I'd be interested in some of your links. I promise not to send any "counter-links." There are plenty here on the sift.

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
For another example besides JS of how to discuss the tragedy with a little class was Barak Obama's speech tonight. If only the rabid wolves and wombats of the media would do as he suggests then maybe things would calm down a little. Sorta doubt that'll happen though. The media on both sides is addicted to angry rhetoric like a drug. Here's hoping...

Violent? You can't honestly believe that.

I do not 'believe' it. I KNOW it is fact because I've seen and heard it.

In the interest of not promulgating the venom I won't bother linking it. If you have any interest in seeing those examples, you can doubtless find them youself very very easily with a few simple web searches. I don't want to bother linking them, but rest assured the violence ridden hate speech of the left is myriad, pervasive, and all too common. Do not take my reticence as evidence that I'm somehow making it up. I am more than prepared to supply evidence A-Go-Go, but I'd rather not in the interest of avoiding the standard "Oh yeah well someone else says THIS" syndrome that inevitably follows. This is not the time for it, and it is an all too easy trap to fall into. I do not deny there is some violent rhetoric from a few jerkwads on the right. It is foolishness to deny that there isn't just as much violent rhetoric from the jerkwads on the left.

Excuse both sides if you wish. Or condemn both sides if you wish. But let no one pretend that such rhetoric exists in a bubble on only one side of the aisle. That is the talk of a partisan fool.

For another example besides JS of how to discuss the tragedy with a little class was Barak Obama's speech tonight. If only the rabid wolves and wombats of the media would do as he suggests then maybe things would calm down a little. Sorta doubt that'll happen though. The media on both sides is addicted to angry rhetoric like a drug. Here's hoping...

Violent? You can't honestly believe that.

I do not 'believe' it. I KNOW it is fact because I've seen and heard it.

In the interest of not promulgating the venom I won't bother linking it. If you have any interest in seeing those examples, you can doubtless find them youself very very easily with a few simple web searches. I don't want to bother linking them, but rest assured the violence ridden hate speech of the left is myriad, pervasive, and all too common. Do not take my reticence as evidence that I'm somehow making it up. I am more than prepared to supply evidence A-Go-Go, but I'd rather not in the interest of avoiding the standard "Oh yeah well someone else says THIS" syndrome that inevitably follows. This is not the time for it, and it is an all too easy trap to fall into. I do not deny there is some violent rhetoric from a few jerkwads on the right. It is foolishness to deny that there isn't just as much violent rhetoric from the jerkwads on the left.

Excuse both sides if you wish. Or condemn both sides if you wish. But let no one pretend that such rhetoric exists in a bubble on only one side of the aisle. That is the talk of a partisan fool.

so you admit you're biased

All humans are biased. The way that I know that I'm not biased in a BAD way is that I always give credit where credit is due. I am able to recognize and acknoweldge fairness and balance where it exists. For example...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction

I'm no fan of Stewart as a general rule of thumb. But of all the people commenting about the horrible events last week, he is about the only one who I give any degree of respect. His comments in this vid are some of the ONLY ones where the speaker didn't condemn 'angry rhetoric' out of one side of the mouth, while spewing MORE angry rhetoric out the other side. That's what makes all these pundits, sherriffs, and politicians so loathsome - their sheer, naked hypocrisy.

I'm a fair-minded guy. So when someone on the right says or does something stupid, then I'm more than willing to say it was stupid. This is very different from a guy like Bill Maher. Maher routinely and regularly spews hateful rhetoric. And yet he had the gall and audacity to say that hateful rhetoric "only comes from the right" on Cooper's show yesterday. He refuses to see in himself the very demon that he sees so easily and instantly in others.

Sadly, many of you seem to be caught up in a similar degree of wilfull blindness. The left-wing is literally frothing over with rage, anger, foul rhetoric, threats, violent imagry, as well as actual acts of physical assault by left-wing nutballs. Yet many of you refuse to admit the anger exists, or you try to wave it away, or act like it is insignicant, or it is 'just a joke', or it is perfectly OK as long as it is about 'THAT' guy, or any number of utterly lame excuses. That's how I know you're biased in a BAD way compared to guys like me.

I'll give you a chance - right now - to prove you aren't a hopeless prisoner of your bias...

