So begins a Rush Limbaugh monologue, from yesterday's show. The critic he's responding to is WaPo columnist Michael Gerson (who was a Bush speechwriter). Rush says:
It's really, really bad what the IRS is doing to the Tea Party, but that's as far as Gerson's willing to go. He doesn't want to extrapolate it might mean anything. But to me it does. I don't know what he thinks about it. I think he thinks all governments engage in excesses, and some governments have individuals who go outside the boundaries and this is par for the course....Gerson said: "It is one thing to oppose the policies of the administration; it is another to call for resistance against a 'regime' and a 'police state.'" Rush read that and said:
Who did that? He means armed resistance. That's what he's not saying. Nobody's doing that.Rush doesn't like the way Gerson finds more in Rush's statements than Rush has literally said. But in order to say that, Rush must find something in Gerson's statements that Gerson has not literally said. And Rush is also going on about how President Obama is responsible for things that Obama hasn't literally said:
Herbert Meyer... the former national security official of the Reagan administration... described Hitler and Nazism, and he made the claim, 'cause his column focused on people hoping there's a smoking gun linking Obama to all of these scandals. And Herbert Meyer said there isn't gonna be a smoking gun. There is no memo. Obama doesn't have to write a memo of instructions or desires 'cause everybody working for him already knows what he wants. Everybody working for him is a miniature Obama, or a full-fledged Obama. And as an example, Herbert Meyer used Hitler and the Nazis, and he said (paraphrasing), "Despite the fact that everybody knows that Adolf Hitler ran the Holocaust, you will not find one document where Hitler issues orders for the Holocaust to be carried out. If we needed that to prove what Hitler was, we would never be able to prove it because it doesn't exist."Rush goes on to complain about the mild-mannered campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney, whom he portrays as unwilling to go after Obama, and he's afraid that's where conservatives will do once again, as Jeb Bush lumbers onto the stage. Rush wants some tough dissent from the Republicans, but he must know that you can go too far with that and sound like a raving lunatic, which is what I think Gerson meant to say. Here's Gerson (from the second link, above):
Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism. It is offensive for the same reasons it was offensive when elements of the left, in the 1960s and 1970s, talked of the American “regime.”And in Wisconsin, in 2011, when our duly elected Governor, Scott Walker, was protested by hordes of people who chanted "This is what democracy looks like" as they tried to interfere with what they'd convinced themselves was an illegitimate regime. And you'd better believe they compared Walker to Hitler:
Posts
80 comments:
Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism.
That is what people who have spent the majority of their adult lives working in government say.
Note that of course Gerson can't distinguish between criticizing the actions of government and the government itself.
So, it's legitimate for the government to question my patriotism as it collects all of my communications on the sincere belief I may be a terrorist, or associated with a terrorist, BUT it is unpatriotic of me to question the legitimacy of the government collecting that data because I am a suspect.
The only thing consistent here is, I am deemed unpatriotic.
After the several oaths I've sworn to defend the Constitution, that's news to me.
Does anyone suppose I'm supposed to be ok with this?
Thank you Gerson for telling us all to sit down and shut up.
No, I am not going to take all this crap lightly.
As the Fortnight of Freedom is almost upon us, this metaphorical peasant is picking up her metaphorical pitchfork.
NSA is reading that so I distinctly said metaphorical to leave no room for doubt. My only weapons are a pissy attitude and words. And a laptop and an internet connection. And fear and surprise and ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope and nice red uniforms. And the soft cushion and the comfy chair. watch
An executive that does whatever the hell it wants.
A Congress that has constructed a life-sucking monster bureaucractic state.
A judiciary that long ago abandoned any pretense to following the rule of law, especially the Constitution, in favor of being laws unto themselves.
Our government has done enough all on its own to undermine any legitimacy it had without Rush ever saying a thing.
It IS the regime. And it acts like it.
Right down to IRS agents with AR-15s.
And I've noticed more people are starting to ask the musical question "Did all this nefarious activity move the election?".
