The Hot Blog

Way to go, Dems! After three years of "non-binding" resolutions, great to see that you guys finally grew a pair. Will this solve all of our healthcare problems? Not by a long-shot. But as some one who has worked within two different healthcare industries for the past six years, this is a great step in the right direction.

And let's not forget that the two Republican "big ideas" for healthcare of the past decade were Health Savings Accounts and Medicare Part D - one was a complete joke of an idea (huge deductibles, yay!) and the other just exploded the deficit (free drugs for all seniors for their last 20 years - over 2 trillion over 10 years). You guys had your chance to fix this problem and just BLEW it.

Believe it or not, the Democrats actually took the more fiscally conservative and common sense approach - reasonable, incremental changes spread out over several years focused on closing a lot of loopholes off the bat. Hard to not be passionate about this and to not be impressed with what they pulled off.

DEMOCRACY POWER

"Believe it or not, the Democrats actually took the more fiscally conservative and common sense approach..."

I'll cast my vote for "not."

Is that opening quote from Obama? I don't see how it has even a modicum of relevancy to health care (because it doesn't). Porky Pig's sign-off is as relevant.

As far as how the debate has been framed, you could add a quote or two from Dem. Alan Grayson ("If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly,") and make make the debate look different.

Back in the real world it's springtime for Obama and America.

Hey, Josh - the fact is that the Republicans' major contribution to healthcare in our lifetimes will end up being Medicare Part D, when they had both houses and the presidency - $2 trillion at least over the past ten years, NO revenue or cost savings at all so that seniors can get free drugs for the rest of their lives. Probably the biggest government entitlement most of us will ever see created, again.

Compared to THAT, this is very fiscally conservative.

Again Obama dances around his foes. And now we have the threat of more right-wing violence with vocal support from FOX toads like Chuck Norris.

And Gingrich should be booted out pubic office forever for his blatant racism and appeal to the worst Agnew-Wallace-Limbaugh instincts of his dying party. The mewling of dinosaurs indeed.

"public office" but pubic might suffice too...

Christian-
I sadly think it's going to take some real violence from these right wing nutcases to make people realize just how insane things have become. The "YOU LIE!" and "baby killer" remarks are like little trembles in what is sure to be a major quake. FOX keeps prodding and between the Beck/Palin hate hyperbole, violence will erupt. Maybe then we can move on like adults.

"And now we have the threat of more right-wing violence..."

I am scared too. Violence is only good when it is performed by molotov cocktail throwing left wing "peace" activists, Marxists/Communists/Socialists, urban gang members who are oppressed and Islamic jihadists bent on the destruction of America and Israel.

"...Limbaugh instincts of his dying party."

Really?

You do understand that the reason the Dems had to pass the bill with all of the intimidation, bribes and graft for votes was because they know the people are cluing into how radical, Marxist and wackadoodle the new Left are and the Repubs are going to come back big time in the fall. Look at the polls.

For the rest of his first (probably only) term he will be a lame duck wet noodle of a president.

They knew this was their only shot so they blew the wad.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

"molotov cocktail throwing left wing "peace" activists, Marxists/Communists/Socialists, urban gang members who are oppressed and Islamic jihadists bent on the destruction of America and Israel."

Names please. And when were these cocktails thrown recently here?

How about gun nuts at the Pentagon and libertarian wackos crashing their planes into IRS offices?

It's your ilk that can't wait to lock and load on the Federal Government you lunatic.

You have ZERO credibility Nicol. As dos Rove and FOX. You banked on Obama meeting Waterloo, instead you're Custer at Little Big Horn.

Will Republicans ever get tired of being wrong all the time?

Jeez, Nicol, get some new material, sport. I'm surprised you didn't throw "flag-burners" into the mix. And while we're on the subject, answer this: If I had shown up with a loaded firearm at some public event where President Bush or VP Chaney had appeared two or three years ago -- do you think I would have gotten a pass? Would I have been respectfully interviewed on Fox? Or would I still be stuck in Gitmo?

Yeah, really. Nicol's rhetoric is exactly what scares ME...the sacredness of it! Really? Molotov cocktail throwing liberals in the U.S.?? Huh?? If you're talking about NAFTA talks or whatever I guess so, but I think the police state of that conference brought a response. Plus who's to say it wasn't righties in masks trying to rile things up?

Anyway...righties are freeking terrifying these days. Dumb and ill-informed and armed.

First libs were gonna take their guns so they stockpiled weapons. Now there's a Nazi/Communist/Socialist is the white house which is even MORE scary. NOW they're gonna march you out and shoot you if you're a certain age.

The recirculation of misinformation coupled with the violent talk is like a pressure cooker.

Sadly, the one thing Obama hasn't gone after is Gun Control -- the Righties are stockpiling in record numbers while whining about their rights being stolen. I liked Chuck Norris better when Bruce Lee as kicking his ass.

Nicol I give your wingnut trolling a D-minus. I do like the castration anxiety and homophobia you threw in, otherwise you sound like a red-state action alert. BOOORRRINNG.

I'm rather boggled why this was turned into such a political football.

Clearly the health system needs reform - the US spends the most of any country on healthcare, 50% more per capita than the #2 country (Norway), totaling 16% of GDP which is again 50% more than the #2 (France). Despite this, US ranks 24th out of 30 for life expectancy and 28th out of 30 for infant mortality. And is the only developed country not to provide universal health care. (Source)

Not exactly getting value for money.

I'm not sure if there's any industry that's less disposed to provide public benefit than health insurance. Free markets work on the assumption that bad decisions are "rewarded" by going out of business - survival of the fittest, if you will (which makes it slightly amusing that for some Republicans this principle is championed for economics while derided for science). This is fine for businesses; they're legal entities and while it may be painful for the owners they can simply try again. When health care fails, people die - they don't get to try again unless you happen to believe in reincarnation. To add further problems, the financial incentive for Insurers is to deny coverage rather than provide it. In other insurance industries, there would be pressure back from consumers since if coverage was denied if your car got stolen, for example, you'd change Insurers - they don't want to lose business so it becomes competitive. For healthcare, if you are denied coverage by one insurer that's pretty much it. No other insurer will want to cover you if a medical condition has already been uncovered - to them, you've suddenly become a liability instead of a potential source of revenue. It's like trying to apply for fire insurance while your house is on fire.

But instead of coming together to try and solve the problem, it's become as partisan as they come. This is not surprising given how Republicans have taken to voting against their own bills to deny Obama even minor victories in passing legislation. The use of Reconciliation to force an up/down vote is decried, despite this being the 6th time this tactic has been used in the last 10 years without the US falling into anarchy, and the bill passed with a wider margin than a health bill last year.

At the same time, Democrats are lauding this as a major victory. Congratulations on actually passing a piece of legislation, especially with the terrible handicap of having majorities in both legislative branches at the same time as controlling the white house. We look forward to your next major bill which, given what happened last time , should be in 2026.

Incidentally, the people who burn the most US flags are... the Boy Scouts of America. Apparently it's considered the "most dignified" way to dispose of a damaged flag.

