advertisement

J. KARL MILLER: A response to Boone County Democrats

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 | 3:38 p.m. CDT; updated 11:02 p.m. CDT, Wednesday, July 4, 2012

I don't know if the Boone County Republican Party Central Committee will bother to offer a rebuttal to the Democratic Party Central Committee's self-serving commentary in the Missourian, "Voters are at crossroad," or merely ignore it. Nevertheless, the regurgitation of the same old fearmongering "Democrats good, Republicans evil" is hardly a model of objectivity.

Republicans (author included) have no problem with the Democrats' theme "Democratic Party offers more realistic, just vision of America" — each political organization is expected to believe in and espouse its own virtues, facts to the contrary notwithstanding. Additionally, the first paragraph reads: "The visions that the political parties espouse are sharply different. These conflicting visions are more important than any single issue, for they will determine the type of nation that we become." It is similarly factual in that conflicting visions are necessary to initiate new and productive ideas.

From the initial reasoned analysis of that first paragraph, the commentary goes downhill faster than Olympic ski champion Lindsey Vonn. The Boone County Democrats toe the Democratic Party's national line in describing the political tone of a possible Republican administration as falling somewhere between the policies of Egypt's deposed President Hosni Mubarak and those of Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe.

We are reminded once more that Republicans are warmongers in that they seek military domination throughout the world — they are comfortable with the sacrifice of homeland economy for worldwide military domination. Yes to guns, no to bread and butter is the alleged GOP mantra.

It is obvious also that the Democrats, those of the Boone County Central Committee at least, suffer from a delusion that Republicans somehow are bereft of mothers and fathers and eschew senior citizens. Why else would the GOP opt to gut Medicare, old-age pensions and, horror of horrors, privatize future retirement benefits?

Finally, we get to the meat and potatoes of the Republicans' nefarious agenda, that of favoring the wealthy over the middle and working classes and the war on the environment. Should it not be obvious that the greedy 1 percent, who earn the princely sum of 19 percent of the income but pay a paltry 40 percent of the income tax, is not paying its fair share?

And, it is by now indelibly carved in stone that the GOP remains unalterably opposed to clean air and water and favors desecration of the planet. Any political entity that prefers the creation of jobs over saving the endangered snail darter, the scimitar oryx, the spotted owl and the sage grouse along with the clearing of dead trees and underbrush to reduce the occurrence of forest fires is "an enemy of the environment."

The list goes on and on — the Republican Party is anti-education, anti-fairness, anti-justice, anti-equal opportunity and hellbent on the destruction of government and public dialogue to secure domination in the private sector. These allegations would be amusing had they not been repeated so often and so loudly that the uneducated and uninformed have come to accept them.

Political jockeying, pandering, rumors, innuendo and half-truths have been the electioneering norm since the advent of the Greek city-states. Negative and "gotcha" politics are as American as apple pie — despite the crocodile tear lamentations of this negativity in campaigning, it is effective and here to stay.

Nevertheless, into this abyss of political muck and offal, a measure of common sense and reason is warranted. As there should be, there are differences in Republican and Democratic Party governing ideologies, and some of them are major. The size and scope of government, taxation policy, national defense outlays, individual liberties and energy policies are but a few of the most argued issues.

Nevertheless, injecting the tactics of fear by labeling the GOP as warmongers, pro-pollution, anti-middle class and elderly and in opposition to nearly everything that is fair, just and socially equal is absurd. The last time I looked, the membership of the major political parties embraced honest and sincere desire for the well-being of the United States and its citizens.

The differing opinions on just how we arrive at that well-being are generally decided by our unique free election process depending largely on the current state of the nation, the "salesmanship" of the campaigners and the personal appeal of the candidate(s).

To me, the most compelling feature of the committee's editorial was its total absence of commendation or even a positive reference to the president, the titular head of their party. While it is true that President Barack Obama assumed a sinking economy, it is also just as true that despite the rosy portrayals of progress, the ship of state continues to take on water at an alarming rate.

A party whose leadership has painted it into a corner can be expected and perhaps even forgiven for lashing out with unbridled ad hominem attacks.

J. Karl Miller retired as a colonel in the Marine Corps. He is a Columbia resident and can be reached via email at JKarlUSMC@aol.com. Questions? Contact Opinion editor Elizabeth Conner.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

matt arnall July 4, 2012 | 5:48 p.m.