Tim said...
So, it's legitimate for the government to question my patriotism as it collects all of my communications on the sincere belief I may be a terrorist, or associated with a terrorist, BUT it is unpatriotic of me to question the legitimacy of the government collecting that data because I am a suspect.
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, but only if you're a Democrat.
It's just a little mustache, it only hurts if you let it. Think of it as artistic expression.
Makes you wonder when Governor Trans Vaginal has citizens arrested for having merely have duct tape over their mouths. Silenced for being silent.
Certainly the left give us financial Nazism.
The IRS spends 50 million of OUR tax dollars on the self-congratulatory Obama won! feel good parties... all while they harass conservatives and other non-leftist groups.
And you'd better believe they compared Walker to Hitler
What is it with Hitler anyway? Why not some other left wing killer? Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Che Quevara, Castro come to mind.
“Judge: Obama sex assault comments 'unlawful command influence'”
http://www.stripes.com/judge-obama-sex-assault-comments-unlawful-command-influence-1.225974
Do we now see how this worked in the IRS, the DOJ and NSA? There will be no tapes. No need for an 18 ½ minute gap. Direct evidence will be unavailable but it is unnecessary.
Unlawful Command Influence.
What a concept. I'm sure Obama never thought of it.
As a rule, the side that uses Nazi references as a commonplace in political discussions is the side that's losing. That's true across the spectrum.
Rush doesn't like the way Gerson finds more in Rush's statements than Rush has literally said.
The creepiness of your first-name basis coziness with that blob aside, this is a sentence with all the grammatical and cognitive complexity of a Dick and Jane book.
when the party in power illegally uses the levers of government to win an election, that administration loses all credibility and legitimacy.
I'm with Rush and I don't see any conservatives acting like those liberal loonies in Wisconsin. Also, I don't have a very high opinion of Gerson.
From sexualizing political activists to sex trips at known underage tourism destinations, "Rush" is too intimate for simple pronouns or common formal references. Think of him as a cuddly, creepy uncle that you're way too cozy with.
Or so those who would extensively refer to "Rush" would have us believe.
Also, I wouldn't think that someone with an unapologetic OxyContin addiction would promote using the word "rush" in referring to him, but that must be part of the inherent irrationality of the conservative "movement" that he represents.
"Rush" takes the conservative movement deep down in to the bowels of its roots.
"Regime" is an evil word because it's both French and monarchic.
somefeller said...
As a rule, the side that uses Nazi references as a commonplace in political discussions is the side that's losing. That's true across the spectrum.
Godwin's Law.
Almost always applicable to the Left.
Similar to the old Chinese proverb, "You can always tells who's losing. He's the first to raise his voice".
In this case, however, we can apply the actions of the Choom Gang to an analogy of an absolutist dictatorship.
All that's lacking are the camps and the massacres.
For now.
I looked at Gerson's bio and he has never held a job outside government or the media, which is the same thing.
This is now the standard in Congress and the executive branch.
It's no wonder they can't see what we are worried about.
I looked at Gerson's bio and he has never held a job outside government or the media, which is the same thing.
Roger Ailes agrees!
No need for elections. Have Google or someone take a poll on some day. Ask 100 random people.
Tim sez: "Does anyone suppose I'm supposed to be ok with this? "
Yes, actually I do.
I have no problem with the NSA surveillance program because we're a nation at WAR. We didn't have the PRISM program before 9-11. Now we have such a program. That's not a coincidence, get it?
After 9-11, Congress passed the PATRIOT Act--and refined it in 2005--and that gives the NSA the authority. That is now representative democracy works. Your elected representatives used their judgment and decided we needed this NSA surveillance. Even liberal Democrats like Senator Feinstein were briefed on this program and approved of it.
The way I see it, citizens of a major military power (like the U.S.) need to have TWO separate moral codes: One for peacetime and one for wartime. You do things in wartime you would never do in peacetime--and you find ways to justify those things because there's a war on.
We're at WAR. You should know that better than I.
