Personally, I’m beginning to get a little irritated hearing about the so-called “peace and justice movement,” the clear implication being that people like me are opposed to, you know… “peace” and “justice.” So just a reminder to some of my fellow progressives that the battle for WA’s U.S. Senate seat is not a battle within the Democratic Party, but a battle between the Democrats and the Republicans.
Sen. Maria Cantwell is a Democrat, and as much as he doesn’t like to publicly talk about it, challenger Mike McGavick is a Republican. So where does McGavick stand on peace and justice? Well, here are just few planks from the WA State Republican Party platform, enthusiastically adopted at their May 26, 2006 convention:
“Supporting the Patriot Act with all of its provisions as a reasonable and necessary balance between personal freedom and national security.”
Republicans will never again be the party of “freedom.” They’re the party that tore up the Bill of Rights.
“We believe that terrorists are ‘enemy combatants’ and should be dealt with as such in the appropriate tribunals consistent with the foreign policy interests of the United States.”
Doesn’t that make them POWs? I see in today’s news that Bush now says the Geneva Convention applies to “detainees.” Better late than never, but the damage is already done, and of course Bush is a liar who consistently says one thing but does something else.
Now if only we could get Bush to pay lip service to the Constitution and federal law, too. That would be a (very) small step in the right direction, although of course he wouldn’t really mean it — talk is cheap where Bush is concerned.
You can be sure of one thing — Rubberstamp Reichert will supports whatever Bush wants to do, no matter what it is, and whether it’s legal or not.
Rightwing apologists for these fucks assert the terrorist attacks on the U.S. require drastic measures. How’s that working for you wingnuts? Have you killed Osama yet? Are the Iraqis throwing flower petals at our soldiers? Is Afghanistan a democracy? Has global terrorism come to a screeching halt?
God help us all if anybody ever gives these idiots a spreadsheet.
If you stop talking about how Cantwell is perceived as pro-war, she wont be.
This is old news, and noone will care when election time comes. All dems will vote for her in the end – some are just bitching now because they haven’t really seen the actual campaigns yet. McGavick will come off as super-evil and, yes, a R.
Stop worrying already. Cantwell’s campaign must like that this is what everyone is talking about – It makes her a more complete senator, not just active on one issue. It also makes the focus on how she isn’t completely Liberal, which will help with moderates who have perceived her as Super-Liberal. It also is an issue that McGavick can’t win – unless he becomes antiwar (which he pretty much cant change his view on anymore).
Does anyone, besides the very most liberal anti-war activists, believe that this issue will hurt Cantwell at all?
HEY TROLLFUCKS!!! Why don’t you support the troops? I guess a soldier’s life isn’t worth $99 to you, huh? http://www.operation-helmet.org/
Wingnuts = all hat, no cattle; empty suits; blowing smoke out of their asses; cheapskates and welshers; all talk, no action; blowhards; unpatriotic soldier-hating traitors.
I’ll bet Ann Coulter hasn’t given a dime to http://www.operation-helmet.org/
Roger Rabbit donated $99 to http://www.operation-helmet.org/ because I support our troops and want them to come home alive, which is more than I can say for any of the rightwing blowhards on this blog.
Roger Rabbit has posted 90% of the comments on this thread. If you don’t like it, drop a quarter in the Poor Box next time you’re in church.
10
That’s be the day when a CHEAP LABOR CONSERVATIVE donates 25 cents to the poor.
2.
Some wingnut was asking how Bush policies have affected any of our civil rights.
The case of Jose Padilla is one. This American citizen, who once admitedly was oce a gang member and jail bird, was accused in the press of planning to blow up buildings, of having direct links to Osama bin Laden and of training in an Afhan terrorist camp the reality appears different.
The only charge against him now is that he gave to a charity that may have in turn given money to al-Qaeda. This guy had been in jail for four years before even this weak charge was made against him.
Im not swarthy, never been in a gang nor been in jail, but I do give to charities. How am I supposed to know what other organizations they provide funding to. If United Way gives to some outfit that is later found to have terrorist ties, am I therefore a terrorist?
That’s what the Bush JD is saying.
Speaking of which …
“When you cut right through it, right-wing ideology is just ‘dime-store economics’ – intended to dress their ideology up and make it look respectable. …
“‘Cheap labor’. That’s their whole philosophy in a nutshell … cheap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America – whose fortunes depend on labor. … The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you’ll work …. Cheap-labor conservatives don’t like social spending or our ‘safety net’ … (b)ecause when you’re unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you … next to nothing ….
“The Cheap-Labor Conservative ‘Dirty Secret’: They Don’t Really Like Prosperity
“Maybe you don’t believe that cheap-labor conservatives like unemployment, poverty and ‘cheap labor’. Consider these facts.
“Unemployment was 23 percent when FDR took office in 1933. It dropped to 2.5 percent by time the next Republican was in the White House in 1953. It climbed back to 6.5 percent by the end of the Eisenhower administration. It dropped to 3.5 percent by the time LBJ left office. It climbed over 5 percent shortly after Nixon took office, and stayed there for 27 years, until Clinton brought it down to 4.5 percent early in his second term. …
“These facts provide a nice background to evaluate cheap-labor conservative claims like ‘liberals are destroying America.’ In fact, cheap-labor conservatives have howled with outrage and indignation against New Deal liberalism from its inception in the 1930’s all the way to the present. … Cheap-labor conservatives opposed virtually all of the New Deal, including every improvement in wages and working conditions. …
“The ugly truth is that cheap-labor conservatives just don’t like working people. They don’t like ‘bottom up’ prosperity, and the reason for it is very simple … cheap-labor conservatives believe in social hierarchy and privilege, so the only prosperity they want is limited to them. They want to see absolutely nothing that benefits the guy – or more often the woman – who works for an hourly wage.”
http://www.conceptualguerilla......php?id=103
Alaska’s Senate candidate would be the butt boy of big oil, big insurance and of course, the Bush regime. Just like RubberStampReichert, he’d vote how the Bush cabal told him to vote and that’s always going to be a vote for more wars so that the Halliburton machine can continue to make money. The worst Dem is ALWAYS better than the best Rethug!
http://www.crooksandliars.com/.....gh-places/
So republican Hatch thinks it’s okay to travel around with X and coke. I guess the right is anti-drug except when it isn’t.