And of course we're supposed to listen to free-market gospel from the people who gave us Enron. Rove looked like Baby Beck on TV this week.

Also, Gingrich doesn't hold public office anymore, unless you count getting paid by front groups for multinationals public office, which the media certainly does.

Why are you guys giving Nicol shit for alarmist talk when everyone on the left here seems to be freaking out about the coming apocalypse by the gun nuts who are in actuality going to be hiding in their bunkers in Montana. Do you guys REALLY think there's going to be rioting on the streets because of this?

And using the asshole who rammed his plane in the IRS building doesn't count...he wasn't a "terrorist" or affiliated with any conservative group, he was a guy who was under stress and got pushed and cracked the fuck up. But for anyone who would like to keep score, his suicide note ended with these words:

"The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed."

Does that sound like a right wing pro-capitalist fanatic to anyone?

So can we assume that Nicol agrees with Gingrich's sentiment?

Isn't Gingrich basically just flat out saying that racial equality is bad? He doesn't seem to be even hiding his racism.

I guess you could agree with Gingrich's statement if you believe that the Democrats did an extremely *good* thing but were maybe a little bit ahead of the time but in retrospect exacted one of the most important pieces of legislation in this countries last century.

I guess we should be thankful for the Democrats for being so bold even in the face of the decision being unpopular with so many just as the Johnson-era Democrats stood up to those who didn't view blacks are equals.

Gingrich misquoted?

Everyone should read the Editor's Note at the bottom of Krugman's article:

This column quotes Newt Gingrich as saying that “Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation, a quotation that originally appeared in The Washington Post. After this column was published, The Post reported that Mr. Gingrich said his comment referred to Johnson’s Great Society policies, not to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

---
Yeah, that kinda changes the meaning of what he said.

Ironically, this journalism glitch goes to the heart of what Krugman was saying...it's easier to spread the lie. I wish the loudest voices were the ones spouting facts.

Perm-
I'm talking more about the people who listen to Palin and Beck more than those who listen to Alex Jones and Michael Savage; I think the airplane dude was the latter.

Jones/Savage people are just stupid, uneducated people who want to feel informed and feed off the conspiracy stuff. Sure, there's always a weird racial "other" fear in them, but for the most part, it just feels like they read too many comic books growing up.

But the Palin/Beck crowd have an eerie anger to them....like an animal backed into a corner. Their also very phobic about "others" infringing on their perceived rights and are literally stockpiling weapons and have been seen Clinton was going to supposedly take them away.

I don't like, live in fear of these people everyday, they just make me sad and frustrated.

I'm not personally worried about a revolution of gun nuts. Most of the people fomenting such talk are either old, white, and pathetic, or pols cynically pandering to those aging, paranoid white dudes.

The gun issue is basically the last, greatest totem of white patriarchy. Hence the impossibility of any rational discussion of it.

How about the gun nut shooting up a church as one example, Big Perm? He was fearful of liberals and Obama taking freedoms away. The DHS report on the rise of far right hate groups should give everybody pause especially in light of the shootings of the past year. I read the right-wing blogs and loony or not, there's a lot of seething rage. When you have Rick Perry and Chuck Norris arguing for a Second American Revolution, somebody will act.

"You do understand that the reason the Dems had to pass the bill with all of the intimidation, bribes and graft for votes was because they know the people are cluing into how radical, Marxist and wackadoodle the new Left are and the Repubs are going to come back big time in the fall. Look at the polls."

This comes from someone who lives in a country that has had universal healthcare for decades. Sounds like he needs to move.

Obviously there are crazy right wing loons christian...but you realize you're reading this shit on the internet, right? Where 99.55555555567% of everything is just posturing? Politics has always been full of blowhard rhetoric, from the start.

It's just funny to me that all of you guys keep harping on the potential violence of the gun nuts, so we must ask:

"What do we do? How do we protect ourselves against the evil hordes of angry neocons?"

"Well, first we need lots of guns to protect ourselves! And then we get some bunkers in Montanta!"

Also Don, I don't know about that airplane guy but I don't know if he was a follower of anyone. He seemed to me to be a regular guy who got pushed and pushed, and then snapped one day. I wonder if actual political affiliation had anything to do with it...he just struck at the people he felt were destroying him.

I know you pride yourself on the surface read, BP, but this stuff is not just inside crazy. What do you make of Michelle Bachmann demanding a "blood oath" to stop Health Care? Or how about the head of the RNC today calling this bill "Armageddon"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpY7gWlXoqw&feature=player_embedded

And since nobody on this site or elsewhere on the left has called for guns n' bunkers of their own, your argument doesn't make sense. Liberals are for Gun Control.

As a rational person the first thing I would do if I couldn't pay what I owe the IRS would be to sell the airplane.

Ha ha hcat, that's true! Well, maybe he rented it. That's a good fucking question!

Christian, I realize that I'm not the smart book learned feller that you are, all intellectual and such...but just because someone says that something is armageddon doesn't mean they literally think it is an actual armageddon. I'm sure that every single word you ever say is absolutely true on every level, but you know how normal humans exaggerate and talk out of their ass, especially people on tv? Because they do!

And I don't know c, you sound like you're on your way to your fortified bunker. Had Bush won you'd be living in France and then you'd have to find a cave deeper in case some conservatives were on tour and maybe they'd want to blow something up because someone said something on television.

Oh wait, when I said you would hole up in a bunker with guns, that was ME exaggerating! Just like I said normal people do sometimes and maybe even evil conservatives!

Yeah, and so you're willfully ignoring the actual violence of the past year and a half that has plenty of dumb and smart folk, pollsters like John Zogby included and conservativs like Michael Medved, who are worried about more violence. Especially in light of the 400 percent increase in death threats against Obama. But you're right BP. Nothing to think about as usual.

And also no big deal:

Washington (CNN) - Civil rights icon and veteran Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, said anti-health care bill protesters Saturday repeatedly yelled the “N” word at him as he left a heath care meeting and walked to the Capitol.

“I haven’t seen heard anything like this in more than 40 years, maybe 45.” Lewis said. “Since the march from Selma to Montgomery really.”

“Yeah, but it’s okay,” Lewis added. “I’ve faced this before. So, it reminded me of the 60’s. There’s a lot of downright hate and anger and people are just being downright mean.”

The incident was confirmed by Rep. Andre Carson, D-Indiana, who was walking with Lewis at the time. Protesters were yelling, “‘kill the bill, kill the bill’ and the ‘N’ word several times,” Carson said.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Missouri, released a statement late Saturday saying he too was called the “N” word as he walked to the Capitol for a vote and that he was spat on by one protestor who was arrested by U.S. Capitol Police. Cleaver declined to press charges against the man, the statement said.

Protesters also hurled anti-gay comments at Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, who is openly gay, as he left the same health care meeting that Lewis attended in a House office building.

A CNN producer overheard the word “faggot” yelled at Frank several times in the lobby of the Longworth building. Frank said he heard someone yell “homo” at him.

"Do you guys REALLY think there's going to be rioting on the streets because of this?"

