Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » The Great Republican Problem with Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians, Part I

The Great Republican Problem with Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians, Part I

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In case you haven’t noticed, Republicans have a problem. Believe it or not, it isn’t a problem with Democrats. It isn’t a problem with Republicans. We have a serious problem with Far Right conservatives. We have a serious problem with Far Left liberals. And – we have a problem with everyone and their uncle telling “us” what to do, even though they’re not Republicans.

The past few month here at Blogcritics, I’ve written a series of articles about politics that have rightly been criticized as being ‘over the top’. I’ve been accused of ‘bomb throwing’. Guess what? I freely admit my guilt. In my defense there was and is a method to my madness. I wrote those articles for a specific reason – to watch the comment process to see if my theory about liberals and conservatives was correct.

I’ve spent the past few years studying the conservative movement, how it has changed, for the worst, I think, and the negative impact it is having on GOP politics. Liberals are a problem for us, but I think their “attacks” are a result of previous conservative attacks and the conservative money sources. If we Republicans are to go back to our winning ways, we are going to need to be more than a little honest about the non-Republican, third party and independent forces at work against us. They are more damaging to the GOP than any far left attack ever will be.

There are very few differences between those entities who reside on the far right and on the far left.

Note that I am talking FAR right and FAR left.

They both have a tendency to be followers, rather than the leaders they think they are, having surrendered their critical thinking process to the rank veil of ideology that threatens to suffocate their remaining creativity. It is all about a greater “truth”. The only real difference is the Far Left will do what it takes to win, and the Far Right is more interested in being “pure”. It is a losing proposition for the Far Right, and will eventually be a losing proposition for the Far Left.

The difference between the two groups, other than ideology is the way they choose to comment and to “operate”.

Far left liberals (not your average run of the mill liberal) get very personal. They are nasty, cruel, vicious, and quite often threatening. They argue with passion, throwing facts and logic to the wind. On the other hand, the far right (not to be confused with your average run of the mill conservative) attempts to be “logical”. Evidently they think they are the Vulcans of the political world, attempting to use “logic” and “facts”. While the far right can be nasty, they usually do not get personal unless it is to call someone a “liberal”. They like to be quite patronizing and self-righteous.

The far left is much more creative with their commentary epitaphs. They could teach the far right a few things, but unfortunately the far right is catching up with them, rapidly.

Political discourse has always been brutal, vicious, nasty, personal, and relatively creative. The difference in years gone by was the fact that even given the brutality, viciousness, etc. etc., it was fun. Like good social drinkers, those involved in said discourse knew their limits. They knew when to stop, pull back, regroup, and wait for the next bout.

We’re talking highly eloquent, well read grown-ups (note the use of the term “grown-ups” as a contrast to the childish behavior we are experiencing today from voters, pundits, and elected officials) who knew how to turn a phrase, how to behave, and how to say nasty things in a most exquisite manner. The list of political writers and muckrakers is like a who’s who of great American writers. Political commentary is an American tradition. The political editorial was an art form, if those written by my great-grandfather Thomas Jefferson Moore are any example. A contractor by trade, and a life-long Democrat, “Poppy” could teach all of us a thing or two about how to write a great comment be insulting and never not be a gentleman about it.

I wish I knew where the degradation began. I wondered if it might be after the founding of the ACLU in the 1920s, but soon realized that is not the case. It is entirely possible the current trend began in the 1960s as a result of the anti-war movement and the perceived assault on “American” values by the left. Note that I said “Perceived”.

There was no great liberal movement at that time. There were liberals like Phil Donahue on television, but they were counterbalanced by the hard-drinking, rough living Rat Pack and the likes of John Wayne and Bob Hope, who were basically Republicans (but would be castigated today as being ‘country club Republicans’). When you stop and examine the history of non-profits and lobby groups, you realize there were only a few on the political scene, and those appear to be based on anti-war, civil rights, or anti-communist theologies.

Conservatives like to wax poetic about William F. Buckley being the lone voice in the wilderness, but nothing could be farther from the truth. It wasn’t about “liberal” and “conservative”. It was about Democrats and Republicans. You could be of either persuasion, liberal or conservative and were welcome in either party. It was a kinder, gentler age.

