Home › Blogs › Joel's blog

Tea partiers I can believe

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 13:36 — Joel

I think I've mentioned several times my belief that tea partiers are the biggest sore losers in modern American political history -- because if they really were so concerned about Big Government and deficit spending, they'd have spent the last eight years in the streets. The fact that they suddenly became concerned enough to protest, I thought, made them little more than shills for the GOP.

Color me corrected:

Whether it’s the loose confederation of Washington-oriented groups that have played an organizational role or the state-level activists who are channeling grass-roots anger into action back home, tea party forces are confronting the Republican establishment by backing insurgent conservatives and generating their own candidates — even if it means taking on GOP incumbents.

“We will be a headache for anyone who believes the Constitution of the United States … isn’t to be protected,” said Dick Armey, chairman of the anti-tax and limited government advocacy group FreedomWorks, which helped plan and promote the tea parties, town hall protests and the September ‘Taxpayer March’ in Washington. “If you can’t take it seriously, we will look for places of other employment for you.”

At first blush, this just looks like a new variation on the "Club for Growth" types like Pat Toomey who have chased moderates like Arlen Specter out of the Republican Party. These guys aren't my ideological cup of tea. But if they're willing to hold their own party to fiscal account -- instead of becoming deficit hawks only during Democratic administrations -- well, more power to them.

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • Twitter
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Buzz Up!
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket

Trackback URL for this post:

http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=trackback/6700

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 10/12/2009 - 17:27 — ronaldalau

Methinks...

...I sense 'positioning' for 2010.

Tue, 10/13/2009 - 05:37 — ronaldalau

Feelings, nothing more than, feelings...

-- because if they really were so concerned about Big Government and deficit spending, they'd have spent the last eight years in the streets. The fact that they suddenly became concerned enough to protest, I thought, made them little more than shills for the GOP.

More liberalism equating feelings with facts.
Here is a little graphic to help:

Angry face

This is BEFORE accounting for any health care bill.

Tue, 10/13/2009 - 07:40 — Khabalox

Bank bailout

The bailout of the financial industry (the cause of the large deficits in your graph) was both initiated by Bush and his Treasury Secretary and caused in large part because of deregulation and lack of enforcement by the SEC under Bush.

But as expected, the Right will attempt to blame everything he inherited on Obama.

Tue, 10/13/2009 - 08:14 — Dr. Zaius

RE: Bank bailout

Ummmm ... I thought most of the banks paid all that back to the treasury (or at least wanted to if Obama would let them).

And, for the record, many conservatives (including me) were not too happy about the financial bailout. The right might not blame everything on Obama if the left would stop pretending that conservatives have selective outrage. As Ron's graph notes, there's quite a bit more reason to be angry at this administration and this Congress — which, by the way, did not pass the 2009 budget (which should have been signed by Bush) until Obama came into office.

In other words, they deferred so they could spend more. It was only after the Dem Congress and Obama starting doing their budgets that we learned they were incurring deficits over the next 10 years that were greater than all in our history. Sorry. I'm a little more upset about that than even Bush's profligate spending (which is looking downright frugal in comparision to what's going on now). And Bush did not take over GM and fire its CEO. And Bush did not propose an expensive state-run health care plan that is not even included on that amazing graph Ron shared.

Again, tell me why it's unfair to be more angry now than in, say, October of 2008 — when Bush was on the way out and all attention was on what was coming next?

Tue, 10/13/2009 - 08:51 — Joel

Re: Re: Bank bailout

From February: NYT: “For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.”

In other words: Part of the reason Obama's deficits look so much bigger is that the Bush Administration was fudging the numbers from its own programs. Ooops!

And as Khabalox notes, a big reason for the big deficit numbers under Barack Obama is ... the policies of George W. Bush:

As for the deficit’s cause, the single most important factor is the legacy of President George W. Bush’s legislative agenda. Overall, changes in federal law during the Bush administration are responsible for 40 percent of the short-term fiscal problem. For example, we estimate that the tax cuts passed during the Bush presidency are reducing government revenue collections by $231 billion in 2009. Also, because of the additions to the federal debt due to Bush administration policies, the government will be paying $218 billion more in interest payments in 2009.