And war, to me, justifies a whole lot of stuff.
Losing this war would be worse.
Losing any war is worse.
It's not a game we're in with these Islamists. You don't get points for good sportsmanship.
And yet I feel a closeness. You know about my hat! Surely you've been to this party, maybe line-danced a bit, maybe had a cocktail. No?
Line danced and cocktails? Could have been any one of a number of parties - at least in the case of the latter. I try to stay away from amateur group choreography.
But I do keep the aluminum to packaging foods and such. It makes for horrible apparel.
An administration that openly breaks the law and fears no consequence.
No budget in 5 years even though producing an annual federal budget is required by law.
No accountability for Benghazi. Openly lying about Benghazi.
An AG who openly lied about #IRS and will undertake no investigation to find the perpetrators of this use of a government agency to harass and intimidate the administration's political opponents.
Unauthorized "gifting" of billions of dollars tot eh Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt even after Congress expressly forbade such.
Committing American troops and weapons to Syria - in SUPPORT of the Muslim Brotherhood - without Congressional assent.
Using NSA data in a political campaign.
Tapping the cell phones of journalist who have committed no crimes, but who may disagree with administration policies.
Government by Executive Order, not by rule of law.
Conservatives need to break with Republicans. The Republicans, many of them, have morphed into Democrat Light.
sow the BushHitler wind, reap the ObamaHitler whirlwind.
sinz52 said...
Does anyone suppose I'm supposed to be ok with this?
Yes, actually I do.
I have no problem with the NSA surveillance program because we're a nation at WAR. We didn't have the PRISM program before 9-11. Now we have such a program. That's not a coincidence, get it?
It was for overseas use only.
Slight detail.
But we are at war, with the people who have stolen the government.
Like the man said, "No prisoners, no mercy".
It's been the code of the Lefties forever.
Conservatives need to break with Republicans. The Republicans, many of them, have morphed into Democrat Light.
Please, please, please, please, please do! All this business of just changing the name for nostalgic purposes so that you can try to pretend that you're really not the Republicans of 1928 - 2008, but having nothing to offer than a meaningless bloc vote of pure obstructionism in one house of congress is becoming a bit tiresome.
Rush goes on to complain about the mild-mannered campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney, whom he portrays as unwilling to go after Obama, and he's afraid that's where conservatives will do once again, as Jeb Bush lumbers onto the stage.
No, it's not what conservatives are doing that bothers Rush, it's the RINO's that bother him and myself.
The people who live in Washington and pay each other six figure salaries all have unions, and they all contribute heavily to the Democrats, both personally and through those unions. The basis of unionism is the belief, or at least the assertion, that a job is the personal property of the worker. Clearly, they believe that they have seized control of the government. Why should I suppose otherwise?
"Conservatives need to break with Republicans. The Republicans, many of them, have morphed into Democrat Light."
Please, please, please, please, please do! All this business of just changing the name for nostalgic purposes so that you can try to pretend that you're really not the Republicans of 1928 - 2008, but having nothing to offer than a meaningless bloc vote of pure obstructionism in one house of congress is becoming a bit tiresome.
Works for me, too. It will make life easier on my Republican friends who always have to say, "I'm a Republican, but..." when they want to (often justifiably) bash social-democratic policies but don't want to be linked to the shallow end of the gene pool. Hell, I might dust off the old "I like Ike" lapel pin and become a Republican again if that happens.
"I have no problem with the NSA surveillance program because we're a nation at WAR. We didn't have the PRISM program before 9-11. Now we have such a program. That's not a coincidence, get it?"
And I had no problem with the program as it was sold to us: monitoring of foreign phone calls from suspected al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliated persons to phones in the US.
There, the government was acting on some probable cause.
Here, they are collection data from all of us.
Why?
Because they suspect that all of us may be terrorists, or affiliated with terrorists.
There is no other explanation for collecting your information, or mine. They do so because they believe you or I may help them uncover terrorist networks.
The "at war" excuse, while "true," isn't enough.
somefeller said...
