September 26, 2008
So What if He Dies?
So far, I think the "heartbeat away" blitzkrieg against Sarah Palin has been wildly overblown, despite the fact it seems to have finally browbeat Kathleen Parker of National Review into submission.
Now I can only imagine the email she's getting at the moment, and hope none of my readers pile on, but really, how well thought out is this fear-mongering that John McCain could catch a cold/have a heart attack/mysteriously trip and impale himself on a nearby moose antler the week after he is inaugurated really thought out?Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:38 PM | Comments (47) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
We don't vote for teams, we vote for people: two, a President and a VP. Palin's performance during the Couric interview was embarrassing, pathetic, and frightening.
Don't try to distract us with something shiny; *we're* not the monkeys.
Posted by: Dan at September 26, 2008 05:24 PM (ExyBd)
Posted by: redc1c4 at September 26, 2008 05:45 PM (vLw7K)
A shrewd point. Just before her answer on the bailout, Palin said, "Let me give you my impression of Adam Sandler's Excitable Southerner." MSM don't want you to know that!
Posted by: Kyle at September 26, 2008 06:08 PM (6s1Eg)
Posted by: Grey Fox at September 26, 2008 06:17 PM (HbWEL)
Compared to what?
When Dan's overwhelmed with the brilliance and intelligence of his Vice Presidential candidate, who thinks President FDR was going on TV in 1929 to talk to the nation about the stock market crash, what we can see is that the standard of grading here is roughly the inverse of what anyone else in the real world would think.
Palin did just fine with a hostile hatemongering Obamabot who kept trying to disqualify her answers. Couric made it clear she was going to do anything she could to try to sabotage Palin, and came off looking totally and completely biased and petty.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 26, 2008 06:19 PM (E3Yxq)
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmZmZDg3NjkzMTk3OGZiMjc0YjVhOWUyY2I5YjY1ZTE=
Posted by: Grey Fox at September 26, 2008 06:20 PM (HbWEL)
Really. No kidding. What the heck was she talking about? What did all that mean?
One more little tidbit regarding the original post. If a hypothetical President Palin chooses a wise Vice President to right the ship of state, why couldn't John McCain do that in the first place? Why not choose someone qualified, so Palin won't have to do it for him?
Posted by: Dan at September 26, 2008 06:47 PM (ExyBd)
Yes, I'm well aware of Obama using local law enforcement authorities to try to intimidate opponents.
You consider this news?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 26, 2008 07:11 PM (HcgFD)
Brother, you aren't kidding, at all.
In the span of three weeks, Joe Biden has questioned Obama's decision making capability by saying Hillary would have been a better Veep choice, contradicted Obama on clean coal (and then flip-flopped), attacked his own campaign's commercial targeting McCain's computer usage (A huge gaffe by Obama's campaign, as McCain can't readily use a computer because of torture related injuries) without even seeing the ad, and said paying high taxes was a patriotic duty for the rich.
These are just his major examples of general flailing.
Do you want me to list his minor gaffes--like telling a guy in a wheelchair to stand up last week--as well?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 26, 2008 07:25 PM (HcgFD)
You have to wonder if Dan's constant attacks on Palin as "embarrassing, pathetic, and frightening" are little more than him projecting the problems with his OWN VP candidate onto other people.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 26, 2008 08:08 PM (E3Yxq)
Posted by: mytralman at September 26, 2008 08:11 PM (0mKiN)
There is no reason to suppose McCain is in any danger of dying. His mother is still alive, and he has released his health records showing him to be in remarkably good shape.
Haven't all the presidents who died in office been relatively young--and does anybody really want President Biden?
Posted by: Trish at September 26, 2008 09:04 PM (R0c+f)
That is by far, hands down, the best characterization of Joe "Stand up" Biden I have ever read. The Beeblebrox comparison is pure unfiltered high-octane genius.
Posted by: Ted at September 26, 2008 09:49 PM (Gj+1L)
well, yeah, but Zaphod Beeblebrox had two heads. Does Biden have even one operational one?
Posted by: Trish at September 26, 2008 09:58 PM (R0c+f)
Posted by: JohnFLob at September 26, 2008 11:27 PM (63LR3)
I'm partial to normal human beings who are NOT BeltwayLoungers, myself.
Posted by: dad29 at September 27, 2008 10:10 AM (ddQiK)
Posted by: dad29 at September 27, 2008 10:13 AM (ddQiK)
Perhaps because said haberdasher had not merely a haberdasher before becoming the VP choice. He had been an army captain in WWI (saw much combat), a judge and a senator. As Senator, he headed the "Truman Committee" which exposed fraud and waste in the military procurement process, and went after war profiteers.
But this was back in the day when war profiteering was considered a BAD thing.............."BH" (before Halliburton)
Posted by: dr. luba at September 27, 2008 12:18 PM (Q096i)
Perhaps because said haberdasher had not merely a haberdasher before becoming the VP choice. He had been an army captain in WWI (saw much combat), a judge and a senator. As Senator, he headed the "Truman Committee" which exposed fraud and waste in the military procurement process, and went after war profiteers.
But this was back in the day when war profiteering was considered a BAD thing.............."BH" (before Halliburton)
Posted by: dr luba at September 27, 2008 12:19 PM (Q096i)
But Palin is in another league altogether. Every politician makes gaffes; Biden certainly at a ridiculous rate.
Palin doesn't make gaffes, because nobody can figure out what she's saying. All of the apologia for her is pathetic. She not only lacks the experience for high public office (I'd include her present job in that statement), she has significantly less knowledge and is less articulate than dozens of people I know who would never presume themselves to be qualified for vice president.
McCain and Palin have taken the Peter Principle and beaten it to death with a club.
Posted by: Simon W. at September 27, 2008 12:35 PM (h3KhM)
Palin scares her own party, brother. And some of us remember that McCain used to scare a lot of Republicans. He still scares some hardier souls.
Did you forget Condoleezza Rice's praise of Joe Biden as a good leader and great patriot? He's cartoonish in some ways, sure but he's not a national joke.
And hanging on the prospect of Slow Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich..Jesus, could you be any more desperate?
Posted by: Miss O at September 27, 2008 01:30 PM (XFaEa)
Jon, you must be smoking some of Bill Clinton's dope if you think Palin could run as an incumbent. Palin is a real mistake on McCain's part (although I still like him a lot). Even conservative women are starting to turn on her. She is drowning right now and I am afraid she is going to start pulling McCain down with her.
Posted by: Brian Q. at September 27, 2008 01:56 PM (dtm+h)
Let us be honest here , if McCain picked Romney , the charge would be that he's a Mormon , a rich fat cat and oh yeah ,the BIG DIG . How about Eric Cantor , one problem he's a Jew and we all know how the MSM loves Jews who are Republican and who will defend Israel . How about Tim Pawlenty , a competent governor that will be attacked by the Democrats for funding the the Twins baseball stadium and would be partially blamed for the collapse of the I-35W Mississipi Bridge . How about Governor Jindal , besides being an Uncle Tom for leaving Hinduism for Catholicism , a Republican from Louisiana and less experience than Obama . It does not matter who McCain picked , it will be never good enough . What would be good enough is that McCain just roll over and die so Obama would not work hard in becoming the President of the United States .
Posted by: Will at September 27, 2008 07:41 PM (4sHuN)
At least Repubs are honest enough to openly criticize our own party without being banished to the dust bin of history, as so many Dems have been for "wrong thinking" over the past few months.
Plus National Review sadly lost it's rudder and has been floundering ever since with no clear editorial vision.
So Sarah Palin's not ready to be VP? Big deal, Obama's not ready to be President and no one really seems to care about that at all.
Posted by: joh at September 27, 2008 11:39 PM (1DPb/)
As governor of Alaska, Palin was decisive, incorruptible and pragmatic. She knew what she needed to know. It´s called gumption.
You either want such people in the White House or you want to elect lifers. Or whomever the media chooses.
Yes, she´s a newcomer, she did not need to know much about national or foreign policy issues a couple of weeks ago. And she is facing an unprecedented wave of hatred and hostile scrutiny. Even after two years of campaigning Obama wouldn´t survive an hour of that. Anyone can be destroyed at will if such methods are accepted as part of the game.
Or we can elect Senators for the rest of our lives. After all, they can go on for hours about things they know nothing about. If that is what matters.
Posted by: el gordo at September 28, 2008 09:29 AM (Ca7pt)
Posted by: Opeck at September 28, 2008 04:24 PM (d920R)
Opeck,
Comparing CBS to Michael Moore makes you look silly and makes you lose credibility. Sure they likely edited the interview to a point, but sadly it is clear that Palin isn't good on her feet. I am not saying she is dumb (though she may be), but at the very least she is deeply over her head right now and can't begin to have a coherent conversation on a lot of issues. When we blame the media for stuff like this we just end up looking like whiney losers. I think McCain needs to dump Palin now, or at least continue to keep her under lock and key.
Posted by: Brian at September 28, 2008 09:02 PM (bUz1O)
Comparing CBS to Michael Moore makes you look silly and makes you lose credibility.
Brian, you are aware it was CBS News that used fake documents to try to influence the last Presidential election, don't you? I have no idea how much editing they applied to the Palin interview, but neither do you. Considering their track record, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 28, 2008 09:17 PM (HcgFD)
I hold a slightly different position.
I believe that Alaska exists.
Posted by: brando at September 28, 2008 09:38 PM (C01SH)
You say: "it was CBS News that used fake documents to try to influence the last Presidential election."
Again as I stated in my last post, I think we as Republicans should be very careful with their words. Everything I have read on the subject says that CBS failed to properly authenticate the documents. Though despicable, this is substantially different than knowing the documents are fake and using them (despite this knowledge) to influence the election.
We need to be the party of moral authority and truth. We can't fall into the democrat's modernist trap of fudging the truth and we are beginning to do this all the time.
Posted by: Brian at September 30, 2008 03:20 PM (Jx32+)
Posted by: pessimist at October 02, 2008 06:42 PM (FxX4E)
Queering the Deal: Democratic Leaders Torpedo Bailout For Obama
Before I dive into this, let me say one thing: I am not an economist, and have no idea if the current proposal is a good one, if other proposals and amendments are better, or even if any of them will work.
What I do know is politics in action, and we saw it in spades last night, as noted chillingly in this article from David Rogers at The Politico:It seems probable that a deal had been reached earlier yesterday as mid-day reports were indicating, but then the Democratic leadership—Pelosi, Reid, and Presidential nominee Obama—determined that they were willing to risk a national (and global) economic collapse in order to play Presidential politics and try to make this into a "McCain versus Obama and Obama is the hero" story. Reid and Pelosi's judgment is notoriously bad (as their lowest recorded Congressional approval ratings in history and utter failure to pass any meaningful legislation in the last Congress proves), and Obama is preternaturally self-centered and ambitious, so it is not entirely surprising that they would go this route. It is just that we've been hearing so much about how serious a bailout is needed, and that we need to pass something relatively quickly, and then they do this—a melodramatic hissy-fit—for no other reason than theatrics. All major democratic concerns had been met in eariler compromises. It's disgusting. Update: And for what little it is worth considering economics is far outside of my comfort zone, I'm falling into the camp of thinking that the bailout plan as proposed isn't that great of an idea. Why? It has a bit to do with the big picture view of capitalism that Bill Whittle wrote of in Trinity, (Part 1). As with most of Whittle's essays it is brilliant and insightful in a "why didn't I think of/see that?" sort of way, but it is a lengthy screed, so I'd set aside a good half-hour (and get a nice fresh cup of coffee) before you snuggle into it. There is also a second part, helpfully titled Trinity, (Part 2) that I won't get a chance to dive into until this evening, but both are pushing me back to my fundamental, capitalist core beliefs that government intervention in most things is almost always bad.
At the White House, in fact, House Minority Leader John Boehner had bluntly warned about the lack of Republican support for the massive government intervention: "I can't invent votes," Boehner said. But House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) angrily accused the minority of trying to undercut Paulson by crafting a late-breaking alternative proposal—with the tacit support, Frank said, of Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Both McCain and his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, would leave the White House without comment, and the meeting was described as among the wildest in memory. A beleaguered President Bush had to struggle to maintain order and reassert himself. And when Democrats left to caucus in the Roosevelt Room, Paulson pursued them, begging that they not "blow up" the legislation. The former Goldman Sachs CEO even went down on one knee as if genuflecting, to which Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) is said to have joked, "I didn't know you were Catholic." It was McCain who had urged Bush to call the White House meeting but Democrats made sure Obama had a prominent part. And much as they complained later of being blindsided, the whole event turned out to be something of an ambush on their part—aimed at McCain and House Republicans. "Speaking professionally," said one Republican aide, "They did a very good job." When Bush yielded early to Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D- Nev.) to speak, they yielded to Obama to speak for the assembled Democrats. And it was Obama who raised the subject of the conservative alternative and pressed Paulson on what he thought of the idea.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:44 AM | Comments (33) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
OBAMA: Well, I was going to get to that.
KROFT: Go ahead.
OBAMA: You know, I’m a, I’m a practical person. One of the things I’m good at is getting people in a room with a bunch of different ideas who sometimes violently disagree with each other and finding common ground and a sense of common direction. And that’s the kind of approach that I think prevents you from making some of the enormous mistakes that we’ve seen over the last eight years.
Clearly after yesterday's meeting at the White House which Democrats to a man called a "waste of time," Obama needs a better reason to be President.
Posted by: Neo at September 26, 2008 09:18 AM (Yozw9)
Posted by: Jaded at September 26, 2008 10:19 AM (0lpqx)
Of course the Democrats are willing to wreck the economy for political gain. They don't care about anything but getting (and keeping) power.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 26, 2008 10:28 AM (TzLpv)
Are you seriously rewriting history here?
Posted by: Mar at September 26, 2008 10:55 AM (+hVO1)
The Democrats don't need the Republicans' support for a deal. They are the majority.
They want the support in order to triangulate the issue (or as I like to call it, Obamatize it) so that either way, they're in the clear and their power isn't threatened.
If they get the GOP on board and it goes south, they can say it was Bush and the GOP's fault.
Posted by: Hawkins at September 26, 2008 11:25 AM (pKjWO)
On Wednesday, Reid said McCain needed to be in Washington.
On Thursday, when McCain actually came, Reid reversed himself and said he didn't -- and then with his puppet Schumer, started a screaming hissy fit about how awful it was that McCain came.
Pwned.
On Wednesday, Obama said the crisis wasn't that bad.
On Thursday, Obama dragged his feet heading back to Washington because the crisis wasn't that bad.
On Friday, Obama is screaming about how "obstructionist" the Republicans are in the face of this horrible, awful crisis.
Pwned.
Like I asked on Wednesday of the Obamabots: is this or isn't this a crisis? Because if it isn't, like Obama said, then the Republicans are right. If it IS, as Obama denied for days, then Obama is a liar and an opportunist who puts his political campaign ahead of the country's business.
This is why the media is in full crashing meltdown mode, and why all the polls are suddenly jumping for McCain; in one week, he has demonstrated that the Democrat Party's economic rhetoric is solely spoken for their political benefit, and actually has zero to do with the situation as it stands.
Major pwn.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 26, 2008 12:52 PM (E3Yxq)
As far as Mar's assertion goes, get a clue moron. The Dems are the majority. If this is such a great plan, why haven't they passed it and put their good names to it?
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 26, 2008 01:37 PM (M+Vfm)
"...But, the Democrats already have a plan to spend “profits” that not only do not exist yet, but may never exist. In the “Agreement in Principle” is the following line:
“Directs a certain percentage of future profits to the Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund to meet America’s housing needs.”
So, the Senate Democrats want to re-direct profits to the “Affordable Housing Fund” and the “Capital Magnet Fund” instead of keeping these future profits going to pay back the American people for this $700 Billion bailout loan. And what are these special agencies the Senate Dems want to fund?
We turn to the Wall Street Journal in a July 2008 piece that reports on what sorts of groups that were to be the recipients of the federal pork from earlier bills the Senate tried to pass.
That tax eventually will channel upwards of $600 million annually in grants for developing and restoring housing, mostly as low-income rentals, available to Acorn and other groups (such as the National Council of La Raza and the National Urban League ). Democrats on Capitol Hill and housing groups say the housing-assistance money is vital to helping Americans hit hardest by what some call the largest drop in home values since the Great Depression. But they acknowledge the perception of political conflict in giving federal funds to an organization that does political work. “We are guarding against it,” said Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank in an interview. He secured the Affordable Housing Trust from his seat as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee…
Many may already know that ACORN ( The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is under investigation in several states for voter fraud. They have been caught turning in hundreds of thousands of fake voter registration cards in an effort to stuff ballot boxes with fake voters and pump up Democrat vote totals. ACORN’s founder also tried to cover up an embezzlement scheme his little brother perpetrated when he stole $1 million dollars of the organization’s money. This has only lately come to light.
Of course, many are also aware of the race oriented Hispanic La Raza group that has been a major player in trying to allow illegal aliens to enter the U.S., vote in our elections, and take freely of schools and social welfare monies.
Naturally, all these organizations exclusively support the Democratic Party."
So, yeah those natsy Republicans are killing the only hope we have to salvage this nation from the looming GREAT DEPRESSION! /sarc
Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, Frank - the slimiest of the slime party.
Posted by: in_awe at September 26, 2008 02:37 PM (qfSMl)
Posted by: Sakaki at September 26, 2008 03:35 PM (Z9IOH)
Senate:
49 Democrats
49 Republicans
2 Independents
House:
236 Democrats
199 Republicans
When you consider that at any one time, about 10-20 senators aren't voting, then, yeah, you might need a few Republicans on board.
Posted by: Mar at September 26, 2008 04:01 PM (+hVO1)
Now it is President Bush's fault??????????????
Baloney,
Posted by: Engineer-Retired at September 26, 2008 04:40 PM (nZFbI)
They've got plenty of votes in the Senate. It's the House where the GOP is rebelling. As usual.
Also, the disagreements that GOP House members have are not remotely new. They've been screaming about them for over a week to anyone who will listen.
Democratic leaders were NOT surprised by these. They simply found it politically expedient to say so. They were in front of TV cameras complaining about the lack of agreement by GOP House members as recently as Wednesday evening.
Posted by: Clint at September 26, 2008 05:20 PM (oZ5OG)
But I cannot fault them too much for that. The GOP & Bush had the same failure of spine back in 2003 when, for lack of "bi-partisan" consensus, a bill to stop the looting and politically-inspired loans at Fannie & Freddie was killed.
And when I hear about $$$ going to crooks like Acorn, if the GOP had stood still for that then I think they would become worse than Democrats.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 26, 2008 07:47 PM (ex0JG)
Posted by: indga at September 27, 2008 06:17 AM (oaLj1)
September 25, 2008
Alien Obama
Professor David Demming lets cultural incongruity Barack Obama have it with both barrels:
And he's right: Barack Obama's life story, half-lived and half-told in two self-aggrandizing auto-biographies, is not the story of America or of Americans, but the story of a "citizen of the world." Barack Obama cannot hold quintessential American values because he has not lived a life that celebrates or even respects American culture. His mother Stanley Ann was the offshoot of an odd and vain man who was determined to name his child after himself, regardless of sex. She became radicalized in high school in Washington state, and met the freshman Senator's Kenyan communist father in a Russian language class in Hawaii. Three months after she became pregnant she married Obama's father, though he was still married to his first child's mother in Kenya (no doubt, we can expect Andrew Sullivan to launch an investigation into Obama's paternity any day now). Barack Obama, Junior was born six months later, abandoned by his foreign father within several years, and spent his youth in Indonesia with a new stepfather, boning up in his English via correspondence courses. Barack Junior finally left Asia many years later to move in with his grandparents and go to high school in Hawaii. Barack Obama apparently never set foot on the U.S mainland until he graduated high school and went to Occidental College for two years, before transferring to Columbia and developing into the radical leftist we know today. Barack Obama despises America and American values because he has never known or experienced them, as he did not grown up in a normal American culture. The heartland of America, the small towns and suburbs, the "baseball, apple pie and Chevrolet" that forms the core of our cultural experience is alien to Barack Obama. He cannot love it, share it, or reflect it, because he does not know it. What does Barack Obama know? What is his vision of America? He never experienced his first taste of mainland American until he was already a grown man, and his experience was further indoctrination and immersion in universities with a radical leftist bent. He was further radicalized by 20 years of indoctrination in a Christian cult founded on the teaching of the Black Panthers and Malcolm X, one that taught a self-segregating, blame-casting "black values system" that added spiritual alienation to his pre-existing cultural alienation. He embraced an infamous domestic terrorist as a friend and partner in schemes designed to undermine core American cultural values to push small "c" communism and radicalism, and pissed away the future of a generation of Chicago's school children as he helped launder $150 million of educational grant money to former terrorists and radicals that sought to indoctrinate, instead of educate. Barack Obama isn't anti-American, but he is un-American. Our cultural memory and experiences are something he read about in books, but never lived, and something he cannot feel. He is not one of us.
When Obama refers to "my Muslim faith," the verbal gaffe resonates as a Freudian slip because of Obama's thinly veiled hatred for this country's unique culture and institutions. Obama sat for 20 years in a church where the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr preached "goddamn America." He only resigned from the congregation when it became politically expedient to do so. When earlier this year, Michelle Obama said "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country," can we conclude that her husband disagrees? Is it not remarkable that Michelle Obama can be so small-minded as to find nothing in the history of the United States that merits her admiration but the personal success of her husband? What is Barack Obama for? His campaign motto is "change." But even a 6-year-old child understands that "change" can be either good or bad. Lacking specifics, the invocation of "change" as policy is completely empty. As we witness Obama's minions mindlessly endorse the meaningless maxim of "change," it only can call to mind the barnyard animals in George Orwell's "Animal Farm" chanting "four legs good, two legs bad!" The choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate has been devastating for the Obama campaign precisely because she is everything Obama is not. Palin is not ashamed of her culture or country. She is not embarrassed by being an American, but naively embraces her birthright. Unassisted by affirmative action, Palin has risen to national prominence on the basis of her character, intelligence and natural gifts. In a word, she has guts. This is a woman who is proud of her country, not because it has granted her personal success, but because she respects what America stands for: freedom, opportunity, and individualism. Obama is a vapid demagogue, a hollow man that despises American culture. He is ill-suited to be president of the United States. As the weeks pass, more Americans will come to this realization and elect McCain/Palin in a landslide.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:03 AM | Comments (107) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Unfortunately, his early mentors inculcated the broken vessel, "USA as villain" strain of politics, the lens through which he views the country. That explains the stupid "clinging" remarks.
Of course, if that's the channel you swim in, you can't for the life of you understand why someone chooses to live in a place like Sioux Falls or Wasilla. The only explaination must be not seeing the light of enlightened self-interest which he, the Prophet, brings. The job of a community organizer is to raise the alleged "hidden voices" of the "powerless". Normally, that means an angry voice at their newfound oppressors.
In the 19th century, it was important that a potential president's biography include the fact that he was born in a log cabin. Showing that meant you were an authentic "man of the people".
Obama's life story has no log cabin moments. Contrast him with Palin in that regard.
Posted by: Teleprompter Messiah at September 25, 2008 09:50 AM (+kP2/)
Obama is definitely one of that +30% who fervently want his as POTUS. Maybe because, like Ayers, they see a blank slate upon which to scrawl their nasty dreams.
But "my muslim faith" Obama really needs to stick close to the teleprompter so people who understand America can write his schtick.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 25, 2008 09:58 AM (jmzvm)
Posted by: TonyUSA at September 25, 2008 10:06 AM (HyUJu)
In that alternate communist universe, raising taxes brings unimaginable wealth to the poor and negotiating with enemies leads to world peace.
I can't wait.
Just FYI, I linked to your article from 13 Myths about Barack Obama
Posted by: bernie at September 25, 2008 10:58 AM (dpvtN)
Posted by: JustADude at September 25, 2008 11:12 AM (1aM/I)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 25, 2008 12:20 PM (vuXJQ)
Actually not true. The stupid "clinging" remarks came directly from Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals".
Obama is an Alinsky disciple...it's the template he followed when he became a community organizer.
If you're not familiar with the work, you should be - it's a guide for many of the leftists out there. You can see his techniques used in blog comments everywhere.
Posted by: suek at September 25, 2008 12:36 PM (TjoGu)
So Obama, who lived in Hawaii, was what again? A Manchurian Candidate? An alien? An anti-American? Ill-informed?
Nope. That's you.
Posted by: Dan at September 25, 2008 12:42 PM (gplbl)
McCain was the son and grandson of US admirals, not Kenyan communists;
McCain was brought up by a married couple, the norm at the time;
McCain knew his father;
McCain's youth on a navy base in Panama doesn't exactly compare to a Muslim school in Indonesia;
McCain's mother wasn't named "Stanley"
Capiche?
Posted by: Son of a Pig and a Monkey at September 25, 2008 12:48 PM (KsxrY)
If you have been on an American base overseas that allows dependents, its a Little America. Baseball, apple pie and Chevrolets with artillery, jets or ships.
That is way different than living completely in the other culture and then being introduced to that of the country you aspire to govern. Not only that, but told that it is corrupt and wicked, and believing it.
Posted by: Teleprompter Messiah at September 25, 2008 01:04 PM (+kP2/)
What does that have to do with the post, and its suggestion that a youth spent outside of mainland America is cause to reject a candidate?
Oh yeah, a call for ad hominem attacks, that's what it suggests, and that's what it is.
Y-A-W-N.
Posted by: Dan at September 25, 2008 01:05 PM (gplbl)
Posted by: megapotamus at September 25, 2008 01:56 PM (LF+qW)
Who was the last president to "know" small town and suburbs values? Would those be the ones with multiple marriages or cheating on their wives? How many people from small towns and suburbs get to go to Ivy league schools? We've had millionaires (with the exception of Clinton maybe) for the past 30 years.
So somehow, growing up in Hawaii doesn't make you American, but growing up in Alaska does. Maybe we should add that to the requirements for being President, can't have grown up in Hawaii. How sad is that all "conservatives" are left with is criticizing his upbringing, his church, and his community service.
Dan - The bigots are getting nervous. They are going to have to put the sheets back on the bed...
CY, this whole angle is just code for racism. Like it hasn't dawned on you that in small towns and suburbs, whites are predominent? My ferverent hope is that your "cultural memories and experiences" are something that my kids can only read in books and never have to live much less feel.
Maybe, the rest of us don't want to be like you.
Posted by: matta at September 25, 2008 02:06 PM (RKMVD)
Obama, for instance, supported Kwame Kilpatrick, who berated a black police detective and told her she should be ashamed for riding in a car with a white man.
And if that isn't enough, Reverend Wright. 'Nuff said.
This whole, "if you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist" meme is horrifically racist in and of itself. It's saying that there is no valid reason for voting against Obama and that anyone who does so automatically discriminates against people based on their skin color.
That whole process depends on exactly what CY has been saying: the liberal left's indoctrination of Americans to be ashamed of themselves, ashamed of their country, and ashamed of their skin color. Obama is exactly what they need; a vapid puppet, easily molded and controlled to suit their leftist causes, and built to prey upon that guilt.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 25, 2008 02:26 PM (E3Yxq)
Well, I'm rooting against The One, but I don't see that happening. Even were Barry caught, on tape, buggering novices from the local nunnery, the MSM would simply provide more cover for him that they already do.
Posted by: physics geek at September 25, 2008 02:30 PM (MT22W)
Even in 1960 when most of the media was pulling for JFK they made a concerted effort to appear neutral.....not so this time.
Be interesting to see the fallout after the election is over.
Posted by: Increase Mather at September 25, 2008 03:33 PM (gpcsn)
The line between xenophobia and reasonable caution is wide and gray. However, by the preponderance of evidence to the strangeness or "un-American"ness of Mr. Obama, relative to the dearth of evidence to the contrary, the summary line, "He is not one of us." is a clarion call to the demographic majority of American citizens regardless of their geography.
Obama has lead a very stylized life, far removed from the norms of American society. The barbs above this comment do nothing to defend his history, they can only vainly attempt to muddy the waters.
Clearly written, this article encapsulates the reality of the democrat nominee without portfolio; and provides an honest case for doubt regarding his acceptability to the presidency.
Posted by: Gus Bailey at September 25, 2008 03:56 PM (LZarw)
They have already totally exhausted the 'sexism' trap, with the ascent of Sarah Palin.
So the left thinks I'm racist for not supporting a half-white socialist? Big deal. It is MUCH worse to be a socialist/leftist than to be a racist (although most leftists are also racists).
Check out US ideological distribution for 2008. Obama is extremely far from the center relative to McCain or even Bush.
Posted by: Twok at September 25, 2008 04:14 PM (Hof1q)
Well, the Madrasa in Indonesia may have been made of wood......
Posted by: Toad at September 25, 2008 04:26 PM (Hof1q)
er... it is a well-known fact that the KKK is wholly tied to the Democratic party for the last 100 years. The Democrats still have a senior KKK Kleagle as their Seniormost Senator.
Indeed, all the injustices done to blacks have been done by Democrats. From Slavery to George Wallace to Robert Byrd, the racism of Democrats is legendary, and well known to learned people.
Posted by: Toad at September 25, 2008 04:30 PM (Hof1q)
Having said that, I must add that I despise Barack Obama and his cultists and am anxious to see this appalling insult to our civilization ended and healed ---one hippie loser at a time. These wretched idiots who support him have made a huge mistake and I am interested in grinding their faces in it at every opportunity.
Posted by: Toby Petzold at September 25, 2008 04:40 PM (BOdFm)
Posted by: Daddio at September 25, 2008 05:29 PM (a0IBF)
Posted by: emdfl at September 25, 2008 05:48 PM (N1uaO)
Even worse, Jeremiah Wright is only 30-40% black. Yet he talks about how blacks are mistreated in the US of KKK-A, by white people like him.
Posted by: Twok at September 25, 2008 06:04 PM (Hof1q)
It's an odd thing to reject and revile Barack Obama for his youth outside the physicall American mainstream/mainland, when *both* Republican candidates can be accused of the same rather meaningless background. It's not racism to accuse someone else of defects that you simultaneously possess. What is it?
Posted by: Dan at September 25, 2008 06:41 PM (gplbl)
The discussion is about racism. Not about race. Try to keep up. Yes you may have the blue crayon if it will help you type easier.
And it isn't at all an odd thing to reject Barack, based upon his childhood background, as not being suitable, because he was already tainted with Marxist, anti-American ideology before his 18th birthday. And lacking any useful first person experience to refute the 'Capitalism Sux' party line, well. . .
Posted by: Wind Rider at September 25, 2008 07:27 PM (JcCvJ)
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you've got some form of blindness or narcolepsy. Let's review the comments:
KKK, black racists, 30-40% black, black values system, Black Messiah . . . .
Yeah, it was me.
As for racism, that apparently has nothing to do with otherness, exoticism, Islam, or "black values systems," though it does have something to do with a 70's car commercial.
Again: Y-A-W-N.
Posted by: Dan at September 25, 2008 07:54 PM (gplbl)
The right likes to believe that racism doesn't exist anymore or its blacks' problem with whites. I tend to think racism doesn't know a skin color but relies on ignorance and lots of stereotypes. Where is the discussion of the differences between Obama and McCain's plan to save the economy? No, its just easier to hate someone because they don't have the same "experiences" as people from "small townes"...
Posted by: matt a at September 25, 2008 09:17 PM (h28ZR)
I agree, racism is running rampant on the left. Oh and the difference between Obama and McCain on the economy? Obama wants the government (Socialism/Communism) to fix everything, McCain wants the people (markets) to fix the problem. There, not that difficult to understand
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 25, 2008 09:37 PM (vuXJQ)
Posted by: Trish at September 25, 2008 09:53 PM (R0c+f)
Yes, because, as you've made clear, there are no black people in small towns and suburbs.
Then again, it makes sense; Democrats and liberals deny that black people who vote Republican or are conservative are black. In the world of racist Democrats, black people who don't live in the urban ghetto and who don't do exactly what the Democrats order have ceased to be black and have become white -- hence the constant black Democrat calls of "race traitor" or "Uncle Tom" or "Oreo".
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 26, 2008 02:05 AM (p2H2j)
Meanwhile, this by far is the biggest collection of scary links that I have seen in quite some time.
Posted by: Neo at September 26, 2008 08:17 AM (Yozw9)
the heartland of America, the small towns and suburbs, the "baseball, apple pie and Chevrolet" that forms the core of our cultural experience.
Isn't it wonderful that we can all agree on what forms the core of "our" cultural experience? Oh, except for the millions of people who don't share that experience, or who perhaps don't cherish it exactly as much as you do. Gay people, soccer fans, Honda drivers, anybody who lives in a city larger than 200,000 people ... they all hate America, right? Or rather, they must hate your idea of America because you've so clearly demonstrated that they have no place in it. You, on the other hand, merely hate the millions of Americans who, according to you, just aren't "American" enough.