12
Padilla was arrested upon his return from Afghanistan, and he may very well have been up to no good. I mean, what is an ex-gang member with a long rap sheet doing in Afghanistan, seeing the sights? But the problem is, the rules have to be the same for everyone, and the Founding Fathers designed the rules to protect the innocent from overbearing officialdom.
This is the point wingfucks never understand — all the rights and process our system gives to individuals is to PROTECT THE INNOCENT. These know-it-alls constantly decry “rights that protect the guilty” but the truth is THEY DON’T KNOW WHO THE FUCK IS GUILTY OR INNOCENT and that is the whole fucking point.
One other little housekeeping matter — if we didn’t have a Constitution and laws protecting us against, say, unreasonable searches and seizures (or arrest without charges and detention without trial), you can bet that sooner or later somebody WILL take advantage of any laxity to persecute and harass critics, whistleblowers, and political opponents.
Hmmm … now WHO might that be? WHO committed the Watergate burglaries? Wingnuts! WHO supports “sedition” laws and wants to jail anybody who criticizes their warmongering and corruption? Wingnuts! WHO supports unlimited executive power to spy, arrest, torture, and kill people (the vast majority of whom turned out to be innocent)? Wingnuts!
I don’t see any difference between wingnuts and Stalinists or Nazis.
14
“The worst Dem is ALWAYS better than the best Rethug!” Commentby LeftTurn— 7/11/06@ 9:45 am
This is literally true.
Jobs Records of Presidents
(as percentage of workforce)
Democrat Roosevelt 5.3%
Democrat Johnson 3.8%
Democrat Carter 3.1%
Democrat Truman 2.5%
Democrat Clinton 2.4%
Democrat Kennedy 2.3%
Republican Nixon 2.2%
Republican Reagan 2.1%
Republican Coolidge 1.1%
Republican Ford 1.1%
Republican Eisenhower 0.9%
Republican Bush Sr. 0.6%
Republican Bush Jr. (0.7%)
Republican Hoover (9.0%)
The GOP can never again claim to stand for “liberty.”
The GOP has become the Stalinist party of the USA.
I see in today’s news that Bush is taking credit for a large drop in the projected deficit.
Actually, Bush’s spending has increased, but corporate tax receipts have tripled, and the government also is raking in more from CEOs, whose incomes are soaring (especially on capital gains from stock options).
The irony is that Bush wants to eliminate taxes on corporations and capital gains, and if he got his way, the deficit would skyrocket.
Next thing you know, Bush will claim he saved the world from Al Qaeda — oh wait, I see in today’s news that 7 bombs went off in India’s train stations, killing over 100. Oh well — maybe Bush can try to claim he saved New Orleans from Katrina.
CROOKS & LIARS
In dispatches from the front line of the War on Corruption, I see another Republican congressman has been caught with his hand in the till:
“By Jonathan Weisman and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
“Washington Post Staff Writers
“Tuesday, July 11, 2006; Page A01
“In the past two years, campaign and political action committees controlled by Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) paid ever-larger commissions to his wife’s one-person company and spent tens of thousands of dollars on gifts at stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Tiffany & Co. and a Ritz-Carlton day spa.”
Fred Wertheimer, who heads a watchdog group called “Democracy 21,” is calling for an investigation of Doolittle by do-nothing Rep. Doc Hasting’s (R-WA) ethics committee. Wertheimer says, “If this is okay, it is a road map for how to convert substantial sums of campaign money to personal use.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....tml?sub=AR
President Bush taking credit for a “reduced” deficit is like my wife claiming that she “saved” me hundreds of dollars by buying things on sale. They are both just claiming credit for the problem being a little bit less than the worse-case scenario.
Bush inherited a budge surplus from the Clinton administration. If the Republicans retain control of Congress in 2006, and we are back to a budget surplus by 2008, then I’ll eat my words. Until that happens, Bush gets no credit for any claimed “economic recovery”.
Any Republicans want to take odds on that happening? (Those who have not yet paid wagers they have already lost need not reply).
Gee, Bush is trying to look like a “regular guy”, and makes a stop at a Dunkin Donuts to buy a cup of coffee for himself. But he has to borrow the money from his aid to do so.
http://www.bobrivers.com/onthe.....de=article
Figures. He either assumed he was entitled to get it for free (paid for by the minimum-wage employee working the counter, or the small-businessman franchisee who owned the joint), or he figures he can borrow it and let someone else figure out how to pay it back – just like he does with the federal budget.
Note to Rove: If you are going to stage “unscheduled” media events such as this, remember to spot George a five BEFORE he goes into the restaurant.
PENTAGON OPPOSES G.I. BILL BENEFITS FOR RESERVISTS AND GUARDSMEN UNLESS THEY RE-ENLIST
Under a 1984 law, reservists and guardsman called to active duty and serve in combat zones are ineligible for G.I. education benefits unless they remain in the military.
When the law was passed, Congress and the military did not foresee a future administration deploying “weekend warriors” as if they were full-time active duty soldiers, but Bush and Rumsfeld have done exactly that.
Now, the Military Officers Association of America — a “support the troops” outfit if there ever was one — is lobbying to change the law to give reservists and guardsmen who serve overseas in wars the same benefits that other veterans get.
But Rumsfeld’s Pentagon is fighting the change, because they want to use education benefits as a club to force reserve and guard veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan to re-enlist.
For story, see “http://www.oxfordpress.com/news/content/shared/news/stories/GI_BILL_0709_COX.html
So much for the Bush admin. “supporting the troops.”
DEMOCRATS MURDER FELLOW DEMOCRAT IN D.C.
Political volunteer killed in attack
A British volunteer for the potential presidential campaign of former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner was killed in the city’s Georgetown neighborhood by robbers who slashed his throat and tried to rape his female companion, police said.
Within three hours of the attack Sunday, police arrested and charged two men, and two other suspects surrendered a few hours later. Three of the suspects appeared Monday before a magistrate judge who ordered them held without bond pending a July 19 hearing. The fourth suspect, a 15-year-old boy, appeared in juvenile court.
Three assailants stabbed Alan Senitt and slashed his throat as the 27-year-old and his companion returned home from a movie, police said.