Had President Bush not cut taxes while simultaneously prosecuting two foreign wars and adopting other programs without paying for them, the current deficit would be only 4.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, instead of the eye-catching 11.2 percent—despite the weak economy and the costly efforts taken to restore it. In 2010, the deficit would be 3.2 percent instead of 9.6 percent.

But that's Obama's fault. Right?

Tue, 10/13/2009 - 09:49 — Deregulator

A feeling of deja vu

Didn't we have this discussion earlier? As in, four months ago? And wasn't it unpersuasive (at least IMO) then, too?

Tue, 10/13/2009 - 10:02 — Joel

Re: Deja vu

Probably. But I truly hope to persuade you of *something* someday. Just something small. Nothing big. I'll keep working on it.

Tue, 10/13/2009 - 11:24 — ronaldalau

Yes it is.

Its his fault because he could have not had the 2nd Bailout.

He could have not spent on the Stimulus,

If raising taxes helps reduce deficits, he should have fought for increased taxes across the board on the last budget.

He could have cut spending.

But thats not what happened.

Furthermore, RIGHT NOW the DNC led congress is considering raising all kinds of taxes to pay for this health care bill. The taxes start right away, but benefits are put off until 2012, and by their own logic, killing ~30,000 of the Americans who they say die each year because of no health insurance, and then only covering 1/2 of the 40million they say need it.

So don't try to tell me that somehow Obama (or any Liberal) cares about deficits, or the debt. He (and other Liberal) is either ignorant about economics, or its his intent to 'transform' the economy, not restore it.

Bush did not fight his wars starting from a standing start. 9/11 crippled the economy, and shook investment confidence in the US. The fiscal policy kept unemployment low, and put confidence back into the markets. And if I remember correctly, and I do, Bush tax cuts ended up benefiting the lower 2/3rds more than the upper 1/3, since the number of people who pay NO income taxes increased. But that wasn't enough for the Re-distribution crowd. To them, the greater percent that the upper 1/10th pay is irrelevant, so is the greater total amount. The Left won't be happy unless the tax rate reflects a total maximum allowable income. And even then it will spend everything it can get its hands on.'

And I look forward to anyone trying to argue about the 80's.

Tue, 10/13/2009 - 15:11 — ronaldalau

Furthermore...

It was the Fanny Mae / Freddy Mac collapse, brought on by Liberal policies, and hidden by DNC defenders (Barny Frank), that was (and still is) the root of the economic collapse.

The Boston Fed produced a manual for mortgage lenders that said: "discrimination may be observed when a lender’s underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower–income minority applicants."

So what were some of the "outdated" criteria?

Credit History: Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor.... In reviewing past credit problems, lenders should be willing to consider extenuating circumstances. For lower–income applicants in particular, unforeseen expenses can have a disproportionate effect on an otherwise positive credit record. In these instances, paying off past bad debts or establishing a regular repayment schedule with creditors may demonstrate a willingness and ability to resolve debts....

Down Payment and Closing Costs: Accumulating enough savings to cover the various costs associated with a mortgage loan is often a significant barrier to homeownership by lower-income applicants. Lenders may wish to allow gifts, grants, or loans from relatives, nonprofit organizations, or municipal agencies to cover part of these costs. . . .

Sources of Income: In addition to primary employment income, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will accept the following as valid income sources: overtime and part–time work, second jobs (including seasonal work), retirement and Social Security income, alimony, child support, Veterans Administration (VA) benefits, welfare payments, and unemployment benefits.

And what if the banks did not go along? Accepting these new criteria was hardly voluntary. The Fed warned the banks:

"Did You Know? Failure to comply with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or Regulation B can subject a financial institution to civil liability for actual and punitive damages in individual or class actions. Liability for punitive damages can be as much as $10,000 in individual actions and the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the creditor’s net worth in class actions."

And who sued the banks? from http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-forc...

Heres a letter the RNC members sent out
http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/gse_reform_060505.pdf

Here is Bill Clinton praising himself and blaming the DNC:


Then the DNC tried to blame the RNC for the failure of the Banking industry, which was poisoned by Freddy and Fanny's obscuration and corruption.


The DNC and Obama are to blame for the projected Deficits and crushing debt. Feelings won't change that.

Tue, 10/13/2009 - 11:03 — Khabalox

Joel has my back...

