Friday, July 31, 2015

Be Careful What You Wish For, Dems

 
 From yesterday morning's McClatchy News:
 
Revelations put [Hillary] Clinton in the cross-hairs of a broadening inquiry into whether she mishandled classified information. Officials reviewed five classified emails and determined that they included information from five intelligence agencies. State Department officials warned that there could be hundreds of classified emails.
 
"Life is unfair"
Because of the gerrymandering of congressional districts in too many states to count, it is almost a foregone conclusion that (barring a miracle) both the Senate and the House of Reprehensibles will be safely retained by the Republican Party come Election Day 2016 in spite of the fact that - just as in 2014 -  most people will probably cast their pathetic lot with the Democrats. That is the stark and hideous reality that we might as well come to terms with and deal with as best we can. "Tough shit", as the man once said; or, as Jack Kennedy once memorably put it in a 1961 press conference, "Life is unfair".
 
Tell me about it.
 
The only silver lining behind this exceedingly nasty cloud is that, for the first time since 1857, the Democrats have a really good shot at succeeding themselves on Inauguration Day. So deep into the ideological sewer has the GOP descended in recent years, it's hard to fathom any of these clowns walking away with the big prize a year-and-a-half from now. The general consensus seems to be that, although they may survive in the congress and governors' mansions and state legislatures for the foreseeable future, they've become unelectable on a national scale. As far as the White House is concerned, the grand old party is over.

Or is it?
 
That juicy scenario is in serious danger of being totally and irreparably blown to itty bitty pieces by the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

This is not meant to imply that the former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State is an incompetent fool; nor am I suggesting that the woman is the least bit  corrupt. What I am saying is that if the three branches of the government are ever again controlled by the right wing - for even half a day even - any slender thread of a hope of one day restoring this country's economic security for regular working people will be rendered ashes to the wind.

Billy Bob
We went down this road in 2000 when we foolishly decided that electing Billy Bob Babybrains to the office of president would be  a really neat idea. Remember how nicely that worked out for you? We don't want to go down that road again - trust me.

This can be said of Ms. Clinton without a smidgeon of equivocation: She's reckless and arrogant - a fact that is increasingly obvious with each passing day. The Dems really need to sit back, take a deep breath, and think long and hard about what they seem to be embarking on with respect to a Hillary candidacy in 2016. This could  very well end up exploding in their  clueless faces. I realize that it was a beautiful dream to once again shatter precedent by having the first African American chief-executive followed by the first woman - but - for the love of Mike - not Hillary Clinton. Even were she somehow able to pull it off  and make 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue her home again, she is too much of a Wall Street stooge for my tastes. Perhaps she might have surprised progressives everywhere by becoming the reincarnation of FDR - that was always my dream. But in the final analysis her candidacy is a gamble we cannot afford to take. The stakes are just too high when America finds itself teetering on the precipice.


It's not that Bill or Hillary Clinton are bad people, utterly void of any substance or merit. I like them personally - Honest I do! And I'm not implying that they haven't done wonderful things for the country they both undoubtedly love - they have. It's just that I don't believe in American political dynasties. It's probably fortunate that Teddy Kennedy lost his bid for the White House in 1980. He will be remembered as the "Lion of the Senate" and did more good for the country in that position than he ever would have been able to do n the Oval Office.  The reign of Bush II almost destroyed America. Bush III would be the final nail in the coffin.  It seems to me that a Clinton II candidacy makes the presidency of Jeb Bush all-the-more likely. If that happens we can kiss this country goodbye.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I'll go to my grave believing that one of the great tragedies of American history was that Bobby Kennedy was cut down by a mad man's bullet before he could reach the White House. Call me fickle.

I'm voting for the Democratic candidate next year, come heck or high water. Is it too much to ask that I be happy about for whom I cast my ballot? Are you listening, Senator Warren?

If the Democrats are smart (the jury's still out on that question) they'll think this one through very carefully.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

SUGGESTED READING:

Mornings on Horseback

by David McCullough 

This is the fascinating biography of the little boy and adolescent who grew up to be Theodore Roosevelt.

TR was our most interesting and brilliant president; I would go as far as putting him above Thomas Jefferson for sheer intellect. As biographer, David McCullough can do no wrong - as this book proves beyond a doubt. If you're interested in understanding what made Teddy tick, this is the place to look. Of great interest is the story of his father, Theodore, Sr. Although they were two men of entirely contradicting personalities and temperament, in a few instances the apple didn't fall terribly far from the tree. Here's a link to order it off of Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_10?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mornings+on+horseback+david+mccullough&sprefix=Mornings+o%2Caps%2C607

Can't recommend this one enough, kids. 

41 Comments:

At 8:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are also reckless and dangerous. It makes it easy for you to spot another with the same qualities.

 
At 9:35 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

Clever.

 
At 2:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spot on Tim..

 
At 2:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Hill the next re-incarnation of FDR eh? Nah, Obama or Warren would do it..Hill doesn't have the guts. What am I referring too is THEFT of the people's property. Yep, FDR...Degan's hero...used the War Powers Act to justify the confiscation of people's gold and used an old socialist justification trick--he called them hoarders. Yep...made the holding of gold illegal. And guess what he gave them in exchange for their gold that now is probably in Ft Knox? Yep,...PAPER NOTES...redeemable in his days. Of course AFTER he got the gold he declared the value of the gold he stole at about twice the value of the notes he issued. So doubled the government's take on the backs of "the little guy" even. ACCEPTANCE was what he was really after. ACCEPTANCE of "legal tender notes" as constitutional "LAWFUL MONEY". Of course AFTER acceptance--which is part of the con game--government removed the redemption. So now you have a FIAT currency causing the worst taxation called inflation that hits the elderly the hardest because what they saved--is worthless. At least government tells you the truth at times. The federal reserve states the notes have NO VALUE.

