posterity if we don't blow it, the blessings of liberty. Imperfectly, as life is always imperfect, but well enough.

598 Occasional Reader  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:43:39am

re: #585 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Some Surprised By 'Clunker' Tax

In the wonderfully frank words of the U.S. Tax Code: "All income, from whatever source derived."

599 Digital Display  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:43:44am

re: #587 Cato the Elder

I recently got an email from Social Security directly me to a link where I was asked to fill out a form.

Link too me to a big-ass Firefox warning page about the security certificate for that site having been revoked.

I went and did it at the local office instead.

Most government websites dealing with the public are approximately at the level of 1998.


Which is fine..Even if every Gov't website that deals with the public were hacked and defaced it still wouldn't be a National Security issue..
When Teens hack into the Pentigon it makes me think there are real IT issues involved.. Giving them more power to control backbone Routers seems dumb.

600 avanti  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:43:53am

re: #585 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Some Surprised By 'Clunker' Tax

It's only taxed as state sales tax, just like any rebate would. i.e., if you bought a car for $13,500, and the rebate got you down to 10K, you pay sales tax on the full price of the car and of course the dealer pays tax on the rebate income he gets.

601 Gus  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:44:04am

re: #594 Sharmuta

They're smurftastic!

And they're both blue. /

602 lawhawk  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:44:19am

re: #585 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Nobody expects the IRS Tax Inquisition.

Least of all Charlie Rangel.

603 Occasional Reader  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:44:41am

re: #573 Cato the Elder

He may. He won't get anywhere with it. Congress won't pass "gun grabbing" laws.

It's a decoy argument.


You DO remember the Clinton years, right?

604 rumcrook  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:44:42am

re: #14 Mike McDaniel

Sorry, guys. It is not extremism to state the obvious - and the political climate today is one that I haven't seen since the fall of 1994. Kindly note that in November of that year, the first Republican Congress in 40 years was elected.

And one does not need to taste-test poison to know that it is unwise to eat it.

reminds me of the cheech and chong skit of two eskimos happening upon something in the snow that looked like dog shit, the one says to the other smell it.
he doesnt want to but finnaly does. and says it smells like dogshit

he's not convinced and wants the other to go a step farther and taste it.

he doesnt want it for obvious reasons but finally tastes it and says tastes like dogshit.

at that point the one doing the pushing blandly says hmm must be dogshit.


this legislation came from pelosi reed and the most leftist socialist president ever elected. his agenda is radical his shadow cabinet of czars are radicals including self professed communists.

I think reasonable people can tell when dog shit is coming from a dog without tasting or smelling it.

605 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:44:46am

re: #585 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Some Surprised By 'Clunker' Tax

The ghost of Oprah!

606 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:44:47am

re: #553 Creeping Eruption

re: #536 SnowMonster


So you think justice was served with OJ? You think that people who have been truly wronged don't lose in life. I apologize for my previous comment, you are simply the most idealistic person I have ever come across. I applaud your deep faith in our legal system. I too have deep faith in out legal system, and an abiding faith that the good guy rarely wins.

BTW - Apology accepted.

The system is not perfect. So which side do we error on? The idiot that spills hot coffee on himself or the company who makes a product that I can use, albeit with potential dangers (a ladder can be dangerous) that common sense should instruct you on how to use it? Also, the legal limit for proof is different in criminal vs. civil cases. The former being "reasonable doubt" and the latter being "preponderance of evidence." I would think that if you are making $30,000 a year at 40 years of age, the max your family can receive for loss of life due to negligence of the defendant is a max of 20 years at that wage (adjusted for inflation), not hundreds of millions of dollars.

607 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:45:53am

re: #587 Cato the Elder

I recently got an email from Social Security directly me to a link where I was asked to fill out a form.

Link too me to a big-ass Firefox warning page about the security certificate for that site having been revoked.

I went and did it at the local office instead.

Most government websites dealing with the public are approximately at the level of 1998.

The LA Courts website is infested.

608 ArchangelMichael  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:45:59am

re: #585 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Some Surprised By 'Clunker' Tax

Well duh...

"But... but..."

609 Kragar  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:46:02am

re: #602 lawhawk

Nobody expects the IRS Tax Inquisition.

Least of all Charlie Rangel.

Whats a measely 500000 between friends?

610 harpsicon  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:47:20am

re: #514 LudwigVanQuixote

Did you ever notice that getting lefties moving in the same direction is like herding cats?

Yes, the right is better organized and stop changing the subject. We have dozens of threads here talking about the idiocy of the moonbats - hell we invented the word.

We are talking about a different, and more malignant cancer at the present time.

Maybe not. If you look at the amount of foundation money, which keeps all these pots boiling, the left has just hundreds of times more loot. Things like MALDEF are entirely the product of the Ford Foundation. What did Billy Ayers and Obama do exactly with that $100M from Annenberg (no kids learned to read better in the Chicago schools, that's for sure)? The Scaife Foundation, one of three right-wing foundations actively working for more right-wing goals, has I believe closed down. Not much dinero on this side.

It's kind of funny how the Pew Trust, Ford, and other foundations founded by serious right-wingers have morphed into the very lifeblood of the left - the money for "grants" that allow people to sit around all day writing 1000-page bills and planning "fundamental change" for the USA.

David Horowitz's Discover the Network site demonstrates how far beyond just Soros that the money trail leads.

611 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:47:35am

re: #603 Occasional Reader

You DO remember the Clinton years, right?

You mean those years when I legally bought my entire arsenal, including "ugly guns" and hi-cap mags? Yep.

And most if not all of the restrictions were later overturned.

I am truly not worried.

612 Occasional Reader  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:47:49am

re: #605 Ben Hur

The ghost of Oprah!

What?! Oprah died?

COMMENCE THE MANDATORY 12-MONTH NATIONAL MOURNING PERIOD

/

613 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:48:11am

re: #603 Occasional Reader

You DO remember the Clinton years, right?

They will go after the so called "assault weapons" again. But first, the reclassification of what's an assault weapon needs to be completed.

614 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:49:41am

re: #612 Occasional Reader

What?! Oprah died?

COMMENCE THE MANDATORY 12-MONTH NATIONAL MOURNING PERIOD

/

When she gave away all those "free" cars to her audience.

They were a bit surprised that THEY had to pay taxes on the gift.

615 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:50:23am

re: #606 SnowMonster

BTW - Apology accepted.

The system is not perfect. So which side do we error on? The idiot that spills hot coffee on himself or the company who makes a product that I can use, albeit with potential dangers (a ladder can be dangerous) that common sense should instruct you on how to use it? Also, the legal limit for proof is different in criminal vs. civil cases. The former being "reasonable doubt" and the latter being "preponderance of evidence." I would think that if you are making $30,000 a year at 40 years of age, the max your family can receive for loss of life due to negligence of the defendant is a max of 20 years at that wage (adjusted for inflation), not hundreds of millions of dollars.

What the burden of proof between civil and criminal cases has to do with this discussion is beyond me. Yes ladders can be dangerous - especially if they are designed incorrectly or built in a defective manner - but thats not the problem of the customer right?

I recognize that you are engaging in hyperbole with the hundred million dollar recovery for someone making 30k, but it just shows, as Buzzsaw pointed out above, you do not have a firm grasp on the way the the court system or at least tort cases work, and adds nothing to a topic that few can rationally discuss. Pulling out the standard "McDonalds" case does not help either.

616 alegrias  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:50:26am

re: #451 Charles

Meet James Inhofe:

After 9/11, Inhofe's position was pretty close to Pat Robertson's -- he thought the attacks were divine retribution against the US. He's compared climate scientists to Nazis. He thinks that US policy toward Israel should be based on the literal text of the Bible.

And that's just scratching the surface. I'm not just spouting off when I call him a "religious fanatic" -- he's somewhat to the right of Jerry Falwell.

* * * *
Ted Kennedy the Liberal Lion of the Senate, made nice with also now-dead Jerry Falwell and SPOKE AT HIS UNIVERSITY!

617 Occasional Reader  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:50:35am

re: #611 Cato the Elder

You mean those years when I legally bought my entire arsenal, including "ugly guns" and hi-cap mags? Yep.

And most if not all of the restrictions were later overturned.

I am truly not worried.

Yep, those years. Congress DID pass gun restricitons; if you got around 'em, that doesn't prove they didn't. And of course the Clinton Adminstration also tried to do end runs around the legislative process, like their clever idea of having OSHA reclassify ammo as high explosives, thereby making it prohibitively expensive to store, sell, etc. But since some (not all) of that was overturned, I guess we can just cheerily assume it'll never be tried again... never mind the actual statements on the subject by Obama, Holder, Pelosi, and a cast of thousands, indicating they'd love to be able to do it. Let's just whistle a happy song!

618 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:50:53am

re: #610 harpsicon

Maybe not. If you look at the amount of foundation money, which keeps all these pots boiling, the left has just hundreds of times more loot. Things like MALDEF are entirely the product of the Ford Foundation. What did Billy Ayers and Obama do exactly with that $100M from Annenberg (no kids learned to read better in the Chicago schools, that's for sure)? The Scaife Foundation, one of three right-wing foundations actively working for more right-wing goals, has I believe closed down. Not much dinero on this side.

It's kind of funny how the Pew Trust, Ford, and other foundations founded by serious right-wingers have morphed into the very lifeblood of the left - the money for "grants" that allow people to sit around all day writing 1000-page bills and planning "fundamental change" for the USA.