I think that most of the adjectives that you used to describe republican in this article are pretty much right on, as far as the stance of the national party goes. The national republican party supports the defense budget but wants to cut deeply from education and infrastructure. It is happy to give tax money to oil companies and defense contractors, but less likely to support ideas that would improve things for the middle class. It states that it wants a limited government that does not invade on personal freedoms and rights, unless of course they are matters that they do not agree with like gay marriage. They are quick to damn the president, but have no problem with leaders of their party clearly stating that their only goal for the next four years in 2008 was to make sure that Obama is a one term president, regardless of the side effects that that has created. The GOP would love to see a world with no regulations, for any reason, inspite of the fact of what we just went through when the economy nearly collapsed. Climate change is a myth, corporations will regulate themselves, we hate ObamaCare but have no suggestions to even begin addressing the runaway problem like we have in healthcare, etc, etc. And to even mention Democratic fearmongering, well that just seems like the most pot calling the kettle black I have ever been a witness to. If the shoe fits......

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum July 4, 2012 | 6:45 p.m.

Matt, everything that you just said is incontrovertible. You are merely recounting the facts of the recent past, easily observable truths. Yet, inexplicably, J. Shiller and Co. will disagree. Furthermore, the Grand "Old White Folks" Party is particularly staunch in their irrational opposition to anything constructive this election season. They themselves often don't know why, they just FEEL more angry and pessimistic than usual. They'll be the first to assure you it has nothing to do with the fact that the President happens to be black... However, when you consider the fact that said President is to the right of Bush Sr. policy-wise, you have to stop and wonder... 'why all the hate'?

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 4, 2012 | 8:16 p.m.

I read Matt before dinner and decided to pleasure my stomach somewhat before tormenting it while necessarily correcting his usual falsehoods to something like Truth. Then here comes Schneebaum with repetition and his false addition of racism to the lost cause of liberalism in this conversation.

When one may step around a mud puddle on to dry,firm, ground, that usually is the best path. I'll do that and just wish two yo-yos (in this instance), Happy Independence Day!

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush July 4, 2012 | 8:54 p.m.

The GOP's thoughts
Are exhibited here. God
Bless Amercia.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 4, 2012 | 9:37 p.m.

He used to, Gregg, our hope is that he will, again. Thanks for your prayer.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 4, 2012 | 10:42 p.m.

Right on Matt and Louis. This is funny. And, in the backdrop of this all, loom the "doomsday" cuts which are current federal law and will go into effect in less than 6 months unless Congress can figure out how to actually do something.

The scenario is all too predictable:

The GOTP will scream and cry about deficits and spending, while they push for huge increases in military spending.

They will trumpet the economic benefits of military spending, while they insist that government spending "crowds out" private spending.

Those are just two really clear and simple examples of completely irrational, diametrically opposed ideologies that come from the GOTP. I won't bother to enumerate more; I've done that here before. Suffice to say that the GOTP must have thick brick walls in their brains that keeps them from being able to make obvious connections between two deeply interrelated things or activities.

On top of all that, there's just the plain old mean-spiritedness...

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 5, 2012 | 7:42 a.m.

"necessarily correcting his usual falsehoods to something like Truth."

Lest we forget, only Frank knows and speaks the truth.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black July 5, 2012 | 7:43 a.m.

And as usual, Frank fails to make a point. Just tells you how wrong you are. And as I say regularly, prove them wrong. Oh I know, facts are a pesky thing, and shame on me for wanting proof, but really, can you disprove their statements with something other than rhetoric? Karl writes 14 paragraghs telling us what Democrats say, with no answers to these problems, or any proof that they are wrong.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black July 5, 2012 | 7:44 a.m.

Oh and I forgot, since Democrats are in the white house, God hates us.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black July 5, 2012 | 7:54 a.m.

Oh and since Democrats control the white house, God hates us. Right Frank?

(Report Comment)
Tony Black July 5, 2012 | 7:56 a.m.

Sorry for the double post. It didn't show up the first time.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 5, 2012 | 8:48 a.m.

DF - Making them up as you go now, eh? I thot some sanity had been gained, when you stated,"I won't bother to enumerate more; I've done that here before." But then that, is why you are here now to "enumerate", again and again, the same nonsensical rhetoric (defense is a social program and the only one that Must be cut.) hoping for a different outcome (someone might believe you).

I note other sheep are gathering to be sheared. The lazy liberals, no one lays enough proof at their feet, so they wallow in the puddle of the liberal, progressive lie and watch and applaud, the destruction of their way of life by the rich elite they claim to hate. The only answer? Vote them out of our governments!

(Report Comment)
Tony Black July 5, 2012 | 9:47 a.m.

Was there a point there Frank? Only condemnation of lazy liberals, references to sheep (?), refusal to provide proof ( and complaints of requests to provide said proof) etc? Is there a plan? Please lay out a Republican to help the middle class other than no taxes or regulation.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller July 5, 2012 | 9:54 a.m.