Brush up on your history. That's exactly what happened in France, China, Mexico and Russia in centuries past. (And they didn't have AK-47s, either.) An entire world war began because an archduke was gunned down by a 19-year-old nutjob who believed he was a revolutionary.

So don't think it couldn't happen. These people are insane, and worse, unpredictable.

I pulled this article about certain states wanting to challenge the legality of the bill. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0322/Attorneys-general-in-11-states-poised-to-challenge-healthcare-bill

This one of those things that'd generally rate a big "meh" from me but for the past five - ten years one of the largest growing catch phrases from the right has been "stop liberal judges from legislating from the bench. Stop legislating from the bench!"

Comment as you will but to save some possible keystrokes on trying to define legislating from the bench, this was precisely the same set of conditions under which the mantra was sounded. (only it was going against Republican sponsored initiative.)

Some fun numbers:

On the heels of health care, a new Harris poll reveals Republican attitudes about Obama:

* 67 percent of Republicans (40 percent overall) believe that Obama is a socialist.

* 57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim

* 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president"

* 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did"

* Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-22/scary-new-gop-poll/?cid=hp:exc

Michael Steele really isn't worth paying attention to at this point. He should be out of a job and has made saying stupid shit his bread and butter. David Frum is right that health care passing is great news for the "conservative entertainment media." And this is very bad news for Mitt Romney. Big Perm, I think you've got a point, and fearmongering is certainly nothing new. Is this a case of a "few bad apples" being uncivil or something more?

Obviously there COULD be violence, but you guys are hyping the fact out of proportion, I'd say by reading the blowhard rightie blogs. Speaking of, if health care was shot down, don't you imagine there would be the same angry rhetoric on the leftie blogs, just maybe with less racism?

No doubt there would be anger on the leftie blogs in that scenario, but the level of vitriol in the rhetoric seems to be quite enhanced on the right. Unless I just have a short memory and a left-wing congressman yelled something like "baby killer" at a Republican during the Bush years, or Republicans walking on the steps of the Capitol were called things comparable to "faggot" and "nigger" by angry anti-war protesters. I think the dynamic changes depending on whether or not the person you voted for is in office. Maybe the rhetoric was just as hateful during the Bush years but I didn't notice or care because I didn't like Bush.

Just watched the historic signing of the bill and was immediatly distracted by the news from the crawl that Chris Evans has been cast as Captain America and that Warners is bidding 1.5 billion for MGM. I'm a happy liberal but movie news still captures my attention over all else.

Stella - I think the dynamic changes depending on whether or not the person you voted for is in office. Maybe the rhetoric was just as hateful during the Bush years but I didn't notice or care because I didn't like Bush.

You deserve credit for the honesty...but my praise will probably only lead to you getting slammed for it.

Be afraid if you want to, but Glenn Beck has explicitly and repeatedly rejected the use of violence, which would be counterproductive at best, and at worst, rip this country apart at the seams.

It is ironic, however, considering that Beck and his family have been subjected to numerous death threats, including one just last week that made it necessary for him to wear a bulletproof vest during his TV show.

As a note, the molotov cocktail-throwing activists can be found attending those free trade protests, which often turn violent.

As a general rule of thumb, any debate that has over a dozen participants will have potentially dangerous whackos on both sides. Anyone in such a debate who is adamantly convinced their side has no whackos will probably have the opportunity to see one next time they look into a mirror.

The best focus for your energy in this situation is not pointing out how bad the other side is, but thinking about how you can improve your own side.

Those breakdowns are so sad, Stella's, but not entirely unexpected. I think Bill Maher said it best when he said something to the effect of how the right keeps bandying about titles like Socialist, Hitler, Communist and so on because they simply don't want to call him the name that they're all thinking which starts with an "N."

Also-
I found a way to shut up annoying friends or neighbors that are misinformed and freaking out about the health care bill. Bet them that their health care is in better shape in 4 years than it is now. My friends wife just told me they pay $800 a MONTH to cover a family of three but they're irate that this thing is passing. He works in a small company that employs over 25- THEY would pay for his health care under this bill. I bet her dinner anywhere they want and I pay for the sitter if this new bill isn't better than $800 a month.

I also bet them lunch that they'd get more back in taxes this year because they were toting the company line about Obama raising taxes. They have yet to take my bet but the silence has been golden.

Nicol, you're either massively ignorant, or a liar. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's the former.

mystery Beck is the ultimate showman (he works on his crying in front of a mirror after all). Is it beyond the realm of possibility that he exaggerates the threats? Of course death threats are wrong and should be condemned. That should go without saying. But Beck is a reprehensible human being. His condemnations of social justice and his constant comparison of everything he doesn't like to Nazism, Communism and Fascism is ludicrous and asinine. Pardon me if I can't take him seriously. No one should.

Martin, I know there was a lot of heated rhetoric during the Bush years. One congressman mentioned the Code Pink folks in defense of what happened over the weekend. I just wonder how comparable it is, and how much our own prejudices blind us to some rhetoric while intensely focusing on other rhetoric depending on our political preferences.

Let me repeat: there was serious Bush hate and there were Bush = Hitler signs. I'd say there were quite a few valid reasons for righteous rage. But most of the Left in this country are not stockpiling guns and ammo as the DHS eport pointed out. These are far right/libertarian/McVeigh-inspired militia groups. All it takes is one Beck-induced nutcake to pull a trigger. And with Chuck Norris and others on FOX unsublty promising a Second American Revolution, I wonder how they expect that would be fought? Beck is an obvious clown who I don't even believe believes his bullshit.

But as David From writes:

"Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?"

All it takes is for anyone to pull a trigger, christian. I'm sure a people may be murdered by guns tonight in DC and Baltimore. It's just the way you fixate on this is pretty Nicolian. You keep talking about the fringes, fine. There are psychos everywhere. Maybe one will be in love with Jodie Foster and shoot at the President, who knows what will set people off. But I read leftie blogs from time to time and some of them use a lot of hateful rhetoric as well, figuring conservatives are generally evil and stupid, etc etc. Bush got 3,000 death threats a year. Obviously that's peanuts compared to what Obama's getting, but I bet lots of Bush's letters were one-offs, while maybe Obama has a lot of dedicated fans.

And the left have been known for keeping arms in the past too, let's not forget the Black Panthers.

I assume this is from a conservo blog, but look...death threats against Bush. Why didn't any of them try to kill him if they really felt that way. Only takes one.

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

They're not fringes anymore BP - and you should take up your typical lack of concern or thought with the DHS not me. I guess they consider it somewhat worrisome. As do I since it's happening in my nation. What is your point ever?

Oh, I want to respond to Stella's poll. I have a theory about that...before everyone wants to get high and mighty and tell me I'm wrong I admit RIGHT NOW that I'm talking COMPLETELY out of my ass and making a guess. So here goes!

Check this...we all know there are a lot of dumbasses in the world, right? I think we can all agree on this. Now, last Presidential election had something like a 50% turnout or the entire population. That's a whole lot of motherfuckers who aren't voting.