Conservatives need to break with Republicans. The Republicans, many of them, have morphed into Democrat Light.
Please, please, please, please, please do! All this business of just changing the name for nostalgic purposes so that you can try to pretend that you're really not the Republicans of 1928 - 2008, but having nothing to offer than a meaningless bloc vote of pure obstructionism in one house of congress is becoming a bit tiresome.
Works for me, too. It will make life easier on my Republican friends who always have to say, "I'm a Republican, but..." when they want to (often justifiably) bash social-democratic policies but don't want to be linked to the shallow end of the gene pool. Hell, I might dust off the old "I like Ike" lapel pin and become a Republican again if that happens.
The only people who say, "I'm a Republican, but...", live in the dark corner of Mom's basement.
And the Baghdad Bob of Althouse needs to remember that it's the shallow end of the gene pool on which the Left and the Democrats are dependent.
People just like him.
Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism.
No, it's actually the foundation of our brand of patriotism.
Refreshing the tree and all.
Some of Rush Limbaugh's criticism of Obama is hyperbolic. That's why I listen to him. Everywhere else Obama is praised to the heavens, and Christie's waistline is endlessly criticized.......I think this IRS scandal is a big deal and should be a much bigger deal. The media for the most part tactfully ignores it. Any criticism of Obama in this matter is presented as Republican overreaching. Limbaugh is a lone voice. Sometimes he has to shriek to be heard above the chorus.
People see what they expect to see in a President. The media plays that regular President propaganda for Obama being a fighter for the people as fast as Obama's apparatus can crank it out.
But Obama sees what a tyranny could steal and has continuously worked tricks to install his gang into a Tyranny role under cover of Fantasy based Environmental Laws, equality of everybody legalisms, and Redistribution of our money as he declares More Fair.
The GodFather II film had a great scene where Heiman Roth tells Michael Corleone about his Cuba deal that the Mob's powers will become unstoppable once they run their own country.
That is the factor that Rush and other "raving lunatics" like me see similar in Obama as in Der Fuhrer: It is a once for all irreversible power grab that uses NSA tactics with a Gestapo of armed Federal Agents in the IRS, in Homeland Security's system of concentration camps, and with EPA violations for all human activities.
I think this IRS scandal is a big deal and should be a much bigger deal.
Regardless of whatever involvement you can attach to the president over it or not?
(I would have said "or irregardless" but that's a weird case in English of being synonymous with its opposite. It would have been funny to have played a Catch-22 language game there, but my question is serious. I want to know if rational investigations into the president's involvement in a scandal matter as much as the idea that he can be implicated by nothing other than his association with the executive branch).
Patriotism is a love for your country. I love my country but I most certainly do not love the clowns that are running it right now.
Further, when said clowns clearly abuse the power they have been granted, they de-legitimize themselves. All we are doing is pointing out and criticizing their abuses.
.I think this IRS scandal is a big deal and should be a much bigger deal. The media for the most part tactfully ignores it. Any criticism of Obama in this matter is presented as Republican overreaching. Limbaugh is a lone voice. Sometimes he has to shriek to be heard above the chorus.
The IRS scandal is a big deal but it is hardly being ignored. It's been on the front pages (to the extent that term works in this digital age) ever since it broke. If these scandals aren't gaining traction or are only doing so after the NY Times gets in the game, maybe it's because people have heard the shrieking of the Rushes so much that they discount it. Boy who cries wolf and all. Or epistemic closure if you want to get all meme-y.
"I want to know if rational investigations into the president's involvement in a scandal matter as much as the idea that he can be implicated by nothing other than his association with the executive branch). "
So his "association with the executive branch" is passive ? He's just a guy in the neighborhood ? OK. I understand. It can't be his fault because he's just a guy who lives in the White House.
R & B, "his association with the executive branch"? You understand, I hope, that the President is in charge of and responsible for the executive branch.
R & B, "his association with the executive branch"? You understand, I hope, that the President is in charge of and responsible for the executive branch.