David Horowitz's Discover the Network site demonstrates how far beyond just Soros that the money trail leads.

And you will find a similar money trail on the right.

That however does not discuss major politicians and widely listened to major right wingers publicly leading this nonsense in the present manifestation.

619 jamgarr  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:51:53am

No time to read entire thread - have we discussed what qualifies Mr. Inhofe as a fanatic?

620 Cato the Elder  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:51:53am

re: #607 unrealizedviewpoint

The LA Courts website is infested.

At Social Security, if you're filling out an application for whatever, it's an entirely unforgiving, linear process. Answer question A, go on to question B. Only one question on the screen at a time. If you don't know the answer to question L, you cannot continue to M. You must log off, go find the relevant papers, come back, answer L, and then you can go forward.

The idea of having a page or set of pages with questions you can fill out as you please and then get a list of unanswered questions at the end to go work on seems never to have occurred to them.

Something that every decent commercial website mastered about nine years ago...

621 victor_yugo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:52:14am

re: #612 Occasional Reader

What?! Oprah died?

COMMENCE THE MANDATORY 12-MONTH NATIONAL MOURNING PERIOD

/

It's a beautiful mourning!

622 lawhawk  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:52:42am

re: #600 avanti

It's only taxed as state sales tax, just like any rebate would. i.e., if you bought a car for $13,500, and the rebate got you down to 10K, you pay sales tax on the full price of the car and of course the dealer pays tax on the rebate income he gets.

BZZZ. Wrong. Thanks for playing.

Some states regard the rebate as being part of the taxable income - whether to dealers or the end user (buyer).

Proof?

Arizona: The CARS Program does not provide for an exclusion from federal taxable income for the payments received by a motor vehicle dealer from the federal government under the CARS program and similarly, Arizona statutes do not provide an adjustment to subtract the amount of the payments received by the motor vehicle dealer from the federal government under the CARS program. Therefore the motor vehicle dealer is subject to Arizona income tax on the amounts received under the program to the extent that the amounts are included in federal taxable income.

As far as personal income tax? Let's look at California:
The Franchise Tax Board (FTB) will treat CFC as a sale or exchange of the used car that the person delivers, in exchange for consideration of $3,500 or $4,500 (amount realized) rebate. Persons trading in used cars may offset the applicable amount realized by their basis (generally cost) of the used cars relinquished in determining whether they realized gain on the transaction. However, personal losses on the sale of personal assets, such as a family car, may not be used to reduce taxable income.

623 alegrias  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:52:49am

re: #454 Thanos

Every one keeps saying that what Obama is doing is wrong and unconstitutional, however I don't see them racing to remedy through through the one branch of gov't we still hold a modicum of power and influence in. If what he's doing is sooo unconstitutional, then where are the suits before the Supes? I remember a couple over the GM bailout that got thrown out, but that's it.

* * * *

Supreme Court convenes in OCTOBER, the first Monday.

624 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:53:07am

re: #597 lostlakehiker

Revolutions mostly end badly, even if they succeed. Iran, Russia, France, take your pick. Unless, as the founders of our own republic wrote, things are really intolerable, prudence dictates that efforts be directed towards reform, not revolution. Reform can, on occasion, morph into revolution without a shot fired, so working on reform does not necessarily mean settling for piecemeal and inadequate reform.

Our Constitution is a good one. Our government has secured to us, and will secure to our posterity if we don't blow it, the blessings of liberty. Imperfectly, as life is always imperfect, but well enough.

I would have believed that until the Republicans broke their contract with America and the current crop of RINOs are no better than the Democrats. Both sides are ripping us off and there will come a time when we won't take it any more and it may be tragic when it happens.

625 victor_yugo  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:54:05am

re: #615 Creeping Eruption

Pulling out the standard "McDonalds" case does not help either.

Especially after a rational review of the evidence. "Negligence" is being generous.

626 JamesWI  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:54:22am

re: #606 SnowMonster

BTW - Apology accepted.

The system is not perfect. So which side do we error on? The idiot that spills hot coffee on himself or the company who makes a product that I can use, albeit with potential dangers (a ladder can be dangerous) that common sense should instruct you on how to use it? Also, the legal limit for proof is different in criminal vs. civil cases. The former being "reasonable doubt" and the latter being "preponderance of evidence." I would think that if you are making $30,000 a year at 40 years of age, the max your family can receive for loss of life due to negligence of the defendant is a max of 20 years at that wage (adjusted for inflation), not hundreds of millions of dollars.

Granted, because I am a law student I may not be the most unbiased person here on the subject, but there have been plenty of studies on these supposedly exploding tort judgments. What most of them seem to find is that, with the possible exception of medical malpractice claims, tort judgments have not risen to anywhere near the levels the public believes it has. It simply is nowhere close to being as big a problem as many people see it.

Then why is there such an outcry? Because the media reports the ridiculous sounding verdicts like the McDonalds coffee case (but fails to make a big deal about when the judgment is reduced to a fraction of the original award, as it was there), and grandstanding politicians seize on that and get to rail against the out-of-control legal system.

627 brazilofmux  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:56:00am

re: #577 Sharmuta

And it's slightly worse with the religious angle, because they think they have the God given duty to impose this.

I'm not sure I agree that one side is more fervent because of their traditional faith -- at least not in this country.

The left has a much greater tendency to make god out of Government, they lose themselves in their 'cause' just as easily. They want their team to win just as badly. In any case, those with faith are split between left-feed-by-sheep-religious, end-times-right-so-it-doesn't-matter-anyway, right-and-just-leave-me-alone, etc. which limits their potency.

628 avanti  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:56:12am

re: #622 lawhawk

BZZZ. Wrong. Thanks for playing.

Some states regard the rebate as being part of the taxable income - whether to dealers or the end user (buyer).

Proof?

Arizona: The CARS Program does not provide for an exclusion from federal taxable income for the payments received by a motor vehicle dealer from the federal government under the CARS program and similarly, Arizona statutes do not provide an adjustment to subtract the amount of the payments received by the motor vehicle dealer from the federal government under the CARS program. Therefore the motor vehicle dealer is subject to Arizona income tax on the amounts received under the program to the extent that the amounts are included in federal taxable income.

As far as personal income tax? Let's look at California:
The Franchise Tax Board (FTB) will treat CFC as a sale or exchange of the used car that the person delivers, in exchange for consideration of $3,500 or $4,500 (amount realized) rebate. Persons trading in used cars may offset the applicable amount realized by their basis (generally cost) of the used cars relinquished in determining whether they realized gain on the transaction. However, personal losses on the sale of personal assets, such as a family car, may not be used to reduce taxable income.

Of course the dealer is taxed, if he gets the $4500 as a check from the customer, or a rebate it's income. The consumer also pays sales tax on the full purchase price just as he would on a big screen rebate.

629 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:56:49am

re: #618 LudwigVanQuixote

And you will find a similar money trail on the right.

Absolutely- and the biggies tend towards the theocratic.

630 Hanoch  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:01:03pm

If this is "radical rhetoric" then I have to conclude that Mr. Rogers is a radical.

Everything Inhofe is quoted as saying in the article on policy matters is correct. I sincerely doubt that by using the word "revolution", which obviously can mean many things (e.g., the "Republican revolution" of 1994), Inhofe is referring to a violent revolution. Why make that assumption?

Insofar as the "religious fanatic" charge is concerned, this strikes me as gratuitous. I could not find anything in the article remotely referencing religious issues.

631 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:02:44pm

re: #626 JamesWI

Granted, because I am a law student I may not be the most unbiased person here on the subject, but there have been plenty of studies on these supposedly exploding tort judgments. What most of them seem to find is that, with the possible exception of medical malpractice claims, tort judgments have not risen to anywhere near the levels the public believes it has. It simply is nowhere close to being as big a problem as many people see it.

Then why is there such an outcry? Because the media reports the ridiculous sounding verdicts like the McDonalds coffee case (but fails to make a big deal about when the judgment is reduced to a fraction of the original award, as it was there), and grandstanding politicians seize on that and get to rail against the out-of-control legal system.

I upding you but I question whether there has been an increase in med-mal cases. Civil Justice in Wisconsin: A Fact Book cites the following figure:

data kept by the Wisconsin Medical Mediation Panels showing those cases also dropped -- by 34.2 percent between 1996 and 2007 -- even though the state's population and its number of doctors increased.


UW report: WMC claims of excessive litigation in state are bogus

The report is linked as a PDF in the article.

632 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:02:57pm

re: #627 brazilofmux

The left has a much greater tendency to make god out of Government

Perhaps you're missing my point. If the left wants to make government God, what of those who want to make God the government? What exactly is the difference? For me, the difference is one group has their holy book as justification- they think it's their duty to God to impose religious law as state law. Good luck getting houses of worship to preach the gospel of Congress in the same fashion.

633 Digital Display  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:05:52pm

re: #609 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Whats a measely 500000 between friends?

Brother..Can you spare a million for a cup of coffee?
/Stupid hyper inflation..Don't even get change back.

634 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:07:47pm

And honestly- it's a little stunning considering the history of this blog that people here wouldn't see the problem with religious fundamentalists imposing religious law as the highest law of the land. Why oppose islamic supremacists then?