Posted by: Nadingo at September 26, 2008 09:51 AM (OxeoB)
Posted by: Lev at September 26, 2008 10:19 AM (E1H09)
The fact is that Obama's adult life and pronouncements betray his lack of connection to "America." He is a citizen of the world - as he himself has stated. As admirable as that may be to some, in selecting a President of the US, many of us want somebody who considers himself American first. You confuse cause and effect (I suspect deliberately) in dismissing this discussion of Obama's upbringing. People are attempting to explain his apparent outlook, not deducing what it might be from early experiences. We don't have to conclude that he must place himself outside of the American experience because he lived in Hawaii - he's already told us, bitter clingers that we are, about his perspectives, and we'd like to understand from where he has derived them. Nobody here mentioned gays or soccer fans or Honda drivers as objects of hate - that is, nobody did until you introduced them as such.
In fact, I believe you were the first one to introduce hatred into this discussion - in much the same way as the only injections of "race" into the national political debate have been by Obama and his camp. And yet you folks with your hatred and racism profess to tell the rest of us what we really think? Thanks for the projection, but no thanks.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 26, 2008 10:26 AM (1ii59)
I've listened to Obama speak a few times, and most times he goes on and on about the moral grandeur of the American Revolution, Lincoln and the abolitionists, the world war against fascism and tyranny in the 40s, and the fight against racism and segregation (which some people in this comments section obviously feel nostalgic for; segregation, that is, not the civil rights struggle).
He celebrates American history and culture all the time. His speeches are conscious echoes (not always great ones, I'll submit) of speeches by Lincoln and Martin Luther King (or is he not "American" enough?).
So this "he hates America" meme doesn't really check out. Repeating it a million times doesn't make it true.
As for "citizen of the world," you kids talk like this is some sort of new concept hatched in the 60s with Woodstock and mainstream feminism and Jane Fonda. It's actually very old, and it was the animating principle of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Renaissance humanists, and the Enlightenment philosophes. All of those people who value and treasure (and want to reform) their own city-states, countries, and societies, but they didn't see a contradiction between that and feeling at home in the world at large. It's a noble idea.
Posted by: MortimerPeacock at September 26, 2008 10:44 AM (OXcDt)
I've listened to Obama speak a few times, and most times he goes on and on about the moral grandeur of the American Revolution, Lincoln and the abolitionists, the world war against fascism and tyranny in the 40s, and the fight against racism and segregation (which some people in this comments section obviously feel nostalgic for; segregation, that is, not the civil rights struggle).
Most of his speeches are conscious echoes (not always great ones, I'll submit) of Lincoln and MLK (or is he not "American" enough either?).
As for the "citizen of the world" thing-- You kids talk like cosmopolitanism is some kind of new-fangled hippie communist idea introduced in the 60s with Woodstock and Jane Fonda. It's actually very old: it was the animating principle of the ancient Greeks, of the Romans, of medieval Catholics, of Renaissance humanists, of Enlightenment philosophes. None of these people saw a contradiction between cherishing (and wanting to reform) their own lands, countries, city-states and thinking of themselves in a larger, world-wide context.
Posted by: MortimerPeacock at September 26, 2008 10:48 AM (OXcDt)
The attempts to equate Obama's upbringing in foreign cultures to that of McCain or Palin is perhaps the most absurd things I've read in quite a while (well, other than the Glenn Greenwald piece that linked here, but then most of his screeds are hilarious to begin with).
Obama spent his childhood in two places, Indonesia, and Hawaii.
Indonesia is quite obviously a foreign country and culture halfway around the world, and where he draws his earliest memories and lived his formative elementary and middle school years.
He then moved to another (though radically different) Asian culture. But Dan can't quite seem to grasp that Hawaii, while a U.S. state, has a far different culture and history than the other 49. The Hawaiian culture is unique; isolated from the U.S. mainland by almost 2,000 miles and is demographically dominated by Asian cultures of Japanese, native or Polynesian descent, and Filipino, and with a history of far different that that of any mainland state, it is, in every way, quite distinct from mainland U.S. cultures. That isn't a bad thing, it just has a different cultural experience than any other state.
matta and dan try to claim that the communities on U.S. military bases and the state of Alaska are also different than mainland America culture, when what they are are concentrations of the American spirit—hyper-American is the term I think Mark Steyn specifically coined talking about Alaskans.
And just as predictably, matta does what all liberals do when they have nothing else to argue logically, and cries RACIST!, a point the ever-tedious Greenwald (and no doubt his disciples as I'm typing this) also would like to make, instead of addressing the obvious truth of what I wrote.
It isn't about race, or ethnicity, or the size of the city or wealth of the neighborhood or part of the country you live in. It is about our having a shared culture and heritage, and Barack Obama growing up outside of that culture, and then deciding to immerse himself with the most radical elements of American society when he did come to mainland America.
He simply doesn't have the shared cultural experiences that makes us unique as Americans, and attempting to argue that a boy raising in Indonesia has the same cultural roots and memories as a child raised in Greenville, or New York or Austin or Asheville is simply daft.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 26, 2008 10:51 AM (zqzYV)
Posted by: Lev at September 26, 2008 11:02 AM (uHiz2)
Stop believing that your idiosyncratic culture is somehow the gold standard by which everyone else's is to be judged.
Obama understands the American ideal pretty much better than a lot of people. There was that line that America is all about "the hope of the skinny with the funny name that America has a place for him too."
I do, however, appreciate it that because of Barack Obama, certain people are willing to say what they really think of us Americans who don't come through the same routes they did.
You can claim that Obama is somehow unAmerican and foreign, but at the end of the day, looking at his life and background, it unfolded about the same as many other Americans did, albeit one that put him on a academic and career path of the professional upper middle class... but that's pretty much the American Dream, isn't it?
Posted by: Tyro at September 26, 2008 11:12 AM (twQxm)
Posted by: LB at September 26, 2008 11:18 AM (k373Y)
It's also great that we can ignore what Obama has actually said about his love for the country and conclude that he "despises" America (and is despised in turn by Tony Petzold, but I guess you missed that comment, Steve). We can talk about how "small-minded" Michelle Obama is, and we can define "the core of American experience" as the people who live in small towns and suburbs, and nobody else. But because we don't use the word, "hate," we obviously can't be talking about having bad feelings towards all of our non-American fellow citizens, right?
And for the record, my quip about soccer players, city dwellers, and Honda drivers was simply meant to illustrate the kind of people who fell outside of Yankee's definition of "core American culture." The part about gay people was my own addition, and I apologize for insinuating that people in this discussion were homophobic. Can I assume, therefore, that you do think that gay people are part of "core American culture"?
Posted by: Nadingo at September 26, 2008 12:31 PM (OxeoB)
This very "us" *is* the dog whistle, in a nation whose population is *not* dominated by "small towns," and hasn't been for some time. It's a nation whose demographics are trending inevitably toward a diversity that will make Caucasians one minority among many, and pretty soon.
And it's a nation whose small town traditional values, at least w/r/t conventional wisdom, inarguably *include* the embrace of multiple cultures and multiple influences, multiple backgrounds and viewpoints without prejudice, a nation that calls its disparate blend of citizens its very strength.
Unless that strength comes from a state with too many people from the mud races. How sad.
Posted by: Dan at September 26, 2008 02:29 PM (ExyBd)
It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
We live in dangerous times, with plenty of enemies who want to destroy our way of life. In order to defeat these enemies, we truly need a "citizen of the world."
Posted by: Nadingo at September 26, 2008 02:53 PM (OxeoB)
Ah yes, in comes the liberal shaming, in which anyone who is proud of their culture and their beliefs is to be punished.
The fact that Obama and his supporters regularly try to shame and insist that anyone who disagrees with them is racist shows quite starkly the degree of hate and intolerance that Obama has for anyone who dares disagree with him, and how willing Obama supporters are to "judge" other people.
Such as how Obama claps and cheers for decades for pastors who scream "God damn America" from the pulpit, and himself says sneeringly that people who have guns and follow their religious beliefs are "bitter".
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 26, 2008 03:34 PM (E3Yxq)
However, here's the puzzle to the Prophet: He rejected these values to accept radical values. Why is that? The reason: He drank the Leftist Kool-Aid rot in Olympic swimming pool quantities.
Why is it that he could cast off these same folks as "typical white people" but welcome the warm embrace of nuts like Wright, Pfleger and Bill Ayers? He chose the far left which sees those heartland values as oppressive and something to be scorned and laughed at.
Obama may talk in grandiose terms about his love of country and how great he believes America is, but it is rote. He does not believe it but he mouths it in order for you to believe it. I'll submit that Dan and Nandingo here also subscribe to that same mindset because they are as "enlightened" as him.
BTW Democrats, please stop lecturing Republicans on racism. Yours is the party of Jim Crow and KKK SOB's. Yours is the party with the shameful and disgusting legacy of lynching, racism and racial oppression. Bourbon Democrat: look it up.
Posted by: Teleprompter Messiah at September 26, 2008 04:44 PM (H6mNc)
Yes, but what have we done for you lately?
Look, you're not educating anybody here when you talk about racism among democrats 50 or 100 years ago. Anybody who knows anything about U.S. history is aware of the fact that the South was full of "Dixiecrats" who voted Democrat for decades because they never forgave Lincoln for granting black people the right to be human in this country. Except wait, why isn't the South uniformly Democratic any more? Oh right, it's because Democrats completely lost the South when they decided to pursue that silly little thing called the Civil Rights Movement.
So please stop lecturing about racism in the Democratic party a century ago. Forty years ago, the most racist people in the country switched their party allegiance because of the Civil Rights movement, and they haven't switched back. Does this mean that Republicanism is always associated with racism? Of course not! But at the same time, you didn't see Al Gore pandering to South Carolinians about the Confederate Flag eight years ago.
Posted by: Nadingo at September 26, 2008 05:03 PM (OxeoB)
Posted by: cb3620 at September 26, 2008 05:18 PM (F1JEL)
Yup; all the black racists turned Democrat, and they've stayed that way.
Such as black racist Kwame Kilpatrick, endorsed and supported by Barack Obama, who berated a black female police detective and said she should be "ashamed" for riding in a car and working with a white man named White.
Or Obama's political mentor, Emil Jones, who called black people who voted for Hillary Clinton "Uncle Toms".
Or Obama himself, who fully supports and endorses the notion that anyone who votes against him does so because they're racist.
And as to your question, cb, the last is the answer; I refuse to vote for a racist Presidential candidate, and Obama is one. He seems to believe that he should get my vote based solely on his skin color, which goes against everything in which I believe.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 26, 2008 06:24 PM (E3Yxq)
Barack Obama reminds me of a whole bunch of people I grew up with, people who have prospered and become leaders to be admired despite the racism that is implicit in the arguments you advance.
Anybody who can come from a broken home, work his way through school and become editor of the Harvard Law Review demands respect whether he is running for president or not.
He sure has accomplished more than I ever have, and I suspect more than the Captain or his many commentors.
Are you all feeling just a little inadequate?
Posted by: Rene ala Carte at September 26, 2008 07:10 PM (RzuEb)
The Republican gains in the South started in the outer Southern states of Virginia and Texas. As the South became less racist, the Republican gains accelerated. That was not due to the Dixiecrats shifting alliances, but in the shift of population from the North to the South. Why did all these Northerners shift? Because they were racists with dreams of a new White Man's world? No. Because of entrepreneurship, economic opportunities, and a culture that encourages faith and family. A culture very much eroded in the North. In these rough economic times, the vast majority of growth in the country is in those areas.
Democrats have much to hang their head in shame about. That ledger is only in the last 40 years being rebalanced.
Posted by: Teleprompter Messiah at September 26, 2008 09:41 PM (kTFE5)
Now he believes that government's place is to equalize inequality and give people hands-up. I disagree with him. The world is a tough place and government can solve these inequalities effectively.
My grandparents were Americans too. They came over from Italy. They worked hard to learn English and my grandfather failed in a number of business before finally becoming successful. He understood what it was to be an American a lot better than people born here because he had to work for it. He understood how blessed our county is because he lived places that didn't have the same freedoms and opportunities. In life experience Obama share a lot with him. Sadly, Obama doesn't understand the roll of government.
Posted by: Jennifer Thomas at September 26, 2008 11:45 PM (H1s5z)
Posted by: Thomas Scivner at September 27, 2008 03:08 AM (4KQZu)
uhh, no. Republicans made the civil rights happen, not Democrats. Furthermore, when the Democrats swung wildly to the anti-American left in the late '60s and early '70s they alienated much of the more mainstream Americans living in the south and west.
So now the Democrats pander to black, hispanic, and anyone else with racism, just not white racists. Same game, just different groups.
I know you will keep repeating your lie--gotta stay on the narrative--but your entire party now is a lie and needs the support of complete mistruths like the one you spouted above in order to remain in power. And not be run out of office on a rail and covered in tar and feathers as 90% of elected Democrats so richly deserve.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 27, 2008 06:23 PM (ax6+x)
Criticize Obama because he will say anything, anytime, to anyone in order to get their vote? Implicit racist.
Criticize Obama because he personally and repeatedly blocked a bill to prevent infanticide? Implicit racist.
Criticize Obama because he spouts insanely dumb statements on how to solve the energy crisis with pressure gauges? Implicit racist.
Ask to see Obama's school records and why he hides them? Implicit racist.
Ask about why Obama has not released his medical records? Implicit racist.
Ask about how he justifies a decades-long relationship with a unrepentant terrorist and marxist? Implicit racist.
Ask how he could sit in a pew for 20 years, donate large sums of cash--much more than he ever gave his half-brother--to a racist and America hating demagogue? Implicit racist.
Ask why he accepted so much money from the two institutions responsible for this recent crash in our credit markets, use their discredited CEO's as campaign advisors, and be part of blocking any real reform? Implicit racist.
Ask others how someone who spent most of his early years in an Indonesian muslim school with an Indonesian stepfather can really understand this country? Implicit racist.
Yes, there is definitely institutional racism in these questions. If I could just feel the hopey/changeyness and rise above details like these (and many, many, others) I could expunge that implicit racism in my soul.
A vote for Obama is a vote to purify yourself. Obama is a high-colonic for the country...oops, that probably was racist....
Posted by: iconoclast at September 27, 2008 06:37 PM (ax6+x)
It's shocking to watch the Democrats morph into an organization that copies, almost verbatim, tactics straight from the National Socialism playbook. Sadly, I suspect that most people have no idea of what is going on here - most people do not recognize the signs of what is happening right here in America today. Students of history should be able to recognize these signs - they are observing a new incarnation of the NSDAP taking shape right before their eyes.
Our educational system and our national media, both print and television networks, are under their control. They now control what someone learns, how they learn it, what gets presented as "truth" in the media, and how it is presented. They've started manufacturing outright lies and propaganda pieces and then present them as objective news reporting. Is there no one left to "watch the watchers"? Is there no recourse?
These Democratic National Socialists will do "anything necessary to save humanity from the evil Sarah Palin, and to that end, anything and everything they do towards that end is justified." To the people in this new incarnation of the NSDAP, well, to Democrats, Sarah Palin represents their own personal version of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and they'd prefer to hurry up and get the hanging over with.
The Democrats have truly morphed into National Socalists, in every sense of what that means:
* Deviating from social norms - their actions against Sarah Palin, for example.
* Playing purely Ideological politics - check
* Doing anything necessary to "Save Humanity" from Sarah Palin, and anything justifies doing it.
* Contradictory promises - (95% of you will see a tax cut)
* Being governing "elites", that pomise to represent "the middle working class"
* Playing social, religious, and racial "games" for their own advantage.
* Controlling what you think, by influencing what you can say, read, and see in the media
* "Fixing" America so it can be "competitive in world markets"
I could easily go on and on, but I'm certain you know enough examples of all of these behaviors on the part of the Democrats without me needing to point out examples.
God Help us all - the National Socialist Party, reincarnated as the New Democratic "Hope and Change" party, lives and breathes right here in America. Once again connsumate evil has begun walking the earth, and no one is even noticing it as it happens...
Posted by: JinnyB at September 27, 2008 11:00 PM (/lDn+)
Get something straight. I was an adult during the civil rights movement and can tell you one thing with pride: Republicans did not "make the civil rights movement happen" as you say. We fought that damn Bobby Kennedy, and we fought him hard! We were for States RIghts and we still should be today. If we had are way it never would have happened.
Posted by: Susan Youngblood at September 28, 2008 03:07 AM (78VYv)
Terrorist-Coddling Obama Bundler Brags About Meeting Ahmadinejad
As they fire up more centrifuges and continue to refine the rocket motors for their ICBMS, the Iranians hope that these useful idiots represent change they can believe in:
As Hot Air notes, Evans is a major bundler for Barack Obama, pledged to raising over $600,000 for the freshman Senator, and here she is, trying to make nice with a regime that practices Holocaust denial, that publicly threatens the state of Israel with destruction on a regular basis, and that is working on nuclear weapons to carry out that threat. Barack Obama has a close partnership with a domestic terrorist who's group bombed government buildings, fire-bombed a judge's family at home, and murdered law enforcement officers during a bank robbery. Obama and the terrorist used that relationship to abuse education grants and launder $150 million to radical groups to indoctrinate school children and their parents. Now Obama gladly takes more than a half-million dollars collected from the founder of a group that wants us to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan, even as she idolizes the worst state sponsor of terrorism in modern history. Who's side is Barack Obama on?
Calling it a "major step forward" in relations between Iran and the United States, leading activists Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans of CODEPINK Women for Peace — along with more than 150 other U.S. peace group representatives — met Wednesday afternoon with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here following his appearance at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday. [snip] "U.S. government officials are quick to stir up hostilities with Iran, but the American people are tired of war," said Benjamin, co-founder of the nonpartisan women's peace group CODEPINK. "The peace movement represents the sentiment of the majority of Americans who want our two countries to find ways to work together and improve relations. We are modeling the behavior we want to see our government adopt."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:43 AM | Comments (44) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: 1sttofight at September 25, 2008 08:15 AM (2ZKj7)
Death to America isn't cool, and seems to be precicely what they want.
Posted by: brando at September 25, 2008 08:51 AM (qzOby)
Posted by: Suzanne at September 25, 2008 09:21 AM (Mk/Qb)
Dam# good post,dead on,and I am absolutely certain that Obama will never be asked these questions by the super intelligent and vigilant press that have their lips pressed so firmly to his a$$.
By the way,did you hear the news flash that Sarah Palin bought a tanning bed?
Posted by: Baxter Greene at September 25, 2008 09:38 AM (5NHPy)
Then there's that "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing. Since warm cuddly folks like Chavez and Ahmadinajad openly despise Bush, whome they have already cast as the world's greatest villain, then they must ipso facto be allies.
Or it might just be that Bolshevik extremisim coming to the surface. Code Pink is heir to Dzerzhinsky and Beria and Stalin and the rest of the mass murderers.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 25, 2008 09:38 AM (1ii59)
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., cannot "disown" them just as he can't part with Frank Marshall Davis, Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Prince Talaweel, Emil Jones, Mayor Daley, Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, Louis Farrakhan, etc.
Posted by: Carlos Echevarria at September 25, 2008 09:58 AM (CsNoJ)
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html
That article is five years old. I'm concerned about Israel. Whatever occurs, the Israelis will bear the brunt on the ground. If the ones in the line of fire are asking to keep diplomatic options on the table, assume this is more complicated than "rubbing elbows with the enemy."
Who cares if Evans is meeting with Ahmadinejad? What she's calling for is no different than what those in the position of direct danger have been calling for prior to 2003.
Posted by: smitty at September 25, 2008 11:42 AM (DVEYo)
Posted by: Grey Fox at September 25, 2008 08:48 PM (HbWEL)
Posted by: Grey Fox at September 25, 2008 08:50 PM (HbWEL)
September 24, 2008
How About a Sub?
John McCain is suspending his presidential campaign tomorrow in order to return to Washington to work on the economy, and wants to postpone Friday's scheduled debate with Barack Obama.
The Obama campaign, however, wants the debate to continue. What to do? My friend Ray Robinson emailed me with an excellent compromise: have Sarah Palin step in Friday in McCain's place at the debate. The proposal—if accepted by the Obama campaign—would solve several problems at once. For better or ill, the national spotlight on Palin would reveal whether or not Palin is capable of holding her own in the national spotlight, and depending on the questions asked, could shred light on her suitability to lead if needed. The Obama campaign has bent over backwards to belittle Palin as a small town mayor incapable of performing under the pressure. Now is a great time to prove it.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:43 PM | Comments (64) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Roberta at September 24, 2008 03:46 PM (jqm25)
Posted by: Buffoon at September 24, 2008 03:57 PM (nx4ox)
She does not have to be in DC, can't vote anyway unlike the 3 others.
Unleash SarahCuda on Obambi seeing him running for the hills at Ole Miss!!!
Posted by: Carlos Echevarria at September 24, 2008 04:15 PM (CsNoJ)
I don't know what Kool-Aid you're drinking if you think that Palin could actual beat Obama in a debate. Palin could barely answer the questions in the interview with Charlie Gibson.
McCain is like a little kid who walks away from the game when he starts losing.
Posted by: mj at September 24, 2008 04:27 PM (bIZLx)
This is a pure political stunt pulled by McCain and it's not going to work. .....McCain is like a little kid who walks away from the game when he starts losing. McCain is like a little kid who walks away from the game when he starts losing.
Given that consensus opinion was that McCain did better than Obama at the Saddleback Forum,and is much more willing than Obama to participate in a Townhall-type forum, that argument doesn't carry much weight.
Posted by: Gringo at September 24, 2008 04:31 PM (2oa2Z)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 24, 2008 04:39 PM (kNqJV)
You are being so nice as to protect us from the embarrassment of Obama destroying Palin in a debate. How thoughtful of you.
But maybe we consider the risk of Palin debating the tongue-tied, dishonest one worth it, despite the certainty of failure. We (the people) need someone responsible and informed--and not bought off by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crooks-- in Washington as our government decides upon how to protect our financial system.
Seems reasonable to me. Obama debates with the person the most equivalent to him while the Senator who has been warning the USA about this current financial disaster goes back to Washington to take care of business.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 24, 2008 04:44 PM (ex0JG)
Posted by: Sara at September 24, 2008 05:51 PM (Wi/N0)
Posted by: smitty at September 24, 2008 06:03 PM (DVEYo)
Posted by: Sara at September 24, 2008 05:51 PM
Seriously, you're completely wasted, right?
Posted by: jlo at September 24, 2008 06:40 PM (7FxR2)
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/HeadingRight/ASKShow
Good luck to us all!!
Posted by: THIRDWAVEDAVE at September 24, 2008 06:53 PM (aU+VM)
Posted by: StJoe at September 24, 2008 06:57 PM (IIdii)
Then you have no problem with Palin debating Barracky as well as tail gunner Joe, right? Watching Palin vs the drooling idiot (Joe Biden) or the handpuppet (Barracky) would be lots of fun.
Can't edit out responses, astroturf, or read a teleprompter at a live debate. Definitely a problem for Barracky or tail gunner Joe.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 24, 2008 07:21 PM (ex0JG)
Posted by: JamesA at September 24, 2008 07:26 PM (h3zht)
The proximity to Russia angle can't be a serious part of her experience. I live near an office building, doesn't mean I have the faintest idea what goes on inside.
Posted by: smitty at September 24, 2008 07:26 PM (DVEYo)
Instead I see a lot of hand wringing. Kinda like Obama and this mess his party created.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 24, 2008 07:28 PM (M+Vfm)
That alone should tell you where Obama's priorities lie; he cares more about raising money and his own self-aggrandizement than he does about the United States being thrown into a depression.
Then again, look at Stalin; he cemented his grip on power by causing economic misery. Obama would love nothing more than to do the same.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 24, 2008 07:35 PM (E3Yxq)
Posted by: Joe Ritter at September 24, 2008 07:44 PM (9zeMg)
Oh, wait. . .
Posted by: Trish at September 24, 2008 07:48 PM (bV0Py)
Does Uncle Joe here speak for anyone else on this thread?
Posted by: kentropic at September 24, 2008 07:55 PM (D06iB)
Posted by: Joe Ritter at September 24, 2008 08:00 PM (9zeMg)
You don't start game 6 with a player fresh from the minors. You put in the veteran, literally and figuratively.
Posted by: smitty at September 24, 2008 08:02 PM (DVEYo)
Let McCain send Sarah to tear up on Obama for Friday debate....
If BObama declines, he eats crow for backing down...
If he goes forward, Palin kicks his ASS!!!!!
Please God, Please God, Please God......
Posted by: babj615 at September 24, 2008 08:08 PM (q3zNO)
Posted by: Joe Ritter at September 24, 2008 08:10 PM (9zeMg)
The raving racist "conservative" Joe Ritter is posting from 24.185.85.189 in Centereach, NY, accessing the page in Firefox on Linux.
He came over from a liberal blog... I'll let you guess which one.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 24, 2008 08:25 PM (HcgFD)
Posted by: hrams35627 at September 24, 2008 08:31 PM (MUq23)
The idea is very entertaining, but right now we need to stay off the ropes. Palin hasn't endured a primary race against Huckabee and Romney, McCain has. She hasn't gone up against Hilary either, and like him or not, Obama has.
So let's be serious here. McCain has nothing to be worried about in an impromptu setting. Suggesting Palin has proven herself is wishful thinking. She has a long way to go.
Posted by: smitty at September 24, 2008 09:21 PM (DVEYo)
It's true that she wasn't in a presidential primary, but she had to go through several debates in the gubernatorial primary and something like 23 debates in the actual gubernatorial election. She could hold her own very well. Do spend a few minutes on YouTube and look for clips of her interviews (before running for VP) and debate appearances. She is not going to be easy pickings for either Joe Biden or Barack Obama.
And it is funny how loudly they protest when we suggest that Palin debate Obama. If she were really so stupid, why not let her debate the great orator himself? That should be a slamdunk for the Democrats, right? What better way to show to the nation that Palin is undeserving to run for national office?
I think that Democrats, in their gut, know that Palin is somebody to reckon with. They can scream to the rafters all they want, that Palin is an idiot, and it still won't change the fact that she is an intelligent, coherent, articulate, no-nonsense politician.
In other words, she's merely the Democrats' biggest nightmare.
Posted by: Anna at September 25, 2008 02:23 AM (x9tK1)
Posted by: w3bgrrl at September 25, 2008 06:00 AM (++F+m)
Now take a deep breath, reread Axelrod's talking points, and come back under another name, We'll still be here.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 25, 2008 06:49 AM (1ii59)
OBAMA: Well, I was going to get to that.
KROFT: Go ahead.
OBAMA: You know, I’m a, I’m a practical person. One of the things I’m good at is getting people in a room with a bunch of different ideas who sometimes violently disagree with each other and finding common ground and a sense of common direction. And that’s the kind of approach that I think prevents you from making some of the enormous mistakes that we’ve seen over the last eight years.
Isn't this exactly what John McCain is doing ?
So it now takes an invitation from the President to get Obama to join in the discussions .. LOL
Posted by: Neo at September 25, 2008 07:45 AM (Yozw9)
I'm glad McCain is stepping up and moving focus to the bigger issue at hand here, I just wish his timing had been better (re: the polls).
I also don't understand why he waited a week to call Dodd who's running the committee or say on the record he hadn't read the three page bailout proposal to the press.
To quote Elmore Leonard, "when you're important, people will wait." They can't give the guy thirty minutes to read the thing over? Between Fiorina and Bounds, with staffers like those who needs enemies?
Posted by: smitty at September 25, 2008 11:25 AM (DVEYo)
No kidding? Wow. You're almost as mavericky as the GOP candidate.
Posted by: Dan at September 25, 2008 11:37 AM (gplbl)
Also I'm not clear on how McCain can be suspending his campaign but still doing interviews with Katie Couric.
Posted by: Ted at September 25, 2008 12:06 PM (Iw3rm)
Posted by: PA at September 25, 2008 05:29 PM (hzcgO)
It doesn't matter if you've been in a debate setting before. The topics matter, and Palin hasn't been conversant with topics of national political importance for very long at all. It's like asking a lawyer who has practiced mergers and acquisitions his whole life to suddenly step in to argue before the Supreme Court on a patent law case. General oratorical skills are necessary, but not sufficient to succeed in a debate. You need to have some developed substantive viewpoints or folks will see right through you. Judging from what she's said in public so far, I don't think Palin has them.
Posted by: StJoe at September 25, 2008 11:17 PM (IIdii)
Posted by Joe Ritter at September 24, 2008 07:44 PM
I think we should round up every last Jew, Gypsy, homosexual, and communist and put them in concentration camps. Let them whine all they want, it's the only German thing left to do. While they are in there with their Ipods and homosexual propaganda, we real Nazis can take back this country and make it into an empire that will last a thousand years. Hail the Fatherland!
Could have been posted by Der Fuehrer himself.
Gee, Joe (Goebbels?), Hitler couldn't have said it better.
Posted by: Simon W. at September 26, 2008 12:08 AM (h3KhM)
Posted by: secularhuman at September 26, 2008 12:24 AM (3KkLR)
No, not the Onion. Onion actually gets it right every once in a while....................
Posted by: ukie at September 26, 2008 06:08 PM (Q096i)
Obama to Replace Biden
I'm not sure of Goldfarb's last claim. When was the last time anyone thought the Times practiced objective journalism?
Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with...Paul Begala. Again, let us be clear: The New York Times -- in the absence of any supporting evidence -- has insinuated some kind of impropriety on the part of Senator McCain and Rick Davis. But entirely missing from the story is any significant mention of Senator McCain's long advocacy for, and co-sponsorship of legislation to enact, stricter oversight and regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- dating back to 2006. Please see the attached floor statement on this issue by Senator McCain from 2006. To the central point our campaign has made in the last 48 hours: The New York Times has never published a single investigative piece, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod, his consulting and lobbying clients, and Senator Obama. Likewise, the New York Times never published an investigative report, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson and Senator Obama, who appointed Johnson head of his VP search committee, until the writing was on the wall and Johnson was under fire following reports from actual news organizations that he had received preferential loans from predatory mortgage lender Countrywide. Therefore this "report" from the New York Times must be evaluated in the context of its intent and purpose. It is a partisan attack falsely labeled as objective news. And its most serious allegations are based entirely on the claims of anonymous sources, a familiar yet regretful tactic for the paper. We all understand that partisan attacks are part of the political process in this country. The debate that stems from these grand and sometimes unruly conversations is what makes this country so exceptional. Indeed, our nation has a long and proud tradition of news organizations that are ideological and partisan in nature, the Huffington Post and the New York Times being two such publications. We celebrate their contribution to the political fabric of America. But while the Huffington Post is utterly transparent, the New York Times obscures its true intentions -- to undermine the candidacy of John McCain and boost the candidacy of Barack Obama -- under the cloak of objective journalism.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:36 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Why We're Having an Economic Meltdown
Because Americans will piss away their money on anything, as long as they find it amusing.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:37 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 24, 2008 09:39 AM (zqzYV)
Let's take a look at the Republican Platform, adopted three weeks ago (!). Read it and weep/snicker.
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Economy.htm#6
'We support timely and carefully targeted aid to those hurt by the housing crisis so that affected individuals can have a chance to trade a burdensome mortgage for a manageable loan that reflects their home’s market value. At the same time, government action must not implicitly encourage anyone to borrow more than they can afford to repay. We support energetic federal investigation and, where appropriate, prosecution of criminal wrongdoing in the mortgage industry and investment sector. We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself. We believe in the free market as the best tool to sustained prosperity and opportunity for all.'
Funny how that morphed into:
'We will pay Wall Street 100 times what it would cost to pay off every mortgage in foreclosure and not give any of our average citizens a dime. We will encourage the most irresponsible financial habits this side of Vegas. We will suppress any attempts at investigating this mess by shouting "Blame game! Blame game!". We will try to ram through - wait, did we really say we don't support bailouts?! Yep! - the mother of all bailouts. And we will also babble about heightened regulation, although, in our defense, we're lying through our teeth. It is a glorious day to have your industry nationalized into the People's Free Market, comrade!'
Posted by: scarshapedstar at September 24, 2008 10:05 AM (3wKUo)
Posted by: WeBearArms at September 24, 2008 11:40 AM (sPxmU)
Posted by: poot at September 24, 2008 01:04 PM (lcg/8)
You can market them as 'slightly used carbon offsets'.
Posted by: Dan Irving at September 24, 2008 01:17 PM (Kw4jM)
I mean, it could have done some good if actually applied to education, but political games meant far more to that dunciad duo.
Posted by: Micropotamus at September 24, 2008 01:53 PM (fuC1N)
So let's see; the total value of foreclosed mortgages in this country, is, by that analysis, is $7 billion dollars.
In California, the average residential loan funded by Freddie Mac is $265,879 -- which would then work out to 26,327 mortgages in foreclosure.
Unfortunately, California's actual completed foreclosure rate was over sixty-three thousand houses just in the second quarter of this year. That equals a total of $16.8 BILLION dollars to pay off all the foreclosures in California in just three months.
