How Republicans bamboozled America

"If you go on over to http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/07/s... you can see exactly what has been cut, but I thought I would go ahead and highlight some that has been cut."

What the site reads:

(CNN) -- A coalition of Democrats and SOME Republicans reached a compromise that trimmed billions in spending from an earlier version of the Senate economic stimulus bill.

Hmm...A coalition of Democrats and "SOME" Republicans. Pretty sure that some doesn't refer to the majority. Bias garbage...

Back during the Johnson years and the Great Society, the way the liberals got bad laws passed was to slap the label "civil rights" on the bill, and make the bill difficult to fight against. Who wanted to vote against a civil rights bills?

Then during the Clinton years, the Clintons used "the children" for bad legislation. Who wanted to vote against a bill for the children?

Now under the Socialist regime of today, the keyword seems to be "stimulus". It is such a joke. There is no stimulus in this bill, it's just a payback in pork to the leftists, and a bill designed to entrench liberals, Marxists and socialist into the fabric of our government for decades.

This is a very sad day indeed for our country.

I can't believe how ignorant you are Mike. You just completely amaze me that you are that thick skulled, and ignorant. You couldn't find a actual fact if it ran up your rectum. The one's who have been bamboozled are the Gazette staff. for some insane reason they gave you a blog so you could insult southwest Nebraskas with your stupidity.

I wonder if you fill your own local newspaper with your ignorant stupidity and lack of understanding the real world. Maybe you just do this in the Gazette because you never have to face any of us on the street. You don't have to work with any of us. You can say what you want about things you apparently don't even understand.

You think just because idiot liberals have a majority, they can run any piece of crap legislation up our butts they want? What about the conservatives WE elected to represent us? Are they supposed to become liberals because now there are more liberals in the senate and house? Maybe all us heterosexuals should just become gay because there are more gays now! You'd like that wouldn't you? There'd definatley be more you in the world but then civilization would come to halt wouldn't it? No more babies dolt!

You are an idiot and Gazette can take this down I'm sure. They don't mind you mocking us here in McCook and insulting us, but I'm sure they'll mind me calling your blog an idiotic piece of crap! I'm glad the conservatives are holding their ground because that's what they are suppose to do you dolt! They were elected for their beliefs, not their congeniality like our new president was. We want them there to represent us and our values, not be conquered by you liberals!

You just keep providing evidence that old saying, "those who can...do, those who can't...teach," must be true. You must want to cozy up to mother government's bossom and suckle your entire life while producing nothing in your life other than a bunch of mindless "mini-me's" that want to do the same thing as you. Poor students is what say. You ever come to this town to teach, I'm pulling my kids outta school and that's a promise.

Okay let me see if I got all this correct. Aside from the actual numbers I did not offer any facts. True, I'm writing an opinion blog. If you want facts from real journalists I suggest you go read one.

But the one thing that sticks out more than anything is that every single one of you demand that I offer facts of my own then don't offer any of your own facts. Instead you stoop to name-calling. Every single one of you either called me, those who agree with me, the Democratic Pary, anyone who disagrees with you a derogatory name.

Well done. You all have single handedly made your position a laughing stock. I realize you are trying to boil my blood but it didn't I was too busy laughing at the comments.

Oh and one final thing that I actually saw ONE poster bring up and that is all these Republicans in Congress who have their underwear in a bind because of the outrageous spending were nowhere to be seen when the exact same thing was being done by a Republic President and Republic Congress. I suppose when it comes to hypocrisy the Republican Party has the corner marketed.

Operating Expenses is actually $160,000,000. So many zeroes it's hard to keep track of all of them.

Mike,

Perhaps you should go down the hall and sit in on a couple Government classes. They need 60 votes to pass this Democratic pork filled bill and they are STILL pouring more in! And you are blaming the Republicans for this? Every single amendment the Republicans have proposed has been shot down by the Democrats. Do you get C-Span? Perhaps you should watch the proceedings! And once it is approved... they send it back to the House Committee where it cannot be modified.

This Bill has about 70 percent pork and 30 percent stimulus... Hmm... And you blame the Republicans for a bill they didn't propose, and can't seem to modify? Good grief! Pull your head out!

Mike,

Thanks for the blog post. Not for the actual content. It didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know.

But thank you nonetheless for the flurry of angry comments you seem to have incited. They offer insight into the modern conservative mindset.

Even though your original post was about the stimulus package, and the economy in general, they still found a way to bring it back to abortion and homosexuality. Sometimes I think that if every conservative policy was proven 100% ineffective, they would still manage to win elections based on those two issues alone. The fact that those two subjects seem to leak into every argument is perhaps a show of desperation? Or simply obsession?

And the personal attacks. OH the personal attacks! How clever and enchanting. It always makes for a good argument when you spend so much time attacking the person instead of arguing the merit of their ideas. It makes it so much easier to ignore ideas with merit.

And I love the ever-popular excuse when you call them on it. "You LIBERALS started it". No, liberals didn't. Conservatives didn't either. Everyone did. And everyone keeps claiming that it's OK for them to do it, because the OTHER side started it first. Eye for an eye just leaves a room full of blind men. (And notice that the "left" didn't start the personal attacks on this page, the "right" did)

I also love the way calling something/someone "liberal" is now an insult. Isn't that so clever. If we just keep calling bad things "liberal", then eventually the association will stick. "Liberal" and "conservative" are just two different ideologies. Some people prescribe to one, some to the other (and some dabble in both), but leave it to the republicans to take the terminology of the opposing ideology and turn it into a "bad" word. democrats didn't do the same thing with the word "conservative".

I guess it's just easier to attack an idea by calling it "liberal" than it is to actually examine its merits.

And lets not stop at just calling an idea "liberal". Let's call it socialist too! Not only can we dismiss the idea because it's "liberal" we can in fact drum up fear and hatred of the idea by invoking the RED SCARE! It's a double whammy! Never mind the fact that you are taking a complex idea and dumbing it down to the level of "this idea bad! make me angry!"

And remember, when anyone brings up socialism, point to the Soviet Union and Cuba. "Haha, idiot socialists, your countries failed!". Let's just gloss over the fact that those are COMMUNIST countries (communist = socialist, right?)

And while we are labeling ideas instead of discussing them, lets call them "European", just for good measure. If we can make people think an idea is "liberal", "european", or "socialist", no one will even pay attention to it. BRILLIANT!

Oh man. That is the game plan for you guys, isn't it. Whenever you hear an idea you don't like, you:

1) Try to change/disguise the topic by brining up abortion or homosexuality (in an incendiary way, if at all possible)

2) Attack the person who put forth the idea. They missed their taxes? Must be a bad idea. They're liberal? Must be a bad idea (see 3) They have problems in their personal life? Must be a bad idea. They stole candy when they were a kid? Must be a bad idea.

3) Call it "liberal". Don't you just love how we've changed the meaning of the word to "bad". We win at PR!

4) Call it "socialist". Well, it's kind of looks like socialism, if you squint and lean your head to one side... and imagine Karl Marx is saying it. And if anyone starts to argue the merits of this particular "socialist" idea, yell about the USSR and Cuba. That'll get em.

5) Call it "European". Yeah, all those stinky western european countries with their higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate, lower crime rates, etc. Why would anyone take any of THEIR ideas seriously.

Quoting jhat: "And the personal attacks. OH the personal attacks! How clever and enchanting. It always makes for a good argument when you spend so much time attacking the person instead of arguing the merit of their ideas."

Strangely enough, jhat made no argument aside from...personal attacks. How weird is that?

............

As for Mike's writings...after years of whining about "our children and grandchildren will pay for this war," we are now poised to force our children and grandchildren to pay for tons and tons of stinking pork...the same type of social spending and pork that already constitute the vast majority of government spending.