Johnson defeated Goldwater by painting him as a warmonger, feeding the fears of nuclear annihilation. Nixon barely defeated Humphrey in 1968 by vowing to end the war in Vietnam. Today we conservatives like to complain about media bias, but during that time frame we were winning the war until the casualties were flashed, night after night, on the news.

It is fascinating how the same generation who had the courage to be the “Greatest Generation” and defeat both Hitler and Tojo, could not finish the job in Vietnam. That topic is another discussion and simply noted here as an observation simply because the party in power who won WWII was Democratic. Many of the early voices against entering the war that was ‘none of our business’ were Republican. Times change and so do perceptions. Republicans were, contrary to revisionist history, the champions of desegregation and voting rights changes in both the United States House and the Senate. They were “liberal” – and I specifically note “LIBERAL” Republicans, those country club Republicans Rush Limbaugh detests, who kept pushing back against Southern conservatives (many Democrats) like Al Gore’s father, who refused to vote for the various Civil Rights initiatives.

Republicans were “progressive” to use that word FOX egomaniac Glenn Beck detests. Republicans were the ones promoting advances in ideas the more reactionary Democrats resisted.

Something changed in the 1960s. By 1970 there was a difference. Perhaps it was the alleged revolution of campus liberals and professors and the Hippie movement that caused it. Maybe it was Nixon. He was paranoid. He sowed the seeds of his own destruction, but he also had the foresight to pave the way for today’s relationship with China, and by his “detente” with the USSR sewed the seeds of their destruction.

One of the great mysteries and inalienable rights of the American Voter is to make a fool of him or her self. The easiest way to do this is with fringe, third, or independent political parties which have been a part of this nation since the 1800s when some of the earliest American conspiracy theorists formed the Anti-Masonic Party in 1826. Since that time, the fun has never ended.

Our current problems began, in the mind of this humble writer, in the 1950s with the birth of the anti-Communist John Birch Society. Much like the old KKK, the John Birch Society opposed civil rights because they saw “communists” behind every door. One of the founders also co-founded the “National Alliance” with its connections to the white nationalist (neo-Nazi) movement today. It should be noted that some Ron Paul Bots are John Birchers. One should also note that there are a few libertarians who fall under the same category.

Is it also possible that the current, almost rabid rhetoric coming from libertarians is due to a resurgence of Ayn Rand and her anything goes, selfish and atheistic mentality where basic human kindness and altruism is seen as a weakness. Contrary to popular revision, Rand once admired Ronald Reagan but then had no use for him after she realized he was not going to jettison his Christian values and that he had the audacity to associate with other Christians.

No one can ever accuse the far right of being kind or fair-minded. It is a dog eat dog world where survival and winning is a means to an end. The cruel, narcissistic philosophy of Ayn Rand does explain a few things, especially the intolerance of anyone who does not believe exactly as do you. Today, far right pundits like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh like to point out the work of Saul Alinsky as inspirational fodder for Barack Obama, but his philosophy can’t hold a candle to the cruelty of Rand.

Powered by

About SJ Reidhead

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    You might appreciate my new series of jokes…

    If you’re convinced that your missing socks were taken by the Zionist Banking Conspiracy… …you might be a Bircher.

    If you find yourself hating communism, yet repeating communist propaganda as your argument against US foreign policy… …you might be a Bircher.

    Only two so far, but I’m sure I’ll come up with more.

    Dave

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    It is fascinating how the same generation who had the courage to be the “Greatest Generation” and defeat both Hitler and Tojo, could not finish the job in Vietnam.

    Say what?

    Lady, you need to get your history straight. It was a very different generation that fought World War II from the guys who went to ‘Nam.

    I would suggest comparing Korea to WWII. In WWII, the US fought to win – and did win. In Korea, they fought to contain and did not win. They tried the same trick in ‘Nam and lost altogether. Now, you guys don’t have a clue what the hell you’re all about – and it’s driven you to the poor house.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    And the problem with being in the poor house is that you have no policy alternatives. And these days, you have very few. And the poorer you get the louder the screaming will get – because that is all you will be able to do – scream.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    And I haven’t even finished reading your article!