1. As a major political figure, Sarah Palin saying, "Don't retreat; Reload" is...
(A) Using inappropriate, provocative, & hostile rhetoric
(B) Using strong, but acceptable political speech
(C) Using normal campaign language to make a point

2. As a major political figure, Barak Obama saying, "They bring a knife; we bring a gun" is...
(A) Using inappropriate, provocative, & hostile rhetoric
(B) Using strong, but acceptable political speech
(C) Using normal campaign language to make a point

If your answers were 1. A and 2. C OR if they were 1. C and 2. A ... then you are hopelessly biased in a bad way. If your answers were BC to both - then you're OK. If you wholeheartedly believe Sarah Palin is a horrible hatemonger because her website uses crosshairs, but you couldn't care less the DLC uses bullseyes - then there really is no hope for you.

I like how Olbermann included Barak Obama in his condemnation for when he said to "bring a gun" to a political fight, and how he called those who oppose him "enemies". Oh - no wait - he didn't do that. Obama, Pelosi, Ried, Fiengold, Gibbs, and the thousands of other left-wing guys who routinely engage in hate speech got a free pass. He picked one example from his side. Real 'balance' there Olbie. Name the names on your side besides yourself. Matthews, Maddow, Garafalo, Barr, Bahar, Moore, and a hundred others. Feh - physician heal thyself.

Liberals are freedom-friendly, because they want to increase the number of situations in which every citizen can expect their government to defend their freedom.

I see. So when liberals tell me I can't have salt, trans-fat, tobacco products, plastic grocery bags, develop oil, own property, use my own money on school vouchers, force me to support laws I disagree with, and force states to overturn laws they pass, et al - they are DEFENDING freedom instead of taking it away. This is a fascinating (if unsurprising) peek at the mental landscape of liberals.

This is where the intellectual and philosophical divide exists between conservatives and liberals. Liberals believe that big government and central planning "defend freedom". Conservatives believe that big government and central planning is tyranny. I believe history proves that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Welles "Animal Farm" nails the pattern. People overthrow tyranny with good intentions, and then those who come to power themselves become tyrants - always with good intentions.

The only solution is to strip government of power and forbid them from exercising authority over the people. That's why the Consitution was such a brilliant document. It limited GOVERNMENT - not people. That's also why Barak Obama is such a moron, and why he should never have been let within a million miles of power. He claims to be a constitutional scholar - and yet he has ZERO understanding or respect for the core, basic REASON why it is so brilliant.


This is the little gem our Man-Child president dropped that told me instantly that he was unfit to hold any public office. Period.

"To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf."

I do not doubt that you completely agree with this sentiment Netrunner. And that agreement is why you are wrong - and at the most fundamental level why you and those like you are so stridently opposed by over 65% of the nation. People with their heads screwed on right understand perfectly that any person who believes that government should be an organization which "must bring about redistributive change" is anti-American, anti-liberty, and should NEVER be allowed to hold power or push laws their way. EVER.

Hm - how to put this...

1. Ol' BM has a point when he says that the "Sanity/Fear" rally might as well have just come out and said it was a liberal counter-protest. Because that's what it was. Stewart can try to pop his clown nose off and on all he wants, but his rally was a bought & paid for liberal event. Old HuffPo bought & paid for the bussing. Unions also bought & paid for attendance. The standard array of leftist ding-dongs were the 'entertainment'. But it was a "non-political" rally? Pht - yeah - right...

2. And of course Bill has it 100% wrong when it comes to which side is the one "talking news" and which side is playing with its own poo. The election proved it. Over 65% of the nation rejected libralism and leftist policies - and Barak Obama's agenda specifically. Bill Maher is NOT firmly camped in middle America with all the normal folks. It is Bill Maher, and all those who agree with his leftist dogma, who are the ones dribbling their lips while they drool in a corner. Bill Maher, Olbermann, MadCow, and all the other leftist media are the freaks and kooks here. There are freaks and kooks on both sides to be sure, but for Bill to act like his positions are 'normal' and only the positions of guys like Beck are 'extreme'? If he really believes that then he's got his head so far up his own butt that he can french kiss his own esophagus.

Yes, it's all a neolib fantasy.

Time to get rid of the highways. And anti-child-porn-legislation. And any of these other newfangled neo-liberal shackles.>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