635 ArchangelMichael  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:08:53pm

re: #634 Sharmuta

And honestly- it's a little stunning considering the history of this blog that people here wouldn't see the problem with religious fundamentalists imposing religious law as the highest law of the land. Why oppose islamic supremacists then?

"Oh but that's different!"

/

636 JamesWI  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:09:28pm

re: #631 Creeping Eruption

Yeah, that seems about right. I can't quite remember since it's been a while, but I might have been thinking about including malpractice settlements? Whatever I was thinking of, I remember the point was malpractice was the only tort where one could even make the argument that the costs were rising compared to previous decades when no one cared about tort reform, and even then not even close to the extent reform advocates would want to claim.

637 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:11:18pm

re: #634 Sharmuta

And honestly- it's a little stunning considering the history of this blog that people here wouldn't see the problem with religious fundamentalists imposing religious law as the highest law of the land. Why oppose islamic supremacists then?

I am not sure what religious law you are referring to. Can you give examples?

638 harpsicon  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:11:42pm

re: #629 Sharmuta

Absolutely- and the biggies tend towards the theocratic.

Link??

639 shmuli  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:11:43pm

#520 Kilgore Trout

You pick your own enemies. Global warming is foolish, so Inhofe is on my side.
Beck is rallying the "unwashed" to the cause of rejecting the Obama administration. That is on my side. You pick yours, I will pick mine.

#537 Bagua

I don't read it that way as to get hung up on a word. Inhofe was clearly referring to the opposition to government and Democrat over-reaching and noting that many are against this movement. Tell me, did he clarify that one word to imply he meant "revolution"? People talk and use excessive words - you do to. You want everyone to have the same pure reasoning that you do. Does not work like that. You can get agreements for different reasons. That is politics and the way that opinion, perspectives, emotions and feelings work. You don't have to like it or be so much above Beck and Inhofe just because they accomplish what needs to be done (gutting the Dems' health bill) in a way of which you disapprove. You sound like the guy who gives up because he can't win the way he wants. Victory is not like that.

#538 KingKenrod

Thank you. Yes, eyes open, but the situation is such that friends are where you can find them. If they are not there tomorrow, at least you need to know where they stand today. Jeez, that is how you get anything done - everyone has a different reason for wanting the same outcome - just because their motive is not YOURS does not invalidate working with them. Hell, my fellow Jews take positions completely against my politics and religious beliefs, but they are still my fellow Jews. Same thing.

#539 Sharmuta

That is silly. Where are the federal bills from the Religious Right to reinstitute Blue Sundays? Outlaw abortion (not the same as overturning Roe v Wade)? Force business shutdown on their religious holidays? Force teaching religion in public schools? Come off it. It is precisely because the Christian nature of this country is so tolerant that these things no longer exist as they used to some 60 years ago. You have to always expect backlash - that is the normal process.

#593 Sharmuta

Nobody on the religious right is trying to replace the Constitution with religious edicts. You forget that it was religious Christians who founded the country and edited and accepted the Constitution to begin with.

Thank you for your responses.

640 drcordell  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:12:59pm

re: #634 Sharmuta

And honestly- it's a little stunning considering the history of this blog that people here wouldn't see the problem with religious fundamentalists imposing religious law as the highest law of the land. Why oppose islamic supremacists then?

Because they are good Christians, not dirty a-rabs.

/

641 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:13:00pm

re: #636 JamesWI

Where you in school? Marquette? Madison?

642 JamesWI  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:14:39pm

re: #641 Creeping Eruption

Minnesota - originally from WI

643 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:15:22pm

re: #637 SnowMonster

I am not sure what religious law you are referring to. Can you give examples?

Research "Dominionism" and "Christian Reconstructionism."

re: #638 harpsicon

Do you lack google or an internet connection?

re: #639 shmuli

Many of the prominent Founders were not Christians, but Deists. Nice try. You can research "Dominionism" and "Christian Reconstructionism" too.

644 harpsicon  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:15:43pm

re: #629 Sharmuta

The right USED TO BE the big money side, but now it's the left. The Dems have outspent the Reps for quite a while now - you are aware of this.

In the foundation world it's always been heavily left, with really only a small sprinkling of conservative foundations. Of course there is some money on the right, but nowhere near the same amounts, especially in organized foundations. (And conservatives lose control of their money - Pew, Ford, etc. - when the only people who take the badly-paid admin jobs are young folk out to change the world...)

The Daddy Warbucks imagery is wayyy out of date.

645 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:15:51pm

re: #642 JamesWI

Minnesota - originally from WI

Glad Favre is your mess now.

646 Son of the Black Dog  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:16:53pm

re: #435 alegrias

...

The bill is 100% Democrat boiler plate government takeover dogma that Democrats said they wanted to enact.

...

Last fall, before the election, I was at a dinner party also attended by a person politically active and a believer in a particular cause. They were talking expansively about how the national committee they were on was writing the (future) Obama administration's position on that cause, up to and including proposed legislation. This health care bill was written long ago by left wing lawyers and pressure groups and has been sitting on the shelf and periodically updated, just waiting for a president like Obama to come along.

647 capitalist piglet  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:18:10pm

Then on the (D) side, you have this:

648 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:18:13pm

re: #644 harpsicon

Funny, because I'm not talking about Daddy Warbucks. I'm talking about foundations with Dominionist leanings.

649 BlackFedora  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:18:45pm

OT but.. man.. don't you all love the hoping and the changing?

Obama preserves Bush policy on laptop searches

650 JamesWI  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:18:47pm

re: #645 Creeping Eruption

Glad Favre is your mess now.

If you think I would ever root for the Vikings, before or after the Favre mess, you are clearly mistaken.

651 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:18:56pm

re: #643 Sharmuta


Research "Dominionism" and "Christian Reconstructionism."

OK Done. Haven't seen any bills before congress or the senate regarding the forced conversion of the populace to Christianity.

652 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:20:19pm

re: #650 JamesWI

If you think I would ever root for the Vikings, before or after the Favre mess, you are clearly mistaken.

I would never insult you in that manner, being a fellow Wisconsin-ite and atty. Nevertheless, I am glad the ViQueens are stuck with him, at least until he has an utter breakdown and retires again.

653 brazilofmux  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:21:26pm

re: #632 Sharmuta

Perhaps you're missing my point. If the left wants to make government God, what of those who want to make God the government? What exactly is the difference? For me, the difference is one group has their holy book as justification- they think it's their duty to God to impose religious law as state law. Good luck getting houses of worship to preach the gospel of Congress in the same fashion.

In what effect it has on me, I don't see a difference. If they are in my business, their reasons don't change the fact that they are in business.

Thus far, I seem to be losing ground regardless of which side wins.

And anyway, the gospel of Congress doesn't need to be preached in houses of worship. They just send you a bill, and fill the airwaves, and make movies about it. Compared that, the option to nod off in a house of worship seems positively benign.

654 drcordell  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:22:35pm

re: #639 shmuli

#539 Sharmuta

That is silly. Where are the federal bills from the Religious Right to reinstitute Blue Sundays? Outlaw abortion (not the same as overturning Roe v Wade)? Force business shutdown on their religious holidays? Force teaching religion in public schools? Come off it. It is precisely because the Christian nature of this country is so tolerant that these things no longer exist as they used to some 60 years ago. You have to always expect backlash - that is the normal process.

#593 Sharmuta

Nobody on the religious right is trying to replace the Constitution with religious edicts. You forget that it was religious Christians who founded the country and edited and accepted the Constitution to begin with.

Thank you for your responses.

Have you been paying attention to any of the posts on LGF about crazy theocrats taking over the GOP?

Laws being passed in Texas that force schools to teach the bible in public schools?
Link

Perhaps the fact that groups all across the country are pushing to force the teaching of intelligent design creationism in public schools?
link

655 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:23:12pm

re: #651 SnowMonster

Where did I say there was pending legislation? There are groups who have stated openly they would like to replace the Constitution with the Bible- I find them every bit as problematic as other religious fundamentalists trying to impose their will around the world, and certainly don't want to elect anyone who thinks these groups have the right idea.

656 drcordell  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:24:42pm

re: #655 Sharmuta

Where did I say there was pending legislation? There are groups who have stated openly they would like to replace the Constitution with the Bible- I find them every bit as problematic as other religious fundamentalists trying to impose their will around the world, and certainly don't want to elect anyone who thinks these groups have the right idea.

Well put. One must be against religious fundamentalism in all its forms. If you simply reject Islamic fundamentalism in favor of Christian theocracy, it just makes you a different breed of fundamentalist.

657 JamesWI  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:25:23pm

re: #652 Creeping Eruption

I would never insult you in that manner, being a fellow Wisconsin-ite and atty. Nevertheless, I am glad the ViQueens are stuck with him, at least until he has an utter breakdown and retires again.

From what I get from Vikings fans, I don't think they care either way. Either Favre does well, leads them on a playoff run, and they get to gloat . . . or Favre (likely) blows it, they continue in their perpetual mediocrity, and they can finally get rid of Brad Childress. Seems like a win-win to me too.

658 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:25:24pm

re: #653 brazilofmux

In what effect it has on me, I don't see a difference. If they are in my business, their reasons don't change the fact that they are in business.

And this has been a point of mine repeatedly throughout this thread- they are no different except they call themselves republicans, when in fact they are much more like the left. I'm going to continue to point this out, because they are ideologically not my allies.