 
At 4:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bernie Sanders in 2016!

 
At 8:11 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

The Boy Troll is ranting again.

 
At 8:16 PM, Anonymous Hopey McChange said...

Its good to see that Tom Degan finally acknowledged that the Clintons are vile, lying, greedy, crony capitalist pigs!

hooray for Tom Degan that he has finally awoken from his slumber!

I'm just afraid that we may find Bernie slumped over on a park bench like Vince Foster.

 
At 12:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just true Tom.

 
At 7:48 AM, Blogger Beach Bum said...

Tom, I agree in many ways but what worries me about Bernie and Senator Warren is that maybe they are just to right on the issues to be elected. No, that is not a typo so please hear me out as I try to explain, especially since many of my fellow democrats think they are the messiah.

When you live and work here in Christian Taliban-controlled area of the South like I do you come to realize all of the late George Carlin's depressing comments about the stupidity of people is completely true. Despite the collapse of the middle class, the decay of the country's infrastructure, our educations system falling apart, and the radicalization of right-wing politics I can see no evidence of any growing awareness among the unwashed masses that our society is in trouble.

Sure, there are grumblings about the cost of health care and how a dollar doesn't buy what it did twenty years ago but these proles shake it off and change the subject to something like God, sports, or the eternal discussion about when Obama will take their guns and institute Sharia law. I wish like Hell I was exaggerating, but I have listened to more of those types of conversations than I want to discuss.

More to the point, these stalwarts of the conservative base still believe that America is the land of opportunity, and it is the slimy liberals that are ruining everything. Their attitude proved the John Steinbeck comment about the reason socialism never took off in America was because the poor don't themselves as exploited masses but just temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Even mentioning the Elite one-percent, the decline of labor unions, and how European countries are a lot more advanced and equal will get you labeled as a troublemaker. A dangerous thing if like me, you need to keep a job.

I'd like to think Bernie and Senator Warren could get elected in this country because we very much need a huge dose of their policies. Even if they did, that brings up another issue that they would likely face a huge Tea Party-like backlash like Obama did in 2010, but that is another discussion.

The trouble is that despite their appeal to a segment of the population I have come to the conclusion Americans are too stupid to elect Bernie or Warren. We still largely buy the myth that with nothing but hard work and commonsense a financial empire can be built. This is my personal belief why poor right-wingers vote against their best interests. Because once they make their fortune they sure as hell don't want any bleeding heart liberal taking their money to feed lazy bums or minorities.

This comment has gone on much too long so I'll conclude by saying that I wish Bernie the best but given the country we live Hillary might be the best we can hope for at this moment. She is pure politician down to her DNA. A depressing thought in a way but reality is often ugly.

 
At 8:00 AM, Blogger rjw said...

And this "just in" from Ohio:

http://rjw-progressive.blogspot.com/2011/11/real-voter-fraud.html

 
At 12:48 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

I agree with Hopey the troll. The Clintons are vile, lying, greedy, crony capitalist pigs, just like the Republicans. And like Republicans they don't care about the people, they serve the economic elite owners of our government. They mastered the art of triangulation so well, they are now as corporatist and "entitled to power" as Republicans.

Like Obama we can expect to see more appeasement for billionaires and corporations to write public policy and the laws of our land.

Meanwhile the nuts and fringe lunatics on the Right will scream "gun-grabbing socialists", as the ink dries on the latest secretly drafted, corporate written treaty called a trade agreement.

As Carlin noted, elections are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Sanders, or anyone like him, will not be allowed into the White House. The corporate media will assist the Republicans in labeling Sanders "too extreme" and "out of touch" for America.

Only corporatists can win the presidency. Reagan, two Bushes, two Clintons and Obama are all living proof.

 
At 7:41 AM, Anonymous Hillary "I'm for the little guy" Clinton said...

Help!

I've fallen, and I can't get up!

 
At 10:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gold Is Doomed

From the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/25/gold-is-doomed/

 
At 10:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The gloves are coming off early in Campaign 2016 and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Hilary Clinton blindsided Jeb Bush late last week before a sympathetic audience of black movers and shakers at the annual National Urban League convention, labeling him as a hypocrite who had set back the cause of African-Americans in a biting attack that was greeted by enthusiastic applause.

Playing off of Right to Rise, the name of Bush's super PAC, Clinton said that "People can’t rise if they can't afford health care," a reference to Bush's opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

"They can’t rise if the minimum wage is too low to live on," she said, a reference to his opposition to raising the federal minimum wage.

"They can’t rise if their governor makes it harder for them to get a college education," she said, a reference to Bush's decision as Florida governor to eliminate affirmative action in college admissions.

When it finally was Bush's turn at the lectern and he lamely declared "I believe in the right to rise in this country,” the scent of political gunpowder was still in the air, as one reporter put it.

 
At 12:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Republicans really struggle to talk to anyone but their own base of aging white conservatives and plutocrats. Hillary able to call him out directly and totally outclass him, leaving him utterly unable to respond, is something that he will be more prepared for in the future, but also shows just how many terrible things all these clowns running for the Republican nomination have done and the difficulty of walking back that record to appeal to broad electorate.

 
At 5:31 PM, Blogger Jim Dillon said...