  • Clavos

    Lady, you need to get your history straight. It was a very different generation that fought World War II from the guys who went to ‘Nam.

    Too right, Ruvy.

    My dad fought in WW II (European theater) and I in Vietnam. Not even the lifers in Nam were WW II vets, though quite a few fought in Korea.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Well, SJ,

    I finished your article. Having been a Republican in the 1970’s and a Democrat in the 1980’s and 90’s, I saw both sides of the coin. I liked the New York Republicans – they were welcoming of Jews, at least. The Minnesota Republicans were far too churchy a group for me. Their dislike (they couldn’t hate Rudy Boschwitz who raised money the way a milk maid milks a cow) of Jews was palpable.

    On the one side, there was the Infantile Left, praised (sorta) by the resident denizen of Christian County KY, and given a slight critique by his fan club, Tolstoy’s Cat. On the other side, there was the Moral Majority Right, which tried mightily to gate-crash the Minnesota Democratic Party in the 1980’s waving the abortion flag. The Infantile Left succeeded in getting control of the Democrats and now one of their number is your president (lucky you! – YOU get the Blessed of Hussein!). The Moral Majority has proven to be a bunch of moral midgets. In the meantime, the GOP is in the hands of Colin Powell (Colon Bowel).

    So you have on the one side Obama – and on the other side, Obama-Lite.

    Mazel tov!

    There was once a guardian angel protecting America. G-d has seen fit to withdraw that angel and anybody who can open the eyes of his heart and his faith (that leaves out the militant atheists who remain blind as bats) can see that.

    O, cry, the beloved country!

  • zingzing

    “The only real difference is the Far Left will do what it takes to win, and the Far Right is more interested in being “pure”.”

    i’d reverse that. the right has been struggling for (and getting) its voters for years. the left has been depending on some unseen force, as if it just should happen. sigh.

    “Republicans were, contrary to revisionist history, the champions of desegregation and voting rights changes in both the United States House and the Senate.”

    yeah, sure. look at the numbers. 100% southern republicans against it. more northern republicans against it. sure, there were more southern dems, but this was a north-south divide, not a left-right. “revisionist?” not so.

    “Something changed in the 1960s. By 1970 there was a difference. Perhaps it was the alleged revolution of campus liberals and professors and the Hippie movement that caused it.”

    southern strategy. look it up. that’s what happened.

    “a resurgence of Ayn Rand”

    i have just found my new “i’m taking a shit” euphemism. congrats.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    SJ, > [We’re talking highly eloquent, well read grown-ups (note the use of the term “grown-ups” as a contrast to the childish behavior we are experiencing today from voters, pundits, and elected officials) who knew how to turn a phrase, how to behave, and how to say nasty things in a most exquisite manner. The list of political writers and muckrakers is like a who’s who of great American writers. Political commentary is an American tradition. The political editorial was an art form, if those written by my great-grandfather Thomas Jefferson Moore are any example. A contractor by trade, and a life-long Democrat, “Poppy” could teach all of us a thing or two about how to write a great comment be insulting and never not be a gentleman about it.] What you wrote here, while very eloquent, is outdated. I have to add to this thread. We now have “Blowhards” out there with BIG MICS AND BIG PLATFORMS catching the “ears” of people that are to busy running out the door to make e buck! rather than slow down and flip through the channels to hear other points of view. Many Americans, myself included, have short attention spans today and the “plain speak” that does not contain eloquence and veiled insults is easier to comprehend and remember.”
    I am I guess “FAR-LEFT” because I want a fundamental change in “THE SOUL OF AMERICA” whether you are: LIBERAL,CONSERVATIVE,REPUBLICAN,FAR-LEFT,FAR-RIGHT,DEMOCRAT,INDEPENDANT,CONSERVADEM(a new party)OR CANADIEN :)
    This not “hate-speech” this is “necessary -speech”
    We have a real chance here in your comment thread to listen to each-others point of view respectfully…I’ll try but I am very emotional and will probably have to apologise to each of you before it’s over!
    Also, I am pleased to read that you are a descendant of Thomas Jefferson Moore! [it’s an honor to be writing to you] but this does not give you more “clout.” We are all at the table in America now…