Mr Black,

I hate to be the one to inform you and several of the others but, it is not my job nor was it my intent to provide solutions to the problems---that is the responsibility of the current administration. I merely pointed out in my "14 paragraphs" that the Democrats in Boone County and elsewhere have neither new ideas nor solutions other than to attack Republicans as evil, right wing, obstructionist, middle class hating, anti environment, warmongering mean spirited Christian conservatives. That inflammatory, juvenile rhetoric never solved anything.

As to proof that something is wrong, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in May, there are 700,000 less people employed than there were in January 2009. The National Debt has increased 5 trillion dollars in 3 1/2 years (from 10 to 15 trillion) and over three million people have stopped looking for work.

I could go on but, I ask you---is that a recipe for success? It may prudent to quit blaming George Bush, the weather, ATM machines, the middle east unrest, the European financial crisis, the Republican House of Representatives and the wealthy one percent for the problems and look to both sides of the political aisle for solutions.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor July 5, 2012 | 10:30 a.m.

How dare you Col! You just told a liberal that we all need to look in the mirror. This does not dovetail with the pander and blame mantra that is the American Liberal.

Pander and blame...

If we bioled it down even further;

Where's my candy? It's not my fault I can't, or more likely don't.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote July 5, 2012 | 10:30 a.m.

Mr. Miller claims that labeling the Republican party anti-education is absurd:

"The list goes on and on — the Republican Party is anti-education...These allegations would be amusing had they not been repeated so often and so loudly that the uneducated and uninformed have come to accept them."

Here is the Texas Republican Party platform for 2012:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/ass...

They have a section under education policies (p. 12) that states:
"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

I think that any entity that actively states that they are opposed to teaching critical thinking skills can rightly be defined as anti-education. Who in their right mind is opposed to critical thinking?
It's almost as though the Onion slipped in a few planks in their platform.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking July 5, 2012 | 10:33 a.m.

Democrats attack Republicans, Republicans attack Democrats. Same as it ever was.

Neither party has anything close to workable plans for solving our problems. We will continue to run large deficits until the economy improves, whoever is in power. Very little wil change.

Both parties are much more similar than they are different, in practice. Both have endorsed a basic philosophy of living well in the present at the expense of the future, and that future is today. No one in government is going to fix that, because the effects of living within our national income would make it political suicide.

So there we sit. There's nothing either party can do to fix (truly FIX) our problems, so we sit around and call each other politically charged, hyperbolic names. Impotence, thy name is Congress...

DK

(Report Comment)
matt arnall July 5, 2012 | 10:35 a.m.

Mr Miller, the current administration has been trying to provide solutions to the problems we face. I again remind you that your party is the one that clearly stated that their only goal was to make Obama a one term president. Their ONLY goal. Their words, not mine, in front of cameras and reporters and god. This is the party that you support. Then your statistics. When you come upon a large structure fully engulfed in flames, do you just snap your fingers to put it out? The answer is no, it takes time and much effort to correct the situation. Given the GOPs obvious unwillingness to work with the current administration, I think it is damn near a miracle that things have rebounded to the point that they have in these three short years. Whether you like it or not, things are better now than when Bush left office, and it was accomplished without one ounce of help from the GOP or the Tea Party. Then you finish with a plea to look to both sides of the isle for solutions. I think that is a great idea. You let me know as soon as a Republican in office puts forth a useful idea to address any of the issues that this country is facing. Seems they are a little too busy signing oaths to their masters and being obstructionist to any forward motion until after they see if they get what they want come November. I fear if they don't they will continue to take their ball and go home. Pathetic childish bunch they are.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black July 5, 2012 | 10:38 a.m.

We were losing jobs at a rate of 800,000 a month when Obama took office. We may only be gaining 50,000 to 100,000 a month now, but, simple math, is that not a net gain of 850,000 to 900,000 a month? Is that not progress? Is that not better than losing jobs? I cannot elaborate on the debt, due to your restrictions not to mention Bush ( even tho the right blames Clinton (12 years later) for most everything. I don't recall mentioning Europe, the middle east, the weather, nor Bush. "our job is to make Obama a one trem president", not "our job is to help the American people". My rhetoric is empty, but yours is fact? Once again, proof.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black July 5, 2012 | 10:41 a.m.

Term. Thought I should correct myself before Obama gets blamed for my spelling. LOL

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking July 5, 2012 | 10:51 a.m.

matt arnall wrote:

"I think it is damn near a miracle that things have rebounded to the point that they have in these three short years."

It's called a "business cycle", and it happens whether government does anything to try to influence it or not. Presidents take credit for good times and blame for bad ones, but they really have very little to do with them.

DK

(Report Comment)
Tony Black July 5, 2012 | 11:04 a.m.

