Eric Earling offers up what passes for “insight” over at (u)SP:
Darcy Burner’s campaign actually did a pretty good job of hiding how liberal she actually is during the 2006 cycle. If you paid close attention to her campaign rhetoric and some interviews you could catch the fact she fits right into the netroots. But her campaign did a good job of keeping her on message, for what that was worth. What will happen now that it’s to her advantage to proclaim her liberal, progressive bona fides in order to win a primary?
In 2006 Reichert ran on his own record and against her lack of experience as well as against her position on taxes (one of the few topics about which she actually spilled the liberal beans). What happens when she proudly proclaims her position on health care, foreign affairs, etc. to secure her left flank in the primary season? What kind of ammunition will that provide for November 2008?
See, this is exactly why Republicans consistently lose races on the Eastside and statewide — because they have absolutely no idea where the political center is anymore. Eric’s pal Stefan likes to dismiss bloggers like me as the “nutroots,” as if repeatedly calling us crazy automatically makes it so, and while Eric, to his credit, avoids the puerile pun, he seems to have bought into Stefan’s definition. The right has so relentlessly demonized the word “liberal” over the past couple decades that they have no idea what it means anymore.
Consider Eric’s example of a perceived political minefield facing Burner in the 2008 cycle on the issues of “health care” and “foreign affairs.” Burner wants to bring our troops home, whereas Reichert continues to support the president’s failed policies in Iraq. Just last night Reichert backed the president again by voting nay on a bill that would extend health insurance to children of the working poor. And Burner…?
“Let me be absolutely clear: I would have voted differently. In Congress I will fight to provide health care for all Americans, particularly our children. Not only is expanding the Children’s Health Program the right thing to do, funding most of the increase through a hike in the cigarette tax is something that I know the people of the 8th Congressional District would support.”
Tell me, on these two major issues, which candidate is out of step with the district?
On Iraq, health care, reproductive rights, climate change, gay rights, protecting our wilderness, domestic wiretapping and any number of other hot button issues, Burner finds herself smack dab in the mainstream of 8th CD voters. There’s a reason why the Reichert campaign and their surrogates focused almost entirely on dismissing Burner as just some ditzy girl — if voters had voted on the issues, Burner would have won by a comfortable margin.
Next time Eric wants to provide a little insight into the 8th CD race, he might want to base his analysis on something other than outdated assumptions.
I did this one at EffU as well…
http://effinunsound.com/?p=436
“In 2006 Reichert ran on his own record and against her lack of experience as well as against her position on taxes”
And damn near lost! Had Burner picked up a few more seats in the more liberal areas she would have won.
The more conservative areas in the 8th are going to vote (R) regardless of what Burner says.
So, how long before the sock puppets show up with the empty shirt/skirt comments?
The non-wingnut Republicans are even just now figuring out that SCHIPS saves money over forcing reliance on Emergent Medical Care.
Reichert is not fiscally responsible or prudent by opposing SCHIPS.
She is nothing but a ditzy girl, and come Nov. will be dismissed. Talk about a total unworthy and unqualified candidate!
Don Joe,
18 minutes.
ATJ@6 Aw, but whose watchin’ the clock. . . .
TFF
Republicans are watching the clock, ’cause they don’t have much time left.
Something I don’t understand, the original poster said- “…would extend health insurance to children of the working poor.”
Children are expensive. If you are poor, why are you having children. Isn’t that irresponsible?
Do not upset the folks over at uNsOUnD pOlitICs. They get all worried and upset and drool and blather and mad and confused and call folks names and they can’t sleep.
So go easy on ’em.
2008 will be the end of the republicans, concentration camps may have to be set up for the crazy ones who cannot be reformed. Reichert and Bill O Reilly can be used as stand-up comedians in the camps. We cannot fail…
@ 9
If you are poor, why are you having children. Isn’t that irresponsible?
The children were being irresponsible, because their parents were poor?
@11 Farley Mowat says: 2008 will be the end of the republicans, concentration camps may have to be set up…
Funny one. After all, wasn’t it a democrat president that set up the Japanese concentration camps inside the United States?
#12Don Joe says:
@ 9 The children were being irresponsible, because their parents were poor?
I think the poster meant the parents were irresponsible. Poor people shouldn’t be taking on more debt than they can afford, especially when someone else is going to have to pay for it by threat of force. (pay your taxes of the government will seize your property)
Who said anything about democrats, it is the people who will prevail, ok?