In the year I was born, 1959, defense spending was 3x social spending. 1n 2006, social spending was 3x defense spending.

All things considered, I'd really prefer my children help pay for a war that protects my country instead of the unwinnable "war on poverty." Our government needs to get back to protecting our country (as provided in the Constitution)... and let the churches and private charities take back the "social spending." We've all seen how incredibly inefficient government is at charity.

I'm more than happy to sit back and laugh at the republicans as they slip into obscurity like the whig party, while liberpublicans like Ron Paul take over the anarcho-capitalist agenda.

because that's what 'conservative values' is code for: Anarcho-Capitalism. google it.

It would seem our conservative friends don't think we know what they are REALLY up to, and that would be the directed effort to make the USA a 3rd world country.

Like Colombia. where they have FARC. FARC is what happens when you go full-tilt into right wing anarcho-capitalism, via corruption.

and why wouldn't the Rich want that? labour becomes cheap when you deregulate everything, so we can employ Mexican kids and chain them to posts for 16 hours a day, at 2 cents an hour!

Every republican farmer gets more welfare than every unemployed family of five. Those new combines won't pay for themselves.

the Left, of course, is only a little better for long-term survival. they seem to recognize that if your idea of government is to fund endless wars and private police forces, all while giving tax cuts that make sure the money doesn't flow, that the rich hold on to as much of the economy as possible, you end up with an unstable country.

Because of the 'free-market' answer, wages are depressed and basic needs are not guaranteed.

many of you call this attitude 'spoiled' or 'lazy'.

I would submit that having ones most basic needs met does not cause one to lose interest in becoming richer or contributing to society.

even if I never HAD to work every day, even if I never HAD to pay a doctor $100 just to see him for 5 minutes, I would still find myself wanting that new car, that nice house, that constructive career, et cetera.

Making this happen is not a choice in the new Global Corporate Empire.

Basic needs being met for every citizen will stabilize the country. no one will have reason to become terrorists, to riot, to rob and to kill.

this stuff always happens, but if you take out the soul-crushing poverty factor, the crime levels drop dramatically.

there is nothing to support the Conservative view that the top, Management, Executive level of business represents the most productive members of society. this is a half-truth: it's only a valid assertion if your employee-base is in CHINA, and therefore aren't counted.

Production means nothing without workers. a country without workers is a country without money flow. without money flow, the economy stops. like right now.

giving business more money in the form of taxes, while allowing these business to outsource entire production facilities, keeps the money going one direction, and those at the top never buy American.

therefore the money sits in banks and goes to europe and asia, where all the stuff gets made.

I have more, but I have things to do with my life, unlike all these 55+ senior citizen Conservatives, and their soccer-mom kids, who sit at home and collect social security, while blogging about how social security should be eliminated. way to shoot yourself in the foot, gramps.

Doodle Bug, thank you for the compliments about my previous posts. This last one was not intended to be serious and well thought out, but a satirical comment on things that I've seen. Obviously the satire failed to show (Jon Stewart I am NOT!).

To reiterate my points in a non-satirical way:

I've grown very frustrated during discussions with many people on the right (not just on this site, but in many many other places). There seem to be many re-occurring methods that people on the right have been using to attack liberal/progressive ideas, even when the ideas have merit.

First and foremost is the assault on the very word, "liberal". For so long, conservatives have used it with such a negative connotation that the very word needed to be replaced with "progressive". How many times have you heard an idea dismissed out of hand for being "liberal". Liberal and Conservative are words that describe opposing ideologies. Both have some merit. I personally prescribe to a more liberal viewpoint, but when a conservative makes an argument and presents an idea, I don't just call it "conservative" (with a sneer) and dismiss it. I respond to the argument, and explain rationally while I feel it is incorrect. The way the very word "liberal" has been hijacked by conservatives is mind boggling.

Imagine the tables being turned, and every time a republican brought up tax cuts, everyone sneered and scoffed and condescendingly called him a conservative.

The above sentiment also applies to the words "European" and "socialist". Very frequently, I hear conservatives decry a viewpoint as "socialism" or "too European". The word "Socialism" invokes plenty of strong feelings in Americans. So calling something socialistic is a pretty effective tactic to kill an idea before it's merits can be discussed. Just because an idea is reminiscent of socialism doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea. The New Deal was reminiscent of socialism, and most economists agree that it was the major contributing factor to ending the depression.(I can already imagine the responses I will get for saying that).

Similarly calling something "Euorpean" (or more specifically "French") seems to carry a negative connotation in discussions with conservatives. "Universal Healthcare? What are we? French?"

Am I saying Europe is perfect? No. But certainly many European countries have traits/policies/programs that are positive and that we can use for our own benefit. (It also doesn't help the perception of the US in Europe when they hear our pundits dismissing ideas as "european")

And as for abortion and homosexuality. They do seem to come up too frequently. Almost every conversation I've had with a right winger has eventually been pulled back to abortion of gay rights. It doesn't matter if it's about the economy, history, politics, etc. It somehow always manages to get derailed and end up back on how liberals "kill babies" and are "queer lovers".

I certainly wouldn't assert that these things apply to ALL conservatives. In fact, I have many friends who are conservative, and we have rational debates and discussions frequently. But these are tactics that I've seen conservatives use all to often, in both private and public discussions.

As for being guilty of what I have claimed they are guilty of? most of my points were about how they dismissed liberal arguments out of hand by calling them liberal/socialist/european. I don't feel that I've done that to them.

I also complained about personal attacks. I also do not feel that I personally attacked any conservative individual. I suppose you could consider my points a "personal attack" on conservatism itself. But I really don't think that is the case. I'm going to post a response to Sam about this soon.

I hope that this post has been more "reasonable and well thought out". I apologize for my failed attempt at satire :)

My apologies, but the first part of my last comment (down to where I say "But Seriously") was intended as a response to MrsSmith. The rest was intended for Sam.

To reiterate, MrsSmith accused me of making personal attacks similar to those I had just railed against. I do not feel that I personally attacked anyone. Feel free to disagree/agree

Doodle bug,

I can assure you that I did write them. The first comment was a meager attempt at satire, which obviously failed. I was poking fun by essentially claiming that there is some handbook for conservative arguments (I know that there is not really one, at least not one that puts forth those points). I don't actually believe that all conservatives are conspiring to use those specific arguments. I simply have seen some of them used here and elsewhere.

It was a failed attempt at satire (much like the much lambasted cover of the New Yorker featuring Obama), I apologize if it was taken differently. I thought I would mix it up, as I tend to be long winded (and sometimes boring). And I felt that if I changed my style from serious to satire, that my response would be more interesting. I sometimes feel (judging by replies) that people are not reading my comments in full and simply responding to the "gist" of them. I will stick with my usual writing style from now on, even if it's boring. As I am apparently no good at satire (and I suppose it's hard to express it on the Internet where you cannot control intonation, demeanor, etc).

Thanks again for the kind words about my other posts. I will stick to logic and seriousness (for the most part) from now on.

Steffanie,

Methinks you are confused about who has been in charge the last 8 years. Until January 2007, Pelosi and Reid were the MINORITY leaders of the house and senate (respectively). That means that their party (the Democrats), did not have a majority until 2007.

The REPUBLICANS had a majority in both houses from 1993 through 2006. So if you are so angry about the last 8 years, you might want to look at the party who was in charge for 6 of them.

Of course, you could argue that as the minority leaders, Pelosi and Reid exerted influence on the decisions of the REPUBLICAN congress. But I don't really think the republicans gave the democrats a whole lot of latitude when they had the clear majority.

Mike,

I have to apologize for not addressing your initial post in any comments. I originally intended to just point out that many accusations that people were making about you (and liberals in general) mirrored the accusations I've seen in the past, and to point out the illogical and unreasonable nature of these accusations.