Mark, unfortunatley, you have hit the nail on the head.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller July 5, 2012 | 11:16 a.m.

Mr Arnall,

The Democrats latching on to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's comment on "making certain that Obama be a one-term President" as the Republican's only goal remains one of the most amusing and irrevelant conjectures in the history of American politics. It serves only as more comic relief in the Democratic Party's comic opera campaign of trying to create apple pie from horse apples.

Are we to believe that the Democrats were not equally serious in attempting to make Ike, Nixon, Reagan, GHW Bush and George Bush one term Presidents? The Democrats succeeded only in the case of the Bush the Elder, but I don't recall any serious drumbeating by the Democrats to re elect any Republican President nor would I expect it.

As for the Obama administration "trying to provide solutions," one gets no points for failure. I remember the Carter administration trying very hard but failing also.

The two most successful Presidents in recent history were Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Both prevailed despite being faced with Congressional majorities of opposite political parties (neither enjoyed the veto proof majorities of Obama in his first two years). The ability to govern well requires leadership, experience and political savvy as well as commanding the respect of the opposition. Respect must be earned--it is not bestowed.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 5, 2012 | 11:27 a.m.

T. Black - "Please lay out a Republican to help the middle class other than no taxes or regulation." Hard to find among the leftist media crap posted by google and never to be found by those not looking. You and yours will reject because there seems to be little, if any tax payer money given away.

http://www.majorityleader.gov/Jobs/

Mark F. - 4 years of regulation and spending that decimates "Business" cannot be referred to as a "business cycle" and your constant assertion that all our problems just naturally happen and never are incurred by government, became worn thin, sometime ago.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 5, 2012 | 11:34 a.m.

T. Black - "Please lay out a Republican to help the middle class other than no taxes or regulation." Hard to find among the leftist media crap posted by google and never to be found by those not looking. You and yours will reject because there seems to be little, if any tax payer money given away.

http://www.majorityleader.gov/Jobs/

Mark F. - 4 years of regulation and spending that decimates "Business" cannot be referred to as a "business cycle" and your constant assertion that all our problems just naturally happen and never are incurred by government, became worn thin, sometime ago.

I'm pasting this because the "view your post" does not show my post. If it is now shown twice, the reading pleasure will double.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum July 5, 2012 | 11:55 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
matt arnall July 5, 2012 | 12:13 p.m.

All things have cycles. What occurred in 2008 to 2009 was not a natural happening. Bad choices from everyone in government caused this. We have rebounded. Imagine if we had a Congress that could do anything at all . To state that it was Mitch McConnell and only Mitch McConnell is either very ignorant or an out and out lie. Am I to assume that you are distancing yourself from this decree and believe it to be a poor goal from your Congressional leadership? Both parties are always working to get their boys into office, it is just that never in history have one parties leaders openly stated that it is their ONE GOAL to make the president a one termer. That is a horrible goal, and it is not just one person in the GOP that has it. They are a group that likes to sign pacts and all think the same.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 5, 2012 | 1:03 p.m.

"What occurred in 2008 to 2009 was not a natural happening." TRUE.

"Bad choices from everyone in government caused this." Absolutely false. Clinton, Frank and Dodd instituted the programs changing real estate lending rules in 1993. Republicans, W. Bush, J. McCain and others initiated legislation to stop the insanity. All efforts were killed by Democrats in the Senate.

To accuse those who believe a President, whose actions and efforts will severely damage, or destroy our republic, of some kind of anarchy, to be condemned, is close to absurdity.

Did only a few D's express a desire to restrict W. Bush to one term? On the contrary, P. Leahy has spent his years as Chair of Senate Judicial Committee trying to PROSECUTE, W. and those surrounding him. You never noticed.

Especially since Clinton, defeat of an opponent by Democrats by legal vote is never sufficient. That opponent must be personally, destroyed.

(Report Comment)
matt arnall July 5, 2012 | 1:10 p.m.

Frank, there is no need for you to post anything in repsonse to me. I already know what you are going to say, so save your fingers the work and my eyes the pain.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking July 5, 2012 | 1:33 p.m.

matt arnall wrote:

"Bad choices from everyone in government caused this."

Also bad choices by the banks, and bad choices by people that bought way too much house. There's a lot of blame to go around, despite what partisan politicians say.

The Community Reinvestment act has a phrase in it several places "Consistent with safe and sound banking practices". That was pretty much ignored by everyone involved, and is the fundamental root of the problem. No one forced banks to make bad loans, and no one forced Fraddie to back them. It just seems like such a good way to make money and stimulate the economy that we blew the bubble. Pop.