NOW...I believe that the dumbasses who would become affiliated with the Republican party would sign up and vote. These guys tend to think the government are fucking them, they're angry, whatever. They don't actually pay attention to politics or read about stuff, but they're conservative so they know which party they belong to dammit! Thus, the Republicans have a nice base of uninformed voters.

On the other hand...the dumbasses who may be as uninformed but would register specifically as Democrat...I don't know if these guys vote at all. Maybe they're just more apathetic. I remember when Obama was running there was an open letter to Obama in Newsweek I think that mentioned the half a million unregistered black voters in GA, and thought the Democrats needed to target those voters and break the stranglehold of the old Southern conservatism...which I recall because I agreed with it. But I bet you if the Dems DID get all of those guys to sign up and affiliate themselves with the Democratic party, and branched out to other areas to bring in tons of other unregistered voters, white and black and whatever,you'd start seeing the bell curve of the intelligence level of the Democratic party shift in a big way. I doubt a lot of these guys are rocket scientists.

Perm does have a good point that no matter all the divisions between lib and conservative the majority political opinion in this country is still apathy.

And I would like to say regarding Left vs. Right angry behavior and rhetoric. Bush was never called Hitler over his Tax Cuts. His administration was defending torture and starting an elective war, not trying to pass a health care bill. Perhaps the dictator rhetoric is a little more apt when your actions result in death than when your actions result in medical care?

Hey christian, what's your point ever except "I'm afeared of them conservatives with their guns and scariness." When have you ever said anything memorable or interesting? If you have an example you can repost it, that'd be cool with me.

hcat...you're right on the war vs taxes issue. However, let's say that Bush decided to abolish welfare or Medicaid entirely. I'm sure he would have been called Hitler over that.

I've said enough to make you compelled to debate that what I've said is incorrect or a sign of too much thinkin' -- your point is usually, "So what?"

What fascinating points have you come up with beyond "racists Republicans and guns?"

What do think of my hypothesis I put above responding to Stella?

Perm- I can't really say what would happen in a hypothetical situation.

Well, as often as Republicans in general are compared to Nazis I'm guessing yes.

Since that's not the only points I've made and since it's based on the thesis of this actual post condemning GOP hyperbole by Poland -- maybe you should take it up with him. Or just stop commenting on things that you obviously feel have no point.

As for your theory based on total opine, LexG would be proud.

And for the record, this was a pretty fascinating point I made that you agreed with:

Giving Ratner any credit for Chan action is like giving Robert Clouse credit for Bruce Lee.

Posted by: christian [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 12, 2010 09:51 AM

Clouse is the PERFECT analogy. You watch Enter the Dragon you maybe think Clouse has some chops. Watch any of his other movies, and all becomes clear.

Jackie's not only made some stinkers in HK, but he's made some absolute horrid shit...but even in his shit, there's usually some great action. If Ratner has any action chops, why didn't he use them at all in X-Men?

And to speak of his director's vision, in one of the fights he outlines the stuff he didn't like and would have changed...but of course he didn't change them because Chan was in charge.

Posted by: The Big Perm [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 12, 2010 11:44 AM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1209/Secret_Service_Threat_level_against_Obama_no_greater_than_under_Bush_Clinton.html

Suffice to say, the number started with some international writer, who when asked for a source, blamed the Secret Service for a cover-up.

Obama's threat levels ebb and peak, and have gone so low that he's been below Clinton at certain points. I'm sure they've peaked this week, but you know what, they were most likely really high two weeks ago - when half of Southeast Asia was threatening to kill his ass.

Wait - we are all aware that "death threats" include international threats, right?

Stella - Some call W a fascist, others call O a socialist. Same coin, opposite sides.

Do I think someone will go after Obama? No, but depending on what he pushes for this summer and how hard, odds are good something is coming, just not at him. "Comprehensive immigration reform" - aka amnesty - is about the most dangerous subject he could tackle, not because of "brown foreigners", but because you have an recognized unemployment rate of 10% and unrecognized at 18%. Factory/labor jobs are scarce as it is, and there have been several reports of ICE raids that result in huge application turnouts afterwards. But, supposedly, he's looking at it because it's what da unions want and the Dems need to shore up lost voters. If he does it, I'd put the odds near 60% something bad goes down. Most likely a riot breaks out between unionistas and protestors which sparks beatdowns across the country. All that would be left is for Mommy Dearest and Droopy Reid to keep Congress in session during the August recess to jam through legislation before the mid-terms, and it's powder keg time.

So you said Brett Ratner is a shitty director...fascinating, original AND interesting!

Martin, I think someone could go after Obama...but that's the same with every president. I don't necessarily think someone will gun him down and then say it's because he passed a health care bill.

Except immigrants aren't taking jobs from American citizens.

MYTH #1: IMMIGRANTS TAKE JOBS AWAY FROM AMERICANS

FACT: ECONOMIC STUDIES SHOW THAT IMMIGRANTS ACTUALLY INCREASE ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY AND THE WAGES OF AMERICAN WORKERS

The most common immigration myth I hear is that immigrants are taking all of “our” jobs. In reality, studies support the proposition that immigrants, whether here legally or illegally, not only don’t take jobs from native-born citizens, they actually create jobs and increase the economic output and salaries of American workers. One of the major findings in a 2007 report by the White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) to the Executive Office of the President was that, on average, U.S. natives benefit from immigration because immigrants tend to complement U.S. natives and do not substitute for them in the workplace.

The myth that all of “our” jobs are being taken away by immigrant workers is simply not based in fact and should be abandoned. Immigrants play a vital role in our local and national economy, in good times and in bad. Whatever your position with respect to immigration policies or enforcement, it’s important to recognize the valuable marketplace contributions being made by immigrants.

http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c650af24-f860-43c3-948d-a47e3c2cc94b

Also:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_hispanicaffairs/2009/09/are-immigrants-really-taking-jobs-from-american-workers.html

Martin's own comments should disqualify him from being taken seriously and responded to.

Is there a way to accurately gauge whether or not the rhetoric now is worse than it was when Bush was president? How does one quantify that? When I read about protesters yelling "nigger" and "faggot," or a Virginia tea party guy posting a Democratic congressman's home address on the net in order to encourage "personal visits" to vent frustration, or a sign that promises if Brown can't do it a Browning will, my inclination (along with feelings of disgust) is to believe that it is worse now. I know people hated Bush. I know some nasty words were thrown his way. But was the rhetoric this bad? How do we know for sure? Also, I don't buy that it's just a "few bad apples." There are too many examples of the above for it to be only a few isolated instances. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's worse now. We've always been a partisan nation. Politicians said pretty hateful stuff to each other in the late 18th century. Plus, the modern media makes it worse with their tendency to get hysterical. I don't have all the answers. It just seems like the level of crazy has been enhanced since election day 2008.

It's definitely true that a lot of the jobs that immigrants take, a lot of American-born folk don't necessarily want anyway.

Although the guy in the second quote sooort of undercuts his own argument because he basically says "immigrants don't take jobs from Americans, because you see, when immigrants take the jobs that unskilled Americans might want to get, that forces the American to train more and get a BETTER job." Which is basically saying that the immigrant took the job that guy might have wanted.

