Three things to read today *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Oct 12 2008 at 7:20 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
I’m not going to do anymore blogging today, but I wanted to direct your attention to three articles that I found enlightening. In no particular order:
1. Andrew Klavan’s 5 Myths About Those Tinseltown Liberals, an article that excoriates the hypocrisy of Hollywood.
2. Michelle Malkin’s Crush the Obamedia Narrative : Look Who’s “Gripped by Insane Rage,” a photo and video essay that destroys the media’s new myth that three screamers at McCain-Palin rallies are conclusive proof that conservatives are in the grip of insane, uncontrollable rage.
3. Sol Sander’s Memo to America’s Enemies : Be Careful What You Wish For, an essay casting on encouraging light on America’s continued importance in the world.
UPDATE: Here’s a fourth for you: Patrick the Paragraph Farmer‘s nicely written article explaining precisely why Ayers matters, both because of what he was then and what he is now — not to mention the fact that, even if Obama was ignorant of the former, he knows about and has been complicit in the latter.
UPDATE II: And a fifth, an unusually lucid summary from Melanie Phillips detailing Barack Obama’s dreadful affiliations, and pointing a red hot finger at the media’s assiduous avoidance of those issues, even as it seeks to destroy Sarah Palin.
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
98 Responses to “Three things to read today *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
In the interest of fairness, if you read Michelle Malkin’s column about liberal hatred, please read this, http://helenl.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/2296/. Not all of us want to kill those who disagree with us politically. Rage on either side is insane.
In the interest of fairness- Helen
I don’t think that there is, or will be, much interest in fairness.
Expect things to become extremely ugly regardless who wins this election.
We’re headed over a cliff, and the right will blame the left and the left will blame the right. Few will want to look at the bigger pciture.
I keep remembering this quote from former CIA analyst Chalmers Johnson:
“Four sorrows, it seems to me, are certain to be visited on the United States. Their cumulative effect guarantees that the U.S. will cease to resemble the country outlined in the Constitution of 1787. First, there will be a state of perpetual war, leading to more terrorism against Americans wherever they may be and a spreading reliance on nuclear weapons among smaller nations as they try to ward off the imperial juggernaut. Second is a loss of democracy and Constitutional rights as the presidency eclipses Congressand is itself transformed from a co-equal “executive branch” of government into a military junta. Third is the replacement of truth by propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war, power, and the military legions. Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its citizens..”
Rage on either side is insane- Helen
Obama next to a noose insane?
http://gawker.com/5062489/obama-noose-poster-new-low-in-citizen-propaganda
Obama next to a noose insane?
Don’t you think America has had enough partisanship designed to promote your candidate at the expense of everybody else, Oz?
Not all of us want to kill those who disagree with us politically.
That is neither the point nor a requirement.
Not all Muslims are radical or extremist, but it only takes a few to convince the many to follow.
Ozzie, I worry that you are a truly unhappy person and that it is seriously clouding your judgment and sense of perspective. Or, perhaps, it is the other way around. Take a deep breath or two, go outside and look around at flowers and trees. We’re OK, you’re OK…really!
Ozzie, I worry that you are a truly unhappy person and that it is seriously clouding your judgment and sense of perspective.- Danny
Thanks for your concern, Danny, but, oddly enough, while I’m wholly pessimistic about America’s near future, I’m not unhappy.
I believe that regardless who wins this election, America is about to undergo some very painful changes and that people across the political spectrum will be looking for scapegoats.
If you want to contiune to think that one political party is good and honorable and just, while the other is vile and populated by people and followers who are equally vile, have at it.
But I feel as if we’re living in a time of profound Historical significance, from which neither candiate can shield us…And that there is great liberation is stepping back and looking at the bigger picture.
Ozzie,
You look very much to me like someone standing in the middle of no-mans-land while errant shells from boths sides fall around you, yelling futilely for both sides to stop.
But this is war, an ideological war where one side believes the answer lies with the individual and to the extent possible destinies are to be worked out with little state intervention and the other side believes the answer lies with the state and the needs of the group will provide comfort to the individual.
Both groups poorly live up to their ideals, but the two ideologies are incompatible distinct paths, and you would do well to choose one side, however imperfect and start the long difficult road of improving its vision.
Where you stand now, to be ridiculed by one side, and dismissed by the other, proves nothing and improves nothing.
Pick a side and join the battle.
You really don’t think we don’t see the clay feet of our leaders do you?
But this is war, an ideological war . . ..- Brian
I beleive that the ideological war is an artificial construct, Brian and reject it outright.
I feel that being on “one side” automatically blinds a person, and it its most extreme forms (which we’re now seeing from across the spectrum), leads to an “anything goes” mentality and the dehumanization of “the other.”
Meanwhile Congress and lobbyists use this war for thier own political gain, as everyday Americans get shafted.
” Pick a side and join the battle” – Brian
I will do what my conscience tells me to do, Brian.
Where you see an ideological war, I see artifical contructs and “politics as usual.”
A depression looms, for God’s sake and BOTH politcal parties are to blame, but when you listen to those consumed by anger, fear and hate, they are only seeing what confirms their beliefs and fuels thier rage.
When things get worse, people will take this “battle” to heart.
Join the battle? Thanks, but no thanks.
I don’t think that there is, or will be, much interest in fairness.
There probably isn’t. There certainly isn’t when people say things will become “extremely ugly regardless who wins this election” while only providing implications of violence if Obama loses.
We’re headed over a cliff, and the right will blame the left and the left will blame the right.
To be a partisan is to be for your party over all other loyalties or duties. The Geneva Conventions define a partisan as being a fighter for a side regardless of whether the partisan is officially part of either side’s forces or not. The partisan could be mercenaries that only fight for the side that pays them the most, yet they are still partisans. They could be people who openly advocate that both sides are wrong, that both sides should lose, yet provide their support to one side over the other.
The myth that the only people fighting here are the “right” and the “left” is false and ridiculous. There are the Ozs of the world. There are the neutrals. There are the traitors, the betrayers, and the partisans, the mercenaries, the status quo keepers, and casual murderers that prefer the sanction of one side or another so that they can justify their sprees with the status of “partisan”. They are a partisan to the conflict under the protection of one side or another, one faction or another, one party or another.
Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its citizens..
Socialism has their partisans, official, unofficial, conventional, and terrorist just as capitalists do. The real question is a question of guilt, of criminal negligence, and of accountability.
Regardless of whether your cause is just, what matters is whether people’s decisions, right here and right now, are free of guilt, wrongness, and injustice.
To have no guilt and to be unjust both at the same time is a state of affairs fit only for animals. To have guilt while acting with justice can only be expected from the fallible state of human nature we exist in. To have no guilt and to act with justice to all is fair and ideal, yet it is also extremely rare. Few soldiers can tolerate the death of civilians by their orders simply because they know their actions are just, their cause just, and the actions of their enemies in using human shields to be unjust and cruel. Few soldiers can conduct such actions free of guilt, before, during, or afterwards. That is why it is so rare, for to conduct and maintain justice in this world requires that your hands get bloody and dirty. Truman had to obliterate two cities for the cause of justice and he felt plenty of guilt for it. That in no way changed the consequences of his actions, neither for the victims nor for those saved in the long term.
Bankruptcy is a neutral state of affairs and it can be a goal designed to further justice or even injustice. What matters is not what the goal is for. What matters is not what capitalism tells you it is for or what socialism tells you it is for. It does not matter whether capitalism provides you the utopia people seek or whether socialism does. It does not matter what capitalists or socialists promise they will do or claim what their enemies will do to you. What matters are the actions of individuals: their justice, their injustice, their guilt and the lack of it.
There can be no justice, whether microscopically or macroscopically, in those that wear the mantel of pride and honor yet ignore cruelties and justify outrageous thefts and acts of crime. They are not fair, they are not just, and they are not qualified to have honor.
Anyone and any side/faction/organization/party/terrorist group that insinuates, claims, implies, or explicitly states that the just actions of American individuals in saving the souls and lives of Iraqis, human beings, in the world as “grandiose military projects” are no friend to the just.
Anyone and any side/faction/organization/party/terrorist group that insinuates, claims, implies, or explicitly states “education, health, and safety of its citizens” as a Natural Good, irregardless of the justice or injustice of the cause and irregardless of the justice and injustice of the actions used to carry through to that cause, are no friend the downtrodden: the Vietnamese that were re-educated, the Jews that were experimented on by German doctors interested in the health of the Super Race, the Iraqis that fake liberals claimed were safer under Saddam’s terror than America’s hope of a new dawn.
Education, health, and safety are no more an intrinsic good than military projects are. Yet to conflate the good with the evil, and the evil with the good, goes beyond the bounds of common decency. To interchange the victim with the victimizer is no favor to truth or justice.
As Bookworm has stated, and I agree with her regardless of any minor details in expression, writ, or execution I may have with her, there are those that believe in the state and there are those that believe in the dignity and rights of the individual.
Obama next to a noose insane?
To me, a clear sign of insanity is to become a partisan to the conflict while hypocritically calling people like us partisans and therefore unwise and unenlightened to boot.
Few will want to look at the bigger pciture.
The bigger picture is not rendered crystal clear to any human being. To claim otherwise, to even attempt to believe otherwise, is folly and cruelty to the kind.
There is no compassion, no worth, no truth or justice or honor in believing that people only believe and act as they do, as we do, because we have not yet seen this “bigger picture” the statists always talk about.
Ozzie said:
What is your definition of a depression?
I agree that both parties are to blame, since the Republicans went along with this scheme to increase home ownership by giving mortgages to people with poor credit, without sufficient reward for the risk being taken. As to the philosophy that increased ownership would reduce the alienation by any segment of the population, all it did was increase the sense of entitlement.
I must run with a different crowd, because I haven’t heard those consumed by anger, fear and hate, and only want their rage satiated.
The solutions to the credit meltdown will matter, but if we think we can survive without pain, we’re deluding ourselves.
I never hear any solutions from you, just that we’re screwed.
As to the bailout, or the Wall St full employment act, what I read indicates this is a global economic war to determine the center of financial influence.
I beleive that the ideological war is an artificial construct, Brian and reject it outright.
This is entirely inconsistent with Oz’s previous positions. She thinks we don’t see the big picture. She has already taken a side, Brian. You just don’t know what side it is, since her side is dictated by her beliefs, which are mercurial depending on what propaganda line she finds worthy. She will support the political opponents of McCain because of Sarah Palin. What more can you do (except openly declare yourself for Obama) in considerations of becoming a partisan for one side or another? The Left has gone against Sarah Palin and Oz agrees with their sentiments, if not their actual methods. But then again, maybe Prescott Bush agreed with Hitler’s sentiment of improving the economy and eliminating crime, but not Hitler’s eventual methods to accomplish such sentiments. Take this example.
Paul Krugman is trembling: “Something very ugly is taking shape on the political scene: as McCain’s chances fade, the crowds at his rallies are, by all accounts, increasingly gripped by insane rage…What happens when Obama is elected? It will be even worse than it was in the Clinton years. For sure there will be crazy accusations, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see some violence.”
Oz isn’t standing in the middle. Oz is taking Krugman’s side. And then saying she is neutral. That cannot ever be consistent for it is self-contradictory. You cannot support and take the side of one party in a conflict and then switch it around and say you are neutral, while at the same time lambasting Krugman’s enemies and providing no support to Krugman’s enemies. Does declaring that the 2000 elections and the 2004 elections were stolen by BUsh, that the 2008 elections will be stolen by McCain, thus guaranteeing voter dissatisfaction regardless of whether McCain or Obama wins, a declaration of neutrality, Brian?
Have you not studied the Palestinian conflict and seen what their version of “neutrality” is? They aren’t neutral: neither Arafat, the leaders, nor their followers.
You can’t hate the Jews and work for their destruction and then say you want peace on both sides. That’s fake. A deception and a manipulation.
I feel that being on “one side” automatically blinds a person, and it its most extreme forms (which we’re now seeing from across the spectrum), leads to an “anything goes” mentality and the dehumanization of “the other.”
Congratulations goes to Oz for dehumanizing the Iraqis, their allies, their enemies, Americans, Democrats, and Republicans. That may or may not constitute the entirety of the human species, but it is enough for Oz’s conscience, surely.
I never hear any solutions from you, just that we’re screwed.
What you should hear is something Oz has already told you.