And that doesn't count houses in default -- which matters because a mortgage in default, by accounting rules, has to be reduced in value. That total as quoted was 121,341 loans; if each of those loans had to take a writedown of just 25% in value, that is another $8 BILLION dollars of lost value. In one state. In one month.
Meanwhile, let's take a look at these "average citizens" and what they are doing.
The inevitable seems to be that Gardner, 50, and her elderly parents will lose their modest two-bedroom home in Oakland's Sobrante Park neighborhood, where she's lived her whole life. Her parents bought the house in 1954 for $11,500 and raised their four children there, outliving two of them.
After refinancing more than a dozen times over the years to pull out money, the Gardners now owe $454,500 on the house. She thinks it is probably worth about $350,000.
Gardner said her lack of financial knowledge and the need for funds to fix up the house and pay off bills kept inducing her to refinance. Public records show that the home was refinanced four times in the past two years.
Or this one:
Susan Fallis, a communications professor at Saint Mary's College in Moraga, so far seems to fall into the "get the loans off the books" camp of Wachovia customers. In 2004, she sold the Santa Cruz parking lot her father bought in the 1960s for his mobile home business. She reinvested the approximately $3 million into 20 single-family houses in and around Reno, with a 40 percent down payment on each one.
Sixteen of the loans were Pick-a-Payment mortgages from Wachovia. Because Reno rents dropped as her minimum payments climbed, she is now losing about $7,000 per month. She has asked Wachovia to temporarily lower the interest rate on her loans by less than two percentage points, without asking for any adjustment on the loan principal. The change would enable her to break even, but company representatives have told her allowing it "would require a complete reversal in corporate policy," she said.
If Wachovia doesn't allow any modifications, Fallis expects she will have no choice but to default in the next few months. She said everyone loses in that scenario: Wachovia has to sell 16 homes at a loss, 16 families have to vacate their rental properties and her family loses wealth accrued over more than a generation.
"It's absolutely insane," she said. "I'm about ready to become the Cindy Sheehan of real estate; this is just making me so angry."
Explain why those people should get a penny of help from the government.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 24, 2008 02:07 PM (E3Yxq)
According to the 'old' rules, I would have never qualified for a loan to buy my home, much less the H/E loan that has allowed me to do quite a few other things.
I plan on being in my house for at least 10 more years, life's quirks depending. If I make it that long, my "un-wise" investment will turn out golden.
I would rather have speculators LOOSE if the 'market' tanks - whether it be in the commodities markets, real estate, or what have you. Then, the MARKET takes care of itself. However, in this case, the resulting 'correction' of market(s) MAY be a more bitter pill to swallow than the proposed bailout. My main requirement for the bailout is the Feds get the heck out of the private sector as quickly as is possible...with the least impact on the taxpayer and eventual resultant market as possible.
Once in, however, I never expect to see the Feds leave
Posted by: Mark at September 24, 2008 02:45 PM (4od5C)
Posted by: Trish at September 24, 2008 08:26 PM (bV0Py)
It is just what it is called by a public that has no grasp of the issues involved.
What is really going on is the acquisition of assets by a new market maker of elephant in the room size to provide stabilization and liquidity.
If done right even with many totally lost cause assets in the mix the government can over time come way far ahead on the investment.
Fix now , point fingers later, but the Dems have a lot to answer for on this one and are hoping to fool the rubes one more time.
Posted by: JustADude at September 25, 2008 01:16 AM (1aM/I)
1) It is well-known that properties that are not occupied tend to deteriorate (this assumes responsible occupiers).
2) How is the FedGov't going to maintain the properties if they are going to wait for the market to turn.
3) Will the FedGov't decide, after the 'bailout', that this is a 'new way' to provide public (low-income) housing?
4) What happens IF B(H)O is elected?
5) What happens if McCain (I generally call him McRino) is elected?
6) How long is the FedGov't going to maintain its control of these assets and, by that association, a partial control of the market?
7) (here's the selfish one
Posted by: Mark at September 25, 2008 10:22 AM (4od5C)
September 23, 2008
A Wasilla Rape Kit Doc Emerges
From Chief Long of the Wasilla Police Department, via Kristie Smithers, City Clerk, with the notation:
While searching electronic files, I ran across the attached email sent to Chief Savage regarding SART exams paid for by the City of Wasilla in 2000 and 2001. I have redacted the names of the victims in accordance with state law.SART = Sexual Assault Response teams. These are the rape kits paid for by the City of Wasilla for rapes that occurred in 2000-2001.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:13 PM | Comments (44) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
"A review of files and case reports within the Wasilla Police Department has found no record of sexual assault victims billed for forensic exams. State law AS 18.68.040, which was effective 8/14/2000, would have prohibited any such billings after that date."
Unless I need glasses, the first two incidents were both on 6/22/00...two months BEFORE the law went into effect. That means we have PROOF Wasilla was paying for rape kits BEFORE the state required it!
JACKPOT!
Rape kit smear OFFICIALLY DEBUNKED.
Posted by: vox at September 23, 2008 09:24 PM (hvN4M)
I don't see this ANYWHERE else on the web....you have an honest-to-God scoop.
Confederate Yankee ROCKS!
Posted by: vox at September 23, 2008 09:29 PM (hvN4M)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 23, 2008 09:34 PM (HcgFD)
Posted by: vox at September 23, 2008 09:37 PM (hvN4M)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 23, 2008 09:54 PM (HcgFD)
But, it would always be nice to have more evidence....like perhaps similar documents outlining payments by the City for rape kits before the law was signed in May of 2000.
Hopefully more documents will emerge so we can put this to bed once and for all.
Posted by: vox at September 23, 2008 10:10 PM (hvN4M)
Posted by: moondancer at September 24, 2008 05:53 AM (VJXXC)
If your scoop proves that Wasila didn't charge rape victims for rape kits, then I guess we can all start looting Walmart, Target, and your local used car lot as well. After all, there are bound to be receiving invoices for all that stuff. And I guess by your logic, that means no costs were passed on to anyone else, so it wouldn't even be a crime.
Keep digging if you must, but try using the shovel rather than the anvil.
Posted by: jon at September 24, 2008 05:54 AM (UTDox)
This isn't an invoice. It's a list of what the town paid to Vally Hospital. Unless you are assuming that the hospital administration is beholden to city government on what it can and cannot have on hand as inventory then what CY is presenting proves that Wasilla paid for kits that had been used in the performance of duties the hospital is required to perform by law.
Posted by: Dan Irving at September 24, 2008 07:02 AM (Kw4jM)
Ummmmm....HUH?
Posted by: vox at September 24, 2008 07:22 AM (ptKf/)
Any chance whoever emailed you this document could clear any of this up?
Posted by: vox at September 24, 2008 07:59 AM (ptKf/)
Posted by: jon at September 24, 2008 08:41 AM (UTDox)
The City of Wasilla says the following on its web site:
"The Finance Department searched all financial records on our system for fiscal year 2000, 2001 and 2002. There are no records of billings to or collections from rape victims or their insurance companies in our system. The financial computer system goes back to the beginning of fiscal year 2000, and accounts receivable backup documentation goes back six (6) years per our records retention schedule."
Further:
"A review of files and case reports within the Wasilla Police Department has found no record of sexual assault victims billed for forensic exams."
Given this new document, and given that the dates indicated fall within the search range the City of Wasilla conducted, we now know WHY there are no records of victims being charged - the CITY PAID FOR THEM.
Posted by: vox at September 24, 2008 08:52 AM (ptKf/)
Documents and facts don't prove anything because THEY KNOW! Sort of like they can see great leadership and "intelligence" in ummm...ha...ummmm....ah..that is what I said....ummm...ah...ummmm...well...hold on....I...ummm...ah...where the hell is the telepromptor..uhhhh....DAVID, Help me!!!
Idiots!
How sad is it to a 45 year old "man" still using his college education as his primary qualification?
Posted by: LogicalSC at September 24, 2008 09:07 AM (1qLzq)
Posted by: arnold1888 at September 24, 2008 11:32 AM (xQdnN)
Posted by: arnold at September 24, 2008 11:35 AM (xQdnN)
Don't let little things like facts, evidence, or truth get in the way of what you "know."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 24, 2008 11:43 AM (zqzYV)
"City pays for rape-kits" & "city bills victims for rape-kits" are not inconsistent. In fact, if it was policy, one would expect the latter to follow the former. They'd HAVE to pay for them first before they used them, or to replace the ones they used, wouldn't they?
The only thing you've proven is that in 2000 & 2001, Wasilla paid for SART exams, which doesn't preclude victims - or their insurers - being billed at all, as any thinking adult could determine in 5 seconds.
How sad is it to a 45 year old "man" still using his college education as his primary qualification?
Yes, how SAD that one candidate is a Magnum Cum Laude Law Grad - while his opponent (barely) graduated near the rock-bottom of his class - yet so many Americans honestly think the latter is better qualified to lead a modern industrial nation forward in 2008. Real ignorance always winds up having to show its true colors eventually. You left out the word "see" there. I think that's quite beautifully apropos.
Posted by: jim at September 24, 2008 11:55 AM (Kyveh)
To date, and despite having weeks to develop the story, the liberal blogosphere that astroturfed this story into being and their allies in the media and Democratic Party haven't provided so much of a shred of evidence that this smear has any basis in fact.
Meanwhile, we have had reviewed the minutes of the legislative meetings that led to this law being written, and have discovered that Wasilla, Palin and Fannon were never even mentioned in the testimony, and that the real reason the law was needed is that hospitals had charged patients... according to expert testimony of a State Police official and the heads of two rape counseling organizations, there were ZERO known instances of rape kits being billed by police agencies, which correlates to the report for current Wasilla Police Cheif Long who states she cant' find any evidence at all the victims were ever billed.
Eric Croft, Democratic sponsor of the legislation and an ethusiastic reporter, is the sole source for this claim that the law was aimed at Wasilla, which again, his own meeting's minutes prove to be a lie, as Wasilla was never mentioned.
You have neither quality nor quantity on your side, just an unbelievable amount of illogical hatred and the determination to keep creating smears (I think the current count is now 91) to tear down a minority who dared to succeed without you, your party, or your warped values.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 24, 2008 12:12 PM (zqzYV)
Posted by: arnold at September 24, 2008 01:05 PM (xQdnN)
Therefore, Obama is telling people, a la "arnold", that it's perfectly acceptable to rape poor women in Illinois.
One wonders if the Messiah himself is a proponent of rape. Does he rape his own daughters, like Democrat Party candidate, DNC endorsee, and Obama endorsee Al Franken claims Todd Palin does?
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 24, 2008 01:43 PM (E3Yxq)
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 24, 2008 02:23 PM (i/fLn)
Meanwhile, billing women for rapekits in Illinois continues to be an ongoing scandal which Senator Obama should have done something about while he was in the state legislature and should do something about now. What are you doing about that?
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 24, 2008 02:30 PM (i/fLn)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 24, 2008 05:02 PM (kNqJV)
So why did the city of Wasilla pay for those rape kits? Someone must have reported something.
Posted by: Mark A. Flacy at September 24, 2008 10:37 PM (tCVlB)
On a slightly lighter note: Are those things actually called "Rape Kits"? Maybe they should be called something like "post rape evidence and documentation collection kits".
Cause "rape kits" sort of sounds like...well you know what it sounds like.
Maybe that will be the next Lefty smear.
Posted by: brando at September 25, 2008 12:00 AM (UB1+D)
Is He Ready to Be Vice President?
Well, he's bad enough...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:32 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Q: Why was Herbert Hoover was President in 1929 ?
A: Apparently because the Governor of New York, FDR, was lost looking for a non-existent TV station.
Posted by: Neo at September 23, 2008 06:23 PM (Yozw9)
And speaking of Moron-dom, I can't access Ace from my home computer. Either he got mad and banned my IP because of the Longbow Incident (four days late?) or he's got much traffic. Other mu.nu blogs, like yours, I can load up just fine.
Posted by: SGT Dan at September 23, 2008 06:27 PM (nyLnk)
Posted by: SGT Dan at September 23, 2008 09:50 PM (BttwM)
What's in a Terrorist's Name?
Should we take Marc Ambinder's critique of the Barack Obama/William Ayers story seriously, when he knows so little about it that he can't even spell the terrorist's name properly?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:45 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Jeff at September 23, 2008 01:13 PM (yiMNP)
Posted by: Wind Rider at September 23, 2008 01:19 PM (JcCvJ)
Posted by: Retread at September 23, 2008 02:03 PM (P/AfD)
Could you imagine if McCain had been involved with some Militia type who had put a bomb in a federal building and till this day feels proud about it??????????
They would all be singing a different tune, just like they tried to pin Timothy McVeigh on talk radio...
Posted by: Carlos Echevarria at September 23, 2008 03:07 PM (CsNoJ)
Posted by: Kaitian at September 23, 2008 08:30 PM (9LB00)
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 23, 2008 09:31 PM (M+Vfm)
Posted by: Damian G. at September 23, 2008 09:44 PM (uUwyo)
FactCheck.Org Misses the Target
My days of considering FactCheck.Org a reliable source are over.
In a release yesterday that targets NRA claims made against Barack Obama, FactCheck.Org simply failed to do their research in several instances, and were more than willing to take at face value claims made by the Obama campaign that were disputed or counterfactual. Patterico does the bulk of debunking the debunkers, but I'll tackle one specific claim in more detail just to show how lacking their research really was. The FactCheck.org article claimed stated:FactCheck refers to the Kennedy amendment, but let's read it for ourselves:
NRA Claim: "Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting"False: Obama is not proposing to ban hunting ammunition. And he did not, as claimed in an NRA TV spot featuring a Virginia hunter named Karl Rusch, vote to "ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition." What Obama voted for was a measure to ban "armor-piercing" ammunition, which the measure's sponsor has said repeatedly would not cover hunting ammunition. This claim is based on Obama's vote on S. 397 in the U.S. Senate. Obama was one of 31 senators who voted in favor of S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397 which sought to "expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition." The amendment applied only to handgun ammunition "capable of penetrating body armor" and to rifle ammunition that is "designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability," however. It's true that common high-powered rifle bullets are capable of penetrating the vests worn by police, which are a defense chiefly against lower-velocity handgun rounds. But does that mean hunting ammunition is "designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability"? That's the NRA's argument, and it was repeated on the floor of the Senate by Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. He said flatly that the measure "would ban nearly all hunting rifle ammunition," without any elaboration. However, the measure's sponsor, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, said his amendment was not intended to cover hunting ammunition: Sen. Kennedy (July 29, 2005): This is not about hunting. We know duck and geese and deer do not wear armor vests; police officers do. Kennedy's measure failed by a vote of 64 - 31. By the way, the NRA has used this ploy before. It ran ads in 2004 claiming Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry had voted "to ban deer-hunting ammunition" when he had actually voted on an earlier occasion for this same Kennedy amendment on armor-piercing rounds. Kennedy said then: Sen. Kennedy (March 2, 2004): My amendment will not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles or other centerfire rifles. To the contrary, it only covers ammunition that is designed or marketed as having armor-piercing capability.
The following language would indeed ban most centerfire handgun hunting ammunition as being armor-piercing:
SA 1615. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 13, after line 4, insert the following: SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION. (a) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.--Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in clause (i), by striking "or" at the end; (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and (3) by adding at the end the following: "(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or "(iv) a projectile for a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.". (b) DETERMINATION OF THE CAPABILITY OF PROJECTILES TO PENETRATE BODY ARMOR.--Section 926 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: "(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body Armor Exemplar. "(2) The standards promulgated under paragraph (1) shall take into account, among other factors, variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired and the amount and kind of powder used to propel the projectile. "(3) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar' means body armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.".
It may not have been Senator Kennedy's intention to ban handgun hunting ammunition, but the fact of the matter is that bullet-resistant vests used among uniformed police officers on patrol nationwide are designed to stop common low-to-medium velocity handgun bullets (SWAT teams typically wear much heavier ballistic vests featuring large plates such as those worn by the military, designed to stop common assault rifle rounds). The overwhelming majority of commercial, factory-loaded ammunition for hunting-class centerfire handguns will penetrate bullet-resistant vests, because the majority of these handgun calibers are high-velocity. While most ballistic vests will typically stop common defense rounds such as low-to-moderate velocity .38 Special, 9mm, 40S&W, and 45ACP, they begin having problems with higher velocity +P and +P+ loadings that are increasingly more common in these calibers. We want our police protected against unduly dangerous ammunition, but none of these listed are properly classified as armor-piercing. Likewise, .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum, .44 Magnum, .454 Casual, 500 S&W, and literally dozens of other hunting and long-distance target cartridges (.357 SuperMag, for example) will penetrate most common soft body armor worn by law enforcement agencies, and there is no language in the Kennedy Amendment that exempts these various cartridges, nor the various bullet designs commonly used in hunting or sport shooting in these calibers. Based upon this alone, FactCheck.Org is at least partially incorrect, but the ambiguity in the Kennedy Amendment continues:
"(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or
Kennedy, either by intent or negligence, does not define what constitutes a center-fire rifle bullet "designed" with armor piercing capability, nor does he define what constitutes "standard ammunition". Would that include hard cast lead bullets? Ammunition that uses bullets with full-metal jackets, commonly used as practice ammunition? How would this amendment view high velocity ballistic tip or hollowpoint ammunition? Does that affect higher velocity +P or +P+ loadings that are common in many centerfire loadings, including many kinds of ammunition designed for hunters, and self defense for both police and civilians? We don't and can't know due to the vague language Kennedy used, and his proposed language to determine the capability of projectiles to penetrate body armor contains a "trojan horse."
"(iv) a projectile for a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.".
"Body armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards" could mean any armor classification arbitrarily determined by the Attorney General, whether that means almost useless (and therefore almost never issued) Category I armor, the slightly more effective and generally agreed-upon minimum of II-A, or perhaps even higher (and probably most commonly issued) Level II, or even Level III-A armor. We simply don't know what level an Attorney General might determine to be the minimum, and the lower the level, the more common ammunition runs the risk of becoming unfairly classified as "armor-piercing." FactCheck's fact check of the NRA claims largely consisted of taking politicians at their word and a shallow, almost negligent reading of the laws and language they've supported. The rest of us have a word for that. "Fiction."
"(3) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar' means body armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.".
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:17 AM | Comments (34) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: megapotamus at September 23, 2008 12:34 PM (LF+qW)
Now Fact check is on the scene to 'debunk' Obama's lack of respect for the Second Amendment? Coincidence? I think not.
Posted by: ThomasD at September 23, 2008 12:34 PM (21H5U)
Posted by: Aaron at September 23, 2008 01:00 PM (ovsW+)
Posted by: WeBearArms at September 23, 2008 01:32 PM (sPxmU)
Posted by: Jon at September 23, 2008 01:40 PM (l4JVO)
Also, all bullets might be used in a handgun and probably have. Virtually all such projectiles can penetrate "minimum" armored vests and would be automatically banned by the amendment. "(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or"
The NRA is 100% correct. Factcheck either did not do minimal research or is just lying.
Posted by: George Bruce at September 23, 2008 04:08 PM (RNKWq)
I quit using them long ago for the same reasons as mentioned in the article.
Posted by: sanjuro at September 23, 2008 04:08 PM (vyE3r)
Posted by: cmblake6 at September 23, 2008 05:32 PM (QSVQf)
As for section (iv), this provision expressly refers to "a projectile for a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.". The provision doesn't mention handguns. And unless all COMMONLY used rifle projectile (bullets?) would be covered by this provision, I don't see how it applies. In any event, the provision requires the projectile to have been designed or marketed as having armor-piercing capability. Is anyone suggesting that ammunition commonly used by sportsmen/hunters in their rifles to hunt deer is marketed or designed for piercing (police) body armor? If the ammunition isn't marketed that way, then section (iv) would not even apply. In sum, your refutation of the fact-check.org piece is not very persuasive.
Posted by: Alex at September 23, 2008 05:59 PM (fAujK)
You seem to be nice enough and so please don't take it the wrong way when I tell you that you are apparently so fundamentally ignorant (and I don't mean you are stupid, there is just a huge knowledge gap between what you and even the average person would know) regarding this particular subject that I simply don't have the time it takes to make you even passably informed enough to begin to show you where you are wrong.
I'm sorry. Perhaps one of the other commenters has the time, but I simply don't.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 23, 2008 07:38 PM (HcgFD)
Kennedy:
Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers? armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating. It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America.
The cartridge he refers to originated as the .30-WCF, and was renamed the .30-30 (or .30.30), in the 1890's. It since became one of the most popular hunting rounds in the United States.
Ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30_WCF
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/3030history.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.co/ideal_deer_cartridges.htm
http://www.hornady.com/story.php?s=198
In short, while Kennedy may claim to not be after normal hunting ammunition, I can't trust him to know the difference between Armor Piercing Ammunition and normal hunting ammunition.
Since he apparently can't (or won't) figure that out, I can't give any credence to his "Trust me" claim.
Likewise for Senator Obama, who apparently support Senator Kennedy in this motion.
Posted by: karrde at September 23, 2008 09:32 PM (aF0WK)
Here is the info that Kennedy routinely referenced in his speeches on the floor (part of which karrde quoted)
Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed with Firearms: Type of Firearm and Size of Ammunition that Penetrated Body Armor 1995-2004
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2004/table39.htm
all were with rifle rounds
Posted by: Gunstar1 at September 23, 2008 09:51 PM (dzFJw)
Posted by: Mike at September 23, 2008 11:18 PM (3oJIo)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/national-rifle-association/
Posted by: Bryan at September 24, 2008 02:02 PM (S/d1W)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 24, 2008 02:09 PM (zqzYV)
Posted by: SicSemperTyrannus at September 25, 2008 07:51 AM (WGcw3)
The Terrorist's Partner
Stanley Kurtz has published his long-awaited research into the archives of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and the conclusions he draws are not surprising—Barack Obama blatantly lied earlier year when he tried to dismiss his relationship with terrorist Bill Ayers.
As Kurtz shows in his Wall Street Journal article Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools, Obama and Ayers were partners in a radical program that was focused more on indoctrinating children and their parents than education. Working together, Obama and Ayers funneled $160 million to to community organizers and far left peers of Ayers such as former SDS radical and Maoist Mike Klonsky. Ayers and Obama used grant money that was supposed to be used for improving the educational experience of Chicago's children for political activism and agitation. Kurtz concludes:Barack Obama was either an infamous terrorist's long-time patsy, or an infamous terrorist's long-time partner, and no one thinks Obama is enough of a rube to be his patsy. Obama earned his partnership with Ayers through a shared vision of radical activism. Professor Steve Diamond's blog provides much-needed historical context, which shows that Obama/Ayers were using the CAC to fund an insurgent campaign in the "Chicago School Wars" that occurred from the late 1980s to the late 1990s, and which was fought over the fate of Chicago's public schools.
Mr. Ayers's defenders claim that he has redeemed himself with public-spirited education work. That claim is hard to swallow if you understand that he views his education work as an effort to stoke resistance to an oppressive American system. He likes to stress that he learned of his first teaching job while in jail for a draft-board sit-in. For Mr. Ayers, teaching and his 1960s radicalism are two sides of the same coin. Mr. Ayers is the founder of the "small schools" movement (heavily funded by CAC), in which individual schools built around specific political themes push students to "confront issues of inequity, war, and violence." He believes teacher education programs should serve as "sites of resistance" to an oppressive system. (His teacher-training programs were also CAC funded.) The point, says Mr. Ayers in his "Teaching Toward Freedom," is to "teach against oppression," against America's history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation. The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.
By all means, read all of Diamond's explanation to get a true understanding of just how radical of a leftist Barack Obama truly is. Barack Obama is an authoritarian leftist, one who sacrificed the future of a generation of inner city children, using money meant to provide them with an education to further his political goals. As parents, we can't risk giving him the opportunity to do so again.
One side in this war was controlled by Mayor Richard M. Daley, Jr., son of the legendary Mayor Daley. And the other side was led by Ayers and a small group of reformers that had emerged several years earlier in 1988 during a battle to create a new power center in the Chicago schools, the so-called Local School Councils, or LSCs. The LSCs were an effort to rein in the power of unionized teachers, school principals and school administrators, in the wake of an unpopular teachers' strike in 1987. This milieu around Ayers also included, as far back as the late 80s, Barack Obama and the Developing Communities Project (DCP) that had hired Obama as its Executive Director in 1985. The DCP was a leading participant in the campaign to establish the LSCs. Thus, in fact, the "radical" Bill Ayers and his ally Barack Obama, a Democratic political activist and lawyer on the rise in Chicago, were engaged in an anti-union effort to influence the direction and nature of the entire Chicago public school system. It would lead them into a battle with Mayor Daley himself.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:13 AM | Comments (39) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: capitano at September 23, 2008 09:36 AM (UsyG7)
Given the need for the "jobs of the future," this just won't pay well.
Posted by: Neo at September 23, 2008 10:09 AM (Yozw9)
And all this is WAY more important than Obama's lifelong work with terrorists, their supporters, and people who want to destroy the United States.
Posted by: templar knight at September 23, 2008 10:15 AM (6fvyi)
After the Iraq War started, the 4th estate spent months before they finally decided that maybe they were vigilant enough with their reporting running up to the war.
In this election, the 4th estate repeats it's error by falling into the same trap.
Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, shame on me
In this election, the 4th estate has actually allowed one of the candidates to write his own narrative, based on two auto-biographical books, that is full of holes for large time sequences.
Today, with only 40 some days remaining till the election, a bit of one of those 4 year holes is filled in, but much is still left unknown.
Will the 4th estate be comtemplating the navel for that time or will they begin to ask the questions that will give the American people a complete story ?
Not only does the future of their craft stand in balance, the future of the country demands better.
If they are not up to the challenge .. we will look elsewhere.
Posted by: Neo at September 23, 2008 10:28 AM (Yozw9)
The process of reading all the applications and deciding who'd get the grants (obviously not the math-and-science purveyors) must have kept a large staff working year in and year out. Were there any larger disbursements, or were there any grants that were funded year after year to eventually total significant millions?
Ayers apparently had in mind the founding of one or more radical political empires, and with the magnitude of monies he hijacked from their intended educational purposes, there must have been ample opportunities to skim off substantial amounts to fatten up his cronies and set up accounts to last for years.
Where did all those dollars go? Kurtz hasn't told us in his brief WSJ article. One can only hope that the information will appear in depth and detail in future reports. Let them appear sooner rather than later. And shame shame shame on the MSM, who have blinded themselves to such a hijacking of supposedly educational funds.
Posted by: Micropotamus at September 23, 2008 12:29 PM (fuC1N)
Posted by: megapotamus at September 23, 2008 12:42 PM (LF+qW)
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at September 23, 2008 12:43 PM (W88Qb)
Long live Mega!
It wouldn't take too much time to summarize where those grants went, and to put together an article pointing out how political ambitions trumped the intended educational benefits. Such cynicism deserves wide exposure, and apparently the MSM is complicit with it. The Annenberg Foundation should sue for recovery of the fraudulently squandered funds.
Posted by: Micropotamus at September 23, 2008 01:21 PM (fuC1N)
Posted by: Krystal at September 23, 2008 02:18 PM (D2TAc)
September 22, 2008
The Palin Rape Kit Circus Continues
We have fresh information regarding poorly-researched claims made in the media (including CNN, US News & World Report, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, the Associated Press, and literally dozens of other "professional media"
that Sarah Palin presided over a Wasilla, AK city government that charged rape victims for the forensic medical examinations designed to collected physical evidence of sexual assaults. With very little variation from one media source to the next, media accounts attempted to portray Palin as a callous monster out to re-abuse victims.
The Wasilla PD can find no evidence that victims were billed for rape kits. The only other city government entity (the Finance Department) that would possibly have such information only keeps billing records for six years, and is therefore of little use, as it no longer keeps records that would have been created under Palin's administration. Outside of Wasilla, however, other government officials and experts have testified that there were no known instances of rape victims being bill for examinations, and the best evidence of this may be the minutes of the committee that helped draft the state legislation. On March 6, 2000, Del Smith, the Deputy Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Public Safety, testified in support of HB 270 (the bill outlawing the billing of rape kits) and the minutes noted:
I found no documents within the police department showing sexual assault victims were billed for forensic exams. Nor have I been able to find any documentation regarding a decision to bill those victims. Case reports don't contain financial billing information. Financial records are retained by the Finance Department, and the Finance Director was unable to find any records of billing within records still being held.
Testifying in front of the same committee, Lauree Hugonin, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA) noted that "billings have not come from police agencies but have come from hospitals." Trisha Gentle, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault noted that police departments were willing to pay for the exams, but that it was an internal decision on the part of the hospital as to who pays the hospital bill. Despite the spin recently being applied by astroturfing Obama supporters, there was never any evidence that victims were being charged by any police departments including Wasilla's Police Department under Palin. Testimony instead indicates it was callous hospitals that attempted to bill victims on rare occasions of insensitivity. It is also true that protective mechanisms were in place in Alaska that would have picked up the cost of such kits, even if State law had not changed in 2000. The State of Alaska Violent Crimes Compensation Board (VCCB) was "was established in 1971 by the Alaskan Legislature to help bring financial relief to innocent victims of violent crimes in Alaska." Among the things the VCCB would pay for are the medical bills of victims of violent crimes (including sexual assaults), counseling, and transportation to medical and counseling services. A former worker with VCCB notes via email:
He commented that he does not think that a victim ought to even see a bill related to sexual assault whether it is on their insurance form or not. He emphasized that a police agency investigating a crime should pay because that is the cost of doing business in the collection of evidence no matter what the crime; he does not know of any police agency that has requested payment.
Despite claims to the contrary, there is no record that the Wasilla Police Department ever charged rape victims under Sarah Palin's leadership, nor were State law enforcement or sexual assault victim's advocates aware of such attempts anywhere in Alaska as the proposed bill was being discussed. As committee minutes show, the offenders experts were worried about were hospitals, not police, and not Sarah Palin.
Rape kits and other medical expenses of this type would be paid by the VCCB, 100% guaranteed. The City of Wasilla could have technically 'charged' the victim but even if they did, the VCCB would have paid the bill in full. I still know the a few of the Board members and the supervisor and I can tell you that they are very liberal with the way that they pay the victims bills.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:05 PM | Comments (81) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Sarah Palin left penniless rape victims in her wake. So let it be written, so let it be done.
Posted by: Techie at September 22, 2008 09:07 PM (vcDkn)
I've never raped anybody in my life. Why do I have to pay for rape? Just because the left's view of kindness is "bleed it out of the taxpayers"?
Posted by: Trish at September 22, 2008 09:27 PM (eTo1O)
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at September 22, 2008 09:33 PM (Qv1xF)
So of there were multiple jurisdictions in Alaska doing this WHY IS IT SARAH PALIN'S FAULT IF WASILLA WAS DOING IT TOO?
And my adult daughter who deals with several fire/rescue services throughout the country advises me that this is not an uncommon practice in the rest of the country either.
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THIS COUNTRY! HAS EVERYONE GONE NUTS? We can't talk about Obama and his hate-America church or his payoff money from Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae, or his buddy Bill Ayers, or his angry wife or we are racists, but we can criticise Palin for being mayor of Wasilla when they MIGHT have been doing something which was apparently a fairly common practice throughout Alaska, common enough that the freaking legislature took steps to prevent the practice!
Looney Toones.
Posted by: John Steele at September 22, 2008 09:38 PM (UtsE7)
Posted by: H Smith at September 22, 2008 09:39 PM (/4j+6)
http://www.ilga.gov/
410 ILCS 70/7) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 87‑7)
Sec. 7. Charges and reimbursement.
(a) When any ambulance provider furnishes transportation, hospital provides hospital emergency services and forensic services, hospital or health care professional or laboratory provides follow‑up healthcare, or pharmacy dispenses prescribed medications to any sexual assault survivor, as defined by the Department of Healthcare and Family Services, who is neither eligible to receive such services under the Illinois Public Aid Code [my emphasis]NOR COVERED AS TO SUCH SERVICES BY A POLICY OF INSURANCE[/my emphasis] the ambulance provider, hospital, health care professional, or laboratory shall furnish such services to that person without charge and shall be entitled to be reimbursed for its billed charges in providing such services by the Illinois Sexual Assault Emergency Treatment Program under the Department of Healthcare and Family Services.
So, in plain English - if you have insurance, YOUR INSURANCE IS CHARGED FOR THE RAPE KIT. Just like Chief Fannon said was his practice in Wasilla, *if* he couldn't charge the perp.
Want a little corroboration about what's going on in Illinois? Check out this from US News and World Report from February of THIS year:
"[F]eedback from the field indicates that sexual assault victims are still being billed." Knecht says she's recently heard from caseworkers in Illinois, Georgia, and Arkansas reporting that rape victims continue to be charged for their forensic exams.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-health-and-money/2008/2/21/rape-victims-can-be-hurt-financially-too.html
As Homer Simpson would say....D'OH!