659 Achilles Tang  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:26:30pm

re: #525 haakondahl

Nope, nope nope. This draconian nonsense would preclude the only plausible hope, that of loosely confederated agencies and agents working together but autonomously. Meanwhile, why don't they do something that might actually help, and require source IP validation? This would cut down on spam AND botnets.

I'm no expert on this, but a major part of the problem is that the registrars of websites are essentially unregulated and criminals can set up to register their own websites, then automatically change their IPs on the fly, legally.

Another is ISPs who allow unprotected computers on their networks, which are the thousands controlled by criminals.

Seems to me that if the major industrial nations could just agree on enforcing what are supposed to be voluntary standards of behavior, then many problems would ease. If the rogues were denied access to those participating they would find themselves without most of their markets.

The bottom line though is just that. The bottom line. All the major network carriers get paid by traffic, and that includes spam. As long as they can claim an arm's length from the bad guys, they have no incentive to act because they know it will mean lower revenues.

660 shmuli  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:28:47pm

#643 Sharmuta

Yeah? What church of Deism did they go to? They were practicing Christians who belonged to Anglican and (a few) Catholic churches. They knew the liturgy and their Bibles, as you can find quotes from Scripture throughout their writing. You just want to call some of them Deists because that is how you interpret some of their writings, oh, some 220 years later.

Ludicrous. Just because they said some Deistic things does not make them Deists. You take these people at their word, which was that they were believing Christians, not impose your own beliefs on those upon whose shoulders you stand. Besides, even if a FEW of them met YOUR definition of Deism, they did not parade about in such a manner and the REST of them (hey, 13 colonies and many different state charters, most of them religiously based, remember?) were clearly believing Christians. You can tell this by the Churches they built, their gravestones, their protestations, their friends and their lives. Their communities and existence were not what you want them to be, but what they were, which was, in the VAST majority, believing Christians.

Sorry if the facts bother you. Nice try yourself.

661 drcordell  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:36:34pm

re: #660 shmuli

#643 Sharmuta

Yeah? What church of Deism did they go to? They were practicing Christians who belonged to Anglican and (a few) Catholic churches. They knew the liturgy and their Bibles, as you can find quotes from Scripture throughout their writing. You just want to call some of them Deists because that is how you interpret some of their writings, oh, some 220 years later.

Ludicrous. Just because they said some Deistic things does not make them Deists. You take these people at their word, which was that they were believing Christians, not impose your own beliefs on those upon whose shoulders you stand. Besides, even if a FEW of them met YOUR definition of Deism, they did not parade about in such a manner and the REST of them (hey, 13 colonies and many different state charters, most of them religiously based, remember?) were clearly believing Christians. You can tell this by the Churches they built, their gravestones, their protestations, their friends and their lives. Their communities and existence were not what you want them to be, but what they were, which was, in the VAST majority, believing Christians.

Sorry if the facts bother you. Nice try yourself.

Why does it matter that the founding fathers may or may not have been practicing Christians. The foundation they chose to build our nation upon was one that was explicitly secular. Having fled England and the persecution of the Anglican church, they sought above almost all other goals to ensure freedom from religious tyranny. And yet here you are today advocating for theocracy simply because they were Christians?

662 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:37:37pm

re: #656 drcordell

re: #655 Sharmuta


Well put. One must be against religious fundamentalism in all its forms. If you simply reject Islamic fundamentalism in favor of Christian theocracy, it just makes you a different breed of fundamentalist.

I seem to remember something in the Constitution about not being able to set a state religion, so railing against these groups is really a little pointless. They should be free to think what they think. Why should I force them to think like me? The closest anything comes to religion from the state is the whole ID thing. But they just want to put forward a different idea to evolution. Since neither "science" is of practical use to me, I don't care. Ironically, in England, public schools teach religion in class. They teach all religions (as well as atheism) and let the kids figure out for themselves what spiritual bent they want.

663 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:39:59pm

re: #660 shmuli

Just because they said some Deistic Christian things does not make them Deists Christians.

See how that works?

It's not just words, it's their deeds. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison- didn't take communion. Jefferson re-wrote the Bible. Franklin did not attend church until later in his life and did not believe in the Divinity or Resurrection of Christ.

I'm not going to stand for historical revisionism. Our Founders intended this country to have religious freedom- including the freedom to disregard religion if one so chose. It's called Freedom of Conscience, and I will defend not only our current right to this, but the belief of our Founders that this right was to be enshrined here. This country has always been a haven for the religiously persecuted, and denying our Founders radical thinking in their day does a great disservice to them and us.

664 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:42:02pm

re: #662 SnowMonster

It's very ignorant to think evolutionary science doesn't benefit you. It's called medicine.

665 Bagua  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:42:38pm

re: #639 shmuli

#537 Bagua

I don't read it that way as to get hung up on a word.


Yes I see what you mean, the way you read things is to add your own thoughts as to what the speaker might have meant and you go with that.

Inhofe was clearly referring to the opposition to government and Democrat over-reaching and noting that many are against this movement. Tell me, did he clarify that one word to imply he meant "revolution"? People talk and use excessive words - you do to. You want everyone to have the same pure reasoning that you do. Does not work like that. You can get agreements for different reasons. That is politics and the way that opinion, perspectives, emotions and feelings work. You don't have to like it or be so much above Beck and Inhofe just because they accomplish what needs to be done (gutting the Dems' health bill) in a way of which you disapprove.


Clearly? The only thing clear is your determination to spin.


You sound like the guy who gives up because he can't win the way he wants.

Do I then? It amazes me that you can read so much nonsense into what Inhofe said and what I wrote. I find it difficult to debate with a fantasist.

Victory is not like that.


Oh dear, now we are talking about “Victory” are we? What ever are you on about?

I do find your histrionics amusing, but not at all rational.

666 shmuli  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:43:21pm

#654 drcordell

Yes, and those in Texas are just the backlash against having secularism forced upon them and their children. These people are very conservative Christians and do not want others telling them how to think, especially if that way of thinking is viewed, by them, as an attack on their religion. They resist. Surprise!

What is it about people responding to being attacked by what they perceive as secularist extremism that surprises you? We are not talking about New York, California or D.C. We are talking about Texas and people who did not know and do not accept that the Government has the right to influence or challenge what they perceive as fundamental concepts of their religious beliefs.

I must say that the offense taken in these quarters to this backlash is very unthinking. I typically avoided those postings as Charles, like me and everybody else, has his own blind spots and interests. For my part, I do not believe that you can use the Constitution to club people over the head (change the way they and their ancestors have lived and taught their children for generations) without getting a push back. They think they are fighting for their freedom to believe and teach their children what they also believe. They want to pass on their beliefs, as they see right, to the next generation. WOW! I guess that makes them REALLY UN-American, huh?

667 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:43:45pm

re: #664 Sharmuta

re: #662 SnowMonster

It's very ignorant to think evolutionary science doesn't benefit you. It's called medicine.

I think you mean micro biology, but no, I can't use it directly. No matter how hard I try, I can't make a squirrel turn into a chicken.

668 harpsicon  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:44:07pm

re: #643 Sharmuta

Googling "Dominionism - foundations" comes up with TheocracyWatch, and they talk about how "right-wing" foundations are fighting against environmentalism, but not much more. It names RJ Reynolds, and Koch Industries as contributing against environmentalism, so I checked out RJ Reynolds on Guidestar.

Reynolds Foundation gives away about $3M per year. $550K went to the United Way, $250 to UNC Greensboro, $150K to the Arts Council, and so on.

In other words, a garden-variety corporate foundation, doing the usual community stuff. But TheocracyWatch has them listed as an evil right-wing baddie.

How does this compare with $100M from Annenberg for Ayers et al - a single grant???

I restate my case - money on the right side is really minimal, comparatively. And even on a seriously idealistic, cause-related site like TheocracyWatch, you can't find very much about the other team's players, even though they do hoist them up for bad points.

Compare this to the huge foundations dispensing the big bucks to the Left on Discover the Networks. Please. Don't just talk about huge right-wing money pots which I don't think exist, and then tell me to find them, especially the theocratic ones, by using Google. You may have to pay a few dollars to join Guidestar, but you can see all their tax forms, and see for yourself.

Sheesh.

669 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:44:22pm

re: #667 SnowMonster

I can't make a squirrel turn into a chicken.

You are ignorant!

670 drcordell  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:45:17pm

re: #662 SnowMonster

I seem to remember something in the Constitution about not being able to set a state religion, so railing against these groups is really a little pointless. They should be free to think what they think. Why should I force them to think like me? The closest anything comes to religion from the state is the whole ID thing. But they just want to put forward a different idea to evolution. Since neither "science" is of practical use to me, I don't care. Ironically, in England, public schools teach religion in class. They teach all religions (as well as atheism) and let the kids figure out for themselves what spiritual bent they want.

Where are you gleaning that anyone is trying to force these groups into abandoning their beliefs? The problem is that these radical Christian theocrats are attempting to force their beliefs on the rest of the population.

The theory of evolution is not a belief. It is based on empirical facts. Creationism is a religious belief. It is based not on empirical fact, but on faith. If you do not wish you have your child educated with regard to evolution, I have no problem with that. But attempting to place a religious belief inside the classroom, simply because it is offered as an alternative to science is absolutely absurd.

