This helps explain how “libertarians” and “conservatives” buried everything that they supposedly stood for – small government, limited governmental intervention in private lives, limited federal government power in general – when their governing coalition found itself in power.
On a similar note, I never thought that we would seriously ask whether George W. Bush is a conservative. I guess that makes me that much less perceptive than Digby, who predicted this months ago. Via this characteristically important post by Greenwald, conservatives have a real problem in that they hitched their movement to the president when he seemed like an unbeatable juggernaut. As their designated representative slides from juggernaut to joke, conservatives have to find a way to get unhitched before he drags the movement down with him.
Let me illustrate. We have commenters of every political stripe who bring up the president fairly often. I have noticed that when somebody criticizes the president the defender will sooner or later label that person a ‘liberal’ almost without fail. That seems like a strange thing to say when Bush critics include dyed-in-the-wool libs, Reagan Democrats, independents, GOP expatriates and unreconstructed Republican conservatives who simply detest the current administration. If you follow the logic that opposing the president more or less categorically defines a person as liberal, by definition that makes the president conservative, even the living embodiment of conservatism. As long as the Republican star seemed on the rise and decades of hard work had made the word ‘liberal’ practically an epithet it made for a useful, if dishonest, rhetorical barb.
Obviously personifying conservatism is a bad idea if the person is a loser. That helps explain conservatives who have newfound problems with the president, but for sheer moxie points you can’t beat Jonah Goldberg, a guy who not only steps away from the president but tries to hitch Bush’s fading star to liberalism. Really? I get it now, those angry books from Hannity, Coulter, Savage et al ad infinitum actually called the president a traitor, an enemy of America and a closet sympathizer with the evil men who want to destroy our great nation. Try to parse that logic, and then take an advil.
blackfrancis
i had a headache before reading this.
Steve
Here is a very good post along these lines.
VAMark
I remember grumbling back as far as the runup to 2000 about why GWB felt the need to hitch “compassionate” to conservative in the first place. Then the drumbeat that he was “God’s man” for the job started (fellow listeners to Christian radio circa 1999-2000 can back me up on this) and he became the official candidate of the GOP powers that be. They’ll try to disassociate him from the brand now, and the real Kool-Aid drinkers will buy it and forget they ever supported him (“never did trust the guy, wasn’t he a cheerleader in high school?”). But if the Dems were smart they could run against him for at least the 12 years the GOP rode Carter, if not the 30 the Dems ran against Hoover. Given the Dems we have, of course, I expect GOP victories in 2006 and 2008.
canuckistani
It’s as if the right wing has spent so long conflating the words “liberal” and “bad”, that they can no longer criticize anything without calling it “liberal”, e.g. “The chicken in the fridge has gone liberal”, or “Red Dawn was a liberal movie”.
The Other Steve
Steve – How is a post about urine on sidewalks interesting?
Tim F.
Other Steve,
Wait a minute and the page will automatically scroll down. The writer definitely has a more informed perspective on the nuances of conservative Bush criticism than I do.
Darrell
It’s not that the conservatives buried their small govt ideals, it’s that we made a choice between the lesser of two evils. We had been attacked on 9/11 and the middle east was a cesspool breeding terrorists, and the left refused to take that threat seriously.. that is, unless “no blood for oil” constitutes serious political dialogue. Seriously, what were/are the left’s solutions? What is the left proposing to do about Iran, other than scream about Bush? Answer that if you want to have a serious discussion.. which is discussion the left avoids like the plague
Yes, because “Bush is a fascist killer”, typical of ‘criticism’ of Bush on this site.. of which I can demonstrate with LOTS of examples if anyone claims otherwise. That sort of criticism, which is commonplace, is in fact usually made by hateful liberals who are too irrational to be taken seriously
Sojourner
Ah yes. Another confirmation of Tim’s thesis. It’s irrational, hateful liberals who believe Bush is the worst POTUS in history. Wow, almost 70% of the country have become liberals.
Whoo hoo!!!!
The Other Steve
I’ve noticed that. They’re now all distancing themselves from the man.
Which is not surprising. Whenever something goes wrong for Republicans, they blame someone else. In this case it appears that Bush is going to be the scapegoat.
I agree with VAMark. The Republican party should have to remember Bush for the next 30 years. The failure of Bush has not been the man, it’s been the ideology. That is, whatever problem comes along they try to apply a hammer to it whether appropriate or not. I’ve been noticing this over and over again from their mighty “thinktanks”. They’ve got no new ideas, they don’t even want to understand the problem. It’s all about how can we turn this into a profit opportunity for a campaign contributor.
Darrell
Bush has abandoned small govt policies, and has alienated his base, which is why his approval ratings are in the dirt. One of the few responsibilities conservatives feel should be handled by the federal govt is enforcement of the borders, and Bush has f*cked that one up as well. If the Dems were not so infested with hateful extremists, they would mop the floor with the Repubs.
Problem is, the extremists have more influence in the Dem party than ever before. I mean, when the Dems nominate John Kerry, whom Michael Moore points out is in fact the MOST liberal senator serving, not a mainstream moderate, and the left screams that Kerry is not nearly liberal enough, that says a lot about how extreme the left has become, and why John Cole rightly refers to them as “dangerous”. He’s absolutely right.
Blue Neponset
If you are a Conservative 9/11 is a lot like DiDi 7. There isn’t anything it can’t clean up.
Darrell
Here is another example. Other Steve is not particularly whacky or extreme compared to other leftists, but if you read his posts and the the opinions of other leftists, you will read that they actualy believe things like Bush “made” oil prices rise to benefit his oil crony buddies and other similar nonsense. Re-read these threads if you doubt me that many/most leftists believe that kind of crap. More evidence that they are too extreme to be taken seriously. It really would be dangerous if these types took control of govt.
Pb
Awesome. Let’s look at some of the forthcoming revised book titles:
Sounds about right…
Pb
Darrell,
Well yes, Cheney was involved too. It’s indisputable that by their actions, they did make oil prices rise. Perhaps that wasn’t their intent, though–maybe they meant to make oil prices fall, and just bungled it up so horribly that their actions had the opposite effect. That thought doesn’t exactly cheer me up, though. But what do you expect from a bunch of neocon liberals, right?
The Other Steve
Ok, I finally found hte note you were talking about on moonbatvolkoh.com
This bit at the bottom though, it’s clear he doesn’t comprehend.
I live in a condo with a homeowner complex. Most all of these places are fairly new within the last 10-15 years. The only “services” that they have which government would otherwise provide is snow removal, and street maintenance. The other services is because we’re lazy.
But I’ve been in two complexes now, and I’ve looked at many others when shopping around. In 20 years, this whole thing is going to come to a crisis.