...but I'll quickly address a couple of points.

The right might not blame everything on Obama if the left would stop pretending that conservatives have selective outrage.

I'm guilty of unfairly lumping in all Conservative (or the "Right") in with Ron and his hyperbolic rantings at times. Sorry about that. There are level headed people on the right who do call out their party on some things, but it certainly sounds louder now than it did last fall when "$1 Trillion" was the headline (or the bill for the wars was released).

Ummmm ... I thought most of the banks paid all that back to the treasury

As of this summer, they've paid back less than 10%. Some of the money that wasn't paid back? AIG bailout funds that went to pay off Goldman Sachs on their CDSs.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Ten leading banks won approval to repay money from the government's controversial TARP program, regulators said Tuesday, which could represent approximately $68 billion in bailout funds returned to taxpayers.

Wed, 10/14/2009 - 18:54 — ronaldalau

I have America's back.

http://sites.google.com/site/ronaldalau/manifesto

Before 2009, I lived and let live, secure in the knowledge that the USA would protect me and my loved ones and allow every citizen the freedom to seek their own destiny. My blog and FaceBook page were used to share my enjoyment of life and family.

Then the election came, and the News media told me that I didn't need to know about Obama before the election, and that if I didn't like him, the problem was with me. They told me that what he said wasn't what he said, and told me that things I heard him say were never said. They told me that Obama didn't agree with Rev.Wright. They told me that the Lunatic Richard Ayers was never part of Obama's circle of friends or acquaintances. They attacked and maligned anyone who spoke ill of Obama, Liberalism, or the DNC. The RNC became paralyzed by fear, and fellow republicans either sat out or chose a non-conservative as their candidate. They chose someone who threw his lot in with the Global Warming and Amnesty crowd for no other reason than he thought he could appeal to Liberals that way. His running mate (a self made Woman) dared challenge the Media, Liberals, Obama and the DNC. And because she is not an Ivy League Graduate, or an uneducated Liberal, she was and has since been attacked endlessly and brutally both professionally and personally.

And then left began calling me racist for opposing Obama's policies. Then they called me stupid for thinking that the economy couldn't survive without the stimulus. Then Obama and the DNC attempted to pass legislation to Socialize health care before anyone would be able to stop it, and tried to do it without anyone knowing what was in it. Then Obama and the DNC and Liberals like Khabalox, and others tried telling me that that health care critics were Lying, when it was provable that Obama and the DNC were the ones lying. Then my congressman tried telling me he didn’t want a Canadian style plan, while at the same time signing his name to letters demanding a government run plan. He tried telling me that he doesn’t support anything that increases the debt burden on my children, but then tried to tell us that all insurers must cover people without condition.

Then the Left and Obama and the DNC and Liberals try to tell me about how wars should have been fought, all the while ignoring recent and past history, and most of the time pretending that recorded history didn't happen. They try to tell me I’m a warmonger, while they and their colleges in Europe have no problem sitting by and watching genocide, and ignore the atrocities of the Dictator and Regime that was removed in Iraq and Afghanistan. All while Obama's czars, administration officials, the Democrat controlled congress, and a few RINOs are dismantling the Constitution, destroying Liberty, and undermining individual responsiblitly and their ability to be self sufficient.

They also try telling me that I’m not allowed to point out the failings of Liberal policies, because I don’t have a solution to the dependency bred by said policies. Unless those solutions include housing, clothing, feeding, and providing entertainment for the dependent till the day they die.

And let’s not forget Obama nominates, and the Democrat controlled Senate confirms (by their own standards) a proven and known racist to sit on the Supreme Court. Using terms like ‘empathy’ and ‘compassion’ they cover their desire to redefine the Constitution and undermine the foundation of the Country (The Rule of Law).

And to top it all off, they all try telling me I don't know what’s good for me, once again ignoring all historical evidence to the contrary.

Now I no longer fear the Liberal. The Liberal has nothing. Liberalism is morally and intellectually bankrupt. They have no arguments other than lies stated as fact, or accusations toward anyone that disagrees with them.