Thanks for your concern, Danny, but, oddly enough, while I’m wholly pessimistic about America’s near future, I’m not unhappy.
To a certain extent, what kind of person can stare the mass murder of an entire nation’s traditions and history and not be “unhappy”, Brian? To a certain extent, what kind of a person can sacrifice and shed blood and tears for the Iraqi people and not be unhappy that the Iraqi people will suffer whole lot more before things get better? What kind of a person, I ask you Brian, is loyal to the big picture of America while at the same time not being unhappy over the suffering that people will go through in the short term because of things blind people did?
The ends justify the means, as Book implied correctly.
Y,
I guess I’m an optimist that hopes Ozzie will see the futility of her futility.
Take a deep breath or two, go outside and look around at flowers and trees. We’re OK, you’re OK…really!
If America was okay, given the state of things Oz has presented for us, then Oz would then truly be unhappy.
it is only through destruction, through suffering and the tearing down of all that Americans have built for themselves, that Oz thinks things will get better here in America given the problems that she sees.
That’s not exactly the type of solution people like me favor and it isn’t the type of solution you favor, either, if I am right.
For example, people believed Iraq could only get better by allowing Sunnis and Shia and Kurds to slaughter each other. Partition Iraq so they could end up fighting each other for centuries just like the disunited Europeans have done and are still doing.
Classical liberals like me, individualists like Book, and neo-cons like Neo-Neocon disagreed. General Petraeus disagreed. Bush disagreed. We refused to believe that we had to burn down the village as the only option to save the people in that village.
What is your definition of a depression?- Brian
A lot of economists are saying that conditions are similar to those of 1929, and are not soundng terribly optimistic. I take their word for it. I think we’ll know by mid-2009 if it’s as bad as they suggest.
“I agree that both parties are to blame, since the Republicans went along with this scheme to increase home ownership by giving mortgages to people with poor credit, without sufficient reward for the risk being taken. As to the philosophy that increased ownership would reduce the alienation by any segment of the population, all it did was increase the sense of entitlement.- Brian
That’s the problem with only listening to one side of the story, Brian. Did you see the anger at people at McCains’ rallies, decrying to “socialism” that led to this mess? If you believe that the Democrats are to blame and that it was all about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and helping undeserving poor people, and that Republicans “only went along with it,” then I can see why you’d be so angry and concerned about socialism, even though it’s not the whole truth.
I already posted how the Bush adminstration prevented states from protecting citizens from predatory ledning, but people here have remarked that it’s still the Democrats fault, becasue of the person who was head of the OCC at the time was a Clinton nominee..
But there’s even more to this story.
From Today’s USA Today:
How Congress set the stage for a fiscal meltdown
“. . . No single government decision sparked the crisis, but collectively the candidates had a point: Both parties in Congress played important roles in setting the stage for the ongoing financial meltdown.
They did so in moves that reflected not just their ideological priorities, but also the wishes of special interests that have spent millions aggressively lobbying Washington and contributing to lawmakers’ campaigns.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-10-12-congress-meltdown_N.htm
When you try to look for the Truth, you simply can’t get consumed with self-righteous hatred and deomonization of half the country.
The folls at Democratic Underground are certain Republican Greed is to blame.
Partisan nonsense does lead to Truth.
We refused to believe that we had to burn down the village as the only option to save the people in that village.
And what saved those people in that village, Danny? What saved Iraqis from cruelty and torture by Al Qaeda, starvation, violence, insecurity, and economic collapse, Brian? What saved the retarded Sunni tribesmen from their own customs and arrogance and inshallah?
American military working to the death to create a better world. American civilians providing as much support, moral and physical, as they could, not as they would.
That is people solving things. That is people getting their hands dirty in the real world to save real women and children.
Partisan nonsense does lead to Truth- me
Opps! I meant to say “Does NOT lead to Truth”
What saved the retarded Sunni tribesmen from their own customs and arrogance and inshallah?
Addendum. Forgot to mention the heroic Iraqi martyrs that put on a pair of cojonnes and lead their people to save themselves. One of those Sheiks were assassinated through treachery at the height of the Al Anbar Awakening.
You can be an Oz and call such things a “mistake” like the partisanship blindness Oz attributes to Democrats and Republicans, both individual and party leadership, if you wish. That will not be my path, however.
“A lot of economists are saying that conditions are similar to those of 1929…” -Ozzie
Can you give me a couple of names.
Ozzie, your posts are so full of hyperbole, it’s hard to carry on a conversation.
“Did you see the anger at people at McCains’ rallies, decrying to “socialism” that led to this mess? If you believe that the Democrats are to blame and that it was all about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and helping undeserving poor people, and that Republicans “only went along with it,” then I can see why you’d be so angry and concerned about socialism, even though it’s not the whole truth.” – Ozzie
Do I sound angry? and so what is the whole truth? What did cause the collapse of the credit market, and cause banks to begin hoarding cash?
Of all the events we can criticize, that can be defended in principal, even if not in practice, the one that fails the test is the announcement in 1999 by Franklin Raines that Fannie Mae intended on taking on $2 trillion dollars in subprime loans by 2010. They beat the number buy a margin, and here we are!
From a 1999 speech by Franklin Raines:
This sounds suspiciously like socialism to me, since the government guarantees were always implicit with Fannie.
Here’s the problem with rescuing families from subprime lending– subprime rates are a function of credit worthiness. As we will now be paying for for some time– you can change the name, but if the ability to repay isn’t there– it’s a subprime loan whatever you call it!
Do I sound angry?- Brian
I wasn’t talking about you, Brian. I was talking about one of the foaming-at-the- mouth types videotaped at one of the McCain/Palin rallies.
” As we will now be paying for for some time– you can change the name, but if the ability to repay isn’t there– it’s a subprime loan whatever you call it!- Brian
And what i’m saying is that this goes beyond Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the subprime crisis.
Republicans like Phil Gramm are also to blame for pushing deregulation, as is the Bush administration for squelching state laws to protect consumers.
Some say it stems back to 1971, when we went off the gold standard.
Some say the bailout will lead to the collapse of the dollar, and others say that the U.S coud alcaully default on its loans.
And David Walker is saying that the U.S government is teetering on the brink of financial ruin (and has been since budget restraints experied in 2002), with both presidential candidates poised to make matters worse
There is a LOT going on here, with both parties sharing blame.
Ozzie, your posts are so full of hyperbole, it’s hard to carry on a conversation- Brian
Here’s some REAL hyperbole, Brian, regarding Christopher Hitchens’ decision to back Obama:
BREAKING: HITCH SMOKES TWO PACKS, DRINKS 5TH OF SCOTCH, ENDORSES TERRORIST
Of course, its a joke….
For the most part, the Ayers thing is turning off voters and independents, but videotape of McCain/Palin supporters show that some honestly believe that Obama is a terrorist.
And what i’m saying is that this goes beyond Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the subprime crisis.
That’s your justification, your Dan Rather justification, for the election hacking as well. Your allegations of election hacking, that you don’t have proof because it can’t be proved. Now you say that it “goes beyond”, which coincidentally means that any actual proof of it is no longer required due to the fact that you could always acquire a “greater” and higher proof that isn’t related to FM.
When things go beyond the evidence, you should stop believing in it.
Some say this, some say that, David Walker says… This is the reason why you see the big picture and we don’t?
There is a LOT going on here, with both parties sharing blame.
Some say there is a lot going on here. Some say both parties are to blame or some say one party is to blame and another says the other party is to blame?
Is the fact that Democrats accuse the Republicans of corruption and that Republicans accuse the Democrats of corruption proof that all such allegations are true simply because you say both parties share blame because both parties are blaming each other? Like the Israeli Palestinian conflict where each side makes accusations about the other and thus shares in the blame for the deaths of women and children? Like the Iraqis and the American military shares in the blame for civilian casualties because we blame the terrorists and the terrorists blame us?
This is your version of the truth but it isn’t correct epistemology. It is not how you get to the truth. It is how you believe in lies. It is how you become unable to differentiate, via moral and cultural relativism, the right from the wrong, the truth from the false, and the virtuous from the vice filled.
Opps! I meant to say “Does NOT lead to Truth”
People here should already see the literal contradiction that Oz refuses to see. If partisan nonsense does not lead to the truth, then what exactly is Oz doing using partisan nonsense as evidence of her claims? She claims Republicans are criticizing Republicans in elections and that is why Republicans are more of a threat than Democrats because Republicans need to wig elections to win and Democrats don’t? She claims that partisan claims does not lead to the truth yet Oz believes her truth is illuminated by repeating the same lines as Paul Krugman, Bush stole the 2000 election, and any number of other nonsense the Left says that Oz will repeat here?
How is it, truly, that both parties are guilty of being wrong and this is only based upon the evidence that both parties make accusations of each other?
Really, it is all too transparent by now.
Heh.
The DJIA closed _900_ points up today!
Do I know what that means? Do I know that the same average won’t go down tomorrow? No…but there’s life in the old dog yet! And where there’s life, there’s hope..!
Capitalism is good.
She claims that partisan claims does not lead to the truth yet Oz believes her truth is illuminated by repeating the same lines as Paul Krugman, Bush stole the 2000 election, and any number of other nonsense the Left says that Oz will repeat here?- Ymar
Did Paul Krugman say that Bush stole the 2000 election? Actually, it was a variety of things: From the Nov. 2000 Washington Post story regarding 16,000 disppearing votes to investigations of Databasa Technology’s overreaching voter purge, to Clint Curtis’ stunning testimony.
But if Paul Krugman also said so, that’s way cool!
Ozzie,
Not all economists think we’re headed for a depression, pointing out this is a crisis in the credit markets, and to this point hasn’t affected the non-financial markets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10mulligan.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&ref=opinion
“When you try to look for the Truth, you simply can’t get consumed with self-righteous hatred and deomonization of half the country.”- Ozzie
This is the hyperbole I’m talking about.
What Ozzie is doing is carrying the water for the left. Laying the rhetorical flourish needed by the media filters to condemn conservatives for whatever happens– if McCain wins it was the “soccer mom” coded racism of Palin and the stolen elections, the demonization; if Obama wins the conservative backlash will be the rage and self-righteous hatred driving any criticism of his administration.
Neat trick, Ozzie. Don’t you ever get splinters sitting on that fence?
But, as Y, would say, you’re not really sitting on the fence, are you?
Not all economists think we’re headed for a depression, pointing out this is a crisis in the credit markets, and to this point hasn’t affected the non-financial markets- Brian
Not all, no. But I just spent the last two hours speaking to a financial expert/client who says that things are worse than many think.
“What Ozzie is doing is carrying the water for the left’ : Brian
Oddly enough, though said client spent some time working with Nancy Reagan, she and I agreed almost to a tee about today’s political situtation.
Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for this mess, politicians can’t be trusted and some scary/faudulent nonsense has transpired in recent years.
We both agree that it doesn’t really matter who wins this election, except for the fact that neither one of us want Sarah Palin anywhere near the White House.
If that’s carrying water for the left, so be it. (Though I thought carrying water for the left meant swooning over Obama, Pelosi, et al).
Did Paul Krugman say that Bush stole the 2000 election?
Plenty of Democrats say that. As for Krugman, I don’t read him regularly so I wouldn’t presume to speak for him. However, the words I quoted from him speaks the same message as yours, Oz. Focus on that, if you can.
But if Paul Krugman also said so, that’s way cool!
I don’t agree that blind partisan loyalty to your cause is “cool”.
Oddly enough, though said client spent some time working with Nancy Reagan
Again, all the people you seem to think justifies your points are claimed by you as Republicans or those that worked with Republicans or the wives of Republicans. This does not mean that the Republican party needs to rig elections. This actually means that Republicans are far more honest than Democrats, Democrats who do not criticize their own in any way shape or form.
That’s not odd, Oz, that’s proof that you don’t know what you are talking about when you say that Republicans are a great threat to representative democracy than Democrats. The party that criticizes itself is more of a threat to liberty than the party that has people like you and Obama as protectors and figureheads, Oz? Come on.
Ozzie,
“Republicans like Phil Gramm are also to blame for pushing deregulation…”- Ozzie
What specific regulations did Phil Gramm push for “de-regulation” that caused the credit crisis, and how did it do it?