Most homeowner associations are not putting aside enough money in reserve to pay for replacements and repairs needed in 20-30 years. To the roofs, the siding, and in particular the streets.
What we’ve seen with some of the original townhouse complexes, is that after 30-40 years they end up in such a bad state of repair that the city must take over the maintenance and then places a lean upon the property. That won’t happen to all the newer ones, but it’s going to happen to many of them.
He just doesn’t get that issue.
Blue Neponset
Darrell,
As a leftists I can assure you that the vast majority of us don’t believe Bush went to war for oil. Also, what leftists believe or don’t believe has little, actually nothing, to do with what Conservatives choose to do. If your gang can’t balance the budget or protect the borders it isn’t because Micheal Moore thinks John Kerry would have been a wicked awesome President.
Steve
Argh! I don’t care about privatizing sidewalks.
Read here.
Frank
Tim- Yes Republicans are filthy criminal traitorous scum. So anything new?
The Other Steve
Actually this goes back to Tim F.’s comment at the top. You classify me as a Leftist, or Liberal because I detest Bush’s policies. I’m not even sure you know what that means. I guess if believing in a Free Market without Government interference to favor one industry over another makes me a Liberal. Then so be it. I’d rather be a Liberal than a Statist.
It’s pretty common knowledge and quite clear from anybody who reads the Business Press, that Republicans favor certain companies over others and work their policies in order to direct government largess towards their friends. you can argue that perhaps Democrats do that to, but you don’t get to claim it doesn’t happen.
Sojourner
Nah. Just unable to govern. Which is unfortunate if you want to be a politician.
The Other Steve
Yeah but Ilya Somin does. It was her point 3.
I understand the other parts, but I have to agree with the commentators that the critics of Bush on the right only started criticizing when everything went wrong.
Otto Man
That Goldberg column is a typical collection of flawed history and faulty logic. I especially like this swipe:
Yeah, Kevin Phillips, what a yammerer. He was only Nixon’s chief political strategist for his two victories, the man who created the Southern Strategy and first identified the “Sunbelt” as the crux of political power (and coined the term). But Jonah Goldberg, whose chief triumph in life is being born to a well-connected mother, well, he is a Man To Be Listened To.
Keep stamping your feet, little man.
MAX HATS
What a complete load of bullshit. You know who the “most liberal senator” really is? Whoever happens to be the scream du jour in right wing talking points. A few weeks ago it was Feingold, a couple years ago it was Durbin, in two years it will be Clinton, and all points in between it’s Kennedy. Just one more example of the complete, instintive dishonesty that characterizes republicanism.
The Other Steve
I believe Bush went to war for two reasons:
– Political… he thought it’d help in 2002 and 2004
– Strategic… he thought shaking up the middle east would stabilize things over there
The Political side I believe is treason, mainly because that was his primary reasoning.
The Strategic side I believe is just plain nuts.
The other aspects, the contracts to campaign contributors, the paying for reconstruction from oil revenues, etc. were just gravy to gain support for the endeavor.
But the Strategic side of it, that he thought he could stabilize the region by eliminating Hussein… that was about oil. We need the whole middle east because of oil. Otherwise we’d just leave them all alone and let them kill each other, like we have Africa.
Agreed.
Besides. I’d rather have a beer with Michael Moore than Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh any day. And I don’t really like Moore.
Otto Man
You can blame this on 9/11 all you want, Darrell, but Bush’s big government ways were there from the beginning (NCLB?) and they exist well outside the realm of national security.
If you factor out military spending, real federal outlays under this president have averaged 8.4% per annum. That’s the biggest spending rate by any president in the past 50 years. Period.
The Other Steve
That’s because Compassionate Conservativism means…
Nobody trusts us to be compassionate so we have to make up for that perception by spending lot’s more money.
Otto Man
Darrell, can you find me one example of a liberal here saying that? One?
The only time the “Bush McHitlerburton!!!111one!!!!” comments ever come up on this site is when you or MacBuckets invoke them to mock the liberal viewpoint. Since you seem to believe those claims are “typical” of the criticism of Bush on this site, please go find us some examples. (From someone besides you and Mac.)
Just because the voices in your head keep saying this stuff, it doesn’t mean we do.
Punchy
Wow…Tim’s hypothesis proven in 5 minutes.
Pooh
So was that the Cherry or Raspberry Kool-aid, Senator?
Darrell
See what I mean.. To the left, a far left liberal like John Kerry is not ‘really’ a liberal, but only called one by the right wing smear machine with no basis in reality. Rove bought off Michael Moore, right?
But the left doesn’t see themselves as extremists
Darrell
You’re right. Evil genius Karl Rove schemed to grow the Chinese and India economies so that they would demand more oil, which in turn would line the pockets of his big-money oil crony contributors.
Makes perfect sense.. if you’re a whackjob
The Other Steve
Do you see yourself as an extremist?
Punchy
That’s a somewhat misleading statement. Limbaugh doesn’t drink beer; he prefers a Oxycontin milkshake with a side order of fat, and Coulter, I think, drinks Adam’s Apple Growth Wine…
Brian
I liked Clinton because I saw him as a conservative in liberal clothes. Bush is the opposite, with the exception that he’s strong on defense in a way the Democrats would never embrace. If it weren’t for the war, I think the Left would like Bush a lot more than now. He’s big guv.
Blue Neponset
Darrell,
If every Democrat in the known Universe was to the left of Michael Moore, it wouldn’t make Tim’s point any less true. Your Conservative buddies in DC have abandoned their supposed Conservative priorities.
I wonder if the only thing that matters to you is that Conservatives are keeping our country safe from Lefty extremists. Maybe that is the only Conservative priority?
Pooh
I don’t think Darrell has priorities beyond his ‘team’ winning.
Darrell
Such a cogent rebuttal
Pooh
I’m not rebutting anything, I’m offering an opinion based on observation.
Pooh
You could always prove me wrong by demonstrating a capacity for cogent argumentation yourself, but the “MOONBAT” key seems to be stuck on you keyboard.
Blue Neponset
I think Darrell has a lot of company.
It is hard for me to admit this, but I actually have an little bit of respect for Senator Coburn from OK. He is a wackjob for sure but he at least has been walking the conservative talk since he got into Congress. Most of his conservative buddies have chosen party over policy since Bush got in office and they haven’t looked back since.
Punchy
I agree. He acted as expected after 9-11, in Afghanistan, and months afterwards. Few probs with him up until that point.
It was his manipulation of the whole Iraq mess that made liberals go from indifferent to frustrated to miffed to livid. And now it’s even Repubs that are seeing this betrayal.
Candidus
Big-government conservatism is the final triumph in American politics of the progressive principle that government exists as a tool of social change and should be expanded as necessary to serve that end. There is no longer an ideological struggle — such as there ever was — over whether there should be a communal cannibal-pot. Rather, the struggle now is entirely over who gets thrown into it.
