Wednesday, 2/17/10, Public Square

29 Comments

Filed under The Public Square

29 responses to “Wednesday, 2/17/10, Public Square

  1. I think that if you are a group of angry white people that you shouldn’t be so sensitive about being called a group of angry white people. While I don’t believe that ALL teabaggers are white supremacists, we KNOW that there are some in there. So I don’t understand why they would get mad at Marvel Comics for this. Sometimes I wonder if some of these people are ashamed of their whiteness.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100211/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1129

  2. indypendent

    y9jikj9ujhokbbbuhb bb9hu9ui9i0uu90990ju09uoiiuiiiiiujiijjkijiiiiiiiuu u

    I remember when Obama was inaugurated and how many racist emails were reported to have been sent by Republicans elected officials’ computers in their government offices? When caught, they all said basically the same thing – that’s not what I meant, or I didn’t mean anything by that.

    Racists don’t mind being racist – they just don’t like getting caught doing it. Why do you think the KKK wore sheets and hats with holes cut out for their eyes?

  3. fnord

    A budding blogger. 🙂

    Take a look at this advice on “How To Tell People They Sound Racist.”

    • fnord

      Did you read how many ways they attempted to define, “Conservative?” Many empty words — much like listening to Palin, but with some eloquence, but still without meaning, without a single detail or action plan.

      Also note that anyone outside old white monied men won’t count for diddly squat!

      I thought our country didn’t approve of dictatorships?

  4. fnord

    I’m glad they did that ‘Mount Vernon Statement.’ I had begun to feel unmotivated, almost apathetic, like I would sit out the next election and just let them have it. Reading that put fire in my belly! (Pissed me off thoroughly too!)

  5. fnord

    Any woman who could read those words and not see the writing on the wall has no pride, no sense, no determination, and is content to tag along behind as ‘the little woman.’

  6. fnord

    According to this article the Republicans think they have the advantage at next week’s health care summit.

    “Republicans say they have a different advantage: Polls show Americans side with them on the substance. All they have to do is remind viewers that’s the case, and they could chalk up something like a win that could make the going even tougher for the Democrats.

    One potential hitch for Republicans is that there is not a single GOP plan.

    In the House, one Republican plan would cover some 3 million and lower premiums by as much as 8 percent for individuals and 10 percent for small businesses — expect to hear the latter figure mentioned frequently at the summit. But a number of lawmakers have their own plans, and in the Senate no single Republican plan emerged, though individual senators put forward proposals, including some with significant similarities to the Democratic bills.”

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9DU43CG0

    • fnord

      Another snip from the link above about the Republicans ‘advantage’ at next week’s health-care summit:

      “Keith Hennessey, who served as senior White House economic adviser to President George W. Bush, offered Republicans some advice in a posting on his blog this week. He wrote that Republicans should offer a range of significant policy changes but not feel obligated to have a single unified approach. Instead, they should “hammer home that this should have been a legislative debate and process among multiple options, rather than a take-it-or-leave-it, or option A vs. option B exercise.”

      Hennessey’s final words of advice: “When in doubt, shift the camera’s focus to your disagreements with congressional Democrats, who will be a far easier opponent in a public snowball fight than the president.”

  7. indypendent

    ‘The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God.’
    ===
    I copied this straight from the Mount Vernon Statement that Republicans say they support.

    So if truth is based on the laws of nature and nature’s God – then am I to assume all Republicans will now adhere to the scientific research on global warming and stop denying it?

    As for the term ‘nature’s God’ – this one is truly an interesting choice of words. To me, this means becoming a Deist – as was many of the Founding Fathers.

    Being a Deist is what I consider myself to be but I wonder if these Evangelical Religious Right Christians even know what a Deist is? Do they know that nature’s God is not their Christian God?

    Also – this statement also calls for the true religious freedom – I wonder if these Republicans realize exactly what that means? If they want their Christian religion to be allowed, then they must also allow the Muslims, Jewish, Buddhists, and even the Atheists their religious freedom.

    So how can you have religious freedom when your entire basis is on nature’s God.

    I also found many of the signers of this statement to be a fun group – alot of NeoCons were in there.

    If you read this statement, it all sounds nice, cozy and warm but when you actually think about what it says – then there are alot of questions about this statement.

    And questions is something Republicans do not tolerate well.

    • fnord

      In my opinion they just think they need to say words like, “God, nature, truths…,” and their followers will fall in line and think this document is the next best thing after the Bible.

      I’ve read it three times now. And bookmarked it so I can read it as often as I need to stay motivated.

      It has many of those really purdy words.

    • fnord

      “A Statement for the 21st Century”

      Based on a bunch of old white monied men’s views of documents that were created in the late 1700s.

      Uh huh.

      They’d like to go back to those days and take back all those ‘privileges.’

  8. fnord

    Many of these old coots are the same ones who were behind the Contract ON Americans.

  9. itolduso

    So fnord, what did you object too? Do you really object to “Based on a bunch of old white monied men’s views of documents that were created in the late 1700s”

    Those documents are our founding. They have been amended, sometimes foolishly, sometimes, probably not enough. They are the ultimately the law of the land. Since this is a nation built on laws, not men, why do you feel animosity toward the documents that were created inthe late 1700s? Or am I misreading what you stated?