I can’t STAND George W. Bush and think that the past 8 years have been disastrous for this country.-Oz
Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for this mess, politicians can’t be trusted and some scary/faudulent nonsense has transpired in recent years.-Oz
What part of “I can’t stand George W. Bush” contains “Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame”? Zero, of course.
When you try to look for the Truth, you simply can’t get consumed with self-righteous hatred and deomonization of half the country
But you can be consumed by dislike and hatred of Bush and demonization of Bush and Republicans. That’s perfectly okay, it seems.
I decry the kind of partisanship that prevents people from looking at the bigger picture or investigating anything that goes agsint the “My team is best!” mantra.
I agree that Democrats have engaged in voter fraud, but I believe that the GOP has engaged in election fraud on a much wider scale.-Oz on the banana Republic thread
Whenever you say Democrats and Republicans are to balme for X, I always remember your point that started off with “I decry” and ended up with “but”.
I support the troops, but… I believe Saddam was evil, but…
But what? Qualified statements mean nothing. The exact reason why you stay away from them, Oz. Except 95% of the time when you want to accuse people who disagree with you as being partisan compared to your pristine self.
Whenever you talk about politicians and what not and about problems and hacking, you are talking about Republicans. You know it, I know it, and the readers by now should already know it.
Oddly enough, though said client spent some time working with Nancy Reagan, she and I agreed almost to a tee about today’s political situtation.
“Though said client spent time working with Nancy Reagan”? As if that meant she should have been blinded by partisan folds that Oz is free of? As if.
At the same time you try to dishonorably use people’s associations to cover your extreme amount of prejudice against Bush and the Republicans, Oz, you are also surprised that any Republicans, real Republicans like Reagan and Palin, could agree with you. But you shouldn’t be surprised, for they aren’t Republicans like Reagan or Palin just because they worked for the wife of Reagan. Assuming you aren’t making this kind of stuff up or she wasn’t.
and some scary/faudulent nonsense has transpired in recent years.
Like all your other qualificatons, the hidden and deceptive note that you refuse to be frank with us on is the “but”. There is always a but to your statements and qualifications about “both” parties doing such things. The qualification is simple and it is something you let loose awhile ago.
I agree that Democrats have engaged in voter fraud, but I believe that the GOP has engaged in election fraud on a much wider scale.-Oz again
You tend to know and listen to a lot of Republicans in the vote fraud. Where is your evidence of Democrat vote fraud, did you get that evidence from people like Book?
So we have someone who is openly sided with people like Obama, Oz, spreading the propaganda message of the Democrat party almost word for word, as Krugman proved, while at the same time using Republicans as the example why Republicans are to blame while at the same time saying some Democrats, who Oz apparently have no idea concerning their identity, are also to blame.
You know many Republicans to blame, Oz. You have many Republicans you use to shield against criticisms of your bias. But you have no evidence to backup your statement of Democrat voting fraud or actions.
When the evidence falls short of your beliefs, Oz, maybe you should honestly look over your beliefs and change them to fit the evidence.
What specific regulations did Phil Gramm push for “de-regulation” that caused the credit crisis, and how did it do it?- Brian
From Today’s USA Today:
“But Gramm, chairman of the banking committee, was not satisfied. Gramm told USA TODAY at the time he wanted language making clear that banking products could not be regulated by the commodities agency. After the fall election, leaders of both parties cut a deal and in December 2000 inserted it in the budget bill.
“The work of this Congress will be seen as a watershed, where we turned away from the outmoded, Depression-era approach to financial regulation,” Gramm said then.
The wall against regulation was a watershed in another way. Financial services employees and political action committees made $308.6 million in political donations in 2000, up from $175 million in the previous presidential election year, says the Center for Responsive Politics. Wall Street and the banking, insurance and real estate industries spent $3.2 billion on lobbying in the past decade, the center reports. AIG spent $73 million.
More than a quarter of the $3.9 million in campaign money Gramm raised from 1997 through 2002 came from the financial services sector, and nine of his top 10 donors, grouped by economic interest, were employees of financial companies that use or trade in derivatives, according to election records compiled by the center.
Gramm, who left office in 2003 and went to work for UBS, was a top economic adviser to GOP presidential nominee John McCain until he stepped down in July after saying the USA had become “a nation of whiners” about the economy.
Noting that he has always favored deregulation, Gramm scoffs at the idea he was influenced by campaign money. The derivatives provision didn’t cause the credit collapse, he adds.
“The crisis was caused by government,” Gramm says. He cites the Community Reinvestment Act, which he says “forced banks to make subprime (mortgage) loans” to people who couldn’t afford them.
Democrats, including Harkin, and many economic analysts dispute that. As for what he learned, Harkin says, “Don’t pay attention to Wall Street when it comes to issues like this.”
What part of “I can’t stand George W. Bush” contains “Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame”? Zero, of course.- Ymar
My husband is a Republican. Most of his friends are Republicans. Like me, they can’t stand George Bush. And they think Sarah Palin is God-awful.
Not everyone “falls in line,” you see, though you can ask David Frum, Kathleen Parker and others who dare speak their minds what happens when they share opinions that aren’t in lockstep with the GOP.
But as for Bush’s part in this mess? So far, it look as as if preventing states from enacting legislation and protecting consumers from predatory lending and pushing the “Ownership society” are his main sins, though the client I spoke with this evening says there is a lot of squirrely stuff that’s yet to be revealed.
She likened it to putting mentos in a coke bottle and says the whole thing finally exploded.
When I said Democrats and Republicans are both responsible for this mess, I meant lawmakers. I already posted the USA Today article which addressed both parties’ cupability, but factcheck.org also has a rundown:
Who Caused the Economic Crisis?
MoveOn.org blames McCain advisers. He blames Obama and Democrats in Congress. Both are wrong.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html
My husband is a Republican. Most of his friends are Republicans. Like me, they can’t stand George Bush.
That Republican party lock step is strong mojo man. We need some of that at Bookworm Room.
And they think Sarah Palin is God-awful.
What are these supposed Republican’s position on the 2nd Amendment, the First Amendment, Abortion, and Iraq, Oz? In fact, what are your positions on these things. You want to talk about Republicans being blind. Fine. Let’s talk about your Republicans.
What are these supposed Republican’s position on the 2nd Amendment, the First Amendment, Abortion, and Iraq, Oz? – Ymar
They’re businessmen Republicans, Ymar and own golf clubs instead of guns.
I cant speak for my husband’s friends, but he was totally against the war in Iraq and doesn’t talk about abortion. (I have been married to him for 25 years and it’s never come up).
But he and his friends speak every Wenesday night and mostly agree that McCain seems lost and that Palin is absolutely awful.
Like I said, they “dont fall in line.”
I could never be married to anyone who did.
Ozzie says,
> They’re businessmen Republicans, Ymar and own golf clubs instead of guns.
I have a very strong suspicion that Ozzie’s Republicans loooooove David Brooks, and George Will, and Peggy Noonan, and, unfortunately right now, Charles Krauthammer. They hate Sarah Palin!
They’re “businessman Republicans”! Pray tell, Ozzie: What is a businessman Republican?
I’ll tell you: A businessman Republican does *not* believe in individualism and individual freedom and responsibility, in a limited national government. These “businessman Republicans” believe all that is old hat, discredited. The new Republican way is a strategic partnership with the federal government, relying on “enlightened management techniques” in “partnership, cooperation and collaboration” with the federal government. “Efficiency” in operation is what is critical, not “wasteful dog-eat-dog competition”.
There is a *reason* these so-called businessman Republicans hate Sarah Palin. Don’t be fooled. As Book has noted, they are Statist, not Individualist. Don’t be fooled. No true Individualist could hate Sarah Palin. Unless Ozzie is lying or distorting – and being an Obama supporter, both are possible – these so-called Republicans of hers ought to go ahead and register as Statist Democrats now.
Ozzie,
I can see by this article that your husband and friends that are Conservatives are going to really thrive under Obama.
Hundreds of Economists Sign Letter Opposing Obama’s Tax Plan
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10/hundres-of-econ.html
Ozzie,
So you’re saying that the CFMA of 2000 caused the credit crisis of 2008?
Very convenient that the product designed to protect the risk of the Fannie Mae subprime loans caused the crisis and not the subprime loans themselves.
Harkin, by the way, was a co-sponsor of the bill.
“The crisis was caused by government,” Gramm says. He cites the Community Reinvestment Act, which he says “forced banks to make subprime (mortgage) loans” to people who couldn’t afford them.”
Gramm is right, though liberals have to find cover for the catastrophic social policy that precipitated the crisis. Can’t have a holy grail of democrat social policies shown for what it is– disastrous economic policy.
I said “No true Individualist” could hate Sarah Palin. I stand by that; it does not mean that they must love her. But they’d never use the word “hate”. Or “abhor”. Or “appalled by”. Or “cancer”.
By the use of these words they can be known for what they are: haters of Individualism.
Ozzie,
Gotta love your fellow travelers.
Ozzie,
Since we’re placing blame on de-regulation, let’s add Alan Greenspan to the list of guilty deregulators.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greenspan.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&em
There is a *reason* these so-called businessman Republicans hate Sarah Palin.- Mike
My husband, who is not a rigid idelogue, believes Palin is ridiculous. And the Palin pick sealed the deal for me, too. I live in a swing state, but 7 out of 10 people I know are Republicans. Out of about 25 or so people I’ve spoken to about this, only ONE of them wasn’t disturbed by Palin.
Conservatives who have made this observation have been lambasted for it. Kathleen Parker, David Fum and others have had vitriol sent their way.
The fringe is nasty. Across the board.
“Can’t have a holy grail of democrat social policies shown for what it is– disastrous economic policy – Brian
I know you believe it’s all the Democrats, fault, Brian. The people at Democratic Underground and Moveon.org believe that Republicans are to blame. If you make the case by cherry-picking information, while ignoring other evidence, you’ll never get to the truth.
By the use of these words they can be known for what they are: haters of Individualism- Mike
I’ve known my husband for 30 years, Mike. And I’ve known myself ever longer.
Her “individualism” has nothing to do with it.
Ozzie,
Gotta love your fellow travelers- Rock
My fellow travelers?
Oh, please. I know where the polticians stand on the issues. But I dont really trust campaign promises and/or party platforms anyway.
I dont like the neocons or the Religious Right.
Though Bill Kristol is shying away from McCain these days, he continues to sing Sarah Palin’s praises. And the Council for National Policy can’t control their glee.
I’m voting against the special interests that trouble me the most. And Sarah Palin is their gal.
I stand by it. If your husband is “appalled” by Sarah Palin, or “hates” her, etc… your husband is not an Individualist, but a Statist.
A fight is coming for the heart and soul of conservatism, and the Statists are not going to be welcome, not any longer. Bush/Paulson have screwed the pooch for the last time. There’s not a supporter of Individualism among all the so-called conservative commentators on ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN. They’ve all sold their soul to the set of criteria I noted above, those “corporatists” who prefer to be in bed with Big Government, claiming “cooperation and collaboration” with Big Government is the direction to go. This is not just Elitism – it is Elitism in complete violation of classical liberalism, in complete violation of everything conservatism is supposed to be about.
As far as I’m concerned, the war is on. It’s too late for this year, so a McCain must receive the vote. But conservatives need to take a look at what we can possibly stand for, and Statist Democrat-Lite ain’t it.
Until I hear a passionate defense of classical liberalist conservatism from any of those so-called conservative commentators that your husband loves, Ozzie, they are persona-non-grata to me. They have to prove themselves all over again.
(And by passionate, I do not mean a Bob-Dornan-ugly-rant, and I don’t mean angry. Ronald Reagan managed passionate defense/apologia of true conservatism. The new spokesmen and women, the new leaders of conservatism, will be able to as well.)
Ymar and own golf clubs instead of guns.
Interesting. Golf clubs? Wouldn’t they be those rich and corrupt Republicans the Democrats are talking about here that are putting the torch to the poor’s life savings?
The same kind of people the Left sees Bush as: rich, spoiled, and out to screw the little people?
Like I said, they “dont fall in line.”
Are they only Republicans because they like lower taxes then? They don’t sound like many conservative that I know that are politically aware and are interested in the fundamental social, legal, and military matters of America. They sure do exist, but they’re not the people that usually solves things.
Out of about 25 or so people I’ve spoken to about this, only ONE of them wasn’t disturbed by Palin.