#9 Steven Frazier says:
– Children are expensive. If you are poor, why are you having children. Isn’t that irresponsible?
Some people might consider it irresponsible. But that family will now be dependent on the largess of the government. That benefits one of our country’s political party.
@ 14
If that, indeed, is what the poster @ 9 meant, then why is he bringing up the issue of responsibility in the context of a law that provides health care to the unfortunate children while not providing health care to the irresponsible parents? Isn’t that the whole point of CHIPS in the first place?
I thought our queen already provided enough for the poor children of this state?
We already tax the shit out of smokers, what happens when we all quit? where will the money come from? Coffee?
@ 18
I thought …
You misspelled “fantasized.” Really, there is no other explanation for this persistent reference to “our queen” than that you twits have some kind of dominatrix fetish involving women in power.
But, just to clue you in, the whole point of the revisions to the CHIPS laws was, because states like Washington, who had come up with innovative ways to provide health care to impoverished children, were being punished by withholding Federal funds.
Of course, I’d never expect someone, such as yourself, who is too stupid to go to the res to buy cigarettes would be bright enough to figure out that more Federal funds for the program might ease the tax burden on those cigarettes.
@17 Don Joe says:
If that, indeed, is what the poster @ 9 meant, then why is he bringing up the issue of responsibility in the context of a law that provides health care to the unfortunate children while not providing health care to the irresponsible parents? Isn’t that the whole point of CHIPS in the first place?
Why not take the kids from the parents and let the state raise them. If the state is going to pay for the kids, what’s the difference. The parents obviously have proven themselves not to be responsible, all they would do teach their children to be just as irresponsible, thus, another generation of a dependent on the government family.
Liberal or conservative, we need to put an end to supporting those that refuse to do the right thing. There are many unfortunate situations that no one would mind helping out, the husband dies in a bridge collapse, etc., but stupidity can’t be rewarded. Why should you and I be penalized (money taken from us) because we did the right thing and others didn’t.
#19Don Joe says: But, just to clue you in, the whole point of the revisions to the CHIPS laws was, because states like Washington, who had come up with innovative ways to provide health care to impoverished children, were being punished by withholding Federal funds.
What’s so innovative about taking money from one person to pay for another? And why should federal funds be used, use state funds.
Fred,
Why not take the kids from the parents and let the state raise them.
Actually, we do most of that already. The only thing we don’t do is pay for food, clothing and housing, and something tells me that you’d really scream if we started doing that for children whose parents make enough money to cover those basics but not enough to provide health care coverage.
Tired,
The innovation lies in how well you hide the guns. As for Fed funds, I’m all for having no Fed funds involved at all. However, since there are Fed funds involved, I really do want to know way a Washington Representative voted against making more of those funds available to the state of Washington.
Course, if you’re really tired of paying taxes, go buy yourself an island in the South Pacific, and run the place the way you think it should be run.
When blue collar white men figure out that when corporations say they like diversity, hiring women and minorities, etc., it’s not because corporations have bought into Liberalism. It’s because they can make everyone , including white men, work cheaper.
Then the Republicans will lose another part of their political coalition.
Republicans used to be so good at “framing” issues. It’s amusing to hear them blathering and fulminating against things like “fairness” doctrines and that crazy idea about health insurance for poor children.
Republicans used to revel in the fact that they could call something the “Clean Air” act and count upon most people not seeing through their ruse.
Well, the shoe is on the other foot now. Try to explain to those same people why “fairness” is unfair and health insurance for poor children is a bad idea.
Good luck with candidate Drebin in’08!
re 21: Aslong as you are healthy and making good money, your attitude makes perfect sense — if you are a completely selfish asshole — which you are.
You would be the very first in line, however, DEMANDING what you think youare entitled to if you had a run of bad luck.
Like a bad dog, I would like to catch you at that moment and rub your nose in your own shit — even if you were paralyzed from a stroke.
Loocy – Me paying for chirrens health care is a bad idea because they aren’t my fucking kids. They aren’t my responsibility. If mom can’t afford to take care of them, then she should stop breeding.
You’ve got a lot of fucking nerve handing me the bill for your stoopid decisions.
Let me make it real clear… the concept of “entitlement” is marxist fucking bullshit. Nobody is entitled to shit, especially sticking their greedy fucking hand in my pocket to pay for their lifetime of stoopid fucking choices.