Posted by: vox at September 22, 2008 09:41 PM (hvN4M)
If indeed, the city of Wasilla under Sarah Palin had been in the habit of billing sexual assault victims for the gathering of forensic evidence, this would have been an atrocious practice. The question deserved to be asked.
Once asked, however, there appears to be ample evidence that the charge has no merit, so the story should have died right away. Asked. Answered. Case closed. At the very least the matter does not appear to be nearly so simple and scandalous as it initially seemed, which should prompt honest-minded people to turn down the temperature on the issue.
But that's not the way it happened. The meme was dropped in the stream, and floated free, only to get swept up by a lumbering leviathan of partisan smear-mongering (kinda like the whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing...only supercharged by an irresponsible, Left-leaning media). Any attempt to highlight contradictory evidence is viewed as suspect partisanship from the other side. The truth is swallowed up like hapless krill.
I don't care how emotionally satisfying it would be for some to have Obama be POTUS; if shenanigans like these are what it takes to have that occur, then I submit that such a poisoned tree could not help but yield the kind of fruit that Vlad Putin likes to send to uppity reporters...
Posted by: Noocyte at September 22, 2008 09:58 PM (Y0ehO)
It seems to me that with a reported 40-50 sexual assaults in the town during her 4-year tenure, even if every one of those crimes had required a rape kit, it's unlikely that the mayor would become involved in the nuts-and-bolts of a police investigation matter. If no citizens of the town complained to her or the city council about the "disgraceful" practice of charging for rape kits, it's hardly likely that she would have even known about it.
Unless someone comes up with some minutes of the city council meetings where this was discussed, it's a non-issue. We know now there was a state agency that reimbursed cities and towns for the cost of these kits during the time Ms. Palin was mayor. If someone got raped and then had to pay for the rape kit, she (or he!) should contact the State of Alaska Violent Crimes Compensation Board and ask for reimbursement.
Posted by: Orion at September 22, 2008 10:00 PM (3Pqk1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d54UU-fPIsY
Posted by: MarkJ at September 22, 2008 10:26 PM (IKzfP)
Thanks for pointing that out. Obama was in the Illinois state senate, and could have done something about that statute, but of course his only duty there was to be "present."
Posted by: Trish at September 22, 2008 10:44 PM (eTo1O)
So please, if possible, try to post about this as much as possible and send links to like minded wingnut bloggers about it. Or talk about the economy, either one is good for us.
Posted by: loyaldem at September 22, 2008 10:58 PM (/U1sH)
(It really is beginning to look like hospital bills everywhere, charge the patient for everything and anything, even for removing his leg when they didn't, males for giving birth, women for prostate removals ... men do get breast cancer, though.)
Posted by: htom at September 22, 2008 11:07 PM (XK5dj)
Here is a bit more info on the whole controversy (feel free to ignore since the source is "in the tank")
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html
Posted by: loyaldem at September 22, 2008 11:15 PM (/U1sH)
Posted by: bains at September 22, 2008 11:36 PM (AgNu2)
Alperin-Sheriff claims in one graph that "the policy was put in place as a direct result of Palin's leadership." and two graph's later admits that he doesn't know for sure if the previous mayor had such a program. "Mayor Stein told OffTheBus that he didn't 'think victims were billed while [he] was mayor,' but that he wasn't certain."
He then tried to get the current police chief to comment and failed.
I succeeded.
As for your statement that "The rape kit is a hospital procedure, and thus is billed by the hospital," the experts that testified in front of the legislature couldn't agree more. They maintain that hospitals are responsible for the few episodes of billing that occurred, not police departments, including Palin's.
Game over.
Now, if you hurry back to Huffington Post, I hear Naomi Wolf is dispensing advice on what to wear during the coming police state.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 22, 2008 11:37 PM (HcgFD)
A rape kit is an evidence-collecting test used in a police investigation. Of course the taxpayer should pay for it, it's part of the cost of having a police department. Would you ask burglary victims to pay for the police to dust for fingerprints? Would you ask the family of a murder victim to pay for the police to investigate the homicide? Of course not. So why do you think a rape victim should pay for the investigation of that crime? Personally, I'm relieved that the left-wing MSM got this one so horribly wrong, but please don't tell me that victims should have to start paying for the police to investigate crimes against them. I mean, I'm all for small government, but that's just ridiculous.
Posted by: jms2008 at September 22, 2008 11:43 PM (0cJAN)
What are skidmark and her fellow Obamatards going to do except move on to the next astroturfed Palin smear. There are so many to choose from.
Morons
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 22, 2008 11:46 PM (i/fLn)
Secondly, Alaska introduced legislation to stop the practice of charging rape victims. Do you think they did that just for kicks?
Sad.
Posted by: Ken at September 23, 2008 12:09 AM (XBTpu)
hey jms2008 - by your logic then, should the Wasilla PD foot the bill for injuries someone gets in a bar fight? or injuries received from a drunk driver? of course not. lets not fool ourselves into thinking the whole notion of towns paying for rape kits isn't what it what it really is....political correctness. i mean, if the PD is going to pay for a rape kit, why the heck wouldn't they pay to fix someone's broken arm received fending off a mugger?
loyaldem, I read that article on the HuffPo by Jacob Alperin-Sheriff...maybe you can answer the question I emailed him, but has thus far refused to answer...he claims that Palin is directly responsible for "slashing" (his words) the budget for rape kits in Wasilla because...are your ready for this? He looked up the actual budgets of the PD on the Wasilla web site, and because there is an account called "contingency funds" that was budgeted in 1998 for $3K and in 1999 for $1K that this is de facto PROOF Palin both authorized charging victims for rape kits and CUT the PD's budget so they couldn't buy any themselves.
Yes, this is a how a HuffPO blogger's mind works....find a line item on a budget you don't recognize or even know what it's for, ASSUME it must be for rape kits, and then when that same line item is LESS the following year, ASSUME the mayor decided to start charging victims for rape kits.
Until Alperin-Sheriff discloses how he knows that the "contingency fund" was used for rape kits in the Wasilla PD, EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING he's written is worthless.
Posted by: vox at September 23, 2008 12:18 AM (2SqLX)
While I completely agree that victims should NOT be charged for 'police work', I do think someone should. I propose charging the convicted criminals for the costs associate with their convictions. Think about it. Not only would those convicted be potentially hit with jail time, they would also have to pay restitution to the 'state'.
There is, of course, a downside to this idea. The 'state' could simply start arresting everyone they could, rig the trials, and make boatloads of cash for themselves. So, with that caveat already stated, what downside is there? I'm curious what sort of responses this idea gets.
Posted by: Mark at September 23, 2008 12:21 AM (w/olL)
Anyway, here's what I have.
Checking the budget confirmed former Chief Stambaugh's claim. He had included a contingency of $15,000 in his budget for the department's 1st year of existence (1993-1994), $5,000 for 1994-1995 and 1995-1996, and $13,000 for his final year as police chief in 1996-1997, spending $11,625.
Duwayne Charles Fannon, his replacement, halved the budget request in 1997-1998, with a request of $7,298, spending $3,454. However, it seems he began the "victim pays" policy in the 1998-1999 fiscal year. That year, he requested $3,000 but spent only $205. This data can be found in the Document Central section of Wasilla's website.
So, the time frame is 1996-2000
Chief Stambaugh paid out of his budget until the end of the fiscal year for 1997.
Chief Fannon spent 3,454 for 1997-1998. For 98-99 he still requested 3,000 but only spent 205. The fiscal year generally ends in Oct. We know in the beginning of 2000 there are no records of any charges billed to rape victims during or after that period.
So, the only year possible is 1998-99. There is nothing proving the Police Dept itself billed victims.
Only a statement given by HuffPo that it "seems" like it started.
Posted by: Bryan at September 23, 2008 12:29 AM (zTtY+)
Posted by: cmblake6 at September 23, 2008 12:32 AM (QSVQf)
Lets look at the actual evidence we DO know:
Thus far, former Chief Fannon refuses to comment further or clarify his remarks about the 2000 story - he's refused all interviews.
The City of Wasilla has done a search of their financial records going back 6 years - they can find NO record of ANYONE ever being charged for a rape kit.
The current Police Chief, Angela Long, has done a search of case files and can find NO records of any victims of rape being charged for rape kits.
No one can find a single witness, victim, story, complaint, letter - ANYTHING - that proves ANYONE was ever charged for a rape kit while Palin was mayor.
Mayor Palin is on record saying she absolutely, categorically would NEVER support charging a victim for a rape kit.
It seems clear, based on the evidence, to continue to accuse Palin of having knowledge of or approving of the policy of charging for rape kits is simply perpetrating a factless SMEAR.
Posted by: vox at September 23, 2008 12:33 AM (2SqLX)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 23, 2008 12:40 AM (p2H2j)
I'm sorry any woman would be billed for a hugely expensive evidence collection procedure, done only to catch and convict a criminal, not to provide any direct medical benefit to the patient.
Posted by: SarahW at September 23, 2008 12:43 AM (7sl9X)
Well, I did a little digging of my own. Follow me through this....in August of 2000 the Alaskan state legislature signed a law that required the investigating law enforcement agency to assume the cost of any rape kits need to collect evidence following a rape. If, as the HuffPO blogger suggests, the contingency fund was used previously for rape kits, shouldn't that budget have been INCREASED in 2001, following the signing of the law in 2000? Guess what? It didn't. The budget for that account was halved again, from $1000 to $500. Clearly, the "contingency fund" was NOT used previously to buy rape kits.
So much for HuffPO "logic."
Posted by: vox at September 23, 2008 12:51 AM (2SqLX)
This is Psychology 101, folks, and don't think the Democrats don't know that. You throw out lies and even if they're refuted, the lie still has a power greater than that of the refutation. Just as Dems are incredulous that some people still think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, these lies and smears on Palin *will* stick, despite the fact that they are lies and smears.
What should we do? Well, what can we do? We cannot wallow in the mud with these pigs, because we are better men. All we can do is fight for our side (fairly) and hope that the better angels of the American public's nature win out. We shall see.
Posted by: Joe C at September 23, 2008 04:20 AM (3kd2U)
I'm not holding my breath...
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 23, 2008 05:33 AM (M+Vfm)
North Carolina charged rape victims (average 3000 per year) for their rape kits up until a month ago (link). The last two governors of North Carolina have been two-term Democrats and have governed the state for 15 1/2 years between them.
Posted by: Dr Weevil at September 23, 2008 05:54 AM (vAs5q)
QEfrickin'D, man.
And why has nobody asked about this Wasilla Police Chief? Angela Long? Funny first name, it would not surprise me at all if she were of the same, you know, gender as this Palin creature. That's right, another womyn hating misogynist.
Regardless, I am cheered to see the left rallying so enthusiastically to the colors here. Somebody's got to stand up to this uppity bitch who thinks she can do a man's job. Keep at it, lefties, the stakes are too high to permit Palin to get away with it! Ends, means, you know the rest.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 23, 2008 06:02 AM (Vcyz0)
Posted by: Dennis D at September 23, 2008 06:17 AM (EbvWp)
Posted by: Dennis D at September 23, 2008 06:18 AM (EbvWp)
http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/
#72. No, she didn’t try to charge rape victims personally for rape kits. This is one of those complicated ones with a tiny hint of truth behind it. First, the Chief of Police in Wasilla (not Palin) did apparently have a policy of asking a victim’s health insurance to pay for the rape kit as part of the ER visit. This, it turns out, is policy in a number of states, including Missouri and North Carolina. Second, the way this became an issue was after the then-governor of Alaska signed a bill forbidding it; this law was signed before Palin was Governor and no one tried to reverse it while she was Governor. Third, what the CoP in Wasilla wanted to do was charge the perpetrator as part of restitution.
Posted by: Dave C at September 23, 2008 07:37 AM (Ri7nY)
Still waiting for the retractions and apologies to Gov. Palin from SKYLARK and MAGIC DOG
That will never happen, for two reasons:
(1). From previous experience, I can tell you that Skylark is incapable of ever admitting defeat, and will keep trolling merrily away, and;
(2). Knowing that, I banned them both.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 23, 2008 07:49 AM (zqzYV)
That being said, Sarah is tough, as are her supporters, and we are more than up to the task of debunking the onslaught of lies and smears from liberals about her...bring it on!
Posted by: vox at September 23, 2008 07:52 AM (ptKf/)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 23, 2008 07:56 AM (zqzYV)
I caution you: I understand there is no direct evidence of this, but Victims may also have tried to refuse bills from hospitals and/or hospitals refused to bill the Wasilla police, because of the Wasilla PD policy of not directly picking up the tab for the forensic tests. What would happen if a victim complained about being dunned for the rape-kit portion of a bill?
If victim or hospital approached Wasilla police department and was told “we don’t cover that”.that exchange would not appear in any “billing records” of Wasilla police department, no matter how extensive.
In that sort of situation no bill by Wasilla is generated, yet the patient is stuck with it all the same. ( though It would seem more likely she would be referred to a victims compensation fund.)
You go on to emphasize the availability of victims compensation from a fund with a reputation for liberality prior to the 2000 law; that victims were always made aware of this method of handling a bill from a hospital is another question.
Palin might have thought that permitting victims, or some collateral source of payment they might have, to pay for forensic tests was reasonable. I would hope she would not excuse it. But I've seen no evidence she actually gave the matter much or any thought other than to sign off on the local pd budget.
I've actually heard some embarassing excuses in knee-jerk defense of the practice of billing crime victims for forensic examinations or collection of physical evidence. I really don't want to hear Palin make them.
The turfing of distortions of the rape-kit situation in Wasilla to smear Palin, is obvious to me. But she will be asked what she knew about the situation.
Posted by: Sarahw at September 23, 2008 08:04 AM (7sl9X)
I caution you: I understand there is no direct evidence of this, but Victims may also have tried to refuse bills from hospitals and/or hospitals refused to bill the Wasilla police, because of the Wasilla PD policy of not directly picking up the tab for the forensic tests. What would happen if a victim complained about being dunned for the rape-kit portion of a bill?
If victim or hospital approached Wasilla police department and was told “we don’t cover that”.that exchange would not appear in any “billing records” of Wasilla police department, no matter how extensive.
In that sort of situation no bill by Wasilla is generated, yet the patient is stuck with it all the same. ( though It would seem more likely she would be referred to a victims compensation fund.)
You go on to emphasize the availability of victims compensation from a fund with a reputation for liberality prior to the 2000 law; that victims were always made aware of this method of handling a bill from a hospital is another question.
Palin might have thought that permitting victims, or some collateral source of payment they might have, to pay for forensic tests was reasonable. I would hope she would not excuse it. But I've seen no evidence she actually gave the matter much or any thought other than to sign off on the local pd budget.
I've actually heard some embarassing excuses in knee-jerk defense of the practice of billing crime victims for forensic examinations or collection of physical evidence. I really don't want to hear Palin make them.
The turfing of distortions of the rape-kit situation in Wasilla to smear Palin, is obvious to me. But she will be asked what she knew about the situation.
Posted by: SarahW at September 23, 2008 08:05 AM (7sl9X)
I mean, there is a financial crisis on...
Posted by: Vuk at September 23, 2008 09:16 AM (6nn2S)
I don't have time to do any more research right now, but it seems like an enterprising party interested in the truth about this issue might be able to determine whether Ms. Goode still works at the Frontiersman, or has an email address, etc.
Posted by: vox at September 23, 2008 09:43 AM (ptKf/)
There's no "of course the taxpayer should pay for it about it." First of all, the police don't dust for fingerprints in a burglary, at least not where I live (the people's republic of Obama). They didn't even look at my apartment when it was broken into.
The family of a murder victim usually does have to pay someone to investigate if the murder is ever to be solved--and quite often have to pay to defend themselves from the police, who seldom look outside the family for perpetrators. They never bothered to investigate my brother-in-law's murder. That was in Ohio.
You should look at vox's point. It's true.
The fact is that often crime victims DO have to pay costs associated with these crimes. Why should rape be any different?
There is also another, more important point here. The "rape kit" is NOT a police procedure. It's a hospital procedure. That in itself drives the costs up. The taxpayer isn't paying only for the investigation of a crime, but for hospital overhead as well. Why should that be? It shouldn't.
BTW, you may find it difficult for people to take you seriously when you begin a post with "you idiot."
Posted by: Trish at September 23, 2008 10:36 AM (pAgvx)
Posted by: NC Female at September 23, 2008 11:57 AM (tzsBY)
Posted by: SarahW at September 23, 2008 12:14 PM (7sl9X)
2. Now I work in the legal field .. and yes, one must pay an investigator to collect evidence for a crime or to prove innocence. Because investigators like to eat, own homes, and a few even like to use a car in their work.
Come on, people ... these facts have nothing to do with Dems, Reps, libtards, etcccccccccetera ... this is how capitalism works .. this is basic life stuff. Maybe someday we'll institute the barter system again and a woman can, say, trade coming in to clean the hospital room or office in order to get a rape kit to defend her rights. As for me, if I needed a rape kit, I'd be quite ammenable to purchasing one in order to nail the bastard ....
nuff said
Posted by: atmosfire at September 23, 2008 01:08 PM (VaETX)
2. Now I work in the legal field .. and yes, one must pay an investigator to collect evidence for a crime or to prove innocence. Because investigators like to eat, own homes, and a few even like to use a car in their work.
Come on, people ... these facts have nothing to do with Dems, Reps, libtards, etcccccccccetera ... this is how capitalism works .. this is basic life stuff. Maybe someday we'll institute the barter system again and a woman can, say, trade coming in to clean the hospital room or office in order to get a rape kit to defend her rights. As for me, if I needed a rape kit, I'd be quite ammenable to purchasing one in order to nail the bastard ....
But just so you know ... at the hospital I worked at, if the woman was penniless, the staff paid for the kit through a fund we all contributed to monthly that also provided medications for children of families that didn't have the money to buy.
nuff said
Posted by: atmosfire at September 23, 2008 01:11 PM (VaETX)
Unfortunately for you, NC Female, nowhere in the budget does it have a specific line for "rape kits".
What has happened is that leftists like yourself, in a desperate attempt to smear Palin, glommed on to an undefined line item and claimed that it was for rape kits -- and that, since it was cut, Palin was charging victims for rape kits.
In short, you don't have a leg on which to stand. And as far as people from North Carolina talking about rape, we should remember that North Carolina Democrats define rape as when a white man is accused without evidence by a drunk and drugged-out black prostitute and the local DA sees an opportunity to manipulate the black community into voting for him.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 23, 2008 01:40 PM (E3Yxq)
"While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests."
Can't find the actual bills? Victims have moved - or been quietly told to shut up if they know what's good for them? Then it didn't happen! Ergo, this is a phony smear!
Ah, Wingnut Logic in action.
You've already closed comments on your prior lame post & redirected to this just-as-lame one, since a surplus of lucid comments there quickly blew a big gaping hole in your bogus angle. Are you ever going to get tired of being proven wrong over & over & over again? My guess is no.
"(1). From previous experience, I can tell you that Skylark is incapable of ever admitting defeat, and will keep trolling merrily away, and;
(2). Knowing that, I banned them both."
Translation: don't you dare pwn me on my own blog, or you shall be banished from my magic kingdom. Both childish & comical - as is the comment from someone who's bawwwwing about their precious tax money going to pay for silly frills, like rape kits. But at least you're consistent with the whole neocon "we create our own reality" theme.
As mentioned before - PLEASE, keep posting more of your "insights" on this topic, & watch as ALL the facts of the matter come to light - don't forget to discredit & harass the people (especially the rape-victims themselves) who can conclusively disprove your BS (after all, as Good Americans like Beck & Malkin will tell you, that's half the fun) ... hey, maybe you CAN dig your way out of this hole, if you just dig FAST enough!
LOL
Posted by: jim at September 23, 2008 01:54 PM (Kyveh)
Well of course! That's why to this day, despite the venerable army of Obama smear merchants who descended upon Wasilla looking to dig up dirt on Sarah, NO ONE has been able to find a single instance or anyone being charged for a rape kit. NOT ONE. Nothing in the city financial department records, nothing in the PD records, nothing in city council meeting minutes, no witnesses, no complaint....NOTHING.
But that lack of proof and lack of evidence certainly doesn't stop folks like Jim from perpetrating the rape kit SMEAR against Sarah, though, eh folks?
Hey Jim, speaking of holes, it looks like your forgot the first rule about them....when you find yourself in one, STOP DIGGING.
ROTFL
Posted by: vox at September 23, 2008 02:44 PM (ptKf/)
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 23, 2008 04:39 PM (i/fLn)
A rape kit is not medical treatment. It is not for the benefit of the victim. It is for the benefit of the public. It is a means of gathering evidence for use in a trial against the rapist.
Charging victims (or their insurance companies) for their own rape investigation has got to be the most penny-wise and pound foolish thing you could imagine. All it does is lead to less victims reporting rapes.
Obviously the hospital needs to be paid. The law enforcement agency requesting the kit needs to pay for it.
Catching rapists is in the public's interest. The public should therefore pay the costs associated with catching these criminals.
Do we really want to discourage rape victims from going to the hospital and helping us catch rapists because they may be forced to pay for their rape kit?
Posted by: seattle slough at September 23, 2008 06:21 PM (H5l9d)
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 23, 2008 07:10 PM (i/fLn)
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at September 23, 2008 08:03 PM (VmXnH)
If a victim want's to do her own private investigation, I suppose he could pay for her own private investigator and evidence gathering experts.
But it's almost ridiculous to argue that forensic evidence collection, which would not be done at all except to catch and prosecute criminals attacking members of the community, ( and which will be maintained, processed and detroyed at the whim of law enforcement authorities, not the property of the victim) should be charged to a victim or some collateral source of reimbursement maintained by the victim.
The crime may have a victim, but the criminal will be charged as comitting a crime against the people. It would be the same thing as charging the estate of a murder victim for the autopsy or the collection of nail scrapings and bodily fluids or dental impressions.
I don't know where people get the fool idea that the rape kit is medical treatment of the victim.
Many victims of violent crimes have available to them sources of reimbursement of compensation for losses experienced as a result of crime. However, the rape-kit should never be lumped in with those kinds of losses.
This kit and the time and expertise required to collect the evidence put into it is for the benefit of the community at large, for the capture and conviction of a violator of its laws.
Posted by: SarahW at September 24, 2008 10:38 AM (7sl9X)
If a victim want's to do her own private investigation, I suppose he/she could pay for his/her own private investigator and evidence gathering experts.
But it's almost ridiculous to argue that forensic evidence collection, which would not be done at all except to catch and prosecute criminals attacking members of the community, ( and which will be maintained, processed and detroyed at the whim of law enforcement authorities, not the property of the victim) should be charged to a victim or some collateral source of reimbursement maintained by the victim.
The crime may have a victim, but the criminal will be charged as comitting a crime against the people. It would be the same thing as charging the estate of a murder victim for the autopsy or the collection of nail scrapings and bodily fluids or dental impressions, &tc.
I don't know where people get the fool idea that the rape kit is medical treatment of the victim.
Many victims of violent crimes have available to them sources of reimbursement of compensation for losses experienced as a result of crime. However, the rape-kit should never be lumped in with those kinds of losses.
This kit and the time and expertise required soley to collect the evidence put into it is for the benefit of the community at large, for the capture and conviction of a violator of its laws.
Posted by: SarahW at September 24, 2008 10:40 AM (7sl9X)
Posted by: THS at September 24, 2008 11:10 AM (9QZWj)
Thank you. Seems as if noone has a soul around here.
"And as far as people from North Carolina talking about rape, we should remember that North Carolina Democrats define rape as when a white man is accused without evidence by a drunk and drugged-out black prostitute and the local DA sees an opportunity to manipulate the black community into voting for him"
Do yall respect this guy? Way to rep Dallas and conservatives
Posted by: poot at September 24, 2008 12:36 PM (lcg/8)
Posted by: Sandra at September 24, 2008 01:09 PM (GJCbw)
Of course, y'all realize that stereotyping and berating ALL liberals for their vicious, stupid, vile name-calling is exactly what liberals say about conservatives. What are the odds that either group is completely right? Though I have been guilty of exactly that same lumping together of people, I think it serves no one but America's enemies when we spend endless time trying to figure out which group or party is less mature or less truthful.
Politicians lie. Obama's a politican. Palin is too. So's McCain. And Biden. They all have lied, and not just for higher principles, I'm sure, but also to get elected and for expediency. They have all, odds are, betrayed the public trust they wield at some point because it's almost impossible in positions of great power NOT to (remember: McCain was involved in the Savings & Loan crisis of the 80s). I'm not saying Republicans are particularly corrupt or inveterate liars: some are, some aren't, some are as bad as liberals, some are as good as liberals, because anyone who doesn't think there is a large preponderance of jackholes in both political parties is charmingly if hopelessly naive or simply deluded.
Despite the fact that I don't think Obama is liberal ENOUGH, I think politics *should* be based on facts. Now knowing them, I stand corrected. It doesn't change the fact that I think Palin is uniquely unqualified (an argument for another time) -- though it's worth mentioning that by many Republican's standards from before she was nominated, she's unqualified as well. They changed their tune...
Since we're truth-seekers here, I leave you with this from moderate conservative blogger Rachel Larrimore at Slate -- which I can't link to, or even write out the link to, even though she agrees with CY and brought me here, because it's called "questionable content"! Way to be open to honest differences of opinion...
"Some conservative bloggers are trying to play "gotcha" and point out that Barack Obama co-sponsored a bill in the Illinois state senate that provides state money to cover services provided to victims who have neither state aid or insurance, meaning that Illinois also tries to get insurance companies to pay up, just like little ol' Wasilla. Best I can tell from my rudimentary reading of the Illinois code, Obama co-sponsored an amendment to existing legislation that already had the insurance clause in there, and the amendment had nothing to do with rape kits. So, I'm not going to engage in gotcha-ism. We could play that game all day long."
Posted by: J at September 24, 2008 04:36 PM (m8YuZ)
For the same reason you have pay for the investigation and prosecution of every other crime, you galactic imbecile. What's unique about rape?
Posted by: Mark C at September 24, 2008 07:26 PM (f9GYd)
You and this ridiculous site are missing the point; Sarah Palin didn't want the taxpayers to pay for forensic rape kits. Her fundamentalist beliefs prevent her from allowing emergency contraception (NOT an abortion pill so don't confuse the two)to be offered to the victims. THAT is why she would not pay for the kits.
IT's THE POLICY, STUPID!
Posted by: Kelly at September 24, 2008 11:31 PM (Xgj1D)
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt
Sure the police can't find any "evidence" now, but given the fact that Palin would have no problems demanding that such records be destroyed, I'm not surprised (plus it's an embarrassment to the police dept now, and of course police never do cover-ups). I'd be more surprised if proof was still laying around.
From the article: "While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.
Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.
In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said."
Posted by: Kenneth at September 26, 2008 09:33 AM (XCrD8)
Posted by: Diane Gordon at September 26, 2008 02:41 PM (VR1gh)
I was so struck that I went to the Illinois website address given by Vox and discovered that the offending language was fist promulgated as P.A. 85-571 in the 1987-88 Legislative Session. Since Obama did not join the State Senate until 1997, it is a little difficult to see how he could have sponsored it.
That he did not correct the legislation when he was a Senator is a fault -- but a long way short of being nailed as "co-sponsor".
Posted by: Xov at September 28, 2008 07:21 PM (Z8gCM)
Pelosi, Dems Attempt to Cement "Worse Congress Ever" Legacy
After failing their effort to flee the field last week regarding the nation's financial crisis, the liberal Democratic leadership took another step towards record mediocrity today, when it was discovered they were trying to sneak in an extension to the ban on offshore drilling:
Pelosi and House Democrats are attempting this even as oil prices are skyrocketing.
"Since the Democrats took control of Congress, Americans have seen prices at the pump increase by 75 percent. Americans watched as Democrats, led by Speaker Pelosi, took a five-week vacation this summer while they suffered. Americans also watched as Democrats brought a hoax, no energy-energy bill to the floor last week. And today, Americans watch as Democrats prevent access to American energy in a bill designed to keep the government functioning. Once again, when it comes to providing solutions to help lower fuel prices for Americans, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats are more out of tune than a rusty piano. "Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have made clear their desire to appease environmental extremists while fooling the American people into thinking that they support Republican efforts to open up America’s energy resources."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:15 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
I wish they would shut it down and let Wall Street fend for itself.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at September 22, 2008 07:57 PM (R7LgM)
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at September 22, 2008 09:42 PM (Qv1xF)
*George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.*
*A little over one year ago
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) Americans were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!
But Americans wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right.
In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low – $2.5 TRILLION HAS EVAPORATED FROM
THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED20FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! ....*
REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.*
AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.*
NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!! "
JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YO U CAN STAND?
"In God We Trust"
Post stolen from another blog, forgot to get the blog name.
Posted by: Scrapiron at September 22, 2008 11:54 PM (I4yBD)
Posted by: cmblake6 at September 23, 2008 12:37 AM (QSVQf)
It's about time people start realizing what this Democrapic congress is all about.
Posted by: WeBearArms at September 23, 2008 06:04 AM (sPxmU)
Were Rape Victims Billed in Wasilla, Or is This Just More Astroturfing?
Wasilla, Alaska got it's first full-time police force in 1993, when eight uniformed officers formed the city's "thin blue line." More than a decade later, the small-town police force has tripled in size, to 24 commissioned officers.
As with small town police forces everywhere, the majority of the WPD's work involves motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), petty theft (larceny), and DWIs. WPD also deals with sexual assaults. CNN reports this morning that Palin's town charged women for rape exams, the latest in a series of media accounts dealing with the charges. The account is true enough, in that that Wasilla was one of several small Alaskan police forces with limited budgets that found it difficult to deal with the cost of forensic medical examinations. Wasilla had a policy of allowing the City to bill victims (or more likely, their insurers) for rape kits, which can cost up ot $1,000. The policies allowing billing the victims in these small towns was finally outlawed by the state in 2000. Palin was mayor of Wasilla from 1996 until the time the state law (AS 18.68.040) banned the practice of charging victims August 12, 2000. We also know, via contact with the Wasilla City Clerk, that there were no rape kits charged to victims or insurers in fiscal 2000 (their computerized system only goes back that far), meaning that there is only the possibility of the unknown number of rapes in the 49 (or less) sexual assaults prior to the beginning of fiscal 2000 in mid-1999. From the beginning of 1996 until the end of 2000, there were 49 reported sexual assaults in Wasilla, which "includes all associated sex crimes." Of those 49 (or less) sexual assaults, we don't how many were rapes, or how many of those rapes required rape kits for which the city billed the victims. The current Wasilla Police Chief Angela Long, responded via City Clerk Kristie Smithers that:The Wasilla City Finance Department can't provide us with much of anything useful, but the Police Chief seems to state that the Police Department records don't show any evidence that any victims were billed. I'm attempting to clarify if that means that no rape victims were ever billed for rapes in Wasilla from 1996 to mid-1999 (the 2000-2002 data is irrelevant) despite the fact then Police Chief Charlie Fannon reserved the right to do so, but Fannon has declined multiple media requests for comment, and I doubt he'll start with me. At the same time, current Police Chief Long's statement of, "A review of files and case reports within the Wasilla Police Department has found no record of sexual assault victims being billed for forensic exams" would seem to stand on it's own, would it not? If current Police Chief Long's information is correct, then Mayor Palin didn't know that rape victims were charged for rape kits, because none were. If that is indeed the case (and I'm not 100% sure that it is), why, then, is this story about nothing even making the rounds, and where did it come from? The entire "scandal" seems to have been manufactured around September 9, when stories began to run through the progressive blogosphere, seemingly out of nowhere. Far left Americablog was the most-linked source, and he credits a small blog called Stop All Monsters. The blog, features a tagline of "A blog dedicated to rooting out and stopping all monsters. Sarah Palin, for instance," has only been in existence since July, and is written by a character who claims to be a writer/stand-up comedian based in Los Angeles. And while it is merely speculation, given current events and the way this meme spread from an obscure blog to the mainstream media in a matter of days, it may be fair to ask if the author has any ties with Winner & Associates and "astroturfing" expert David Axelrod of the Barack Obama campaign.
The Finance Department searched all financial records on our system for fiscal year 2000, 2001 and 2002. There are no records of billings to or collections from rape victims or their insurance companies in our system. The financial computer system goes back to the beginning of fiscal year 2000, and accounts receivable backup documentation goes back six (6) years per our records retention schedule. A review of files and case reports within the Wasilla Police Department has found no record of sexual assault victims being billed for forensic exams. State law AS 18.68.040, which was effective August 12, 2000, would have prohibited any such billings after that date.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:30 AM | Comments (53) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 22, 2008 01:58 PM (kNqJV)
Wouldn't this have raised some stink in the town at the time? Shouldn't there be some evidence that someone complained if this was happening? Stories in the local paper? Minutes of city council meetings?