I think you are absolutely right about the Democrats in congress right now. They do need to realize that they have a clear majority, and the support of most of the country. Perhaps they are so used to being the unheeded minority that they are not accustomed to leading. Or perhaps they don't want the Republicans to be marginalized the way they were a few years ago.

However, I think that they are also trying to keep their majority by covering their butts. While they can pass the stimulus without Republican support, they don't want to. Because let's face it, the stimulus might not work (I think it will, if done right). And if the stimulus doesn't work, and the boat sinks, they want the republicans to be right beside them on the bow of the ship.

If the stimulus fails (and has no republican support) and the economy gets worse, they can say goodbye to their democratic majority.

What I don't think they realize, is that even IF they get some republican support for the bill and it fails, the Republicans will still blame them. They will turn around and say, "WE told you it wouldn't work", and despite the republican support for it, the public will buy it, because the bill is too closely associated with the dems

Keep writing Mike. I find your posts interesting, and I enjoy hearing your opinion.

Actually Justin if you paid any kind of attention at all you would know that Obama supports most of what you are talking about. He supports merit pay which is what you were sort of talking about in the last paragraph.

Your ideas aren't half bad, the fact that you have to lace your ideas with insults to ANYONE who might oppose you is what makes your ideas ugly.

And you might want to take a closer look at your beloved lightning rod of hate California. It's not as liberal as you hope it is. Yes as a state they vote Democratic in PRESIDENTIAL elections but a closer look at the the state level will show a more conservative look. The leader of their state who has been re-elected and has pushed through many of the dollars they are now in debt is in fact a Republican. California has passed more ani-poverty, anti-immigration, and anti-gay legislature than any state in the country. Doesn't sound to liberal to me.

The only thing ugly around here is how you write. You're to one accusing republicans of everything under the sun. Calling them all "lying Liars" and trying to make us all believe that we've been calling Obama "Hitler." Whe in fact it was the other way around.

What is truly ugly is that you think the president and the other dolts in charge should have ANY say in ANY private business decisions in this country. I don't need these baffoons tgelling me what to pay my employees. I'm the one that sees them first hand and what they do or don't do. These guys can't seem to be able to find a toilet seat that suites them for under $1000 and there's supposed to tell all the business owners in this country how to run their businesses.

I'm scared to high hell what's going to happen in the next few years as socilism spreads in this country. We're already telling private business what to pay, minimums and maximums, we're telling them who to hire and fire, whether thay can have a business jet or not.

When does it end Mike? This is just like my arguement with the baby killers. Who determines "when" you are human and not? Maybe someday we'll want to determine "human" as someone who can walk and talk, so we'll be able to kill babies long after birth if we so choose.

We shouldn't have to worry about whether Mr. Prez is going to wake up tomorrow and determine that the iundustry we live and work in will now be shut down since it is determined unworthy by his standards. I shouldn't have to worry that he is going to decide that idiot freeloaders that would rather make a living playing videogames should now make more than I can even make ot my own business. We're only a few clicks away from them awarding idiot loafers so much pay and benefits at my expense that I can't hire anyone.

This stimulus will backfire just like any stimulus ever has before it. I urge all you to vote these bozo's the hell out of office as soon as we get the chance! All of them, I'd just as soon start all over with a whole new government and get these lying, cheating, stealing, power hungry politicans gone forever.

By the way Mike, just because CA didn't pass that gay marriage prop that you were so thrilled about, doesn't make them a conservative state. No more than the NE supreme court ruling that a state abortion ban was unconstitutional make us a liberal state. Yes they are liberal, any state with a Nancy Pelosi is liberal.

Speaking of Princess Pelosi, the most hated beach in America...it's funny how congress today told bsuinesses that recieved TARP they had to sell their private jet and cancel orders, yet the Princess has her own private jet that tax payers get to pay for so she can shuttle her family around. That's about as big a load of BS as my ticker can handle in one day.

I think I know why our new admin is relaxing the restrictions on travel to Cuba...I bet a lot of people are gonna want to go there to take a vacation from socialism. That's a joke Mike, cuz they are...never mind.

To Nazism incorporated elements of BOTH left-wing and right-wing politics. The Nazi party was opposed to economic/political liberalism and was anti-communist. So to claim that Nazism is liberalism taken too far is just not true. In a similar vein, to claim that Nazism is conservatism taken too far would also be untrue.

I think misunderstandings like this come from interpretation of the political spectrum as a single line:

liberalism-----------Center----------Conservatism

When in truth, to accurately represent political beliefs, at LEAST one more axis is required (however I would suggest that more is better). I think a good example would be the following chart:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...

The two axises are left-right and libertarian-authoritarian. I think that US democrats are in the lower left quadrant, while the US republicans are in the upper right.

The Nazi's would be in the upper left. Here is the problem. US liberals see the similarities of Nazi authoritarianism with the US republicans, while the US republicans see the similarities of Nazi left-ism with US democrats.

(of course, there are vagaries of location on this chart. How close each party is to each axis is up for debate).

sorry jhat, although I read Mikes blog, I do not respect him or his opinions. The title of this thread "How Republicans bamboozled America" is pernicious. If Mike EVER included any of the failings of the Dems or libs, I might be more inclined to take him seriously. Until that time, I will not.

and if there be any doubt, I tend to center-right. That being said, I certainly do not subscribe to the extremist conservatism espoused by many on this blog (and the liberal extremists are just as bad). Although we would disagree on many issues, I applaud jhat for his reasoned and respectable responses.

The Communist and National Socialist' were very similiar if you truly study them. Stalin traded lives for time and lost 29 million people. Hitler lost > 6 million people fighting for his "open spaces". The biggest difference was Hitler made his people believe he was "it" and he lifted his people to an almost orgasmic frenzy.

You've got to be kidding, jhat, and doodlebug

I thank you for your support. Whether or not you agree with me, whether or not you respect me, whether or not you support me what you do agree and respect, and support is my right to say it.

You offer facts not snide comments, you offer debate not question my sexuality (as if that even had any bearing).

I write on this blog because I believe my side (and yes I am a left leaning liberal (thought not nearly as far left as I have been painted)deserves to have a voice (even in southwest Nebraska). Do I always give absolute facts? No I am only giving my opinion agree with don't it doesn't matter to me one bit.

Challenge me on my beliefs but offer another side just don't stoop to name calling and think you are going to upset me and cause me to run away with my tail between my legs I won't.

And to other posters I never once said that anyone on this board has compared Obama to Hitler but it has been said on national television by right leaning conservatives. And that's fine that's their right but don't act so innocent and lie about it when you are called on it.

It also just amazes me is one poster critisizing the other political party with trying to run America (which they aren't) when we just had eight years of his party doing the same thing. Does anyone remember Karl Rove proudly exclaiming that he was going to make a permanent Republican majority.

For the record, Obama has attempted to reach across the aisle but so far has not had anyone else reach back.

And a little history lesson since it was brought up. The New Deal did not fail until FDR abandoned the most stable parts of it on support from Republican congressman. Revisionist History just doesn't work.

So again to jhat, You've got to be kidding, and doodle bug (and anyone else who while not agreeing with me hasn't stooped to just simply calling me names, sticks and stones people sticks and stones) THANK YOU!!!!!!

to Mike - I have still not seen any castigation of liberal Dems for their part in this financial debacle. Or, do you consider they did not have a part in it?

Mercy! Hard to believe these right-wing fundies!

If it wasn't for socialism, Red Willow county would dry up and blow away. Take away social security checks, farm subsidy, state highways with fed backing payments, medicare, medicaid, Nebraska Health & Human Services, airport fed payments, state, city and county government payments, State Highway Patrol, National Guard payments, sewer, water and electricity (State owned electricity) police, Game & Parks, public schools, community colleges, railroads, trucking -all depend on a highly regulated and socialized government without which Red Willow would not survive.