Like I’ve been saying, if you want what I’ve got, do what I do. If you lack the intelligence, character, and industry to do that, go fuck yourself.
Get it?
Yeah. ANOTHER crazy Liberal idea. Gas taxes to improve and maintain the infrastucture.
Looks like Republican dithering about that issue is going to COST you votes in ’08.
The chickens are coming home to roost and shit all over you Republicans. You all so richly deserve it.
re 26: Nobody is “handing you the bill” except your HMO because these very same people go to the emergency room.
Penny wise and pound foolish — that’s you.
#28 headless lucy says:
Yeah. ANOTHER crazy Liberal idea. Gas taxes to improve and maintain the infrastucture.
Then where does all the money go? Record high gas prices means record high taxes. Here in California, the government (fed, state, local) get a bigger chunk of the price than the oil companies profit. Here in la la land, the city tax includes the cost of the gas, state tax & federal taxes. Lots and lots of money being taxed away from the citizens, and our roads suck. I guess California should ask bush for more $$ for roads, maybe washington state can pony it up, what cha think?
re27: Well, we both pay taxes. Which part of the public road is yours and which part is mine — stupid. You act as if you are the only one who pays taxes.
If you don’t like it here (or too stupid to appreciate it) then go build yourself a little una-bomber shack somewhere and get the hell out of civil society.
You know, I resent the fact that ANY of my tax money goes to any public project that enhances your life OR even enables you to live.
I wish you’d been on that bridge that collapsed. It would have been such sweet justice you miserable piece of garbage.
Why don’t democrats/liberals ever pay more than they have to on their taxes. If you owe $10,000 and you write a check for $20,000 the government will take it. That way you can feel good about helping those that need help. Why do you insist I go along with buying off a segment of society for political gain.
Where did it become accepted in America that being taken care of cradle to grave by the government is an “entitlement”? Medicaid, welfare, Social Security, etc. Now the left wants a brand new “entitlement” in the form of universal health care paid for by….you guessed it, you and me. The level of taxation that would be necessary to pay for this would be staggering. And whatever the quoted price tag, you can be sure it will be many times more than that if Medicare and SS are any guide. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that one is “entitled” to the earnings of others. Even with all the problems of the current system, I’ll take it anyday over a brand new government bureacracy that will never go away.
Would anyone here really vote for a bill that classified a 25 year old as a child and that 400% of the poverty line (~$92K yr) as poor? Socialized healthcare is not the answer. Try tort reform to help bring down malpractice….would that help?
@ 32
Last I knew, children don’t vote. So, please, explain how CHIPS falls into your world view of “buying off a segment of society for political gain.”
But, if you want a simple explanation for why the government should show up at your doorstep with guns in order to take money away from you and give it to someone else, it’s because, as a whole, we’re all better off when the government does that. I realize this concept is going to be a little difficult for you to grasp, but when people don’t have money, they don’t buy things. When people don’t buy things, that means the “producers” aren’t selling things. When firms don’t sell things, they lay people off, at which point fewer people have enough money to buy things.
Now, the welching Redneck is probably going to pipe up with some pseudo-intelligent sounding rant about investment, at which point I’m going to have to tell him to pay is gambling debt and ask him to point me to any known instance of a firm failing to come up with sufficient funds in order to provide goods and/or services where a real market exists.
Galbraith was right. The concept of trickle-down economics is the doctrine that if sufficient oats are fed to the horse, a few grains will pass through to the road for the sparrows. Galbraith understood the true meaning of a horse’s ass.
Mark,
See if you can get your head around the concept of “general welfare”. I know, it’s hard, but give it some thought. Either your head will explode, or you’ll wake up and take your head out of your ass. In either case, we’ll all be better off as a result.
And that is a pretty good description of what “general welfare” means.
Dengle,
Bringing down malpractice is going after the wrong insurance companies.
Do you know how much money insurance companies make off health care insurance? That’s a huge fucking pile of change for a business the primary function of which is to deny benefits to subscribers. A purely socialized system is better than the shit we have now.
I am for the fairness doctrine only if it applies first to all public schools and univesities,MSM news and PBS. Until it applies to everything it is just a tool of the left to shut down debate.
I’d rather my tax dollars go to socialized health care than where they are going now, the black hole that is Iraq.