The Liberal has shown himself to have nothing to offer anyone. He only wishes to take away. Does he generate more liberty? No. The net effect is always less. Does he produce more security? No, he always makes it easier for the enemy. Does he generate more economic prosperity? No, he calls it 'immoral' and seeks to punish the successful. Does he promote a civil society? No, he separates people into groups, and pits on against the other using his made up philosophy of 'social justice' to excuse legalized stealing, and 'political correctness' to enforce racial behavior. Does he wish America to remain strong? No, he always seeks to ‘punish’ (Kyoto) America for its ‘sins’ (Global Warming/Climate Change), based on flawed/disproved science, by destroying our industrial base (Cap and Trade).

Shall I sit idly by and watch? Nay, I shall not. I will fight. I will miss America when it’s gone, but at least I’ll be able to say I fought for it.

From now on I will fight the Liberal on the streets. At the Town Halls. In the forums. In the arena of Ideas. And at the ballot box.

I will not be cowed by political correctness. I will not back down when they accuse me of having no compassion, when I have more than they will ever have. I will not shrink back from Liberal Pseudo-Intellectuals' arguments about 'facets' of Liberty and how much Liberty I actually need. I will laugh at them when they accuse me of Hate, and Racism, Ignorance, and Greed, as I know now that these words are just projections of their own faults. I will teach my children about Liberalism and its lies, and I will not stop. It is time for them to pay a price for the policies they wish to impose on everyone else.

And I am not alone. Millions of citizens who before the election were happy and content to allow each his own have now seen the Left and their willing accomplices Lie, Obscure, Scheme, Plan and Implement policies meant to control them and their children to the Liberal’s will and not their own.

We are Patriots.

Wed, 10/14/2009 - 19:05 — Joel

Re: "We are Patriots."

We are too, Ron.

Wed, 10/14/2009 - 19:53 — Dr. Zaius

RE: RE: "We are Patriots"

Well ... if dissent is still the highest form of patriotism, we're all square then, right? ;-)

Sorry, Joel. I couldn't resist. ... and no. I don't expect a reply, nor am I eager to engage in a looooooong and probably unpersuasive discussion of what patriotism means ... though I have my thoughts. Just throwing an elbow and hoping the ref won't see it. .... And having a little fun .... :-0

Cheers!
Dr. Z

Wed, 10/14/2009 - 19:55 — ronaldalau

I used to think that.

But not after the election and what has come since.

They may think they are, but that doesn't make it true. Liberalism has no anchor or foundation. As with its view of the Constitution, its view of Patriotism gets redefined as needed to suit.

The lying and obfuscation of this Administration and its supporters can only mean they seek to alter the foundation of the nation and destroy the constitution. The Liberal Messia Obama himself has said as much when he declared he is going to 'fundamentally' change the Country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

What happens when 51% of the population doesn't pay taxes? What will happen when the population figures out that they can still get food, shelter, medicine, booze and drugs without working? What will happen to the work ethic if future generations have to give up 50% of their earnings to pay off a debt accumulated before they were born?

No matter their intentions, the end effect of Obama's policies is Socialism, and I know what Socialism brings. Therefore Obama and his supporters are in opposition to principals this country was founded on. The principals that allowed this country to end slavery, survive a civil war, create wealth and upward mobility for common people, win two world wars, and be a beacon for all those 'yearning to be free'.

And if one is in opposition to these principals, then one is not a patriot.

Liberals tried telling us that the Rosebergs were patriots. They said that they gave the Russians nuke secrets so that the Russians wouldn't be so afraid that they'd invade ASAP or nuke us as soon as they got a nuke of their own.

Liberals told us that McCarthy was the enemy, and all the spies/traitors/communist sympathizers he called out were the patriots. But now when the evidence shows the the opposite, Liberals refuse to believe it, and still drag a Patriots name thought the mud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
http://www.heritage.org/press/events/ev121207a.cfm

I look at the actual and logical RESULTS of current Liberal Ideas and Policies. Not their intentions, or what they Hope to Change. I see net decreases in Liberty, Safety, Civility, Equality, Fairness, and Security.

I believe you believe you are a patriot, but that's as far as I can go.

Ban me if you feel the need, but don't ask me to apologize. It would only be a waste of bits.

Ronald A. Lau

Wed, 10/14/2009 - 19:58 — Joel

Re: "I used to think that"

"I believe you believe you are a patriot, but that's as far as I can go."