This vid is good at illustrating the intellectual divide in this country that has resulted in our crappy educational system. The fact that Coons, a bunch of college law students, and all of you here find what she said "crazy" illustrates how far our nation has fallen in basic civics. Sad really.
O'Donnel was absolutely right. The entire idea of "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution. It does not exist as a phrase, or even as a concept. The phrase originated from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group. The entirety of Jefferson's context was to assuage their fears that the Constitution would potentially be used to impose a NATIONAL FEDERAL religion on them. It was not written with the concept that Church & State were to be completely and utterly vivisected.
Hence the language of the first ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It is not in any way implying the neolib concept of a 'wall of separation'. It - like all the Constitution - is a LIMITING document that is telling the U.S. Government what it is not allowed to do. In this case, the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or prevent people from exercising their faith of choice. Any of you wondering why it is only the Daily Kos & HuffPo that are pimping this? It's because they are the only ones so blatant and naked in their bias as to think they can get away with making this sound like it was an O'Donnel flub. Everyone else in the media (except maybe MadCow) still has the brains to know that she was right and it was Coons & the Law Idiots that were wrong.
It was not in any way meant to imply ALL church and ALL goverment should be completely seperate. That is a modern neolib fantasy. At the time, many of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. It was not until 1947 that the liberally packed FDR courts because to misapply the Establishment Clause in such a way as to allow them to further misapply the whole 'wall of seperation' idea.
Even Coons has to wag his finger a bit at these law students before they completely embarrassed themselves with their utter and complete ignorance of the Constitution. I really don't know why I'm surprised though. Our law schools generated such "constitutional scholars" as Barak Obama. Is it any wonder that they nothing but a bunch of brainless "social justice" twits that have not one historical fact in their heads?

This vid is good at illustrating the intellectual divide in this country that has resulted in our crappy educational system. The fact that Coons, a bunch of college law students, and all of you here find what she said "crazy" illustrates how far our nation has fallen in basic civics. Sad really.

O'Donnel was absolutely right. The entire idea of "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution. It does not exist as a phrase, or even as a concept. The phrase originated from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group. The entirety of Jefferson's context was to assuage their fears that the Constitution would potentially be used to impose a NATIONAL FEDERAL religion on them. It was not written with the concept that Church & State were to be completely and utterly vivisected.

Hence the language of the first ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It is not in any way implying the neolib concept of a 'wall of separation'. It - like all the Constitution - is a LIMITING document that is telling the U.S. Government what it is not allowed to do. In this case, the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or prevent people from exercising their faith of choice. Any of you wondering why it is only the Daily Kos & HuffPo that are pimping this? It's because they are the only ones so blatant and naked in their bias as to think they can get away with making this sound like it was an O'Donnel flub. Everyone else in the media (except maybe MadCow) still has the brains to know that she was right and it was Coons & the Law Idiots that were wrong.

It was not in any way meant to imply ALL church and ALL goverment should be completely seperate. That is a modern neolib fantasy. At the time, many of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. It was not until 1947 that the liberally packed FDR courts because to misapply the Establishment Clause in such a way as to allow them to further misapply the whole 'wall of seperation' idea.

Even Coons has to wag his finger a bit at these law students before they completely embarrassed themselves with their utter and complete ignorance of the Constitution. I really don't know why I'm surprised though. Our law schools generated such "constitutional scholars" as Barak Obama. Is it any wonder that they nothing but a bunch of brainless "social justice" twits that have not one historical fact in their heads?

You guys are still on this? Finding a few screwballs in crowds of tens of thousands isn't difficult - but regardless this video in particular is a load of deceptive crap. It was made by a liberal group called Think Progress who sent plants into Tea Party rallies to get racism quotes - some of the plants were chased away by Tea Partiers to boot.

http://www.rightklik.net/2010/07/think-progress-lies-and-deception.html

There now - don't you people who thought this was an 'expose' feel stupid? Stop being tools and start thinking. Tea Party isn't about race. It's about slapping down government, which is taking too much power and needs to be corrected. But I don't know why I even try sometimes. Some people are so blinkered by partisan fanboism that if Barak Obama told them the moon was made of green cheese they'd really, truly, honestly think he was telling the truth.

How can people rationally discuss the ideas of a Kenyan Nazi Socialist?

How can people rationally discuss the agenda of a stupid, bible-thumping, drunken, chicken-hawk, racist sexist homophobe neocon? From Reagan to Bush to Palin - those are the lables the left applies. Conservative politicians are not engaged on the merits of policy. They are attacked with ad hominems.

Barak Obama does not discuss conservative policy. He dismisses it blythely and pretends he didn't hear it. Like when the Republicans took him to the woodshed just before the health care vote. They cleaned his clock. They beat him like a rug with his own bill. But he ignored every conservative point and said crap like "that's just a prop..." and proceeded to parade sob stories as if they justify his position.

When it comes to policy the GOP has been more than willing to talk substance. The blogosphere and talk radio are not so egalitarian, but they bring up many facts that go otherwise unreported by the left leaning news media. They all certainly are given to fits of exaggeration and rhetoical hyperbole - but since when was that uncommon in politics? But now all of a sudden "oooo - it's mean spirited". Bullcrap. The left ate, drank, breathed and slept in mean spiritedness for 8 years and now they're all offended by it? The public isn't buying it because they aren't that stupid. The left's crocodile tears ring hollow because it's just rhetoric. The right whined about it during Bush, and this is nothing more than the cycle of life in the political world.