It's already begun. And, trust me, it'll get uglier. And more violent.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/pols.dems.vandalized/

I would also like to remind everyone of Dr. Tillman. His head was called for (and not from some whackjobs on the internet but high-profile conservatives) and his head was delivered.

Perm - I agree. It comes with the job.

Stella - http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2009-09-13-plants_N.htm

State after state and it resonates across communities. If you want to believe in some macro fed paper, feel free. Pushing amnesty was what cost Rove his support and sent him packing early even though it was a pet issue for Bush. So if Obama wants to try that with twice the unemployment numbers and post-Obamacare, meaning several more million into the healthcare pool...that might actually be enough to put Pelosi's reelection in jeopardy, forget being Speaker.

Re: rhetoric. It's really a case of what each side deems offensive. The right is so used to the left's protest marches - the signs, puppets, etc...it's remembered, but tolerated. What was offensive were the assassination fantasies carried out in movies, plays and books. The way that UK docudrama was embraced really incensed a lot of people.

Jeff - is that what you're down to? Pleading to others in some passi-aggro way? "Disqualify! Ignore! Please! I Beg! I Beg!!!"

Martin I agree that immigration is a divisive, contentious issue. I just don't believe that they are stealing jobs from Americans.

The docudrama that four people saw and two remember? Yeah protest marches, like for civil rights and stuff, those are offensive and terrible. See, selective outrage. You're proving my point.

I didn't say I believe immigrants are stealing jobs. I'm laying out that illegal immigration - which it is - turned into amnesty during an oncoming double-dip recession is about as tone deaf as it gets, or deliberate. It's one or the other.

As for protest marches...talk about being selective. We're talking a W/O comparison and you jump back to the 60's? Iraq war protests were civil rights marches? Please.

Re: the docudrama. You're arguing metrics? Really? Just because you blow it off now means that was the collective reaction? And I'm being selective? The choice of delivery doesn't negate the intent.

Tell you what, let's reverse the situation and see the reaction. Before a frame would be shot, the left would be screaming about right-wing horrorporn. Expose' would be written about every last person involved. Distributors would be threatened, etc...

"Is it beyond the realm of possibility that he exaggerates the threats?"

You'll have to explain how one exaggerates a death threat (was it a "discomfort threat"?) or wearing a flak jacket.

"...his constant comparison of everything he doesn't like to Nazism, Communism and Fascism..."

So you ARE familiar with exaggeration. Look, I know Beck's work, so I won't be thrown by what someone regurgitates from mediamatters.org (e.g. Beck says the "battle" against the health care bill was lost, but the "war" is not over. Mediamatters says "LOOK! VIOLENT RHETORIC!")

I'm also familiar with the context in which Beck invokes communism, facism, etc. It really is the opposite of how you describe it (i.e. not constant, not broadly applied). OK, he talks about socialism a lot, but isn't that an entirely different animal? It may alarm a libertarian like Beck, but certainly isn't a scary proposition for many on the left.

"Martin I agree that immigration is a divisive, contentious issue. I just don't believe that they are stealing jobs from Americans."

Look no further than new home construction to see direct evidence of illegal immigrants doing jobs that American citizens do. Businesses are in competition for a finite number of bid jobs with other companies who hire illegal immigrants and submit lower bids. I've seen it first hand.

"Stella - Some call W a fascist, others call O a socialist. Same coin, opposite sides."

The entire republican party, from the leadership, through every representative, down do all the paid-spokespeople and various water-carriers in the right-wing media, are calling Obama a socialist, a communist, and worse. Did we see the entire infrastructure of the left, from the top down, calling W a fascist? The suggestion is absurd. Though of course the Bush administration basically declared multiple constitutional rights invalid since it claimed it could legally imprison anyone, for any length of time, and do whatever it wanted to them.

Maybe you are more radical than I thought mystery. Defending the likes of Glenn Beck, someone even ardent conservatives like Peter Wehner, Bill Bennett and John Fund have spoken out against? You can believe what you want, but I do not frequent Media Matters. I've been to the site a handful of times since it launched, and it's only because someone else linked to it. I don't drink the MM kool-aid, regardless of what you think. And I have seen Beck's TV program and heard him on the radio more times than I can count. I have family members who are huge fans and watch/listen to him daily. They also repeat verbatim what he says. His rhetoric is hateful, divisive, obtuse, sometimes incoherent, often completely bonkers and every once in a while hilarious. But he is a repugnant human being. For the record, I don't care for Keith Olbermann either. Or Michael Moore. I don't watch MSNBC. Yes I am a liberal guy but that doesn't mean I frequent Media Matters or Daily Kos or whatever, because I don't. I do know, based on experience (not secondhand) that Glenn Beck is a off his rocker lunatic. I think most people who do drugs daily for 15 years (as he himself admitted) have a few screws loose.

"So you said Brett Ratner is a shitty director...fascinating, original AND interesting!"

I invoked Bruce Lee, which made it as interesting as possible given the length of your response.

Stella- I have no problem defending Beck, when appropriate. Most often, its in response to hyperbole like yours. Your description of Beck mirrors the caricature that many of those on the left promote. Certainly, Beck's idiosyncrasies are ripe for mockery (I could add a few you've neglected), but I'd love to see some actual substantive criticism of the positions he takes.

Of the few you've mentioned, its difficult to argue against the assertion that Obama is propelling us toward central planning/statism. That may fine with you; with Beck, it's not (and it wasn't fine with Beck when Bush did it). Likewise, its no secret that "social justice" has become a euphemism for socialist policy. This may be up your alley; its not up Beck's. Beck has gotten a ton of mileage from Obama appointees, such as Van Jones (self-described Communist), Anita Dunn (cited Mao as one of her favorite political philosophers), and John Holden (advocated forced abortions and sterilants in the water supply for population control). Beck is connecting these dots, rightly or wrongly, but the dots exist.

Obama is clearly a far-left guy; is it beyond the realm of possibility (sound familiar?) that he's further left than you thought?

Christian, since you've called me out for being apathetic, please let us know what you are doing to help solve the problem...are you helping to organize rallies or maybe go into communities and help people or maybe reach out to these militias and show them that liberals can be good people and start a dialogue with them...or do you pretty much limit yourself to complaining on the internet?

Mystery, Obama is not THAT far left.

And how about that Texas Congress fool yelling out "It's a Baby Killer"? Patriots carrying guns outside Presidential townhalls with McVeigh-inspired rhetoric? Perry threatening secession? Beck creating a climate of paranoia among gun owning/militia loonies. Geez, it's not like a libertarian wacko didn't blow up a federal building here not that long ago. And it can't happen again?

BP, I find it gauche to list my socio-political activities as I don't need to prove my street cred to you. One aspect of democracy is an open forum for discussion, like here. And the most bullshit internet comment next to a parent's basement joke is saying, how come you're on the internet instead of fill-in-the-blank. What does that say about you BP?