In an ironic vote, Senate Democrats led a fight against an amendment to the SCHIP bill on Thursday night that would have helped poor pregnant women and their unborn children obtain prenatal care. They voted against restoring a program that allows states to provide help for pregnant women in difficult financial circumstances.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said the change from covering women and the unborn to only covering pregnant women \”was consciously done by the liberal authors of the bill as payoff to one of their biggest supporters–Planned Parenthood.\”
\”The irony of how a bill once designed to save children could now be twisted to incentivize killing them should not be lost on anyone,\” he concluded.
Suck on that you miserable prick.
You know what would be justice? Having all the anti socialized medicine nutcases lose their job / healthe care, then get sick, and have to claim bankruptcy, and lose everything.
Ever wonder why Canadians that get sick don’t ever have to claim bankruptcy because of their medical bills? I know it sounds complicated, but even someone stupid enough to still think Bush is doing a good job can figure this one out.
We have thousands of people that die every year because they can’t get proper medical treatment, because they weren’t born with rich parents, and you want to bitch about paying “your” money to save someone else’s life?
You know what is funny about the right wingers? They know they are wrong on just about everything, but their pathetic ego won’t ever let them be honest with us, or with themselves. They are just pathetic, angry, greedy frauds that belong in nuthouses.
The first time they got sick they would be at the front of the line screaming for “my” tax dollars to pay for their treatment!
Health care is a right, not an entitlement. Sorry righties. You are wrong once again….
What the Stefans and Eric Earlings of the world don’t get is that they’re the extremists in America’s political culture.
So what’s wrong with Burner being a liberal? Or anyone, for that matter? Liberals have done a lot of good for this country. Conservatives have done … well, let’s just say they’re yucky. Wingnut hatemongers have tried their best to demonize “liberals” but I’m a liberal and it’s a label I wear proudly:
For peace, against war
For humanity, against torture and atrocities
For the working class without being against capitalism
For child labor laws, consumer rights, protecting the environment, etc.
For due process, freedom of speech, and right to dissent
For rule of law and respect of Constitution
And, of course, it’s liberals who have done the nation’s work, fought its wars, and paid its taxes.
What’s so bad about peace that conservatives are always against it? What’s so good about war that conservatives are always for it?
If I was still a conservative, I wouldn’t want people to know it. Apparently conservatives don’t want anyone to know it, either, because an unprecedented number of the wingnut trolls on this board have been pretending to be Democrats lately.
@38 Your problem is that you think lies and bullshit deserve equal billing with facts, science, and truth. They don’t.
The fact statewide GOP candidates consistently poll the same as cigaret smoke tells you they’re extremists who are out of touch with the voters.
The text of the Allard amendment (SA 2535) reads:
Now, it’s worth noting that Title 42, Chapt. 7 already provides for coverage of pregnant women, so the affect of SA 2535 on unborn children is exactly nil. What SA 2535 does is allow states to expand coverage for mothers beyond pregnancy provided they legally define an “unborn child” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”
And, with that, yours truly has exposed yet another case of wingnut dissembling.
It’s truly amazing how the only way these folks believe they can win an argument is by not telling everyone the full story. Why not tell the whole story? Why not give everyone all of the facts?
Don Joe @ 48
The Allard amendment just seems to make a political statement — as you indicated. As for the post-partum care of a mother, many states (including Washington) already provide for this (and perhaps use federal funds to cover some of these costs). Perhaps the clarification would cut off these federal funds for post-partum care, unless the state passed some (otherwise meaningless) law defining an “unborn child” in the same way as set forth in the Allard amendment?
RPope: This is for pre-natal care of the unborn child. You can have pre-natal care on the pregnant mother but the bill removes pre-natal care on the baby in the womb.
This was in the original 2002 DHHS regulation which Moonbat!s rejected in the House with this bill!
Here is the reason many lies proliferate.
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1288
Yet the liberal Kaiser Family Foundation estimates the uninsured to be only 13.2 million. So why do Moonbat!s like to lie about health care?
Want to learn aout socialized medicine – Check out the failure in Massachusetts:
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/leg.....dicine.htm
“Across the state, primary care providers are now turning away patients, and waiting times have lengthened because physicians receive below-market payments along with an influx of new patients. Thus, Massachusetts bureaucrats are learning a lesson that even Communist bloc countries learned decades ago: when government social planners artificially increase demand and reduce supply via price controls and rationing, shortages and inferior quality quickly follow”
Waaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa
Yet Don Joe and his moronic friends posting here MISSED this one!