Agreed, gerrymandering is a large issue. It is not core. With an 8% approval rating, we manage to re-elect 90% of incumbents that run over the last 50 years. Were the districts drawn by Democrats - there is no reason to see that change - hasn't for the last 50 years despite who owns the crayon drawing the lines. Person's under indictment? Elect them. Remember Michael Grimm? Indicted before the election, re-elected, resigned after pleading guilty to tax fraud.
My thought? It is voter apathy that is being exploited and manisfesting as legislative misfeasance. Simply - "they" know all too well that we just don't care anymore. Again, always to be restated - 2014 Mid-Term te most expensive on record; produced the lowest turnout since WWII when many voters had something else on their minds. 2016 will make that look like "chump change", appropriate given the cast of chumps available.
Well, at least it makes for some easy to write comedic relief of the parody. I know I am looking forward to Thursday's Kabuki Theatre of the absurd.

 
At 10:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the difference between democrats and socialists?
Chris Marthews

 
At 11:27 AM, Anonymous Confused Conservative said...

What is the difference between republicans and fascists?

 
At 12:01 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Tom, I agree with your assessment on Bush II. As for Hillary, she is arrogant and exceptionally corrupt. Further, please list for me one major accomplishment that can be attributed to her in her tenure as a senator or Secretary of State. I can list a bunch of “accomplishments” that should put her in prison.

I have no problem with a woman in the White House, but let’s stop playing the damned game of identity politics. How about we choose someone qualified, and then worry about their skin color or genitalia somewhere WAY down the list of qualifications.

We have now seen what our desire to put the first black man in the office has wrought, despite him being grossly unqualified, and has now proven it. I don’t care if the president is male, female, white, black, Hispanic or what have you. What I care about is that they are honest, competent, and abiding of our constitution. Neither party has put forth such a candidate in generations now.

As for JFK, I would submit to you, Tom, that JFK could not be nominated by the Democrats today. He was far too fiscally conservative and actually cut taxes so that the “rising tide would lift all boats.” Further, he was a defense hawk. Those two things alone would have doomed his candidacy today.

Last, I do agree with you on McCullough. I have never read a book written by him that was not excellent! “John Adams” and “1776” by him were extraordinary!

 
At 1:34 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

T. Pain seems to have missed the part where Obama has been highly successful, but then what do we expect from someone who clearly gets all his info from Fox news.

And JFK would make a great Democrat today. Just like Obama , young, brilliant, idealistic, and comepletly unafraid to tell conservatives where to stuff it.

The country is far better off now than it was after 8 years of Cheney selling it to the highest bidder.

 
At 1:51 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Reagan was way too liberal for today's Republican Party too. Don't forget HE took the US from a creditor nation to a debtor nation. The GOP has demonstrably moved to the Right way more than corpo-dems have moved to the left. So far to the Right that the Tea Party and Right wing media dictate their agenda of their way or the highway. Governing by compromise is out the window. They demand a one party dictatorship, and that ain't exactly a constitutional democratic republic.

JFK would be welcomed in today's Democratic Party. Remember his brother was active only a few years ago.

Obama's liberal social policies are one thing, but he is in line when it comes to the Military Industrial Complex, their militarist foreign policy, and waging unending war on "terror". There's one sane exception with international diplomacy with Iran. Obama and the Republicans are quite cozy with TPP and fast track to let corporations write our treaties and laws of the land.

They all serve the same masters. One indisputable fact is the GOP is scooping up way more dark money, Wall Street money, and corporate cash than democrats. No corruption there, right?

So who will the Koch's appoint and anoint as their president?

 
At 8:39 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

A wise man once stated:

"So far to the Right that the Tea Party and Right wing media dictate their way or the highway. Governing by compromise is out the window. They demand a one party dictatorship, and that ain't exactly a constitutional democratic republic."

Exhibit A:

Erick Erickson:
I intend to ask each POTUS candidate next week if they’d support a gov’t shutdown if that’s what it took to defund Planned Parenthood.

Imagine the outrage from the radical Right if the fictitious "liberal media" demanded an end to capital punishment or a pardon for Ed Snowden, or else... we shut the whole thing down.

As we have seen, IOKIYAR = It's OK if you're a Republican.

Double standards are their only standards. That's 'cause liberals hate America and envy the rich, and union thugs are worse than ISIS, donchaknow?

This is how fascism takes root. The radial Right wants nothing short of one party dictatorship.

Never mind how many women's lives are saved by cancer screens and health exams. They seek to destroy not only democracy, but the very lives of women depending on Planned Parenthood health services.

Women are regarded as inferior to men, and their right to property does not include their own bodies. And liberals are to blame for every problem in America, so who cares about the "subhumans" of the Left?

Fascists need scapegoats, and they have a vast Right wing corporate media propaganda network telling their lies and spreading the hate.

 
At 10:10 AM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

"Women are regarded as inferior to men, and their right to property does not include their own bodies"

Not true and a red herring. In fact, as opposed to diminishing rights, the fact is unborn babies are regarded as equal to the rest of us and not inferior "sub-humans" as many on the left believe. Of course women's own bodies are their property. But, I'm not allowed to use my body or any other form of my property to deny rights to or injure another person. So, their right to property does NOT, in fact, include their unborn children. You believe it does.


And, why would a "women's health services" foundation be called Planned Parenthood? (a wonderfully Orwellian name) We know the reason. We know its origins and we know the foundational premises. They are not necessary and they are a vehicle for the proliferation of abortion-on-demand. They are rooted in population control and eugenics, and that with a racial and socio-economic bias, which can actually be used by people like you as a positive! They are not rooted in "health care", though they do provide it. It is ridiculous to think that PP is the only model that can provide needed services to poor women. And, the possibility that the selling of organs and tissue is taking place - moral hazard?! C'mon..