The left thought that they could create a wonderful engine of social “justice” and keep it all to themselves. After being the dominant force in politics for several decades they didn’t much consider the possibility that their creation would be turned against them. That something as insignificant as NPR wasn’t totally defunded in 1995 should’ve been their first clue that the right, once in power, would decide that it is preferable to wield the tools than to destroy them.
As far as I’m concerned, the voting public, in its entirety, is getting exactly the government it deserves in W, and it’s only going to get worse after 2008.
Par R
In what has become routine for Tim, he chooses to mischaracterize Goldberg’s writings and opinions, perhaps because he was looking to Greenwald for a degree of honesty that was sadly lacking yet again. For anyone interested in where Goldberg really stands, here’s a Link.
Punchy
In other news….I see Pete “I want TWO hookers, perferably blondes” Goss of CIA fame has just resigned.
Dominoes keep falling…one by one by one….
jg
Classic. Tim puts up a post about the way the right labels all opposition as liberal (I think they do it because their base can’t handle complex issues so they dumb it down and make liberal the uber bad guy for them) and Darrel shows up and proceeds to call Other Steve a liberal. Maybe I’m wrong but AFAIK Other Steve doesn’t represent the left here. He’s usually defending the right if not actully Bush. I thought it was odd when friends turned on me and started calling me liberal (I used to go to Harvard Square and taunt liberals, I can’t be one, I won’t be one) but then I saw it happen to John Cole and now Other Steve. Sad.
LITBMueller
Punchy, would it be wrong of me to say this hooker thing seems to have…legs? heh heh! How much you wanna bet that Dusty Foggo has or will be quitely let go, too.
Punchy
Sorry, I meant Porter Goss.
Pb
Darrell,
Well those weren’t the particular actions I was thinking of, but that works too.
Nikki
Hookergate is alive and real.
Oh my.
Perry Como
I wonder if Porter Goss just resigned because he’s another liberal Republican?
jg
Kerry isn’t the most liberal senator. He wasn’t when he ran or before or since. He’s liberal, only an idiot like you would think anyone is saying he isn’t. But he ain’t the ‘most’ liberal. Just another bullshit talking point used during the election to scare people who don’t know shit about politics but are certain they hate liberals. Just say liberal over and over about him and certain people will never entertain the thought of voting for him.
gratefulcub
I was thinking about this phenomenon at BJ. It was once split about 50/50. It has become one sided in the comments section. I believe that there hasn’t actually been a shift in commenters. The middle just now agrees in part with the left of center posters, and there are only a few solid right posters left.
Isn’t that how W went from 71% to 32%? The middle has seen the light. They haven’t become liberal, and their political leaning hasn’t actually changed. Their love of this batch of republicans has disappeared.
Punchy
Let’s see…how many stupid, juvenile, yet funny things can we drag from this? I’ll start:
“Howdy, Ms. Streetwalker, if I show you Foggy Bottom, can I see yours?”
“Me and my buddies were only playing ‘poke her’…er..I mean, poker”
“I work for the CIA, which stands for Crotch Inspection Agency”
“I thought when she said she was a hooker that meant she was a fisherman”
Hooker’s testimony “I tried Goss, but I didn’t inhale”
Perry Como
“Did you know my official title is Senior Pooper Snooper?”
“The CIA is filled with alot of cunning linguists.”
“I found a Weapon of Mass Destruction. In my pants!”
gratefulcub
“Hey, do you have a boyfriend for Duke?”
Paul Wartenberg
You nailed it exactly on the head, Tim F.
These ‘Defenders of Conservatism’ need to be recognized for the hypocrites they are. You can’t spend 5 years hailing Your Boy Bush as a paragon of conservative leadership only to turn around and label him a LIBERAL once he slides under 35 percent popularity.
And, here’s my point to make, Bush isn’t even the biggest problem the ‘Defenders of Conservatism’ are going to have. It’s not only Bush: it’s Congress as well. For 12 years Congress has been for the most part run by the Republicans, run by congressional leadership hailed as the best and the brightest among the conservative true believers, am I right? So here it is, for 5-6 years of Bush’s rule the conservatives have had control of both Congress and the White House. And what have they done? They spent money in the trillions, raised deficits beyond all previous levels, expanded government bureaucracy, entered into aggressive warmaking that made the paleos wince in horror, and on top of it all made it all an incompetent cronyist mess. If a CEO company had been run like this it would have failed years ago. Oh that’s right, Enron was run like this. But I digress.
So for 5 years, the conservative leadership of both the WH and Congress behaved in ways that the ‘Defenders of Conservatism’ would now label as ‘Liberal’. Well, can someone suggest to these ‘Defenders of Conservatism’ that maybe, just maybe, it’s not the people but the ideology itself that’s corrupt and wrong?
Because that’s the only explanation that makes sense right now.
gratefulcub
“I will trade you a $300 million dollar contract for a defense system the country doesn’t need if you will give me a boat and some hookers.”
Wow, it isn’t really funny when you think about it.
VAMark
You miss the point. The “Left” isn’t for big government on principle, it thinks certain things are worth doing and that government is best positioned to do them. Bush has expanded the government, but very little of what he’s done strikes the Left as either worthwhile or well executed. A negative twofer.
MAX HATS
See what I mean.. To the left, a far left liberal like John Kerry is not ‘really’ a liberal, but only called one by the right wing smear machine with no basis in reality. Rove bought off Michael Moore, right?
But the left doesn’t see themselves as extremists
Darrel, you lying sack of shit, I did not say Kerry was not liberal. That would be dumb. I said it’s ridiculous to call him “the most liberal senator” when that very lable gets applied to large number of senators, when that label is, of course, exclusive.
Just for the record, do you beleive Kerry is more liberal than Feingold?
Please answer. Or don’t. I hardly expect honesty in discourse with you.
MAX HATS
TAGS, ugh
Darrel, you lying sack of shit, I did not say Kerry was not liberal. That would be dumb. I said it’s ridiculous to call him “the most liberal senator” when that very lable gets applied to large number of senators, when that label is, of course, exclusive.
Just for the record, do you beleive Kerry is more liberal than Feingold?
Please answer. Or don’t. I hardly expect honesty in discourse with you.
D. Mason
You mean testosterone? If so I agree.
Pb
Kerry doesn’t even make it into the top ten.
gratefulcub
Hell no. Maybe privately, but Kerry is/was scared of his liberalness.
Feingold for President in 08. A real liberal that openly supports gay marriage. no civil unions, marriage. He isn’t scared of his own ideas. He is the first politician that actually excites me since Wellstone.
farmgirl
Brian Sez: “I liked Clinton because I saw him as a conservative in liberal clothes. Bush is the opposite, with the exception that he’s strong on defense in a way the Democrats would never embrace.”