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    ? >[“The only real difference is the Far Left will do what it takes to win, and the Far Right is more interested in being “pure”.”]
    The Bush administration’s elections {two of them) and history pure?
    GIVE ME A BREAK!
    And if you are referring to RELIGION. There is a clear separation of church and state defined in the FIRST AMMENDMENT

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    If you notice any errors in my grammar and punctuation, please bare with me as I am working on it! You all get my “drift” though..don’t cha :)

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Jeannie,

    please bare with me

    Are you sure you want us to “bare” with you? This isn’t Craig’s List, you know. My wife might get rather upset with me if I took you up on that offer….

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Ruvy, Please be patient with my Grammar and punctuation and any other writing rule you think I have broken!
    Does this correction pull your mind out of the gutter?

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Ruvy, I can always tell that I have made a good point with people who disagree with me when they do not respond after reading my words. I know you also read comments #9 & #8 :)

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Ruvy, Did you attend private school as a child? I ask you this because I notice a pattern here. “Whenever a boy or a man hears or reads something a girl or woman says or writes that he does not like he imideatly tries to belittle her with references to “SEX”. Please don’t behave like a spoiled American boy…

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Ruvy, Do you live in Israel now? and have you always lived there? I am fascinated! It must be very difficult having to worry about terrorist’s bombs … I am sorry for jumping on your #11 :(

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Does this correction pull your mind out of the gutter?

    Jeannie,

    I’ve seen spelling and grammar that was far worse in comments. But, I couldn’t resist when I saw comment #10. I made sure to read it and my response to it to my wife before I posted it….

    We used to live in the States. I met my wife in St. Paul MN 22 years ago, this time of year, in fact, taking her out to a restaurant, Muffaletta’s, where I listened to her complain about how much lawyers had taken out of her settlement with the Metropolitan Transit Commission in the Twin Cities when she had fallen from a bus and injured her back. She’s a native of St. Paul. I’m a native of Brooklyn, NY. I went to what was then the best public school system in the States (something that has changed for the worse since). And I didn’t go to a sex-segregated school either.

    It must be very difficult having to worry about terrorist’s bombs….

    Truth is,

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Ruvy, If you want to leave a comment on my bog, “Me a Liberal: Honey I’m On Fire” was just spammed because aksmit couldn’t read the language, please write in English..I will be happy to respond :)

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Truth is, Jeannie, I messed up that comment badly.

    You get used to terrorism here, as horrific as it sometimes. What I really worry about is making a living and paying the bills, just like most folks.

    I worry about it more than I ever used to; I was forced to become a writer and editor after a heart attack made it impossible for me to do what I’m used to doing, being a fast food restaurant manager. Nobody wants to touch a manager who can’t heft boxes like an athlete around here. Most employees in restaurants are “post army” which means they are usually as strong as oxen. With a surfeit of “post-army” kids running around, restaurant owners don’t need an old geezer whose ticker may give out (like me) in their kitchens….

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Ruvy, Your country has reason to be afraid, but you and your wife are not governed by fear are you?
    I am watching FORMER speaker Newt Gingrich on Meet The Press right now and I have an urge to throw my TV out the front door! We cannot let fear be the controlling factor in policy and laws any longer…It’s a gamble just getting up in the morning,sorry to hear of your heart-attack Ruvy,but we are alive! all of us :) No matter what religion,party affiliation or economic class. I know I sound like “kumbaya” It’s true! I am happy for every moment of my life(good or bad)well maybe not really bad! but you understand me don’t you?
    I have to leave right now…damn!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Just a few reminders, Ruvy, and no, I can’t be as diplomatic as Jeannie.