If PP is your idea of a progressive benefit to society, ok. But for many it is not. But, to glibly say that opponents are against women and feel them to be inferior smacks of weakness of argument and lack of any rational defense.

 
At 11:58 AM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Mozart, you are a funny guy. Obama has been “highly successful”? Do tell me about all of his accomplishments, please! How about the one where he has raised the national debt to $19 Trillion after justly criticizing Bush for running it up to $9 trillion? Or how about how he has alienated our allies and rewarded our enemies? His foolish foreign policy decisions have made the world a far more dangerous place. He has shown us to be weak and a nation that cannot be trusted. How about the myriads of scandals from Fast and Furious, to BenGhazi, to the IRS scandals? How about the complete ignoring of the constitution and the erosion of our 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendment rights? How about the usurpation of power from congress in violation of the constitution and the ruling by fiat of executive order? How about the fact that despite the liberal media’s sycophantic co-operation on all fronts, the economy is still anemic? The true unemployment rate is still in double digits and the labor force participation rate is far lower now than when he took office, despite this “recovery”. He has rewarded his cronies and punished his enemies. You complain about Cheney but turn a blind eye when Obama gives tax payer dollars to supporters for wonderful failed ventures like Solyndra. How about his taking over a HUGE swath of the American economy and thus making health care LESS accessible and more expensive for far more people than it has helped? (Never mind the fact that this was deemed “constitutional” that I must purchase a product from a private business at the pain of fine or jail if I don’t do so.) Yeah, he is successful in transforming the United States, just like he said he would. We are now approaching a banana republic status, thanks to his keen leadership. I long for a Democrat like JFK, if we are to be stuck with this kind of democratic “leadership”.

 
At 12:19 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Dubya, it was congress under Democrat Tip O’Neil that was responsible for most of the “debtor nation” fiasco. Reagan’s tax cuts revived the Carter stagflation economy and yet still brought in even larger amounts of revenue to the government. The problem is that the Democrats spent $1.50 for every dollar brought in. Yes, Reagan drastically increased defense spending, which is something that is actually constitutionally allowed for the government to do. In doing so, he brought a broken and impotent Carter-era military up to a standard with which the Soviet Union could not compete. He was responsible, as even Gorbachev begrudgingly admitted, for the fall of the U.S.S.R.

“I’ve said it before, but if Barack Obama had been president instead of Ronald Reagan, I’d still be a citizen of the Soviet Union.” ~ Garry Kasparov

“Right wing media”? Where does this exist, Dave?

And Teddy Kennedy was NOTHING like his brother Jack. Ted was far more to the left than JFK ever was. The only thing they seemed to have in common was a last name.

As for Wall Street money, you have no further to look then Hillary Clinton to find the one by far receiving the most contributions. When it comes to corruption, I guess our former Secretary of State is George Soros’ gal. Oh, and she is also Russia’s, and many other foreign nations gal too who donated to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for favorable SecState decisions on their business. She belongs in prison; not on the campaign trail. Nobody cares though. They are more concerned with imprisoning (if not killing) a dentist that shot a lion.

And please tell me just ONE issue that Obama has compromised and moved to side with the Republicans.

“This is how fascism takes root. The radial Right wants nothing short of one party dictatorship”
Really? Look at how Obama has governed with the support of the progressive media. THAT is how a dictatorship takes root. He has ignored constitutional checks and balances and ruled by executive order when he couldn’t get his agenda passed via congress. He has eroded our constitutional rights, but it is all for the “common good”, right?

As for your screed on Planned Parenthood, I think Harley did a fantastic job of setting that issue straight there, my friend.

 
At 4:31 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Harley,

It is the stated position from many Republicans that abortion should be prohibited even for rape or to save the life of the mother. That would make the rights of a fetus superior to its “incubator”, would it not? Conservative men dictating women’s reproductive rights automatically relegates women to inferior status. How about we let only women vote on reproductive rights? Whose bodies are they anyway?

I support and understand your opposition to abortion. I also support the right to privacy and the right to reproductive choices. The best prevention for abortion is birth control.

Why not support dispensing contraception that reduces unwanted or accidental pregnancies? I suppose if you’re a “contraception is sin” sort, there’s really no discussion.

So health care, cancer screenings, contraception and planned parenthood is “Orwellian”? If that is so, are the NSA and Patriot Act at all Orwellian? Remember the Bush Administration’s “loyalty oaths” by any chance?

Republicans are now saying a corporation and a zygote are both persons, with more rights than others, especially women. They really do have a problem with equal rights. I’m not promoting abortion, but the law still says it is legal. This is a right that the Right is actively denying to others as it whines about their gun rights being stripped. I still don’t know who had their guns registered or confiscated, so I guess it’s a one-sided double standard….again.

It is ridiculous to think that PP is the only model that can provide needed services to poor women. And who is thinking this? This is a straw man, of course. Instead of the straw man, how about providing alternatives?

“Eugenics”? Please specify what you mean. Do you refer to Sanger’s suggestion to sterilize the “profoundly retarded”? Do you believe PP has a forced sterilization program?

I couldn’t find eugenics, or racial and socio-economic bias in PP’s Mission statement, that begins with:

Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual's income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence. We believe that respect and value for diversity in all aspects of our organization are essential to our well-being. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual's right to privacy

We know “selling of organs and tissue” is the koolade from edited propaganda videos. Nobody is performing, or having, abortions to sell off parts. Would you prefer disposal of tissue over medical research?