Again, no one in government is willing to face the numbers. They're all just posturing. We'll continue to borrow what we need to run gov't until we can't anymore, then everything will change, and it will not be pretty. Everyone has to take their share of the blame, Frank's hyperbole nonwithstanding. Many of the regulations proposed by this administration have to do with things like the Gulf oil spill and regulation of financial markets. These rules are needed to curb abuses. No one is trying to make things any more difficult for business then necessary.

DK

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking July 5, 2012 | 1:43 p.m.

frank christian wrote:

"your constant assertion that all our problems just naturally happen and never are incurred by government,"

But neither is it true that government creates all of our problems. The laizzez faire economy of the '20s led to a very similar economic outcome.

I've never said "all" or "never", and you shouldn't say I do. Our GDP is something around $14 trillion, and government takes about 23% of that, much of which is spent in ways that help business (defense contracts, interstate highways, payments to retirees and others that go out and spend money locally, etc.). Government simply isn't that big a piece of the economy, plus no one in government wants to see businesses fail. But citizens don't want to choke on polluted air and water, drive unsafe cars, deal with fraud by business, etc, and these, plus many more, are the reason for regulations.

Our government mostly lets businesses police themselves until they show that they need policing.

DK

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 5, 2012 | 1:48 p.m.

Based on the percentage of Republicans who regard President Obama as follows: 1) He may be the anti-Christ, 2) He is doing many of the things that Hitler did, 3) He wants the terrorists to win, who can blame Republican leaders for vowing to make him a one-term President?

http://www.livescience.com/8160-quarter-...

After all, who wants Beelzebub in the White House? Shame on those muslim-loving, America-hating, anti-gun, Lucifer apologists who call themselves Democrats! Onward with "Saint" McConnell as he fight's the good fight.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black July 5, 2012 | 2:25 p.m.

I will admit, I remember Ronald Wilson Reagan, with six letters in each name, as the number of his mane is 6-6-6. Didn't believe that either.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black July 5, 2012 | 2:27 p.m.

Dang it, number of his NAME is 6-6-6. I need to slow down typing or speed up reading :-)

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 5, 2012 | 2:42 p.m.

Matt - My posts are not "in response to you". They are in response to the propagandic error you continually post in defense of those who have continually milked our economy for it's wealth, no matter what the effect on our people. My pain is relieved with each such response whether you are willing to accept them, or not.

Mark - "These rules are needed to curb abuses. No one is trying to make things any more difficult for business then necessary." Frankly, an infantile assertion, which you could easily correct by reading those that want you to know what the reg's are doing to our economy.

The 2011 estimate of government spending to GDP is 25.36%. For years, it was declared by fiscally responsible economists and legislators that 19% would be highest beneficial limit for this spending. With the present amount of spending we daily are setting new records for unemployment, poverty and depression among our people. Not an era of extreme gain of wealth and happiness, except for the chosen few having been given control of the spectacular sums never before thought of.

"We'll continue to borrow what we need to run gov't until we can't anymore, then everything will change, and it will not be pretty." This can only be true only if no one is allowed to change the path we are on. You have again written as tho the government is the engine, providing access to our necessities, thus the requirement of ever more fuel by some of the engineers is absolute and must be maintained even tho "everything will change, and it will not be pretty."

I contend that largely, everything you have written above is not true, yet you write them again with every politically related post.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush July 5, 2012 | 2:44 p.m.

America is
Where I live. Amercia's
For the Out-sourcer.

Good ol' eagle eye -
Snatching comprehension from
The jaws of jumble.

http://tinyurl.com/8x6drw8

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 5, 2012 | 3:22 p.m.

"I contend that largely, everything you have written above is not true, yet you write them again with every politically related post."

Frank - You really should look in the mirror on occasion. I could rehearse your Dodd-Frank argument in my head.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 5, 2012 | 3:46 p.m.

TonyB: We may only be gaining 50,000 to 100,000 a month now, but, simple math, is that not a net gain of 850,000 to 900,000 a month?
______________________

I think I know what you mean. You meant year, right?

Don't forget that it takes 160,000 NEW jobs each month just to stay even.

So, if the report ballyhoos "100,000 jobs this month", that means we lost ground by approximately 60K. Similarly, if the report says, "200,000 jobs this month", then we made ca. 40K of progress.

We not only have to work off the 8+% UE, we also have to work off the rather large number of those who have given up looking....and those folks are not included in the UE report.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 5, 2012 | 3:51 p.m.

I did have to chuckle at the comment "we are so much better off today than 3.5 years ago.

Given we're on the precipice of a double dip, that's a rather bold statement. Fact is, the teeter-totter is perfectly balanced right now and no one knows which way it will tip.

I'm guessing we double dip. I think folks are closing their open wallets/purses just a bit.