If by “strong” you mean “squanders soldiers and money in completely counterproductive ways”, then hell no, I’m not embracing that.
Darrell
It appears that Michael Moore’s admission that Kerry is the most liberal senator is based on a lot of truth. At the very least, he is far to the left of mainstream. But so many on the left are so extreme, that from where they stand, Kerry isn’t close to being far left enough.
Darrell
Sure they are.. the left looks to the govt to solve all our problems. They are socialists at heart. Few but the most extreme would deny that
Cyrus
You’re not wrong about this, but only because “the Left would like Bush… more than now” says very, very little. If Bush had stopped with Afghanistan, or played by the rules with Iraq, (if you disagree with that assessment, consider it shorthand for “didn’t give up on U.N. and inspections”; we don’t need a 50-comment argument about the legality of the invasion) he still might have the Andrew Sullivans on his side, maybe even the Kevin Drums and Matthew Yglesiases.
But conduct of the war or even the war itself aren’t the only complaints about him from The Left. Underfunding NCLB? Florida 2000? The Medicare corporate welfare? Terri Schiavo? Gutting FEMA? Social Security privatization? Treating intelligent design like it’s credible? The unnecessary tax cuts? (I know that’s opening a can of worms too, but to me at least, it just looks like a slightly smoother version of Frist’s $100 gas rebate, and we know how popular that is.)
We don’t like big government for its own sake, we like it for the sake of accomplishing stuff, and in my view Bush has accomplished nothing with it that was worth doing. In fact, now that I’ve written all this, your statement almost seems absurd. If you take the biggest complaint two or three complaints about Bush off the list, then you’re left with… a list.
ppGaz
As long as the lying, incompetant alcoholic piece of shit is in the White House, he has to be dealt with, he’s the first problem we have.
Until you get rid of him or disempower him by taking his rubber stamp congress away, he is Problem Number One.
We have to hope that he doesn’t fuck up the Iran situation before he can be reined in. We don’t really have a choice.
It’s not like the crazy sonofabitch is going to listen to good advice, is it?
ppGaz
Again, Tim and John … what the FUCK?
This is not even parody, or satire. It’s just crap.
ppGaz
You are defending a lunatic who has done more to try to consolidate federal and executive power than any president in history, you moron.
Blue Neponset
Darrell, I think you may have a nasty case of LDS (Liberal Derangement Syndrome). Tim’s post is about Bush being called a liberal by your Conservatives buddies because his poll numbers suck. It has nothing to do with John Kerry, Micheal Moore or any of the other nasty liberals you seem to be so afraid of.
Steve
I was a big fan of how he handled Katrina, for example. Who wouldn’t be?
There were a lot of folks on the left who felt like the war was about the only thing Bush got RIGHT… at least for a while.
John S.
Don’t you mean the right looks to the government to solve all our problems?
After all, the Bush administration has increased the size of the federal government more than anyone in history.
Perry Como
I for one look to the government to tell me what I can and can’t do in my bedroom. I think we need a Federal Sex Toys Amendment. It will outlaw all devices intended for sexual gratification.
Darrell
Bush has been criticized for his big spending from conservatives starting his very first year in office. It’s dishonest to assert that such criticsim has ‘suddenly’ appeared. As I said in my first post, conservatives backed Bush as the lesser of two evils when faced with the alternative nominated by Dems
ppGaz
As I said …
You are defending a lunatic who has done more to try to consolidate federal and executive power than any president in history, you moron.
Candidus
That’s correct, and neither is the right for big government on principle. To the ideologues on both “sides,” government force is only the means to their ends.
There was a time when Republicans in general didn’t think the ends justified the left’s preferred means — or at least they made noises to that effect. No longer.
“We’re all statists now.”
Blue Neponset
Calling the policies of the Bush administration “liberal policies” is a sudden develolpment. I don’t recall hearing anything about this during the 2004 election.
Darrell
I recall a President named Lincoln that suspended Habeus corpus and imposed martial law..
At least Bush takes islamic terrorism seriously. Tell me, what has the left, or even mainstream Dems proposed we do differently in Iraq? How about in dealing Iran? Honest answers to those questions are why Dems keep losing elections
ppGaz
I already gave you my answer to that, you just don’t like the answer. So you ignore it.
Bush doesn’t exactly have a confidence-building track record going here, in case you haven’t been paying attention.
Steve
Yeah, the fact that invading Iraq wouldn’t have been the Democrats’ first step in combatting Islamic terrorism sure shows how unserious they are. Everyone except deranged moonbats agrees that had to be our first priority, right?
Darrell
What then, was there proposal instead? What are they proposing to do now, besides scream “Bush lied”?
ppGaz
What’s amazing to me is that any sentient person can look at Iran …. or any real problem in the world …. and imagine going to George Bush and his band of hyenas and expecting them to handle it without completely, utterly fucking it up in every possible way.
I mean, how many times can you repeat an experiment and expect a different result before you have to declare yourself mentally ill? I think whatever that number is, we’ve exceeded it with these crazy fucks running the country now.
ppGaz
Asked, and answered.
Move on.
Blue Neponset
I recall a President named Reagan that didn’t suspend Habeus Corpus or impose martial law during the Cold War.
Pb
Darrell,
If Bush is considered ‘liberal’ now, then that would make Lincoln a socialist commie terrorist-lover.
ppGaz
Darrell doesn’t get the fact that there is only one real threat to the future of this country in the next two and a half years, and it’s not Tehran. It’s in Washington, DC.
Bush is the greatest threat to this country. Do we have a plan? You bet. Take his congress away in November. That effectively saves the nation for at least two years.
At the rate he’s going, most Republicans are going to agree with us by election day.
Steve
I believe the first steps included finishing the job in Afghanistan, catching bin Laden, and holding the Saudis accountable for their financing of terrorism.
It’s understandable you aren’t aware of any of these things because your side isn’t really into meaningful engagement of Democratic proposals. It’s all about demonizing liberals and slinging around bullshit like “John Kerry wants to be more sensitive with the terrorists!” Oh wait, you probably believe he said that, don’t you.
jg
The left can’t win elections because they have no message yet they all think alike. Weird.
BTW Lincoln apologized for his extreme moves.
ppGaz
That’s right, if we’d come out in favor of torture, gay bashing and cracking down on Mexicans, we could win elections too.
Darrell
Let’s be clear what Steve is saying. According to you, the Dem position is:
1. We can’t take any further military action until the job in Afghanistan is “finished”.. and of course the Dems offer no such definition of what ‘finished’ means. And you want others to take you seriously, right?