These are so easy to find:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/jonjayray/glory.html
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE — MIRROR
The downward spiral observed…
Pro Darcy = contributions to her campaign.
Arent you on her payroll?
Facts….been there…all but the bancruptcy. You know what…I didn’t sit around hoping someone would take care of me, but worked my ass off to make sure I had saved money for such a situation or other and then worked hard to get a new job that offered quality health care. How about folks work hard and those that don’t then they are screwed.
Also, why hate the rich? Most are good people that give to charities that help those that need help. Some though are d!cks…..but that isn’t money it’s the person…just ask fuzzy rabbit.
Facts Support My Positions says:
Health care is a right, not an entitlement. Sorry righties. You are wrong once again….
If health care is a right, then perhaps you can cite for me chapter and verse in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where it says that we have the “right” to health care.
I’m all for people having health care, I’m just against a new government “entitlement” monstrosity thrust upon us that will bankrupt the nation.
Any and all forms and types of abortion made available to anyone at any age under any circumstance should be the law as long as the right wing asswipes are going to battle healthcare for children.
And I still love the thought of the ads we’re gonna run during the campaign.
Pictures of kids dead and dying, being laid to rest with the caption – Dave Reichert doesn’t support government funding of health care for children – followed by pictures of Halliburton execs taking in money from taxpayers for $560 toilet seats used in the Iraq war!
#35Don Joe says: @ 32 Last I knew, children don’t vote. So, please, explain how CHIPS falls into your world view of “buying off a segment of society for political gain.”
But, if you want a simple explanation for why the government should show up at your doorstep with guns in order to take money away from you and give it to someone else, it’s because, as a whole, we’re all better off when the government does that.
The parents of the children will vote for FREE health care. Of course it’s not really free, it’s only free to those that aren’t paying for it.
We are better when the government takes from it’s people. Wow, gotta give you credit for admitting your socialist agenda. Have you ever read the 10 planks of the communist manifesto? Ever read the words of our founding fathers? What part of limited government that Thomas Jefferson wrote about don’t you understand?
@43 Roger Rabbit says:
So what’s wrong with Burner being a liberal?
Except for the iraq wars, all other wars were started by democrats.
During democrat presidents, more genocide has taken place across the globe
Liberals never met a corporation they like. It’s not the working class they support, it’s unions, otherwise liberals would be appreciate the large number of people wal-mart employs.
Yet in cities under democrat rule, pollution is a bigger problem. hollywood is the second biggest polluter in the state of california. And we all know hollywood is extreme left liberal.
Unless it’s a conservative view, then it’s labeled hate speech and you want laws enacted to eliminate it.
Where’s the vote on abortions? Liberals know their positions are out of the view of mainstream america so they use the courts to enact their laws. How did those gay marriage votes go over, even liberal california voted it down.
#61 Ouch. The only thing you didn’t do was skin the rabbit and eat it, ala Survivorman.
Ukrainian Famine 1.5 – 7 million 1932 -1933
FDR — Democrat
Rape of Nanking 1 million 1937
FDR — Democrat
Great Purge Up to 10 million 1937 – 1939
FDR — Democrat
The Holocaust 6 million Jews (+ 5 million others) 1942 – 1945
FDR — Democrat
Operation Keelhaul 600,000 to 2 million 1945 – 1946
Truman — Democrat
Postwar Purge 1 million + 1946 – 1948
Truman — Democrat
Great Leap Forward Up to 45 million 1959 – 1962
Eisenhower — Republican
Great Cultural Revolution 1 – 10 million 1967 – 1969
LBJ — Democrat
Biafran Crisis 1 million + 1966 – 1969
LBJ — Democrat
Cambodian Year Zero 2 million + 1975 – 1978
Carter – Democrat
Boat People 200,000 – 1 million 1977 –
Carter – Democrat
Ethiopian Famine 1 million + 1984 – 1985
Reagan – Republican
Rwandan Massacre 800,000 1994
Clinton – Democrataw and respect of Constitution
@57 You could pay for a lot of health care for Americans with the money Bush is squandering on his recreational war in Iraq.
@60 You want to know what not paying taxes buys? Take a good long at that tangled wreckage in Minneapolis.