And those who would create new jobs are holding, too.

Question is: When are ya gonna make them comfortable enough with the risk factor?

I see no progress on this front whatsoever.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon July 5, 2012 | 4:05 p.m.

The Good Colonel wrote: "A party whose leadership has painted it into a corner can be expected and perhaps even forgiven for lashing out with unbridled ad hominem attacks."

So, what's your excuse, then, for your own ad hominem attacks? "Nanny, nanny, boo, boo," as such, is not rebuttal.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 5, 2012 | 4:14 p.m.

"I could rehearse your Dodd-Frank argument in my head." Why not just show us all just how false my Dodd-Frank argument is, in a simply worded post? Or are nonsensical generalities, more down your alley?

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 5, 2012 | 4:54 p.m.

"Or are nonsensical generalities, more down your alley?"

Pot calling the kettle black, eh?

(Report Comment)
Tony Black July 5, 2012 | 5:27 p.m.

No, Mike, I meant a month. Remember? Obama is losing 100,000's of jobs a month? So if we were losing that many, now gaining, then yes, it's a net gain.

And a double dip? Been sayin that for quite a while now with no proof. Saying it doesn't make it so. Stock market is up, unemployment and fuel are down. Dollar is up today.

And who has given up looking for work? I see help wanted signs all over Columbia and the only people I know that can't find a job either have an issue (poor work history, lack of education, lack of ability) or flat don't want to work. Columbia is insulated from some economic issues, but still.

By the way, if I can't pay my bills, I cut spending, which is what the right wants. But would I also take a pay cut? (tax cut) No, I want a raise AND watch my spending.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 5, 2012 | 5:56 p.m.

"Pot calling the kettle black, eh?"

Why not just show us all just how false my Dodd-Frank argument is, in a simply worded post?

Want to see who can stand the stupid repetition longest?

(Report Comment)
matt arnall July 5, 2012 | 6:13 p.m.

Not one thing that proves that you are right and I am wrong, just the same ol’ same ol’ from the same people. Mike Williams, you should read closely before you start commenting on others posts. Frank, you have shown that you can stand stupid (repetition) the longest. Congratulations.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller July 5, 2012 | 8:38 p.m.

Mr Brandon,

Please indentify any ad hominem attacks on my part. I suggest you take the time to learn the meaning first.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 5, 2012 | 11:39 p.m.

TonyB: Been sayin that for quite a while now with no proof.
_____________________

I wrote what I think will happen, and there is no "proof" for predictions until they DO happen. I'm surprised you do not recognize this.

How long you figure is "quite a while"?

Whatever the case, my record on this economy is infinitely better than the financial illiterates in this place who thought 2009 would bring the end of our woes.

But, the fact remains that you won't get the economy you want until you reduce the perceived risk exposure of those who create jobs.

We're gonna muddle around for another year or two while the uncertainty sorts itself out. Maybe more if Europe tanks and China slows down.

I think we double dip, but I sure hope not. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you will be here full-throated. If I'm right, we'll probably see new stuff from you in a year or so.

What is YOUR prediction? Care to lay it out for us?

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking July 6, 2012 | 2:52 a.m.

frank christian wrote:

" This can only be true only if no one is allowed to change the path we are on."

Who has the slightest realistic, mathematically and historically sound idea of how to do this? The battle over the debt ceiling last spring was over an infinitesimal part of the budget. No one in Congress has the slightest practical idea of how to balance the budget. Show me who.

Michael Williams wrote:

"But, the fact remains that you won't get the economy you want until you reduce the perceived risk exposure of those who create jobs."

How much of that risk is in anyone's control, and how much of it is intrinsic to the economy (i. e. related to the uncertainty of supply and demand)? What are things the government (or anyone else) could do that would reduce that risk perception?

I agree with you. I just don't think we have much control over that risk.

DK

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 6, 2012 | 3:07 a.m.

I am quite content to think of Republicans good, Democrats evil. 50 years ago there wasn't a hair's difference between the basic moral values of Republicans and Democrats. That was in our business ethics, political expectations, our schools, and our churches. Not so now. I have almost nothing in common with today's Democrats. Any group of people that can mentally condone, aid, and extol the murder of 3,000 defenseless unborn babies every single day of the year for 38 years is capable of any heinous behavior given the opportunity.

Further, regarding economic abilities, President Reagan was handed a much worse economy than given President Obama. President Reagan has a Dem house for all 8 years of his administration, yet he managed to work with congress and pull the country back to economic health and the longest prolonged period of economic growth in our nation's history.