Red Willow depends on a highly integrated socialist society from top to bottom and without it, you'd be sitting in a pasture with nothing to eat and wondering how to stay warm in the dark.

And with the coming nationalization of the banks which is necessary to prevent further piracy by the capitalist pigs, socialism will advance further and make this country a decent place to live. If you don't like it, you can leave, but the bottom line is - like it or not - you are living in a highly socialized society.

It is also funny how Mike pretty much admits in his first sentence that this is a bad bill. So hopefully President Obama will veto and send it back.

I will write a piece on Hitler and Obama and you can post it.

Ask George Briggs at MHS about me. He knows me very well.

Where can I mail some material to you?

Mike, I've stated before that there's nothing that happens in this country that we can blame one person for. You accuse me of fingering Clinton for events. Even though I loath the Clintons and their lying/corruption/business fraud, I don't blame Bill for anything. Some have tried to pinpoint the terrorist problem on him for doing little when he had the chance.

I have read an extensive interview with Cofer Black of Blackwater and it's pretty obvious that during Clinton's admin we didn't understand the true threat because there was no precident for such attrocities on our soil. I can understand that Clinton didn't want to rage all out war like Bush eventually do if it wasn't necessary. Then we get 9/11. I think then the Bush admin listened to Black because Black was there with Clinton warning him that this would happen and no one listened or understood the possiblilty. Bush had that reference to ponder. So, he when after them in their own back yard. No, it's certainly not popular now, but haven't we been safe? Is it any different than telling your kids they can't do something and then you get "hated" for it, but you're just trying to keep them safe.

You can rage on and on about how Bush lied to us and scamed us for oil. It's just not an educated position to take. The evidence was there about an attack and no one listened because we didn't believe it could happend and then it did. It's just a state of mind that changed. I don't blame Clinton for any of that. Even though I think he and Hillary are a bunch of crooked scammers, I really don't think he wanted to harm his American people. Nor do I think Bush wanted any ill gotten gains from this war on terror. He just wanted us to be safe and he took in on the chin for us. Once in awhile someone comes along that wants to do the right thing and then takes a lot heat for it. Martin Luther King was no different. His dream became his passion and he didn't stop pushing for this dream until it killed him. Abraham Lincoln wasn't popular at all for his decision to go to war against the south for his dream of ending slavery. They were all right for what they believed in even though they weren't going to do well in a Zogby Poll of today's standards!

I believe our problems are from government period. I don't care what color you are, blue or red. These guys in DC are nothing but crooks. They don't know how to handle our money, they don't know how to run a business, all they're doing now is grandstanding for all the American people to see so we think they're there sticking it to the man for us.

I'm not saying that all of them are in on the scam of the century, but when they're all in there taking a little here and little there, trying to score a little pork for their constituents, then you multiply that by the 1000's in office, and you get a lot of wasted spending and fraud.

It's just like a joke I heard the other day about 3 contrators bidding on a fencing job for the White House. Contractor 1 comes in at $800; $400 for materials and $400 for labor. Contractor 2 comes in a $700; $350 for materials and $350 for labor. Contractor 3 comes in at $2700. So the congressman hires contractor 3 because it's $1000 for the congressman, $1000 for contractor 3 to hire contractor 2 to do the actual job!

It's funny but sad because that's how government works. They use our tax dollars to spend on themselves. I just heard a report there may be a DC maddam that is willing to out government officials for using government credit cards to pay for prostitutes. Does this supprise anyone.

Nancy Pelosi is guilting of taking money from her PAC fund to put into her husband's business. A clear violation of legislation she supported. She also had porvisions in the minimum wgae bill not too long ago for a Sunkist Tuna to be exempt from it...they are big supporters of hers.

Ben Nelson, sits on boards of big Nebraska businesses and gets bill paychecks for a couple hours of work a year. What are these companies getting from Washington in return. There is so much of this going on we could hash it out for years.

The problem with this is the bigger our government gets the more money they spend and we can't make them accountable. We already have a gerneration of kids that don't understand how government works, and it gets worse as these people make it into Washington.

This age of entitlement will gets us absolutely nowhere. These people showing up to work expecting to get paid to do nothing and reap huge benifits is a microcosm of this country and it's wanting government to provide everything for them. You can sit here until your blue in the face telling me this is okay and our country is alright, but this entitlement mentallity is going to bankrupt our country and eventually starve us of all our human resource until something like China or radical Islam defeats us.

I've had some deep philisophical discussions with others about the possible need for a depression to sort of "reset" our capitalism and restore work ethic among Americans. I believe it may help us restore our work ethic and values, other don't think there is enough character evern left in the country for that to work.

I don't know what there real story would be. We still have a lot of excess in this country, we have so many luxuries we didn't have 70 years ago. When Pearl harbor was attacked you had an entire generation of young men who wanted to go kick some ass for their country. Not so much anymore. We seem to have a lot of people in this country who wna to make us feel guilty for what we've accomplished and made for ourselves. I don't feel we should have to make excuses for it or feel bad about it. We should be proud to be Americans and be proud of what our grandfathers and great grandfathers did for us.

These may and probably are the some people who want the government to take care of them. Just like Henrietta Hughes in FL. Her and her son have refused housing and worker training in the past, yet there they were on national tv stills crying for help. They fianlly got what they wanted. Help with no strings attached, while conveieniently helping Obama show us how desperate this country is for help. What's wrong with helping these people, but expecting something in return like, working for the public sector to repay your debt to the government?

It would appear there is a large number of people out there looking for a handout that has no string attached. They think it's the government's responsiblity to take care of them and make all the rich pay for it. Meanwhile the gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow. Do you think it could be that as long as the government is going to award handout dor those who want it, there willbe a growing numner of lazy freeloaders to stick their hand out? I think so. Meanwhile, the people that are pround to work and pick up the slack may actually be getting ahead of the ones that just want to lay down and be fed.

I know this is not the exact and only problem in our society, but it sure is a growing factor that I don't think we had to deal with 60-70 years ago.

I'm just sick of the grand scale of hypocracy in this world. Al Gore flies all over the world leaving a carbon footprint large enough for a milllion people, just to shane the rest of us for driving a Ford Pickup. Nancy Pelosi and her Dem buddies want corperate America to end the use of corperate private jets, yet she has her own for her fly her and her family around the world on our dime. She was so hot to trot to get this bill passed, jsut so she could go on vacation in Rome and disguise it as business of course. Then Obama is on tv everyday telling us how important every minute is to get this thing going as we're loosing jobs everyday. So, congress passes the bill and he goes on a 3 day vacation and a tax payer spending spree for Valentine's day.

What a bunch of crap! When are we going to make these people accountable. All we have done is give them the power of kings and queens and we are nothing but the peasants that provide them with the funds to do it. I have been working all weekend. I didn't get to take a 3 day weekend like the President. How dare he tell us how important this stimulus is and shame us for not believing it's importance, then he takes a 3 day weekend to do nothing about it. Show's you how important it must be!

ontheleftcoast's derogatory comments only invite more of the same from conservative extremists.

Justin,

He has a little idea of what he is talking about. There were sentiments expressed by the Clinton staff team that the Bush transition team did not take their security breifings seriously enough.

Additionally, there was the August 6th 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) which was given to President Bush while he was a Crawford Ranch. It did warn of an potential impending attack from Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. The briefing also included a warning that the FBI has uncovered suspicious Al Quaeda activity that was indicative of plans to hijack aircraft.

Partial Transcript here:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/1...

I am not saying I blame Bush for 9/11. As president, I know he had to deal with numerous security briefings about multitudes of threats. Hindsight about those threats is 20/20.