So his "association with the executive branch" is passive ? He's just a guy in the neighborhood ? OK. I understand. It can't be his fault because he's just a guy who lives in the White House.
Dear Michael K.:
If you are unaware of the laws that restrict or prohibit the president's direct interaction with or intervention in the workings of certain agencies that are nevertheless grouped under the executive branch of government, then I'd be happy to direct you to some non-right wing, neutral or otherwise factually informative resources that could clarify that for you.
Same goes for you, poppa india.
I would have said "or irregardless" but that's a weird case in English of being synonymous with its opposite.
I didn't think there was a clearer indicator of subliterate posturing than "irregardless", but "or irregardless" would do the job.
Ritmo--the self-proclaimed superior intellect of the commentariat--can now start whining about my pedantry.
Thanks for your reply. I'd like to see some discussion of the large number of visits to the WH by IRS officials before the last election. Since they couldn't have gone there for any interaction, I wonder what was the purpose of those visits. Aren't you curious?
Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, Madison and Jay -- who pledged their blood, fortunes and sacred honor to form an unobtrusive, less powerful federal government "of the people" -- failed.
Our experiment in self government is over. The history of Man is a continuous story of Kings, Emporiors, Tyrants, and Dictators taking, in the name of the people, $100 million vacations to Africa, right up until the place falls in on itself.
I don't know if Obama has any personal involvement in the IRS scandal. But isn't it just as presumptuous to claim that he doesn't as it is to claim that he does?......There is no megaphone effect when the Dems screw up. There will be no big budget movie about the travails some Tea Party woman undergoes at the hands of the IRS. Dislike and libel of Tea Party types is not considered a form of prejudice but rather as a form of idealism. I admire the way that media and Hollywood types have transcended all known forms of racial and sexual prejudice, but further work is indicated for transcendence of political prejudices.
Where do you get this claim of superior intellect? I merely proclaim my love of relevant facts. Does that offend you?
Whatever you're trying to get at in the first part is pretty damn recondite. "Regardless of... or irregardless," sounds like a funny way to frame antonyms, and they may be. But they may also not be. In any event, I can't even follow what grammatical issue you're playing the schoolmarm on, unless it's insufficient scorn for split prepositional phrases.
I suppose you'd like to distract from a decent understanding of why implicating the president's branch of government with his role (or lack thereof) in the IRS is considered somehow damning.
It isn't the executive branch anymore.
It's the Sargent Schultz branch of the governemnt.
As someone here so aptly put it.
"Obama, the only virgin in the whorehouse."
This controversy is fortunate in one respect: it's a litmus test to determine who and who isn't a statist.
I've been saying just about my whole life that most Republicans and Democrats are statists; they just disagree about what they should control.
It is simply not astonishing that most politicians are circling the wagons around Obama.
I'd like to see some discussion of the large number of visits to the WH by IRS officials before the last election. Since they couldn't have gone there for any interaction, I wonder what was the purpose of those visits. Aren't you curious?
Yeah. This had actually been addressed at length in places. The IRS official was giving information on how all the tweaks to the tax code would make or not make the structure of Obamacare (ACA) successful. Given the volume of that law, it's plausible. These were policy discussions. Horrible if you hate Obamacare, but really not all that indicative of a directly overseen conspiracy against conservative tax filers.
Last I heard, the guy highest up in the conspiracy actually was a conservative.
As President Obama is responsible for the high crimes and misdemeanors of the men he appointed, UNLESS he investigates and fires them like Reagan did to the Marine Oliver North, or better yet they were hold overs from his predecessor's regime and he fires them.
The world awaits news of Obama firing anyone who carried out his will. It takes extreme arrogance to do what King Obama I does and ignore it.
"Regardless of... or irregardless," sounds like a funny way to frame antonyms, and they may be.
They're not antonyms. In fact, "irregardless" isn't really a word at all.
A descriptivist dictionary might tell you that "irregardless" is a "word" b/c there are people who use it to mean "regardless", but even such a source will tell you that it's "nonstandard".