But to remind you of what kind of president we suffered through for 8 years, here he is showing his class and elitism all over again in Haiti:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DtwkTS9mq8&feature=player_embedded

Big Perm is right. Obama is not that far left. You're drinking the kool-aid mystery. Health care reform is nearly the same as Mitt Romney's. Is Romney a radical leftie (or was he when governor of Massachusetts)? His war policies and lack of progress on gun control have certainly pissed off a lot of Dems/liberals. Is he left-of-center? Sure. Is he far left? Absolutely not. Only the fringe, far-right is arguing that he is far left. I think you are in that crowd though mystery, so nothing I can say is going to convince you that Obama isn't a raging Socialist.

As for Beck, wow, I think it's unfortunate that you are a fan. Social justice is something I heard about at my Catholic middle school as well as Marquette, where I got my B.A. Neither one is a hotbed of commie activity. Far from it. Beck's own church has spoken out against him on this issue. Of course he is very selective in his outrage, and certainly enjoys claiming he's a staunch libertarian. Sorry but I ain't buying it. Was Beck bashing Bush during his presidency, or just with the benefit of hindsight? I didn't watch him back then. I have only seen his show on Fox.

Beck's caricature? The man called himself a clown. He doesn't need any help from the left in painting a caricature.

"Mystery, Obama is not THAT far left."

I'm not suggesting he is, but you know this how? Van Jones is very intelligent, and articulate, and has held positions of power, and is communist. Is it simply because Obama denies it?

I completely understand the push back against the communist label. But socialist? Is it really such a leap? Seems a person can agree with every tenant of the system, but still balk at the label. I realize that it remains unpalatable for the public at large, which makes it politically radioactive. But we all realize that socialism is alive and well in much of the world; it's accompanying ideology thrives on college campuses; hell, there's a contributor to this website that cops to it unapologetically. And why shouldn't she? Bernie Sanders doesn't. Yet many people here act like Obama is being accused of heading the Illuminati.

As far as substantive criticism, I'll give it a try.

His comments about hating the 9/11 victims' families. Fantasizing about killing Michael Moore. Asking the Muslim congressman to prove he is not a terrorist. The president is a racist. Progressives are coming to slaughter you. He called Mary Landrieu a prostitute and Hillary Clinton a stereotypical bitch. The stay in school speech was called indoctrination.

I mean I could go on and on here mystery. There's plenty more where those came from.

Then was Bush a Socialist as well mystery? Because some have made that argument in light of some of his policies (Medicare bill, farm subsidies, No Child Left Behind). Was he also a Socialist?

"But we all realize that socialism is alive and well in much of the world; it's accompanying ideology thrives on college campuses; hell, there's a contributor to this website that cops to it unapologetically."

That word doesn't mean anything anymore except to 1950's Red Scare paranoia folks like you and Beck. And your continued assault on "socialist" colleges that receive federal money (like Berkeley) to create military technology speaks for its own logic.

I know Yanks like to throw around the word "Socialism" whenever someone points out the "have nots" in their society can't support a basic standard of living, but please - Obama is not a Socialist. He's not even CLOSE to being a Socialist. He's waaaaay to the right of European Social Democrats, and even they are only considered centre-left.

The US political spectrum consists of Far Right, Right, and Centre-Right - you don't even have a Left yet. Spend some time in Europe. It'll be an eye opener.

(And can we also please stop with the inference that because someone cites a philosopher as a reference that they advocate a direct application of those teachings? The founding fathers closely studied Machiavelli and yet decided to pass on the opportunity to implement a Rule Through Fear system)

"Seems a person can agree with every tenant of the system..."

Game over, nuff said.

Yes, they are shocked, who woulda thunk:

Federal and local authorities are investigating a severed gas line at the home of U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello’s brother, discovered the day after Tea Party activists posted the address online so opponents could "drop by" and "express their thanks" for Perriello’s vote in favor of health care reform.

The gas line to the home’s propane tank was slashed, according to sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The incident is being viewed as an attempted threat to a member of congress, sources said....

Danville Tea Party leader Nigel Coleman was one of the activists who posted the home’s address online Monday.

Coleman said he is "shocked" and "almost speechless" at the possibility that someone would sever the propane line to Perriello’s brother’s house.

"I obviously condemn these actions," he said. "I would hope that people aren’t thinking about doing anything crazy. We just wanted people to get close to the congressman and have their voices heard. Violence is not going to answer anything. I’m a little shocked and amazed."

Coleman added that he is not certain that the incident is related to the posting of the home’s address. "Of course, we don’t know this is a related event," he said.

Obviously posting someone's home address and encouraging people to "drop by" means have a rational, civilized discussion.

Here's some common sense from David Frum, not exactly a liberal:

"We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds."

Thank you, Foamy.

I mean, Health Care reform stands to financially benefit corporations...it's not a government-run system. How is this socialism? If anything it's just more regulation.

And you can count on Sarah Palin to tweet her advice:

"Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!"

Do you really think Obama got what he wanted, re: health care? He's a proponent of a single-payer system. The public option would have been a better springboard to that objective, but I still believe, as many liberals suggest, that they needed to at least establish a framework for future change, which they have. For the record, I don't like what Romney did in MA.

"His comments about hating the 9/11 victims' families."

He said there were about 10 families of 9/11 victims that he started to hate because they were still on TV a year later asking for more money. It definitely comes off as insensitive, and overly blunt, very "shock jock"-y, but the sentiment isn't outrageous. At SOME POINT (and opinions may differ on when this is), can a victim become greedy and/or manipulative?

"Fantasizing about killing Michael Moore."

In a very tongue-in-cheek way. Still tacky.

"Asking the Muslim congressman to prove he is not a terrorist."

Have you seen that footage? The congressman understood the point Beck was making, and didn't seem offended.

"The president is a racist."

The race card is played way too often. It's been played several times in this thread.

"Progressives are coming to slaughter you."

They can't. We've got all the guns.

"He called Mary Landrieu a prostitute."

Now, now. He called her a HIGH-CLASS prostitute. But that was for selling her health-care vote for $100 million dollars (or was it more)?

"...and Hillary Clinton a stereotypical bitch."

Beck was referring to the sound of her voice, not her personality/behavior. To him, regardless of what she's saying, her voice sounds "naggy" and grating.

Point is, Beck's filter between his brain and his mouth is shoddy. If you're willing to dig for context and intent, many of his comments become much less inflammatory. He doesn't always succeed in navigating potentially risky topics to make delicate points.

"Then was Bush a Socialist as well mystery? Because some have made that argument in light of some of his policies (Medicare bill, farm subsidies, No Child Left Behind). Was he also a Socialist?"

You're the one using the term "socialist" like an alarmist. I'm not. If you see a dark cloud hovering over the word "socialism" when you see me type it, its your own invention. Socialism consists of a particular set of principles, falling in between capitalism and communism, with some overlap. Bush showed some socialist tendencies; Obama shows more. Now, many who disapproved but for years sat idly by have gotten their cages rattled.

"Seems a person can agree with every tenant of the system..."

Game over, nuff said.

Sorry, tenet. For what it's worth, I understand why so many here hate you. I still got love for ya, though.