You guys definitely ain’t Southerners or US Marines. The gun issue is a pretty big clue on the latter, business has nothing to do with it, and the whole “disturbed” by Sarah palin shows ya off on the former.
Government, claiming “cooperation and collaboration” with Big Government is the direction to go.
it’s always easier to off the competition if you already have politicians bought and paid for while the small businesses and upstart competition haven’t even started off the ground yet. It pays to get ownership first, Mike. Then you can put in all kinds of restrictions and extra legal problems that small businesses and competitors, who haven’t got their bought and paid for politicians, have to spend huge sums on lawyers to even keep even.
A fight is coming for the heart and soul of conservatism, and the Statists are not going to be welcome, not any longer- Mike
He wont care if the Republicans dont want him. In fact, he’s not even going to vote because he finds the ticket so weak.
Out of four of us in my family, only two are voting this year.
I dont like the neocons or the Religious Right.
I think I understand, finally, why you continually lambast the Republican party and use Republicans as evidence of why Republicans have a problem. You believe yourself to be part of the Republican party or least many people that you know believe themselves to be Republicans. This would naturally inculcate a sense that you own the party or at least a certain familiarity with the party. You haven’t criticized Bush or Palin on spending, so fiscal problems are unlikely to be a biggie to you. In fact, I think helen criticized Bush on spending too much, but not you. My memory may be incorrect, of course.
I’m sure that when somebody new and unique, like Sarah Palin, comes on the scene, your golf club owning business Republicans got a weird feeling in their gut, didn’t they. When they saw the photos of her killing and owning animal carcases. When they say her outdoors amongst the bitter Alaska cold doing things men would usually be doing. Or rather brutish men, day laborers, nothing like civilized folks.
No paleo-conservative has ever liked classical liberals. No social liberal Republican has ever liked the religious right. At least, most of them don’t.
I’m voting against the special interests that trouble me the most. And Sarah Palin is their gal.
Is that the basic tenet of nihilism, that you are going to vote against Sarah Palin because she is against corruption and pork? That you have nothing better to offer, no solutions or better candidates, that you are just going to destroy somebody’s campaign because you want to see America suffer in the short term so that sometime in the future your ideological visions will be brought about?
Her “individualism” has nothing to do with it.
Mike means that Sarah Palin has a better grasp and tolerance of human liberty, human dignity, human freedom, education, health, and well being than you or your husband, Oz.
Interesting. Golf clubs? Wouldn’t they be those rich and corrupt Republicans the Democrats are talking about here that are putting the torch to the poor’s life savings?- Ymar
I imagine idealogues on the left might very well view him with disdain, and ascribe all kinds of shady chracteristics to him just becasue he’s a golfer, just as idelogues on the right might view him with disdain for not caring about guns or abortion.
Idelogues are authoritarian by nature — they want peopel to think, feel, act and vote in accordance with the principles they believe to be true.
Idelogues are authoritarian by nature — they want peopel to think, feel, act and vote in accordance with the principles they believe to be true.
Sort of like people who think that when we become aware of “things” that automatically we’ll share your views on the 2004 and 2000 elections, Oz?
I imagine idealogues on the left might very well view him with disdain, and ascribe all kinds of shady chracteristics to him just becasue he’s a golfer, just as idelogues on the right might view him with disdain for not caring about guns or abortion.
So he’s an Independent and more so because he ain’t voting. But you aren’t. Independent, that is. You’re voting “against” Sarah Palin, the Vice Presidential pick, not even the Presidential nominee.
That makes a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense that you would want to stop the VP from making people do things that they don’t want to do. We’ll leave the Presidency to fate, eh.
just as idelogues on the right might view him with disdain for not caring about guns or abortion.
You care about abortion. Otherwise, why bring that topic up about Sarah palin? So ideologies only exist if they care about abortion in one way, but you can care about abortion in another way and be okay, neh?
Ozzie
WSJ: Obama’s Tax Cut for 95% of Americans Is an Illusion
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10/wsj-obamas-tax.html
I would call it welfare.
Y #49 says,
it’s always easier to off the competition if you already have politicians bought and paid for while the small businesses and upstart competition haven’t even started off the ground yet. It pays to get ownership first, Mike. Then you can put in all kinds of restrictions and extra legal problems that small businesses and competitors, who haven’t got their bought and paid for politicians, have to spend huge sums on lawyers to even keep even.
Y, you’ve said it *perfectly*! I wish I could have written that. I believe you’ve described the corruptive influence that government has on business perfectly. These companies that are in bed with big government are seeking to protect themselves and to harm their competitors. It’s a different sort of economic game…
and this game is *not* market capitalism.
By the way, I was hesitant to voice my disagreements with Bush and McCain, and their comfort with “Third Way” Republicanism that embeds conservatives with national government, vastly increasing the scope and power of the national government over our lives.
Perhaps I should have waited after all. The bailout bill sent me over the edge because it was proposed by Republican leadership, and that boggled my mind. And then the rising chorus of voices in the “moderate Republican” camp began to unload on Palin. And then I turned my TV back on after having it off for months and I got a fresh look at our Republican commentariat on ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN, and they were offering nothing that I recognized as conservatism.
When David Brooks just called Sarah Palin a “cancer”, that is an internal salvo against the kind of conservatism that I hold dear, and the attack is so egregious and horrifying to me that I just can’t take it any longer.
I’m not really responding to Ozzie, who may be stoking the fires of division here deliberately. I am more responding to a much broader assault on classical liberal conservative principles. But I’m probably going to cease and desist now, and wait ’til after the election.
Because the choice, right now, is McCain vs Obama. What with Obama telling the plumber over the weekend that he wants to “spread the wealth around” and wants to give everyone else “behind you” a chance… the choice could not be clearer. The choice could not be more important.
In this particular election, I am for McCain 100% and I want everyone who loves individual freedom, individual responsibility, limited government, market capitalism, to be on board! Vote for McCain! The Obama alternative – especially with Pelosi and Reid potentially in complete control of Congress – is horrifying.
“I know you believe it’s all the Democrats, fault, Brian.”- Ozzie
No, Ozzie, I don’t, which means you haven’t been paying attention. If you had read my posts in other threads on this topic, I go into detail (or should I say, I link to others who go into detail) about the causes of the credit crisis.
But what precipitated the crisis were subprime loans driven by misplaced ideology. Even George Bush joined in this misguided notion that you could give people things they couldn’t afford without consequences.
The fools in Washington thought they were smart enough to control it- or worse, the leftist ideologues hoped for this day, because they continue to hope the final transfer of power will occur this November. The media filters provide the cover by blaming de-regulation, or a failing economy or whatever negative image with which Republicans can be tainted.
Obama tipped his hand early with the World Rock Tour, and allowed McCain to gain some momentum, then the game changer came by picking Palin, put him in striking distance. Since then he has done little to close the gap. But he is McCain– he is what he is. Conservatives hold their noses and vote for him enthusiastically– because the alternative is so unacceptable.
I believe there is a certain schizophrenia Americans suffer with presidential candidates. We claim we want a politician who is noble and true, driven only by a desire for public service, but instinctively we realize that person doesn’t exist. Too endure the process there must be a drive displaying some personal vanity or ego. Because we realize this is ‘normal’ we accept this flaw—in fact this characteristic makes the person familiar and predictable.
When we see a candidate too noble, too reserved, too dispassionate, red flags come up. I think Obama is too clever, which leaves a suspicion that his core beliefs are hidden, a vague distrust remains even when you squint so all his baggage disappears in soft focus and you’re willing to say the reality you see isn’t real and what is left is some shiny-faced youngster just looking to help. The uneasiness remains.
So he’s an Independent and more so because he ain’t voting. But you aren’t. Independent, that is. You’re voting “against” Sarah Palin, the Vice Presidential pick, not even the Presidential nominee- Ymar
I was releived that, with John McCain, the fringe would not have a voice in the White House. Sarah Palin IS that fringe.
If you really want to understand where I’m coming from, Frank Scheaffer gave a 15 minute interview to Democracy Now, regarding the anti-American nature of the philosophy Palin represents (And yes, I realize that “Democracy Now” is part of “the left,” but, in 15 minutes, he lays out what I’ve discovered in years of reading about this movement)
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/13/former_mccain_supporter_accuses_the_senator
And yes, I’m a registed Independent, who feels that regardless who is president, America will be at war, the Economy will be in trouble, and our foreign policy will remain pretty much the same.
I was not terribly excited about this election and would have most likely not cast a ballot if McCain had chosen Lieberman or any other qualified candidate.
But, in addition to Palin’s lack of interest and understanding of a host of issues, (concerns which Conservatives have been lambasted for voicing as well), to me, Sarah Palin is like Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. I thought the Religious Right was Dead in the Water, until she was chosen and I was shocked and dismayed by McCain’s overtly political choice and now feel motivated to keep her as far from the White House as possible.
She’s the reason my husband isnt voting and the reason I’m voting against John McCain.
It might not make sense to you, and it doesnt really matter if it does,
I’m just trying to explain a couple perspectives.
The uneasiness remains.- Brian
I think that’s true for many of us, Brian. I’m looking at the four people involved and voting against the ticket that concerns me the most, instead of voting for the candidate I believe in.
I stopped being a true believer a long time ago, and think that special interests have mucked up the system.
You can’t trust the media or politicians and, increasingly, the American people seem to get the short end of the stick.
Some of you fear that Obama will turn the U.S into a socialist country, while I think the U.S is simpky too broke for that to happen.
I, however, feel that in the event of a financial, terrorist or other type of catastrophe, the Religious Right needs to be as far away from the Presidency as possible.
I’m just tryng to explain another perspective.
Ozzie’s voice here can be useful, even if she is playing a game. Ozzie, instead of the various smears and put downs, would you offer a LIST of specific, concrete reasons why you say:
> Sarah Palin IS that fringe.
> Sarah Palin is like Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. I thought the Religious Right was Dead in the Water
> Frank Scheaffer gave a 15 minute interview to Democracy Now, regarding the anti-American nature of the philosophy Palin represents
Before I watch the video: are you sure you agree with everything the fellow says? I am willing to understand, but I’m sooooo tired of people on the left switching the argument midstream. If by watching this I will understand YOUR points exactly, then that’s helpful.
I’ve looked as much as I can into Sarah Palin’s faith, and the manner she practices it. Speaking as an agnostic, I am completely comfortable with her faith.
I await your agreement with all (or only parts) of the video, and then I will watch.
Before I watch the video: are you sure you agree with everything the fellow says? – Mike
No. I dont agree with everything he says. A lot of the political stuff is totally one-sided and disregards the bigger picture regarding the Democrats’ culpability or Sarah Palins ties to seccessionists.
I do, however, agree that “Left Behind” Evangelicals are looking forward to the end of days and that the Evangelical movement has been derailed and that these people are anti-American and dangerous in many respects.
The leftist bias is extremely evident in this piece, but his thoughts regarding the nature of the Evangelical movement are, in my experience, spot on.
Filter out the bias and just listen to his thoughts on what has happened to Evangelicals in recent decades, and you’ll see where I’m coming from, as well.
I’ve paid atention to this movement since 2000 and have concluded that there’s an agenda that is more threatening and more real than the threat of socialism or other concerns that many of you seem to share.
(There is one socialist in the House of Representatives.. In 2005, more than half of the members of Congress were affiliated with the Religious Right).
I was pretty relieved that the Religous Right was out of the picture untl Gov. Palin came along.
For those of you who want to see John McCain in the White House, this is just one person’s take on why the Palin pick was bad.
Oz is a passive aggressive. She supports non-action.
She and her husband are not and never were really Republicans. She is not and never really was and Independent. When she votes, she votes against – never for, because to vote “for” means she’d have to commit herself to being “for” something, and she isn’t. She’s only “against”.
Is that what you mean by nihilish, Y?
It seems to me that in her book an “ideolog” is anyone who has an opinion of what is right and wrong. She has no opinion of right and wrong – or if she does, she can’t define it.
“Neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring”…fits her. I’m not exactly sure what that old New England description was intended to mean, other than something that wasn’t exactly anything. At least, not a defineable anything
It seems to me that in her book an “ideolog” is anyone who has an opinion of what is right and wrong- suek
What I mean by an ideologue is someone who beleives that they alone are right and people who disgree with them are wrong/stupid/evil, etc. They can’t see past their own viewpoints.
This occurs on the authoritarian side of both the right and the left.