Senitt, who was active in Jewish causes, had moved to Washington last month to volunteer for the Democratic former governor and to study political fundraising. “Our entire team is shocked and heartbroken,” Warner said in a statement.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....dig11.html
Rep. Cynthia “BitchSlap” McKinney (DEMOCRAT) failed to appear at two televised debates over the weekend, fueling criticism from two opponents who are challenging the controversial incumbent in a July 18 primary in the Georgia’s 4th District.
CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY reports: DeKalb County Commissioner Hank Johnson and architectural firm project manager John Coyne, who are challenging “BitchSlap” McKinney, DEMOCRAT, debated Saturday on WSB-TV and also participated in a second debate Friday that was sponsored by the Atlanta Press Club and which will air tonight at 7 p.m. Johnson’s campaign said that McKinney’s absence was a “BitchSlap in the face” to her constituents.
I think a study should be done regarding violent crime and political party affiliation of convicted criminals.
Take some states which have voter registration by political party – such as California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Washington DC.
Then take criminal defendants who were convicted of murder, rape, robbery, burglary, and other violent crimes within a given calendar year – let’s say 2005 for example.
See if the defendants were registered to vote in those states at any time in their lives prior to their criminal convictions. And if so, what political party they were affiliated with.
Also check out the parents of the defendants and their party affiliation. It will probably be easier to get information for mothers, than for fathers, but make an effort to get information for all known parents.
To the extent that criminal defendants and their parents were ever registered to vote, I will bet that this will show an overwhelmingly Democrat political preference on the part of violent criminals and the people who brought them into this world.
Commentby Richard Pope— 7/11/06@ 10:52 am
RR, What am I going to do? Because of Al Gore and “Global Warming”, the market values of my properties are going to zero! ……………………………………………………………………….Oh, wait!………………………………………………………………….Never mind!! JCH Kennedy
28……..Detroit, Philly, Harare, East St. Louis, Zimbabwe, Wash, D.C. What do all these DEMOCRAT cities have in common? hehe, JCH Kennedy
The GOP has become the Stalinist party of the USA.
Commentby Roger Rabbit […………………………………………………………………………..Er, RR, STALIN was a LEFTIST commie!
Not much into history, are you?]
I’ll bet Ann Coulter hasn’t given a dime to http://www.operation-helmet.org/
Commentby Roger Rabbit [………..RR, Remember when Al and Tipper Gore’s 1040 showed charity donations of around 400 bucks on income of $400,000? Classic Democrat hypocrite!!!!!]
The Washington State Democrat Party platform this year contains some real moonbat lunacy.
For example, on Page 6, Lines 39-40, they proclaim:
“Multinational corporations are not legal persons entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;”
It is one thing to say that corporate and business taxes should be higher, or that minimum wages and benefits should be higher.
It is quite another thing to say that government should not be constrained by the rule of law and should be allowed to do whatever it wants to a given business simply due to political power and arrogance.
If the Democrat platform became law, the Republican government of the United States could arbitrarily nationalize Democrat controlled companies — such as Starbucks, Costco, George Soros’ enterprises, and Hollywood concerns — without the slightest bit of compensations, since these companies would have no protection under the 14th amendment.
What goes on in the mind (and heart) of someone who could write No. 28?
Is Richard Pope completely nuts? Or is he such an over-zealous partisan hack that he will stop at nothing?
I’m all for a reasoned discussion about the origins of violent crime. Clearly that won’t happen when Richard Pope is in the room, because he is too busy practicing to become the next Joe McCarthy. And probably giggling like a school girl as he types away.
You know I was getting worried that we wouldn’t hear any more batshit crazy ideas from wannabe lawyer Dickie Pope. Glad to have you back Dickie. Of all the republican liars on this site, you lie better than anyone so it’s always fun to see what sort of lie you’ll make up next. I am sure your handlers over at the BIAW are proud of you. Now call them up and ask how you should respond. I’ll wait.
An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief. [……………………………………………………………………….Thank you President Bush!]
Like they are going to do that, Richard. Ridiculous. A corporation should not have the status of a person. That was insisted upon by some moonbat founder way back when and most didn’t agree with it. But they let it stand.
re: #28
Good point. We should allow the government to put all those undesirables, criminals, potential criminals, and of course parents of potential criminals, into Burlington Northern boxcars and not ask questions about where they go.
38, rh, How about Cape Cod? Or the Kennedy compound?
On Page 10, Line 9, the Washington Democrats support:
“Making Election Day for federal general election a national holiday;”
Why not simply move the November election date to Veteran’s Day — which is observed on November 11, or on a Friday or Monday if it falls on a weekend?
Green Thumb at 34 – Almost EVERYONE here is a “an over-zealous partisan hack.” Republicans don’t have a monopoly on unfounded zealotry here. The Democrats give ’em some stiff competition.
On Page 10, Line 9, the Washington Democrats support:
“Making Election Day for federal general election a national holiday;”
Commentby Richard Pope [Right………..Thousands of union hack “guvment” empoyees manning phone banks for Democrats. “Mo guvment”!!!
More than 80% of the convicted felons who illegally voted in the 2000 Florida election were registered Democrats.
http://www.denverpost.com/ewegen/ci_3920013
I assume that similar statistics would apply to the overall population of convicted felons. The percentage of convicted felons that had been registered as Democrats would still be disproportionately high, even if Democrat felons are more likely to try and vote illegally than are Republican felons.
RR at 24:
I understood the reasoning in the original 1984 law. There wasn’t room in the budget to give educational benefits to all national guardsmen, and they needed to reserve the funds they had to encourage enlistment in the regular forces. But as RR says, the problem arose because the national guard units are being over-used for multiple long deployments in Iraq.
Lots of patriotic Americans were proud to serve in Afganistan, and even Iraq, if they thought it was helped to protect our country. Lots of young Americans continue to be willing to so serve. But now that we are no longer in a war, but instead are serving as an occupying police force under dubious (myopic) leadership, those willing to volunteer have been reduced beyond the minimum replacement levels needed. The military has been forced to use stop-loss provisions and multiple deployments to put a band-aid on a military which is already broken.