    It’s “the infantile Left” (and public opinion it forged) that forced LBJ to terminate his political career and withdraw from Vietnam;

    It’s “the infantile Left” (and public opinion it forged) that is responsible for holding the State of Israel as at least partly culpable for the unrest in the Middle East;

    It’s “the infantile Left” (and public opinion it forged) that is responsible for electing Obama president – both the fact and the person you so utterly despise;

    It’s “the infantile Left” (and public opinion it forged) that will be instrumental in forging a two-state solution to the Middle East problem, despite Israel’s wishes to the contrary;

    It’s “the infantile Left (and public opinion it forged) which made you so hate America from the bottom of your heart;

    Should I go on with a long laundry list as to how the mood and the climate of public opinion has changed in the past fifty years?

    You may detest all these changes, stand on your head, spout vicious invectives, preach from the mountaintop – whatever you desire – but they’re undeniable and real.

    So go ahead and call it “infantile” or by any other name, but it only shows your impotence in the face of it.

    Yes, Ruvy, the world has changed, and greatly, since the good old ’50s when you were growing up in Brooklyn. You may detest the fact, but it doesn’t change the reality.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Roger,

    The Infantile Left is just that – infantile. The title is terribly well deserved. There is, due to the Infantile Left, no freedom of speech on campuses in your nation. Those who do not toe the “Palestine Line” for example, are shouted down and hounded, whether violently or not, from the campuses and groves of Academe. This is why no son of mine will be allowed to attend any American university. No money of mine will pay the salaries of the sick bastards who run and teach in the universities in your country.

    The Infantile Left is responsible for the racist slant of reportage in your nation, for it has killed all sense of objectivity in reporting. Most reporting in the news media these days is editorializing, and this stems from the “journalistic” theories of the Infantile Left. The racism stems from the fact that what interests the demented minds of the now grown children of America’s white suburbs who make up the opinion leaders of the Infantile Left is when white folks get killed. Thus the paucity of coverage of Darfur, Burma, Rwanda, communal riots or civil wars in South Asia, the Pacific islands (like Fiji) etc. etc. etc.

    It is not the Infantile Left, however, that causes me not to suffer fools gladly and you write like a fool.

    There will be no “two state solution” in this part of the world because the neither Arabs nor the Jews do not want one. The Arabs want a one state solution – Palestine – with the Jews exiled or murdered off – and we Jews want a one state solution – Israel – where we do not have to deal with Arabs any further. Please do not continue to exhibit your basic ignorance of the Middle East and how things work here. Apparently living here for two years taught you nothing at all. The nation your left no longer exists except in the memories of oldsters who listen to the oldies stations here.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It may be infantile, Ruvy, or whatever name you wish to append to it, or to me as well. As I said, you may not like the effects, but that’s beside the point. They’re real and even you and the state of Israel have to live with it.

    So have a nice day. It’s been nice talking to you.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    You castigated me for calling certain individuals within the right ‘chickenhawks’…yet in this thread you have others making insulting references against the entire left. I referred to single public individuals, and the other painted with a broad brush.

    In the Navy, we believed in enforcing regulations fairly, firmly, and impartially. I recommend that you adopt the same standard. I’ve seen you kick off some from the right before and I know you have the capacity to be that fair…so please consider this as encouragement for you to uphold your position.

  • Arch Conservative

    Hannity and Limbaugh are “far right?”

    The author obviously doesn’t know the anything about the “far right” as Hannity and Limbaugh are pretty mainstream.

    If you want to talk about “far right”
    you need to be discussing people like Matt Hale, Bill Riccio, Fred Phelps, the National Alliance, Stormfront, etc etc…

    That’s “the far right” not Sean Hannity.

    One distinction this article fails to make is the difference that the far right groups and far left groups have on society at large.

    Currently far left groups like the ACLU, Acorn, Moveon.org, Answer, Code Pink, NOW etc etc have much more ability to subvert the American people to advance thier radical agenda than any of the right wing groups I mentioned.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Nice talking to you also. Alert me in future to the upcoming pronouncements of the great Sage of Christian County – so I know not be bothered engaging them.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It’s a lost cause, Glenn. Fuck it.