If our local rightys get their way, we’ll have to dig mangled bodies out of piles of broken concrete and twisted rebar here in Seattle — and they’ll STILL refuse to pay transportation taxes.
@61 Dear rightwinger can’t lie with a straight face:
“Except for the iraq wars, all other wars were started by democrats.”
WW1 was started by Germany’s invasion of the Low Countries.
WW2 was started by Germany’s invasion of Poland.
Korea was started by N. Korea’s invasion of S. Korea.
Vietnam was started by … well, hard to say, because that one had been going on for 2,000 years when we got into it.
The Gulf War was started by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.
So, when you claim Democrats (sp; not “democrats”) started “wars,” which “wars” did you have in mind?
Oh, the lies upon lies. Let’s start with Dengle, because I’m calling bullshit on your “got the t-shirt” claim, largely because it’s irrelevant. No one who is uninsured is sitting around waiting for a hand-out. Become informed, please. It will greatly help the discussion.
As for Puddy, pal, your dissembling is so plainly obvious, one wonders how you manage to sleep at night. Let’s start with the estimates of the uninsured. In 2005, the US DHHS estimated the number at 45.8 million. The site you linked to gave a number of 44.8 million. If that’s a “lie,” then why would a liberal cite a lower number than the Republican-led US government?
As for the Kaiser Family foundation, they provide an updated estimate (PDF) which places the number at “over 46 million”. I don’t know where you got that 13.2 million, but attributing it to the Kaiser Foundation is cleary a lie (though, frankly, I think someone misread the Kaiser number and people like you have merely propagated the same stupidity). But, again, if the Kaiser Family is lying, then why would they promote a lie that undercuts the argument they’re making?
As for Massachusetts, you’re dissembling, or, rather, the opinion piece from which you are selectively choosing your facts, is dissembling. Again. It’s really pathetic, but one simple question makes the dissembling obvious: how many people went from having an effectively infinite wait for health care to a finite wait for health care?
The stupidity gets worse. You call this “socialized medicine,” but that’s not socialized medicine. The health care is still provided by private individuals. These are rudimentary attempts at single-payer systems, and there are bound to be issues. Where your dissembling is, again, obvious is in how you refer to these as “rationing” while, somehow, managing to believe that our current system represents a “free” market.
The only difference between a true single-payer system and what we have now is the existence of health insurance companies! Both are forms of rationing, and your insistence that one is, in Economic terms, functionally different from the other can only be described as pure ignorance of the facts. Give me one good reason why health insurance companies should do the rationing, and not the government.
Lastly, to swing this back on topic, your statement that the Allard Ammendment was “for pre-natal care of the unborn child,” is truly amazing. There is no such thing a prenatal care for a fetus that does not also involve treating the mother. Talk about ill-informed bullshittium. If you keep this up, we’re all going to have to don gollashes in order to wade through it all.
Rightwinger can’t lie with straight face @61:
“During democrat presidents, more genocide has taken place across the globe”
Prove it.
What wall did you peel that off of?
The rest of the drivel @61 isn’t worth replying to, so I’ll skip it.
Taxes @ 60
Ah yes, you can’t argue against the logic I presented about what happens to firms when people can’t afford to buy things, so you disparage the only reasonable conclusion by calling it a “socialist agenda” and invoking the communist manifesto. Thank you for playing, but you just lost the argument.
@63 Well let’s see.
The Ukranian atrocites were the handiwork of one J. Stalin, a commie. President Truman, a Democrat, drew the line in the sand against Stalin.
Nanking was the handiwork of the Japanese army. President F. Roosevelt, a Democrat, fought and defeated Japan.
Purges of 1937 – 1939: See previous reference to Stalin.
The Holocaust was the handiwork of one A. Hitler, unemployed paperhanger. Presidents F. Roosevelt and H. Truman, Democrats, fought and defeated that son of a bitch.
Great Leap Forward, 1959 – 1962, was the handiwork of one M. Zedong, another commie. You can’t seem to get your dates straight; Eisenhower wasn’t president in 1961-1962. I would note, however, this particular atrocity began on a republican’s watch and ended on a Democrat’s watch.
Great Cultural Revolution — see previous reference to M. Zedong. Also note that Nixon, a republican, was president in 1969. Why didn’t he intervene?
Biafra — So you think Carter should have sent American troops? I assume, then, that you approve of Clinton learning from Carter’s mistake and intervening in Kosovo?