With regard to England, I think you are confusing a school teaching religious beliefs with a school teaching about religion. Religion is an unavoidable part of any society. Teaching schoolchildren about the various world belief systems in an educational manner is a great thing, and one that should be encouraged in my opinion. Teaching religious dogma to children veiled as a counter-theory to evolution is insane. There is a huge difference between the two.

671 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:45:23pm

re: #668 harpsicon

Perhaps it would be of interest to you to know that "discover the networks" takes money form theocratic foundations?

672 lostlakehiker  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:46:01pm

re: #631 Creeping Eruption

UW report: WMC claims of excessive litigation in state are bogus

The report is linked as a PDF in the article.

The problem isn't so much the total cost of awards handed down at trial as it is the necessity of settling out of court to keep down legal costs and hedge the prospect of an extravagant award, and the necessity of taking precautions in the form of extra tests and prescriptions to lay down a paper trail and placate patients who think that for everything under the sun there is not only a time, but a pill.

We didn't have a jury trial to determine the cause of the Challenger crash. Technical questions are questions for technical types. At a minimum, there should be some sort of institutional check on the rogue MD's who prostitute themselves to the plaintiff's bar, and will say anything just so they get paid.

673 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:46:10pm

re: #669 Sharmuta

re: #667 SnowMonster

Well then, educate me. Name me one scientific advancement that is a result of evolution? I am not talking genetic manipulation. Genetics does not need to know whether some bug used to be another bug 2 million years ago to use its genes today.


You are ignorant!

674 brazilofmux  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:47:16pm

re: #660 shmuli

They probably had trouble finding a church of Arminianism, too.

They held a range of beliefs, but they were primarily deists with some who were probably closet atheists (Franklin). Let's leave Jefferson on the side as he seems to have held all beliefs and no beliefs as the mood struck.

They did not set the Union out to be a theocracy, but did leave that choice to the States -- until the Civil War and the 14th amendment when the restrictions on the Union were pushed down the States.

They did seem to assume that country could not function properly without the underlying moral platform that western thought and religion provided, but that's not the same as the country being designed to be theocracy or proof that they were anything but deists.

675 harpsicon  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:47:19pm

re: #671 Sharmuta

Perhaps it would be of interest to you to know that "discover the networks" takes money form theocratic foundations?

Which ones? how much?? and what difference does that make to my argument???

I though you were the one against Tu Quoque posing!

676 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:49:01pm

re: #675 harpsicon

It's not tu quoque to point out funding sources. If you're that interested- do the research. I've already posted links about horowitz's funding sources. If I can find the links- anyone can.

677 calcajun  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:49:24pm

re: #667 SnowMonster

I think you mean micro biology, but no, I can't use it directly. No matter how hard I try, I can't make a squirrel turn into a chicken.

But, it tastes like it. Does that count?

It's Friday, gang. Lighten up. Besides, I have to work again this weekend, so if anyone should be grumpy, it's me.

678 Kenneth  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:50:20pm

re: #667 SnowMonster

I think you mean micro biology, but no, I can't use it directly. No matter how hard I try, I can't make a squirrel turn into a chicken.

Ah, but with some parsley & sage, a bit of wine and a clove of garlic, I can make a squirrel stew that tastes just like chicken.

679 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:50:36pm

re: #673 SnowMonster

Name me one scientific advancement that is a result of evolution?

I already did. If you think treatment of some diseases doesn't involve evolutionary science, I can't help you.

680 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:50:43pm
681 Ben Hur  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:51:22pm
682 rumcrook  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:52:07pm

re: #681 Ben Hur

It's OK to disagree

no it isnt! I completly disagree with that///

683 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:52:53pm

re: #672 lostlakehiker

The problem isn't so much the total cost of awards handed down at trial as it is the necessity of settling out of court to keep down legal costs and hedge the prospect of an extravagant award, and the necessity of taking precautions in the form of extra tests and prescriptions to lay down a paper trail and placate patients who think that for everything under the sun there is not only a time, but a pill.

We didn't have a jury trial to determine the cause of the Challenger crash. Technical questions are questions for technical types. At a minimum, there should be some sort of institutional check on the rogue MD's who prostitute themselves to the plaintiff's bar, and will say anything just so they get paid.

This is why it is so difficult to have a discussion on this topic.

So the Doctors testifying on behalf of the Plaintiff are all whores and the ones testifying for the Defense?

In reality there are any number of doctors who testify for both. From the perspective of the attorney, defense or plaintiff, this is actually preferable so that your doctor looks less like a "whore" than the other.

We didnt have a jury decide the challenger crash because there was no suit that I am aware of - certainly not from the astronauts. But you are correct. Any time scientific or other information beyond the ken of the ordinary juror is to be presented, an expert (doctor, engineer, etc) must testify.

What responsibility does the insurance industry have for any of this?

684 drcordell  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:53:03pm

re: #666 shmuli

#654 drcordell

Yes, and those in Texas are just the backlash against having secularism forced upon them and their children. These people are very conservative Christians and do not want others telling them how to think, especially if that way of thinking is viewed, by them, as an attack on their religion. They resist. Surprise!

What is it about people responding to being attacked by what they perceive as secularist extremism that surprises you? We are not talking about New York, California or D.C. We are talking about Texas and people who did not know and do not accept that the Government has the right to influence or challenge what they perceive as fundamental concepts of their religious beliefs.

I must say that the offense taken in these quarters to this backlash is very unthinking. I typically avoided those postings as Charles, like me and everybody else, has his own blind spots and interests. For my part, I do not believe that you can use the Constitution to club people over the head (change the way they and their ancestors have lived and taught their children for generations) without getting a push back. They think they are fighting for their freedom to believe and teach their children what they also believe. They want to pass on their beliefs, as they see right, to the next generation. WOW! I guess that makes them REALLY UN-American, huh?

You somehow managed to write several paragraphs of words that contain no real substance whatsoever. What exactly is being done to the poor repressed 70%+ Christian majority in this country?

If by being "clubbed over the head" with the Constitution you mean Christian Theocrats are not allowed to push their dogma in public schools, then you are correct. Nobody is forcing anyone in Texas to believe anything. Children are being taught empirically-based factual science in science class. That is what science class is for. If any parents have a problem with that, they have every right to pull their children out of class and teach them whatever they want.

Simply because a religion chooses to make fervent opposition to established science a tenet of their faith, that does not make science a faith-based topic that cannot be taught in schools.

685 rumcrook  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:53:45pm

re: #681 Ben Hur

now that was a link worth opening.

686 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:53:52pm

re: #670 drcordell

Where are you gleaning that anyone is trying to force these groups into abandoning their beliefs? The problem is that these radical Christian theocrats are attempting to force their beliefs on the rest of the population.


Then what are you suggesting?


The theory of evolution is not a belief. It is based on empirical facts. Creationism is a religious belief. It is based not on empirical fact, but on faith. If you do not wish you have your child educated with regard to evolution, I have no problem with that. But attempting to place a religious belief inside the classroom, simply because it is offered as an alternative to science is absolutely absurd.


But I don't see the harm in either being taught.


With regard to England, I think you are confusing a school teaching religious beliefs with a school teaching about religion. Religion is an unavoidable part of any society. Teaching schoolchildren about the various world belief systems in an educational manner is a great thing, and one that should be encouraged in my opinion. Teaching religious dogma to children veiled as a counter-theory to evolution is insane. There is a huge difference between the two.

My wife is an English School Teacher so I sort of have an inside scoop. The problems they are having with the Muslims are testing this openness. She thinks we (Americans) are nuts over our revulsion to having religion discussed publicly.

687 ShanghaiEd  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:54:10pm

re: #249 unrealizedviewpoint

the system is 'so broken' because of govt, the govt's answer: more govt.

John Stossel

I would say that the system is broken because of inept government, e.g., cronies in jobs they weren't qualified to do. Big difference.

688 ErnieG  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:54:19pm

re: #230 kansas

John Conyers said he wasn't going to the read the bill. Said no one could read the bills, they are too big and complicated. I guess he is going to vote for it anyway. Both sides are idiots.

Your comment reminded me of my favorite Mark Twain quote:

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
689 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:54:24pm

re: #666 shmuli

They want to pass on their beliefs, as they see right, to the next generation. WOW! I guess that makes them REALLY UN-American, huh?

No- that isn't what makes them un-American. What makes them un-American is they want to pass this religious belief off to other people's children in public schools.

690 harpsicon  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:54:37pm

re: #676 Sharmuta

But YOU have to find some enormous right-wing funders to justify your original statements, not just be snarky to me.

You haven't answered the main point, and are just raising a peripheral issue, about who is paying to help expose all the left-wing foundations and how they interact.

That stuff is there in the IRS documents, and doesn't need Horowitz to fish it out, although it's damn convenient for him to do it. Who funds him isn't an issue here. The issue is your blithe statement that there was tons of money behind dominionism and other theocratic stuff.

Prove it. (don't just tell me to look it up, and then ignore my results...)

691 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:56:54pm

re: #679 Sharmuta

re: #673 SnowMonster


I already did. If you think treatment of some diseases doesn't involve evolutionary science, I can't help you.

I believe you said medicine. Name one drug that would not have been developed today, had it not been for the discovery of evolution.

692 drcordell  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:56:56pm

re: #686 SnowMonster

But I don't see the harm in either being taught.

You don't see the harm in religious dogma being openly taught in public school? Awesome.