Supposedly, the fact that it was going on specifically in Wasailla is what prompted the state law change, but was that because the police tried to collect money from someone, or did someone read the city law and decide to change it?
Posted by: Eirik at September 22, 2008 02:58 PM (f86n7)
Posted by: DanG at September 22, 2008 03:04 PM (Rar7Y)
Posted by: Larry W at September 22, 2008 03:16 PM (k7DZ1)
More Palin smears.
*YAWN*
Posted by: Vox at September 22, 2008 03:21 PM (ptKf/)
It certainly has the look of a Winner type attack. my guess is the tracks on this one are already being erased.
Posted by: chris at September 22, 2008 03:23 PM (J+X4j)
It doesn't matter if there is any truth in it.
It doesn't matter whether Palin knew anything about it.
All that matters is the charge has been made and give the full PR treatment (see The Jawa Report").
We don't get truth. We get what we need to know.
Get used to it.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at September 22, 2008 03:29 PM (OmeRL)
We don't get truth. We get what we need to know.
Get used to it.
The fact that we're talking about it means we don't intend to.
Posted by: Jim Treacher at September 22, 2008 03:34 PM (NV3P1)
"Knowles signs sexual assault bill"
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.tx
the Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon gives a good idea as to how much not charging the victims would cost.
"According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases."
If you assume the cost per kit to be between $300 to $1200, that means that there were somewhere between 4 and 45 cases that they anticipated in the next year. If you take an average, it looked like they anticipated billing 10 folks. Sounds high to me for a city of 5 to 10,000, but you have to remember that the rape rate is 2.5 times higher in Alaska than in the rest of the United States.
Try going in with those numbers and see what info you can dig up. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: ted at September 22, 2008 03:45 PM (8s9tr)
LAUREE HUGONIN, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, came forward to testify. She clarified that
while it may be true that Deputy Commissioner Smith may not have found an instance where law enforcement has forwarded a bill, hospitals have. It has happened in the Mat-Su Valley [skylark note: includes Wasilla], on the
Kenai Peninsula, and in Southeast, and that is why the bill is being brought forward.
3/23/2000 comm. hearing, HR 270
While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.
5/22/2000 Frontiersman, Wasilla, AK
In the past, we've charged the cost of exams to the victims' insurance company when possible," then-chief Charlie Fannon told the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, the local newspaper. "I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer."
. . .
Until the 2000 legislation, local law enforcement agencies in Alaska could pass along the cost of the exams, which are needed to obtain an attacker's DNA evidence. Rape victims in several areas of Alaska, including the Matanuska-Susitna Valley where Wasilla is, complained about being charged for the tests, victims' advocate Lauree Hugonin, of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, told state House committees, records show.
In cases when insurance companies are billed, the victims pay a deductible.
. . .
It is not known how many rape victims in Wasilla were required to pay for some or all of the medical exams, but a legislative staffer who worked on the bill for Croft said it happened. "It was more than a couple of cases, and it was standard practice in Wasilla," Peggy Wilcox said, who now works for the Alaska Public Employees Association. "If you were raped in Wasilla, this was going to happen to you."
USA Today
I sat with a rape victim during the "harvesting of evidence". Mascara smeared eyes stared blankly out from a cave of shame. "We've got swimmers," announced the forensic tech in the lab next door. My friend didn't look surprised. In her 60's, she was still asked if she felt the need for emergency contraception. Surviving the process would have only been compounded and made worse with an itemized bill; victimized twice courtesy of Sarah Palin and the city of Wasilla.
Via USA Today
Posted by: skylark at September 22, 2008 04:56 PM (xhOJQ)
So the source for this is the union rep for the public employees union, who according to Google, also happens to be a member of the teacher's union. I wonder who she supports for president?
Posted by: DanG at September 22, 2008 05:17 PM (Rar7Y)
And her comment is backed up by the minutes of the committee hearing on the bill. Not to mention the word of the former police chief himself.
Posted by: skylark at September 22, 2008 05:36 PM (xhOJQ)
Posted by: skylark at September 22, 2008 05:39 PM (xhOJQ)
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 22, 2008 06:11 PM (i/fLn)
With all the outrage (that supposedly took place at the time) one would think the left, with their mo' better edumacshuns and top notch google foo, could produce at least an account from the late 90's.
Posted by: phineas g. at September 22, 2008 06:21 PM (oN769)
They need specifics and need to try harder.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 22, 2008 06:33 PM (i/fLn)
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_single_minute.asp?ch=H&beg_line=0317&end_line=0714&session=21&comm=STA&date=20000309&time=0820
The minutes are enlightening and conclusive. Wasilla Police Chief Fannon was, at worst, telling the hospitals at which the rape exams were conducted to bill the victims' insurance companies, which appears to be corroborated by the 2000 Frontiersman story quoting him. But the victims themselves were at no time being charged directly by any police department in the State of Alaska, Wasilla included - this is confirmed in the committee minutes by both Del Smith, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Public Safety, and Lauree Hugonin, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA). We learn the true culprit (as to why some rape victims in Alaska "sporadically" received bills related to their rape exams) was the hospitals - specifically, changes in accounting procedures used by the hospitals in relation to billing insurance companies for rape exams. According to TRISHA GENTLE, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault, some Alaska hospitals "have chosen to separate some of the costs of sexual assault exams. Hospitals are adding sexually transmitted disease (STD) and blood tests to the cost of sexual assault exams, and the hospital makes a choice to bill the victim for those charges. Police departments are willing to pay for sexual assault exams, but it is an internal decision on the part of the hospital as to who pays the hospital bill." Read the whole minutes of that committee meeting as linked above - some key excerpts are copied below. The minutes from every other meeting on this bill are at http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_minutes.asp?chamb=B&date1=010181&date2=120180&session=21&Root=HB270 and they all tell the same story, which completely exonerates Palin from the bogus media headlines that she "charged victims for rape exams." Get this out there, quick!!!!!
"DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety,
testified in support of HB 270. He noted that it has always been
the position and practice of law enforcement to pay for the
collection of forensic evidence in support of a criminal
prosecution. Under no circumstances, he explained, has he ever
thought it appropriate to bill a victim or even by extension bill
the victim's insurance company. He commented that he does not
think that a victim ought to even see a bill related to sexual
assault whether it is on their insurance form or not. He
emphasized that a police agency investigating a crime should pay
because that is the cost of doing business in the collection of
evidence no matter what the crime; he does not know of any police
agency that has requested payment. The Department of Public
Safety paid $48,659 in fiscal year (FY) 1999 for sexual assault
exams in the state, and so far in FY 2000 the department has paid
$22,880. He indicated that paying for exams had never been an
issue in the department or in the Anchorage Police Department.
He reiterated Representative Croft's comment that Alaska Cares
handles juvenile sexual assault exams, and the department is
pleased with the proposed CS because it leaves payment of
juvenile exams with Alaska Cares.....
CHAIR JAMES asked if she understood correctly that Mr. Smith is
saying that the department has never billed a victim for exams.
MR. SMITH replied that the department might have been billed, but
he has not found any police agency that has ever billed a victim.
CHAIR JAMES said she understood then that some other entity
billed victims and that the department did not think HB 270 was
necessary for the department.
MR. SMITH answered that he did not think HB 270 was necessary for
the Department of Public Safety under the current administration,
but he would feel more comfortable if there were a law that would
make sure sexual exam billings were discontinued.
LAUREE HUGONIN, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), ..... emphasized that it is incomprehensible that the
victim should have to relive the crime upon receiving a bill for
the assault exam from his/her insurance company. Just as Mr.
Smith had testified, billings have not come from police agencies
but have come from hospitals. She hopes everything can be done
to expedite the proposed CS because people must understand that
it is not acceptable for the system to re-victimize someone who
has gone through such a horrible experience.
TRISHA GENTLE, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence &
Sexual Assault, testified in support of HB 270. She said that
the council believes that the proposed CS needs to be on the
record so that when those rare situations do arise, hospitals and
police officers have clear direction not to charge sexual assault
victims for the exam. She noted that in those cases when a
victim wants an exam but the police do not think it is justified,
the victim can get a medical exam. She explained that a forensic
exam is a very specific process; in most parts of the state there
are sexual assault response teams available to cooperate with
police. She explained that sexual assault response teams are
made up of trained nurses, examiners, and advocates who are able
to meet with a victim. She acknowledged that there are times
when a victim is not sure he/she wants to go through with a
forensic exam, but he/she has health concerns so instead of going
through a forensic exam he/she chooses to go to a doctor for a
medical exam.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he understood that a medical exam choice
on the part of a victim is a personal choice and would not be
affected by the proposed CS.
MS. GENTLE agreed with Representative Ogan's statement and added
that the victim's exam would not be identified as a sexual
assault exam.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented he is puzzled as to why hospitals
are sending bills to victims when the exam has obviously been
ordered by a local police department.
MS. GENTLE answered that there have been changes in hospital
protocol, and hospitals have chosen to separate some of the costs
of sexual assault exams. Hospitals are adding sexually
transmitted disease (STD) and blood tests to the cost of sexual
assault exams, and the hospital makes a choice to bill the victim
for those charges. Police departments are willing to pay for
sexual assault exams, but it is an internal decision on the part
of the hospital as to who pays the hospital bill. She indicated
that there is an issue of insensitivity."
Posted by: Peter Melaragno at September 22, 2008 07:02 PM (HX9cH)
Posted by: Magic Dog at September 22, 2008 07:08 PM (DMHwf)
The statistics for sexual assaults reported by the Wasilla Police Department between 1994 and 2007 can be found at the city website. For some reason the spamblocker won't let me post the link directly (I'll keep trying), but you can probably pull it up by running a Google search for "City of Wasilla" and "crime statistics."
Aside from the fact that the billing practice was reported as fact by the Wasilla paper at the time, when one of those "oral recollections" is by the police chief himself, I'd take it as pretty accurate.
Posted by: skylark at September 22, 2008 07:12 PM (xhOJQ)
We don't know if any eyewitness accounts were given with the documentation to the committees hearing the bill, but we do know that the sexual violence advocates speaking to the committee reported on these accounts, and specifically the fact that hospitals in the Wasilla area did forward the bills to the victims and their insurance companies.
On the other hand, the police chief of Wasilla is on record as saying it was the practice at the time. That's pretty much "eyewitness" too.
Posted by: skylark at September 22, 2008 07:18 PM (xhOJQ)
Look at how artfully it was phrased to begin with -- that no one's ever been billed, therefore it was a phony issue. Phony enough, of course, for the state legislature to outlaw the practice.
But skylark, I'm telling you -- forget it! Never stand between a wingnut and his talking point!
Posted by: Magic Dog at September 22, 2008 07:19 PM (DMHwf)
Posted by: Mike at September 22, 2008 07:20 PM (Ekw1n)
You really MUST get past your obsession with facts!
Posted by: Magic Dog at September 22, 2008 07:22 PM (DMHwf)
If I was trying to "hide the ball" I wouldn't have posted the link to the committee hearing minutes, would I?
I posted the quote from the sexual assault advocate to point out that - contrary to what Bob Owens implies - the fact that police agencies don't show records for billing victims doesn't mean the hospitals weren't sending those bills.
Yes, insurance companies were billed. But as pointed out in the committee hearings, the victim herself or himself often received the bill first. In addition, the victim had to pay the insurance deductible. The committee members were quite clear that they understood this and it was their intent to spare the victim having to deal with this.
The portions you are posting from the hearing minutes say that it was generally the practice in the state for law enforcement agencies to pick up the tab for the testing. However, it was also a fact that the Wasilla police department did not pick up that tab.
And the police chief of Wasilla made that perfectly clear in his statement. And in fact, he even said insurance companies were billed "when possible," whatever that means.
(I don't see where it says what happened when the victim wasn't insured.)
Posted by: skylark at September 22, 2008 07:29 PM (xhOJQ)
We'll get some of our friends to find out of these so-called "rape victims" were really rape victims at all. I doubt they were. They were probably promiscuous Obama supporters, as usual begging for a handout. Isn't pathetic how they'll do anything to make the government spend money, even if its for a free vaginal swab?
C'mon, government money should go where it belongs: To bail out Wall Street when their bets go bad! Rape "victims?" What the hell were they doing outside anyway?
Posted by: Magic Dog at September 22, 2008 07:31 PM (DMHwf)
You really MUST get past your obsession with facts!
Posted by Magic Dog at September 22, 2008 07:22 PM
I seem to have confused at least one commenter by doing so.
Posted by: skylark at September 22, 2008 07:32 PM (xhOJQ)
Posted by: skylark at September 22, 2008 07:33 PM (xhOJQ)
Yacht makers are going to go out of business, and you are moaning about so-called rape "victims" in Alaska who are probably Democratic, alcoholic whores?
Posted by: Magic Dog at September 22, 2008 07:37 PM (DMHwf)
What exactly is the meta-narrative we're supposed to take away from this? Are you saying Palin has no respect or sympathy for rape victims? Are you saying she's some neo-Christo crypto-fascist who thinks rape victims are getting God's will? What picture are you trying to paint because it's coming across pretty weak. It seems more like you're making a big deal over small town budgets and hoping we'll be repulsed about some--thing unsaid.
Is it regrettable? Yes. Is it a disqualifier for VP? Perhaps, if it were motivated by contempt or spite but this is Sarah Palin. She vetoed an AK bill barring benefits to same-sex couples after the AKSC ruled the denial unconstitutional. She vetoed the legislature's end-run because she said it violated her oath of office to uphold the state constitution. Even though her religion tells her homosexuality is wrong she sets aside personal feelings to operate within the law.
So what are Skylark and Magic Dog trying to say?
Posted by: Mr Snuggle Bunny at September 22, 2008 07:51 PM (Q/ZWV)
Unfortunately, Skylark, you claimed that the police department was directly billing women for rape kits.
Now that that's been exposed as a flat-out lie by the very committee minutes you cited, you're trying to argue that a hospital billing an insurance company for additional tests is the same thing.
If I was trying to "hide the ball" I wouldn't have posted the link to the committee hearing minutes, would I?
Of course, being a typical Obama supporter, you didn't bother to read your talking points prior to citing them; you just assumed that everyone else would be as intellectually lazy as you are.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 22, 2008 07:53 PM (E3Yxq)
http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/
I think we're up to 92 or so now - see the main page...
http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/
Posted by: JinnyB at September 22, 2008 07:55 PM (a/aIV)
Put bluntly, Skylark, you and your fellow Obama supporters have an amazing amount of time to draw convoluted webs trying to link Palin to things that happened nearly a decade ago....but seemingly have nothing to say about the Obama campaign paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to organizations that are turning in scores of fraudulent voter registrations that could be used to cast votes illegally right now.
But that's because you fully endorse and support voter fraud.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 22, 2008 08:02 PM (E3Yxq)
Posted by: phineas g. at September 22, 2008 06:21 PM
About Wasilla ? WTF kind of drugs are you on chump ?
Are you in Tibet or is there nothing stopping you firing up google yourself and failing to find anything suggesting that Wasilla existed in the 1990s ?
You'd almost be surprised to find someone complaining about people only talking about Wasilla AK in the context of Sarah Palin. But then you'd be underestimating the size of the internet and its ability to connect the stupid to the tubes.
Posted by: Kilo at September 22, 2008 08:18 PM (uVNS1)
At the time most of these instances happened, 1985-2000, the tests were some of the most expensive that could be performed as part of an investigation of a crime. Rape is little reported and even when reported, not prosecuted in every case. In some jurisdictions the victim is required to assent to prosecution, and some refuse.
I do not blame cash strapped police departments for looking at testing that is both expensive and worthless. In some places lost hikers are charged the costs of their rescue. In civil trials, if you lose you may be assessed the costs to the other side of the trial.
Society has changed its perspective and in nearly every state, and under Federal law, the government now pays the costs of a rape exam. It wasn't always so and Sarah Palin has nothing to do with the topic.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins at September 22, 2008 08:31 PM (X1w6y)
A May 23, 2000, article in Wasilla's newspaper, The Frontiersman, noted that Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies regularly pay for such exams, which cost between $300 and $1,200 apiece.
"(But) the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests," the newspaper reported.
It also quoted Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon objecting to the law. Fannon was appointed to his position by Palin after her dismissal of the previous police chief. He said it would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year if the city had to foot the bill for rape exams.
"In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims' insurance company when possible," Fannon told the newspaper. "I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer."
Ruh-roh gang! Maybe do a Lexis search before playing reporter next time?
Posted by: vaskeli at September 22, 2008 08:52 PM (45ZKL)
Posted by: Rachel Cohen at September 22, 2008 08:59 PM (LShk5)
Unfortunately they no longer maintain records from 1996 until the last groupd of relevent maintained records in 2000 ( the period before forensic kits were non-billable items).
That is three years, for which there are no billing records.
If victims or private insurance was billed for the forensic kits, they have no way to tell you.
If Palin had or didn't have direct understanding of the practice, or perhaps did not fully comprehend that it was police evidence the victims were charged for, not "treatment", I have no way of knowing and I hope she did not know.
Small cities strapped for cash try to recoup expenses where they can, but it doesn't make it right. It's really stealing to charge victims or private health insurers for evidence gathered only for the state's (governments) use.
I have bonafides, I really am a concerned conservative.
Posted by: SarahW at September 22, 2008 09:05 PM (7sl9X)
Fannon, quite simply, appears to have been wrong on what his department did, which is understandable, as chiefs aren't generally bookkeepers. A lot more information has just come in warranting more than an update. I'm closing this thread, and directing you to the new developments.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 22, 2008 09:09 PM (HcgFD)
RE: $700 Billion Bailout
I'm not an economist, and won't attempt to try to influence your opinion on the Wall Street meltdown, or the bailout proposal presently in the news. I'm simply not qualified to comment meaningfully on the subject in any way, shape, or form.
What I will suggest is that readers go to Memeorandum.com, and follow the economic stories being posted there, and carefully read related blog posts. Most of the bloggers, of course, don't have any more expertise on economic policy than I, and all they are doing is echoing "fears and peers;" reacting to their own biases and prejudices and echoing the blog posts of like-minded pundits. That said, there are some ideas and reservations worth considering come from both sides of the aisle when people stop pointing fingers long enough. Good luck, folks. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:18 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Dan Irving at September 22, 2008 09:41 AM (zw8QA)
Posted by: megapotamus at September 22, 2008 11:09 AM (LF+qW)
I don't understand how much of this panic is due to the bad mortgage paper accepted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Is this paper plus leverage the reason that so many banks are failing? That sounds plausible from what I have read so far: banks like Lehman had 14% of their assets with a real value -the value at which a hedge firm would purchase the asset-about 20-30% less than the book value. Which would mean, given the 30:1 leverage, that the bank was illiquid (bankrupt).
But even the crappy assets have value. Even though a house was foolishly sold to some schmuck who cannot pay, there still is a house underlying that paper. Probably at least 25% less in value on average, but still worth 75% as a group of the book value. So why does Paulson appear to be getting ready to purchase all this paper at book value? Do we, the taxpayer, really give a hoot if a player at Lehman gets stomped?
So what is going on here? Is the taxpayer just bailing out a bunch of financial types to protect them from both their own decisions and the decisions forced upon them via things like the Community Reinvestment Act? So is the Bush administration just covering (again) for Democrats?
Posted by: iconoclast at September 22, 2008 12:08 PM (ex0JG)
Pretending to advocate free markets the neocons and their government have been stealing from the middle class and the workers of your country to feed the wealthy, laundering money to oil profiteers, arms dealers, war contractors, utility giants ...
Now, as greed and fixation on the shareholders' value have run this barracuda-capitalism into collapse, the American (and many European) taxpayers have to pay the bill. The profiteers, whose taxes were minimized by Bush, have got what they wanted. - Not only this administration's foreign policy but also its handling of the economy turn out to be disastrous.
Posted by: he at September 22, 2008 01:02 PM (xjL3g)
The Bush administration, with respect to their spending habits, has been anything BUT conservative in action. Their foreign policy has been sufficient (and excellent in some) in most areas.
Posted by: Mark at September 22, 2008 01:22 PM (4od5C)
Posted by: crazy at September 22, 2008 02:30 PM (uTxK0)
Posted by: crazy at September 22, 2008 02:31 PM (uTxK0)
Sects, Lies, and Videotape
Led by The Jawa Report, a group of bloggers that has used their skillset to target, investigate, and bring down al Qaeda Web sites, Rusty Shackleford has posted research that has identified a Obama-connected public relations firm and it's employees as being behind the creation, uploading and publicizing of anti-Palin smear ads using proven-false smears and a technique called astroturfing, a technique perfected by Obama Campaign manager, David Axelrod.
Within an hour of the report, those named in it have feverishly begun trying to remove evidence, including deleting videos and accounts used in the astroturfing effort. I'm not a lawyer and won't pretend to know which campaign laws (if any) were broken, but it certainly appears that Barack Obama's campaign manager is involved if not orchestrating these efforts, and people have certainly gone to jail on far less evidence. Watch the story develop in the blogosphere at Memeorandum. Barack Obama's chickens may have finally come home to roost.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:53 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Jewel at September 22, 2008 08:00 AM (4wteF)
Short of a video showing The One directing this campaign, no one will pay any attention.
Posted by: iamnot at September 22, 2008 10:30 AM (onj4J)
Here is hoping those chickens coming home to roost will lay some stinky egg bombs on THE ONE and Axelrod. These guys are dirty and I believe by the time this is over THE ONE might be so damaged he will not be able to run for POTUS again.
Posted by: freeus at September 22, 2008 10:33 AM (zxRJP)
Today is unusual because there is so much bailout news but if you look at http://www.memeorandum.com/lb
Meme's Leaderboard
of the top 25 links 20 (including MSM which we know is in the tank for O) are clearly left, proO/antiMP. Only three (The Corner, Hot Air, Michelle Malkin) could be construed as proMP/antiO.
Why is Meme still treated as a reliable source?
Posted by: vpearce at September 22, 2008 11:18 AM (r0ISi)
Was I right? The Jawa Report is gone from Meme just in time for people to read it after work.
Posted by: vpearce at September 22, 2008 04:25 PM (S3QSl)
(Note: Not for the timid light reader)
The Trojan Candidate (Mr. Obama Exposed!)
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/
Vote McCain+Palin 2008!
Posted by: AdrianS at September 22, 2008 04:38 PM (jCf8R)
September 20, 2008
Huff-Po Writer Declares Imminent Coup; Openly Suggests Revolution
The imminent coup is coming from the Bush Crime Family, of course, and the revolution must come from left wing "patriots" if the Democratic Congress doesn't immediately begin impeachment proceedings.
No, I'm not kidding. She's serious as a heart attack:It doesn't appear that the most extreme elements of the far left are willing to risk the possibility of losing another election. I can only hope the lawful authorities are monitoring such enticements towards insurrection with all due seriousness, and find a nice, well-lit and cheery cell for those who require one. Update: In an update, Alexandrovna is furiously trying to claim that what she wrote didn't mean what she so clearly did, and claims I must be " near ready to call 911 and report me to the secret police," before snorting that I must be "taking heroine with his [my] coffee." Now not to brag, but yes, I've taken a heroine or two in my day. What I haven't done is get tanked on Smirnoff (or perhaps heroin) and angrily belched out that there should be an immediate impeachment, or else:
As I see it now, we have but two options and I have long alluded to hoping against hope that one of these options would not be the only one left to a peaceful people. The first and frankly most preferable option is for Congress to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against the members of this latest Business Plot. No time needs to be wasted on hearings as we already now have in writing, formally as presented to Congress, the intentions of this administration to nullify Congressional powers permanently, to alter Judicial powers permanently, and to openly steal public funds using as blackmail the total collapse of the US economy if these powers are not handed over. You do see how this is blackmail, do you not? You do see how this is a manufactured crisis precisely designed to be used as blackmail, do you not? The other option, the one I have long prayed we would never need to even consider, is a total revolution. But, If Congress won't act in its own self-defense, in the defense of democracy, in defense of us - the people who have elected them to protect us from this very danger - then what is left for us to do? I don't want to see it come down to this, but I fear that it will.
The other option, the one I have long prayed we would never need to even consider, is a total revolution.Words mean things, even if the writer later claims that they don't, and the thought of taking responsibility for those words becomes too much to bear.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:56 PM | Comments (232) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
It will be a short revolution but a merry one for those left standing.
Posted by: vanderleun at September 20, 2008 11:05 PM (s0k8A)
Posted by: Marcus at September 20, 2008 11:15 PM (C3YZD)
What's that got to do with a writer at Huffington Post soliciting a revolution? A short visit to HuffPo shows one conspiracy theory after another. It is virtually all they ever write about!
"Wingnut’s love talking about “connections” and allowing their readers to “draw the right conclusion” from whatever bile it is they’ve managed to cough up during the night."
The "bile" comes from a Lefttard post. And even an idiot like yourself can see the obvious connection.
"Once they’re out of office they’ll go back to being the mostly harmless but annoying cranks they’ve historically been."
And you are a buffoon! But that is obvious given your BS comment.
Posted by: SShiell at September 20, 2008 11:52 PM (2Jdky)
wtf, these ninnies can't pull 500 people at the conventions and burn a trash can without whining about the cops spraying them with tear gas.
Posted by: DaMav at September 21, 2008 12:25 AM (X2qWM)
These folks keep getting more whacked by the hour, but you're right, she needs a cell, and a padded one at that.
Posted by: Americanecon at September 21, 2008 02:01 AM (7iSwk)
Posted by: bwbandy at September 21, 2008 02:30 AM (gOGoA)
Posted by: Carolynp at September 21, 2008 02:31 AM (vTwLU)
Posted by: myiq2xu at September 21, 2008 04:49 AM (RaKtF)
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 21, 2008 06:17 AM (Vcyz0)
Posted by: Bill Smith at September 21, 2008 07:34 AM (ITo1P)
We are the dissidents and we see an out of control central government which has strayed from the Republic designed by our founders. We have the obligation and the right to attempt to help correct the ship of state as it falls into corruption and dictatorship. This massive bailout of financial institutions was totally preventable and was caused by the most fiscally irresponsible president in history(I won't capitalize the p for him).
Posted by: OctaviaA at September 21, 2008 07:56 AM (lgwyZ)
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Got it? The people who already flushed a couple trillion down the toilet, those same folks would now like another $700T, with no strings attached whatsoever. And of course, the draft says "$700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time", so it's open-ended.
So yeah....... some of us are quite pissed off. Aren't you? If not, why? I'm genuinely curious.
Posted by: montysano at September 21, 2008 07:57 AM (sTPjZ)
Posted by: Big Dan at September 21, 2008 08:13 AM (7i8Df)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 21, 2008 08:23 AM (kNqJV)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 21, 2008 08:28 AM (kNqJV)
"Well, if that's the case, why aren't you already behind barbed wire...and why am I not guarding you?"
Posted by: MarkJ at September 21, 2008 08:40 AM (IKzfP)
Yep. Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the right to preclude SCOTUS from having any judicial review in certain cases. But the folks at HuffPo have actually read the Constitution they would so readily take to the streets to defend, haven't they? I'd expect much shouting and stomping of feet when the revolution comes.
And maybe a drum circle, then we'd know they were serious.
Posted by: SamHall at September 21, 2008 09:59 AM (c14cm)
they can only screech "BUUUUUSHHHHH is coming to get MEEEEEEEE!!!!1111!!" for 4 more months before they become total loons.
Posted by: Techie at September 21, 2008 10:03 AM (vcDkn)
We are the dissidents and we see an out of control central government which has strayed from the Republic designed by our founders. We have the obligation and the right to attempt to help correct the ship of state as it falls into corruption and dictatorship. This massive bailout of financial institutions was totally preventable and was caused by the most fiscally irresponsible president in history(I won't capitalize the p for him).
Posted by: OctaviaA at September 21, 2008 07:56 AM
You misunderstand. I think we were all laughing at the thought of you actually doing anything other than screeching and whining about anything. If you want someone to talk to about your paranoid delusions, get a psychiatrist.
Posted by: Carolynp at September 21, 2008 10:12 AM (vTwLU)
Your own words condemn you. "Preventable?" Yes. There has, indeed, been corruption, but you are so uneducated, so agendized by the Left, and so DUMB that you cannot see what is right in front of your screeching face: it is your heroes who've been looting Fannie, and Freddie, and many other corrupt acts. Now, go paint your signs, your revolution awaits!!
HeeHee
Posted by: Bill Smith at September 21, 2008 10:37 AM (ITo1P)
It's funny how right-wing simpletons don't even have the basic intelligence required to understand what is happening. Let me explain it for you, since you are not well-equipped intellectually. The American taxpayer is now assuming responsibility for the for the liabilities column on Wall Street's balance sheet. Private profit. Public cost.
I'll leave it to you NASCAR fans to look up the definition of "balance sheet". No, you probably won't. Better to get drunk, watch NASCAR, and blindly wave the flag. Morons.
Posted by: Bill Hicks at September 21, 2008 10:46 AM (f5ENX)
Posted by: the elector of saxony at September 21, 2008 10:52 AM (5SkDk)
Hey, isn't that what community organizers do?
Posted by: Stoutcat at September 21, 2008 10:58 AM (MpuZY)
Just look at the baby food mishap in PRC - the official responsible will be given a show trial and shot. Compare that to the "punishment" doled out to Franklin Raines, James Johnson, and Jamie Gorelick. You tell me which system works.
Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at September 21, 2008 11:03 AM (4ZOxD)
Speaking of education (?), has anyone claiming this is grounds for a revolution ever studied history? Or been alive for more than a decade or two? This is a big bailout, but there have been taxpayer-funded bailouts before. So, what's REALLY bothering you guys?
Posted by: DoorHold at September 21, 2008 11:11 AM (mlM1l)
"You bet... they stink on ice!"
(with apologies to Mel Brooks)
Posted by: Big Country at September 21, 2008 11:20 AM (niydV)
A leader for the revolution has been found!
Bill H: HuffPo comments aside ... But that is what Bob is commenting on.
It's funny how right-wing simpletons don't even have the basic intelligence required to understand what is happening. Simpletons? If you cared to peruse the site, and perhaps most of the other "right-wing" sites you'd see a great deal of concern regarding just how disfunctional our federal government is. In fact, what is simplictic is a criticism of an invented subject based upon a post that doesn't even address that subject.
Posted by: bains at September 21, 2008 11:27 AM (AgNu2)
Posted by: Yikes McGee at September 21, 2008 11:33 AM (W+KJk)
Plus, we get to vote and our votes count just as much as your do. Doesn't that chap your ass?
See you at the barricades, Comrade!
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 21, 2008 11:40 AM (Vcyz0)
Posted by: twolaneflash at September 21, 2008 11:54 AM (05dZx)
Bill, this is hardly new. In fact, that's what got us into this mess. Fannie and Freddie had the implicit (and later explicit) backing of the federal government for their debts. I didn't see you bitching about it then. That backing fundamentally changed the market, forcing banks to seek business that they otherwise would have foregone. Business that results in loans made with a virtually certainty of default. How much money did Goerlick make? $26million? Where did Fannie and Freddie make their political contributions to?
You think we don't understand or care about this? We do. Some of us support the bailout plan and some don't. But just because we disagree, doesn't mean we are hayseeds that can't count past ten without taking off our shoes. I suspect there are quite a few small business owners here that know a balance sheet better than you do.
Posted by: XBradTC at September 21, 2008 12:03 PM (soV1p)
I have told people for more then three years the U.S. economy and dollar were on a straight trajectory for collapse. By mid 2007 we had passed the point of no return and what was left of the American economy and currency would fall because nothing would now be able to stop it. How did I know this? How is it thousands of us knew it and wrote about it?
We have 4000 years of monetary history that teaches us basic fundamentals; the laws of money. A dollar bill is not "money". It is not payment for anything; it is a promise to pay. Before Nixon took us off the gold standard our dollars had some real value but Nixon recreated them as a "fiat" currency; fiat currency is worthless and all fiat currency eventually returns to its original value which is zero; it's just a piece of paper.
I doubt anyone here has the patience for a complete history lesson so I will come to the point. I knew what would happen because I understand monetary history. If I know it then Greenspan, Bernanke and Paulson know it. Do understand? Nothing like this EVER happens by accident because the alternatives to fiscal safety are known. When those options are available and ignored it tells you this result is desired; this is being done quite deliberately.
Again, without an understanding of economics (particularly on a global scale), the People do not understand how the current finacial banking behavior (credit derivatives et. al.) enriches the few; the few who might be described as Big Money. Big Money would be the same people who own all the politicians and therefore control laws, regulations, banks, 98% of the mainstream media and money creation.
What we are actually observing is the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class into the pockets of Big Money in the history of the world. This is the biggest heist ever and this robbery is being conducted in broad daylight right under the noses of the public; people just like you, because you are ignorant of the facts and apparently too ideological or intellectually limited to research the reality we face.