“She and her husband are not and never were really Republicans.” – suek
Ha! Well, I’ve never been a Republican, tis true, but my husband registered as one, back when he thought “Republican” meant small government.
He hasn’t voted since 2000, when he though Bush/Cheney would be good for the country, but has since changed his mind.
I was a Democrat once upon a time, until I concluded that both parties are corrupt and beholden to interests that clash with what I believe is best for the country.
Of those special interests, the Relgious Right bothers me most.
I’ve tried to explain myself clearly and polititely, but if you think I’m being passsive/agreesive, there’s not much I can do about that.
>>I was a Democrat once upon a time, until I concluded that both parties are corrupt and beholden to interests that clash with what I believe is best for the country.>>
Oz, it’s not the parties…it’s the people in them. People are not perfect – far from it. What you’ve described as an ideolog is someone who has evaluated both parties and decided that the ideas and ideals of one party are in agreement with their own sense of right and wrong. There will _always_ be people within any organization who are immoral and will use the organization to their own purpose. Those people don’t come stamped on their forehead, or we’d all avoid them. You have to figure out who they are – and often that is very difficult.
>>…someone who beleives that they alone are right and people who disgree with them are wrong/ >>
This falls into the “well, duh” category. If you think something through and have decided something is “right”, everything else that disagrees with you _must_ be wrong in your view. Otherwise, why would you have chosen “right”? If you don’t think the other views are wrong, why not just flip a coin?
>>stupid/evil, etc.>>
These fall into a different category. “evil” is a moral judgement, not a political judgement. It’s interesting that Libs use it so often. “stupid” …well, that’s usually a term for someone who is unable to take basic facts and reach a logical conclusion. It’s also the most common term used by Dems for all prominent Repubs…even when the facts don’t support it.
The leftist bias is extremely evident in this piece, but his thoughts regarding the nature of the Evangelical movement are, in my experience, spot on.
This makes little sense. You admit that it has Leftist bias and then says when things in it agree with your views, it is “spot on”. What is bias except to believe that everything that conforms to your views is correct and objective (true) while everything that does not conform to your views is incorrect, flawed, and biased?
I do, however, agree that “Left Behind” Evangelicals are looking forward to the end of days and that the Evangelical movement has been derailed and that these people are anti-American and dangerous in many respects.
So you can believe that about people who never did anything to harm you, but when I believe this about Leftists, Communists, and Socialists here in America that have harmed millions, I’m the one operating under partisan blinds?
Is that what you mean by nihilish, Y?
I wrote a comment detailing what I meant by nihilism in general and in the specifics as it pertains to Oz. I’ll try and dig it up later.
She and her husband are not and never were really Republicans.
Socially liberal Republicans and socially conservative Republicans like Pat Buchanan, both against the Iraq war, are not classical liberals. Most classical liberals start off ignorant and thus Democrat, but they eventually make a decision to stay true to human dignity and rights or they continue the Leftist indoctrination and ideology.
The Republican/GOP party, however, is not all contained of classical liberals. Big tent and all that. So they are Republicans but they are not the kind of Republicans we respect, you may say. Just as there are Democrats, like Joe Lieberman, Neo-Neocon, and Bookworm, who we respect but they weren’t REpublicans and still aren’t, to an extent.
It seems to me that in her book an “ideolog” is anyone who has an opinion of what is right and wrong.
Moral relativism usually fills the vacuum if you adopt socially liberal positions but refuse Judeo-Christian, Greek, Roman, Founding Father, or general ethics. I’ve wrote some things about power abhoring a vacuum that is the same way.
She has no opinion of right and wrong – or if she does, she can’t define it.
Oz does know what is wrong. THe REligious “Right” is wrong. As for the Religious Left? To Oz, they are harmless. She doesn’t like Obama religion but she’ll vote for it, if it will get rid of Palin, see.
So this is neither a pure philosophy, like pure pacifism, nor a logically consistent philosophy like classical liberalism. It is not pure due to the fact that Oz will tolerate religions so long as those religions serve her purpose. It is not logically consistent precisely because if the Religious Right is so dangerous, Oz should be either voting for Ron Paul or not voting at all. A protest vote, perhaps.
However, Oz may recognize vote fraud on both sides, like religious extremity on both sides, but she only sees the Religious ‘Right’ as being the more influential, and thus dangerous, faction that needs to be stamped out. THus her focus on Sarah Palin and voting against her as President. It truly is Barack Obama vs Sarah Palin, you can see.
This occurs on the authoritarian side of both the right and the left.
This might be worth something to me, Oz, if it wasn’t for the fact that it has occurred with you and is still occurring with you.
He hasn’t voted since 2000, when he though Bush/Cheney would be good for the country, but has since changed his mind.
As you can see, Suek, it is the war. The war of liberation. Many Democrats and even some Republicans dislike freeing other folks. Makes the downtrodden classes too uppity since they might want the same kind of liberty and security here in America once they have seen what American soldiers can do in the Third World.
Personally, I don’t see what they dislike about the US military freeing other people. IT’s not like the US military makes them pay a whole lot of taxes, compared to welfare, government services, and healthcare. Or Fannie M.
Any person for “small government” that is also for a “small military” that does nothing but “defend”, is not the same kind of person we usually think of as small government conservatives. There’s a fundamental difference of opinion on what the government should be “small” for, there. THe original Constitutional mandate gave government the duty of defending the nation from foreign threats and that requires size, central control, and what not. But for everything else, healthcare, welfare, and that crap, it should not get large or larger.
I was a Democrat once upon a time, until I concluded that both parties are corrupt and beholden to interests that clash with what I believe is best for the country.
So you are going to vote for Ron Paul against Palin rather than Obama against Palin? That would make your philosophy at least consistent, even if it is not correct.
Of those special interests, the Relgious Right bothers me most.
I believe I had my suspicions about this ever since you said 2000 was stolen by Republicans and thus you focus on lambasting the GOP even though Democrats do the same thing in your opinion. And I believe I tried to highlight this difference, since you weren’t going to give it to us. You kept saying both the GOP and Democrats were to blame, but I called you on that and said it was untrue. It was not what you really believed. This is what you really believe when you say special interests and the “Religious Right”.
Suek, fake liberals fight a war inside America so they call the actions of their political enemies “evil” just like we call AQ’s actions evil because we are fighting a war with them outside America. That’s the difference. Democrats war inside America while we prefer to war outside America. Democrats like to stoke up class warfare inside America, we like to improve the security and economic state of Iraqis outside America.
Democrats like to stoke up class warfare inside America, we like to improve the security and economic state of Iraqis outside America.
Addendum: We do that by waging war, counter-insurgency, or insurgency outside America. Building hospitals, killing people, and what not. That’s war, is it not, Suek.
The Democrats conduct such things outside America via diplomacy and committees, as if foreign nations are just another part of the Union. They do not make war on others. They just drop bombs and order people’s executions, like they did at WACO.
There was a battle in Najaf with the SOldiers of Heaven, Shia cultists like the Branch Davidians. The US military killed about half of the Soldiers of Heaven and the other half surrendered, along with their children and wives who were in their fortified compound.
Compare this to Janet Reno’s actions in Waco. You see the difference, Suek?
War inside America vs war outside America, yet the US military still does a better job of ensuring security outside and inside America better than the Democrats can: National Guard actions in Katrina under Bush and US military actions in Iraq under Bush.
Republicans use compromise and deal making inside America, but refuse to do so outside of America with people like AManie. But Democrats treat REpublicans like dictators while they go to trips in Syria and talk about meeting with AManie without preconditions.
The Democrat grassroots use intimidation, illegal hacking, illegal datamining, and various other insurgency methods inside America. No wonder they called foreign fighters in Iraq “freedom fighters”, Suek. To them they are just fighting for the same freedom to exploit that Democrats are doing here inside AMerica.
This makes little sense. You admit that it has Leftist bias and then says when things in it agree with your views, it is “spot on.” – Yamr
I dont agree that the economy is all Bush’s fault and I’m not as enthused about Obama as he is, but I agree with his assessment of the relgious right.
Of course, my decision to vote agaist McCain goes beyond that, and is in line with a great number of people in the country’s concerns, but MCain’s decision to pick Palin was when I first felt seriously motivated to vote.
The concerns shared by Frank Scheaffer regarding the intent and craziness of the Religious Right are “spot on,” in my book. And, given that he was in the trenches, I believe he understands this more than Regular Joes.
“I believe I had my suspicions about this ever since you said 2000 was stolen by Republicans and thus you focus on lambasting the GOP even though Democrats do the same thing in your opinion.” – Ymar
The Democrats have engaged in voter fraud in the past, (most notably in the 1960 presidential election, but the’ve had “dead people” vote across the country until they could no longer get away with it) while the GOP has engaged in election fraud.
Voter fraud and election fraud are two different things, Ymar. And on two different scales.
And geeze louise..you have had suspisions about me on a regular basis. Why should today be any different?
Oz,
It’s a shame if we are suspicious and it’s not warranted.
But there’s been a persistent effort at ‘astroturfing’, where a number of different posters, all from the same Chicago subnet, post to conservative blogs, saying things such as:
“I’ve been a lifelong Republican, but I just can’t find it in me to vote Republican this year because of . I’d like to remain a Republican, but my conscience won’t allow it any longer. John McCain is spreading intolerance and .”
These are classic Alinsky tactics. Alinsky believes solely in power and in winning, and that the ends justify the means. He wrote the playbook on attacks and disruptions of “the enemy” in order to achieve success. See “Rules For Radicals”. Hillary was an adherent but she decided not to accept his offer to join his movement, and chose a political path instead. Obama comes along, and is trained in Alinsky tactics, and then while in Chicago trains ACORN organizations in Alinsky tactics. (This is what community organizers do in Chicago.)
So, sorry about the suspicion. But unfortunately suspicion is justified during this election. I wonder how the widespread ACORN fraud is going? Are we going to prevent Democrat poll workers from stealing the election on Nov 4th? There are 1.2 million fraudulent voter registration forms out there, across the fourteen closest states, and these forms can’t be kept up with, presenting rich opportunity for massive fraud. (Poll workers managing to submit impossible-to-track ballots based on fraudulent registration forms.) All these fourteen states have launched investigations into ACORN activities.
I especially like the fellow who was bussed in from Chicago into Ohio to participate in same-day registration and voting. I’m sure he’s the only instance.
To me, this has become an EMERGENCY situation. The McCain campaign can do nothing about it, and the state investigations will be reluctant to push hard… unless there is a grassroots outcry of citizen involvement. We MUST find a way, in this emergency, to prevent massive voter fraud from occurring. This is turning into an emergency! If you’re in the fourteen battleground states, get involved! Find a way to get involved! There must be a way for a grassroots effort to rise up in these last three weeks, to get emergency measures passed to prevent massive voter fraud.
Crap. I accidentally wrote comments that looked like html tags and they got discarded. Dang angle brackets! I should know better!
. I wonder how the widespread ACORN fraud is going? Are we going to prevent Democrat poll workers from stealing the election on Nov 4th? – Mike
From what I have been able to figure out, people have been paid money to compile voter registrations, which is a recipe for disaster.
That is against the law in and of itself, but it’s not really voter fraud until those fake people vote. States SHOULD be looking into all of this, along with the purging of polls in Colorado, and other states. But one thing is certain: It’s a shame that none of us can feel secure that the fundamentals of the democratic process are strong.
Josh Marshall, however, has a point that you may not have considered:
“Let’s be clear about what this is. These are random stories about fake vote registrations. The Drudges and Fox scoundrels of the world seem to think that if someone fills out a voter registration card for Mickey Mouse, that Mickey Mouse might show up and cast a vote they’re not entitled to cast. It doesn’t and there is zero evidence of any voter fraud or anything that would make voter fraud more likely. The level of lying, bad faith or at best ignorance of the people making these claims is really beyond imagining. This isn’t vote fraud. There’s no evidence of vote fraud. Nothing. This is an effort of a losing political party to a) lay the groundwork for challenging their defeat at the polls b) lay the groundwork to pass laws to make it harder for poor people and minorities to vote.”
In short, some are casting a supicious eye on thse voter fraud accustions.
The distrust of those of us who’ve been listening to testimony regarding GOP election fraud for the past 8 years is very strong, too. And, as I said, election fraud (such as when election machines are ‘Hacked”) is a seperate matter from voter fraud.