"Nonstandard" is a polite way of saying "sub literate".
Don't think of this as a distraction from anything. Think of it as help.
I think of it as an annoying way to avoid acknowledging the point about a president's involvement in the IRS.
I hope it's helping your ego, though. Good to know you write your own dictionaries in your spare time, with this "isn't really a word at all" nonsense. We both wish it weren't. But unlike you, Chip, I don't believe in my own inherent power to remake the entire English language.
Although I'm more creative with some neologisms that could stand a chance than you are. ;-) The only thing you're getting creative with right now is inanities.
You know, for some reason your persistent prescriptivism is making me defensive of the word -- which I freely admit I never liked before. I think it sounds better as an interjection, entirely removed from any formal function, such as a preposition. And who's kidding whom? (Did you like that catch? ;-)). No one uses it as a preposition anyway.
Interjections are inherently non-standard... They're the easiest route for a neologism to make it into the language, actually. Witness all the phone-text acronyms. Also, adding the prefix ir- gives it the sort of first-syllable emphasis that such an interjection could use - particularly since it's meant to denote contrast.
Good to know you write your own dictionaries in your spare time, with this "isn't really a word at all" nonsense.
Oh dear, I've been outed as the author of this.
(Note, btw, that the usage example there is by a novelist intending to convey a sense of the character, who also--you'll notice--isn't all that careful about subject-verb agreement.)
But I do enjoy the anti-intellectual pose you take whenever you've been wounded.
"You, you...book writer!
Conservatives are sensitive about "intellectualism", which is nice. I'm just sensitive about people not using their brains.
Sometimes the cutting edge of received (i.e. academic) knowledge is important in this regard, sometimes not.
Language is an arena where both views need to be reconciled. John McWhorter is a decent popular linguist (or popularizer or explainer of linguistics), and as I understand it, somewhat conservative.
But I think that even he would admit that language changes. So embracing the pedestrian or even vulgar routes that neologisms and make convenient structures make into the language isn't anti-intellectual. It's actuality.
Actually, McWhorter describes himself as a Democrat, but worked at the conservative Manhattan institute.
So apparently conservatives who are actually knowledgeable about linguistics must not have a problem with his support of the inherent legitimacy of unconventional (let alone informal) speech.
Sorry, "more" convenient structures...
Hope this doesn't set Chip off on a War on Typos.
Let's see...when did grammar policing make its first appearance in this thread? I believe it was @9:39, from the commenter who wrote this:
The creepiness of your first-name basis coziness with that blob aside, this is a sentence with all the grammatical and cognitive complexity of a Dick and Jane book.
You led w/ your chin, amigo.
I don't know if it's grammar or what exactly, Chip, but anyone who provides three instances of first-name use, intentionally avoiding pronouns, in a single, short sentence referencing a prickly (and extraordinarily unappealing, just my own two cents) celebrity shock jock, is doing something wrong.
A kindergartner could tell you that. It's probably why I allowed for a criticism of cognitive complexity no less than one of grammar.
Also note: A criticism of lack of grammatical complexity is not the same thing as screaming about violating "rules".
It seems you're wrong on just about every count.
Welcome back to Ritmo. You still have rhythm and balls.
I try, TradGuy. I try.
Good to see you picking up on the importance of a world religion such as Christianity not being ethnically or racially limited on the other thread, too.
It seems you're wrong on just about every count.
I have no doubt it seems that way to you.
... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
doesn't seem unpatriotic to me.
Irregardless was brought into (semi-)legitimate usage by a sportswriter on the old NY Journal-American by the name of Jimmy Cannon. This was back in the day when proper usage mattered. I do seem to recall my father noting that Cannon addressed his malapropism and simply dismissed the "blue noses" as
irrelevantless.
Oh, for Christ's sake. Being offensive is what gets attention from the other side. Being offensive puts the other side on the defensive. Being offensive is what helps your side win.
I am so sick of guys like Gerson and Jeb Bush attacking other Republicans. What part of 'united we stand, divided we fall' do these assholes not understand?