This economic collapse is still in its early stages. The criminal government (well documented in the book "Constitution in Crisis)and criminal financial industry is issuing propaganda and desperately acting to prevent the public and investors from understanding the gravity of our situation at least until after the election farce has played itself out.
Judging by the level of comment on this page they will probably succeed. For those who are interested in reality you might study the information available from the Ludwig von Mises Institute homepage. Von Mises predicted all that is happening quite accurately and demonstrated, through the Austrian Business Cycle, the only way in which economies and currencies can remain stable.
I hope at least some of the people here come to their senses and stop taking potshots at the messengers attempting to communicate actual facts to the deeply propagandized and misguided majority of the public....good luck to us all
Posted by: bluenote at September 21, 2008 12:19 PM (BSw7E)
By the way, bluenote, I have read von Mises, and I agree that the Austrian theory is the best economic theory. That's why I'm voting for McCain, because he is for less government interference and more free-market. Where as Obama-Biden have openly admitted that they want to "take" money from the rich and give it to the poor. Who do they think they are, Robin Hood?
Posted by: Joe at September 21, 2008 12:28 PM (Pvmb9)
Bush and McCain have repeatedly called for more appropriate oversight of these to GSEs, but were repeatedly blocked by the Democrats and some Republicans. Why don't you look that up?
Posted by: Joe at September 21, 2008 12:36 PM (Pvmb9)
Posted by: XBradTC at September 21, 2008 12:38 PM (soV1p)
You know as well as I do that the "take from the rich and give to the poor" mantra that Barry O and Joe preach is really "bend the middle class over and dork them, then put their money in another government program"...The rich Donks are too tight assed with their money to help anyone out but themselves (look at how much they give to charity, compared to conservatives). We, the middle class are the "well" that they will "tap" to fund the new plethora of programs that they feel we "need".
I'm convinced that voting for Barry and Joe is the equivalent of financial and foreign policy suicide for the country...I remember Carter, and we came close back them...
Posted by: fmfnavydoc at September 21, 2008 01:11 PM (VYEVW)
I'm a liberal. And I'm pissed as hell about what's been going on lately. But I've also lived in Nicaragua and El Salvador — two countries that are still recovering from their revolutions. Talk to demobilized soldiers that fought on either side and you'll realize that even harmless mentions of a revolution are offensive. It's dumbasses like this that make us on the left look bad, which is especially stupid considering that we're holding a pretty strong political hand right now.
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at September 21, 2008 01:12 PM (IVQmE)
CY - Remind me of a line from an old British comedy series
"Once a knight , always a knight. Twice a night - you're doing all right!"
CY is the MAN!
Posted by: fmfnavydoc at September 21, 2008 01:14 PM (VYEVW)
They only object to government power when it's wielded by others than themselves.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at September 21, 2008 01:34 PM (1Sf5X)
"Government... should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind." So saith James Wilson in Lectures on Law, 1791. For all his insanity, Ron Paul was correct about the errors in our straying for the Constitution. To me, that fact alone is what has landed us in this mess that we are in today both with the financial bailout, and in our legal system, i.e. our Courts, which have wrought serious damage on our country. People are fed up on both sides of the aisles with the absolute corruption of Congress, and the twisting of our laws and Constitution by Leftist Courts. Including the Supremes ruling ISLAMIC TERRORISTS have American citizen rights, and child molesters cannot be put to death. But these moonbats do not seem to be exercised over those issues! Nope, they are all in a wad over issues that have not completely been fleshed out yet, and it has not occurred to them that if we drilled here and drilled now our financial situation might improve drastically. Government not looking out for our rights is certainly not legitimate.
I do not agree with Alexandrovna, but after the amnesty debacle, I can certainly sympathize with the Left in wanting a Revolution. I can also see why some are ticked at the bailout as well, but not with Bush necessarily, or even Clinton. Congress is suppose to be the check and the balance, and like it or not the GOP was in control of Congress during the Clinton era. The irritation of the Alexndrovna crowd seems to totally dismiss the Democrats like Franks and Dodd while foaming at the mouth over Bush. The difference between the two camps is that most Republicans are equal Revolutionary targeteers. We want EVERYONE involved in this fiasco to pay, and not just Democrats. We are willing to hear out what the plan is, and remember the S&L crisis history. If that was solved, then perhaps something good will come out of this mess, but we want both sides held accountable. Yet, we are the so called rich blood suckers that are so biased according to the Left; we are the ones that need to be exterminated in their Revolution.
I have been to Europe twice in my lifetime. I have seen Germany before the wall fell, and I have seen Italy desperately trying to emerge from serious socialistic insanity. We have been a host family to children from Belarus suffering from exposure to Chernobyl radiation. Their parents make $40 per month, and for every 2 weeks the children are in the U.S. their lives are extended by one year. These people on the Left for the most part have no idea how OUR country despite all the flaws is still the best on the planet. What is so inconceivable are the screaming memes from the Left at one time lived under such harsh regimes, and they are the very ones wanting US to become carbon copies of what THEY LEFT! What is up with that? Smoking wacky weed!
It makes common sense to put McCain into place to renovate Washington. IF he can cut government wasteful spending, bring oil money spent overseas home, build nuclear plants, and reduce spending then this financial insanity will not cost us as much in tax dollars. However, if Obama goes in with his $150 billion dollar wacked out, "Go Green, but I DO NOT Know With What, I'll Get Back To You Plan", and his National Health Care Plan, and "Lord Help US Capital Gains Tax Hike", then we really will see a Revolution.
FYI, if you keep trashing NASCAR you are only going to find yourselves loosing PA, OH, FL, and other states where people love NASCAR. Last time I checked there is some serious money in NASCAR. LOL! And to place the cherry on the top, we cannot help it that you Lefty hating the American flag folks left 12,000 American flags in the trash, and in turn so disrespected those that have died for THAT FLAG both Democrats and Republicans. Every time you trash our flag, you trash our military! I guess that is why you are working so hard to have their votes NOT COUNTED!
Revolution indeed! To quote a famous redneck, "That dawg don't hunt!"
Posted by: freeus at September 21, 2008 01:35 PM (zxRJP)
Posted by: Robert Desmarais at September 21, 2008 01:39 PM (6LZ//)
...without repercussion.
Posted by: bains at September 21, 2008 01:50 PM (AgNu2)
Last time I checked the Constitution, it is unconstitutional for Congress to abdicate their powers to the Executive Branch or abridge the Constitution by legislative fiat without out first passing a Constitutional Amendment.
Why do the Republicans want Congress to commit treason, again?
Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT at September 21, 2008 02:09 PM (GrWej)
Hmmm, looks like the Right has mocked the Left into utterly abandoning their "irony" defense.
Posted by: Dusty at September 21, 2008 02:09 PM (Mlw0p)
the people on the right are the ones with the guns.
I'm just saying...
Posted by: oriana at September 21, 2008 02:10 PM (uJ8Jj)
Posted by: templar knight at September 21, 2008 02:20 PM (6fvyi)
[Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT at September 21, 2008 02:09 PM]
It has nothing to do with treason. The Legislative branch gives up detailed governance all the time by investing executive departments with the authority to make specific regulations and take specific actions. The Legislative Branch takes up proposed legislation by the Executive Branch, in whole or in part all the time. Laws are often passed that is subsequently deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS and it's never considered a treasonous act.
Show where the proposals currently on the table are treasonous or admit you have no clue what you are talking about.
Posted by: Dusty at September 21, 2008 02:20 PM (Mlw0p)
As for a coup, George Bush will walk out of government just like he came in, with class. There will be no theft at the WH like Bill Clinton, and he will ride off into the sunset.
Posted by: templar knight at September 21, 2008 02:26 PM (6fvyi)
If "the taxpayers" knew the numbers, they'd be rioting in the streets.
Every $1 trillion "our" government "spends" to "save" their friends translates to $8000 per taxpayer (rounded up, based on 130 million taxpayers. Ignore the 'per citizen" numbers - non-taxpayers are not relevant.)
So far, just this year, "our" government has promised their friends over $3 trillion of taxpayer money (that we actually know of) in return for, what everyone from the NYT to the WSJ refers to as "toxic assets."
That's $24,000 per taxpayer, whose average income is $32,000/year - leaving the average taxpayer with a net-of-gross of $8000K for 08. Minus taxes at, say, a medium 25% (of $32K=$7000,) and, this year, the average taxpayer will take home an astounding $1000, or about 80 bucks a month. (And a handful of toxic assets!)
How many taxpayers voted to give AIG, Fannie, Fredie, and the rest basically their entire year's earnings as a thank you for robbing us blind?
Of course, add in another $8K for the Pentagon ($1 trillion budget,) another $8K for Iraq/Afghanistan ($1 trillion spent so far,) and another $24K to cover the $3 trillion 08 Fed budget...
And every taxpayer is on the hook - this year only, remember - for at least $64,000 apiece, or twice the average income.
Toss in each taxpayer's share of the National Debt, now approaching $10 trillion, or another $80,000 per tp... for a total of $144,000, or nearly 5 years worth of the average taxpayer's income.
These are the real, raw painful numbers that need to be shouted to every sucker - er, I mean taxpayer - in America RIGHT NOW.
Guess all the "patriots" posting here have no problem handing over their annual income to the Wall Streets criminals who have proven their love for America so strongly...
Posted by: frank1569 at September 21, 2008 02:29 PM (age/f)
It would make better sense to bail out WE THE PEOPLE first. After all, that is how the banks got into trouble in the first place.
Bailing out the banks and Wall Street with tax dollars is corporate socialism, and is indeed fascism when big business is protected from bankruptcy while WE THE PEOPLE are not.
I thought the Republicans were against socialism and big government?
Apparently not!
Don't look now but here come the rich Chinese ready to take advantage of our real estate fire sale.
If you don't want the WalMart rich Chinese and oil rich Arabs taking over our country in a giant half-off sale, then the correct course of action is to stop the foreclosures.
Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT at September 21, 2008 02:32 PM (GrWej)
Posted by: nr at September 21, 2008 02:33 PM (Ne/3L)
Really, then you won't mind if Barry doesn't give 'em tax cuts paid for by my business then?
As for you liberals openly fomenting revolution or anarchy or wtf ever else it is your crack induced hysteria is telling you to do, don't. Seriously.
We have the military you so love to impugn on this side. Along with all the guns you haven't been able to confiscate yet, and lots of ammo to go with them.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 21, 2008 02:41 PM (M+Vfm)
And I am glad that I have moved deep into the countryside and created a sustainable way of life far from the cities, where all hell is going to break loose as food becomes more and more expensive and scarce, people can't heat their homes and homelessness confronts more citizens. All of you who can't come up with anything better than finger pointing and juvenile insults, good luck to ya. You're going to need it.
Posted by: Pumatracker at September 21, 2008 02:51 PM (ygSR5)
Posted by: templar knight at September 21, 2008 02:20 PM
Yes, I'm sure you just can't wait to blow away some of your friends, relatives and neighbors.
Show me where in her article she proposes a violent and bloody overthrow of the government?
What she is actually proposing is guaranteed under the Constitution.
We have the right to peaceably assembly and we have a right to have our grievances addressed.
In other words, WE THE PEOPLE can march on Washington and stay there until we decide to leave. Plus we have a right to impeach and remove anyone in the government that we want to. WE THE PEOPLE are the boss of them, they are not the boss of us. Collectively, WE THE PEOPLE don't need their permission to do anything. They need our permission to do everything.
Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT at September 21, 2008 02:51 PM (GrWej)
Posted by: jr at September 21, 2008 02:59 PM (fc0j2)
[Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT at September 21, 2008 02:09 PM]
Laws are often passed that is subsequently deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS and it's never considered a treasonous act.
Posted by: Dusty at September 21, 2008 02:20 PM
The reason why the SCOTUS never considers it a treasonous act when they overturn an unconstitutional law is because in these court cases no one is being prosecuted for treason. The SCOTUS decisions are limited to the the laws in question, not the treasonous politicians who voted for them. That would take separate criminal prosecutions.
Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT at September 21, 2008 03:09 PM (GrWej)
I don't have any friends, relatives or neighbors who are Leftist scum, you ape. And again, if a violent overthrown was attempted by Leftists, I would do everything in my power to stop it. As a citizen of these United States, that is my duty.
Posted by: templar knight at September 21, 2008 03:35 PM (6fvyi)
Posted by: Kevin at September 21, 2008 03:44 PM (PIcx3)
With 16 years in the army I (an OIF vet) am what you think of as, "a leftist". Push come to shove, and a revolt become needful (as the Founding Fathers pointed out might happen, and for them, and later for those traitors who fought to defend slavery) I will be with her, and against you.
There are things which are not acceptable to free men. Allowing for tribunes and consuls is not among them. Feel free to cower in your little corner of the internet; casting barbs and jeers at those with whom you disagree. But don't mistake your myth of "the Left" for the way of the world. We have hope in the system, but there are an awful lot of us who know our away aroud the rifle and the foxhole.
And push come to shove, I, at least, know I; in fact, I can kill people. Most of the jackasses who bray about how "the Liberals" won't be able to stand can't say that.
Posted by: Publius at September 21, 2008 03:49 PM (aSEAH)
Posted by: Joe E. at September 21, 2008 03:49 PM (xOrB4)
"It's a huge conspiracy to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich"
Well if that's the case, then I guess all of the left wing Democrat morons who used the CRA to force lenders to lower their underwriting standards so that low income families could have access to the loans that led to the meltdown, I guess they were in on the conspiracy too.
MORONS.
The fact is that socialistic state meddling in the economy is what got us into this mess in the first place. Those loans would have NEVER been given if the state hadn't intervened, and those loans are what set up this whole collapse. Sew a button on THAT, you left wing clowns.
The left has for decades been doing everything it can to sabotage the capitalist system. And whenever it gets results, it blames capitalism for the mess.
A fantastic case of "chutzpah", akin to a murderer blaming his crime on the existence of his victim.
ACORN, the group that was largely behind the abuse of the CRA in blackmailing lenders to give loans to low income minorities, was founded by one Mr. George Wiley, who in the late 60's made a serious attempt to "bankrupt capitalism". He organized hundreds of thousands of blacks to storm welfare offices and stage sit ins and demand every single last shred of welfare entitlement that it was possible for them to have. In doing so, he didn't manage to bankrupt capitalism but he did manage to almost triple the numbers of blacks on welfare in just a few years.
How ironic that it was Wiley's organization, ACORN, which years later would try the same crap by forcing banks to give bad loans to the poor.
Whenever you interfere with the intricate workings of the free market, which are the net sum of millions of individuals trading with each other for their own self interest on their own mutually beneficial terms, you screw things up to the point where more interference is needed to put things right, and so on - until the whole thing comes crashing down.
The only reason why Bush has to now play at being a "socialist" is to fix the mess that this interference wrought in the first place. A student of the Austrian school of economics would favor no bail outs and would prefer to let whatever was "bad" come crashing down as they should, but unfortunately that would be political suicide.
You moron leftists would damn Bush if he didn't bail them out, and are damning him because he is. He can't win. And you stupid motherf*ckers started this whole thing in the first place. Damn you all.
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 03:53 PM (d7L3n)
"The country's conservative moralists shake their finger at low-income home buyers who dared to make a grab for a humble piece of the American dream. When the dream turns nightmarish, the foreclosed-upon are held personally accountable for their bad debt.
But there's no personal accountability for those who actually understood the fine print behind those shaky loans, because they wrote it. No one tells them to hand back their bonuses. If they are eventually forced out, they walk out with huge paychecks.
WHEN YOU are too big to fail, you are bailed out.
When you are too small to save, you are down and out on the street.
Some aspects of the Wall Street crisis are tough to understand. But one economic principle is pretty clear.
When a really big company goes bust, the little guy pays with his home or job. But those CEOs and money managers who boldly march their corporate empires into bankruptcy just get paid millions and millions of dollars more."
Welcome to Fascist America, former home of the former middle class. Your nest egg and Constitution have been foreclosed upon by the corporatocracy.
And you thought a revolution had to be bloody. Well in the recent revolution, the only thing that is red is the red ink of a bankrupted United States, now a fully owned subsidiary of rich oil Arabs and WalMart Chinese.
Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT at September 21, 2008 03:58 PM (GrWej)
"The country's conservative moralists shake their finger at low-income home buyers who dared to make a grab for a humble piece of the American dream. When the dream turns nightmarish, the foreclosed-upon are held personally accountable for their bad debt.
But there's no personal accountability for those who actually understood the fine print behind those shaky loans, because they wrote it. No one tells them to hand back their bonuses. If they are eventually forced out, they walk out with huge paychecks.
WHEN YOU are too big to fail, you are bailed out.
When you are too small to save, you are down and out on the street.
Some aspects of the Wall Street crisis are tough to understand. But one economic principle is pretty clear.
When a really big company goes bust, the little guy pays with his home or job. But those CEOs and money managers who boldly march their corporate empires into bankruptcy just get paid millions and millions of dollars more."
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/21/hanging_the_little_guy_out_to_dry/?s_campaign=8315
Welcome to Fascist America, former home of the former middle class. Your nest egg and Constitution have been foreclosed upon by the corporatocracy.
And you thought a revolution had to be bloody. Well in the recent revolution, the only thing that is red is the red ink of a bankrupted United States, now a fully owned subsidiary of rich oil Arabs and WalMart Chinese.
Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT at September 21, 2008 04:00 PM (GrWej)
It was a Republican Congress that took away the safeguards that allowed the subprime fiasco to occur in the first place. It was a Republican Congress that looked the other way when the subprime fiasco actually took place.
How very telling that the only people I see threatening to use guns and commit violence are a few mentally unstable, radical right posters in this ridiculous forum down the Republican rabbit hole.
Click on my name.
Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT at September 21, 2008 04:12 PM (GrWej)
Alexandrovna would appear to be a "community organizer" on a scale equal to BHO. No mere coincidence, that.
Posted by: Michael B at September 21, 2008 04:20 PM (XOx/e)
I've yet to encounter one of you left wing morons who actually knows what the word "fascist" means in the first place.
Hint: It's a political ideology which is a hairs breadth away from the socialism that leftist "liberals" like Obama have supported their whole lives. The Nazis were the "National Socialist Party" after all.
And how typical of the left to absolve homeowners who took on shaky loans of all responsibility for their actions. The left after all sees the "common man" as a baby, incapable of making rational decisions for himself - someone who, naturally, needs to have his life run for him by socialists who know what's best for him.
When you have a low income and you sign up for a loan that is worth TEN times your income, you don't have the responsibility to stop and think "now, hang on...is this a good idea"?
Of COURSE you do! There is no "fine print" about it. It's a bad idea from the OFF.
Answer the question - if lenders had been allowed to go ahead as they were, applying their own strict standards of underwriting in denying loans that they knew were a risk, would the sub-prime crisis have happened?
If it were a vast conspiracy by big-money to steal taxpayers money, then surely they would have lowered their own underwriting standards without the state forcing them to do so through the blackmail of the CRA?
Schmidt, you sound like you've read one too many Chomsky books. You're a childish mess of theatrical left wing rhetoric and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 04:20 PM (d7L3n)
Posted by: mytralman at September 21, 2008 04:22 PM (0mKiN)
As a matter of fact I have a college degree and my husband has his Masters. So yes, we do have and education beyond high school. However, it is not my belief that one must have a college education, or a high school diploma to understand corruption or ethics violations via Frank, Dodd, Gorelick, Obama, Biden, etc., etc. It seems you Lefties are really exorcized over this. Perhaps it is the connections of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ACORN? Bad news there! LOL! It appears that local papers and news outlets were on the horn about this prior to the GOP picking up the matter. Perhaps it is because this could impact the Congressional and Presidential elections? The smell of mendacity and fear are quite overwhelming! Anybody noticing those tightening Congressional races and lack of $$$ THE ONE has to give to those Congressional races? LMAO! Told Harry Reid to buzz off!
But I would be willing to bet your ire is NOT over this country, (yes, I am questioning your patriotism), because all you want to do is damn Bush, damn our military, damn this country, damn free speech, damn people in small towns, damn Bibles, damn our rights, and turn personally vicious towards anyone that opposes your point of view. Yes indeed, "angrily belched" does aptly describe those who have not even made it to the forrest to see the trees.
I guess now that I have questioned your patriotism, I am going to be called a racist too! LOL! You know this schtick is getting old, and people are seeing through it despite the smoke and mirrors and vile name calling. But keep it up and see how far you get with the voters between the parentheses!
Posted by: freeus at September 21, 2008 04:28 PM (zxRJP)
"Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
"The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory.""
To fail to take that into account is to be profoundly incurious and blinded to one of the most prominent - even pivotal - factors involved in the debacle.
Posted by: Michael B at September 21, 2008 04:29 PM (XOx/e)
If I remember rightly, the bill co-authored by Gramm gave financial institutions greater freedom to merge with each other - and Democrats like Maxine Waters bitched that the Community Reinvestment Act was being undermined.
It was of course, the Community Reinvestment Act which forced lenders to give bad loans in the first place.
Republicans are not innocent in this - they never have been. Conservatives have not done nearly enough to defend the free market and capitalism as they should. They looked the other way as the the CRA lowered standards - hell, some even encouraged it as a path to an "ownership society".
Well, you don't become an ownership society by forcing lenders to give loans to people they had previously, and rightly, declared to be too much of a risk.
You say that it was a Republican Congress that "took away the safeguards" which led to the crisis? Bullsh*t! The "safeguards" were already in place before Carters CRA - they were the rational, objective standards that free acting lenders had in deciding who was a bad risk or not. The CRA took those safeguards away in the name of "political correctness" and the idea that giving low income families loans to buy houses they couldn't afford was more important than worrying about whether or not they could seriously afford to pay back those loans further down the line.
Which "Republicans" do you see threatening to use guns? The ones who want to protect their right to own a gun to protect their family from the sub-human scum who might invade their home with weapons? What would a left wing liberal choose to do in such a case? Offer his family up for slaughter?
Let's not forget that throughout history it has been the LEFT that has been the most inhuman, the most violent, the most oppressive, the most controlling. Over 100 million people murdered by their own Marxist governments in the 20th Century. Stalin killed many times more people than did Hitler, yet I STILL see liberals walking around with red t-shirts bearing a yellow hammer and sickle. I STILL see them walking around with Che Guevara t-shirts on, advocating the kind of left wing socialist revolutionary hell which imprisoned millions on an island from which thousands attempt to escape in shark infested waters every year.
It's about time the infantile left grew up. It's getting embarrassing.
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 04:33 PM (d7L3n)
Capitalism went bad BECAUSE of regulation and state intervention. In this respect moreover, what we had wasn't even capitalism to begin with. We have always had a mixed economy, a mixture of capitalism and statism.
Nobody is blaming "the average working person" for this mess; the "average working person" did not take out stupid loans they could obviously not pay back. Nor is anyone exclusively blaming the people who DID take out the loans. They were stupid, but so were the people who forced lenders to lower their underwriting standards to give them the loans in the first place.
I know what the definition of "fascist" is thank you very much - and it barely resembles anything which is happening now. This is a word that childish, infantile leftists have thrown around like confetti at a wedding for the last 8 years. It's a word you use for theatrical effect in the absence of any real intellect, any real objective sense of value.
I will ask the question again. Given that Bush was not to blame for the sub-prime crisis, and given that the tired politics of the left largely WERE to blame, what would you prefer Bush do about it?
If he didn't bail them out, you'd be screaming that he "didn't care about the consequences". He is bailing them out, and he's a "fascist".
It's getting to the point with you morons that rational people are just going to have to start ignoring you in the same way they politely ignore the mentally ill ravings of a demented lunatic on a street corner.
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 04:43 PM (d7L3n)
Posted by: George Bruce at September 21, 2008 04:49 PM (RNKWq)
Posted by: Mark at September 21, 2008 04:50 PM (UyAkl)
This is the time for everyone to forget your party and remember your country. The free market dictates these companies should fail if they've screwed up. No welfare for them.
Right now, Pelosi(worth 500 mill) and Paulson(worth 350mill)and the whole gang of filthy rich crooks who run this country are in a back room selling you out. Wake up!
Posted by: Yuugal at September 21, 2008 04:53 PM (OX19E)
Posted by: Mike at September 21, 2008 04:56 PM (3oJIo)
Weapon: AR-15 - Check
Ammunition: 500 rounds minimum - Check
Training: Military Expert Marksman - Check
Opposition: Whining Leftards - Check
Probable Result: Lots of Dead Whining Leftards
Excellent!
Posted by: SShiell at September 21, 2008 05:20 PM (WNPzv)
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 05:22 PM (12d5g)
Not even a little surprise to me. This isn't the first time I've heard Liberals argue for a violent overthrow of the entire country.
I try to calmly explain why that would be counterproductive, yet they're pretty dead set in their ways. With plenty of screeching about their heroes Che, Osama, and sometimes a nod to Fred Phelps.
The Liberals are really going bananas about this topic. They must feel pretty strongly about their revolution.
And heroin apparently.
Posted by: brando at September 21, 2008 05:23 PM (UB1+D)
Posted by: Vandermeer at September 21, 2008 05:34 PM (R/vsI)
For the last time - the free market was never allowed to exist. Conservatives have done more than so-called "liberals" to champion its cause but they have done not nearly enough to defend it.
The reason generally being, widespread economic ignorance. It would do the whole country some good to read for instance Henry Hazlitt's "economics in one lesson", a timeless classic which explains the problem perfectly - most people cannot think "long term" or "wider picture" in economics and can only think of what's best for this group or that group in the short term.
The problem is politics. Since the superiority of economic freedom is generally not explainable in simple soundbites which sound good on the news, and since the average Joe would prefer that the state protected their narrow little area of life through economic intervention without thought for the wider picture, it is generally impossible for a politician to propose more economic freedom without being accused of being mean, heartless and uncaring.
Yet economic growth can only occur with economic freedom. Man must be allowed to trade with his fellow man and act of his own volition, so long as he doesn't interfere with the rights of his fellow man to do the same. The thing that makes capitalism superior to all other systems is in the freedom of its price mechanisms and the fact that it's merely the sum total of millions of individuals pursuing their own wishes, trading with each other for their mutual benefit (whether they're trading their skills, their labor or their products).
As soon as the state interferes with this mechanism, it starts a cluster of errors which encourages the state to interfere more, and so on.
The current bailout would not have been politically necessary if it had not been for this economic interference. Of course, it is not necessary at all - the best thing in the long run would be to let all of the rotted wood come crashing down, to release their capital back into the system to flow into better structures, but of course this is politically impossible since it would mean having to go through a spectacular crash in which many more lost their jobs and their homes. If Bush had allowed this to happen, he would be accused of "exposing Americans to the horrors of the free market" and not doing enough to help them.
So, he bails the economy out. This may not end in catastrophe, but it will prolong the problem far longer than it would have if he'd allowed it all to fall. Take the Depression as a lesson. The crash which led to it was caused by government interference in the economy, and FDR's misguided attempts to help the poor in his New Deal resulted in the Depression lasting for years longer than it should have, causing unspeakably more pain and suffering than was necessary.
I know it's exciting for college age kids to think in terms of grand conspiracies to turn us into a fascist state and steal all of our money, but that just isn't the case at all. It turns out that we're being subject to yet another lesson about the idiocy of economic statism, a lesson which in all likelihood we're not likely to learn (again)
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 05:36 PM (d7L3n)
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 05:44 PM (12d5g)
Which rights have the government taken away from you?
Furthermore, given that most of the country disagrees with your left wing fantasies of revolution, and given that a socialist revolution (I know y'all want a socialist revolution - I've seen the Che t-shirts) would be a direct abrogation of the rights of he majority of Americans who do not want such a revolution (i.e. all those who do not wish to be enslaved by a socialist state), I am led to wonder - would YOUR revolution justify COUNTER revolution by the rest of us?
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 05:44 PM (d7L3n)
So just because you conservatives think you are so clever switching one letter in Obama's name making it Osama does not mean that he has anything to do with the terrorist leader, and since when has any liberal been in favor of Fred Phelps. If you did any research into why Ernesto "Che" Guevara is so well liked you would see that he did excatly what we want now, he overthrew a tyrannical government he had no idea what Castro would eventually turn into.
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 05:45 PM (12d5g)
Che did no such thing. If the revolution he and Castro created in Cuba was what people wanted, then how come Cubans are prepared, in their millions since the revolution, to take to flimsy rafts across shark infested waters to escape to a superior country (America)?
Che was a nasty, cowardly son of a bitch - he had thousands executed for the crime of disagreeing with him and wanting to own property, and he had thousands more sent to hard labor camps for such crimes as political disobedience and having long hair.
If Bush tried ONE TENTH of what Che Guevara inflicted on Cubans, you left wing morons would be SCREAMING BLUE THUNDER.
The son of a bitch even shot a pregnant woman in the stomach at close range.
I know fine well why Che is so well liked - because you lefties LOVE the idea of oppressive socialist regimes that kill and imprison their own citizens, just so long as they're happening to people thousands of miles away and not to YOU.
Oh yes, and you're also sexually attracted to him. Am I being blunt enough?
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 05:50 PM (d7L3n)
And for the socialism, what the hell are you talking about, we don't idolize Che's political views just his ability to mobilize the people and overthrow an oppressive governement.
Posted by: Jaykob at September 21, 2008 05:51 PM (12d5g)
OK, I've done a little research into Che. I know that he murdered hundreds of innocent people with his own hands. Is that why you like him, jay?
Posted by: George Bruce at September 21, 2008 05:53 PM (RNKWq)
But i do love how you don't have enough reasons to justify your claim you have to resort to saying how we are all in love with che.
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 05:57 PM (12d5g)
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 06:01 PM (12d5g)
Posted by: templar knight at September 21, 2008 06:10 PM (6fvyi)
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 06:14 PM (12d5g)
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 06:19 PM (12d5g)
Posted by: John at September 21, 2008 06:37 PM (Xiyxt)
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 06:38 PM (12d5g)
Posted by: Ivan lenin at September 21, 2008 06:39 PM (Bkh/d)
Posted by: Jaykob at September 21, 2008 06:43 PM (12d5g)
Posted by: John at September 21, 2008 06:45 PM (Xiyxt)
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 06:53 PM (12d5g)
One?
Posted by: brando at September 21, 2008 07:10 PM (UB1+D)
This is naked partisanship.
Posted by: Neo at September 21, 2008 07:17 PM (Yozw9)
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 07:19 PM (12d5g)
Here is your hero..... There would be several of Castro's cronies questioning a prisoner. Che would walk into the room, listen for a while and then take out his gun and shoot the prisoner in the head. Then he would turn around and walk out without saying a word. Castro's men all took this to mean that they could have easily been on the receiving end. Che was a murdering thug, in charge of Castro's prison. He was responsible for murdering over two thousand Cubans in that position and you equate Gitmo and this administration to that...hmm what a maroon.
Posted by: Budahmon at September 21, 2008 07:32 PM (tSJHo)
Posted by: B Dubya at September 21, 2008 07:36 PM (PRDtV)
I'm a Liberal. I have more guns than you could possibly believe (and, quite possibly, more than you could count; they were a willed gift from an also-liberal grandfather who built up quite a collection over the years). I was taught at age five how to handle, care for, maintain and be safe with guns. I went hunting for whitetail for the first time at age six, and got a clean kill at age seven on a fifteen point buck. I had to field dress it myself, and I was barely as tall as its shoulder. I can take guns apart, clean them, put them back together, and load them blindfolded. I can hit a pistol target at 50 yards with a 5-inch group in a Weaver stance. I can hit a target from 500 yards within 2 inches with a rifle and a bi-pod. I have land, I have ammo, and I have more intelligence than to scream revolution.
But for you people threatening the wholesale slaughter of the left with one more 'revolution' comment, remember that not ALL of the left-wing party are against guns. I can personally guarantee that if there is a revolution, you're going to be sorely surprised by what We The People can do (when I say We The People, I mean the revolutionaries; classically, in our own history, We The People meant 'the people not willing to take this crap from the government anymore. Whose side are YOU on?)
AND, just to clarify: If one more person makes the stereotypical "weed smoking liberal" joke again, I'll be forced to bring about the fact that most meth addicts are from the poverty-stricken areas of the country, the areas that are so violently racist and bigoted that they will under no circumstance support Obama, simply because of his skin color.
So.
I'm happy to say that I'm aligned with the occasional joint smoking hippy and not the meth-infused 'gentry' of the conservative party.
And for you right-wingers screaming bloody murder at the thought of socialism, I point you to the former ELECTED PRESIDENT of Chile Salvador Allende, who was overthrown by the CIA in the 70's because of his socialist views, regardless of the fact that he was democratically elected (because "The United States will not have this communist experiment in 'our back yard'".) And who was installed as 'president' afterwards? Pinochet. That's right, our Central Intelligence Agency helped to overthrow a democratically-elected president and install one of the most horrifically sadistic dictators in recent memory, who tortured and killed tens of thousands of people because they disagreed with him.