I understand your revulsion for abortion. I even share it. But state control of every uterus is neither “small government” nor anything resembling equal rights of women.

 
At 4:37 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

TP
If you don’t mind, when you present assertions as fact, it would be courteous to support them with objective evidence, or we can’t accept your point as anything but FOX/Limbaugh points.

alienated our allies and rewarded our enemies is word for word from FOX and Limbaugh, unsupported by evidence or fact. Did you forget Bush’s war based on lies in Iraq rewarded Iran with a friendly regime for a neighbor? IOKIYAR, right?

His foolish foreign policy decisions have made the world a far more dangerous place. He has shown us to be weak and a nation that cannot be trusted. FOX/Limbaugh talking points unsupported by evidence or fact. How’s that Iraqi Freedom thing workin’ out for us? Where are those “nukular” aluminum tubes? How about Saddam’s ties to al-Qaeda? Did you know 70% of Americans were brainwashed into believing Saddam was involved in 9-11 just before the invasion of Iraq? Would not a powerful nation that cannot be trusted be more dangerous than a “weak” one? How’s bin-Laden doing?

How about his taking over a HUGE swath of the American economy and thus making health care LESS accessible and more expensive for far more people than it has helped? You say Obama has “taken over” health care? Unsupported by evidence or fact. “Government takeover of healthcare” was cited as “Lie of the year” Thanks again, Rush and FOX. Did insurance rates NOT increase before the ACA? Were people not denied coverage by the "corporate takeover" of health care? (See that works both ways.) You know, even in countries with universal health care, doctors, nurses and hospitals administer it. The government/insurance only pays for it. That is not “government takeover” any more than government buying jets is a “takeover” of Boeing or Lockheed. Is this making any sense to you?

I must purchase a product from a private business at the pain of fine or jail if I don’t do so Very distasteful and not the best solution. As I noted, this goes back to John Adams taxing seaman for health care. Too bad nobody listened to liberals and cut out the corporate middle men who provide ZERO health care, while raking in millions. Why do they need corporate welfare now?

erosion of our 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendment rights? Also unsupported by evidence, though once again Bush has been left out of the equation despite his initiating much of the erosion. In fact, corporations have GAINED rights once intended for breathing human beings. Nothing to do with Obama, so never mind.

We are now approaching a banana republic status, thanks to his keen leadership. Neo-feudalism would be more accurate. Note the Republicans kissing the Koch ring for their blessing and “free speech”. The owners/lords are only getting richer and more powerful with all that “free speech” that serfs like you and I don’t have. Again, not caused by Obama.

Someone has forgotten the Great Bush Recession and the damage to our economy, jobs, and pensions. This explains the pathological need to blame Obama for everything.

 
At 4:37 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Dubya, it was congress under Democrat Tip O’Neil that was responsible for most of the “debtor nation” fiasco

Then you should be happy to indicate the Reagan vetoes that were overridden, correct? It’s interesting that a Democratic congress gets all the blame for Reagan’s failures while a Republican congress is blameless for what happens during an Obama Administration. Same old IOKIYAR double standards.

“Gorbachev begrudgingly admitted” lacks a sourced quote. Obviously the Soviet empire couldn’t sustain itself, as will ours eventually.

Was it really Reagan’s command to “tear down this wall” that did it? Or did Glasnost and perestroika have an effect? Could independence movements have something to do with it?

How about the unions and assertion of democracy in Poland? And do you suppose the breaking away by the Baltic states, and the “velvet revolution” in Czechoslovakia, then the breakaway by Belarus and Ukraine had something to do with it?

Reagan worship is right up there with the fanatical worship of the anti-constitutional un-regulated “free market” god of mammon.

We know Wall Street hedges and buys both parties.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/03/investing/election-donations-wall-street-republicans/

2014 Wall Street saw Republicans winning:

A record 63% of the political contributions from employees and corporations in the banking and investment sectors went to Republicans this election cycle, according to data from the Center for Responsive politics.

“Wall Street is picking its candidates in the 2016 presidential race — and 2 are already standing out”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-jeb-hillary-2015-7#ixzz3hs61Fv5F

That would be Clinton AND Bush.

Is this complicated?

ONE issue that Obama has compromised and moved to side with the Republicans? Obama dumped the public option from the ACA almost immediately. Obama even put safety nets on the table, but still the GOP refused to compromise.

Now about that TPP trade agreement? Hand in hand with corporations and republicans. They even gave your “dictator” the fast track to corporate written laws of the land.

“Right wing media”? Where does this exist, Dave?

Really? You can’t be serious.

 
At 3:11 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

"It is the stated position from many Republicans that abortion should be prohibited even for rape or to save the life of the mother. That would make the rights of a fetus superior to its 'incubator', would it not?"

Dubya, if one is pro-life consistently, how does killing the innocent child that is conceived from the evil of rape make things better? That is simply adding a second evil to the first. I have nothing but sympathy and prayers for women that have been victims of such evilness, but further compounding the tragedy by then killing the child only exacerbates the psychological damage done to the mother typically. (Let alone what it obviously does to the child.) As for the life of the mother, thankfully such cases are exceptionally rare. Further, I don't know of any Republican that supports letting the mother die when the complications of a pregnancy would cause it unless otherwise rectified.

The major point you are missing in all of this, Dave, is that the unborn child is NOT a part of the woman's body. It is a separate life, albeit dependent upon the mother, just as a newborn is.

"Republicans are now saying a corporation and a zygote are both persons, with more rights than others, especially women."