I am simply saying that not everyone who says that he could have prevented it are conspiracy whack jobs who don't know what they're talking about. They do have some legitimate points about how President Bush could have taken action to prevent it. I just don't believe that they make 9/11 his fault. It's Al Quaeda's fault. I don't understand why we are so quick to blame people in our own country, when it was terrorists who actually committed the crime.

Justin,

If you've been reading my posts here and elsewhere, you'll find that I agree. I don't think it is the fault of EITHER of those presidents. Though, both of them could certainly have done more.

What I have been lamenting in another comment thread is the partisian lines that have been drawn in this country. And the fact that conservatives refuse to believe that liberals can be right about anything, and liberals refuse to believe conservatives can be right about anything is going to tear this country apart eventually.

The name calling and personal attacks on this site (that comes from both sides) are doing nothing to alleviate the problem. (Though I think it's important to realize the difference between legitimate criticism and "bashing" your opponent)

Just to be clear I have never blamed Bush for 9/11, but he could have done more to prevent it.

I don't blame Clinton for the first attack on the World Trade Centers, but he could have done more to prevent it.

Blaming a president or whoever for actions they could have prevented is a waste of breath. The only people responsible for 9/11 are in Northern Pakistan (the Taliban).

I know this is going to shock you Justin but I completely agree with you on one HUGE point. Right now we are living in an era where it's everyone else's fault but your own. Bank forecloses on your home because you haven't made a payment in months, it's the banks fault for not giving you more warning. You get a bad grade on a test you didn't study for, it's the teachers fault for making the test to hard.

I don't know how we got to this point of blaming everyone else for our problems but until we can get past THAT it is going to be a long road to sow.

and to think, this all started with "HOW REPUBLICANS BAMBOOZLED AMERICA"!

Justin,

And just to be clear on what I meant about criticism vs bashing.

Calling the Democrats "bozos" is bashing.

Pointing out that most of the national debt was racked up during republican presidencies is criticism.

No, jhat I actually reserve the word bozo for all politicans that are spending our money irresponsibly, I don't care what color you are. And for your info, the national debt went up while there were Denmocrats in Washington too.

Do you even know how the country works? Our president is not a God or a King. The Congress come up with bills buddy. You can't blame the president for everything. You better thank him for keeping you opinion safe from a terrorist's bomb though.

You know, Bush didn't ask them to come here and kill 3000 people last time I checked, so you better pull your head out of the sand and realize that he wasn't a total boob or a liar, no more than Jimmy "peace prize" Carter was. What a great president and now biggest no-it-all he is.

You know, as much as I'd like to blame Obama for the future crash of our country's economy, it will solely rest on shoulders of the congree. I think that's why you see the GOP sticking together and holding their ground. When we're all running to Mexico because pesos are worth 2X what the dollar is worth, they'll be here to fix things. I think what you're seeing is a group of people that have decided, even though they're all still a bunch of crooks, that THIS time someone should do the right thing even if you take a beating in the polls for it.

Regardless of WHO you are calling bozo, it is still an attack rather than a criticism.

And I do know how the US budget works.

Bills are created in congress BUT...

The budget is submitted by the PRESIDENT to Congress. Then the house and senate tweak it and approve it. After it is approved by Congress, it is sent to the PRESIDENT so that he can either sign it or VETO it and sent it back. The veto can only be overridden with a 2/3 majority.

So, it could be argued that while congress actually passes the budget proposals, the president has quite a bit of power, considering that he both SUBMITS and APPROVES (or vetoes) the budget.

Yes, the democrats had control of the house during the reagan years, but not the senate. So, the republicans had the presidency AND the senate, while the democrats had the house.

(Additionally, the house appropriations committee did a study that determined that over his terms, Reagan asked for several billion MORE than what was approved by congress. He did request less than was actually spent, but more than what was approved. Primarily because his budget estimates were based on an overly-optimistic view of the future economy)

I will admit that the democrats had both the house and senate during H.W. Bush's term. Though he still submitted and approved the budget. The democrats did not have a 2/3 majority necessary to override his veto.

And during W. Bush's fist 6 years, the republicans had the presidency, the house, AND the senate. So there is not a whole lot of excuses for the republicans there

Additionally, if your point is that the democratic congresses were the ones who pushed the economic policy (instead of Reagan/Bush) that created the large national debt. Wouldn't I have the democratic congress to thank for the "great economic ride" we've had for the last 20 years? (after all, only CONGRESS has the power to levy taxes)

You can either assert that Reagan controlled the economic policy during his presidency or he didn't, not both. He can't be responsible for the economic growth but NOT the rising national debt. He is either controlling the economic policy or he is not.

As the saying goes, "You can't have your cake and eat it too."

And, if we are going to say that the president has the power to set the economic policy, wouldn't we have to thank Clinton for the period of enormous economic growth (bigger than Reagan's) during his presidency?

And as far as non-budget bills. I am well aware that they originate in the house and senate (though the president can ask for them to be introduced).

I do not blame the president for everything, nor did I call him a "boob" or a "liar" (you are again projecting your view of the extreme liberals onto me, and all liberals).

And I certainly don't know where I said that he was responsible for 9/11. I think I have pretty strongly expressed that I don't think it was his fault.

However, I do blame the president for things he and his administration WERE responsible for. The war in Iraq (I'm aware that it was approved by congress, but he asked for it), the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina (FEMA is part of the executive branch), the political firings at the justice department (justice dept. is part of the executive branch), the outing of a CIA spy (a member of his administration), etc.

And I do not blame the republicans for "sticking their ground". If they all truly believe the stimulus package will hurt the country, they should vote against it. What frustrates me is when the republicans play politics with it.

But they also need to understand that they are banking their political future on the stimulus package failing and the economy getting worse. If it does, they may win back the congress and/or the presidency. But if it actually does work, I really hope I don't see any of them taking credit for it.

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is even taking credit for it already. Saying that he "won a victory for the Alaska Native contracting program and other Alaska small business owners last night in H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." DESPITE the fact that he (and all of the house republicans) voted against it.

It's not that calling people bozos is really offensive, it's just not constructive. Call them fiscally irresponsible, or even spend-crazy. The word "bozo" is just so pedestrian. Isn't it better to call them things that actually represent the reason you dislike them?

(and don't blame just the dems for calling people names like pol pot and hitler. Republicans are just as guilty)

My apologies for taking your criticisms personally. I suppose I just get offended when people attack liberals as a whole because I assume they are including myself. I suppose I am probably guilty of the same thing when I talk about conservatives.

As for Pelosi's jet habits. These seem to be a popular tactic for attacking her. But, Nancy Pelosi flies in a 12-seat executive jet, the same one used by her Republican predecessor. Though she has used a larger jet before when the small one is not available. She also uses a commercial jet when not on official business. Yes, the "lowly" taxpayers pay for congressmen to travel when on government business (to and from their districts, to other countries, etc.) and she is the highest ranking congressperson.

Source:

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/slimin...

I typically don't call myself a democrat either. I was registered as independent until this past election when I wanted to vote in the primaries. But I don't have any problem saying I'm a democrat. It doesn't mean I agree with all of the party positions. Just with the liberal philosophy of government in general.

And my family consists of mainly conservative republicans. Maybe we were switched at birth?

Jeez Justin. I don't think I ever really gave a wholehearted endorsement of the way Mike made his original post. However, go back and read it. He expressed his disagreement with supply-side economics, said that he felt that Obama was extending a hand to the republicans that they were rejecting, and he pointed out what he thinks is good spending that was cut by that republicans. Did he call them "bozos" or "crooks" or "jerks". No. He did make some assertions about how the republicans think that bordered on hyperbole. But he didn't make any outright negative attacks without giving facts to back up his criticism.

And I don't know where you get off saying that I've turned a blind eye to the irrational name-calling that has happened to President Bush over the last few years. With all due respect, you don't know me, and you've never met me. And I was not posting on this site while Bush was in office. I am typically critical of people I know who make unjust attacks on people, whatever their party of choice. Even on this site I have chastised people on the left for making irrational attacks against people on the right.