Or I point you to the current MSM's portait of Hugo Chavez, the ELECTED PRESIDENT of Venezuela, who is demonized by the United States media because he disagrees with our policies. Yet what you have to understand is that there are other countries out there who are trying to make life worth living on their own soil. In fact, ALL of Latin America has been oppressed and exploited by the United States, England, France, Germany, and even the Danes!
And so, when you degrade Socialism as a poor governmental choice because YOU don't agree with it, realize that there are people who would sooner kill you to get through you on their way home than be a part of Capitalist United States. You can sit in your house on your computer (as I am doing RIGHT NOW) and you can make outlandish claims about your opposing political party, or you can go and get a passport and see the world and see how millions upon BILLIONS of people live in our shadow.
But... That would mean leaving your comfort zone. That would mean admitting to yourself that you're not always right and the things you've been taught aren't always 100% accurate.
You accuse liberals of being on soapboxes, but youre doing the same thing, quoting their idiocies and making your own.
Heck, I'm doing it too. But you know what? I've lived in other countries. I've slept on dirt floors and eaten what would be turned down by 99% of our countrymen, and I've done all this before my 23rd birthday. I'm young and I'm quite probably ignorant, but at least I can say that in my littlest fragment of dead skin between my finger and fingernail, I have more experience in the world than you do.
Try survival without your credit card before you think to criticize someone for their ideas.
Posted by: Ohio Liberal at September 21, 2008 07:40 PM (sTD0o)
Posted by: Jaykob at September 21, 2008 07:44 PM (12d5g)
That's as stupid as posting to say the Republicans have taken away your Internet access. The very fact that you can make the accusation proves it's false.
Posted by: Evil Pundit at September 21, 2008 07:50 PM (//eLA)
I applaud you i agree that most liberals aren't gun hating lesbian hippies as we're made out to be, i do not own guns but not because i hate them, because my fiance does not wish to have them in the house. The right to bear arms is an extremely important one.
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 07:50 PM (12d5g)
If you want to seehow big each other's raisins are, by all means do so, just do it somewhere else.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 21, 2008 07:51 PM (HcgFD)
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 07:53 PM (12d5g)
How has your freedom of speech been taken away from you? You have more freedom of speech than in any other country in the world. Why don't you go and see how much "freedom of speech" they have in your socialist "paradises" such as Cuba and Venezuela, where political opponents are jailed and TV stations that don't tow the party line are shut down.
Name me one way in which your rights have been taken away re: the separation of church and state.
All Americans have equal rights. Name me one way in which they don't.
You don't idolize Che's political views but you idolize his ability to....WHAT? Mobilize the people? Sure - he mobilized many of them to firing squads and work camps. Screw you lefty - you're scum. Che overthrew an oppressive government? For all its faults, the government before Castro's was FAR less oppressive! Che installed a government which imprisoned everyone and prevented them from leaving the island. IS THAT YOUR IDEA OF NON-OPPRESSIVE? You left wingers are perhaps the most intellectually shallow, most ignorant people in existence in the world today. Words fail me.
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 08:04 PM (d7L3n)
Che had nothing to do with the current Cuban government? How many Cuban governments have there been since the revolution? Let's see now. Number of elections held in Cuba since Castro installed himself as dictator............0
Sure, there were more than 6 revolutionaries. But there were far more people who didn't want to be imprisoned on an island in terrible economic conditions with no freedom and no hope of democracy. Are you really this stupid?
I have heard of Gitmo - it's a paradise in which Islamic terrorists are treated like they're in a holiday camp. I have also heard of the war on terror - it's a JUST war fought against sub-human Islamo-fascist scum whose ambition is to kill all non-Muslims.
Lastly - of COURSE you're all in love with Che! You've been masturbating over THAT picture for decades now. It's about time it stopped.
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 08:09 PM (d7L3n)
Better look up the definition of fascism. You are certainly confused and wrong.
Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT at September 21, 2008 08:11 PM (GrWej)
The posting of the ten commandments in a court house affects your rights....HOW?
Gays not being able to get married affects your rights....HOW?
Women have less pay because overall, they're doing jobs which bring in less pay. Besides which, when a company offers you a job at a certain wage and you accept it of your own volition, that affects your rights....HOW?
Not being able to murder an unborn child affects your rights...HOW? You have a "right" to murder children? I don't think so.
Which African Americans "can't vote"?
This just gets dumber and dumber.
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 08:12 PM (d7L3n)
You are truly deluded if you believe the government is trying to censor your online free speech. And the concept that a fascist government would try to hide that fact is laughable. Most socialist governments, like Venezuala for example, are proud of their fascist nature.
As for Che, that psychotic murderer who finally was put down like the mad dog he was, the quote of his I remember best is “If in doubt, kill him” . If you are running from fascists, you need to stop glamorizing Che.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 21, 2008 08:12 PM (EDaJi)
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 08:17 PM (12d5g)
What DOES worry me is all this talk about initiating criminal investigations of members of the Bush administration, possibly including Cheney and Bush. This would truly be a hugely negative step in our historically peaceful transition of governments.
As awful as an Obama presidency would be (I think Obama has some sort of Vice Presidential candidate...), it is unlikely that he could destroy the country in a short four years. We would have to pay the price of his inevitable idiocies, but we would survive him. Just as we survived Jimmy Carter.
But if the Democrats begin the tradition of persecuting those leaving power the price we as a country could pay could be quite high indeed. Using Justice and Treasury to pursue political enemies can be done by both sides. And then what is the next escalation step? Massive voter fraud to hold onto power (sort of like the voter fraud being perpetrated by Obama's Acorn contractors?)?
I think even less of that talk than of the drooling nonsense of cowardly leftists as they speak from the protected positions in the MSM.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 21, 2008 08:21 PM (EDaJi)
Killed a fifteen pointer at age seven and field dressed it all by your lonesome, huh? Very impressive if true, but I doubt it.
And if so many in Latin America are so happy with their governments, then why in the hell are they trying to come here by the tens of millions?
As for the isms, I have no doubt that the propaganda propagated by socialist, communist, and fascist systems might convince morons to do things that are contradictory to logical thought. Very much like what I see coming from you. But one thing can't be argued, that hundreds of millions of people have been killed by communism, fascism and socialism. For you to sit in your home and defend it is disgusting to me.
Posted by: templar knight at September 21, 2008 08:24 PM (6fvyi)
Ill go through these one by one
The posting of the ten commandments in a court house affects your rights....HOW?
As an Athiest i would hate to be tried in a court that is obviously pro christianity.
Gays not being able to get married affects your rights....HOW?
Not me personally but if i was a gay male i could not marry my significant other.
Women have less pay because overall, they're doing jobs which bring in less pay. Besides which, when a company offers you a job at a certain wage and you accept it of your own volition, that affects your rights....HOW?
again not me personally but women are payed less on average for equal work.
Not being able to murder an unborn child affects your rights...HOW?
an unborn child is not living so it is not murder, but are you telling me that if you sister was raped you think she would have to deal with that child the rest of her life.
KEVIN
How have i confused the defintion of Facism?
Iconoclast
If the us government were to show thier true colors so dramatically they know that the majority of the us population would rise up in oppostion.
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 08:29 PM (12d5g)
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 21, 2008 08:32 PM (i/fLn)
A six year old hunting whitetail deer? Must have been with one of those inherited liberal guns that you field-strip blindfolded. You know, one of those ultra lightweight longarms with no recoil....
Just like socialism....a complete lie that doesn't bear up under examination.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 21, 2008 08:32 PM (EDaJi)
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 08:33 PM (12d5g)
the 10 commandments are from the Old Testament, part of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions.
OK, I agree. If the government of the USA were to become a socialist dictatorship like Nazi Germany then the population would rise up in revolt. Hopefully using those weapons that our 2nd amendment protects from government confiscation (sorry Barry). So, by your argument, there is no fascist censorship.
Or are you arguing that it is so hidden that we cannot even see that we are being censored? Wow. Maybe that tinfoil hat would allow you to see those tendrils of oppression hidden from everyone else.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 21, 2008 08:38 PM (EDaJi)
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 08:45 PM (12d5g)
Posted by jaykob at September 21, 2008 08:33 PM>/blockquote>
Because using the levers of power to criminalize political differences is the first step to ending the peaceful transition of power that has uniquely characterized the American Experiment for over two hundred years.
But making the comparison of Bush & Cheney to Manson and Bundy you show that you really are too mentally ill to even vote (or own a firearm). Do you propose to persecute the entire Congress? How about those with the same information as Bush, such as Rockefeller of W. VA? Is he like Manson or Bundy too?
How about that portion of the population that supports the Iraq war (like me)? Am I to be persecuted as well?
See what I mean about criminalizing political differences? Or is that too far above your head?
Posted by: iconoclast at September 21, 2008 08:46 PM (EDaJi)
Bronze Stars ( with "V"), 32 Combat Air Medals and the Army Commendation Medal. For Fifty, years of my life I WAS a Right-Wing, God Bless MY GOVERNMENT, Kick Ass AMERICAN!!
But Now.... my Government says that if I DISAGREE with THEIR POLICIES, which is my RIGHT under the U.S. Constitution, if I protest my disagreements, which is ALSO my right under the Constitution, I AM CONSIDERED A TERRORIST!!!!! Under the Patriot Act and the Protect America Act and WHO knows what other Acts, WE ALL have lost our FREEDOM OF SPEECH; RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW; and Right to Privacy, due to unwarranted search and seizures, AND WIRE TAPPING (probably including this response) and on and on and on.
I DO NOT AGREE WITH MY ELECTED GOVERNMENT AND DEMAND MAJOR RADICAL CHANGES!!!!!!!
The Economy is in the shitter. Inflation is and will be OUT OF CONTROL! THE U.S.DOLLAR is crashing around the world. We are in TWO WARS OVER THE CONTROL OF OIL and most likely a third with IRAN; MASSIVE MONEY BAILOUTS NOT VOTED ON BY CONGRESS WHICH the U.S.TAX PAYER will have to make GOOD over the years to come. I WANT IT STOPPED!!!!
SO NOW I'm called a TRAITOR, a Left Wing Extremist, a WING NUT, A TERRORIST.
YES I HAVE PREPARED, FOOD, WEAPONS, AMMO,and SILVER! And don't kid yourselves - MANY...MANY...MANY Conservative and Right Wing U.S. Citizens who have crossed over to the Far...Far.... LEFT are doing the same. We are talking MILLIONS of MILLIONS of Democratic Free Thinking Patriotic AMERICANS who want OUR CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS BACK.
And,under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, armed revolt is justified when your elected officials and your Government do not represent the wants of the people. "Tear that Government down".
Posted by: Uncle Sam at September 21, 2008 08:50 PM (pYXRq)
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 08:51 PM (12d5g)
Well Jaykob, you being wrong about more than one thing isn't an assumption. You shouldn't have said that, so you can add that to the list.
For starters. You accused me of being a Conservative. I'm not a Conservative. I know that I'm not and you know it too. You're dead wrong. You shouldn't have even implied it.
Second. Liberals have openly gloated for Osama. You denied it. But the rock solid fact is that I've met them. You know the "chickens roost" mantra? I've personally met these people, and there seem to be a lot of them. You are wrong.
And then there's the Fred Phelps thing. I've met a full blown Liberal that was absolutely giddy about the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church. I've also read comments where Liberals consider that a real feather in their hat against the Military. You denied it, when you know full well you're wrong.
There are more people in the world than just Conservatives and Liberals. Maybe someday you'll learn that.
This argument was pretty much between CY and the Huffpo poster who wants a total revolution. I think this thread is sweet. Consider this thread bookmarked, cause it's so awesome.
Posted by: brando at September 21, 2008 08:55 PM (UB1+D)
i am glad to see that there are some free thinkers out there like you, i am very happy that finally someone remembers the right to revolt when the government becomes to corrupt.
Posted by: Jaykob at September 21, 2008 08:55 PM (12d5g)
i have never said i am for a bloody revolution, just a overthrow of the current powers at be.
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 08:59 PM (12d5g)
How cool! You have your own astroturfer in Uncle Sam! Maybe you have come to the attention of Axelrod?
But maybe you aren't able to read the note, since your power has probably been turned off (economy in the shitter and all). But there is still plenty of money for astroturfing and vote-buying, it seems....
Posted by: iconoclast at September 21, 2008 09:04 PM (EDaJi)
The Patriot Act of Finance, otherwise known as Paulson's $700 billion bailout bill, if passed in its present form will be the nail in the coffin for an America by, for and of the people.
Just like the Patriot Act appeared to be written before 9/11, so does this Patriot Act of Finance appear to be written before the housing crash. And yes, both were rushed through a panicked Congress and complacent media in the middle of the night.
A nation founded by the people, for the people will be given to a very select group of bankers. Legally. Without a shot fired. Because Americans were too distracted and too dumb to know what was going on.
Brilliant.
Here's how it will be done:
1) The key line in the proposed bill is this one:
"The Secretary's authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to 700,000,000,000 dollars outstanding at any one time"
What this does is give Hank Paulson, acting as an emperor with unchecked control over the nation's treasury, a $700 billion line of credit in which he can buy up toxic debt for whatever price he'd like to pay, $700 billion at a time.
In other words - he could buy trillions. Trillions and trillions and trillions. Buying and selling, buying and selling.
He can sell the junk he buys from his banker friends for whatever price he wants, saddling the taxpayers with the loss. He keeps this process going, using his $700 billion credit card. Buy for 60 cents on the dollar, sell for 30 cents on the dollar. Buy for 80 cents on the dollar, sell for 5 cents on the dollar. He's in charge.
$700 billion folks IS JUST THE LINE OF CREDIT. He can purchase trillions and trillions of bad debt with this credit card, as long as only $700 billion is OUTSTANDING at any one time.
2) Hank Paulson, CEO of Goldman Sachs on leave, has complete and total control over the nation's treasure. He would be unchecked by Congress, unchecked by the President. He will be king. Here's the text:
"The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation"
Using this power, Hank Paulson of Goldman Sachs could pay Goldman Sachs anything he wanted for their mortgage assets. Let's say the market value was 20 cents on the dollar. Hank Paulson could pay them 100 cents on the dollar. Its his decision and his alone. No oversight. No limitations. Hank Paulson could simply give the nation's treasure to Goldman Sachs.
Get it now?
3) Deputizing the banks and investment banks as "agents of the government". Seriously. Here's the text:
"Designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them"
4) Have no outside control over the firesale of assets and loss to the taxpayer. Again, Hank Paulson and Hank Paulson alone shall be in control. No auditors. No oversight. No multiple bids. No nothing. Hank Paulson and Hank Paulson alone. Here you go:
"Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets. The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act."
5) Hank Paulson has final say. Hank Paulson knows what's best. Hank Paulson cannot be reversed. Hank Paulson cannot be sued. Hank Paulson is king.
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency"
So, what can you do? Normally here I'd say contact your corrupt Congressman or Senator. Contact the media. But folks, Congress has been bought. The media have been bought.
The American people have lost.
Deal with it.
So unless there's rage in the street, which there won't be - the new Fall TV season is starting - it's over. They win. In eight short years, they took everything they wanted. And nobody could stop them.
The only hope, for the hopeful? That we can run out the clock, and this bill doesn't pass until Bush and Paulson are gone. But if that's the case, and the bill does pass after January 2009, then the question is - who do you trust more - the outsider or the insider. And with this much on the line, will the outsider be allowed to win?
If this bill does pass ASAP, well, then watch Paulson get busy with his new credit card as fast as he can. He only has four more months. He'll be buying up crap as fast as he can in a desperate and reckless orgy of greed.
http://housingpanic.blogspot.com/2008/09/end-of-america-as-you-knew-it-is-at.html
Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT at September 21, 2008 09:07 PM (GrWej)
Posted by jaykob at September 21, 2008 08:51 PM
Because the military actions in Iraq were approved by Congress and, if you believe in such nonsense, legalized by the UN. That is why. Comparing the legal, public, and slow decision to go to war with Iraq to the murder sprees of Manson and Bundy is a comparison only someone mentally imbalanced could possibly make.
I believe that the mentally ill are forbidden to own firearms. But maybe you can use some of Ohio Liberals' imaginary firearms....
Posted by: iconoclast at September 21, 2008 09:24 PM (EDaJi)
Posted by: lightknight at September 21, 2008 09:25 PM (7AnTp)
Without prejudice, from where I live up in Canada I would say that the above post pretty much describes how the rest of the world sees the current state of affairs in America and many really don't take sides right or left or assign blame other than to think that something awful is going on in the USA that almost resembles Germany before Hitler came to power. So whatever it is please do us a favor and stay home and bash each other and let us live in peace as we perceive no enemies on our doorstep, not here nor in Europe.
Posted by: Randall at September 21, 2008 09:35 PM (VBBcK)
It's really quite hysterical to read the thoughts of the right-wing when confronted with the idea of revolution. For some reason, they think that just because part of the left is anti-gun, we all are.
I'm a Liberal. I have more guns than you could possibly believe....blah blah...But for you people threatening the wholesale slaughter of the left with one more 'revolution' comment, remember that not ALL of the left-wing party are against guns. I can personally guarantee that if there is a revolution, you're going to be sorely surprised by what We The People can do (when I say We The People, I mean the revolutionaries; classically, in our own history, We The People meant 'the people not willing to take this crap from the government anymore. Whose side are YOU on?)
So what are you going to do with your guns then liberal? Use physical force to overthrow a democratically elected government? That democratically elected government will, quite rightly, unleash its military forces against you. Perhaps the streets will run red with rivers of liberal revolutionary blood. Won't that be nice?
AND, just to clarify: If one more person makes the stereotypical "weed smoking liberal" joke again, I'll be forced to bring about the fact that most meth addicts are from the poverty-stricken areas of the country, the areas that are so violently racist and bigoted that they will under no circumstance support Obama, simply because of his skin color.
The difference is, the meth heads generally aren't online screeching dumb crap like you people are en masse on the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos. For the record, I have nothing against anyone smoking pot - I just laugh at some of the dumb sh*t that it makes people come out with.
I'm happy to say that I'm aligned with the occasional joint smoking hippy and not the meth-infused 'gentry' of the conservative party.
And that makes you proud? Hippies are prone to extol the "virtues" of socialism and other forms of collectivism too...that makes them worse than meth heads in my book, given the historical record of the sheer scale of the wholesale barbarity that such ideologies have wrought upon nations. Hippies are just dumb sons of bitches who talk about going back to "simpler times" but who still want their video games, modern medicine, heated homes, multi-million dollar movies with psychedelic special effects, etc.
If the world view of the hippies had prevailed back in the 60's, they wouldn't have even been able to have Woodstock. Who would have made the helicopters to fly the rock stars to their gigs? Where would they be without the massive PA systems and electricity to power them? Or the doctors who flew in from New York to save their lives?
And for you right-wingers screaming bloody murder at the thought of socialism, I point you to the former ELECTED PRESIDENT of Chile Salvador Allende, who was overthrown by the CIA in the 70's because of his socialist views, regardless of the fact that he was democratically elected (because "The United States will not have this communist experiment in 'our back yard'".) And who was installed as 'president' afterwards? Pinochet. That's right, our Central Intelligence Agency helped to overthrow a democratically-elected president and install one of the most horrifically sadistic dictators in recent memory, who tortured and killed tens of thousands of people because they disagreed with him.
OK hippie lover - the gloves are off. That son of a bitch Allende was a Marxist. Do you realize how many people have been slaughtered by their own Marxist governments? 100+million in the 20th century. Every single Marxist experiment in history has resulted in the brutal wholesale slaughter of millions of civilians, the imprisonment of tens of millions more for simply disagreeing with the party, and the oppression of still tens of millions more who are forced to live in the abject poverty that Marxism results in.
Allende was a racist, a homophobe and an anti-semite (I know you lefties tend to abhor those first two). Go read about his doctoral thesis. The fact is that Pinochet, while no angel, saved Chile from the brutal barbarity of Marxism. Most of those he killed were Marxists too.
Or I point you to the current MSM's portait of Hugo Chavez, the ELECTED PRESIDENT of Venezuela, who is demonized by the United States media because he disagrees with our policies. Yet what you have to understand is that there are other countries out there who are trying to make life worth living on their own soil. In fact, ALL of Latin America has been oppressed and exploited by the United States, England, France, Germany, and even the Danes!
And I will point you to a recently released report by an international human rights group which outlines the terrible abrogation of basic rights by Hugo Chavez. Life is worth living in Venezuela? How many people are busting down their door to get in there compared to, say, America? I would have thought that when he took steps to make himself leader for life and started closing down private TV stations and replacing them with Chavez-approved, state run institutions, at least some of you moron lefties would have clicked. Not so, it seems. MOONBATS!
And so, when you degrade Socialism as a poor governmental choice because YOU don't agree with it, realize that there are people who would sooner kill you to get through you on their way home than be a part of Capitalist United States. You can sit in your house on your computer (as I am doing RIGHT NOW) and you can make outlandish claims about your opposing political party, or you can go and get a passport and see the world and see how millions upon BILLIONS of people live in our shadow.
It's not just a matter of simple subjective disagreement. Capitalism has, in just 250 years, been responsible for doubling the life expectancies of people in the countries which have been blessed by it. It has also slashed infant mortality rates many times over and been responsible for 99% of the worlds greatest technological advances. Because of capitalism, the poor in capitalist countries live better than kings or queens did 500 years ago, in terms of the medicine and technology and domestic quality of life they enjoy. Socialism has never done anything for anyone. It has only created poverty and oppression. That isn't conjecture, it's the empirical truth. America provides the greatest standard of living in the world to millions of people and is why the flow of immigration tends to go from "the rest of the world" to "America" rather than the other way around. Just once, I would like to see some of you moron left wing infants swallow some of this reality. Just once.
But... That would mean leaving your comfort zone.
There, you said it yourself...comfort zone. What do you think provides that comfort zone? I'll give you a clue - it's not Marxism.
That would mean admitting to yourself that you're not always right and the things you've been taught aren't always 100% accurate.
You accuse liberals of being on soapboxes, but youre doing the same thing, quoting their idiocies and making your own.
The things I've taught you tonight are 100% accurate. I'm on my soapbox now because it's about damn time you ignorant heathens faced up to reality and stopped living in an adult fairy tale world.
Heck, I'm doing it too. But you know what? I've lived in other countries. I've slept on dirt floors and eaten what would be turned down by 99% of our countrymen, and I've done all this before my 23rd birthday.
So have I. It made me more grateful than ever for my life in America.
I'm young and I'm quite probably ignorant, but at least I can say that in my littlest fragment of dead skin between my finger and fingernail, I have more experience in the world than you do.
I really don't think so. You're just a young kid mouthing off at the world. You'll grow up soon enough.
Try survival without your credit card before you think to criticize someone for their ideas.
35 years old - never had a credit card, never needed one. How about you? Or do you just use mommy and daddy's.
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 09:39 PM (d7L3n)
"But Now.... my Government says that if I DISAGREE with THEIR POLICIES, which is my RIGHT under the U.S. Constitution, if I protest my disagreements, which is ALSO my right under the Constitution, I AM CONSIDERED A TERRORIST!!!!!"
Did I miss an important action alert from the government letting me know about rule changes? I've seen mass protests about the Iraq War, immigration, Global Warming and all sorts of other stuff, but I haven't heard about anybody being labelled a terrorist by the government for disagreeing.
The all capital letters in your comments makes them extra special important, but are you sure the filings in your teeth are dialed into the right frequencies?
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 21, 2008 09:40 PM (i/fLn)
"Actually you are mistaken sir, he over saw the appeals of the tribunal court during the 5 months he was commander of the prison, occasionally he put some of Batista's men to the firing squad, but these men where the ones that were responsible for the two hundred thousand innocent cubans that were killed at the hands of Batista. that is nothing compared to the torture executed at Gitmo."
More delusional left wing naivety. I will point you towards Rudolph Joseph Rummel's excellent and meticulously researched "Power Kills" website which gives detailed figures which completely disprove everything you are saying. Castro, with the help of Che, was FAR more brutal than Batista.
The torture of a few savage Islamic terrorists at Gitmo is but a drop in the ocean compared with the brutality of Che and Castro. He didn't just kill Batista's men, he killed perfectly innocent civilians who didn't want to give up their small family farms to the revolution, etc. He rounded up hippies and longhairs and forced them into brutal labor camps. Che was also a racist - read the Motorcycle Diaries, in which his views about blacks are there for all to see. I don't know how many lefties I've known who have worshiped that book and claimed never to have noticed his racist views in there - until I pointed them out.
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 09:43 PM (d7L3n)
"The only reason that i am able to speak freely online is because the government has not been able to find a way to successfully censor it without showing thier tru facist nature. if you think freedom of speech is still around go to any anti war demonstration and see how quickly the police turn violent on the protesters."
If the government wanted to censor the internet they could do it RIGHT NOW. China does it, for instance. Do you think the Chinese have free access to the internet?
I've been to anti-war demonstrations (I live in NYC) and I've seen how quickly the little left wing savages get aggressive and start throwing things around and causing trouble, until the cops - who are incredibly restrained considering the crap they put up with - eventually have to do their jobs and remove the filthy little lawbreakers so they can't do any more harm.
I will repeat. You have more freedom of speech in this country than you do anywhere else in the world. That's why you're allowed to bitch and whine and hoot and bray like you are.
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 09:47 PM (d7L3n)
"Better look up the definition of fascism. You are certainly confused and wrong."
I know the definition of fascism. I am certainly NOT confused or wrong. I've never met a lefty yet who had even the slightest idea of the philosophical, political or economic definition of fascism. It's a word you use as an all-encompassing insult aimed at anyone you disagree with.
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 09:48 PM (d7L3n)
"You really have no idea how Batista ran cuba before Castro and Che came along. and just because most countries have less freedom of speech then us does not make our perfect, thats like saying Hitlers final solution was decent just because Mao killed more people for less reasoning. i will admit that we do have more freedom than most countries, but no where near what the constitution says we should have. and since when did political debate become who can degrade his opponent more, if i have offended any one i am truly sorry and hope you accept my apology. As for being intellectually shallow i think the apotomy of being intellectually shallow is resorting to personal attacks to defend your point of view."
I do have an idea of how Cuba was before Che and Castro came along. It was, economically, in better shape than a lot of European countries. Cuban farm laborers for instance, earned more than their counterparts in Italy or France. Sure, Batista was no saint, but that does not justify a "revolution" which made things far, far worse. Revolutions are supposed to make things get better, I thought?
You admit that we have more freedom of speech than "most countries" - I will correct you and say we have more freedom of speech than ALL countries. Europeans are currently losing theirs as the left wing EU tightens its screws and oppresses freedom of speech in many many instances. You claim to appreciate these freedoms but you sure as hell don't show it...plus, you outright refuse to condemn some of the most oppressive regimes in history and admit that socialism is nothing more than state slavery. Is it any wonder that right minded, objective people with decent values get angry with you?
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 09:54 PM (d7L3n)
As an Athiest i would hate to be tried in a court that is obviously pro christianity.
In what way? Firstly, the placing of the hand on the Bible is just a ritual. Get over it. Secondly, there are plenty of non-Christian and atheist judges in this country at every level. Thirdly, name one way in which a Christian judge is not going to give you a fair trial.
Not me personally but if i was a gay male i could not marry my significant other.
Having the state afford you certain benefits for being married is not a "human right". For the record, I don't agree with the state giving anyone, gay or straight, special rights or benefits for being married. As a non-married person, it's an abrogation of my rights to be discriminated against in this way. Gays can get married - they can hold their own ceremonies and call themselves husband and husband or whatever. But if they wish to partake in a system in which they are afforded more rights than me just because I am not married, I don't have to be happy about that at all.
again not me personally but women are payed less on average for equal work.
That's just not so. This has been debunked many times, here's an example:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/the_truth_about_the_pay_gap.html
an unborn child is not living so it is not murder, but are you telling me that if you sister was raped you think she would have to deal with that child the rest of her life.
An unborn child is not living? That's about the most ill informed thing I have ever heard.
The sister who was raped can give that child up for adoption - there are millions of couples out there who can't have kids.
How have i confused the defintion of Facism?
By failing to show that you understand its most basic premises.
If the us government were to show thier true colors so dramatically they know that the majority of the us population would rise up in oppostion.
Do you even know what democracy means? This country is currently split neck and neck between a Republican and a Democrat. Does that sound like the majority of people wish for a socialist revolution like you do?
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 10:03 PM (d7L3n)
how does the criminal investigation of bush and cheny scare you, thats like saying bringing manson or ted bundy to justice was a bad thing.
It doesn't scare me, it's just a complete waste of time. They didn't do anything wrong. Democrats spent most of the 90's and the early 2000's declaring how dangerous Saddam was and how we needed to get rid of him. They agreed fully with Bush right up until the time the war became unpopular with the public, then they pounced.
There is a video of Al Gore in the 90's berating the first Bush for not doing enough to get rid of Saddam, whom he called a danger to the world. There are plenty more quotes from Democrats in that vein, if you would like me to post them I will.
In fact it is Democrats who should be put on trial - for treason. They've done their level best to undermine a wartime president and their country and their troops. They've done their best to try and make America lose this war, an end they seek purely for political purposes.
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 10:06 PM (d7L3n)
"I hate doing this because i know its amd old reasoning, but americans got so caught up in post 9-11 patriotism that it gave bush the excuse to do anything he wanted as long as it was in response to the attacks. this seems eerily similair to how hitler took power in germany, he used a national tragedy to his advantage and swept in and before enough people noticed it was already too late."
You're wrong from the first sentence - what you say is not "reasoning" at all. Americans WERE attacked by sub human Islamic terrorists, and Bush did everything he could to make sure that it didn't happen again. Which it didn't - so far.
Hitler lied about the Jews and used them as an excuse to install himself as a fascist dictator. In case you weren't aware, Bush's last term is almost up in this democratic country. The comparisons between America and Nazi Germany are old and dog-eared, and it's about time you childish leftists learned a new trick to amuse us.
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 10:09 PM (d7L3n)
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 10:09 PM (12d5g)
"i never said they should be brought up on charges for political differnces, but for the slaughter of hundreds of innocent people. what does my comparison have to do with me not owning a fire arm?"
There are two parties who are 100% responsible for the deaths of innocents in Iraq:
1) Saddam Hussein, who refused to step down as dictator of Iraq when given an ultimatum which was given to him because he was quite clearly trying to develop nukes and was playing cat and mouse games with UN inspectors. We had to unseat him given the intelligence which existed against him - to not do so would have been entirely irresponsible. He could have avoided a war simply by stepping down and allowing another in his party to take over. That was the deal. He refused it. We had to go in.
2) Islamic terrorists who saw Iraqis enjoying their first taste of democracy and decided to do everything they could to destroy it. To that end, they have killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq since...and not once have I EVER heard a liberal denounce them or apportion any kind of blame whatsoever for the carnage in Iraq. Not once. Liberals can't even bring themselves to acknowledge that it isn't US soldiers killing innocents, but Islamic terrorists.
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 10:14 PM (d7L3n)
Blah blah blibbety...
Kevin, you refuse to answer the questions.
1) Do you deny that it was the left wing policy of forcing lenders to give out bad loans which led to the sub prime mortgage crisis?
2) Given this, what do you expect Paulson to do? What do you WANT him to do? NOT bail anyone out? You do realize what the economic consequences of that would be, don't you?
Having established this, it seems funny that you're now spewing childish conspiracies, as if this were all planned. Paulson certainly didn't instigate or plan the sub prime mortgage crisis.
So what do you want him to do about it now? Answer the question.
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 10:18 PM (d7L3n)
"Without prejudice, from where I live up in Canada I would say that the above post pretty much describes how the rest of the world sees the current state of affairs in America and many really don't take sides right or left or assign blame other than to think that something awful is going on in the USA that almost resembles Germany before Hitler came to power. So whatever it is please do us a favor and stay home and bash each other and let us live in peace as we perceive no enemies on our doorstep, not here nor in Europe."
There is nothing about the current state of the US that resembles Germany before Hitler came to power. Stop making these melodramatic claims for effect. It's childish. I might take a look at the ways freedom of speech is being abrogated in Canada and say the same thing.
Do you want examples?
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 10:19 PM (d7L3n)
"I am done with all this i know by my leaving this thread you will all assume that i am defeated and just gave up, no i am done because arguring my point of view to people i know will never change thier mind is pointless, and ive already wasted enough time in doing so, instead i would wish to change the minds of people who are actually intelligent free thinkers not asinine cowards who are too afraid to stand up for what is right but instead hide behind a corrupt government and a meaningless flag."
That's not what happened though JayKob, is it? Your arguments just weren't good enough to demolish the wall of reasoning you were confronted with. THAT'S what happened.
There is no point being a "free thinker" if your views are unfounded, without basis and irrational. There is no virtue in associating yourself with "freedom" if you openly express support for the left wing regimes in this world who don't allow their citizens the most basic freedoms that we enjoy.