What part of 'united we stand, divided we fall' do these assholes not understand?
The part about disagreeing over what sort of change is needed to remain relevant part?
@Ritmo: I see you switched threads but you've got your assholier-than-thou shtick still going. Where do you get the stamina?
Meanwhile in another part of the forest, a city where dissent is not heard, Detroit Defaults
The result of decades of total Democrat control.
A team led by a state-appointed emergency manager said Friday that Detroit is defaulting on about $2.5 billion in unsecured debt and is asking creditors to take about 10 cents on the dollar of what the city owes them.
Fun facts about Detroit:
20 percent of Detroit is on food stamps.
It's violent crime rate is 5 times the national average and it’s rated as America’s Most Dangerous City.
40% of Detroit residents want to leave the city.
Home prices have fallen 54 percent in the last 3 years.
Detroit has the highest poverty rate in the nation.
Detroit voted for Obama by 98 percent, because when you’re already living in a hellhole, your prime motivation is to drag the rest of the country in with you.
The 40 percent of Detroiters who want to leave have drawn no conclusions about the causes of all their problems.
Not enough fun facts?
50 years ago, Detroit's population was more than two million.
700,000 are left
The number of people who left Detroit in the last decade is nearly twice those who left New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
Detroit’s public schools are among the worst in the nation in spite of spending nearly $16,000 per pupil, 60 percent more than Georgia spends.
Detroit school graduation rate is 32%.
Test scores are so bad the superintendent of the city’s schools once said they were no better than if the students had simply guessed at the answers.
Detroit’s per capita tax burden is several times the average for the Michigan cities.
Kwame Kilpatrick, Detroit's last mayor was convicted of 24 federal crimes, including racketeering, extortion and bribery and is going to jail for up to 30 years.
Detroit is so Democrat that it's mayoral elections have two Democrats running against each other.
As an interesting sidelight, Kwame Kilpatrick was one of the Mayors Against Guns crowd started by Michael Bloomberg.
Finally, serious consideration is given to razing Detroit and turning it into farmland.
Moderates are always upset about what the hot-tempered radicals are saying.
Lincoln thought slavery was bad. But he thought the abolitionists were too radical. Today we whitewash Lincoln's racism, or his desire to resettle all the black people in Africa. We pretend that didn't happen.
Why? Because the "radical" view of Frederick Douglas was, in fact, right while the "moderate" voice of Lincoln was soft soap.
Obama started off his administration trying to silence Rush Limbaugh. Many people see Obama as hostile to free speech and our Constitution. And while it's perfectly fine for Gerson to be in the middle--every society needs its soft soap salesmen--I think it's perfectly fair to point out that this particular mushy moderate is trying to silence a critic of the government. Moderate or not, Gerson is taking Obama's side and trying to silence dissent.
Gerson says a free speaker has "crossed a line." What line, fuckwit? The Constitution says nothing at all about Rush Limbaugh, and what he can and cannot say. But it specifically says lots of things about the government, and what it cannot do. Obama has crossed a line, several lines, multiple lines.
Lincoln thought slavery was bad. But he thought the abolitionists were too radical. Today we whitewash Lincoln's racism, or his desire to resettle all the black people in Africa. We pretend that didn't happen.
Oh, bullshit. Lincoln's views on such topics are well-known by knowledgable people. They aren't any big secret. (Though interestingly, it's usually Lost Cause apologists who like to talk about them.) It's just that wise people know how to separate the wheat from the chaff of history and that's why Lincoln is in the pantheon of giants. And so is Douglass, but he never had the burden of the sort of leadership that Lincoln did.
Gerson is right. The GOP and conservatives, not the same group, have to continue to be as mild mannered as possible. Always fear to attack the other candidate since someone on the other side might not like that. Never read anything into Obama's statements, particularly not the obvious implications, since someone on the other side might not like that. Always be hyper-civil, especially when the other side continually calls you a Nazi, otherwise someone on that other side might not like it.