  • Arch Conservative

    Yeah Ruvy……you’re not aggressively licking the lint from between Barry the messiah’s toes as you chant hope and change so you’re a lost cause.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Don’t you worry. The area where you and I can have any intelligent conversation has shrunk to a virtual nil.

  • Arch Conservative

    Speaking of public opinions Roger………did you happen to notice that Dick Cheney’s approval rating has been on the rise ever since he decided to take King Barry to task over his duplicitous handling of the torture issue?

    But hey if your child is killed in the next 911 like attack due to Barry’s incompetence and ignorance you can take some degree of consolation by placing one of those fucking hope and change campaign signs in the fucking coffin!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I never said, Archie, that the Left has a monopoly on public opinion. Obviously, public opinion is divided on lots of issues. If it weren’t, we’d all be under one thumb, whether from the Left or the Right.

    I think it’s rather good that we’re still free in this country to express disagreement, don’t you think?

  • Arch Conservative

    Yes I do. But unfortunately most leftists don’t agree with you and I.

    This is eveidenced by their attempts to stifle anyone who disagrees with them whether it be through the Facsist Fairness Doctrine or a bunch of screaming college kids who belong to some campus orgnation with the words “socialist” or “workers” in the title who feel it necessary to get in the face of anyone they disagree with and scream like a five year old brat.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, Archie, I can’t be responsible for that. I see as much intolerance from the Left as from the Right. I think we all have responsibility to think as individuals.

    Any construct, such as “public opinion” or mass consciousness is necessarily diluted, reduced to the lowest common denominator, and vulgar.

    I’ve always try to think for myself.

  • Arch Conservative

    You’re right there is no shortage of intolerance on both the right and left Roger.

    However the intolerance on the left has become so mainstream that it’s too often viewed as an acceptable norm.

    Just look at how King Barry publicly ridiculed the tea party protestors because they were critical of his policies. It was downright disgusting and if I had had any respect for him at that point time, I would have lost all of it.

    I dare anyone to show a similiar example of Bush going on national TV and publicly criticizing private American citizens expressing their beliefs the way that Obama did.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Bing, at comment #27. Try to remember that for my own selfish reasons, I supported the Blessed of Hussein as your president, and I got what I wanted – in spades (pun intended).

    I don’t want to see this SOB killed off, even though he is leading your country into disaster. I want to see the Israeli regime replaced, and its present leaders jailed or executed for treason, so that a real regime that will see to it that there is a Jewish country here will arise.

    Obama is the target marker, the evil priest of the Setting Sun – America. He who bows to the evil priest of the Setting Sun, is the target.

    Once I get what I’m looking for, I do not care about the fate of the Blessed of Hussein.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t want to argue, Archie, about who is worst. That’s an argument I’m certain neither I nor you would care to win. I’ll just say that ridicule is just one weapon at one’s arsenal. Calling people “communists,” “socialists,” “un-American” – any of the names and labels which have become the mainstay of today’s political debate not just “out there” but on BC, too – is another tactic. So you take your pick.

    But then again, that’s an argument I do not care to win.

  • Arch Conservative

    “Calling people “communists,” “socialists,” “un-American” – any of the names and labels which have become the mainstay of today’s political debate not just “out there” but on BC, too – is another tactic. So you take your pick.”

    During the campaign the very words “we’re going to spread the wealth around” came directly out of King Barry’s mouth and you’re seriously going to take issue with people calling him a socialist?

  • zingzing

    well, archie, until he enacts a socialist agenda, you’re just extracting your own meaning from those words. socialism is a specific thing, not just whatever you want it to be.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    During the campaign the very words “we’re going to spread the wealth around” came directly out of King Barry’s mouth and you’re seriously going to take issue with people calling him a socialist?

    Archie, for your edification, this is the FULL version of the pertinent part of Obama’s conversation with Joe the Plumber. Not only did he not say those ‘very words’, the context in which he used the phrase gives it a rather different meaning than the spin you and most of his opponents put on it.

    [sourced from Politifact]

    OBAMA: It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too.

    WURZELBACHER: Seems like you would be welcome to a flat tax then.