Cambodia, boat people, etc. — yeah, that’s what resulted from Nixon, a republican, losing the Vietnam war.
Rwanda, 1994 — yes, well, that was quite a mess wasn’t it. How many American lives would that have been worth? If Clinton had sent troops, republicans would have been holding antiwar marches on the mall and pounding on desks in the U.S. Senate.
The main point, though, is that klake-incognito’s lame attempt to correlate historical atrocities and Democrat presidencies (apart from awkward screwups with dates) is like drawing lines between random dots and then claiming there’s significance to the “pattern” that thus emerges. In educated circles, these exercises are called “intellectual dishonesty.”
As if U.S. presidents are responsible for what happens in other countries.
@63 Why do shitheads like you criticize Clinton for stopping a genocide in Kosovo without a single American combat fatality?
@75 Oh, I know why — the victims were Muslim, and the wingers are pissed because Clinton didn’t let the “Christian” faction butcher them.
Wingnuts use Constitutional references to ask where it says you can’t do something or where it says you can. What the Constitution says in fact or spirit menas nothing to them.
They are just fishing for justifications for the cruel and senseless things that their psyches want to perform.
RR
In educated circles, these exercises are called “intellectual dishonesty.”
You misspelled that last word. It should be M A S T E R B A T I O N.
@65 Roger Rabbit says:
You want to know what not paying taxes buys? Take a good long at that tangled wreckage in Minneapolis.
Do you believe that the bridges could have been fixed if the $776 million tax dollars allocated for the new Twins stadium had been better spent?
If you think the bridge collapse is because of not enough tax dollars you are deceiving yourself. The problem is politicians are paying off favors.
Check out
http://209.85.165.104/search?q.....#038;gl=us
and see where tax money is going.
5 Mark1
That’s what you said in 2006, and she came from nowhere to within one-and-a-half percent of beating Reichert.
Your track record of prediction does not bode well for BigHair.
Conservatives are so intent on punishing people with whose lifestyles they disagree (and face it, it’s not about the extreme meth-head parents, they’d do the same to you or me) that they HAVE TO ignore the fact that creating healthier, better educated children is in everyone’s interest. They HAVE to pretend that there are no social costs to their social engineering ideas. They HAVE TO ignore reality. Otherwise it’s the asylum.
When the Rebub’s in Congress are ready to renounce their government paid for health care, I’ll start taking them seriously. And their social welfare for corporations.
Tax @ 80
The problem with so-called notions of “government waste” is that you really can’t arrive at an objective definition of waste. Oh, people attempt to put an objective face on it by coming up with some kind of criteria, but either the criteria themselves or the application ends up being highly subjective.
That’s why the founders of this country codified the concept of “general welfare” in our constitution and the powers of the legislative branch. The only reasonable way to resolve an essentially subjective issue is through a democratic process of representation.
Now, it’s perfectly OK to say that you disagree with how the government spends taxes, but you can’t use this as an argument for lowering taxes as a whole. When you do that, you are effectively begging the question.
” …(M)ight want to base his analysis on something other than outdated assumptions …” Actually, he can arrive at the same result by basing his analysis on Little Ms. Know-It-All’s own words. A year ago Burner tried to explicate the inexplicable, Social Secuity and its discontents. She was a complete idiot. Then she said her opinions about military force should be taken seriously because she had a relative who had served in the service.
Perhaps Osama Obama can draft her to lead his unilateral invasion of Pakistan, after he pries her out of the Social Security lock box.
#71 Roger Rabbit says:
Translated: I can’t think of any comeback.
Why did the Publicans refuse to fund the money for the 35W bridge in Minneapolis? Did they need more money for Bush’s war for oil in Iraq?
RightEqualsStupid says:
Sorry to make you look like a publican, but someone had to do it!
“Dorgan said there was enough money in the agency’s budget to pay for construction work on the underside of the bridge.”
http://www.startribune.com/102.....39411.html
Of course, to the extreme left there’s NEVER enough tax dollars flowing into the government. But this time there was and the government proved themselves to be inept.
It used to be funny reading you, but after a few days you only repeat yourself like a broken record.
You know roger rabbit has a life
He must otherwise he would be posting more. Thankfully he doesn’t have any children that he’s ignoring.
12:05am
12:08
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:13
9:03
9:05
9:06
9:09
9:11
9:11
9:12
9:25
9:26
9:27
9:28