Hmmm... while I agree with your stance regarding corporations, I do not regarding a zygote. If a zygote were found on Mars, science would rightfully claim that human life was found there. If it is in a woman's womb though, it is merely "tissue". This war on women nonsense is just that... nonsense. Nobody is wanting to remove or deny anyone's rights, including the right of the unborn child to its own life!

And regarding your comment on guns, Obama is advocating taking away the guns of certain social security recipients without due process for them. How's that for "nobody" is stripping our gun rights, sir?

Back to the pertinent topic, those undercover videos were not edited to delete context or give contrary information from reality with Planned Parenthood. Further, the full raw videos were released at the same time as the edited videos. The only difference is that the edited videos showed the "highlights" of PP's evil industry.
Have you watched any of those videos, Dave? The latest two have parts that are gruesome in the extreme. No wonder PP doesn't want these videos getting out. It is enough to make Dr. Mengele wince. If that is "koolade" to you instead of the very object of evil, then I will add you to my prayer list, my friend. And selling the body parts for research does not mitigate that evil. We do not do the right thing the wrong way with the ends justifying the means.

 
At 4:56 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

TP,
I understand the biology, and I understand your views and beliefs. I support your right to speak out against abortion, even when necessary to save the life of the woman. I certainly would never advocate it as birth control. But it is NOT my choice.

I don’t need to watch political propaganda videos to understand. PP does NOT “sell body parts”. This is the false narrative of the propaganda. No pricing, No profit. No selling. Sorry, it’s not part of the “free market”.

The propaganda is targeted at shutting off 97% of the non-abortion related health care for women in need. That is a war on women’s access to health care. Saying they can get it elsewhere, without consideration of their circumstances reeks of indifference at best. Unlike wars for crony profit and political gain, NO government funding is used for abortion. So why attack the entire program?

This is why women say the Right is hostile towards their interests. And it is true.

If a zygote was found on Mars, it would not be a living person. Not even a dead person. It would be a zygote. If a dead child were found on Mars, it would a dead child. A child is not a zygote. A child is a person. Saying, or believing a zygote is a child or person does not make it so. Conservative men dictating women’s reproductive rights automatically relegates women to inferior status.

If one is consistently pro-life, he would oppose capital punishment, be horrified by racist goons in uniform killing unarmed black human beings, resist the urge to go war over lies, resist anything but universal health care, and respect the life of the woman making a decision that deeply effects her life.

All of these are destructive to developed functioning human lives. All dispatched in the name of “justice” and falsehoods about Saddam in cahoots with al-Qaeda. I’d say that is quite gruesome too. Why don’t those living, breathing, thinking, feeling human lives have as much value and “right to life” as a cell cluster?

One in every 100 to 150 pregnancies is ectopic. What if pregnancy itself would be fatal to the mother and result in unviable fetus? Would you insist on sacrificing her for your beliefs?

If a “separate life” is sharing oxygen, blood, and nutrients, then it is not as separate as one person from another person. A skin cell is “separate life”. A sperm cell is also a separate life. Is it murder to masturbate? Fine, believe it if you need to, but forcing that belief by law unto a majority who disagrees is hardly a product of your constitutional democratic republic.

If you want to be “pro-life” then by all means be so. But it is hypocrisy to claim that when lusting for wars based on lies, and death by faulty justice systems. Pro-zygote and anti-choice are the more honest labels. Own them.

“Person” obviously means different things to different people. One kind of person wants to dictate and legislate the personhood of a sex-less, nerve-less, brainless, unfeeling cell cluster, and allow its rights to supersede a woman’s right of reproductive choice. This is usually from a “small government” type who wants the government to monitor every fertile woman’s uterus.

Those defining a person as a living breathing human being are over-ruled and under the dictatorship of a narrower definition of person. You believe a minority of conservative men should dictate the choices women can make. That is the bottom line. Own it.

That is Big Government in the bedroom and between a woman and her doctor. Not even Obamacare is that intrusive. If this is one’s idea of government, then they should at least be aware of their hypocrisy with their fanatic “big government takeover of healthcare” line, as they promote big government takeover of reproductive choice.

 
At 4:57 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Obama is advocating taking away the guns of certain social security recipients without due process for them.

This is not true. Please research before repeating Right Wing media points. This is about determining names to be added to the background check list, not “taking away the guns”.

Politifact provides some clarity:

This is a vast exaggeration of the actual policy under consideration. It would not affect all Social Security recipients, but rather those who have already been declared mentally incompetent, and thus ineligible under current law from purchasing a gun. And it is targeted at blocking gun purchases, not taking away guns from people who already have them

They further clarify”

The policy is not yet in force. When we reached out to the Social Security Administration, a spokesman responded, "We are still developing our policy."
In developing the plan, the Social Security Administration is following the lead of another federal agency, the Veterans Administration, which is already sharing names with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The Social Security Administration’s policy is expected to be similar.

The policy would not take away guns from people who already own them. There is no indication that this policy would take guns away from people who already own guns. Rather, the policy would affect the ability of some mentally incompetent people from buying new guns.

There’s a legitimate discussion to be made for the financial competence issue. It is being worked out. Don’t panic. And please don’t rely solely on Right Wing media spin. It makes you appear uninformed and reactionary.

 
At 9:44 AM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

"If one is consistently pro-life, he would oppose capital punishment..."

Not true at all. Massive categorical mistake. Comparing an unborn child to a convicted 1st degree murderer? You know better than that.