I’m not denying that voter fraud has occured in the past. But it’s not voter fraud until a phony voter votes. Will it happen agan? I dont know. I do, however, expect for this election to be nasty and for the divisions between Americans to widen even futher.
To me, this has become an EMERGENCY situation- Mike
And I have felt that way about Stephen Spoonamore’s testimony and the fact that Mike Connell, the man who’s been fingered for funny business in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 (and is now working for John MCain), is refusing to honor a subpoena to testify in Federal Court.
None of us can trust anything anymore.
Ozzie,
Frank Schaeffer would disagree with Sarah Palin because he comes from a Covenant Theology view of biblical interpretation.
Sarah Palin and most(?) Evangelical Christians hold to a Dispensational interpretation of the Bible.
I’m saddened that Frank holds such a narrow view of this.
I am a dispensationalist, though I attend a covenant church right now.
Believing that future events in the Bible will happen is not the same as believing that man can or should influence these events.
The Christian mandate is clear– “Go into all the world and make believers…” That is what God has charged Christians to do at this point in time.
Christians are admonished NOT to try and figure out the times, that Christ will come as a “thief in the night”.
Evangelicals hold Israel in high regard because of the Abrahamic covenant, and though we believe that horrible things will happen to Israel, this is not equivalent with wishing these things on Israel, in fact, Evangelicals support a strong defense of Israel.
If we wanted to hurry the end times, we would abandon Israel– something the left inevitabley do.
I suspect, based on who you describe your friends as, you do not have any personal experience with the Religious Right, or have misunderstood what they believe and how it affects their world view.
And we certainly do not hope that an athiest is piloting our plane when the Rapture occurs as Schaeffer claims. That’s nonsense and Schaeffer knows it.
Everyone has been given a glimpse into the future in Revelation in the New Testament and Ezekial and Daniel in the Old. What you do with it is a personal decision.
I dont agree that the economy is all Bush’s fault and I’m not as enthused about Obama as he is, but I agree with his assessment of the relgious right.
Again, the stuff you don’t agree with you call left wing nut stuff and the stuff you agree about you call “spot on”. No matter how many times you repeat that or try to leave out the actual logical inconsistencies there, it will remain what it is, Oz: an inconsistency with your claims about being not in line.
Voter fraud and election fraud are two different things, Ymar
That’s an interesting way to scale things and to parse it out.
And geeze louise..you have had suspisions about me on a regular basis. Why should today be any different?
That’s precisely right, but I am not just speaking of today or yesterday. It’s just a summarization of what has gone before, using the time I put into arguments here with you, into an overall conclusion given your new arguments put here today.
The Drudges and Fox scoundrels of the world seem to think that if someone fills out a voter registration card for Mickey Mouse, that Mickey Mouse might show up and cast a vote they’re not entitled to cast. It doesn’t and there is zero evidence of any voter fraud or anything that would make voter fraud more likely
Actually, these things mostly affect such things as exit polls and legal challenges towards the accuracy of vote counts. Just like you were using exit polls to invalidate actual elections in your mind, so can other people invalidate actual election results by saying that there is no way McCain could have won with this many Democrats registered vs this many Republicans registered. Surely McCain must have hacked something to make 20,000 Democrats vote Republican; this will be the propaganda line made possible by fake registration.
ACORN is designed to undermine the fundamental basis of trust in the system. By creating fabricated registration rolls, you don’t know who is really entitled to vote and they can say that any attempts to clear such things out are hurting fully qualified and registered voters. Given that the government ideal of 0% mistakes is not going to happen, any thing done by the government to counter ACORN can be spun into the propaganda line that the government, or in this case the GOP, is trying to purge voter rolls of actual voters rather than trying to clear off the deadwood.
This will convince more and more people that the election system is unreliable, thus encouraging more people to cheat on a microscopic basis, while at the same time opening the US election system more and more to lawyers and judges to decide on. The power will become less and less from the people and more and more from those in power with political influence.
And, as I said, election fraud (such as when election machines are ‘Hacked”) is a seperate matter from voter fraud.
That’s one of numerous logical mistakes you have made, Oz. Separating such things out in your mind does no good at all. It won’t allow you to piece together the truth from disparate data if you just lump all the inconvenient facts into one or another box called “voter fraud” that is separate from “election fraud”.
You think creating two boxes and making them separate like that will produce the truth? You are just kidding yourself if you do.
Voter fraud and election fraud are two different things- me
That’s an interesting way to scale things and to parse it out- Ymar
Having Dead People Vote = Voter fraud
Hacking the vote = election fraud
Her’s a good article which distinguishes between voter registration fraud and actual voter fraud:
October 09, 2008
Categories: Newspapers
Two kinds of fraud
“Acorn” may not exactly be a household word, but it was on the cover of one of the newspapers I read in hard copy today, so it seemed worth getting into a marginal story that the GOP is trying to make central.
The key distinction here is between voter fraud and voter registration fraud, one of which is truly dangerous, the other a petty crime.
The former would be, say, voting the cemeteries or stuffing the ballot boxes. This has happened occasionally in American history, though I can think of recent instances only in rare local races. Practically speaking, this can most easily be done by whoever is actually administering the election, which is why partisan observers carefully oversee the vote-counting process.
The latter is putting the names of fake voters on the rolls, something that happens primarily when organizations, like Acorn, pay contractors for new voter registrations. That can be a crime, and it messes up the voter files, but there’s virtually no evidence these imaginary people then vote in November. The current stories about Acorn don’t even allege a plan to affect the November vote.
So the New York Post’s story leads:
Two Ohio voters, including Domino’s pizza worker Christopher Barkley, claimed yesterday that they were hounded by the community-activist group ACORN to register to vote several times, even though they made it clear they’d already signed up.
There’s not even an allegation that the guy was being pressed to vote twice.
Acorn, meanwhile, is denouncing the raid on its Nevada office as a political stunt and says it had tried to alert authorities to its own bad registrations.
And Acorn is taking credit for registering 1.3 million new voters, which is a lot, though the fake ones, of course, along with being against the law, are worthless.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Two_kinds_of_fraud.html
Her’s a good article which distinguishes between voter registration fraud and actual voter fraud:
So your thesis is that because voter registration fraud isn’t like actual voter fraud, which is actual fraud rather than just registration fraud, this means that those people in ACORN engaged in the former isn’t engaged in the latter.
To use common sense, why would a person who engages in fraud here not engage in fraud there? Why would Republicans need to rig elections but not worry about other kinds of fraud?
Two kinds of fraud
Did you actually come up with this Idea on your Own Oz, or did you just buy it cause these newspapers said it was true?
That can be a crime, and it messes up the voter files, but there’s virtually no evidence these imaginary people then vote in November. The current stories about Acorn don’t even allege a plan to affect the November vote.
Well, some people actually require proof before making allegations. It kind of makes these things harder to allege, you see. THey have to wait for courts, testimonies under threat of perjury, and FBI investigations first.
I’d like to see the “virtually no evidence” people talk about concerning how in states that don’t need solid identification of voters, why people cannot vote more than once by using fake registration data compiled for them by ACORN employees.
As I said before, Oz, ACORN is designed to undermine the fundamental trust AMerica has in the election system. You don’t see this as a problem because you deny it has anything to do with election fraud. You say there are no allegation that ACORN is hacking the system, yet there is proof aplenty. You also make allegations on no evidence for you have claimed election fraud is unprovable via electronics.
Ozzie,
So why do you think ACORN is paying all this money to load up the voter registration files with phoney names?
Do they just have so much money from the government they don’t know what to do with it?
Is it just a liberal version of a make work program, spreading money among the underclass?
Are they anarchists just having fun messing with the system?
You must have an opinion.
I’m also faintly amused that you can often times find people in the Main Sewer Media that are saying the exact same things you say here, Oz. You will find it hard put to find folks in the MSM saying the things I believe in and claim.
Who, then, is really falling in line here, me or you.
You must have an opinion- Brian
I have been following information about election hacking for 8 years, Brian. I’ve only been following this story for a couple weeks.
Do I think voter fraud is the ultimate goal? Could be. Last year, however, after a five year investigation discovered “scant evidence” of voter fraud.
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/008232.html
And then there was the DOJ firing of David Iglesias who investigated voter fraud but was infamously fired when he could not find anything to prosecute.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_/ai_n19328383
Then, too, I’d like to know how the ACORN rigs the polls.
“Then, too, I’d like to know how the ACORN rigs the polls.”- Ozzie
As I understand it, polls are based on registered voters or likely voters.
Since registered voters would heavily skew democrat because of all the fake registrations, the pollsters would poll more democrats than there really are.
Since those polls would skew the results toward Obama several outcomes might result:
1. Those who tend to vote for a “winner” might end up voting for Obama.
2. If the election actually goes the other way, it reinforces the left’s cry of foul play.
3. Demoralize the conservative base.
I think that’s why polls based on likely voters have the race closer.
But you never said why YOU think they are doing this.
But you never said why YOU think they are doing this.- Brian
I dont know why they’re doing it. As I said Brian, it took me a long time before I wrapped my head around the election rigging issue and I simply dont have enough information yet to speculate.
The ony thing I’m certain of that is that this is voter registration fraud and not voter fraud, and I immediately distrust any media outlet that tries to portray it as voter fraud.
I’ve read ACORN’s response to the situation and am trying to sort what exactly is going on..This is just part of what they’re saying:
1. In order to help 1.3 million people register to vote, we hired more than 13,000 registration assistance workers r. As with any business or agency that operates at this scale, there are always some people who want to get paid without really doing the job, or who aim to defraud their employer. Any large department store will have some workers who shoplift.
2. Any large voter registration operation will have a small percentage of workers who turn in bogus registration forms, Their goal clearly is not to cast a fraudulent vote. It is simply to defraud their employer, ACORN, by getting a paycheck without earning it. ACORN is the victim of this fraud – not the perpetrator.
3. In nearly every case that has been reported , it was ACORN that discovered the bad forms, and called them to the attention of election authorities, putting the forms in a package that identified them in writing as suspicious, encouraging election officials to investigate, and offering to help with prosecutions. We are required by law to turn in all forms, but instead of just turning them in and figuring that it is the responsibility of the board of elections to figure out which are valid, we spend millions of dollars verifying that forms are valid, and then separate out those that are suspicious.
4. This has nothing to do with “voter fraud” – nothing at all to do with anyone trying to cast an extra vote. There has never been a single reported instance in which bogus registration forms have led to anyone voting improperly. To do that, they would have to show up at the polls, prove their identity as all first-time registrants must, and risk jail. The people who turned in these forms did so not because they wanted an extra vote, but because they didn’t care enough to make sure eligible people got to vote at all.
5. When a department store calls the police to report a shoplifting employee, no one says the department store is guilty of consumer fraud. But for some reason, when ACORN turns voter registration workers over to the authorities for filling out bogus forms, it gets accused of “voter fraud.” This is a classic case of blaming the victim; indeed, these charges are outrageous, libelous, and often politically motivated.
6. Similar attacks were launched against ACORN and other voter registration organizations in 2004 and 2006. The bogus charges were at the heart of the U.S. Attorney-gate scandal that led to the resignations of Karl Rove, Attorney General Ablerto Gonzales and other top Justice Department Officials. It turned out that it was the charges that were fraudulent, and that they were part of a systematic partisan agenda of voter suppression. Republican US Attorneys David Iglesias (NM), Todd Graves (MO), and John McKay (WA) all were fired primarily because they refused to prosecute similar bogus charges of “voter fraud.” Another US Attorney, Bradley Schlozman, who did politicize prosecutions against former ACORN canvassers, was forced to acknowledge under cross examination by the Senate Judiciary Committee that ACORN was the victim of fraud by its employees and ACORN had caught the employees and had identified them to law enforcement.
7. The goals of the people orchestrating these attacks are to distract ACORN from helping people vote and to justify massive voter suppression. That’s the real voter fraud; the noise about a small fraction of the forms ACORN has turned in is meant to get the press and public take their eyes off the real threat, while those hurling the charges are stealing people’s right to vote in broad daylight. They have already tried to prevent Ohio from registering voters at its early voting sites. In Michigan, they planned to use foreclosure notices to challenge thousands of voters. And if this year is like past years, they are preparing to use this so-called voter fraud to justify massive challenges to voters in minority precincts on Election Day.