693 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:57:06pm

re: #686 SnowMonster

But I don't see the harm in either being taught.

Religion doesn't belong in science class.

694 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:57:13pm

re: #673 SnowMonster

Actually, anti-biotic resistant strains are a direct result of evolution. In fact it is a proof of evolution in action over a very short period of time. Understanding how the bacteria are mutating is a key part to combating them and developing new antibiotics.

So next time you get an infection that gets treated, you can be grateful that some people understand evolution.

695 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:57:31pm

re: #692 drcordell

re: #686 SnowMonster


You don't see the harm in religious dogma being openly taught in public school? Awesome.

No. I don't. I trust my kids to figure out what makes sense to them.

696 Bagua  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:58:24pm

re: #694 LudwigVanQuixote

Well said.

697 shmuli  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:58:40pm

#661 drcordell

Uh, no, that is not what I wrote.

I claim that it is precisely because the recent experience in England that they supported a secular FEDERAL government. NOT a secular society. The two are not equivalent. The Federal government was separated from religion, but religion was not separated from the structure of the society and lives of the people. Each colony had religiously based charters and many taxed and supported specific religious denomination(s). So church and state (colony) were NOT separate, only a FEDERAL government was separated. Remember also that Maryland was Catholic and would not sign a constitution which required it to support the Anglican church. Politics is compromise. It was the history of the English Monarchy and Anglican church which made it clear that a FEDERAL government should not prefer a specific religion. They learned well.

Nowhere have I advocated or proposed a theocracy. Read again. I only pointed out, in reply to the charge that the founding fathers of the country were Deists, that they were Christians. QED.

698 [deleted]  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:00:08pm
699 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:01:04pm

re: #698 valdez

Your account?

700 drcordell  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:01:30pm

re: #690 harpsicon

But YOU have to find some enormous right-wing funders to justify your original statements, not just be snarky to me.

You haven't answered the main point, and are just raising a peripheral issue, about who is paying to help expose all the left-wing foundations and how they interact.

That stuff is there in the IRS documents, and doesn't need Horowitz to fish it out, although it's damn convenient for him to do it. Who funds him isn't an issue here. The issue is your blithe statement that there was tons of money behind dominionism and other theocratic stuff.

Prove it. (don't just tell me to look it up, and then ignore my results...)

Here's just one example of the religious right funding Theocratic organizations. The Discovery Institute more specifically.
Source

701 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:01:34pm

re: #694 LudwigVanQuixote

re: #673 SnowMonster

Actually, anti-biotic resistant strains are a direct result of evolution. In fact it is a proof of evolution in action over a very short period of time. Understanding how the bacteria are mutating is a key part to combating them and developing new antibiotics.

So next time you get an infection that gets treated, you can be grateful that some people understand evolution.

So you contend that these medicines could not have been created without knowledge of evolution? I disagree. We have developed vaccines before without thought to it.

702 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:03:32pm

re: #690 harpsicon

The Bradley Foundation, The Sarah Scaife Foundation, The Olin Foundation, The Pope Foundation, The Krieble Foundation, The Castle Rock Foundation, The Hooper Foundation, The Jacobs Family Foundation.

703 drcordell  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:03:38pm

re: #698 valdez

Lgf attacks Beck, attacks Palin, mocks the obvious anger that is growing around this country, and basically seems to be doing the work of the fine lady Pelosi. What Gives?

Do you believe that every enemy of your own enemy is your friend? It is possible to not like Obama, but at the same time not wish to associate yourself with Beck's paranoid racism, Palin's idiocy or teabaggers lunacy.

704 drcordell  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:06:04pm

re: #697 shmuli

#661 drcordell

Uh, no, that is not what I wrote.

I claim that it is precisely because the recent experience in England that they supported a secular FEDERAL government. NOT a secular society. The two are not equivalent. The Federal government was separated from religion, but religion was not separated from the structure of the society and lives of the people. Each colony had religiously based charters and many taxed and supported specific religious denomination(s). So church and state (colony) were NOT separate, only a FEDERAL government was separated. Remember also that Maryland was Catholic and would not sign a constitution which required it to support the Anglican church. Politics is compromise. It was the history of the English Monarchy and Anglican church which made it clear that a FEDERAL government should not prefer a specific religion. They learned well.

Nowhere have I advocated or proposed a theocracy. Read again. I only pointed out, in reply to the charge that the founding fathers of the country were Deists, that they were Christians. QED.

Right. But nobody is talking about banishing Christianity and creating a secular society. We are talking about fighting against the explicit push within the right wing of this country to support and promote Christianity using Federal and State governments.

705 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:06:19pm

re: #697 shmuli

I only pointed out, in reply to the charge that the founding fathers of the country were Deists, that they were Christians. QED.

But they were Deists!

706 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:06:45pm

re: #5 Baier

This is the kind of reasonable debate our country needs to solve a serious issue/
What kind of revolution does this kook envision? What ever happened to voting?

Voting is boring. And sometimes your side loses.

707 ArchangelMichael  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:07:13pm

re: #698 valdez

What Gives?

Your simple mind perhaps?

708 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:10:23pm

re: #703 drcordell

re: #698 valdez


Do you believe that every enemy of your own enemy is your friend? It is possible to not like Obama, but at the same time not wish to associate yourself with Beck's paranoid racism, Palin's idiocy or teabaggers lunacy.

I think the problem is that people tend to put people in either the Ally or Enemy Camp without giving thought to what they are saying and what their issues are. That's a liberal strategy, why are we using it? If Beck aggrevates you, but you agree to some of his tenets (i.e. small govt, reduced taxes, etc.), why alienate him and his supporters? Wouldn't it be better to get everyone who agrees to these things together to institute the change we want? If the answer is that you are worried that when the music stops and all the Beck people have the chairs, then you are saying your way or the highway and that benefits no one.

709 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:11:29pm

re: #701 SnowMonster

Ludwig didn't say anything about vaccines. He was talking about anti-biotics.

710 drcordell  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:17:16pm

re: #708 SnowMonster

I think the problem is that people tend to put people in either the Ally or Enemy Camp without giving thought to what they are saying and what their issues are. That's a liberal strategy, why are we using it? If Beck aggrevates you, but you agree to some of his tenets (i.e. small govt, reduced taxes, etc.), why alienate him and his supporters? Wouldn't it be better to get everyone who agrees to these things together to institute the change we want? If the answer is that you are worried that when the music stops and all the Beck people have the chairs, then you are saying your way or the highway and that benefits no one.

Glenn Beck is an idiot. He has the gall to claim he is influenced by Thomas Paine while simultaneously violating so many of the tenets that Paine held dearest. Beck deserves no support, no followers and no attention. Riling up uneducated mooks with blatant lies and misinformation all because it is extremely profitable. He is a cancer upon our nation, poisoning the political discourse for his own personal gain.

711 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:17:23pm

re: #689 Sharmuta

re: #666 shmuli


No- that isn't what makes them un-American. What makes them un-American is they want to pass this religious belief off to other people's children in public schools.

Sounds like a good advocacy for school vouchers. You can send your kids to the school without the belief systems.

712 ArchangelMichael  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:19:15pm

re: #711 SnowMonster

Sounds like a good advocacy for school vouchers. You can send your kids to the school without the belief systems.

That still requires me to fund kooks contributing to the dumbing down of the nation with my tax dollars.

713 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:20:10pm

re: #712 ArchangelMichael

That still requires me to fund kooks contributing to the dumbing down of the nation with my tax dollars.

Well you know how much a private religious education is. Why pay, when the rest of us saps can pay for it when they bring it in to public school.?

714 drcordell  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:20:56pm

re: #711 SnowMonster

Sounds like a good advocacy for school vouchers. You can send your kids to the school without the belief systems.

You just don't get it, do you. Indoctrinating children with religious dogma is not a right. It has no place anywhere in the sphere of public education. And vouchers paid for with public dollars that end up funding explicitly religious education should not be allowed either. There is plenty of time outside of the 6 hours a day children are in school to teach them religious beliefs. Do it after school, do it at bible study, do it at sunday school, do it at church. Anywhere but a classroom that is being funded with my tax dollars.

715 [deleted]  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:21:13pm
716 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:21:18pm

re: #710 drcordell

re: #708 SnowMonster


Glenn Beck is an idiot. He has the gall to claim he is influenced by Thomas Paine while simultaneously violating so many of the tenets that Paine held dearest. Beck deserves no support, no followers and no attention. Riling up uneducated mooks with blatant lies and misinformation all because it is extremely profitable. He is a cancer upon our nation, poisoning the political discourse for his own personal gain.

How does calling a group of people uneducated mooks advance your cause? You sound no different than Pelosi and Obama talking about the folks in fly-over country.

717 ArchangelMichael  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:21:51pm

re: #713 Creeping Eruption

Well you know how much a private religious education is. Why pay, when the rest of us saps can pay for it when they bring it in to public school.?

Exactly. Not on my watch. The left steals far too much of my money for asinine bullshit as it is. Not going to put up with it from the right.

718 drcordell  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:22:57pm

re: #715 june_july

HAhahahhahahahaha. Gotta love it. If you don't support Palin, Beck or creationism that makes you a "RINO." Remember when being a Republican actually had to do with true Conservative beliefs, and not culture wars?

719 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:23:22pm

re: #715 june_july

If it sucks so bad, why hang around?