Also, curiously enough, now that you bring it up... One of the arguments used by progressives to argue against capital punishment is the finality of the punishment and the potential that the person is not guilty. They feel that the risk is simply too great (even if very small) to put the person to death. Oddly, the same consideration is most often NOT afforded the unborn child. There are arguments as to "personhood" and at what stage, but we continue to throw that caution to the wind recklessly, while protecting the most vile and evil among us. Leading indicators of our culture of barbarism circling the drain of history.

As to the worn viability argument, a newborn is a separate life. Left alone and to its own devices and without care, will die. Dependence for life doesn't void life.

The fact that you continue to argue around the fringes of the very real moral issue present in a large % of cases speaks volumes. You are searching for a shred of moral scaffolding on which to stand. We can talk about the extreme circumstances and "what ifs" all day long and get nowhere.

And saying things like "But it is hypocrisy to claim that when lusting for wars based on lies" is ridiculous. What are you talking about? I don't (nor does T Paine from what I can tell) lust for any kinds of wars - valid or invalid.




"Conservative men dictating women’s reproductive rights automatically relegates women to inferior status."

Rhetorical pablum and sloganeering. We live in a society where our rights are delineated and limited. And, truth be told, there are probably more women who are vocal in the pro-life movement than men.




"Those defining a person as a living breathing human being are over-ruled and under the dictatorship of a narrower definition of person."

You might go check the record... quite the opposite has occurred.

 
At 2:19 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Harley,

Killing people, apart from self defense, is not “pro life”. Who’s comparing an unborn child to a convicted 1st degree murderer? That would be like me accusing you of comparing a zygote with a person falsely sentenced to death. One is a living, breathing, thinking, even loving person, the other a cell cluster. Big difference. Two can play the false comparison card.

Are the Taliban and ISIS pro-life if they oppose abortion? Just curious. Seems a mighty narrow definition, and even an insult, to life.

Sorry pro-life, by my definition and morality, includes opposing wars based on lies for crony profit and political gain. It includes opposing capital punishment. (Both are barbarism AND billed to me, unlike abortion) The Pope agrees, that is if you think he has any “moral scaffolding” besides opposing abortion. It’s amazing how liberals are accused of moral relativism by those who glaringly posses the same characteristic.

Lust for war, war fever, and revenge were all part of the brainwashing used to take us to war in Iraq. 70% believed Saddam had something to do with 9-11 and al-Qaeda. Amazing how convenient it is for the far Right to ignore this. It is willful blindness and it is dangerous ignorance.

Now the same war lovers are doing their best to start war with Iran. Open your eyes, Harley. How pro-life is that, anyway? Yet I have to pay the bill too. You have no such investment with women’s personal choices. You are one of those in the minority of conservative men dictating women’s reproductive rights. Own it. Republican women in congress make up less than half a percent. My statement is true, whether it sounds good to you or not. Facts, not pablum and sloganeering.

Gallup show only 21% support for banning abortion in all circumstances. Some who consider themselves pro-life understand exceptions are needed. Yes, that supports my point about a conservative minority dictating its will on the majority.

Does pro-life include abortion to save the lives of women with ectopic pregnancies? I would say so. Is it OK to use those women as human sacrifice to support your moral pro-life scaffold? Why doesn’t your moral scaffold include those women? Extreme circumstances exist. Deny it or own it, it is reality.

You equate life in prison with “protecting the most vile and evil among us”. How many MORE innocent but executed humans are acceptable as sacrifice for your revenge based morality? I’d say Bush and Cheney fit that category with the endless stream of suffering and death they left. The are the most vile and evil among us being protected by a corrupt immoral government and empire.

"Those defining a person as a living breathing human being are over-ruled and under the dictatorship of a narrower definition of person."

You might go check the record... quite the opposite has occurred.

You are correct. I should have said “wider definition of person” especially since the far Right sees a corporation as a person with human rights, but without the responsibility or accountability.

A “worn viability argument” is your opinion, but it happens to be medically sound and in a Supreme Court decision.

We live in a society where our rights are delineated and limited. And it just so happens some want women’s rights to be more limited. Own it.

 
At 2:19 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Look, I get why you are opposed to all abortion even if it means the death of the mother. How can that mean anything other than the woman having inferior rights? I disagree with that barbarism and I disagree with your definition of person. I also oppose big government controlling every uterus. You support that big government concept. Own it. Just as some of those who see firearms as more dangerous to society than abortion want big government to intercede.

But when the Right is crying that the poor have no right to health care, or even water, and war based on lies is moral, and capital punishment is moral, as the Right has amply demonstrated; their “pro-life” argument is nothing more than pro-zygote. Own it. Just don’t bullshit us about reverence for human life. Human life is really much more than small cell clusters.

 
At 5:30 PM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

"Look, I get why you are opposed to all abortion even if it means the death of the mother."

I've searched my responses. Couldn't find any record of that thought process.


"Killing people, apart from self defense, is not 'pro life'"

Requiring the life of a person who has committed 1st degree murder is actually the elevation of life and very much pro-life. It indicates the true value of life. That is a widely accepted concept.




Also, we can talk about other issues. That's fine. But, most of what you bring up are just that - other issues. I don't live in the abstract world of "the Right" and "the Left" and the false issue-tying isn't helpful to the point of the discussion. For example, I would agree with you on the just vs. unjust war probably. Or on the corporate personhood issue. And, just because some hold contradictory or hypocritical viewpoints doesn't really speak to THE issue at hand.