Oh I'm the alarmist. Not you or Beck. My mistake. Some of your defenses above are pretty weak, to say the least, and you get awfully wishy-washy at times. Another mistake I made was assuming that everyone but radical right-wing nutjobs believe Beck to be an alarmist, hysterical, unhinged propaganda machine. Or wait....

I've watched Beck's hysterical near blubbering and refuse to believe he's being serious. If he is, he's insane. That's why James Cameron isn't as impressed as Nicol:

"He's dangerous because his ideas are poisonous," Cameron answered. "I couldn't believe when he was on CNN. I thought, what happened to CNN? Who is this guy? Who is this madman? And then of course he wound up on Fox News, which is where he belongs, I guess."

Its true. I'm not using "socialism" as a pejorative, but you assume I am. Which is why you've yet to engage me on the topic. It's like you're actually conceding that socialism is the boogeyman Beck claims it is, and you're distancing yourself from the term.

Foamy- I understand that Europe is much much further down that socialist road. But realize that America's founders might scoff at the suggestion that the U.S. currently has a "capitalist" system. Referring to Europe's concept of "left" and "right" just muddies the issue.

palmtree- "I mean, Health Care reform stands to financially benefit corporations...it's not a government-run system. How is this socialism? If anything it's just more regulation."

Its not government-run health care. Certainly not for a lack of trying, but its not. However, more and more federal regulation = more central planning. It's gonna take time.

OK, I do not believe that socialism is the boogeyman Beck claims it is. Clear enough for you? I sure thought it was clear.

Or are you waiting for me to prove that socialism isn't a real threat, like Ellison had to prove to Beck that he isn't a terrorist working with our enemies?

I think ol' Mikey Troxel, who is the guy who published the address is reaping what he sewed. Is that right, or is it sowed? Where's Jeff when you need him? His address has been published as well, and he had a bunch of videos on Youtube that are all gone now. Probably from the shitstorm he took.

Ha, he's from Liberty U, no fucking wonder.

Christian posted part of this already, but this is priceless:

According to the Danville Register & Bee site, when Coleman learned that the address actually belonged to the congressman’s brother, he responded on a blog: “Do you mean I posted his brother’s address on my Facebook? Oh well, collateral damage.”

Coleman told The Daily Progress today that he is “shocked” and “almost speechless” at the possibility that someone would sever the propane line to Perriello’s brother’s house.

http://www2.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/local/crime/article/damage_at_home_of_perriello_brother_under_investigation/54038/

Wow, his job is "media production" as well. That means "unemployed."

"Do you really think Obama got what he wanted, re: health care? He's a proponent of a single-payer system."

Nice try. But that's just not true. If Obama is a socialist, he is doing a bad job of it since HE HASN'T ADVOCATED A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM. I'll go with what Factcheck.org says:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/government-run-health-care/

"Obama hasn’t called for such a government-run plan, also called a “single-payer" plan. In fact, he has flatly rejected it...
Obama has long said he would allow individuals or small businesses to buy insurance through a public plan – like the one now available to members of Congress. But nobody would be forced to drop his or her current insurance, and private plans would exist as they do now. This was the health care plan he promoted as a presidential candidate."

Mystery: thanks for the comment. For what it's worth, you're more able and willing to argue these issues in good faith than most people here. I still think you're mostly wrong though.

"Obama is clearly a far-left guy; is it beyond the realm of possibility (sound familiar?) that he's further left than you thought?"

I hope you're getting paid for that kind of obfuscation mystery, I'm really impressed. Again, the suggestion that Obama is far left is laughable. He surged in Afghanistan for christ's sake. He's got Timmy and Larry whispering sweet nothings in his ear about global capitol. He made sure to coddle AHIP at every step of the debate.

Beck is a demagogue, end of story. I don't actually think he's that important, and probably some lefties get too worked-up over him. He's basically a loathsome clown, playing on (white) people's resentments, fear, and general anger, just like Rush. I don't give a fuck about Beck. A bunch of angry, elderly suburbanites and their oversized cars are not very important in comparison to organized global capitol. It's the exact same thing with the constructed "center" politi-tainment of CNN, or the facile, corporate progressivism of MSNBC. They both push and in a way copy the sensational reactionary politics showcased by Fox. The handful of pathetic middle-aged crackers bringing guns to rallies and throwing bricks at night are contemptible but, their leadership is far to invested in it's own wealth and power to ever radically organize them. It wants them stupid and easily exploited. They're just low rabble. They serve a purpose by providing meaningless political entertainment (OUTRAGE!) to the rest of the media.

"Nice try. But that's just not true. If Obama is a socialist, he is doing a bad job of it since HE HASN'T ADVOCATED A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

Nice try again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDAPLb-HVcM

Obama was for it in 2003, but he hasn't advocated it either as a Presidential candidate or as a President. In other words, he has not gone back on or altered a campaign promise, which is not Mystery's point but something I'd like to point out.

I'm not sure what this change from 2003 means...whether it's a function of choosing something diluted the public would approve of or changing his mind based on new thinking/info or, worst case scenario, getting in bed with certain sectors of the health care industry. I think anyone who claims to know should substantiate it.

But all of this does make Obama a bad socialist...I think any real socialist is just as disappointed and outraged that Obama has chosen to shore up the private corporations running health care rather than a single-payer system.

"I understand that Europe is much much further down that socialist road. But realize that America's founders might scoff at the suggestion that the U.S. currently has a "capitalist" system. Referring to Europe's concept of "left" and "right" just muddies the issue."

Trying to interpret the founder's perspective is something of a fool's errand, especially since corporate law at that time showed a distinct bias towards the public good rather than the corporation. In fact the current concept of "capitalism" was only really introduced through the judicial system rather than the legislative or executive branches - the idea that business ventures are legal entities and that they are worthy of protection under the constitution came from obiter dictum in 1819 and 1886 respectively (the concept of limited liability was imported from the UK around 1860).

Which goes to the second point, in that if you're going to use a particular terminology you should use the definition that is historically applicable and widely accepted - not the definition you wish it to be. Europe's concept of Socialism IS Socialism. They should know - they invented it. It's like watching a couple of trust fund babies calling one of their own "poor" because they got an older model BMW for passing their driving lesson rather than the latest model. Yes, by that relative standard the term applies, but the majority of people will just roll their eyes at such a comment.

Anyone catch John Stewart's parody of Glenn Beck last night on The Daily Show. Man, that was quality.

Also- I mentioned I bet 2 conservative that they would get more tax money back this year and that their health care would be better than it is now in 4 years....neither has responded.

The calls placed to Stupak's office reveal the extreme anger members of Congress are facing.

"Congressman Stupak, you baby-killing mother f***er... I hope you bleed out your a**, got cancer and die, you mother f***er," one man says in a message to Stupak.

"There are millions of people across the country who wish you ill," a woman says in a voicemail, "and all of those thoughts that are projected on you will materialize into something that's not very good for you."

CBS News also obtained copies of faxes sent to Stupak, which include racial epithets used in reference to President Obama and show pictures of nooses with Stupak's name.

Late Saturday night, on the eve of the health care vote, a brick was thrown through the window of the Monroe County Democratic Party headquarters in Rochester, N.Y. A note quoting Barry Goldwater was attached to the brick, reading “extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.”