720 drcordell  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:24:32pm

re: #716 SnowMonster

How does calling a group of people uneducated mooks advance your cause? You sound no different than Pelosi and Obama talking about the folks in fly-over country.

Anyone who believes the absurd, racist, anti-semitic bullshit that Beck spews is an uneducated mook. And there will always be plenty of them. Think of it this way... half of America will always be of below-average intelligence.

721 ArchangelMichael  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:25:05pm

re: #715 june_july

LOL. I'm not a (insert whatever group, cult, kook, wacko, idiot here) BUT...

722 drcordell  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:26:00pm

re: #721 ArchangelMichael

LOL. I'm not a (insert whatever group, cult, kook, wacko, idiot here) BUT...

I know, right? She doesn't support Beck, Palin or Creationism, but LGF is a "RINO site" because it mocks the above?

723 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:26:07pm

re: #714 drcordell

re: #711 SnowMonster


You just don't get it, do you. Indoctrinating children with religious dogma is not a right. It has no place anywhere in the sphere of public education. And vouchers paid for with public dollars that end up funding explicitly religious education should not be allowed either. There is plenty of time outside of the 6 hours a day children are in school to teach them religious beliefs. Do it after school, do it at bible study, do it at sunday school, do it at church. Anywhere but a classroom that is being funded with my tax dollars.

I think there was something in the Constitution about freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. But as you say, I am easily confused. Perhaps the issue is that we have a public education system. If everyone was responsible for their own education, perhaps we wouldn't have this discussion. School vouchers might be a good compromise. You send your kids to the public school with the rest of the drones. I'll send mine to some place that will teach them what I think is important. Seem fair? BTW - I am not religious. I just think that it is unfair to force your atheism on people with belief systems.

724 [deleted]  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:26:46pm
725 EaterOfFood  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:27:00pm

re: #36 Charles

Get off my website.

How did he even get on with a name that is an anti-black racial slur?re: #130 sillyquiet

I wish that the Democrats had a blogger that demanded intellectual honesty and ingenuousness from his or her party as rigorously as you do, Charles. I might respect liberal bloggers more. Even the best of them, like most Republican bloggers, turn a blind eye to their party's idiocies.
Thanks, and keep it up.

Turn a blind eye? Some of them see them and encourage them anyway.

This has become the only blog I read.

726 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:29:47pm

re: #718 drcordell

HAhahahhahahahaha. Gotta love it. If you don't support Palin, Beck or creationism that makes you a "RINO." Remember when being a Republican actually had to do with true Conservative beliefs, and not culture wars?

Barry Goldwater

727 SnowMonster  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:30:13pm

re: #720 drcordell

re: #716 SnowMonster


Anyone who believes the absurd, racist, anti-semitic bullshit that Beck spews is an uneducated mook. And there will always be plenty of them. Think of it this way... half of America will always be of below-average intelligence.

Since you didn't answer my question, I conclude you are not interested in advancing a conservative cause then? Nor did you distinguish your outlook as being different from the liberal disdain for the rabble.

728 [deleted]  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:31:20pm
729 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:32:51pm

re: #728 june_july

For some reason you seem to be begging for it as opposed to offering an intelligent thought on why you disagree with the positions currently being expressed.

730 ArchangelMichael  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:33:49pm

re: #724 june_july

So conspiracy theories about joo bankers in the Federal Reserve, putting us back on an unworkable gold standard, not voting out the republican enablers of big spending, putting religion into public school science classes, not calling out the crazy problem people in our own party who are turning off voters, giving the left all kinds of ammo to use against us, and howling incorrectly about Obama not being eligible for the presidency... all this is going to "save" America.

What color is the sky on the planet you come from?

731 drcordell  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:35:00pm

re: #723 SnowMonster

I think there was something in the Constitution about freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. But as you say, I am easily confused. Perhaps the issue is that we have a public education system. If everyone was responsible for their own education, perhaps we wouldn't have this discussion. School vouchers might be a good compromise. You send your kids to the public school with the rest of the drones. I'll send mine to some place that will teach them what I think is important. Seem fair? BTW - I am not religious. I just think that it is unfair to force your atheism on people with belief systems.

I don't know how many times I can try to explain this, but here goes again. You keep conflating the separation of religion from public education with an endorsement of atheism. Children aren't stupid. I don't think it is beneath them to understand that their classmates may not share their religious beliefs, therefore religious matters are not to be taught in class. It's not rocket science. Not explicitly teaching something is not the same as explicitly refuting that something.

732 theheat  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:35:11pm

re: #40 LudwigVanQuixote

Sadly, I can offer only one upding.

This see no, speak no, hear no evil - Republicans with their hands over their ears and mouths - it's beyond ridiculous. They behave as though by reading this, they get the socialist cooties on them. Talk about a bunch of knee-jerk jerks. How about come up with a better plan, and articulate it, instead of acting like a bunch of sullen pansies?

And for the rest of these lazy asses in politics, I wish I had a job were I got paid to effing read. Lemme guess, they're "doing the jobs Americans won't do?"

733 filetandrelease  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:35:31pm

Are you all sure we don't want to start a new political party? Maybe the Lizard Party or something? Charles, can you open the bar so we can start a party?

734 [deleted]  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:35:48pm
735 wrenchwench  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:37:20pm

re: #715 june_july

But I am watching LGF turn into a RINO site

Try "a NRINNNIIE site".

"Not Republican In Name Nor Necessarily In Ideology Either."

736 drcordell  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:40:37pm

re: #734 SnowMonster

You should care about Creationists if you care about upholding our Constitution.

The fact that you like Glenn Beck speaks volumes, enough said.

You should care about hate-mongers the world over.

As far as Palin, she appeals to the GOP base. The very same people lapping up Glenn Beck's paranoid conspiracy vomit every night. The people who will vote for profligate spending, Constitution shredding idiots as long as they wrap themselves in the American flag and culture war rhetoric.

737 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:41:30pm

re: #715 june_july

That's not criticism- that's an insult.

738 Hanoch  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:42:01pm

re: #712 ArchangelMichael

First, vouchers are not only used for religious schools, they are for private education generally.

Second, they are not necessarily funded with public dollars. In my town, people who send their children to private schools pay about $8K a year in property taxes which goes directly to the public schools which they do not use. It is utter nonsense to suggest that if that $8K were returned to these people in the form of vouchers so that they could pay part of their private school tuition bills they would be receiving "public funds". Rather, they'd be receiving back the money the state confiscated from them in the first instance.

739 ArchangelMichael  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:43:10pm

re: #735 wrenchwench

Try "a NRINNNIIE site".

"Not Republican In Name Nor Necessarily In Ideology Either."

Just more people projecting on LGF and Charles what they think his beliefs and positions are, then they get irate when reality does not live up to their fantasy.

LGF never was a Republican site and therefore cannot turn into a RINO site. It is an anti-idiotarian site. Idiots are legion on both the left and the right. I for one, want them out of positions in which my future and the future of my country can be determined.

The definition of the term RINO used by some here is suspect as well.

740 [deleted]  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:43:22pm
741 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:43:37pm

re: #723 SnowMonster

I think there was something in the Constitution about freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Actually- it's both.

742 Charles Johnson  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:49:53pm

We're getting a rash of late thread melties in here.

743 ArchangelMichael  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:50:06pm

"Herb cleanup on aisle seven!"

744 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:51:34pm

re: #715 june_july

But I am watching LGF turn into a RINO site, self destructing due to excessive censorship and a massive ego.

Republican In National Office?

The biggest of the many big lies from the far right is that they somehow represent a true and pure version of the Republican Party while the rest of us are "Republicans in Name Only." Nothing could be further from the truth. People like Inhofe and Brownback, among all too many others, know little and care less about the Republican heritage. They seem to think the GOP originated with Reagan and his shotgun wedding with the media-based evangelical movement. It did not.

745 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:51:35pm

re: #742 Charles

We're getting a rash of late thread melties in here.

I never seem to be able to catch the actual melt in progress. I only see the deleted remains. Are these all just socks? Where do they come from?

746 drcordell  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:52:10pm

re: #740 SnowMonster

What you don't get, is that I can live with someone telling my kid about Allah, Yaway (sp), Bhudda, The Big Bear In The Sky, or any other belief system. It doesn't affect kids the way you think it does. They are actually smarter than you give them credit for (at least mine are, anyway). I'd rather them spend more time on the three 'Rs', but there is no time after the cultural sensitivity and environmental awareness classes.

Well, first let me clue you in on a little secret. God, Allah and Yaweh... they're the same guy. And again, I have absolutely no problem with children learning about religion itself. Children learning information about the world's various religions can only create a more tolerant future.

But that is NOT what is being debated with regard to Christian theocrats. They are not looking to have a "world religions" class taught. They are looking to have fundamentalist Christian dogma taught alongside evolution in the science classroom. That isn't "teaching kids about the big bear in the sky." It's conflating religious beliefs with real science.

747 brazilofmux  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:52:20pm

Creationism -- I would rather have this conversation with my kids than leave it to a teacher. The science teacher should cover science. I understand why tax payers don't want to fund religious school, but I also get that parents who choose to send their kids to private schools feel as they are paying twice.

Glenn Beck -- I would take one Michael Medved over a fifty Glenn Becks. Glenn is a radio personality. He says outrageous things. When he's stupid, it's good that someone calls him on it, and I would rather that be our side so that our side maintains control of its own message. But, I admit to being surprised at how strongly LGF feels about him.