Anyway, I've never said there aren't hard cases in the abortion arena and that a woman shouldn't have a say in some cases. But, in the majority of cases where we as a society have promoted the use of abortion as birth control - the snuffing of the life by two people (men are just as culpable) who have often made bad choices because they live in the moral cesspool that is the wake of the sexual revolution. And, frankly, the practice allows men to exploit women far more - which is ironic given the thesis that to limit it is over-bearing. I see quite the opposite. Men take advantage of women and would casually subject them to a fairly risky procedure that often has lingering and ugly side-effects - both physically and emotionally. The numbers don't lie - this is not an unusual procedure. It is acceptable birth control and very casual today.

 
At 5:55 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Harley,

Earlier you wrote We can talk about the extreme circumstances and "what ifs" all day long and get nowhere.

Thank you for clarifying. We actually did get somewhere. Some abortions are necessary to save the mother.

I also oppose abortion as birth control. Everything possible should be done to prevent it. Even free contraception to the poorer of the sexual revolutionaries. Criminalizing it has proven to be dangerous and deadly to women.

If all abortion is banned we know a "fairly risky(er) procedure that often has lingering and ugly side-effects" would be even more common.

Requiring the life of a person who has committed 1st degree murder is actually the elevation of life and very much pro-life. It indicates the true value of life. That is a widely accepted concept.

I suppose this concept needs to be held because the old rationale of deterrence hasn't panned out.

Be that as it may, it is still opinion. How is the death of a man falsely convicted of murder elevation of life and very much pro-life?

I could almost support the death penalty if we had a flawless justice system. We do not.

Travesty, false convictions, and injustice exist. How many executions of innocents are acceptable? I'll tell you. All of them. Otherwise we wouldn't do it. I side with the Pope on this one.

"Oops, my bad, but this elevates life", seems small compensation to the victim and family.

 
At 2:16 PM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

"Oops, my bad, but this elevates life", seems small compensation to the victim and family.

Fairly taken point. And, to be clear, an execution of a falsely accused man is miscarriage of justice and doesn't elevate life. The concept of the fair implementation does. Whether it can be practically administered is another question for debate. Although, I fail to see a lifetime of existence in an 8x10 cell as a more merciful option.

But again, all I'm asking is the same logic of extreme caution be observed in the abortion issue. Are folks so SURE they aren't taking a life? Also, scope comes into play. Stack up the # of executions vs. abortions - pretty drastic difference. Killing of a handful of the worst of the worst offenders vs. an unborn baby who's done nothing except be conceived by irresponsible people (rape, incest, life of the mother issues notwithstanding)...

 
At 2:18 PM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

Correction: should have said "...vs. millions of unborn babies who've done nothing..."

 
At 4:15 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

"Now the same war lovers are doing their best to start war with Iran. Open your eyes, Harley. How pro-life is that, anyway? Yet I have to pay the bill too. You have no such investment with women’s personal choices."

Dave, having been in the first gulf war myself and knowing and being around the military most all of my life, I can honestly tell you that even the people (especially the people) that have to fight those wars certainly do not love them. They fight because they love their families and their country and for what it is supposed to stand. Last, any objective review of the facts would indicate that Iran and their terrorist killings of innocents and their proxy battles throughout the world are the ones waging war. Not ratifying this pernicious agreement is not tantamount to war. Iran's behavior will dictate if that becomes our only remaining option. Rewarding their terrorism by removing sanctions and allowing them to keep certain nuclear capacities certainly doesn't sound like a responsible answer to the problem to me.

Further, you are wrong about me not having to pay for abortions etc. I give you over a half a billion dollars annually in tax payer money going to Planned Parenthood as exhibit A. And before you go and tell me that this money cannot legally be used for abortions, stop and think about it. By providing that funding for the "other" functions PP supposedly does, it frees up money to be used for abortion services.

Further yet, if I am a business owner, I am required by the pernicious and unconstitutional HHS mandate to provide contraceptive and sterilization care to my employees through my health insurance, which includes abortifacients. There aren't even exemptions for Catholic Relief Services, Catholic adoption agencies, Catholic schools, or Catholic hospitals. If you are not specifically running a church, you do not get an exemption from the federal government. You must provide abortifacient pills as part of the health insurance coverage to your employees. So you are wrong again, my friend. I am paying for it both financially and morally. Luckily I am not a business owner, as I would not abide by the law. I would far rather answer to a human court than a divine one on this issue.

 
At 11:48 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Harley,
The concept of the fair implementation does (elevate life).

A concept of the fair implementation is nothing but a concept. Dead victims of injustice were real.

Depends on what is "fair implementation". One that executes rich criminals as well as poor? One that represents the poor the same as the rich?

See where the concept takes us? Often the best justice money can buy.

Are folks so SURE they aren't taking a life? I don't know. But I do know a sperm cell is life.

 
At 12:03 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

TP,
And before you go and tell me that this money cannot legally be used for abortions, stop and think about it.

The Hyde Amendment tells you.

Think about this. Most Planned Parenthood funding is NOT from the government. Only 3 percent is for abortion so way more than that much is covered by other sources.

You wish to destroy the entire program. Is that smart if you are against abortions?

Think about this.

No PP will result in more unwanted pregnancies and more dangerous abortions. Then you get to pay for more welfare kids too.

Will that make you happy?

Now about my money paying for YOUR war. Have you no respect for the post-born-pro-life movement? You see, you are not the only one with a conscience.

How about all us post-born-pro-life folks pay for Planned Parenthood and you pro-war folks pay for your war?

Same with the death penalty. Life in prison is cheaper. Let us fiscal conservatives pay for the method we choose, and you pro-death penalty folks can pay for death by flawed government justice.



Deal?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home