Back atcha.

Wed, 10/14/2009 - 20:16 — ronaldalau

Except

I have history to justify my definition.
You have Feelings.

Wed, 10/14/2009 - 20:54 — Joel

Re: Except

Feh. At best, what you have is an interpretation of history informed by your own feelings. I don't think that's different from anybody else -- even me -- but you've come to believe your own biases are somehow God's Own Truth.

Me? My reading of history tells me that liberals have done more to expand freedom in America to otherwise oppressed people: women, African Americans and gay people all have more opportunities to live full and free lives in this country because of the work that liberals have done. Senior citizens can retire with some minimal standards of living and health care because of the work that liberals have done. And my reading of recent history tells me that "conservatives" end up expanding government just as wildly as liberals do -- only liberals tend to do a better job of paying for it.

My reading of history also tells me that conservatives have valuable contributions to American values with their understanding about the nature of freedom, the rule of law and the unintended consequences of overzealous regulation.

My problem is not that you think liberals are wrong. It's that you've read history -- apparently quite a bit -- and have somehow come to the conclusion that liberals have always been wrong, in every time and every place, even as you live a life that (I'll wager good money) is probably built at least partially from the fruits of liberal successes. You just think you have history, Ron; in fact, your feelings have rendered your view of things rather one-dimensional.

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 09:50 — ronaldalau

if you read it

...you will notice that I am talking about Todays Liberal, from the election on.

My feelings are based on the words and actions of the American Left from the election till today.

Not Yesteryears.

And Todays American Liberal is following a man that intends to destryoy the foundation of the Nation. That makes them something other than Patriots.

Wed, 10/14/2009 - 20:58 — RobbL

Re: I've got America's back

Am I the only one who read this screed picturing Bluto from Animal House?

Tue, 10/13/2009 - 06:05 — Wry Mouth

I was...

If I may paraphrase, I

"spent the last eight years [arguing in a similar manner, with the same level of stridency]. "

Hope that makes me somewhat integritous. ;o/

Tue, 10/13/2009 - 06:40 — ronaldalau

So was I.

As Rush said:

... I don't think George W. Bush counted me as one of his supporters as I was leading the anti-amnesty immigration bill drive, nor do I think the president counted me as an ally when I was dead set against campaign finance reform, nor do I think the president particularly liked me when I was livid over Ted Kennedy writing the education bill and the drug bill. And I was not crazy about the president inviting the Kennedy family for a movie and popcorn in there and the Medicare prescription drug entitlement. I don't think the president counted me as a supporter of that. In fact, I heard from the White House on several occasions on immigration. I had a visit from the White House to try to get my mind right on immigration. I held firm and fast. It was so bad that my friend Vince Flynn was visiting George W. Bush in the Oval Office one day, it was during the Dubai Ports deal, which, of course, I was all for. And Vince Flynn sends me an e-mail when he finishes his meeting, said, "Boy, the president, I don't know what you did, but he's really thinking you're opposing him here on the Dubai Ports deal." Because he was so accustomed to me opposing him on things that he assumed in talking to Flynn that I was opposing the Dubai Ports deal.

ronaldalau.googlepages.com

Wed, 10/14/2009 - 21:27 — Dr. Zaius

Playing referee in a family fued

I'm pulling out my long-chilled bucket of cold water. ... (SPLASH!) ... boy I hope I don't regret this comment ...

I greatly admire your passion, Ron. And I believe, Joel admires that passion too — even if (as if it needs to be said by me) that he doesn't agree with you. Joel can attest that he and I have had many passionate debates defending our points of view. I can't even remember the number of times I've impugned Joel's motivations and intellectual honesty — and him right back at me. It's not something we're proud of, and I'm quite sure we'll both do it again. (Sorry, Joel, if I'm projecting, but it's just human nature.)

Passion for my ideals is why I contribute to this blog. Same with Joel. Same with Ben, and David and RobbL and all the Monkeys. And same with Ron and Khabalox. But hear me, Ron: There is no convincing Joel (and perhaps, Khabalox, too) to change their minds. By and large it just won't happen. Believe me. I've tried, and tried and tried and tried and tried ... :-)

But all of our contributions to this very humble blog are valuable — at least to me. Parrying with the likes of Joel and RobbL (my usual foils) and now (happily) Khabalox sharpens my intellect. Those guys throw fastballs all day — even if I think sometimes they are putting a little spit on the ball. We all think our biases are "God's Own Truth." My job, and the job of everyone who loves what this blog has become, is to step up to the plate and take swings at each other's truth. And also to have fun. And to get to know our colleagues as much as we can through what we type and send into the world in ones and zeroes.