2. Catching bin Ladin. I’ve seen no evidence that Iraq took away from the pursuit of Bin Laden, and I’ve seen no Dem proposals on how to better pursue and capture him if he is alive. After all, he could have been in Northern Iran since 2001 for all we know or dead in a cave. This is another blathering excuse to do nothing
3. Hold Saudis accountable for their financing of terrorism – Well I guess you didn’t notice, but we did a pretty aggressive shut down of Saudi charities. As for further steps in ‘holding them accountable’, please elaborate what more should have been done, as toppling of royal family would create a power vacuum vulnerable to takeoever by islamic terrorists.
I think it’s clear from Steve’s summary, which is basically the Dem position, that they have no serious plans or proposals on the table to deal with islamic terrorism. Unless ‘catching bin Laden’ is considered a serious foreign policy proposal.. unless you have inside info on how to do a better job in catching him than is already being done
Pb
Darrell,
And now it’s time for another edition of ‘Spoof, or Ignorance’!
ppGaz
What is the administration’s position, according to you, Darrell?
Steve
Right, because Darrell disagrees with the merits of the Democratic proposals, the Democrats have no proposals.
I could make a long speech about how the war in Iraq is completely counterproductive in the war on terror, and I’d even have the advantage of being correct. But I wouldn’t be so vacuous as to make the claim that “this proves the Republicans have no ideas.” They have plenty of ideas, I just think they’re terrible ones.
I’d be happy to discuss, among other things, what we could do to hold the Saudis accountable aside from “toppling the royal family,” but I think that statement already speaks volumes about how Republicans aren’t willing to engage with any rational position. On Planet Darrell, the only two choices are (1) do nothing or (2) invade someone, and unless you’re willing to invade someone, you’re the party of no ideas!
ppGaz
Is it Dareell?
Neither. Darrell just lies. If you catch him, he runs away or changes the subject.
Darrell
What amazing about the left is their cult-like approach to issues. Whether it’s mankind’s effect on climate change or the hunt for Bin Laden, they hold wrongheaded beliefs which cannot be be factually defended. Dogma over reality every time
Tommy Franks said he had all the troops he needed to hunt down Bin Laden. But those on the left know better. At least try and make an argument why more troops in Afghanistan would have been a net positive.. especially when Bin Laden’s whereabouts and status as a living being is in serious question
Darrell
then do so, as we’ve heard a lot of carping from Dems, but no specific proposals on what they propose we should be doing differently.
Steve
Maybe if your name is Stormy. Seriously, to talk about a “cult-like approach to issues,” and then to toss out the meme that we’re not even sure bin Laden is alive no matter how many confirmed audiotapes he churns out, that takes cojones.
Darrell
that’s what I thought. You and your side have no specific proposals, just carping.. oh, and “Bush lied”
ppGaz
How can you say shit like this with a straight face?
You are the most narrow-minded, doctrinaire butthead on this whole blog.
Pb
Darrell,
Ok, ignorant spoof, then. Now fuck off.
Steve
Huh? “We don’t have to worry about bin Laden, because he may be dead” is what passes for a specific proposal in your book?
The only two responses you and your ilk have to actual policy proposals are “that won’t work” and “Bush is already doing that,” so I’m not going to waste my time. There are plenty of conservatives I can have a great discussion with on foreign policy… but you’re sure not one of them.
Darrell
I’m not going to waste my time = I know my side has no good proposals on fighting terrorism that can stand scrutiny, so I’ll whine like a little bitch about how mean you and your “ilk” are
ppGaz
Well, Pb, you’ve sold out to USA Today, which is
Gannett, which is MSM and obviously left-leaning and biased.
Shame, shame on you.
ppGaz
You need some new material, Darrell. That crap you are posting went out of style about two years ago.
Again, to Tim and John: This is what you let represent the right on your blog?
If that’s the case, you might as well give up and just become diarists at DKos. You have no righty representation at this point.
Steve
It’s not that you’re mean, it’s just that you’re not interested in having a serious conversation. From this thread alone:
But right, you’re just sitting there waiting to have a serious discussion on the merits of the Democrats’ foreign policy ideas… the ideas that you’re so interested in, you somehow need me to educate you that they even exist. Right, I’m real sorry I’m passing on this opportunity for an educational dialogue.
Darrell
Let’s see, Dems tell us we ‘should have’ stationed tens or hundreds of thousands more troops in Afghanistan to concentrate on catching Bin Laden, at a time when it was unknown whether or not Bin Laden was in even in that part of the world. How brilliant. And of course, the possibility of faked OBL tapes with voice overs is not even a possibility. We’ve all seen the tapes of OBL holding up current newspaper headlines, right? OBL may be alive, but again he may not. I believe there was a Time magazine feature story not long ago that OBL was dead
But with regards to actual specific terrorist leaders, the logical followup question is, do Dems believe that al-Zarqawi is as dangerous or more dangerous threat than Bin Laden?
Darrell
Steve, how honest of you to truncate my quotes, intentionally removing the specific Dem comments I was criticizing.
Steve
And that was very mature, substantive criticism of those “Dem comments” you offered, right? The same kind of mature, substantive criticism you want to offer regarding the Democrats’ foreign policy proposals, the ones you like to pretend don’t exist?
Frankly, even if it was really a choice between a guy who says “I’ll fight the war on terror by invading Iraq” and a guy who says “I have no idea what to do about the war on terror, but I won’t be invading Iraq,” I’d still take the second guy. Most of America agrees at this point; you do not, Darrell, and that really says it all.
ppGaz
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Why do you talk all the time as if you are having a conversation with somebody called “Dems” and “The Left?”
Are you “GOP” and the “The Right?”
Why can’t you talk like a real fucking person, and take responsibility for your own opinions, which you refuse to acknowledge when it’s inconvenient for you? Why don’t you talk to other people like they are people, like you, with ideas and opinions like you, who happen to disagree with you?
Why do you shit on everybody who talks to you and then bitch when you get no respect?
Darrell
Yeah, that’s exactly what Americans were “agreeing” with when they reelected George Bush in 2004.
ppGaz
Why do you talk all the time in grandiose terms about “Americans” and “most people?”
Why can’t you talk as if you are the voice of one person, and treat your adversaries as if the are the same?
Why can’t you answer simple questions about your views?
Why can’t you provide basic facts to back up the gross assertions you make all the time when asked to do so?
Tim F.
ppGaz, stuff it. I cannot tell you how sick I am of these constant appeals for censorship.
Tim F.
I should quote the original:
We don’t ‘let’ anybody on the blog. Anybody who wants to come or go is free to do so. If I missed a joke then fine, egg on my face, but you do this a lot and I feel the same every time.
ppGaz
Why does Darrell get away with this shit?
The constant disrespect, the interminable talking points.
Get a clue, man. The calls to you guys is theater. I know damned well you won’t do anything about the sob.
But take a look. This moron is just about the only regular righty representation on the blog.