And the problem IS that no one is standing up and saying it's not constructive. That is what I have been trying to express! It seems that when the left is hateful, the right simply becomes more hateful in response, so the left becomes even more hateful. It is this cycle that I'd like to halt by upon people to levy their criticisms in a constructive manner, instead of a derogatory one.

And as for the democrats calling bush names. Many of the attacks you are complaining about have come from the far-left. Not the mainstream democratic party. I don't think I've heard Pelosi or Reid call him Hitler or Pol Pot.

And it is simply dishonest to call out the democrats for their "vile attacks" while ignoring the equivalent republican attacks on democrats.

I think we have a tendency to take more notice of attacks against people we agree with.

I also think the problem of perception is that we see the congressional democrats being highly critical of the white house, while we also hear the far-left call Bush Hitler and a war criminal. I think it's important to not confuse the two.

I do think the democrats could have done a better job being bipartisan on the stimulus. But they certainly didn't shut the republicans out completely.

In fact, the senate cut billions out of the bill just to get the support of 3 republicans. Of course, they did need the 3 votes to get a filibuster-proof majority. But I think it shows that they were willing to negotiate with republicans, and willing to make changes in the bill.

I don't think many republicans were even willing to come to the table on the stimulus bill. I have heard many nasty comments about Arlen Specter and the other 2 republican senators who jumped ship to support the bill. Specter replied that he'd rather be working with the democrats to make a better bill than be dead set against it and have no input at all.

Bipartisanship does not mean giving equal credence to republicans and democrats. It means taking good ideas from whichever side they cpme. Everything I've heard in the news from Republicans in the past weeks has been about how the stimulus is bad and they are being shut out from negotiations. Complaints. I haven't heard them present any new ideas about how to fix the stimulus. I have only heard "the democrats are wrong", not "the democrats are wrong, and here is how to fix it".

And I do think bipartisanship will be hard. I think alot of congressional democrats feel that it's "payback time" for the years they spent as the unheeded minority. And I do think that Pelosi feels this way a bit too. But I hope that President Obama's call to bipartisanship will influence her demeanor in the House.

Well, if you must know, when Bill was getting pleasured by his mistress in the most honorable office in the world, I WAS screaming at Ken Starr and the Republicans, because I was a Democrat at the time. It wasn't until I got out of college, into the real world of working and paying taxes, raising a family that I finally saw the light of day and everything I learned from one of the smartest economic teachers to ever teach the subject finally kicked in. It was an epiphany...I hope I spelled it right.

jhat, this whole illusion that you have of democrats reaching out their hand and letting republicans have a stab at this bill is like all the cool kids get together for one of their own's birthday party. They all had a good time, ate all the cake, wacthed movies, played video games. Then some of the other kids came over later that were also friends, but they weren't as cool of people at school. Suddenly the cool kids are trying to make like they had forgotten to invte them but they were sure welcome to come in and have some leftovers from the fridge since all the party food was gone. That's what this whole thing stinks like.

BTW, republicans do have ideas about a real stimulus but it doesn't invole keys ideas. Mainly it DOES NOT INCLUDE OBAMA'S WORTHLESS PROMISES TO STUPID PEOPLE.

Their paln would most likey cut government spending and cut taxes across the board. It would not bail stupid people that don't know how to buy a house and make responsible people pay for it.

That's why the Princess didn't want them in on it. It NEVER would have been written in time for her to go on vacation to Rome. That's your answer. Maybe you should have read up on this becaue conservatives had a lot fo ideas, they just didn't meet the criteria of idiotic campaign promises.

I can use the word idiotic can't I? It illustrates the fact that I think promising everything to everybody that they will be taken care of and the government will pay for everything is in fact "IDIOTIC!"

My thoughts on Princess Pelosi. She epitomizes everything I think is worng with this country. It has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman. I just don't like her. I don't like the way she disrespected the president. I have never seen a speaker of the house disrespect anyone that way. I don't like the fact that she claims to be a Catholic yet interprets the Bible to her convienience to sell extremely liberal ideas. I don't like the fact that she wan't to use feberal money to murder babies. I don't like the fact that she is the poster woman for hypocracy of the government. She's giving money from her PAC fund to her husband's business...against legislation she even supported! I don't like the fact that seems to have a lot of power therefore the rest of the country is legislated like San Fransisco. If I wanted to live in San Fran I would. It's the last place on Earth I would want to live.

I can't think of one reason to like her. What I can't figure out, is how someone like thjat rises to the top. Why can't Ben Nelson rise to the top. Ben is pretty much a moderate guy. I'm sure he voted for the stimulus for party favor and I don't like it, but why do the nutbags get to the top and then grab ahold of our country like this.

I don't personlly think anybody from CA outta be doing anything with finances in the federal government. The state of CA is 42 billion in debt and rising. They're looking at fires thousands of people and discontinuing many services. It makes me wonder, as crooked as Pelosi has shown us she can be...how much of our federal taxes are going to "fix" CA's budget problems?

This blog was on track with talk of the stimulus intil someone started whinning about the word bozos. I think in a few years you're going to agree with me and be calling them bozos too. I hope I'm wrong as I'd rather be in a better place in 5 years, but knowing I'll be getting NO help because of my responsible decision making, I'll be strapped with the debt of stupid people and I don't think that will help me very much nor will it help the people I depend on to make a living.

God help us all.

Mike, pull out your history books and tell me about all the times that massive government spending helped our economy. Then look up how many times a simultaneous redution in government spending and taxes helped pull us through a recession.

I still have't received an answer about the payoff for us not to work anymore. I was wondering if it wouldn't just be cheaper to print enough money to pay all American citizens a million bucks to do noting the rest of our lives instead of the 3-4 trillion in government spending that started last year and will end.....????

Oh yeah guys, I almost forgot, back in high school I was also a huge supporter of abortion and ever wrote essays on it and debated about it in classrooms. Then I had kids. If you can have a child of your own, love it more than anything in the world, then see pictures of dead baby bodies that were aborted and you don't want to puke and shout from the rooftops of the attrocity, then I don't know what kind of human being you are. You can debunk me all you want but I am growing into a Pro-Choice people hater the more I see of this murderous crap taking place.

What really gets me riled up. And I don;t want to make assumptions as these assupmtions seems to be drawing fire, but I view it as the same people that up in arms over this so called torture...are the same people that are pro-choice. Am I worng to assume this?

What a paradox that is. On one hand we are foaming at the mouth over a terrorist getting and old fashion "indian burn" or a good tongue lashing. Then we turn around and chop a baby up into little pieces and run down a medical garbage disposal. You see why I get mad? I see this country going down a liberal shitter and Nancy Pelosi is leading the charge!

We don't seem to value human life anymore, yet we are going to throw an ex president in jail because someone beat the hell out of a terrorist? WOW! Why should we care? Aren't they all trying to kill us anyway? The answer for those that have't been paying attention for the last 8 years is YES! So you want to honor the Geneva Convention? Since when were we fighting another country anyway? Do the terrorist foolow the Geneva Convention? Oh, so we are supposed to be better than them, not sink to their level right? Well then stop advocating the killing of babies.

I pre-appologize to you if I have accidentally lumped you into two seperate ideal groups. I don't want to assume that anyone who disdains torture also supports abortion as I know those are two very different things. My point is that here is Nancy Pelosi, talking out of both sides of her mouth. She IS the type of person I have been outlining because one minute she wants the pres brought up on war crimes and the next minute she trying to fund abortions with federal money!

Do you see what I mean Mike? I can't feel good about this country in the hands of people with no moral compass!

No, I don't think that everyone who is a liberal or a democrat thinks just like Pelosi. But it's obvious that she has to have a great deal of support to be where she's at.