I mean, if we don't, how will the Left remain in power forever?
Unfortunately for the GOP and for conservatives and libertarians, the playing field is stacked against them and there is no right answer. Sometimes a more moderate approach that works is better than a harder approach that doesn't, but sometimes the moderate approach ends up making the situation worse. Furthermore, politicians are human, and subject to making mistakes.
In the long term, the only solution is to change the playing field rather than engaging in internal conservatives vs libertarians vs moderates fighting.
Rhythm and Balls:
So his "association with the executive branch" is passive ? He's just a guy in the neighborhood ? OK. I understand. It can't be his fault because he's just a guy who lives in the White House.
Dear Michael K.:
If you are unaware of the laws that restrict or prohibit the president's direct interaction with or intervention in the workings of certain agencies that are nevertheless grouped under the executive branch of government, then I'd be happy to direct you to some non-right wing, neutral or otherwise factually informative resources that could clarify that for you.
Same goes for you, poppa india.
Lol, under the Constitution the President *is* the Executive Branch. All Executive Power is vested in him. Yes, certain agencies may run "independently," but Constitutionally all their power is derived from him.
@Ritmo: I see you switched threads but you've got your assholier-than-thou shtick still going. Where do you get the stamina?
When my facts are right and my reasoning sound I don't worry about who gets offended by it.
But since you apparently think that good ideas are necessarily inoffensive, you take the route of Lavoisier's executioners and go to war against intellectual/ideological discomfort.
I told you the same thing on the other thread before your silly comment, and my better response - written in the same vein as this one - were stricken by The Chief Deleter. But hopefully this thread's been sufficiently sanitized of distractions (or perhaps just gone unnoticed) to allow this explanation to stand.
Beware your elevation of inoffensiveness as an ideal to strive for in the war of ideas. It doesn't work like that. At all.
Lol, under the Constitution the President *is* the Executive Branch. All Executive Power is vested in him. Yes, certain agencies may run "independently," but Constitutionally all their power is derived from him.
Apparently you have a lot of constitutional (and basic) law to review. L'etat (ou l'agence ou le département) c'est moi is not how it works. There are laws constraining what a president can do. Enforcement of laws does not mean that the laws themselves can't restrict the president from his actions. Your ridiculous comment is akin to saying that the president has a right to kill incompetent IRS employees. He has no such right. Even CEOs are constrained from violating certain rights of their own employees, or violating an operational framework where a company as decided to give a certain department, such as an ethics department, more autonomy or authority. If publicly held, there are laws that delineate your business's accounting practices. Even if you're just the typical Republican hack who idolizes corporations, for you to lack any concept of how a "leader" might be constrained from interfering with aspects his "own" organization, is just astounding.
Government is not to be loved or trusted, ever. Eternal vigilance and all that. A government that can Hoover all data streams can edit them for any nefarious puposes. Petraeous, Basselley, rogue Cinnci agents, Benghazi riots; fabrications, Machiavellian twists.
Someday one of the patriots Gerson would have shut up is going to find himself the lead man in the real movie, The Net.
What's really great is the conspiracy theorists are right.
No. Rush properly called Gerson on a sleight of hand. Gerson takes Rush's use of regime and throws in the word "resistance."
Rush is right that the intended meaning is armed resistance, because only that meaning causes the total Rush statement (but it's no longer a Rush statement, it's now GersonRush) to appear extreme.
Gerson is trying to deligitimize the description of the Obama administration as a "regime," just at the time when evidence that it, at the very least, may well be a regime has begun pouring in.
All these scandals started as rumors. The as-yet-unrealized rumor floating around the right is that a crisis will permit Obama to, mm, delay the 2016 election.
"The IRS official was giving information on how all the tweaks to the tax code would make or not make the structure of Obamacare (ACA) successful."
Anyone confirmed this claim under oath?
"Irregardless" is a "real" word in that it's a word people use, but it's incorrect. One can correctly say either "regardless" or "irrespective," but not "irregardless."
Post a Comment