Seriously, that doesn’t bother you?
ppGaz
Not quite. I’ve seen bannings, and I’ve seen some pretty hard smackdowns from management.
On the one hand, I’ve said myself that the freedom of speech here is considerably more than we deserve. On the other hand …. do you read Darrell’s crap?
Okay, of course you won’t censure him. But you could take the time to point out that he’s a horse’s ass 95% of the time.
Darrell
ppgaz, why do you have to drag everything down to such a personal level? Sure, I give as good as I get, but at least I try and put forth an argument. This is about the gazillionth time you have described me as the righty ‘representation’ on BJ, as if John and/or Tim solicit my comments. Newsflash – they don’t
ppGaz
You can’t be serious? You can’t answer a simple direct question. You make stuff up and then ignore the callouts.
You refer to every view that isn’t like yours as “Dem” or “The Left” and dismiss with a sneer.
You can’t enter a thread without your patented “Bush lied” bullshit.
That’s your idea of putting forth an argument? That everything you don’t like is just “Bush Lied” stuff made up my “Dems” on the “The Left?”
That any grotesque idea is okay as long as a lot of other people agree with it? That if Bush won an election in 2004, everything he does now is supposed to be okay?
That “Dems” have no ideas? Let me ask, Mister Political Scientist, what idea do you have for rescuing a country you think is being run by crazy people …. other than getting rid of the crazy people?
ppGaz
Heh. Yes, I’m quite aware of that.
Pb
Darrell,
Spooftastic. What you ‘give’ isn’t nearly as good as what you get. All I’ve seen so far is you trying to pick fights by making ridiculously ignorant, arrogant, and false statements, and then invariably change the subject to something equally ludicrous when you get smacked down and caught. I’m beginning to agree with ppGaz here–if you want to have a real discussion, you can start it anytime now, but until then, get lost and grow up.
Andrew
I think Darrell is right. We had to choose the lesser of two evils after 9/11 and so now we have Medicare Part D.
Darrell
Which the Dems keep telling us is not ‘fully funded’. Tranlation – they want to spend even more
terry chay
ppGaz,
We’re talking about a person whose very first post on this thread proved Tim’s thesis. This same person links the National Journal’s 2003 vote rankings for his “Kerry is a liberal” argument*, ignores nearly every argument posted on this thread, applies the epithet “liberal” so “liberally” that every person reading here is now a “liberal” or a “Dem”, including people who voted for Bush in 2004 like John Cole (who I guess now must be a “yellow-bellied liberal”). I think most of us are intelligent to realize he is trying to push yours (and others) buttons because of he has such great insecurities and his world-view is collapsing. I am accosted by people like him all the time on sidewalks, the only difference is this one has an internet connection and people are actually engaging in discussion with him.
My point is, there is no purposed served in complaining about him when you know John and Tim aren’t going to do anything about it. I advise that when he spews his froth in every thread that you rightly beat him down a couple times (especially since his standard response to anything is an ad hominem attack on everyone who has posted previously), but continuing to do so is just playing whack-a-mole. I don’t know about the others, but continuing to respond to him makes me feel the discussion is being thread-jacked.
After all, Tim brought an interesting point about how, this late in the game these so-called “conservatives” are “tagging” of Bush as a “liberal.” And there were a couple interesting comments on that—I especially liked the one referencing the titles of some of the new books we can expect. Now the discussion is about whether we should ban someone who most of us are trying our best to scroll past. It’s easy to avoid posts by “Darrell”; it is much harder to avoid otherwise interesting posts by you and others when you continue to respond to his incoherent ramblings.
(*) The funny thing here is that the article Darrell linked already explained why Kerry received such a high “liberal” rating in 2003: absenteeism because he was on a presidential campaign.
jg
Ironic?
Its translation like these that keep people voting republican. Can a respected republican like JC please correct this for Darrell?
Darrell
Yes, such as your own ‘smackdown’ of me in which you argued that the Bush admin. is the cause of high oil prices. You humiliated me with your erudite argument and persuaded everyone to change their minds
Quick, get me some ice to put on those smackdown injuries!
Darrell
yes of course, let’s review ppgaz’s “interesting” posts on this very thread:
and so and so forth
you asking me to ‘spew my froth’ on you?
ppGaz
Heh. So many straight lines packed into one sentence.
“Purpose served?” Time will tell.
“Purpose served?” You mean, like the “purpose served” by most posts, most posters, and most threads? Like beer threads? Like threads started by John for the explcitly stated purpose of pissing off his commenters?
Like the “purpose served” by Darrell’s posts?
One hardly knows where to start with this trainload of material ……
Yeah, sounds like a Neil Young song: “The Purpose Served.”
Please, help a brotha.
Steve
No, of course the Bush administration hasn’t done anything to cause the high oil prices. You’d have to be completely batshit insane to believe something like that, right Darrell?
What a raving moonbat that economist must be. Why, you’d have to believe that the invasion of Iraq has affected Iraq’s ability to supply oil, and then you’d have to believe that lowering the supply of oil raises the price of oil! We know that’s all a bunch of moonbat idiocy, right Darrell?
ppGaz
You can quote me all day, Darrell, won’t do you any good.
No matter ho obnoxious I am, I’m right, and you’re wrong, and there is nothing you can do to deflect from it.
You are sitting here defending a president and administration that is a failure by every objective measure available. More than two thirds of Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track, or disapprove of the president’s handling of major issues, or think the country was misled into war, or think the war was not worth it, or think the government can’t manage anything and can’t be honest about anything. Bush is now flirting with low approval numbers that may set records that will never be broken. The country is angry, disillusioned, pissed off … and yet here you sit defending these sorry incomeptant assholes every day and acting like you are king shit on turd island for doing it. Calling other people dismissive names for stating the obvious. Propping up stupidity and bigotry on the grounds that “most people” agree with you. Talking about every issue as if you were some cosmic journalist writing about a foreign planet, as if you yourself had no actual opinions or thoughts or accountability for anything, as if you didn’t vote for this catastrophically failed government and shouldn’t be held to account for it.
You suck, Darrell. You and every post you make here, suck.
If you went out and picked out every naughty word I’ve ever used in my whole life, it wouldn’t change that simple fact: You suck. What you do here, sucks. Your posts suck. Your whole attitude here sucks. You make this place suck just by showing up.
Pb
Darrell,
More or less–you spouted nonsense, I made my case, you sputtered more, I backed my case up, and then… nothing more from you, and on to the next distraction. It’s pretty clear that you can’t come up with a real argument in the face of reality, so you just switch to a different bogus scenario–from allegations of liberal Bush-bashing, to your own Kerry-bashing, to oil prices, to Lincoln, to bin Laden, to your current sarcastic ad-hominem non-response, etc., etc. ad infinitum–you’re spinning like a top, but you aren’t going anywhere.