They may be guilty, but I’m not convinced. I need more information.
If they’re such a shady orgainzation, why was John McCain their keynote speaker in 2006?
Then, too, stories like this indicate that this sort of things happens with Republicans voters, too.
http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2860
Now that certainly takes hutzpah. Amazing how the left can turn themselves ininto victims so effortlessly. At least it wasn’t the first sentence.
This is a nationwide effort to subvert the American electoral process, and they were convicted of the largest voter fraud in the history of Washington State.
So you’re opinion is that they’re just misunderstood?
And that link you listed– moral equivalency?
So you’re opinion is that they’re just misunderstood?- Brian
I’m of the opinon that people who are screaming “Voter fraud” are mischaracterizing the situation and that I dont know enough about what has transpired to speculate.
“This is a nationwide effort to subvert the American electoral process,- Brian
You have concluded that this is a “nationwide effort to subvert the electoral porcess,” yet I havent seen evidence that this is absoultely the case. I need more information
“and they were convicted of the largest voter fraud in the history of Washington State.- Brian
Since you mentioned Washington state, I looked it up.
I see that five ACORN workers were jailed there. I also noticed, however, that according to King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg, the misconduct was done “as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections.”
This follows what ACORN is saying.
I’m not saying that they’re innocent, but I haven’t seen enough to convict the organization, either, I need to know what is true and what’s not true before I form an opinion.
The only people who can turn these 1.2 million bogus registration forms into fraud are poll workers. Ozzie, are you saying that it isn’t possible?
I’m not astoundingly imaginative, but give me a half hour in a polling place discussing the procedures – what kind of voting machines, what are procedures for absentee ballot counting, who is doing the counting – and I think in many, many cases I can construct fraud cases based on the fraudulent registration forms.
Only today, the oviously corrupt Democrat woman in charge of Ohio’s election has been forced by judicial decision to validate all registrations that have occurred. This means that *prior to today* there was no such enforcement, and that is precisely the window of fraud opening, that allows poll workers to execute the second half of the fraud. One hopes that the judicial decision will be enough to validate what went on during open registration.
I refer you again to the story – must I look up the video link – of the young man bussed in from Chicago to register and vote on the same day in Ohio. If you believe he was the only one, then I’m Napoleon. What part of “orchestrated effort” is so hard for some people to understand? So unwilling to be dragged kicking and screaming to each single instance of corruption!
“NO! NO! NO! Oh, ok, well, that’s just one. NO! NO! NO! Oh, ok, but that’s only two. NO! NO! NO! Oh, ok, but…”
—
I guess the same principle applies to all the allies of Barack Obama. From the time he became an adult, he has consciously allied himself with those on the radical fringe of leftist politics, advocating all manner of hate-America politics. At some point, a reasonable person would assume that these are not all simply accidental! But: “NO! NO! NO! Guilt by association! Times twenty!” When you consider that the key to Alinsky tactics of gulling your audience is to cast yourself in a false light as being one of them though you are not, this becomes even more troubling. Unless you reject that Obama trained under Alinsky tactics, was considered a master of them enough to be in charge of teaching them as well.
—-
There is only one countermeasure to preventing the potential election fraud, and that is OPEN VISIBILITY to every step of the process on election night. Alert to the people of:
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Nevada
Connecticut
Florida
Indiana
Minnesota
Missouri
New Mexico
North Carolina
Organize poll watchers! Gain access! Openness and transparency is your only guarantee of voting integrity! The poll watching must extend all the way until all votes are transmitted, and you must validate that the numbers recorded at each poll station match the final numbers received at each state accumulation headquarters. Protect the Vote!
Here in Texas, Houston was running short of poll watchers. The entire backup list of poll watchers on the conservative side was – if needed – ACORN people. Fortunately, the call went out and plenty of volunteers stepped up so that the ACORN people weren’t going to represent both sides (ahem) for guaranteeing integrity of the vote.
The wolf says, “Me! Me! I’ll guard the henhouse!”
Alert!
Ozzie,
If you’re interested in the meat and potatoes of the credit crisis and fannie’s part here’s some detail:
http://www.milkeninstitute.org/10022008slides.pdf
Here’s some commentary on the slides, if needed.
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/long_post_on_fannie_and_freddie_with_graphs.php
The only people who can turn these 1.2 million bogus registration forms into fraud are poll workers. Ozzie, are you saying that it isn’t possible?- Mike
ACORN registered 1.2 million voters, and you immediately suspect that ALL of them are bogus?
Once again, voter registration fraud and voter fraud are two separate thigns, the DOJ made a push for federal attorneys to prosecute fraud cases, and attorneys who saw no evidence of fraud were fired.
“The wolf says, “Me! Me! I’ll guard the henhouse!”- Mike
In Florida in 2000 and in Ohio, 2004 the people who were in charge of the states’ Bush election and reelection campaigns were also in charge of the elections.
And yes, a lot of funny business occured, casting doubt on the entire process.
“I refer you again to the story – must I look up the video link – of the young man bussed in from Chicago to register and vote on the same day in Ohio. If you believe he was the only one, then I’m Napoleon” — Mike
I dont doubt that Democrats play dirty tricks too. What I doubt is the way this story is being handled, the way registeration fraud is being depicted as voter fraud and how people autimatically assume tht EVERY ACORN registration must be bogus.
The former GOP operative who wrote “How to Rig an Election” thinks this whole story is a distraction – and the people should focus on real election fraud instead (such as the list of voters being wrongly purged and election machine setups that are not kosher).
>>In Florida in 2000 and in Ohio, 2004 the people who were in charge of the states’ Bush election and reelection campaigns were also in charge of the elections.>>
I don’t know about Ohio, but as I recall, in Florida in 2000, the Secretary of State was Republican, but in each of the contested counties, the party in power was Democrat. Democrats designed the faulty (butterfly) ballot and Democrats counted the results.
Found this today. Not exactly related, but sort of…
>>http://www.suitablyflip.com/suitably_flip/2008/10/have-you-contri.html>>
Oops…
http://www.suitablyflip.com/suitably_flip/2008/10/have-you-contri.html
I don’t know about Ohio, but as I recall, in Florida in 2000, the Secretary of State was Republican, but in each of the contested counties, the party in power was Democrat. Democrats designed the faulty (butterfly) ballot and Democrats counted the results – suek
The shenanigans that occurred in pre-election Florida have been dissected at length in documentaries, magazines and to some degree, in the mainstream press. A St . Petersburg Times op-ed later deemed the election “stolen,” the Associated Press reported that Florida had “quietly” admitted “election fraud,” and Vanity Fair devoted a sizable portion of its Oct. 2004 issue to exactly how the GOP pulled it off. By the time CNN sued the state of Florida for its ineligible voters list in 2004, the underbelly of the beast was plainly visible.
But in Nov. 2001, when Greg Palast uncovered then Secretary of State Katherine Harris’ role in the voter roll purge in Florida, the news was explosive. The New York Times — the paper that would later print front page disinformation to sell the war in Iraq — took a pass, however, until three years later, when it was too late to do anything about it.
At first, election irregularities were featured as anomalies, like when the Washington Post covered computer glitches that literally subtracted thousands of votes from Al Gore and gave them to a Socialist candidate. By the time similar problems were reported during the 2002 midterm and 2004 primary elections, people were understandably skittish, with e-voting failures having “shaken confidence in the technology installed at thousands of precincts” — with as many as 20 states introducing legislation calling for paper receipts on voting machines.
In early 2004, Mother Jones predicted that “Ohio could become as decisive this year as Florida was four years ago” and sure enough, Americans awoke the day after the election without a decisive winner. And though John Kerry later conceded, questions have since been raised by computer programmers, mathematicians, journalists and others. “Was the election of 2004 stolen?” columnist Robert Koehler asked, before addressing the many “numbers-savvy scientists are saying that the numbers don’t make sense.”
There were warnings before the election, of course, with red flags being raised by researchers at prestigious Stanford and John Hopkins Universities. But despite Diebold’s CEO’s promise to deliver Ohio’s electoral votes to George W. Bush, Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell’s prominent role in the Bush/Cheney campaign, and the suspicious election night lock-down in Warren County, Ohio, many still believed election angst could be attributed to a super-sized case of “sour grapes.”
When Christopher Hitchens, who is admittedly not a Kerry fan, also weighed in, however, that excuse flew out the window. “Whichever way you shake it, or hold it to the light, there is something about the Ohio election that refuses to add up. . . ,” he wrote.
Rep. John Conyers and the Government Accountability Office also found widespread irregularities, and when statisticians picked apart the election results, Bush was not the legitimate winner. Pollster John Zogby compared the 2004 election to 1960′s suspicious contest, and University of Pennsylvania professor Steven F. Freeman put the odds that exit polls were that wrong, in that many states, at 250 million to one.
by late Jan. 2006, the Washington Post looked into allegations of election tampering — without the dismissive, lazy reporting usually afforded the subject. Describing tests conducted by Florida’s Leon County supervisor of elections Ion Sancho, using “relatively unsophisticated hacking techniques,” the paper quickly uncovered how easy it is to steal an election. “Can the votes of this Diebold system be hacked using the memory card?” election officials asked test participants, and though two marked their ballots “yes” and six said “no,” by the time they went through Diebold’s optical scan machine, the results read seven “yes” votes and one “no.”
“More troubling than the test itself was the manner in which Diebold simply failed to respond to my concerns or the concerns of citizens who believe in American elections,” Sancho said. “I really think they’re not engaged in this discussion of how to make elections safer.”
“If electronic voting machines programmed by private Republican firms remain in our future, dissent will become pointless unless it boils over into revolution,” former Reagan Administration Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts wrote.
Several Red flags have been raised for the 2008 election.
Our democratic process is far from trustworthy.
From some unnamed article quoted by Ozzie
So if the warnings had come from some researcher at say, University of Idaho, the results would be suspect?
Propaganda.
Outrageous propaganda.
Oz, yes I was lazy in saying that all 1.2 million voter registration cards were fraudulent. There was one honest ACORN worker – I think it was in southeastern Nebraska – who turned in seven valid registration forms. He was fired for not meeting the quota.
Propaganda.- Brian
Perhaps you’ll believe Christopher Hitchens?
Vanity Fair
March 2005
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
OHIO’S ODD NUMBERS
No conspiracy theorist, and no fan of John Kerry’s, the author nevertheless found the Ohio polling results impossible to swallow: Given what happened in that key state on Election Day 2004, both democracy and common sense cry out for a court-ordered inspection of its new voting machines
If it were not for Kenyon College, I might have missed, or skipped, the whole controversy. The place is a visiting lecturer’s dream, or the ideal of a campus-movie director in search of a setting. It is situated in wooded Ohio hills, in the small town of Gambier, about an hour’s drive from Columbus. its literary magazine, The Kenyon Review, was founded by John Crowe Ransom in 1939. Its alumni include Paul Newman, E. L. Doctorow, Jonathan Winters; Robert Lowell, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and President Rutherford B. Hayes. The college’s origins are Episcopalian, its students well mannered and well off and predominantly white, but it is by no means Bush-Cheney territory. Arriving to speak there a few days after the presidential election, I found that the place was still buzzing. Here’s what happened in Gambier, Ohio, on decision day 2004.
The polls opened at 6:30 AM. There were only two voting machines (push-button direct-recording electronic systems) for the entire town of 2,200 (with students). The mayor, Kirk Emmert, had called the Board of Elections 10 days earlier, saying that the number of registered voters would require more than that. (He knew, as did many others, that hundreds of students had asked to register in Ohio because it was a critical “swing” state.) The mayor’s request was denied. Indeed, instead of there being extra capacity on Election Day, one of the only two machines chose to break down before lunchtime.
By the time the polls officially closed, at 7:30 that evening, the line of those waiting to vote was still way outside the Community Center and well into the parking lot. A federal judge thereupon ordered Knox County, in which Gambier is located, to comply with Ohio law, which grants the right to vote to those who have shown up in time. “Authority to Vote” cards were kindly distributed to those on line (voting is a right, not a privilege), but those on line needed more than that. By the time the 1,175 voters in the precinct had all cast their ballots, it was almost four in the morning, and many had had to wait for up to 11 hours. In the spirit of democratic carnival, pizzas and canned drinks and guitarists were on hand to improve the shining moment. TV crews showed up, and the young Americans all acted as if they had been cast by Frank Capra: cheerful and good-humored, letting older voters get to the front, catching up on laptop essays, many voting for the first time and all convinced that a long and cold wait was a small price to pay. Typical was Pippa White, who said that “even after eight hours and 15 minutes I still had energy. It lets you know how worth it this is.” Heartwarming, until you think about it.