    OBAMA: You know, I would be open to it except for here’s the problem with a flat tax. You’d have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on it. And I do believe that for folks like me who have worked hard but, frankly, also been lucky, I don’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there who – things are slow, and she can barely make the rent. Because my attitude is if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going to be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re going to be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    You castigated me for calling certain individuals within the right ‘chickenhawks…yet in this thread you have others making insulting references against the entire left. I referred to single public individuals, and the other painted with a broad brush.

    Glenn, I haven’t seen anything as offensive here as what you posted, plus I’m not the comments editor, nor am I in favor of censorship. Note that I didn’t delete your article, I just objected to it on personal grounds. I don’t see anything as objectionable here.

    Yes, some remarkably stupid things have been posted on this thread, suggesting that both our left and right readers have no real idea how the others think at all. Plus there’s Ruvy’s strange and sexually suggestive posting. Harmless, but amusing IMO.

    But what do you want me to do? If you’re offended, say so. I’m not all that bothered.

    In the Navy, we believed in enforcing regulations fairly, firmly, and impartially. I recommend that you adopt the same standard. I’ve seen you kick off some from the right before and I know you have the capacity to be that fair…so please consider this as encouragement for you to uphold your position.

    I didn’t enforce any “rules” on you. I’m not enforcing any rules here. My role here in the comments section is to express my opinion.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    And to second what zing had said in #37, yes, the wealth should be more equitably spread in our presumably equitable society. I definitely would like to see that, rather than the Wall Street sharks and the corrupt Wall Street-government establishment claiming their ill gotten gains.

  • Arch Conservative

    There’s the link to a clip of Obama saying “I think that when we spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” That’s what he said Dr….watch the fucking clip.

    Obama has spent in 100 days what it took Bush 8 years to spend and now he’s pushing cap and trade which India and China will not agree to and you [edited] are still defending him.

    Is it actually going to take Obama banjrupting the nation before you fucking idiots wakeup to reality?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Everything that Ruvy says of late is amusing. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] But I should hold you, Dave, and some other, more responsible exponents from the opposition, to a higher standard. And I believe Glenn, too, should subscribe to such; and I made an appeal to that effect. Otherwise, there is no discussion.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Roger, we may all agree that wealth should be distributed fairly. It’s just that we don’t agree on the methods. I believe in wealth being spread to those who work for it. Others believe it should be spread by force to those who will not work for it. I think that’s a formula for societal destruction.

    Dave

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Arch, The link you added does not work I’m trying to learn how to add those myself…
    Why don’t you tell us how President Obama wants to spread the wealth around, But don’t confuse the word “opportunity” with the words “accumulated wealth.” They are totally different entities.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “did you happen to notice that Dick Cheney’s approval rating has been on the rise”

    considering how low they were, where else could they go?

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    We should all pity Dick Cheney now! the stress is taking a tole on his heart…

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    When is SG going to make a comment?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Others believe it should be spread by force to those who will not work for it. I think that’s a formula for societal destruction.”

    I don’t think, Dave, that you’ll find many of us on BC to subscribe to this proposition; there are exceptions of course.

    So be reacting to the cited position – a straw man – you’re putting yourself in a frame of mind that would be apt reject more moderate and sensible proposals. And in that sense, it’s an obstacle to an open mind and creative thinking.

  • zingzing

    sj doesn’t comment on her own posts, or anyone else’s it seems… she has a purity of opinion known only by the gods and some small forms of bacterial life.

    she’ll “comment” by putting up another article in which she decries her reception. or something.

    of course, we go off on our own tangents, and i’m not even sure if the current discussion (about ruvy and his nasties, or whatever else is going on) has any relation to the original post.

  • zingzing

    oh, right, we’re talking about socialism again. who brought that up? probably dave. or archie.

    red scare!

    boo! (how do i make that come out in red letters?)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “she has a purity of opinion known only by the gods and some small forms of bacterial life.”

    A gem! You should frame it.