    • fnord

      I didn’t see anywhere in that stupid Mount Vernon Statement where they accepted any amendment!

      And, no, I feel no animosity to the Constitution of the United States, nor to The Declaration of Independence. That’s not even in question! Do you feel animosity toward those documents? Makes as much sense to ask you the question as it did to ask me! Get real!

    • indypendent

      What I object to is this group of self-righteous, pious, group of hypocrits using the wording of the Constitution to promote their own goals of taking over through whatever means they deem necessary.

      If Republicans want a revolution, I’m afraid they will get it.

      But may I remind you and and the rest of these Republicans that there are now millions of non-white Americans who would have been considered ‘property’ in the original Constitution that may not feel so loyal to any ideas of those 1700’s white monied men who want to have all the power.

      As for the amended Constitution – where in the Mount Vernon Statement does it say anything about those amendments?

      So, exactly what Constitution are these NeoCons talking about? – the one that will help them take over the world militarily?

      And where in the original Constitution does it say that? As I read the Constitution, we are to have a military to protect our interests – it does NOT say to take over the world through force!

  10. itolduso

    sorry, did not realize how late is was. I gotta go for now. Perhaps I can pick this up again later.

  11. fnord

    What in the world did that Mount Vernon Statement say to you? I read a bunch of flowery words that could easily have been written by someone rejected for a job at Hallmark!

  12. fnord

    I abhore the use of religion in civil / state documents of any kind! To me, it’s as low as anyone can go. Religion shouldn’t be drug down to that level! It’s an underhanded evil use of people’s deep feelings and has NO PLACE in affairs of our government!

    If the idiots who wrote this are elected officials in our government and not following the Constitution, thus feel they need some flowery words to sell their ideas to a constituency, they are the problem!

  13. fnord

    “Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.”

    From whom? In what ways? My goodness, didn’t they take oaths to uphold our country’s Constitution? So they’re sitting by idly allowing this “sustained attack”? Maybe even are part of it! But now that they’ve written a brand-new flowery document, they won’t any longer be part of the problem?

    Uh huh. About that bridge…

  14. fnord

    Can’t they just behave as adults and do the job they were elected to do?

    So now that they’ve broken every promise ever made, they think we should fall for new promises because they throw in all the heart-tugging flowery words?

    Who just fell off that turnip truck?

  15. fnord

    I’ll take action plans, ideas, solutions, reality!

    I won’t fall for a bunch of stupid people who think I am as stupid as they!

  16. fnord

    Are there truly people who will think that ‘Mount Vernon Statement’ says anything, means anything? Do they vote? God help us all.

    “Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?”

    The above is disingenious — AT BEST!

  17. tosmarttobegop

    “A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles.”
    As I was reminded, principles are subjective or so they have become.
    The principles of 1770’s are different then they are in 2010 as to slavery, property and who has a voice in Government.

    1770’s if you did not have land then neither did you have a voice.
    There were restrictions on who could own land.
    Who could exercise those inalienable rights based on gender, race and whether you own land or not.
    Considering the principles of the time, such a document should never have been thought of.

    “It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government“,

    Yes and also I was reminded that morality is also subjective.
    A limited Government should be guided by a morality of it scope.
    First and foremost is that to act in a manner then interfere with the liberties of the citizens should only be done in the most extreme matters.

    Not to be subject to personal bias of the elected or agenda driven of a select few.
    A representative within a Republic is to be of all the people of they represent not a minor selection of those people.

    That includes both the people and the business owner, but it is the good of the people that should outweigh the good of the business owner. And one’s good is only to be infringed when the others good is endangered.

    “social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government“,
    If the government were to insist or regulate the actions of the individual to the point that their moral self governing is infringed that it is too big.

    But the key point is self governing, not to set a common morality that is a force that forces the self to be unmoral to themselves. It is no more right to force another’s
    morality then it would be to force one to steal if there is a moral issue against stealing.

    I found it an oxymoron of the Social conservative to strive to invoke their morality on those who do not show share theirs. Yet doing it in the claim that others are invoking a morality on them. That in fact is not invoking rather just exposing them to it.

    It is the choice of the Social Conservative to either be involved or not.
    Nothing but their own weakness is the deciding factor.

    “and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.”

    If you want the ideas of the founding father as to national security and America’s leadership in the World then that would make you an isolationist.

    Otherwise if your concept is that America has a right and a duty to invoke its will on the world you are a neo-Conservative and against the concepts and ideology of the United States.

    • indypendent

      I suspect your last observation is the true meaning behind this Mount Vernon Statement put out by Republicans.

      They want to go back to the NeoCon glory days.

    • fnord

      They want nothing more than to use people in order to be elected!

      A bunch of cranky old guys who haven’t been elected in numbers adequate to equal a majority by simply promising to uphold the Constitution of The United States of America, as amended, write up a new flowery document promising to take our country back to 1776 before all this hopey changey stuff, in hopes that will positively change their fortunes among the voting public.