^Winstonfield_Pennypacker
Please explain how the GOP is wrong in their analysis of Barak Obama as a radical leftist, socialist, big government tax & $pender who is well on the way to ruining the economy.


If the discussions were just about his policies then it might actually be productive. Yes, lets talk about national debt and the costs of federal programs... or we can just put convenient labels on people that convey negative connotations in the absence of actual debate.

How can people rationally discuss the ideas of a Kenyan Nazi Socialist? We can't listen to him, he's trying to take over the country and drive it into the ground. How can anyone vote for Armageddon Bills? It isn't difference of opinion, it's a fight against "radical leftists".

I know too many people who think Obama was born in Kenya and wants to confiscate all firearms. You can't blame that kinda stuff on bad polls.

A more apt question might be, "Why do so many Democrats discuss polls from Media Matters as if they had credibility?"

To be frank about this - why lie when the truth is better? Back in the 00s, Democrats created a whole bunch of talking points about Bush, Rove & their agenda items. Horror stories of the military industrial complex, deficits, debt, neocons, and such were easy to sell to the left because there was some truth to it. Bush did hike military spending, increase the deficit, run up debt, and philosophically tilted towards pro-Israel foreign policy. There was meat on the Democrat propoganda bones. Like all demagogues, there was ridiculousness mixed in - but the core wasn't all that off the mark.

"Lies about Obama..." So far they aren't so much lies as they are very slight exaggerations. The GOP says Obama is socialist, is running up unsupportable debt, is taking over key industries, wants single-payer health care, energy taxes, illegal amnesty, and so on. So far I'm not seeing anything that disproves those as 'lies' any more than Democrats were 'lying' about Bush.

As far as I can tell, what the GOP is saying about Obama's agenda is just about spot on. The icky health care bill is indeed designed to wipe out private insurance and redistribute wealth while not saving money at all. Obama is warming up to hit the entire US with pointless energy taxes next. He's already leaking talking points for illegal amnesty. He's already 'bailed out' big labor pension plans using the TARP money, and is looking like he's out to use more funds to bail out other labor goons including the Teacher's union & state pensions. The CBO just released a projection that by 2020, 90% of the entire nation's GDP will be needed to meet government obligations. Please explain how the GOP is wrong in their analysis of Barak Obama as a radical leftist, socialist, big government tax & $pender who is well on the way to ruining the economy.

Would that not then mean that ... Sarah Palin is Constitutionally prohibited from becoming ... President or Vice President of the United States of America?

Well - if you want to play the rhetorical game of strict denotative definitions - then "insurrection" would mean Barak Obama should be tossed out today. An insurrection is simply "resistance against civil authority or an established government", right? As a civil rights activist Obama as resisted the government. The entire Democrat resisted an established government during GWB. The Republicans are doing it right now under Obama. You know what? The more I think about it, the more I like this goofball textpert interpretation. It essentially means that NOBODY is allowed to run for political office. Throw them all out. Good riddance.

The teabagger movement ... was founded by old skool conservative republican, Dick Armey

It would be more accurate to say that Dick Armey supported the already existent Tea Party in the same way Democrats supported the anti-war movement. Under GWB, a grassroots movement got going that was opposed to the way the Iraq war was handled. This true representation of the national mood was aided and abetted by Democrats. Democrats "astroturfed" the bejeezus out of the anti-war movement. It was politically exigent, as well as a philosophical position they agreed with.

Republicans are trying to do the same thing with the Tea Party. The Tea Party is grassroots. It is filled with citizens who hate debt and deficits - who want balanced budgets & fiscal restraint at the federal level. It is Republicans, Independants, and even Democrats for whom sound fiscal policy is a critical issue. But Republicans for years flapped thier lips about fiscal conservatism (even though they don't practice it much). Of course the GOP is going to foster & foment a movement that they politically sympathize with.

The Tea Party movement is about fiscal conservatism. They want balanced budgets, reduced spending, and limited federal power. In that sense they agree with some libertarian principles, but aren't interested in the social policies that make the libertarian party such a collection of oddballs. Neither are they interested in the "Republican party" except as a vehicle to slam the brakes on Obama & Democrats. If the GOP thinks they can just use the Tea Party like a wet-wipe and then go on to be a bunch of fiscal idiots like Bush, then they will find the TP to be an unreliable ally.