Ironically, the problem has a lot to do with the reforms instituted by Vietnam-era veterans in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. Determined never again to have the military put into a war without the full support of the American public, they re-organized the army so that the National Guard and Reserve units provide the basic infrastructure upon which the army depends in an overseas committment. They provide the communications and logistics suppor without which the Army cannot move. The rationale was that politicians would be unable to commit large numbers of troops overseas without calling up equally large numbers of National Guard and Reserve troops, an act which would be political suicide unless the troop commitment was (a) absolutely necessary, and (b) widely supported by the American public.
This policy also had some unanticipated beneficial effects, in that National Guard enrollment increased when it was less likely that they would be put into a front-line unit (married soldiers with families have to consider such things). Secondly, the military and the National Guard soldiers both benefited when they were able to combine the skills they learned on their regular civilian jobs with the skills they exercised in the military. (One National Guard seargent was a shipping coordinator for a large grocery chain – he pointed out that the military was using proceedures which had been obsolete in the commerical shipping industry for at least fifteen years). Third, it left most of the combat functions for soldiers who were in their physical prime (18-24 years old), rather than the mid-thirties national guardsmen who would have difficulty keeping up physically with their fellow regular soldiers (or the enemy).
But Rumsfield, who never served a day of his life in the military despite being of draft age during the Vietnam era, and has never really worked outside of government or politics, thinks he knows better how to organize the military. He wants to take away the logistics and communications functions from the National Guard and give it to the regular army. He wants to do this for exactly the same reason the Army changed it in the first place – he wants to make it easier to deploy troops overseas, without worrying about getting permission from Congress, without news video of teary wives and children saying goodbye to their departing citizen-soldiers, without the public insisting that he explain why their husbands and fathers are being sent into harm’s way.
But this would only work in small-scale deployments. His proposed reorganization will actually have the opposite effect in Iraq, because more National Guard troops would have to serve as ground-pounding infantry on patrol in Faluja, while the regular soldiers would be taking on their communications and logistics functions.
By the way, who in the world was responsible for trying to use Humvees in an urban combat setting? The army learned in Somalia that they were poorly suited for that role. Adding armor against small-arms fire isn’t the answer either – it takes away the humvee’s mobility without really giving it enough armor to protect it against explsive devices or RPGs. The Striker vehicles are a start, but they sure came to the game pretty late, and their aren’t very many of them. I don’t blame the army for this one – they never intended to get bogged down in an urban warfare situation for any length of time anyway. It’s just another example of Rumsfield thinking he is brilliant at military strategy and international politics, but instead of taking a hard look at the actual equipment, manpower, and capabilities available before he decides on a course of action, he instead just projects a “rosy scenario” of friendly Iraqis throwing flowers at the feet of our conquering troops to make up for inadequate equipment and resources for the task.
This Washington State Democrat Party platform proposal (2006 platform, Page 10, Line 9) is LAUGHABLE:
“Making Election Day for federal general election a national holiday;”
The Democrats also support eliminating polling places and requiring that all elections be conducted by MAIL-IN ballots.
This raises two obvious questions:
1. If all ballots are returned by mail, then why do we need a federal holiday for the general election day?
2. If the general election day is a federal holiday, how will ballots mailed back on election day get postmarked if all the U.S. post offices are closed?
Continuation on 44: If Rumsfield really did believe in his “rosy scenario” concerning Iraq, he is utterly ignorant of Iraq’s history, including its fight against the British in WWI and WWII. Saddam’s uncle (who raised him) wasn’t a neo-Nazi in a vacume, it is part of the history and culture of Iraq. The belief they would welcome Americans as occupiers for any length of time is utter nonsence. Our best hope was to get in, defeat Saddam, keep the Iraqi army intact, and then get out. Instead, Bush appointed a series of idealouges who think they can transform Iraqi society within a couple of years. Instead, our troops are in the middle of a civil war, with each side trying to use them to their own advantage.
I remember a quote from a Viet Cong officer, who gave an interview long after the war. He said: “When the war was in the early stages, it was quite difficult because nobody know who was a friend and who was an enemy. Then the Americans arrived, and it was quite easy. If you saw an American, you saw a target”.
RR at 44: You comments would be a reasonable point, except that they don’t necessarily have to be read together. They are an either/or situation. Either make it a holiday so working people can vote, or move to an all-mail election. I think you knew this, but chose to ignore it.
Of course, I’ve never put much stock in the platforms of any political party, as they tend to be creations for the benefit of the public relations and the media (both of which ignore them anyway). They seldom say what they really mean.
As for myself, I have reluctantly decided to endorse an all-mail election. The reason is that it has become increasingly difficult to vote, with my residence in Everett and my job in Bellevue. I leave home before 6:00 a.m., and usually don’t return home until shortly before 7:00 p.m. I have found that there are quite a lot of other voters in a similar situation. So as much as I like the feeling of civic involvement in physically entering a polling booth and putting my ballot in the box, I’m now in favor of all-mail voting.
The 2006 Washington State Democrat Party platform has a special focus against payday loans:
“We oppose … Excessive usury fees by payday lending corporations for Washington State payday consumers;”
Page 17, Lines 24-25
“We support … Legislation to prohibit predatory practices in payday lending;”
Page 18, Line 30
I assume that high payday loan fees are a problem which disproportionately affect Democrat voters. They can’t manage their finances very well, and need a payday cash advance to cover liquor, drugs, cigarettes, gambling, or Starbucks.
Republicans, on the other hand, are much more likely to successfully manage personal finances, and much less likely to spend their money on the aforementioned vices.
Pope, in a relatively lucid interlude, asks:
On Page 10, Line 9, the Washington Democrats support:
“Making Election Day for federal general election a national holiday;”
Why not simply move the November election date to Veteran’s Day – which is observed on November 11, or on a Friday or Monday if it falls on a weekend?
Aside from the hysterical bleats of the American Legion and the VFW (“how dare you usurp our holiday?”), this idea makes some sense. At first, I thought the designation of the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Election Day was written in the Constitution, but in fact that definition was legislatively mandated in 1845 (and can therefore be legislatively changed). The Constitution stipulates only that presidential voting takes place on the same day in all states (let’s ignore how vote-by-mail affects that, though I can envision a successful challenge to the “received by Election Day” movement under this provision).
I do wonder about the rapid alterations in Pope’s mental status, however.
Just 32 minutes before making the above suggestion, he posted a link from the WaPo about the tragic murder of the Mark Warner volunteer in Georgetown (and the entire newsbrief, which is an internet no-no), but prefixed it with an absolutely horrendous, unconscionable, disgusting, delusional, idiotic, inflammatory header of his own creation.