I can say this about Joel, at least from my perspective: He is wrong about 90 percent of the time (Don't laugh, Joel. You've improved from being wrong in my mind 99 percent of the time). But he's a good man. A principled liberal who is not above climbing down from the turret gun when the spray gets a little sloppy. (Same with me, by the way ... at least I hope). While I think his faith in his principles is often misguided, I've found areas of agreement, which is often a grudging admission, usually on my part, not his. (The limitations that blogging and insta-commenting contributes, for sure.) And he is a patriot. He loves this country, though he has a different view than many house Monkeys on how it should be.

And I can say this about Ron: He is a passionate. He is a patriot. He loves his country. He speaks his mind, and deserves much credit for putting himself in the public at a town hall meeting to express his opinions. I think it's great that he's become such a prolific contributor in the comments. And I think Ron is right to be gravely concerned about what's happening in this country right now. The fact is, it is a general rule that the more government intervenes in our lives, the less liberty the individual has. As radio host Dennis Prager has put it: The bigger the government, the smaller the individual. And while liberals howled at the potential violations of liberty they saw in Bush's war on terror, they seem (in general) rather blasé about the invasion of liberty inherent in Obama's agenda.

Putting my views in the last few sentences above aside (for now), let me just sprinkle the last drops from my cold water bucket and say that it should be a rule around here — for both bloggers and our cherished readers and commenters — to make a genuine and respectful effort to refrain from impugning the patriotism and sincerity of our Monkey Community.

I write this with full knowledge that I will violate this rule. But I endeavor to also humbly say "my bad" when I violate it. And I hope everyone else will follow suit.

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 07:42 — Khabalox

Moderator

First, let me say what an excellent post. I used to be a Moderator on a fairly large Internet forum for a web-based game (hence, the forum was populated mostly by young people and kids), so I always try to be mindful of how heated the discussion is getting and reign in my posts when necessary. Sadly, I'm not always very good at it.

So let me say this. I love debating, whether it be politics, religion, economics or anything else. Sometimes, I love it so much that I start to take on the role of Devil's Advocate, and go out on limbs where I wouldn't normally tread. Whether we agree or disagree, please believe me when I say I intend no one (not even Ron ;) any personal ill will. Like Dr. Zaius said, these discussions sharpen all of us. If we do not engage in a cross-pollination of ideas, then all sides are at risk of sterilization and death. When we insulate ourselves, and only hear people with whom we agree, we become stunted as human beings both intellectually and emotionally.

But hear me, Ron: There is no convincing Joel (and perhaps, Khabalox, too) to change their minds. By and large it just won't happen. Believe me. I've tried, and tried and tried and tried and tried ... :-)

Ehh... that's not true. I'm not completely close-minded. I pride myself at being one of those rare netizens who will admit to losing an argument. I can see myself coming around on portions of the Net Neutrality issue, and if the statements made in the FTC/blogger thread are true (didn't see convincing direct evidence though) I could change my mind on parts of that too.

And while liberals howled at the potential violations of liberty they saw in Bush's war on terror, they seem (in general) rather blasé about the invasion of liberty inherent in Obama's agenda.

Perhaps, but also vice versa. Where was the Right when Bush and Gonzales were shredding the Bill of Rights? (That's a rhetorical question, I don't want to open up a can of worms here.)

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 09:36 — Joel

Re: Referee

Jim:

Thanks for your kind words. I'm humbled by them and appreciate them. And I think I've said this to you privately, but let me say it publicly: I often -- not always -- think you're wrong. And yeah, sometimes our rhetoric with each other gets a little out of hand. But I appreciate having you for a foil.

Thanks,
J

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 09:53 — ronaldalau

The Crux

I understand whats written above.

But I will not back away from this statement:

-Today's American Liberal is following a man that intends to destroy the foundation of the Nation. That makes them something other than Patriots.