Stewart - like most of the Democrats - completely missed what Brown was all about. Brown himself was just a lucky schmoe who happened to 'be there'. You could have put a potted plant against Croakley and the result would have been similar. Croakley - like the bulk of the Democrat party today - was drunk on a sense of priveledge, power, and arrogance. For the past year they've been strutting around thinking that the wave of anger against GWB was going to let them do whatever they wanted. They also thought that the man-child Barak Obama really was all that and a bag of chips and whatever he wanted was what the people wanted and what was best for the country. This combination of arrogance and the illusion that Obama was 'more' than just a twit in a suit gave them the mental security blanket they have been DREAMING of having for years.

They're liberals. They are far-left leaning radicals. And they've had to HIDE it for soooo long. Then along comes a supermajority and a popular leftist president and they thought they could finally - FINALLY - take the mask off and let it all hang out. So they did. They started trying to pass crap that nobody liked. The people started rejecting it, and in their arrogance and hubris they ignored popular opinion (just like Bush did on Iraq). The tea parties were not the grumbling of a few puppet malcontents (like Pelosi, Obama, Stewert, et al wished they were). They were the tip of a very angry iceberg.

People elected Obama because he sold himself as a guy who was 'post-partisan' and would help correct the financial crisis caused by government over-spending and debt. Instead the people were dismayed with Obama's radical leftist agenda. They protested, but the left-wing liberals were in NO MOOD to let their leftist agenda get interrupted by such piddling trifles as the PEOPLE. So they mocked the protests. They ignored the voters. They pretty much spit in the face of the people, and now it has come back to bite them in the @$$ (just like Bush).

So Kennedy's seat is gone because they ran an arrogant, disconnected liberal lapdog who thought the seat was her's just because she showed up. Seen the news today? Health Care Reform is DEAD! This is a GREAT day for America because a radical, left-wing assault on freedom has been killed dead. Democrats rats are jumping the SS HealthCareReform in droves. Even Pelosi is giving up on it. Huzzah! Let's hope the GOP takes both houses of Congress this fall and throw government into total deadlock.

I never underestimate the GOP's ability to shoot itself in the foot. But things are looking promising. Brown won because he was unapologetically CONSERVATIVE. He said, "I'll stop health care because it is stupid policy..." He was totally right. The people responded. The GOP path is clear. If you want to skunk the "Progressive" liberals in the mid-terms then run on a CONSERVATIVE ticket where you promise to balance the budget, CUT SPENDING, pay down the debt, and reduce government to its proper scope & function. Do it GOP and you'll have the people behind you. If you just run RINOs like McCain again then you're screwed.

Point? Since when has Mr. Doofus ever had a point? He's the guy that the Democrats allow to be their crazy, cat-throwing aunt. Most of the time they keep him locked up in the attic. But every once in a while they unlock his door and take off his muzzle so he can jibber jabber. Then they take his verbal diarrhea and spoon it around HufPo, DU, and other leftist house organs for the fringe kook dogs to lick for a while. That's his only function. He's a guy the leftists use to toss red meat when they think the fringe kooks need something to chew on.

So he pops up and reads a laundry list of the Bush Administration's many failures. Yawn. Old news. What he isn't so keen on doing is making a laundry list of Barak Obama's many failures and how they are as bad or worse than Bush's.

For example - I don't really see a whole lot of people getting on Obama's case for 'taking his sweet time' in dealing with Haiti. During Katrina, people whined about Bush's slow response before the Hurricane had even left New Orleans. But the fact was Federal relief was already moving before the storm even hit, and things only got really bad because of the stupidity and sluggishness of Nagin and Blanco (Democrats). Haiti is a horrible disaster and things down there are deteriorating rapidly. Relief has been slower getting there than it was for Katrina, and yet I don't hear Mr. Doofus blaming Obama for that. Why is is OK to blame Katrina's bad outcome on Bush, but Obama gets a pass for Haiti? One simple answer... Blatant, obvious, naked, politically motived BIAS.

So I'm not impressed when Mr. Doofus rattles off a series of liberal, left-wing bones he has to pick with the Bush administration. He gets no points for that. You know what would be impressive? If he rattled off the huge, massive, impressive list of failures in the Obama administration, and his own Congress. It is at that point he would deserve some props for having a pair, and would show he was a person with principles. This? This just proves he's one more in a long line of liberal, left-wing, Democrat party lapdogs.

Just like I'm not impressed when Micheal Steele rips Democrats. Yawn. Why not rip into your own party Mikey and get after them for being big-spending, government program loving special interest tools? The Democrat party is in the process of practically HANDING you the House and maybe even the Senate this year. Why aren't you prepping your party to do the right thing and cut federal spending by 50%?