For that, he’s no better than JCH, MTR, or any other other slimemold-IQ trolls. In fact, he might be worse, because (as he too rarely demonstrates) it’s possible that he possesses an actual sentient mind. One could never make such a claim about those other trolls.
One small clarification to No. 48: Republicans are less successful with finances when they gain control of government. George W. Bush will be long remembered by taxpayers as the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history.
49, Perhaps having elections on APR 15th might be a great idea! Of course Democrats would think this is not so great!!
N in Seattle @ 49
Exactly what is so “horrendous, unconscionable, disgusting, delusional, idiotic, inflammatory” about suggesting that the murderers of Alan Senitt in Washington DC (or their family members) are DEMOCRATS?
Pope at 28 said: I think a study should be done regarding violent crime and political party affiliation of convicted criminals.
George Bush, Republican, instigated illegal war, killed thousands and thousands. Not YET convicted.
That you have no fucking idea what their political parties might be, that it bears no relevance to the crime, that it’s intentionally, maliciously, and pointlessly inflammatory. And now that you’re adding guilt-by-association by adding “or their family members”, you’re dropping even lower into the slime of your fellow trolls.
I won’t go tit-for-tat by mentioning the (well known) political party connections of one Seattle-area (among other locales) serial killer, nor will I speculate about how Gary Ridgeway might have voted in the 1997 and 2001 King County Sheriff’s elections.
52
How can you, in your delusion, assume they have any political affiliation at all? They probably don’t care about politics. They probably don’t even vote. They just care about what they can steal from somebody without getting caught.
Kind of like the Republicans
Just so you all know, I am on medication to control my mood swings. I can keep them under control as long as I stay on my regime. However, part of being manic is that I can lose track of time. Before I even realize it I’ve slipped into what really is an altered state of consciousness. My writing becomes very different in that state.
So, yes, I do have a tendency to sound like JCH when I get too manic. My apologies. I do have half a brain, and I’d like my ideas to be respected rather than roundly dismissed like JCH (deservedly, I might add).
To avoid confusion, in the future I will refer to myself as “Richard Poop Normal” when I am fully functional, and “Richard Poop Manic” when I am out in lalaland. Does that help?
RE: Pope’s contention about crime vs. party affiliation…
In general, the population in major urban areas tends to be more liberal/progressive/Democrat. There’s also a fair amount of sociological evidence that crime tends to be higher where the population density is greater. Why? Damned if I know, but it seems pretty easy to speculate on the idea that crooks can ply their trade with greater efficiency if they don’t have to spend as much time getting from one victim to the next. I don’t know that the two phenomena are otherwise related.
That being said, it seems that in Florida and Ohio in particular in the last few years, the very act of being a Democrat, and especially a poor, minority Democrat, has in and of itself been defined as a felony. Also, apparently being a minority member of the Armed Forces on overseas duty, and a few other things. For the purposes of your argument, you really don’t want to go there.
Anyway, glad to see ya back, Richard. I was wondering what became of you.
Pope at 48
The Democratic Party is against usurious payday loans because they prey unfairly on those in financial binds, whatever their party affiliation, if any, might be. A payday loan is a relatively low risk loan for which incredibly high interest rates can are charged (when fees, etc. are tacked on). The immorality of usury has been recognized since biblical times–I can’t give you chapter and verse off the top of my head, but condemnation of usurers is found in both the Old and New Testaments. Usury, generally, is prohibited in Washington, unless a loan has a commercial purpose. So, you, a practicing attorney, finds protection in the law against those who would charge you excessive interest, but the single mother who has to have quick access to cash to pay rent does not, as she has nothing to secure a loan but her job. Sometimes, a political party takes a position because it is the right and moral thing to do, not because that position disproportionately benefits its own partisans. Being a Republican, you probably are unfamiliar with that phenomenon.
43
I bet myself that the link would be to an op-ed, and not to a study. I won.
Proud Leftist @ 58
Actually, I don’t like the idea of payday loans either. And I would certainly agree about the religious references that you have referred to. I could add additional religious references from other sources as well.
As for payday loans, they simply would not exist (at least not in the commercial context) if payday lenders were not able to charge such ridiculous rates. I believe something like $75 to be able to borrow $500 for three weeks, if I am not mistaken.
If payday lenders were limited to the legal interest (usury ceiling) of 12% per year, this would only be $3.45 interest for lending $500 for 21 days. Payday loans would not be commercially feasible.
So exactly what are the Democrats proposing to do about the “single mother who has to have quick access to cash to pay rent”? Force payday lenders to lend $500 for 21 days and only charge a total of $3.45, instead of $75? Force banks to make cheap payday loans, since corporations aren’t really “people” and don’t deserve any legal protection whatsoever?
Better yet, why don’t Bill Gates (Microsoft), Jeff Brotman (Costco), and Howard Schultz (Starbucks) take some of their billions of dollars in personal fortunes, and set up a non-profit corporation to make incredibly cheap payday loans?
Usury laws need to be changed in this state. There is NO moral reason for the huge credit card companies to continue to rape and pillage the poor with interest payments over 19%. There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Americans paying close to 30% interest on credit cards. The payday loan sharks need to be out of business. They prey especially hard on soldiers and their families who usually have a hard time feeding their families right before paydays.
43
“More than 80% of the convicted felons who illegally voted in the 2000 Florida election were registered Democrats.”
I love your sourcing. First, it’s an op-ed in which the writer is free to spin and distort the facts of the actual studies as he chooses. Linking to studies is one thing, but Republicans love the op-ed and consider the spin to be fact. It is not.
First: what is presented as a conclusion by the Uggen and Manza study (“shows that felons vote for Democrats at a rate of 70 percent or more.”) is in fact one of the ASSUMPTIONS they used to justify their CONCLUSION that felony “disenfranchisement prevented Democratic control of the Senate from 1986 to 2000.”
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/crj/wint2002/wint02.pdf quoting from
Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza, “The Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States,” paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, Washington, DC, Aug. 16, 2000.