So go somewhere.
Andrew
Thank God that Bush has the backbone to stand up to those big government liberals and say, “We’re doing this half-assed, or we’re not doing it at all.”
Steve
It’s awesome to be against fully funding programs. I mean, DougJ couldn’t make this stuff up.
r4d20
r4d20
I’m sorry but you just know Ann Coulter likes to be spanked and called a “dirty little liberal”.
r4d20
You’re a lot older than I had imagined.
When I was around 6 I asked my grandmother if she cried when Lincoln was assassinated. She was not amused.
r4d20
Talk about dogma…..
r4d20
I got it. A new mantra for conservatives.
“We may walk, talk, and act like the left….but at least we aren’t the left”
I turned my back on this WH when their rheotiric started sounding like it was coming from the Kremlin.
Darrell
Uh yeah, anyone arguing that the invasion of Iraq is a significant reason why oil prices went from $30/barrel to $70/barrel since the toppling of Saddam, would be engaging in a bit of moonbat logic in my opinion. If Iraq’s oil production jumped from 1.5 million/barrels a day to 3 million barrels (more than the production pre-invasion), that would increase world supply by maybe 2% (roughly same as ANWAR could produce?) at a time when Chinese and India demand is rising so quickly.. hardly a rational justification for screaming the Bush is to ‘blame’ for $70/barrel oil in order to line the pockets of Bush’s oil crony buddies. And that’s not even factoring in Saddam’s years of neglect of Iraq’s oil producing infrastructure which was held together with chewing gum and rubber bands.
But your side doesn’t tend to be particularly rational or well informed. Lefties tell us how ANWAR drilling would be too insignificant to help meet our energy needs, but those same lefties now scream over a similarly small drop in production from Iraq as a “significant cause” of $70/barrel oil. How rational of them
Darrell
”
Not fully funded = Not spending as much as Dems demand be spent, no matter how far the program exceeds initial budget estimates.
Steve
Oh, right. So when you pass legislation that promises a certain benefit, and then you don’t provide enough money to actually supply the benefit, that’s not a problem.
I bet you’d love it if you submitted a claim to your insurance company, and they said “Well, it’s covered, but we’re out of money for the month so you don’t get anything.” You’re fine with Medicare not having enough money to pay its obligations, so you’d be fine with your insurance company not having enough money to pay your claim, right?
Steve
Let’s recap.
Seems like a mismatch to me. Clearly, this economist from the Petroleum Institute in Abu Dhabi has no business trying to argue with Darrell, the recognized authority on world oil prices.
Pb
Darrell,
Also known as, ‘logic’. Yeah, Darrell, oil prices haven’t gone up at all because Bush destabilized the Middle East, that “war premium” thing that economists and financial experts have been talking about since 2002 is all a ridiculous liberal myth. Please ignore the extra $10-$20 that’s now built into the price of every single barrel of oil because of it.
Now that’s an interesting point as well. Of course they don’t use nearly as much oil as we do–We’re #1, China is #2, but we use 3x the oil they do, and actually India is behind Japan, Russia, and Germany as well, and in fact we use more than all of the other countries I’ve mentioned *combined*. But it’s important to note that that demand is rising (chiefly ours and China’s), and perhaps more important to note *why* it’s rising–because we’re paying for it! That’s just America’s trade (deficit) policies working for you, to keep bringing you those extra-low prices!
Well, what can I say, he’s the President, and to the extent that it’s due to his policies–foreign, economic, or otherwise–it is his fault. Raising CAFE standards would have helped as well, but instead he thought a big tax break for SUVs would be better. Hint: it totally wasn’t.
Glass spoofs shouldn’t throw rocks! :)
And on that point, they’re right again–it would be too little, too late–so let’s hear it for being rational and well informed! Yay logic!
Which ‘lefties’ would that be? The imaginary ones you enjoy misrepresenting when you willfully misunderstand their arguments, or the real ones who correct your ignorance as you spin to avoid the reality of the situation from creeping in?
CaseyL
Oh my: the formatting buttons must’ve been doin’ something naughty the last few weeks, because now there are, like, 25 of them. And I don’t know what most of them do. H1-4? NOBR? Can someone translate??
Darrell’s being a stalwart, in his way: he’s Standing by His Man, even though no less a light of the Right than Jonah “Not of Human Woman Born” Goldberg has decided Bush is actually a liberal, which of course explains everything.
No amount of schadenfreund can make up for the death, destruction and despair the Bushists have wrought, but that doesn’t change the fact that I am loving every minute of watching one implosion after another.
I would love to see true justice done. Unfortunately, the odds of seeing every Bushist in power stripped of every last cent and sent off to the Hague are absolutely nil.
I’ll settle for the names associated with this regime to become so eponymous for “corrupt, brutal, incompetent, miserable failure” that even generations from now, calling anyone a Bush, a Cheney, or a Rumsfeld is enough all by itself to render that someone a pariah.
Darrell
A better analogy would be the Dems demanding that the insurance company pay claims for everyone, even the uninsured, then screaming about the ‘underfunding’ when there’s not enough money to pay for it all .. then of course, blaming Bush for it all.
Darrell
Yet the left sees themselves as rational
ppGaz
I guess we can stop wondering where Darrell learned that silence in the face of legitimate questions was an acceptable response: He’s the Scott McClellan of Balloon-Juice.
Have an embarassing, backward, bigoted, sociopathic view? Not a problem! Just …. don’t answer.
Right, Darrell?
ppGaz
Still can’t carry on a conversation, Darrell?
The stealth Dobsonite, homophobic bigot still has to get up on Sunday morning and fashion a response to “the left.”
Do you fancy yourself William F. Buckley, Darrell?
Or are you really just a redneck gay-baiting piece of Texas trailer trash with a computer?
“The left?”
When was the last time you had an original thought, man?
Darrell
So according to leftist ‘logic’, raising CAFE would have helped LOWER the rise of energy costs. How rational
ppGaz
Are you insane? Do you actually have a thought, or an argument, other than this kind of crap that you’ve been posting here for the entire year that I’ve been here?
“Leftist logic?”
What is the matter with you?
Are you so incapable of making a point that you can’t do any better than label every opinion you don’t share as “leftist?” Are you posting from a mental institution?
ppGaz
So, according to rightist, trailer-trash redneck bigot Texas ingrate-with-computer logic, just what is the actual relationship between mileage standards and fuel prices, Darrell?
Apparently you rednecks know a lot of really smart stuff. Why don’t you share it?
Darrell
I’m sure many have wondered that about you
Draw your own conclusions
ppGaz
Perhaps.
But you didn’t answer the questions, Darrell.
Do you think it is not safe to send kids camping with gay scout leaders?