I realize Pelosi doesn't control CA finances, I didn't imply that she does. She does however, exemplify the liberal spenders that HAVE run CA into the red.

I respect your views on human life but I caution you with your type of thinking, and this is where I used to get tripped up.

#1: Who gets to decide "when" we become human? Higher thought? IS someone in coma not human anymore. What about mental retardation. Not human? What about a vegetaive state from an injury? Too many if --what-if, maybe-sort of rules going on here. We're either human or we're not. You and I don't get to decide. I'm not God and neither are you!

You have to do some soul searching and look at some of these babies being chopped up hack doctors and ask youself if they are human or not.

#2: What about adults that can't feel, taste, see, or hear. Can we just close the book on them and have them torn apart at the limbs and killed?

And number 3: Again, what about people on life support that cannot live without it. I'll even go as far as kidney dialysis. Do we just outlaw life support systems and let these people die? I'll take Pelosi's ideas of saving the government money as was her case for federally funded abortions. If we just kill these people off when they need this type of life support, think og the money we'll save Medicare and the nation?

You see, these theories have so many holes and implications that we shouldn't go into. If we all use these reasons for abortion than we could effectively kill off a great deal of loved ones in this country for the very some reasons you think we should have abortion.

My thought it that I don't know when the human life begins either. I don't know if its at conception or soon after, or when an embyro is formed. I do know that it would a lot less confusing if it were just banned and we don't have to assume the roll of God.

The problem with assuming the role of God is who gets to do it? You and I both have different views on it. Combine that with the fact that over time society changes. What would happen in 30 more years if we decide that we're not HUMAN unitl we can walk and talk? We'll be killing kids until they're 2 years old!

This whole thing is all about a double standard. It applies to abortion as well as the politics of federal budgets and social issues. We all want to apply one set of values and conditions to one issue and then set an entirely different set of values to another issue. It seems to be the American way and it all revolves around making our lives easier. I have always been taught and lived thorugh the examples that the right thing to do is usually the hardest thing to do.

Every great person I have ever had the pleasure to meet and listen too has echoed that very same philosophy. To make American's lives too easy I fell will make us worthless and soft. We need to be challenged everyday to earn our place on this great world. Government is giving in entirely too easily to lazy and stupid people. I would rather chellenge them to be great and make something of themselves.

Only YOU can make yourself who you are. Don't rely on others to define you. With great sacrifice comes great reward.

Oh and I didn't realize that we actually were at war with the country of Iraq. I thought we were actually helping the people get rid of a murderous dictator who tried to make the world believe he had WMD's by not allowing inspectors in his country when it turns out he was actually just a bluffing coward. Are we also at war with Afghanistan too? We most certianly were also at war with the country of Bosnia with Bill Clinton then too. See we have to be consistent on these issues instead of picking and choosing how we word everyting. Call a spade a spade!

My solution is to vote all the bozo fat cats out of office and start all over with regular Americans that don't know anything about "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" politics. I think we'd be a whole lot better off if all the people taxing us weren't in on a handfull and give and take scams that cost all tax payers money.

To respond to your responses:

1) Higher brain functions does not mean just intelligence. Mentally retarded individuals still have functioning Cerebrums. The cerebrum is what allows use to use senses. It also allows us to learn and remember. It also allows us to communicate. And it also controls movement. An individual without a cerebrum would not be mentally retarded, they would be a shell of a body incapable of conscious thought.

And as for a vegetative state. If your brainwaves have ceased, you are essentially dead. I have no problem if the victim's family wishes to keep them on life support. They certainly have the right to hope for a "miracle", and in many cases it is more comforting to keep them "alive". But I do not consider it murder to let their body stop functioning after their higher brain function has completely ceased.

2) The connections I was referencing are in the cerebrum. If these connections were not formed (for whatever reason), and the fetus was still able to come to term and be born (highly unlikely). It would not be able to have any experiences at all. It would not be able to learn, remember anything, etc. It would not be able to develop thoughts or opinions (this concept is difficult to grasp, as it's hard for us to imagine what this would be like). Again, I would personally not consider this the taking of a human life.

An adult who has already experienced senses and had them taken away is a completely different case entirely. They have memories, thoughts, feelings, etc. Though they would no longer be able to function at all.

And I hope that if I ever lose ALL of my senses (and there is no hope for them returning), my family has the good sense to let me die rather than keep me on life support, trapped in my own mind without any way to get information in or out.

3) There is a difference between life support and placental life support. Placental life support facilitates the formation of the organs necessary to live. Conventional life support replaces the functions of those organs after they have been already damaged.

You do bring up good points. And they are all things I have thought of before when considering my position on the matter. I think that the development of the cerebrum is really my personal threshold (which is why I listed it as #1). I don't think that I could consider a body without a cerebrum truly human life. (certainly the body could be scientifically homo sapiens, however I would say that its is not human life as we are talking about it.)

Yes, it is confusing. But we don't make things illegal just because they are confusing and complex issues. My stance is that it is confusing and ambiguous enough that the government really shouldn't have any say in the matter, and it should be up to people on an individual basis.

There are many difficult questions. But there are difficult questions on the pro-life side.

Let's also think about it this way. Let's say we do ban it, and declare that fertilized eggs are protected as human life with all the rights of humans (after all, we don't know where to draw the line, so we draw it as early as possible). What about frozen zygotes? We can't do any sort of research on them (including stem cell research, which is very promising). We also can't throw them out. (zygotes are eventually thrown out when not used).

What about women who have trouble getting pregnant. Who have dozens of fertilized eggs implanted into their bodies, in the hope that one sticks? We know the majority of them will die. Are we complicit in their murder by performing the procedure. Or the women who have fertilized eggs frozen, finally have a child, and have the remaining frozen eggs thrown out? Aren't they killing their children?

Should the morning after pill be illegal? After all, it does stop fertilized eggs from being implanted, essentially killing the "baby".

OK, so maybe we won't consider zygotes/fertilized eggs as human life. Let's say we ban the destruction of fetuses instead. So we give fetuses the rights of a "human being".

Is abortion prior to fetal development OK now?

If the mother miscarries, does there need to be a death certificate? A funeral? What if the mother accidentally causes the miscarriage? (falls down steps, etc.) Is she guilty of manslaughter? Is this akin to dropping your baby down the stairs accidentally? What if someone ELSE accidentally causes the miscarriage? (car accident, etc.) Is that person guilty of manslaughter? What if the mother causes the miscarriage because of neglect? (drinks during pregnancy) is she guilty of murder? Who makes that decision, whether or not she is responsible? And what if she purposefully causes the miscarriage? Some doctors are now saying red wine is good for you during pregnancy, some say it is still not? What if drinking red wine causes your miscarriage? What if the mother didn't realize the is pregnant and continued to drink heavily? Is she guilty of negligent homicide?

What about vegans who do not eat properly during pregnancy because of their beliefs? Are they guilty of starving their child?

Is a pregnant woman who kills herself guilty of homicide?

What if the pregnancy is threatening the mothers life? If the mother is going to die without an abortion, should she be given an abortion? If you answered yes to this question, think about this one. If a mother is going to die unless her child is killed, should she have the right to kill her child?

If someone kills a mother who is pregnant with triplets, are they now a serial killer?

Moving on.

We were at war with the country of Iraq. Yes, Saddam was a bad guy and a horrible dictator. But he was still the head of their government. We disassembled that government and instituted a new one. Whether or not the previous government was a good government, we still who brought it down and but a new one in its place. Now, whether or not you agree that we were correct in doing that, I don't think it's logical to claim was not a war. By that logic, we could take over any country, remove it's government, and say "it's not a war because we didn't like/recognize their government".

Now, if we ran a military action in a country with the consent of it's government, that is not a war.