Second, the unatttributed result “A study of felons who had voted illegally in Florida found more than 80 percent were registered Democrats” is difficult or impossible to track down to a study, although the same claim using that exact wording appears on at least 20 conservative websites. Without attribution I assume it is flat untrue. According to the article “How the GOP Gamed the System in Florida”
by John Lantigua in The Nation magazine, April 30, 2001,
it IS true that Florida state statisticians ESTIMATE that out of 187,000 former prisoners who had completed parole but had not received clemency, close to 20,000 might have voted if they’d been permitted, and that they ESTIMATE that those who might vote IF they had been permitted to vote could be expected to vote Democratic 75 percent of the time. But that’s not anyone who ACTUALLY voted. To determine this you would have to know how the individual felons voted in a secret ballot, which I why I think it’s just a convenient lie.
You should know better than to link to such stinking tripe, and you should do better in support of your contentions, Richard.
DaddyLove @ 62
We obviously don’t know who the illegal felon voters actually voted for in Florida, any more than we know who the illegal felon voters actually voted for in Washington.
However, Florida — unlike Washington — allows voters to register by party affiliation. A voter’s registered party affiliation is a matter of public record. And the voter registration information is what was used in the Florida studies.
RP
WHAT FLorida studies? By whom? At what institution?
I guess facts are for liberals.
RP at 48 said:
“I assume that high payday loan fees are a problem which disproportionately affect Democrat voters. They can’t manage their finances very well, and need a payday cash advance to cover liquor, drugs, cigarettes, gambling, or Starbucks.”
Thanks for the quote. I’ll use it in the upcoming campaigns, to show how Republicans view anybody who has to resort to a payday loan. They will appreciate the clarification of how Republicans REALLY feel about anyone who makes less money than they do. Remember this quote, if you ever decide to run for office again it will come back to haunt you.
Now for the facts. Personally, I kind of like that payday loans are available in some form or another. If a person needs emergency cash in order to repair a car so they can get to work, then I think its an appropriate last-resort solution to the problem. It’s the usurious rates which is the problem.
Just to be sure, I called MoneyTree, and they said the rate is $75.00 for a $500.00 loan of not more than a couple of weeks. If that’s not usury (in the moral and everyday use sense), I don’t know what is.
But it’s not just Democrats that use payday loans. Their real targets are college students, and young people generally. They are the ones that get into the cycle of having to take out a second payday loan in order to pay for the first one, until their parents step in and bail them out.
It’s very similar to the predatory high-interest credit card scams that trap young people into years of debt, but that’s another subject.
But it’s not Republican “management skills” that keep them from having to use payday loans. The fact is, that many of them do. I know some personally. But Richard Pope isn’t thinking about them, because he has his own mental stereotype of “us” (meaning fine, upstanding, hard-working Republicans), vs. “them” (meaning lazy, drunk, Democrats).
But there are indeed some Republicans who don’t use payday loans, because they have other options available. They are probably fewer than Richard Pope thinks. Faced with unexpected bills for car repair, a traffic accident, or a girlfiend’s abortion, a young Republican of “this” sort will probably use (a) his own credit card, (b) his parent’s credit card, or (c) his parent’s bank account. And yes, I personally know a few who are like that also. But somehow I don’t think that having access to the availability of easy, low-cost credit by virtue of being born to a family which is a bit better off than the next is a moral virtue, as Richard Pope does.
Funny – just this weekend my daughter came home complaining about a “friend” of hers. She has been friends and classmates with this girl since elementary school. My daughter works full time and attends college part-time, and is a liberal Democrat (by her choice – for a while there she thought she was a Republican). Her friend is a Republican, who doesn’t work, and goes to college just often enough to call herself a student, but often drops all her classes about halfway through the term for a variety of imagined ailments. My daughter pays her own way. Her friend gets a $500.00 allowance every week from her parents, in addition to payment of all expenses of school, PLUS use of her parent’s credit card for any incidental purchases.
So what’s the complaint? When a group of them went out for the evening, the REPUBLICAN friend insists they go to the most expensive restaurant, then orders for herself appetizers, drinks, lobster, and dessert, and then insists afterwards that the bill be divided EQUALLY between them (although my daughter only ordered a salad and water). When my daughter objected, the REPUBLICAN response: “You’re working, you should be able to pay for it!!!! Don’t be so cheap!!!! You should have ordered like I do, then it wouldn’t be a problem!!!! If you managed your finances better, you wouldn’t have money problems!!!!
Now, I don’t think all Republicans are really like this “friend”, any more than all (or most) Democrats are like the stereotypes laid out by Richard Pope, MTR, Janet S., etc. But gee whiz, it just sounds so familiar, and the irony of the idle rich wanting the working people to pay for their dinner under a “flat tax” rationale was just too much! I had to smile, despite myself.
RP
We DO know who the four illegal felons voters who were presented by the GOP voted for — Dino Rossi.
rhp6033
Republicans don’t take out payday loans. They LEND them.
SgmMac @ 61
I agree with you 1000% on this one.
There is no reason why a person should waste $75 every three weeks to constantly borrow and re-borrow the same $500 payday loan. Nor why they should pay 29% interest and lots of annual fees, monthly fees, late fees, and overlimit fees on a credit card. Nor why they should waste money on gambling, alcohol, drugs, tobacco or Starbucks.
I am willing to allow people to exercise their personal agency as to whether they wish to buy lottery tickets, beer, cigarettes or lattes. More powerful drugs should remain illegal, due to their enormous addictive and destructive impacts.
As for payday loans and credit cards, they rely on numerous legal protections and regulations to even be in business in the first place. If someone defaults, they must have access to the court system in order to collect. There are also bankruptcy laws, which may allow these debts to be legally forgiven. And many other government actions of protection and regulation that are essential for these types of businesses to operate.
Simply make it illegal to charge more than the usury interest rate — say 12% per annum isn’t too bad — and eliminate any ability to charge extra fees of any sort except in the event of default. This will drive all of the payday loans and much of the credit card industry out of business.
If someone really needs $500 in a pinch to pay the rent, then they can go to their church or to a charitable organization for monetary assistance — as well as personal counseling and spiritual/community support.