The American flag may be meaningless to you, but that's because you're ignorant and you don't know what it means. I'll give you a clue - it represents the torch of the Enlightenment, which started in England and (ironically) France, and which spread to the New World.
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 10:23 PM (d7L3n)
1. We must bail out foreign banks as well as American banks.
2. We can not interfere with the salaries and bonuses of the people who plundered their companies.
3. Working Americans can not be involved in the bailout, only corporations.
4. We can not include any regulatory oversight in the legislation. We must trust Bush to do the right thing.
Does any of this remind you of the Patriot Act? The scumbags are using a disaster (that they created) to get everything that they ever wanted in their quest to destroy the Constitution and turn government over to corporations. You should be very afraid of what is about to happen.
You are going to buy all the bad debts from these banking predators and leave them with the ‘cream of the crop’ loans. They will reap fantastic profits and you will be fucked.
Pelosi will talk big, but by the end of the week she will be in front of Bush on her knees. It is small wonder that the market rebounded in the last two days. Wall Street was just told that there will never be any ramifications for bad decisions.
Bend over taxpayers; You know where you are going to take this bailout.'
http://lonesomemongoose.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/bend-over-taxpayers-you-know-where-you-are-going-to-take-this-bailout/
Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT at September 21, 2008 10:24 PM (GrWej)
Yeah... I made it up. Completely. I fabricated it, pulled it out of thin air. Whoops. You caught me. It doesn't matter that it happened, because I have no proof. I have no proof at all, and you should have absolutely no reason to believe me.
I don't care if you do or don't. You've managed a great Fox News in taking one part of a story and blowing it out of proportion to make it the most IMPORTANT part. Congratulations. Try not to break your sternum when you thump your chest.
James:
You read one history. I'll suffice with going to those countries and talking with the people who lived through it. It's told quite differently.
And no, I don't have a credit card; I watched my parents marriage get torn apart because of debt and mortgages, and I decided I wouldn't need one that bad.
Yeah, I'm an angry kid. I'm angry because I've seen a lot of messed up stuff in the short period I've been alive.
And you're obviously taking the time to respond to me, so my mouthing off to the world has managed to get under someones skin. Your response has proven your own point: Only idiots write on these message boards, myself included.
Posted by: Ohio Liberal at September 21, 2008 10:42 PM (sTD0o)
Posted by: cmblake6 at September 21, 2008 10:44 PM (QSVQf)
I will ask you one more time. Who do you think created this disaster? When you say "they", do you include the left wing group ACORN, which blackmailed banks into providing bad loans to high risk low income families by using the CRA to threaten the veto of branch expansions and mergers?
Perhaps ACORN were in on it with Paulson, to create this vast conspiracy to install fascism.
I will also ask - given that the left wing policies of political correctness created this situation, how do you propose we get out of it?
I await your answers. You seem very keen to search the bloggosphere for opinions as childish and naive as yours, but very reluctant to actually engage with someone using your skills of reasoning.
I see you still have no idea what the word "fascist" means, too. How cute.
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 10:46 PM (d7L3n)
You are a fool. Source for 200,00 killed by Bautista? Best sources I've seen are 20,000 during his entire career from 1933 through 1958. Source for Che's executions and murders: "Little Black Book of Communism". Read it sometime..... They excuted ~2100 Cubans at La Cabana Prison during Che's 5 months there. Quite a few had fought with Castro but were not communist so Che killed them.
Posted by: Budahmon at September 21, 2008 10:50 PM (tSJHo)
You read one history. I'll suffice with going to those countries and talking with the people who lived through it. It's told quite differently.
Perhaps you'd like to talk to some of the millions of people who have escaped Cuba on rafts in shark infested waters since Che and Castro destroyed their country? Perhaps you'd like to talk to Cubans once they're in the safety of a free country, where they don't have to worry about being imprisoned or oppressed for saying the wrong thing.
Perhaps the millions upon millions of innocent people who have been slaughtered by their Marxist leaders "have a different story to tell" too. Oh that's right I forgot - they're dead.
And no, I don't have a credit card; I watched my parents marriage get torn apart because of debt and mortgages, and I decided I wouldn't need one that bad.
Good for you! I pay cash for almost everything - everything else with a debit card.
Yeah, I'm an angry kid. I'm angry because I've seen a lot of messed up stuff in the short period I've been alive.
Aww, EVERYONE'S an angry kid. You'll grow out of it. Everyone's seen messed up stuff. Here's a little reality for you. Poverty and misery and cruelty has been the natural state of the world for 99% of its history. Capitalism didn't create poverty, it inherited it from the Earth. And since it did, nothing has done more to alleviate it. Growing up involves learning to appreciate just how lucky you are to live in one of the freest countries in the world, and how lucky you are to live in a capitalist country.
And you're obviously taking the time to respond to me, so my mouthing off to the world has managed to get under someones skin.
I don't mind someone "mouthing off" at all. When they're getting it all wrong though, I tend to object. Calmly and rationally. You don't "get under my skin".
Your response has proven your own point: Only idiots write on these message boards, myself included.
Speak for yourself!
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 10:53 PM (d7L3n)
As I believe the US Government is terrorizing USA citizens with the Patriot Act and the Protect American Act (& various other 'new' Acts), as these Acts take away basic freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, I am NOT "with" the Government Policies.
And, since I am "against" the Government Policies, I can therefore be considered a terrorist by the Government [agencies].
I might also add that not one of the US Gov. deemed ‘terrorists’ has taken my Constitutional rights away – my own Government has done that!
I am in direct disagreement with current US Government Policy on USA CITIZEN'S RIGHTS – this hardly compares with Global Warming, Immigration issues, or even war protesters (although I might remind you to remember Kent State, if you’re old enough).
Are you even aware that [forced to delete the rest of this in order to post] Policies that are taking away US citizen’s rights. Do you recall that one of my fellow pilots helping the US fight the war in Iraq is found on this TWL? These are but a few. You might even find yourself listed!! Do your research!
IF you do some research, you will also see that protesters against Government policies are NOT being allowed to protest in a peaceful manner. There are many, many incidents where police are ‘undercover’ and within the protester groups creating disturbances with their fellow officers so it will APPEAR that the protesters in general are an unruly group. You can do a Google search on this and see video of this happening. Then, there are the raids PRIOR to protests. I’ll give you one a link for one incident of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ougH8G6UnkI – YOU can do a search and find more.
Ask the ACLU what rights have been lost by the Patriot Act, etc. and they will be glad to enlighten you.
Am I on the right frequency? Well, I loved to be proved that what I am saying is incorrect but to date, I regretfully find I am not. So, daleyrocks, I put the same question to you – are YOU on the right frequency??
I’d like to add that I have no malice against anyone with an opinion – but many opinions I see being voiced just do not have the right information and therefore their opinions are misaligned. I only seek to enlighten the US citizens to what is happening day by day to their Constitutional Rights.
And YES, when it comes to the Constitution and The Bill of Rights – I WILL fight for them. Even if it means picking up arms to do so…
(Note: I’m not YELLING in this response )
NOTE: In my first response to you, I was censored and not allowed to post anything concerning HLS terrorist watch list policies! I had to remove that from this response or it would not post!! Talk about loss of freedom!!
I received the following warning:
Your comment could not be submitted due to questionable content: Are you even aware that..[I am not allowed to complete this paragraph if I wish to post!]
Posted by: Uncle Sam at September 21, 2008 11:04 PM (lpxIE)
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POSTWWII.TAB.GIF
RJ Rummel is probably one of the most learned scholars of state oppression in existence. His research is meticulous and he is completely impartial in his work.
Pro-Castro saps will see from this table that Batista's total killings for the decade or so he was in power was 1.16 thousand. Castro's, in the next decade, was 68.48 thousand - almost SIXTY times as violent as Batista.
Just take a stroll through Rummel's site, and see for yourself that history's most violent regimes have been socialist and Marxist - remember, the Nazis were socialists too, but even if they weren't the killings of Hitler were overtaken many times over than the killings of Marxists.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 11:06 PM (d7L3n)
Posted by: J at September 21, 2008 11:10 PM (2CiO/)
Posted by: jaykob at September 21, 2008 11:16 PM (12d5g)
Maybe the government has not found a way to censor what you say online but Confederate Yankee sure has! I was censored - had to remove a large portion of my response to daleyrocks as it dealt with the TW List and who was on it!
DALEYROCKS - Sorry, forgot to put your name at the top of my last post which was response to your questions.
Posted by: Uncle Sam at September 21, 2008 11:20 PM (lpxIE)
If you want to seehow big each other's raisins are, by all means do so, just do it somewhere else."
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
If this thread isn't an argument for the merits of centrism, I don't know what is. You guys can continue to call each other "fascists," "libtards," "ninnies," and "simpletons" until the cows come home. Just don't get in the way of the rest of us while we work together and solve our country's problems.
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at September 21, 2008 11:23 PM (IVQmE)
Posted by: Uncle Sam at September 21, 2008 11:24 PM (lpxIE)
President Bush: "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."
As I believe the US Government is terrorizing USA citizens with the Patriot Act and the Protect American Act (& various other 'new' Acts), as these Acts take away basic freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, I am NOT "with" the Government Policies.
And, since I am "against" the Government Policies, I can therefore be considered a terrorist by the Government [agencies].
Grow up. You know as well as I do who Bush was addressing when he made that comment. He was addressing an international community he quite rightly believed should support a war on terror - not US citizens who may disagree with his methods.
But he was right - if you are against fighting terrorists, you are with them. It's as simple as that. Nobody is saying you can't disagree with methods, strategies etc - but if you disagree with the fundamental need to address the problem, then you're on their side. It really is that simple.
I might also add that not one of the US Gov. deemed ‘terrorists’ has taken my Constitutional rights away – my own Government has done that!
If a terrorist was to launch an attack on you and kill you, would that be considered taking your Constitutional rights away? Do you have a right to live? Almost 3,000 people had their Constitutional rights taken away from them in New York City on 9/11, for instance. Terrorists take away your right to go about your life in peace without the threat of being blown up on a bus or a subway, etc.
So which Constitutional rights has the government taken away from you?
I am in direct disagreement with current US Government Policy on USA CITIZEN'S RIGHTS – this hardly compares with Global Warming, Immigration issues, or even war protesters (although I might remind you to remember Kent State, if you’re old enough).
What rights do you suppose you have as a human being, and which of those rights do you feel are being abrogated? Let's go into this, philosophically.
Are you even aware that [forced to delete the rest of this in order to post] Policies that are taking away US citizen’s rights. Do you recall that one of my fellow pilots helping the US fight the war in Iraq is found on this TWL? These are but a few. You might even find yourself listed!! Do your research!
Forced to delete what? Spare me your theatrics. What can't you post here? Be specific! Don't lie.
IF you do some research, you will also see that protesters against Government policies are NOT being allowed to protest in a peaceful manner. There are many, many incidents where police are ‘undercover’ and within the protester groups creating disturbances with their fellow officers so it will APPEAR that the protesters in general are an unruly group.
No, there are many instances in which left wing anti-war protesters claim to have been infiltrated by undercover cops whom they can then blame any violence on. Get real kid - leftist protesters are violent and unruly all over the world. I've SEEN more protests in New York than you've had hot dinners. The cops are there for a reason - to maintain law and order, as is their job. They have to contain protests and stop them from getting out of hand. Which unfortunately, they frequently do. Leftists are often hysterical by nature, as can be seen by their attacks on Republicans in colleges etc. See how they storm stages to prevent the opposing view being expressed at college events. See the footage of Code Pink protesters actively encouraging violence against Republican students at Berkeley. I was 21 once, I knew a lot of these types. They are not, on the whole, "peaceful". They're angry and aggressive, and the cops have to do something about them. In your YouTube links, where is the proof? I'm sick of hearing the endless paranoid conjecture of the left.
Ask the ACLU what rights have been lost by the Patriot Act, etc. and they will be glad to enlighten you.
Ask the ACLU if they care about my right to live my life without the threat of Islamic savages blowing me up. Ask them if they even care about the right of a 4 year old child to play in the street without being under threat of the gunfire which frequently hits them when thug animals have arguments over $10 bags of weed. The ACLU cares more about the rights of criminals to plot and commit crimes than it does about the rights of innocent, decent citizens to go about their law abiding, peaceful lives. They are a disgrace and when you look into their roots it's hardly surprising - they were started by communists.
And YES, when it comes to the Constitution and The Bill of Rights – I WILL fight for them. Even if it means picking up arms to do so…
Don't be silly, son. You're just daydreaming. Nobody's attacking your rights. You don't even really know what rights are. I'll get into this with you philosophically if you like - just say the word.
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 11:24 PM (d7L3n)
Is there a way online though? and CY is just not letting you say it, you could email me if he wont let you say anything.
Posted by: Jaykob at September 21, 2008 11:28 PM (12d5g)
Posted by: James at September 21, 2008 11:28 PM (d7L3n)
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 22, 2008 12:19 AM (i/fLn)
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 22, 2008 12:23 AM (i/fLn)
"Get real kid..." "Don't be silly, son. You're just daydreaming."
Did you not read the following in my initial response? I am a retired U.S. Army Helicopter Pilot who served three years in Vietnam, was awarded The Distinguished Flying Cross, two
Bronze Stars ( with "V"), 32 Combat Air Medals and the Army Commendation Medal. For Fifty, years of my life I WAS a Right-Wing, God Bless MY GOVERNMENT, Kick Ass AMERICAN!!
And you call me "kid" and "son"?
James - when, and if, you put your life on the line for your country for more than 3 years; received more awards for combat heroism and bravery in full support of the US government's policies at the time. And when you've served your Government for over 20 years in active military service, THEN you can call me "kid" or even "son". But until that time, the only name you have the right to call me is "Sir"!
I don't have time to walk you through the internet. Everything I have stated is on the internet. Start with reading The Patriot Act and The Protect America Act.
..."Almost 3,000 people had their Constitutional rights taken away from them in New York City on 9/11, for instance. Terrorists take away your right to go about your life in peace without the threat of being blown up on a bus or a subway, etc."..
James, as far as 911....I'll save that for another post at another time. Too lengthy to get into now.
"Forced to delete what? Spare me your theatrics. What can't you post here? Be specific! Don't lie."
Was I censored by CF? Yes indeed. I did a copy and paste of it on a word.doc! Obviously, I can not discuss it here as it was censored the first time around so don't see if making it the second time around. This is no theatrics - surprised me when the censor showed up - still don't know exactly why (no cussing, name calling, etc. was in it). If you would like to see it, I'll send you the worddoc. to your email.
Posted by: Uncle Sam at September 22, 2008 01:00 AM (3usbu)
"By the way, those who are claiming that they can't post certain content - of course you can. Do you really think the government is monitoring this site and censoring it in real time?"
James, if you are insinuating that I think the Government is monitoring - and censoring - me in real time....well, that ludicrous. I not only don't believe that - I made no such claim. I said that CY censored me.
I had no person's personal information; foul language, etc. I do not know WHY it was censored but the subject matter was HL TW List.
Computers new to me...I am not savvy enough to know how to cloak. I tried putting XXXX in various parts of the censored paragraph but still got censored. I had to 'delete' a large portion of the paragraph for it to Post. I did save a copy of what I wrote - and the response...the censor message.
Posted by: Uncle Sam at September 22, 2008 01:15 AM (3usbu)
So, if the Bush's steal another election, even though no Bush is running, it is time to revolt and take the country where it needs to go.
But they overlook some facts. Any revolt would be very short. Because Conservatives are bloodthirsty maniacs.
Posted by: John D at September 22, 2008 01:23 AM (kyma3)
Are you sure this didn't come from the Onion instead of Huffpo?
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at September 22, 2008 02:46 AM (BNCg2)
Posted by: mitchell porter at September 22, 2008 03:57 AM (6rRs/)
HeeHee
People in opposition of Bush uneducated? Thats ludicrous it's the small minded conservatives that are so easily scared by 3rd world rag heads and any American citizens that looks forward instead of clinging to the past.Bush's gutting of any oversight of wall street resulted in this mess.Just look at his 2004 SEC rule change where the five large wall street banks thats are failing now were allowed to borrow 40 times their operating capital. But that wouldn't have anything to do with their current problems would it.
Posted by: jim morgan at September 22, 2008 04:28 AM (WYmrV)
p.s. I must say I've had a good laugh at the bluff calling for armed revolution. I think both parties at this point are complete BS. Both have essentially the exact same corporate backers. I hate Clinton for NAFTA. I'm not saying I have solutions but I'm looking for them.
p.p.s. I'll be voting for Obama. Best reason: McCain's choice of Palin disqualified him.
Posted by: matthew at September 22, 2008 05:48 AM (4YPUq)
Unfortunately this moronic consent to the criminals in charge that means everyone in the US gets screwed. I became an expatriate years ago, but I always thought I would want to return when I had a family. But now that I have two lovely three-year olds, I would never dream of bringing them back there. Thanks to many posters on this list for your contribution toward making the country I once loved shameful and unlivable.
my children will get raped to--if I ever make the mistake of bringing them back to the US, that is.
Posted by: mike at September 22, 2008 07:26 AM (QR/Fj)
Posted by: Bandit at September 22, 2008 07:37 AM (/R+6i)
These freaks have very big mouths. They are even willing to resort to violence as long as there is a massive police force around them, protecting them from being lynched on the spot by decent Americans.
Bring that revolution on....Puullleeeese! What an opportunity to rid ourselves of several thousand American hating leftists.
Posted by: RA at September 22, 2008 07:59 AM (poJU6)
[note: this post disemvoweled by siteowner, but otherwise intact]
Posted by: clan1465 at September 22, 2008 09:14 AM (Q/QLG)
This would last, what ... an hour and a half?
Posted by: Fred Pennsylvania at September 22, 2008 09:26 AM (FZwqN)
Gandhi. That's how a revolution works. The end of the Soviet Union. They didn't come out there with guns, they just came out there and said no. Can't you see we are getting screwed by our own rulers. 700 billion for the banks. Where's my million? You guys are blinded by the right, Cut loose like a deuce another runner in the night. Good luck with it.
Posted by: Matt at September 22, 2008 09:57 AM (vQz/w)
Posted by: HKpistole at September 22, 2008 09:58 AM (/j9KS)
"I would like to see some opinions, from those opposed to Larisa Alexandrovna's essay, on the desirability of the trillion-dollar bailout"
WHY I WANT A TRILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT (Yes, Even if it requires the Treasury Secretary be given blanket authority):
(from least to most)
5. I can't get worked up about a Trillion dollars when I know that there is a 50Trillion dollar tsunami in the form of a socialist ponzi scheme that will swamp us in 10-30 years.
4. A "free market" solution is not appropriate. This is not a failure of the freemarket. This is a catastrophic failure which sprung from a *perversion* of the free market (A state owned entity acting as a private sector participant albeit with an infinite budget to negate any mistake, regardless of scale.) If it was just another market player then I'd say who cares. But these guys own half of the mortgages in the country. Their portfolio is valued at 5 Trillion dollars.
3. Because most American households, including myself, have the majority of their life savings tied up in retirement plans and in their house.
i. You can't liquidate your house, and it will be really hard to find anyone willing to pay August 2008 prices for your house if everyone's financial resources are reduced to zero.
ii. Toilet paper would be more expensive than the studiously diversified securities in my 401k if we had a real financial meltdown. I'm genX, I worked hard and played by the rules, and pushing 40. I don't want to start at zero again because of a chain of events kicked off by government bureaucrats who decided they were worth annual bonuses of $18-25M for playing Enron games with taxpayer backed money. (It's the sort of thing that might drive a less balanced person to start looking for a torch & pitchfork) Worse still, I've just started a business after being laid off, so my 401k is my last line of defense. If I lose that than it really is do or die for me and my family.
2. Because the source of this goes back to a collapse in the housing industry, which in turn has contaminated the entire credit industry due to some highly irresponsible behaviour on the part of ass-hat borrowers AND bigger ass-hat ivy league scum & Fannie/Freddie cronies, so if backstopping housing frees up the credit and we avoid a chain reaction collapse that will make the Great Depression look mild than so be it.
There are a couple of ways the taxpayers would even get it back: These houses *have* value. Somebody can live in them (and maintain their value over time), -maybe even the family who previously "owned" them if the government simply takes the deed (and whatever equity they had) and starts charging them rent it determines they can afford, (I'd say at least 50% of the current market value + they do maintenance or out they go) If the plan works than the the housing market will find it's bottom, stabilize and even start to rebound, and the government (as the deedholder) will see huge returns having bought near the bottom if they simply hold on to the deeds and gradually beging to sell the more lucrative ones as the market rises.
1. Because I have a three year old and haven't stocked up on ammo, or converted my generator to run on fermented grass clippings, or done the Mormon thing and stock up on a year's worth of food and heating oil. I've got a picket fence to paint come next spring. The total financial collapse which would follow a cascading failure of finance and banking institutions and 86 any possibility of finding a job or growing a business is NOT a teaching moment. It is a disaster of global scale whose misery would condemn 100's of millions to starvation, maybe even here. No thanks.
That said, this shouldn't be forgiven: We should demand that a lot of these people do the perp walk in orange jumpsuits, --and yes Cox should resign, not because he's a bad guy, but because regulating forward looking statements and statements of risk are the SEC's responsibility and it happened on his watch. McCain's right: If it's good enough for Eisenhower it's good enough for the guy who helped put us in this situation.
I think there are several others who should also fall on their swords. Bernanke? I don't know how culpable he is yet. Greenspan? Grrrrr. If we can't perp walk Barney Frank than at least we should demand he resign, along with the other politicians (who ARE mostly democrats) that consistently blocked the same set of reforms proposed in 2003, 2005, and 2007. (That would be Dodd, Shumer, Clinton, maybe even Obama, (he did steer a lot of pork their way), but I'm certainly willing to ask the same of Ted Stevens, Bohner, and any other pork meisters in the spirit of bipartisanship.) Certainly anyone whose was a C level officer at Fanny/Freddy in last 10 years, including Raines, Johnson, and the Mistress of Disaster, Jamie Gorelick, should be thrown into prison for the rest of their $18-25M/yr lives. These three should consider themselves lucky that we don't apply the PRofC solution to such corporate malfeasance.
But what about this non-review thing? I trust Secretary Paulson will ask himself how history would remember him if he didn't exercise this unbridled power of the purse on the basis of what is best for the country. Can you imagine if someone could stop this decision or that by suing and/or appealing the Treasury Secretary's decisions? Would foreign held corporations refrain from suing if their competitors were being bailed out? Foreign powers? Radicals within this country that see progress as bad? (How many shares would the ELF have to buy to have standing?) How about some asshat pol who wants to see his constituent's employer gets bailed out first. No, there cannot be oversight or it will never work.
Posted by: Mark M. at September 22, 2008 10:32 AM (UyAkl)
The 90% of us who wonder what this all means for our families need to think about what actions we should take to protect ourselves. I am usually a lurker here, but I mostly agree with CY and his posts. I believe he was pointing out the silliness of a poster on the Huffington Blog calling for a revolution. In my opinion, if the Left could have had a revolution, we would have already seen it. Empty threats from Leftists are just that...empty. And for right-leaning people to be suckered into silly arguments with them does not reflect well on us either. The only revolution we would be likely to see would be the one that would happen if welfare checks were eliminated, which would be the result of an attempted revolution. The beat-down of these Leftists by welfare recipients might be worth seeing the attempt. LOL. J/K here, folks.
As for the bailout, I doubt whether many regulars of this site would approve of it. I certainly don't, and I have contacted my Congressman this morning and voiced my opposition. That is what we all should do, regardless of whether we oppose or support it. I realize we faced a financial crisis last week, but this can't possibly be the best solution. Giving carte blanche to bankers with sums of taxpayer's monies in the hundreds of billions is insane, and it should be recinded. What can sensibly be put in its place I don't know, but what has been done needs to be undone. Work within the system to change the system. That has worked for America since 1776, with only one exception, and that one(CW) caust millions of lives. I don't think we need another one of those.
Posted by: common sense at September 22, 2008 10:52 AM (6fvyi)
Posted by: Maud'Dib at September 22, 2008 11:03 AM (fCrnD)
It is incredibly ironic for Larisa to suggest such a thing. Considering that her folks come from Soviet Ukraine, she offers a solution the consequences of which her parents (along with thousands, if not millions, of other russians and ukranians) fled by moving to this great country. Might I say her parents failed her in helping her understand the causes of the mess the whole ex Soviet empire is still boggled down in. Larisa in case you read this post, may I suggest some reading for you?
A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924 Orlando Figes
Posted by: Mongol at September 22, 2008 11:08 AM (gtZwa)
Posted by: studakota at September 22, 2008 11:16 AM (9kq5c)
Posted by: Patriot Man at September 22, 2008 11:25 AM (nyOoi)
You are flat out lying! It is undeniable that the Clintons trashed and stole many things from the White House. I noticed you didn't reference any links to your lie. Here is the truth. Why do far left wing fanatical nutjobs like Unpatriotic man have to lie? Don't they think they can win in the arena of ideas? Is lying the only way they can win? Does anyone think that Unpatriotic man will apologize for lying?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 22, 2008 12:22 PM (kNqJV)
It is so perfectly emblematic of the Left. He spells out their intent with such clarity.
This thread rules!
Posted by: brando at September 22, 2008 12:41 PM (qzOby)
You think clan1465 would be able to navigate all the pizza boxes in his Mama's basement to make it to the streets for a revolution?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 22, 2008 12:43 PM (kNqJV)
I'm a liberal but I don't want a revolution. To What? I just want a level playing field for a free market economy with liberty and justice for all. This bailout smells, it's a dog with fleas. Why don't they refinance individual loans to something fair and the penalty is starting over? Nothing to the banks except a fair monthly payment. I am sure even something as simple as that would be corrupted beyond belief. I am losing faith in the whole thing.
Revolutions happen when people have no food, rights, health care, money, cars, gas, houses etc. Hey we keep getting closer.
I guess they better reward the banks for there ill acts with a big pay out so they don't close up and actually sow the seeds for a revolt. revolting!!! I'm gonna puke.
Posted by: Matt at September 22, 2008 01:06 PM (vQz/w)
Posted by: Dan at September 22, 2008 02:07 PM (f8B2A)
Posted by: Big Al at September 22, 2008 02:13 PM (Unrk8)
"Well, if that's the case, why aren't you already behind barbed wire...and why am I not guarding you?"
Posted by: MarkJ at September 21, 2008 08:40 AM
Mark, so you're saying that you want to be a Nazi concentration camp guard?
Posted by: Chris at September 22, 2008 03:34 PM (FY9tC)
Posted by: Bill Barker at September 22, 2008 04:34 PM (RsTKb)
Can't they take a cue from Governator Arnold and embrace the American Way of Doing Things?
Posted by: Roderick Reilly at September 22, 2008 05:49 PM (n27hc)
Posted by: cs at September 22, 2008 07:03 PM (5QG+g)
You should know that she is far from alone in fearing that Americans will reach the collective end of their rope...Ask yourself, all this chipping away at our constitutional rights that Bush & co. has done, and now wanting to remove the power from our elected representatives...all quite methodical...you don't think they did all this for nothing, do you? The author is quite simply saying "Open your eyes. Something very bad is on the way."
Oh, and lastly, I find it ridiculous that "liberal" has become the new republican catch-all phrase for anyone that doesn't think exactly like "you". Not all Democrats are liberals, not all liberals are democrats, etc, etc, but you should KNOW this already.
Posted by: KJ at September 22, 2008 07:05 PM (+Dl1R)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 22, 2008 07:14 PM (kNqJV)
I make a pretty hard distinction between Democrats and Liberals, as well as Republicans and Conservatives. And I think that's fair.
But then I've had a Liberal Democrat tell me that those are the same thing. She would know, because she's both, and I wouldn't because I'm neither. She also said that she wanted to kill the President, and views Pravda more favorably than FoxNews, so go figure.
As for the actual topic of this thread, I'll restate that I believe that the violent overthrow of our entire republic would be counterproductive. That's one of the things that set me apart from Liberals. Or maybe I should say Democrats, because I've been informed that those are synonyms.
Posted by: brando at September 22, 2008 07:29 PM (UB1+D)
The rest of this blog and the other blog aside, do keep in mind that the declaration of independence itself contains incitement towards insurrection under dire circumstances.
Posted by: Dan at September 22, 2008 08:06 PM (Lzwli)
Posted by: John at September 22, 2008 08:08 PM (98wSk)
The quoted post if accurate is nonsense. The "bailout" in question appears to be following constitutional legislative process. The cabinet presented the bailout to congress and that is where the spending power likely to be exercised resides. Not sure where the upset of the balance of powers is happening there.
Hmm... also not sure where the problem is with the poster suggesting that the appropriate reaction to what's not happening is revolution. Suggest away. Pretty sure that this is protected speech as she is not inciting in a specific enough manner to be a crime. Layered on top of that is the basic premis underlying the constitution (and even closer to her critics hearts the right to bear arms), that IF we were faced with an issue where revolution was appropriate -- our magnificent constitution supports its legality.
So lets not attack the alleged writer for something other than the issue at hand: its just a dumb post. Unfortunately the post (if accurate, again, I have not fact checked it) just doesn't even come close to touching on an issue that comes close to anything reasonably supporting revolution.
Bailing out AIG is almost certainly a good idea. Lousy place to be, but probably necessary. This is just my opinion as someone with 20ish years in the commercial insurance industry. We won't know what it means one way or the other for ten years, but a little socialized solution scares me less than AIG going under. AIG going bust with 30% share of virtually every insurance market scares the hell out of me. I know it is going to come at tax payer expense, but the problem is that it would probably hit us all in the pocket book anyway through increased costs, business failures, and personal un-insured losses. My perception is that the current bailout is unavoidable now -- but might not have been if there had been more oversight. I have not heard either party talking about the platform for oversight of financial markets eight or ten years ago, so I am not sure who gets the high ground on this issue.
Anyway, that is all I have on the issue at the moment. I have my pocket constitution in hand, so fire away.
Posted by: Paul Rauner at September 22, 2008 08:14 PM (Djb3Q)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, 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 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.
Posted by: Scorpio69er at September 22, 2008 08:28 PM (RcWQw)
Posted by: Dave M at September 22, 2008 08:51 PM (gCmFz)
Posted by: Jefferson at September 22, 2008 09:00 PM (jOfgD)
Palin = Princess Di With A Rifle?
That is the interesting contention of Amanda Platell in the U.K. Daily Mail.
It is rather refreshing to see a media account about Gov. Palin that isn't spiteful or inartfully designed to tear her down from the outset, but genuinely curious in tone. It's also pathetically sad that we have to go overseas to find it.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:08 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: capitano at September 20, 2008 11:14 AM (UsyG7)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 20, 2008 11:17 AM (HcgFD)
I thought the Daily Mail article was refreshingly fair and even left a comment to counter the PDS posters. I just thought someone should go on the record regarding her dissimilarity with Di.
Posted by: capitano at September 20, 2008 11:32 AM (UsyG7)
How they underestimate our Maggie...
Ofcourse the Europeans, the Arabs, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Hamas, Al Qaeda, etc. have embraced BHO...they know they can roll him...
With Mac and Sarahcuda they get John Wayne and Annie Oakley!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Carlos Echevarria at September 20, 2008 11:44 AM (CsNoJ)
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at September 20, 2008 08:20 PM (Qv1xF)
The female lefty trolls are all over Platell.
Posted by: arch at September 21, 2008 01:24 PM (SyNBd)
September 19, 2008
ACORN Cracked... Again
Refresh my memory: don't these thugs have ties to a certain community organizer?
Republican National Committee officials say they aren't surprised to hear a Durham County elections official suspects voter registration forms gathered by a community activist group may be fraudulent. The RNC's chief counsel, Sean Cairncross, on Friday said the group, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has a history of gathering fraudulent or incomplete voter registration forms. Cairncross disputes ACORN's claim that it is a nonpartisan organization.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:04 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: ccoffer at September 19, 2008 10:16 PM (HVD+v)
Posted by: Trish at September 19, 2008 11:21 PM (5SqAN)
Posted by: iconoclast at September 20, 2008 01:26 AM (NqU7a)
Posted by: Eric at September 20, 2008 07:38 AM (8VQxC)
Posted by: Dusty at September 20, 2008 08:04 AM (Mlw0p)
Posted by: Bluecaper at September 20, 2008 10:59 AM (Qjds1)
Bear in mind Wisconsin went Democrat in the last 2 elections by 11 or 12 thousand votes. If WI had gone red in 2000, FLA would have been a moot point.
Posted by: southpaw at September 20, 2008 11:57 AM (Pb1Fm)
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 20, 2008 01:06 PM (Vcyz0)
Posted by: Jim at September 20, 2008 04:34 PM (jrP9B)
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 20, 2008 06:45 PM (M+Vfm)
Posted by: JerryT at September 21, 2008 01:05 PM (js9wj)
Processing 0.08, elapsed 0.4244 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3598 seconds, 588 records returned.
Page size 547 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.