Ronald Reagan came into office with a 7.5% unemployment rate. President Obama came in with 7.2%. When President Reagan came into office, the prime rate was a staggering 20.5%. When President Obama came into office, the prime rate was 3.25%. When President Reagan came into office, the average 30 year fixed mortgage rate was 13.15%. When President Obama came into office, the average 30 year mortgage was 5.51%.

You need only look at the results President Reagan got in 4 years from a split congress, compared to President Obama, who had a filibuster proof congress his first two years and got everything passed he wanted.

In summary, stop your whining. President Reagan didn't whine. He accomplished. President Obama's policies are losers. The whole country can see it. The spoke loud and clear in November, 2010. They'll speak even louder this November.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 6, 2012 | 7:19 a.m.

MF - "Who has the slightest realistic, mathematically and historically sound idea of how to do this?"

The elections of 2010 were a "historically sound idea of how to do this?" The battle over the debt ceiling was a "battle" between who? R's and DDD's.

Milsop, above is exactly right about the Democrats of today. I don't know your age but it seems you must have been around during, at least part of the change that began in late fifties. Then, most believed both parties wanted what was best for America, they just had different ideas about "how". I, recently out of high school suddenly read about public schools teaching the feelings of those Royalists of the 1770's that did not want to revolt. No one had bothered with that at any level of my public education. What other effect, except less patriotism, right? Then we got the phoney "church & state thing, etc., etc. Every sliver of this came from Democrats.

"No one in Congress has the slightest practical idea of how to balance the budget. Show me who." You have been told and shown time and again "who", as well as the sad truth that as long as any of the present Democrat leadership remains in control in government Any change will be denied us.

You as usual, will ignore everything stated in this regard and then advise that you (can't recall exactly how you state it) are not politically inclined. Please!

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 6, 2012 | 7:47 a.m.

.."phoney "church & state thing, etc"

I think you are confusing the Democrats of today with Thomas Jefferson. But that Jefferson guy...What a socialist!

(Report Comment)
Tony Black July 6, 2012 | 7:55 a.m.

Must not have read my post, Michael. Stock market up, fuel prices down ( although they jumped for the holiday weekend), construction everywhere you look in Columbia, and help wanted signs everywhere. A repeat of my previous post. My work is busy as ever with near record months. I don't predict gloom and doom. I predict things continuing to get better slowly. But since it only took a few months to get in this shape we should be out of it in a few months, right? No it took years to screw up and will take years to fix.

Don, you left out the part about Reagan raising taxes 11 times and expanding Medicare.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 6, 2012 | 8:28 a.m.

He also forgot that Republicans voted 19 times during Bush's presidency to increase the debt ceiling.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 6, 2012 | 8:30 a.m.

Thomas Jefferson's letter: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State." He was referring to the 1st Amendment and it's prohibition against government "establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" maintain a "wall". Not the thousands of lawsuits brought by the leftist "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State", led by the leftist, Barry Lynn, who came from ACLU, which provides free legal service for the whole bunch. Consider,please who is confused.

Tony B. From Fox News a few moments ago: NO new construction jobs created in U.S. last month!

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 6, 2012 | 8:33 a.m.

Better rephrase that before Frank gets his panties in a bunch:

Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl voted 'yea' a total of 19 times to raise the debt ceiling on 5 occasions during Bush's Presidency.

And yes Frank - that came from ThinkProgress. Does that make it false?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 6, 2012 | 8:52 a.m.

MarkF: How much of that risk is in anyone's control....
________________________

Anything that creates uncertainty increases the perception of a negative risk.

Individual consumers face great uncertainty and their pocketbooks just closed a little. I do not understand why folks believe investors, job creators, and businesses behave any different.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush July 6, 2012 | 9:03 a.m.

The high market risk
Comes from lack of demand for
Goods and services.

Increasing demand
Will increase supply. Tax cuts
For hoarders will not.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 6, 2012 | 9:12 a.m.

How 'bout those UE and June retail numbers!

Things are just spiffy.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 6, 2012 | 9:42 a.m.

I guess "a little knowledge" can indeed be dangerous. The debt ceiling comment was to stupid for an answer, I thought.

A Republican candidate is using it to try to attach big spending habits to another - Wrong! The money has been spent, the debt incurred, to refuse payment by not allowing a legal increase in our total debt ceiling would create financial chaos. You "forget" to mention that the hassle over the last debt ceiling increase involved the R's you mentioned, trying in vain (not enough control, Yet) to obtain spending Cuts with the increase. Fought tooth and nail by Dem o crats!

I wager, if you had looked anywhere but Think Progress, you would have gotten more of my view on the subject.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black July 6, 2012 | 10:13 a.m.

Jobs added, unemployment stays unchanged. Far better than hemmoraging jobs and unemployment rising, as in 2008. Sounds spiffy to me.