The students of Kenyon had one advantage, and they made one mistake. Their advantage was that their president, S. Georgia Nugent, told them that they could be excused from class for voting. Their mistake was to reject the paper ballots that were offered to them late in the evening, after attorneys from the Ohio Democratic Party had filed suit to speed up the voting process in this way. The ballots were being handed out (later to be counted by machine under the supervision of Knox County’s Democratic and Republican chairs) when someone yelled through the window of the Community Center, “Don’t use the paper ballots! The Republicans are going to appeal it and it won’t count!” After that, the majority chose to stick with the machines.
Across the rest of Ohio, the Capra theme was not so noticeable. Reporters and eyewitnesses told of voters who had given up after humiliating or frustrating waits, and who often cited the unwillingness of their employers to accept voting as an excuse for lateness or absence. In some way or another, these bottlenecks had a tendency to occur in working-class and, shall we just say, nonwhite precincts. So did many disputes about “provisional” ballots, the sort that are handed out when a voter can prove his or her identity but not his or her registration at that polling place. These glitches might all be attributable to inefficiency or incompetence (though Gambier had higher turnouts and much shorter lines in 1992 and 1996). Inefficiency and incompetence could also explain the other oddities of the Ohio process—from machines that redirected votes from one column to the other to machines that recorded amazing tallies for unknown fringe candidates, to machines that apparently showed that voters who waited for a long time still somehow failed to register a vote at the top of the ticket for any candidate for the presidency of these United States.
However, for any of that last category of anomaly to be explained, one would need either a voter-verified paper trail of ballots that could be tested against the performance of the machines or a court order that would allow inspection of the machines themselves. The first of these does not exist, and the second has not yet been granted.
I don’t know who it was who shouted idiotically to voters not to trust the paper ballots in Gambier, but I do know a lot of people who are convinced that there was dirty work at the crossroads in the Ohio vote. Some of these people are known to me as nutbags and paranoids of the first water, people whose grassy-knoll minds can simply cancel or deny any objective reasons for a high Republican turnout. (Here’s how I know some of these people: In November 1999, I wrote a column calling for international observers to monitor the then upcoming presidential election. I was concerned about restrictive ballot-access laws, illegal slush funds, denial of access to media for independents, and abuse of the state laws that banned “felons” from voting. At the end, I managed to mention the official disenfranchisement of voters in my hometown of Washington, D.C., and the questionable “reliability or integrity’ of the new voting- machine technology. I’ve had all these wacko friends ever since.) But here are some of the non-wacko reasons to revisit the Ohio election.
First, the county-by-county and precinct-by-precinct discrepancies. In Butler County, for example, a Democrat running for the State Supreme Court chief justice received 61,559 votes. The Kerry-Edwards ticket drew about 5,000 fewer votes, at 56,243. This contrasts rather markedly with the behavior of the Republican electorate in that county, who cast about 40,000 fewer votes for their judicial nominee than they did for Bush and Cheney. (The latter pattern, with vote totals tapering down from the top of the ticket, is by far the more general—and probable—one nationwide and statewide.)
In 11 other counties, the same Democratic judicial nominee, C. Ellen Connally, managed to outpoll the Democratic presidential and vice-presidential nominees by hundreds and sometimes thousands of votes. So maybe we have a barn-burning, charismatic future candidate on our hands, and Ms. Connally is a force to be reckoned with on a national scale. Or is it perhaps a trick of the Ohio atmosphere? There do seem to be a lot of eccentrics in the state. In Cuyahoga County, which includes the city of Cleveland, two largely black precincts on the East Side voted like this. In Precinct 4F: Kerry, 290; Bush, 21; Peroutka, 215. In Precinct 4N: Kerry, 318; Bush, 11; Badnarik, 163. Mr. Peroutka and Mr. Badnarik are, respectively, the presidential candidates of the Constitution and Libertarian Parties. In addition to this eminence, they also possess distinctive (but not particularly African-American-sounding) names. In 2000, Ralph Nader’s best year, the total vote received in Precinct 4F by all third-party candidates combined was eight.
In Montgomery County, two precincts recorded a combined undervote of almost 6,000. This is to say that that many people waited to vote but, when their turn came, had no opinion on who should be the president, voting only for lesser offices. In these two precincts alone, that number represents an undervote of 25 percent, in a county where undervoting averages out at just 2 percent. Democratic precincts had 75 percent more under- votes than Republican ones.
In Precinct lB of Gahanna, in Franklin County, a computerized voting machine recorded a total of 4,258 votes for Bush and 260 votes for Kerry. In that precinct, however, there are only 800 registered voters, of whom 638 showed up. Once the “glitch” had been identified, the president had to be content with 3,893 fewer votes than the computer had awarded him.
In Miami County, a Saddam Hussein-type turnout was recorded in the Concord Southwest and Concord South precincts, which boasted 98.5 percent and 94.27 percent turnouts, respectively, both of them registering overwhelming majorities for Bush. Miami County also managed to report 19,000 additional votes for Bush after 100 percent of the precincts had reported on Election Day.
In Mahoning County, Washington Post reporters found that many people had been victims of “vote hopping,” which is to say that voting machines highlighted a choice of one candidate after the voter had recorded a preference for another. Some specialists in election software diagnose this as a “calibration issue.”
Machines are fallible and so are humans, and shit happens, to be sure, and no doubt many Ohio voters were able to record their choices promptly and without grotesque anomalies. But what strikes my eye is this: in practically every case where lines were too long or machines too few the foul-up was in a Democratic county or precinct, and in practically every case where machines produced impossible or improbable outcomes it was the challenger who suffered and the actual or potential Democratic voters who were shortchanged, discouraged, or held up to ridicule as chronic undervoters or as sudden converts to fringe-party losers.
This might argue in itself against any conspiracy or organized rigging, since surely anyone clever enough to pre-fix a vote would make sure, just for the look of the thing, that the discrepancies and obstructions were more evenly distributed. I called all my smartest conservative friends to ask them about this. Back came their answer: Look at what happened in Warren County. On Election Night, citing unspecified concerns about terrorism and homeland security, officials “locked down” the Warren County administration building and prevented any reporters from monitoring the vote count. It was announced, using who knows what “scale,” that on a scale of 1 to 10 the terrorist threat was a 10. It was also claimed that the information came from an F.B.I. agent, even though the F.B.I. denies that.
Warren County is certainly a part of Republican territory in Ohio: it went only 28 percent for Gore last time and 28 percent for Kerry this time. On the face of it, therefore, not a county where the G.O.P would have felt the need to engage in any voter “suppression.” A point for the anti- conspiracy side, then. Yet even those exact-same voting totals have their odd aspect. In 2000, Gore stopped running television commercials in Ohio some weeks before the election. He also faced a Nader challenge. Kerry put huge resources into Ohio, did not face any Nader competition, and yet got exactly the same proportion of the Warren County votes.
Whichever way you shake it, or hold it to the light, there is something about the Ohio election that refuses to add up. The sheer number of irregularities compelled a formal recount, which was completed in late December and which came out much the same as the original one, with 176 fewer votes for George Bush. But this was a meaningless exercise in reassurance, since there is simply no means of checking, for example, how many “vote hops” the computerized machines might have performed unnoticed.
There are some other, more random factors to be noted. The Ohio secretary of state, Kenneth Blackwell, was a state co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign at the same time as he was discharging his responsibilities for an aboveboard election in his home state. Diebold, which manufactures paper-free, touch-screen voting machines, likewise has its corporate headquarters in Ohio. Its chairman, president, and C.E.O., Walden O’Dell, is a prominent Bush supporter and fund-raiser who proclaimed in 2003 that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.” (See “Hack the Vote,” by Michael Shnayerson, Vanity Fair, April 2004.) Diebold, together with its competitor, E.S.&S., counts more than half the votes cast in the United States. This not very acute competition is perhaps made still less acute by the fact that a vice president of E.S.&S. and a Diebold director of strategic services are brothers.
I would myself tend to discount most of the above, since an oligarchy bent on stealing an election would probably not announce itself so brashly as to fit into a Michael Moore script. Then, all state secretaries of state are partisan, after all, while in Ohio each of the 88 county election boards contains two Democrats and two Republicans. The chairman of Diebold is entitled to his political opinion just as much as any other citizen.
However, there is one soothing explanation that I don’t trust anymore. It was often said, in reply to charges of vote tampering, that it would have had to be “a conspiracy so immense” as to involve a dangerously large number of people. Indeed, some Ohio Democrats themselves laughed off some of the charges, saying that they too would have had to have been part of the plan. The stakes here are very high: one defector or turncoat with hard evidence could send the principals to jail forever and permanently discredit the party that had engaged in fraud.
I had the chance to spend quality time with someone who came to me well recommended, who did not believe that fraud had yet actually been demonstrated, whose background was in the manufacture of the machines, and who wanted to be anonymous. It certainly could be done, she said, and only a very, very few people would have to be “in on it.” This is because of the small number of firms engaged in the manufacturing and the even smaller number of people, subject as they are to the hiring practices of these firms, who understand the technology. “Machines were put in place with no sampling to make sure they were ‘in control’ and no comparison studies,” she explained. “The code of the machines is not public knowledge, and none of these machines has since been impounded.” In these circumstances, she continued, it’s possible to manipulate both the count and the proportions of votes.
In the bad old days of Tammany Hall, she pointed out, you had to break the counter pins on the lever machines, and if there was any vigilance in an investigation, the broken pins would automatically incriminate the machine. With touch-screen technology, the crudeness and predictability of the old ward-heeler racketeers isn’t the question anymore. But had there been a biased “setting” on the new machines it could be uncovered—if a few of them could be impounded. The Ohio courts are currently refusing all motions to put the state’s voting machines, punch-card or touch-screen, in the public domain. It’s not clear to me, or to anyone else, who is tending the machines in the meanwhile …
I asked her, finally, what would be the logical grounds for deducing that any tampering had in fact occurred. “Well, I understand from what I have read,” she said, “that the early exit polls on the day were believed by both parties.” That, I was able to tell her from direct experience, was indeed true. But it wasn’t quite enough, either. So I asked, “What if all the anomalies and malfunctions, to give them a neutral name, were distributed along one axis of consistency: in other words, that they kept on disadvantaging only one candidate?” My question was hypothetical, as she had made no particular study of Ohio, but she replied at once: “Then that would be quite serious.”
I am not any sort of statistician or technologist, and (like many Democrats in private) I did not think that John Kerry should have been president of any country at any time. But I have been reviewing books on history and politics all my life, making notes in the margin when I come across a wrong date, or any other factual blunder, or a missing point in the evidence. No book is ever free from this. But if all the mistakes and omissions occur in such a way as to be consistent, to support or attack only one position, then you give the author a lousy review. The Federal Election Commission, which has been a risible body for far too long, ought to make Ohio its business. The Diebold company, which also manufactures A.T.M.s, should not receive another dime until it can produce a voting system that is similarly reliable. And Americans should cease to be treated like serfs or extras when they present themselves to exercise their franchise.
Suddenly quotes and stories by Christopher Hitchens are *everywhere*. Pretty clear they just put up with the loser because he was his father’s son. It was only a matter of time until he gave them a perfectly good chance to toss the reprobate out on his ear.
Now that you’ve been tossed, Chrissie boy, get to your feet, dust yourself off, dry those spiteful tears from your eyes, shake your fist at the saloon door, shout your favorite epithets that no one can hear inside over the music and conversation. Done with your tantrum yet? Good, now head on over to MSNBC. (They’re down at the other end of the town, past the trading post and around the corner. Near the pig sty, just past the embalmer.) They’re gonna LOVE ya there.
If only I could edit my posts. Strike “Hitchens”, insert “Buckley”. Sheesh, I’ve impugned a perfectly good man.
Perhaps you’ll believe Christopher Hitchens?
Democrats have used even George W. Bush’s words to mess up our efforts in Iraq.
It’s not about “authority” Oz. It is not about appeals to authority. Truth comes from independent thinking not parasitic thinking.