I don't think I remember saying that the action in Bosnia was not a war. As far as I knew, it was called the BOSNIAN war. Although, I would say it's not really equivalent to the Iraq war, as we didn't initiate the war.

And the problems with kicking everyone out of office at once, are manifold. Firstly, the "regular Americans" would very quickly become the same type of politicians as the "fat cats" who we kicked out of office. Power corrupts, that is just a fact. The idea that "regular americans" won't quickly turn into fat cats is naive. It would be like replacing the organs of a person who had a disease that caused chronic organ failure. It might help them for a little while, but eventually the disease will kill the new organ too.

Additionally, the average "regular american" has no real idea how the ins and outs of the system works. Replacing all politicians with non-politicians simultaneously would be like simultaneously replacing all nurses with non-nurses. Yeah, they would learn on the job eventually, but they'd kill alot of people and make plenty of mistakes in the process.

An "average american" has no better understanding of things than a politician does (frequently a worse understanding in many matters). Maybe we should appoint experts to those positions. (like appointing a Nobel Prize winning physicist to head the department of energy? Sorry, had to get that out there, I'm very excited by that)

Additionally, kicking the "fat cats" out of office would not do anything to limit corporate influence on government. Actually, it might make things worse. I imagine it is easier for a corporation to control a "regular person" than a skilled politician.

Now, if you want to talk about term limits. Let's talk about that. I don't think it would be unreasonable to limit the number of congressional terms politicians are allowed to have. Of course, the counter argument is: If someone does a good enough job to keep getting elected? why should we kick them out of office? Shouldn't people be able to vote them in as often as they want? It would be an interesting national discussion to have.

And if you want to talk about limiting corporate influence on politicians. THAT I will get on board with. Publicly funded elections, eliminating lobbyists, and that sort of thing? Absolutely.

You think politics didn't exist when the constitution was written. Have you not heard of the Continental Congress? Or the Confederation Congress (the first US government under the Articles of Confederation)?

They may not have had political "parties" like we do today. But they certainly had factions of legislatures that disagreed with each other and argued and tried to get their own way. That sounds like politics to me.

And the reason that government is so complex is because we live in a complex world. Yes, some of it is overly complex for no reason. But by in large, the government has grown over time because the complexity of governing has grown over time.

And average people can "get caught up". Run for local office, run for state office, run for federal office. The system is not impossible to learn. I was only stating that it would be a bad idea to kick everyone out of the government at once. A congress of all freshman congressmen might be a little lost.

And I don't think that most politicians are "groomed". Think about it. There are 535 members of congress. You think each one was specifically groomed to be a politician? And that's not counting the thousands of other politicians at the state and local level.

The problem is not that corrupt people become politicians (though that does happen). The problem is that our political system has so much corporate influence that the "average americans" who become politicians are corrupted by the system.

Seeffanie,

I would argue that the foundation of our justice system isn't telling the truth, but that any defendant is innocent until proven guilty by evidence.

For instance, if I know a man killed someone, I can testify in court that he did. Unfortunately (unless I am a first-hand witness), my testimony will likely not be enough to convict him without additional evidence.

Sorry to split hairs.

And perjury is not necessarily a "high crime". In 18th century legalese, a "high" crime was one committed against the state.

When Clinton was being impeached, the debated raged quite hotly about whether perjury is a high crime. Some people contended that it was not, because despite the fact that it was a federal crime, it was not a crime against the state, and therefore not a "high crime".

Others contended that the the situation surrounding the crime was irrelevant, the fact that it was a federal crime made it a "high crime".

Unfortunately, I am unaware of any supreme court ruling that would settle the matter.

Also remember, the legal system did not convict the president of perjury or obstruction of justice (the two charges brought against him). In fact, despite the fact that the republicans controlled the senate, neither charge even managed a majority vote (51) of "guilty", and indeed a supermajority (67) would have been necessary to convict him.

Justin,

It's not a double standard, because most people who support abortion rights don't consider it murder. I understand that it is hard to see it from their perspective, because you see it differently. If most pro-choicers actually thought abortion was taking innocent human life (instead of an undeveloped fetuses), we'd be pro-lifers.

And kicking all experienced members out of congress simultaneously would not be a good idea, as it would just create chaos. And were did you get the idea to leave 20% of them? Would those just be the 20% that agree with you?

Now, if you'd like to propose something more rational, we can discuss it.

For instance, term limits for congressmen. The idea is that if long exposure to Washington corrupts them, don't let them stay in Washington long.

Or, additional congressional oversight. Possibly an increase into the openness of the political process. More insight into congressmen's financial records.

Or perhaps reduced corporate influence. Kicking lobbyists out. Not allowing corporate sponsorship of congressmen. Publicly financed elections.

These things all have their upsides and downsides. And I think it would be more helpful to discuss rational proposals than to say "kick them all out of office!!" (unless you want to talk about a revolution.)

And I don't think anyone is expecting to balance the budget anytime soon. During an economic recession, that's actually far down on the list of things to worry about. Hoover attempted to balance the budget at the beginning of the Great Depression, and it just worsened the problem. I think that any politician trying to talk about balancing the budget in the immediate future knows that it's not going to happen, and is just trying to reassure/appease their constituents. A balanced budget is simple, we can all understand it. So it's reassuring to hear politicians talk about it.

And the idea that it's better to tax the rich less is certainly one school of economic thought (supply-side economics). However, there are other economic theories as well. Such as lowering taxes on the middle and lower class (but not the upper) so they will stimulate the economy (demand-side economics).

And one would argue that tax cuts for the rich (Bush tax cuts), certainly haven't worked out in the past few years. One would also argue that one of America's great (if not the greatest) periods of economic growth occurred during the Clinton years, when the rich were taxed more (Obama's original tax plan reset the taxes for the upper class back to the Clinton-era level).

You're probably right Mike. We will never know if the new deal would have been successful on its own, because WWII occurred in its midst.

I think it would have. And I certainly haven't heard any credible evidence to suggest that the new deal was WORSENING the economy.

I just wanted to share a chart that would help illustrate your point; that the economy got worse when FDR cut new deal spending in an effort to balance the budget.

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/f...

Trickle economics simply don't work. You give tax cuts to the richest and they are supposed to spend that money and the savings is supposed to trickle down throughout the system. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The richest in our society didn't get rich because they spent money, they got rich because they worked and saved their money.

With the New Deal, people were being put to work. Here's the amazing thing, if people are working they are more willing to spend their money. If they aren't you can give them as many tax cuts as you want to but they will save that money for something useful.

Justin,

I wasn't trying to say that it was a "great thing" that Clinton produced a surplus. I was simply pointing out the irony that the majority of the national debt has been racked up by the last 3 "fiscally conservative" republican presidents, while the "spend-crazy" liberal actually produced a surplus.

And the reason that we crazy liberals think that unemployment benefits are a good idea, is that we don't think the average American worker should be stricken by poverty when they are laid off and looking for another job.

And rich people do spend money, that is true. But they do not spend as high a percentage of their money as poor people do. I would much rather a poor family receive tax cuts and stimulate the economy by buying food, than a rich family receive tax cuts and stimulate the economy by buying a boat.

And yes, the national debt is high. And that is too bad. And something should be done about it. But unfortunately we cannot balance the budget during a recession. Hoover tried it, and it didn't work. The idea is that spending will help kickstart the economy (see Keynesian economics, which were prevalent post-WWII). And hopefully once the economy is rejuvenated, the republicans can finally give us a president who is ACTUALLY fiscally conservative, and he/she can get to work on the national debt.

"The United States debt, foreign and domestic, was the price of liberty."

-Alexander Hamilton

By the way since there seems to be some confusion about what liberalism is here's a quote from JFK:

"...if by liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, their liberties...if that is what they mean by a 'liberal' then I am proud to be a liberal."

As am I.