Sarah Palin -- I grant that she gathers crowds, pleases crowds, and seems to know where the buttons are, but I think she would be a disaster for anything at the national level -- some would say a mistake at the state level, too. I have no personal animosity, but I don't support her.

748 theheat  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:52:25pm

re: #742 Charles

It's where the cheese oozes off the sides of your grilled cheese, and makes that gooey black bubbly stuff that sticks to the pan.

749 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:57:45pm

re: #742 Charles

We're getting a rash of late thread melties in here.

Is there some kind of ointment for that?

750 harpsicon  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:58:24pm

re: #700 drcordell

Here's just one example of the religious right funding Theocratic organizations. The Discovery Institute more specifically.
Source

Indeed, it is just one example - the gave $1M to the break-off Episcopals. And this very gung-ho piece demonizes Scaife for his $2.4M to play dirty tricks on Clinton.

These are piddling sums compared to the real money. $100M from Annenberg. You're just proving my point more and more - if this is what they cite as evidence of evil right-wing stuff...

751 shortshrift  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 2:10:06pm

re: #720 drcordell

Anyone who believes the absurd, racist, anti-semitic bullshit that Beck spews is an uneducated mook. And there will always be plenty of them. Think of it this way... half of America will always be of below-average intelligence.

Anti-semitic bullshit? Please provide quotes.

752 shmuli  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 2:12:02pm

Sorry, have not got much time.

#663 Sharmuta

No, I believe you are the revisionist. Just because some were Deists does not make the signers and the people of the country, and their leaders Deists. I also disagree with your designation of them as Deists. This is just projection.

#665 Bagula

Come on, insult me, I like it.
/sarcasm off

#684 drcordell AND #689 Sharmuta

No, you seem to think that forcing others into your own opinion and denying or insulting their beliefs is a GOOD thing. I think they are just defending themselves from others. They were there, in their own communities first. They are resisting the "re-education" you think is best for them. They want their world their way, you want it to be your way. This is simply a conflict of desires to impose one belief on another. Only difference is they were there first.

#704 drcordell

Nobody is doing that. You are just seeing people pushing back. If you focus on the weird loonies and say they represent religious Christians you are just setting up a straw man to suit your own perspective. There is no such extreme movement of any size. Nuts, yes, but no size or influence. I would not attribute to YOU the extreme positions of rabid secularists, so why attribute to religious Christians the positions of the most extreme of them?

#705 Sharmuta

Says You. I have to and will disagree. Sorry, your history must be NEWER than mine.

753 Charles Johnson  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 2:27:20pm

re: #752 shmuli

The founding fathers -- especially the more important ones such as Thomas Jefferson -- were mostly Deists. That's a historical fact. The Christians were in the minority.

754 wrenchwench  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 2:41:35pm

re: #742 Charles

We're getting a rash of late thread melties in here.

Maybe for most of us the note in the profile should read, "Most recent comment posted," and for the blocked account leave it at "Last comment posted." I like the finality.

755 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 3:02:37pm

re: #752 shmuli

No, I believe you are the revisionist. Just because some were Deists does not make the signers and the people of the country, and their leaders Deists. I also disagree with your designation of them as Deists. This is just projection.

It can't be projection- I am not a Deist.

No, you seem to think that forcing others into your own opinion and denying or insulting their beliefs is a GOOD thing. I think they are just defending themselves from others. They were there, in their own communities first. They are resisting the "re-education" you think is best for them. They want their world their way, you want it to be your way. This is simply a conflict of desires to impose one belief on another. Only difference is they were there first.

No one is denying them their beliefs. Most Christian denominations accept science and promote Theistic evolution.

Says You. I have to and will disagree. Sorry, your history must be NEWER than mine.

No- says the historical record. You will not find a legitimate historian to agree with you that the men I cited as Deists were anything other than what I said they were.

756 Ezekiel2517  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 3:15:00pm

The Democrats don't bother to read anything before voting in favor of it, so why should the GOP have to read something before voting against it?

757 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 3:20:53pm

re: #756 Ezekiel2517

Intellectual honesty?

758 Vanderleun  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 3:55:02pm

I don't know. Is punching up the Inhofe said. "We're almost reaching a revolution in this country." supposed to make one think the Senator is predicting some sort of armed cataclysm in the immediate or distant future in the US?

Reading that small squiblet of an article doesn't seem to really communicate that, does it?

759 doubter4444  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 5:00:21pm

re: #291 zelnaga

Texas governor Rick Perry advocated secession a month after Obama was sworn in. Honestly, I think it's all just a bit over the top. What's next? Are you going to secede every time a Democrat wins and rejoin every time a Republican wins?

Besides, through elections, the government can be peacefully overthrown every four years. If Democrats can endure eight years of Bush, surely Republicans can endure four years of Obama?

Let's not be reasonable here!

760 doubter4444  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 5:05:45pm

re: #240 zombie

“History teaches us that the great revolutions aren't started by people who are utterly down and out, without hope and vision. They take place when people begin to live a little better - and when they see how much yet remains to be achieved.”
-- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey

You are seriously equating the two quotes?
Wow, that really stretching.
Or are you merely trying to say that other Senators have uttered the word Revolution, which is true, but purposefully misses the point.

761 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 5:54:15pm

re: #80 Spartacus50

A good idea from the Democrats? Ha! I challenge you to name one...

Now that you mention it, I can't think of one. But, theoretically, given an infinite amount of time, a Democrat might have a good idea at some time in the future. Although such an outcome is statistically very unlikely in the short term, it is almost certain to occur once as an accident merely or by chance in, say, a geologic time scale.

762 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 7:47:58pm

re: #661 drcordell

Why does it matter that the founding fathers may or may not have been practicing Christians. The foundation they chose to build our nation upon was one that was explicitly secular. Having fled England and the persecution of the Anglican church, they sought above almost all other goals to ensure freedom from religious tyranny. And yet here you are today advocating for theocracy simply because they were Christians?

I need a drink. I just updinged drcordell.

763 haakondahl  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 7:52:38pm

re: #720 drcordell

Anyone who believes the absurd, racist, anti-semitic bullshit that Beck spews is an uneducated mook. And there will always be plenty of them. Think of it this way... half of America will always be of below-average intelligence.

This certainly does not include our network and cable news directors who must be fricking geniuses to consistently locate and serve that lower half.

764 [deleted]  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:32:04pm
765 Charles Johnson  Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:41:51pm

Here they come again.

766 [deleted]  Sat, Aug 29, 2009 6:04:47pm
767 Charles Johnson  Sat, Aug 29, 2009 7:14:16pm

re: #766 justdanny

Sorry to see you join the Lunatic Brigade. Have fun storming the castle.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

TwitterFacebook

Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing!
Take advantage of our end-of-the-year subscription special, and save 25% off the normal subscription price! For a limited time, one-year ad-free subscriptions are just $59.95. Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing now and save!
Read more...

► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form
LGF Pages

This button leads to the main index of LGF Pages, our user-submitted articles. You can post your own LGF Pages simply by registering a free account with us.

Create a Page

This is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.

Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.

Last updated: 2014-12-15 2:06 pm PST

LGF User's Guide
Recent Pages
CuriousLurker
Nativity Scene Will Be Displayed in Nebraska Capitol Rotunda
Nebraska's Legislature is supposedly unicameral & non-partisan, but looking at their Wiki page (which provides party affiliation "for informational purposes only") it seems to be very red, This move to put a nativity scene in the Capitol Rotunda strikes me ...

15 minutes ago
Views: 13 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
Randall Gross
Myanmar ‘Buddha Insult’ Trial: Men Plead Not Guilty
You didn't know that there are fundamentalist Buddhists who will imprison you for their equivalent to blasphemy? A New Zealander and two Burmese men have pleaded not guilty to charges of insulting Buddhism in Myanmar. The trio, who ran a ...

1 hour, 36 minutes ago
Views: 95 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
FemNaziBitch
‘God Loves Women Who Have Abortions’: The Religious Abortion Advocates That History Forgot
The New York legislature had just failed to pass an incremental reform to the state's strict anti-abortion law, leaving the status quo in place. At that time, deaths resulting from illegal abortions accounted for 42 percent of New York ...

2 days, 7 hours ago
Views: 398 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 24 • Rating: 0
Rightwingconspirator
Blackmores Night-Christmas Music Olde And New At The Same Time
Spotify Youtube

3 days, 3 hours ago
Views: 191 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
Lumberhead
A History of Thugs
Civilization is imperiled. Demonic dark-skinned criminals exult in seizing property and security. Only a vanguard of brave uniformed officers can take them off the streets and restore order. It is 1835, and whites are finally confronting what Mark Twain ...

1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 603 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 1
Romantic Heretic
It’s Beginning To Feel A Lot Like Christmas
As always, Fairytale of New York makes me realize what time of the year it is.

1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 395 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
Dark_Falcon
The College Rape Overcorrection
This is the article I promised to post this morning. The quoted passage is from the second section, "2. An Overcorrection". We are told that one of the most dangerous places for a young woman in America today is a ...

1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 708 • Comments: 11
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
cinesimon
Charles Barkley and the Plague of ‘Unintelligent’ Blacks
theatlantic.com

1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 733 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2
 Frank says:

Nobody looks good with brown lipstick on -- from The Real Frank Zappa Book