This came on the heels of shattered windows at Congresswoman Louise Slaughter’s district office in Niagara Falls and a Democratic Party headquarters in Kansas, and just before a similar attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ office in Arizona.

All this follows the online exhortations of militia leader Mike Vanderboegh of Pinson, Alabama – who wrote on his blog “Sipsy Street Irregulars” this past Friday: “if we break the windows of hundreds, thousands, of Democrat party headquarters across this country, we might just wake up enough of them to make defending ourselves at the muzzle of a rifle unnecessary.” The parallels, intentional or not, to the Nazis' heinous 1938 kristallnacht, or “Night of Broken Glass,” so-named for the 7,000 storefront windows that were smashed, are hard to ignore.

“Need I remind you that this side is the one with most of the firearms?”

Like most of his ilk, Mike Vanderboegh sees his calls to violence as patriotic and defensive, designed to stop civil war—“if we are to avoid civil war, we must get their attention BEFORE the IRS thug parties descend upon us each in turn—when we will be forced into dozens of defensive slaughters and then, to end it, forced yet again to call Pelosi and the other architects of this war upon their own people to final account.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-24/militia-targets-democrats/?cid=hp:mainpromo7

WHO FUCKING CARES.

If any of you actually VOTE?

HAHAHAHAHAHA like your one stupid vote makes an iota of difference, and like ANY of this shit affects your day to day whatsoever.

COULD NOT CARE LESS.

Shit, aren't you assholes all like 30-40 years old? Shouldn't you already have perfectly decent insurance as a functional adult via your job or your own personal plan?

So is this FAUX CONCERN just that you care so much about a bunch of stupid, illiterate impoverished idiots you DO NOT KNOW and WOULDN'T DEIGN TO SPEAK TO ANYWAY?

NEWS FLASH: Most POOR PEOPLE are POOR because they're STUPID AS FUCK.

Anyway.

Now even the Republican sites have to start warning its already reloaded audience to chill out...

http://townhall.com/blog/g/f9a0db90-2e68-44f8-86f3-7e82cbac2d7d

More Bottled Piety [Victor Davis Hanson]

This week’s talking point is the sudden danger of new right-wing violence, and the inflammatory push-back against health care. I’m sorry, but all this concern is a day late and a dollar short. The subtext is really one of class — right-wing radio talk-show hosts, Glenn Beck idiots, and crass tea-party yokels are foaming at the mouth and dangerous to progressives. In contrast, write a book in which you muse about killing George Bush, and its Knopf imprint proves it is merely sophisticated literary speculation; do a docudrama about killing George Bush, and it will win a Toronto film prize for its artistic value rather than shock from the liberal community about over-the-top discourse.

Socialism and totalitarianism are tough charges from the hard right, but they seem to me about as (or as not) over-the-top as Al Gore screaming “digital brown-shirts” or John Glenn comparing the opposition to Nazis. When 3,000 were murdered in Manhattan, and Michael Moore suggested Bin Laden had wrongly targeted a blue state, I don’t think that repulsive remark prevented liberal politicians from attending his anti-Bush film premiere. Yes, let us have a tough debate over the role of government and the individual, but spare us the melodrama, the bottled piety, and the wounded-fawn hurt.

Like it or not, between 2001 and 2008, the “progressive” community redefined what is acceptable and not acceptable in political and public discourse about their elected officials. Slurs like “Nazi” and “fascist” and “I hate” were no longer the old street-theater derangement of the 1960s, but were elevated to high-society novels, films, political journalism, and vein-bulging outbursts of our elites. If one were to take the word "Bush" and replace it with "Obama" in the work of a Nicholson Baker, or director Gabriel Range, or Garrison Keillor or Jonathan Chait, or in the rhetoic of a Gore or Moore, we would be presently in a national crisis, witnessing summits on the epidemic of "hate speech."

So here we are with the age-old problem that once one destroys decorum for the sake of short-term expediency, it is very hard to restore it in any credible fashion on grounds of principle when the proverbial shoe is on the other foot. A modest suggestion: If the liberal community wishes to be more credible in its concern about contemporary extremist anti-administration rhetoric, then they might try the following: “Please, let us avoid extremism and do not fall into the same trap as Baker, Chait, Keillor, Gore, Moore, or Range when they either expressed open hatred toward their president, or speculated about the assassination of their president, or compared their president to a fascist. We must disown such extremism, past and present."

Yes, rare insight from one of the great war toadies of the neo-right, Victor Davis Hanson -- the guy who thinks Don Rumsfeld was a "visionary" -- and who can't be bothered to read the populist posts on Townhall and other sites advocating violence while they decry the threats as liberal propaganda.

And the NRCC issues statements like this:

National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Andy Sere said that while his organization doesn't condone the actions of the person or people who cut a gas line at Perriello's brother's house (apparently under the impression that the home was the congressman's), Perriello is not the victim.

"Central and Southside Virginians are the ones who are going to have the bear the burden of increased taxes," Sere told The Roanoke Times. "What you're seeing is a frustration among his constituents who believe he's not listening to them."

... "we're not going to allow Tom Perriello to use one isolated incident as a cynical ploy to distract Virginians from the higher taxes and Medicare cuts he just imposed on them."

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/241055

Here is the thing Martin (and Victor Davis Hanson is a very right-wing guy who I have trouble taking seriously most of the time). It is true that Moore said some crazy stuff and there was that documentary about killing Bush (I can barely even remember it), as well as other examples, but did any of those gain party credibility? Were they all praised and embraced by Democrats? Did Democrats echo their sentiments and use them as part of a platform to get elected? Did leaders of the party rave about the documentary and encourage violent resistance?

Because that is what is going on with the Tea Party movement. They are being embraced by the GOP and Republican leaders. Republicans are egging them on and people like Sarah Palin are using words like "reloaded" while putting gun imagery on her Facebook page. The incendiary rhetoric is being embraced by many in the party.

To me that is the main difference, or one of them. The left and right has crazies. There are fringe elements and always have been. But it seems to me that part of the problem here is the GOP and its leaders trying to walk a fine line between openly embracing the Tea Party and the lunatic fringe while also claiming to deplore violence. They scream "Armageddon" and "baby killer" but when real violence happens of course they say that is wrong. They are playing with fire here, which is why some conservatives are saying chill the f*ck out please.

So the difference here between liberals and conservatives is "literary speculation" and "artistic value" versus "idiots" and "crass ... yokels"??? But otherwise, it's just the same thing? Is that really the argument you'd like to use to condone inciting violence?

'Cause I'm guessing the number of people incited to violence by literary speculation and works of artistic value are not nearly has high as those incited to violence by idiots and crass yokels.

Actually, when I read "The subtext is really one of class," I thought he was saying "class" as in:

"Elegance of style, taste, and manner"

And by that definition, I think he's dead on.

Oh you Republicans, tut tut.

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.

You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.

You didn't get mad when we gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.

You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.

You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.

Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans...oh hell no.

Republicans believe health insurance companies should make as much money as they want from other people's suffering. Don't ask me why they do, they just do.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)