RP
Maybe by “study” you mean this:
“On November 7 tens of thousands of eligible Florida voters were wrongly prevented from casting their ballots–some purged from the voter registries and others blocked from registering in the first instance. Nearly all were Democrats, nearly half of them African-American…the media have completely missed the fact that Florida’s own courts have repeatedly told the Governor he may not take away the civil rights of Florida citizens who committed crimes in other states, served their time and had their rights restored by those states. “
I think its interesting, in all the discussions about “voter fraud”, that the Republican posters here equate felons=blacks=democrats. I say this is interesting because the Republican party has put considerable effort over the past fifteen years into trying to convince black voters that the Republican party protects their interests better than the Democrats.
Have the Republicans abandoned any attempts to claim that they black voters are better off with them in power, or are they just assuming that black voters won’t hear the same messages that they broadcast to white voters? Or do Republicans think that black voters aren’t intelligent enough to recognize when they are being insulted?
I go back to the language of the state Democrat platform
“We oppose … Excessive usury fees by payday lending corporations for Washington State payday consumers”
If the Democrats simply said to eliminate “payday loans” entirely, or to make them commercially unfeasible by strict application of usury laws (12% per annum interest and no fees), I would have to respect this — and also AGREE with this.
But instead, the Democrats apparently want to have their cake and eat it too — cheap payday loans, even though they are commercially not feasible. And what is with the language of “Washington state payday consumers”?
And I don’t see the Democrats saying anything about high-interest credit cards, or the difficulty many people can face in having high-interest credit card debts discharged under the new bankruptcy law changes.
RP
or maybe this:
“In the summer of 2004 the state of Florida found itself wrapped in a controversy over a list of felons who were to be prohibited from voting in the 2004 elections. Felons do not have full civil rights in Florida and are not allowed to vote in state and national elections unless they receive clemency…However, in the 2000 election in which George W. Bush beat Al Gore in Florida by a mere 537 votes, up to 20,000 people who should NOT have been on the list were wrongly prohibited from voting.”
Almost every state USED to have ursury law protections for people. Almost all of them were repealed due to intensive lobbying by the credit card industry. Some states have no laws at all. South Dakota is one of the crazy states and many credit card companies have moved there so they can rape and pillage their customers, like Citibank.
Last year, Congress passed new bankruptcy laws that really hurt poor people.
Most credit card companies charge late fees for being “hours” late with a payment and then they jack your interest rate up to 24% plus the current interest rate, which means you pay over 30% interest. There are people who go crazy with credit cards, declare bankruptcy, get new cards and go crazy again. My question is why are the credit card companies giving them credit again?????????
If Washington State passed a law this year limiting that interest to something reasonable, they might find that thousands don’t need state assistance any more. Instead of throwing outrageous amounts of money away to financial companies, they might be able to afford food, gas, medical insurance, etc………
RP
Here’s one. It seems that in 2004 in Florida, the states released a list of more than 47,000 “potential felons” who are registered voters. Of those, 59% were registered as Democrats and 38% were registered as Republicans.
I believe this was the list they had to scrap later because almost no Hispanics (who by chance in Florida tend to vote heavily Republican) were on the list. Funny, that.
Your claimed but totally unattributed “study” claims a percentage but provides no numbers. Was the “80%” of felon voters who were supposedly registered Democrats 8 voters out of a total of 10, perhaps? It doesn’t seem as though we can think of such a percentage as indicative of anything but that it just happened that way that time.
DaddyLove @ 69
Thanks for doing my research for me. The article that you linked (from the liberal The Nation magazine) includes the following information:
“A recently released University of Minnesota study estimates that, for example, 93 percent of felons of all races favored Bill Clinton in 1996.”
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/palast
So more than NINE out of TEN felons are Democrats. And this is not a RACIAL thing either — felons of ALL RACES (including WHITES, who constitute the largest racial group among felons) support DEMOCRATS.
POLITICAL AFFILIATION IS A FAR BETTER PREDICTION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR THAN RACE. Only about 35% to 40% of felons are African-American. However, well over 90% of felons are Democrats. African-Americans tend to have a higher felony rate because they are more strongly in favor of Democrats, and not because of their racial background.
Oh, I forgot to mention the fact that last year the Fed Chairman – Greenspan, passed a rule or whatever it is that he does that jacked up everyone’s credit card payments by requiring that loans be paid back faster…….
SgmMac @ 76
So what is wrong with requiring that credit card minimum monthly payments be 5% of the outstanding balance, instead of 2%?
Take some ripoff 29.9% annual interest credit card, with a $1,000 credit limit and $30 overlimit fees and $30 late payment fees.
You charge it to the limit of $1,000, and make the minimum payment of $20. But the finance charge is $25, and next month’s balance becomes $1,035 — including the $30 over limit fee. Pay another $20 minimum payment, and your balance for the following month becomes $1,070.88.
Then you say FLIP IT (or something like that), and stop making payments at all. After 12 months, your balance is well over $2,000 and you now have a debt that is very difficult to discharge under the new bankeuptcy laws, as well as an crummy credit score.
With a 5% minimum monthly payment, you will actually pay off your debt in a few years — even on 30% interest credit cards. And it will discourage predatory lending, by limiting how much people who focus only on the minimum monthly payment are able or willing to borrow on their credit cards.
Mac @ 73
Your point is well-taken. Debt in our society is the great enslaver. Americans can’t save because credit is too easily available and too tempting, and servicing interest payments becomes too big a share of our earnings. People who might be able to lift themselves up a bit can never get ahead of the interest payment. A capitalist society surely depends to some extent on credit being available to fund risk, but the consumer credit industry needs to be reined in. Given the gift Congress has just handed the credit card companies through “reform” of the bankruptcy laws, taking action to limit interest rates to more conscionable levels would be most appropriate. Our current Congress, however, would never take such action. Business interests trump consumer interests anytime with our Congress.
DaddyLove at 67 said:
Republicans don’t take out payday loans. They LEND them.
I think we need to recognize that there are, if we may be so bold to “classify” them, three classes of Republicans. (I usually eschew broad characterizations, but since we’ve had so many thrown at Democrats on this board lately, I feel somewhat excused for doing so).
The first is the “Traditional Republican”. Like someone elso on this board once said of George Bush, “they were born on third base, and think they hit a triple”. These Republicans have substantial influence in corporate mony and politics which goes back more than one or two generations, and which they use to preserve and enhance their position. When feeling philosophical, they ruminate on how, by some inherent moral supriority, they earned their position in society. Often they are convinced that they work harder, or take more risks, than others who are less fortunate than them, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary. These Republicans tend to be Ivy-League college graduates, or their equivilents. These are the ones who are likely to own stock in the payday loan businesses, all the while criticizing those that patronize them.