Do you think that CAFE standards have any effect on fuel consumption and costs, and if so, what is the effect?
Do you know exactly how much your imaginary Joe Taxpayer actually spends on the education of illegal alien children, or do you just raise the issue as an exercise in fear-mongering without having any facts to back it up?
Do you have some reason for labeling every opinion you don’t agree with as “leftist” and slandering it as illogical, stupid or some other bad adjective, without ever engaging in actual conversation and debate about the opinion itself?
Do you think it is “rational” to post an never-ending series of opponent-bashing slurs without ever taking the time to answer simple, direct questions about the facts and your views of the facts?
Darrell
I think without question there would be a higher risk of sexual abuse to young boys if their scout leader was homosexual. Similarly, I think there would be a higher risk of sexual abuse to young girls if their scout leader is a man. I know that belief, which I’m confident is shared by an overwhelming majority of parents, qualifies me as a ‘homophobe’ in your book.. But that just demonstrates what an extremist whackjob you are
I believe CAFE standards have ‘fueled’ the SUV buying boom, as many people don’t want to drive in tiny matchbox cars which often are deathtraps when involved in auto accidents. But federal regulations rather than the market are the answer, right?
As others on your side have pointed out, the cost may not be precisely quantifiable, but it’s likely to be significant
I believe liberals are far more likely than conservatives to lie their ass off about being a ‘moderate’ or ‘former’ Republican. When I read far left opinions being spouted by someone, I think that person should own up to being a liberal.. that’s all
ppGaz
So, where to begin? Are you saying that it’s reasonable to confine kids’ camping to supervision only by straight adults of the opposite gender?
In other words, sending your daughter and other camping with your neighbor’s dad is not prudent? And sending the girls camping with your neighbor’s lesbian sister, not prudent?
And, “without question?” Do you have facts which support any conclusion that gay adults are more prone to child abuse than straight ones? Where does your “without question” come from? To the contrary … WITH question, and lots of questions, Darrell. That’s what arguing on the basis of facts leads to …. lots of questions.
You believe this …. based on what? I follow the automobile industry rather closely, Darrell … I am not aware of any link between CAFE standards and SUV marketing. I am aware of market drivers such as safety, load carrying capacity, perceived vehicle flexibility, etc. But CAFE standards? Facts, please.
I know of one poster here who has produced facts, tax rates, and numbers to support his position … me. I don’t know of another poster who has declared his school district, his county and its property tax rates, his personal property tax bills, his state’s school funding breakdown, California’s school funding sumary, demographics in the relevant state, and two sets of numbers leading to reasonable estimates of actual cost to Joe Taxpayer in two different states …. except me. Nobody challenged my numbers, nobody produced alternative numbers, nobody produced a single verifiable fact to counter my argument. And you? You ran away completely. Check the thread, it was only a week ago. Once I started talking about tax rates and school funding and numbers, you were gone, Darrell. I asked you one simple question, which was, what is the ACTUAL cost to your “Joe Taxpayer” for the big “problem” you were trying to pimp, and you said NOTHING, produced NOTHING, answered NOTHING. The reason why people “on my side” were even talking to me about it is because they got tired of me asking you to talk about it. Good for them, because they are going to get more tired of it. You still have never answered the simple question, or produced any evidence or facts to support your drive-by claim that somehow Joe Taxpayer has a problem here.
Bottom line: Can you show me that it costs Joe Taxpayer more than one or two dollars a week, in any state in the union, to educate alien kids? And if my estimates are in the ballpark, why would any taxpayer shirk his duty to pay a few dozen dollars a year to educate ANY kids, regardless of where they came from? Isn’t the education of kids the best bargain society ever got? A few bucks a year in return for a taxpaying, responsible member of society? Isn’t that what public education and funding are all about in the first place?
Okay, I’ll ignore the fact that this answer is clear out in left field with respect to the question I asked. Let me just say this: If you are really concerned with the basis for anyone’s opinion, why don’t you spend more time explaining your own positions, and engaging in debates about them on the facts, instead of on personalities and on gross generalzations about imaginary “leftists”?
People who respect facts talk about facts, Darrell. That’s why I spent an hour loading up that imigration thread with facts and links that could be dissected, cussed and discussed, and maybe improved upon. The thread that you suddenly disappeared from.
You want to have arguments based on facts and not rank opinion and ideology (you know, lefty stuff)? Then stand your ground and argue on the facts.
Who knows, you might actually win. But I guarantee you, arguing about “lefties” will never win you an argument here.
ppGaz
Have ya seen my url, Darrell? Then you know what kind of car I drive …. a tiny matchbox. One of a handful of cars that is considered in the “gold” class of occupant protection in front, side and rear impact collisions. That’s IIHS and NHTSA talking, not me. Considerably higher ratings in crash protection than most SUVs …. precisely because crash protection is not a factor just of vehicle size unless the people designing the smaller vehicles let it be that way. With better engineering, passive and active restraint devices, these small vehicles provide some of the best crash protection ever seen in any vehicles in this country.
Steve
The Medicare law says what it says. You have to be pretty partisan to argue that when the Democrats insist on enough money in the system to pay all the claims that are covered under the law, it’s a case of “the Dems demanding claims be paid for everyone,” as opposed to the LAW demanding that claims be paid for everyone.
If your claim is covered under your insurance policy, you want it to be paid, even if the insurance company says “sorry, we’re not fully funded this month.”
The only reason Republicans stay in power is because of suckers like Darrell. They pass a law promising people a benefit, run for reelection based on that benefit, and then when Democrats say “hey, you should actually deliver the benefit you promised in that law,” here come the partisan idiots spewing some bullshit about how the Democrats always demand more government spending. IT’S ALREADY THE LAW.
Pb
Darrell,
I agree–since the normal CAFE standards for cars didn’t apply to SUVs, the automakers were able to push these huge, gas-guzzling, unsafe, high-margin monstrosities, and the President again did his part in encouraging Americans to buy them.
Perhaps if CAFE standards had been raised, or if SUVs had been categorized as cars in the first place, (or both!) then this waste could have been avoided, and we’d be both using less gas and paying less for gas.
ppGaz
Apropos of nothing in particular, but I have a friend at work who totalled his Excursion last weekend.
He described how the accident happened, and that he had hit a Subaru Forester, and that even though his excursion had suffered $20k worth of damage, when you looked the two vehices, he said, “I won.” He was quite pleased with himself over it, actually. To him, the crushed Subaru was the symbol of victory … and exacly why he plans to buy either another Excursion, or the new larger Expedition, or possibly even get his old one fixed.
(We can all joke about this since both drivers walked away from the contest).
Pb
ppGaz,
That is to say, roughly the price of a Subaru Forester…
Ugh. I hope he has collision insurance.
Bob In Pacifica
I think it’ll be General Hayden.