  • Baronius

    Exactly, Zing. SJ’s articles attain that purity because they avoid the two great errors of our time: everything to the left of SJ, and everything to the right of SJ. We’re never told what SJ’s beliefs are, but they’re apparently perfect. In fact, her articles aren’t about her beliefs. They’re about the superiority of her beliefs.

    Also, it turns out that anything offensive she says is part of a grand psychological experiment, but anything critical of her articles reflects back on the ideology of the commenter.

  • zingzing

    we can’t agree on anything, baronius. if we do, things start getting strange, religions crumble, babies cry, dinner is burnt, go-go dancers start designing buildings, and i start pooping out my mouth. so cut it out.

  • Baronius

    Right. Sorry.

    You’re wrong, Zing. (Is that better?)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    But Zing. One could read Baronius’s #52 as another gem – perfect irony.

    Didn’t you take it that way?

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    SJ, That seems a little cowardly. “Passive aggressive criticism” dishing it out but never taking it… I’m disappointed here!

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna
  • zingzing

    baronius-thank you.

    roger-what’s the irony? i have a hard time getting a good handle on baronius’ politics. sometimes, he’s ridiculously right wing, sometimes he’s christian (but not in the horrific way that that can happen), and sometimes he’s a regular human being with empathetic and grounded (he’s no ruvy in regards to his spirituality…) opinions. so i’m kinda perplexed about the irony of his response. it seems he was genuinely agreeing…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You’re right, zing, in that “irony” is a difficult read; but I think “straight face” is well nigh impossible. That’s why I lean towards the first interpretation, because the second one is unimaginable.

    Don’t you think?

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Roger, “Others believe it should be spread by force to those who will not work for it. I think that’s a formula for social destruction.” You know, If we fostered a more intelligent culture here in America more people would want to “work for it as you say” and that fostering starts with better education for all social classes not just the “creme”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Of course, Jeannie. But it is not I who need to be convinced of this but people like Dave.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    DAVE, that last comment was for you! sorry Roger I got the quotes mixed up! :)

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    You know Dave I was really pissed at you last night and I still want to chuck you your pool for that little chat about Teachers Unions! but I would like to try to understand you better…:)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You’ll find, Jeannie, that there’ll be very few things about which we will really disagree. We’re coming from pretty much the same heart/mindset.

  • zingzing

    while dave is coming in a pool.

    sorry.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    THANK YOU ROGER! :) ZING ha ha ha ha

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Well Roger,Zing and Dave that will not speak to me, I’m calling it a night! See ya tomorrow maybe but maybe not. I can’t write like this…takes too much Besides I want to really give you guys something to bitch about.. :)

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna
  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Tomorrow then.

  • Ruvy

    Jeannie,

    I see you have mastered links. I did get to the site you wanted us to go to. But the page at Democracy Now! you sent us to was not there or had been moved.

  • zingzing

    ruvy, your comment was deleted, but what you said was not “called for.” it was bitter, rude and childish. it was you that made a “vicious personal attack,” not roger.

    reel that shit in. there are levels of decency, even here, and you stepped across a line that need not be crossed again.

    i hope you have it in you to apologize. really. go see a therapist or something.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Here it is, zing (I was on the wrong thread):

    My #42 was in response to Dave’s #39, in particular, when Dave says,

    “Yes, some remarkably stupid things have been posted on this thread, suggesting that both our left and right readers have no real idea how the others think at all. Plus there’s Ruvy’s strange and sexually suggestive posting. Harmless, but amusing IMO.”

    So there you have it – the context. (And I did you the “f …l” word – yes, a personal attack, but in response to sarcastic characterizations – like “the sage from Christian County KY” where I happen to be stuck for now.)

  • Davehere

    Let’s see now. It must be that the Sergeant, who was my Sergeant in 1970 must have been lying about being in WW11 (at the end), at least according to Ruvy. My Sarge was all of 55 and about to retire in 1970 (had two years to go to 30). He was in WW11, Korea, and Viet Nam. You are the one who needs to get it right Ruvy. Sounds like you must be one of those who can’t add =(1942 plus 30 years is 1972). Quite a few of the men in Nam were also in WW11 and Korea.