The second class I call the “Marginal Republicans”. In economic circumstances, they tend to be upper middle-class, engaged in business management or as professionals (lawyers, doctors, or accountants). (Lots of Democrats also fall into these professions also, but here we are dividing the Republicans into classes, not the Democrats). These “Marginal” Republicans see themselves as having worked hard to get to their position, with some justification, and they will be damned if anybody tries to climb up the ladder higher than them. They dearly want to belong among the “traditional” Republicans, and see tax policy and Democratic income-leveling as endangering their climb up the ladder. They, too, tend not to recognize that their current economic fortune was due also to some measure of good luck and family support which may not be available to the less advantaged. In politics, they tend to follow the lead of the “Traditional Republicans”, because they want to be like them (although they will never really be accepted into that club).
The third group I call the “Wannabe Republicans”. These are not much different from the working-class Democrats in profession, economic position, or social status. Racially, they are often of Scots-Irish origin, and are proud of their independence and self-reliance (as are most Democrats who share the same social class) In U.S. economic life, they share the mid to lower-middle class position. Their main identifying characteristic is that they want to distinquish between themselves and those who are below them (who they perceive as being lazy drunks), and those above them (who they stereotype as effete Ivy-League liberal snobs). Politically, this group gets used by the Republican party more than any other. Tending to be Evangelist in religion, conservative in social outlook, and patriotic, the Republican Party galvanizes them by using abortion, gay rights, flag-burning, “welfare cadillacs”, and other “hot button” emotional issues to bring out their vote. But in economic terms, their votes for the Republicans tend to be self-destructive, and this group is thoroughly abused by the Republican Party. The Republican party speaks frequently of those other issues, but when it comes time to use their political currency, they always FIRST give a tax break to the “Traditional Republicans”, then cluck that they are being prevented from “activist judges”, etc. from doing anything about the other issues. The truth is they really don’t want the other issues to be resolved – it would deprive them of the cover they need to keep control of tax policy.
Richard, I don’t have a problem with the payoff. It should always have been in place. The combined effect of the bankruptcy laws being changed and Greenspan’s change hurt hundreds of thousands of working Americans and the majority of them didn’t see it coming. They were just slammed with a big huge bill. Right now, there isn’t any options for someone deep in credit card debt, but to get public assistance or get more credit cards. It can be a never-ending cycle.
To: sgmmac at 76:
I don’t think it was the Federal Reserve (or its Chairman, Greenspan) who did this. It was an act of Congress, as part of the package of legislation that included the Bankruptcy Reform Act.
This was the legislation that assumed that debtors were morally repugnant for being unable to pay their debts.
In fact, it rewarded the credit card industry, by allowing them to double-dip from the same pool. First, they are able to use predatory lending practices (more on that later) to inflate the credit card balances of people who they knew were in a high-risk catagory, and then charge enourmous interest rates (28% is not unusual). Then, after justifying the high rates by pointing out that they were lending to high-risk individuals, they then changed the rules by having Congress amend the Bankruptcy laws to virtually remove any remaining risk they might have.
The increase in the minimum payments was supposedly a “compromise” to argue that the debtors could eventually (mathematcally) get out of debt sometime in the distant future. But in reality it wasn’t enough to make an impact on the debt. In reality it only juggled the money a bit.
If the debtor’s couldn’t pay more than the minimum payments anyway, then the higher payments just turn into a circular transaction: the debtor uses current income to make the larger credit card payment, which reduces his balance (in an amount less than the payment), which he then uses for current expenses, until the cycle repeats itself in an ever-decreasing cycle until the credit limits are exhausted.
Actually, it was the FED who changed the rules. There may have been something in the bill, I don’t know. I found the quote below from a Google search. Komo and the local newspapers also ran stories about it late last year. Like I said, I don’t object to the philosophy of it, just the timing of all of it. It is hurting so many. The credit card companies are driving people into the dirt.
“Complicating matters further, beginning in January 2006 a change in banking regulations will mean higher minimum credit card payments. At the urging of federal banking regulators, credit card companies are boosting the minimum payment on balances from two percent to four percent. The idea is to help consumers. By increasing the minimum payment. The Feds reason, consumers will pay down their balances faster, with a greater percentage of their payment going to principal instead of interest. But many cash-strapped consumers/students may find themselves overwhelmed with their payments doubling – on average from $200 to $400.” – AMSA Loan Consolidation Program site, http://66.102.7.104/search?q=c.....&cd=8
We need to hear more about REP Pat “BitchSlap” Kennedy, DEMOCRAT, RI, Cindy “BitchSlap” McKinney, DEMOCRAT, GA, and last but not least, William J. “IceBox” Jefferson, DEMOCRAT, LA! hehe, JCH Kennedy
My take on this is that the Democrats want to require financial institutions to make virtually free payday loans. If they can only make $3.45 instead of $75.00 on a payday loan, then no such loans will be made commercially. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Pope-A-Dope is against little old ladies. More than 80% of little old ladies vote Democrat so Pope-A-Dope would have them killed if he had his way. Bet on this. If it could be proven that felons vote republican, Pope-A-Dope would change his position on the spot to advocate for the rights of felons. Typical republican hypocrite.
Yeah Yeah know body is going to vote republican. We just want to give Maria a well deserved spanking for being a BAD GIRL ok !
Shheesh
“Continuing the development of the Strategic Defense Initiative.”
Goldstein – that you thing this point is something that would be a negative sholws exactly WHY your party should nevever ever be put in charge of national security.
The SDI that liberals love to ridicule is the only thing standing between us and a North Korean nuke. That the SDI is in the Republican platform shows they are serious about defending the nation.
And before you rant on the usual liberal talking points about it being expensive and not working, let me remind you that a) there have been successful tests of the system and b) not everything we have today was successful the very first time it was tried. The many failure of the space program come to mind.
Ronald Reagan was mocked as “Ronald Ray Gun” by ignorant liberals. But now it turns out he was a visionary. Thank GOD he fought to keep that program.
So go ahead an mock defending this nation. In the aftermath of 911, with Iran and North Korea having nukes, somehow I don’t think it will play well with mainstream America.