Fox news viewers are more uninformed than folks who don't watch news at all, per several studys, so that means nothing to me. But that book learnin jest turns ya into a socialist, don't ya know.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 6, 2012 | 10:26 a.m.

Sure they want spending cuts. Democrats want spending cuts in several areas as well.

They just disagree about where the cuts should come from.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 6, 2012 | 10:28 a.m.

Tony enthuses, "Sounds spiffy to me."
___________________

Using your 2008 logic, if the anointed one hadn't come along we'd be at 100% unemployment by now because the 800K/month would have continued. That's like saying if I am a CEO of a company and lay off 9 to adjust to a new economical reality, get fired, and you are hired as the CEO and employ 1 new person, you get credit for turning around 10 jobs.

Absurd. I give you no points for rising above the financially-illiterate fray.

PS: Jobs were NOT added in a "net" sense. 80K jobs is 70K LESS than required to just break even. We went backwards.

But you're spiffy, tho.

Cool.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 6, 2012 | 10:29 a.m.

T. Blk - Your response, as expected. Herein lies your problem. Rather than watch and determine for yourself, you accept the rant of a few liberal blogs as "book learnin". A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 6, 2012 | 10:40 a.m.

But that book learnin jest turns ya into a socialist, don't ya know.
____________________

Not for me.

That book larnin' showed me how to be a capitalist after I got over my unfortunate 2 year stint as a McGovern democrat.

I'm still embarrassed about that.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 6, 2012 | 10:43 a.m.

QE version 17 anyone?

Gotta happen eventually.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black July 6, 2012 | 11:41 a.m.

Thanks for the insight into what would have happened had we gotten McCain/Palin. Are the jobs figures better than Dec 07? Luckily, my well being does not rest on the regressive attitudes of you dudes. Cry all you want, but things are great for me.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor July 6, 2012 | 12:01 p.m.

First off, Columbia's economy revolves around The University and health care and insurance more than anything else. These industries are immune to the economic problems the country has had, in part because of what they do, but also because the government has made funds available for some of these industries to "artificially" drive demand much faster than normal. (low interest student loans with very little qualifications means lots of demand for college means price for college goes up fast and many buildings get built...) Bottom line, go to Detroit or Vegas and tell me how the construction market is there...

Jobs numbers were weak. Stock market down...

Owebama has spent billions on a failed stimulus. He has Failed. Do I need to say it again? He has failed! I knew that the stimulus was just another money grab, so he could pass out are taxes to his rich friends like the 105 million he gave the Carnahans here in MO, but he said it would create jobs and provide a stimulus to the economy.
He spent.
It didn't.
FAIL!

Some job creation numbers to compare against other presidents early on in their presidencies against Owebama jobs created after he spent billions to creat jobs...

2012: Average job growth 150,000. President Obama running for reelection after spending billions.

2004: Average job growth 197,000. President George W. Bush

1996: Average job growth 240,000. President Clinton.

1984: Average job growth 375,000. President Reagan.

So, just in case you can't understand the above and still think you can trust Owebama. Lets look at the health care thing. This "tax" that he instituted on the middle class after swearing he wouldn't over and over again while campaigning. Ha, just caught myself typing that, as if he has stopped campaigning at some point and started to lead. Silly Me!

One of the more glaring examples of Owebama's sleazy Chicago tactics are how he crafted this monster to start giving the good stuff early, but conveniently left the pain to take effect after the elections.

(Cont.)

(Report Comment)
mike mentor July 6, 2012 | 12:04 p.m.

(cont. John Kartch, Americans for Tax Reform, contributed to this story below...)

1) 20 billion tax
2.3 percent tax on medical device makers will raise the price of (for example) every pacemaker, prosthetic limb, stent, and operating table. Can you remind us, Mr. President, how taxing medical devices will reduce the cost of health care? The tax is particularly destructive because it is levied on gross sales and even targets companies who haven’t turned a profit yet. These are often small companies with less than 20 employees who pioneer the next generation of life-prolonging devices. In addition to raising the cost of health care, this $20 billion tax over the next ten years will not help the country’s jobs outlook, as the industry employs nearly 400,000 Americans. Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.

2) 15 billion tax

The ObamaCare High Medical Bills Tax. This onerous tax provision will raise the threshold for which people can start deducting medical expenses to 10 percent from 7.5 percent, subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. This tax will hit pre-retirement seniors the hardest. Over the next ten years, affected Americans will pony up a minimum total of $15 billion in taxes thanks to this provision.

3) 13 billion tax

The 24 million Americans who have Flexible Spending Accounts will face a new federally imposed $2,500 annual cap. These pre-tax accounts, which currently have no federal limit, are used to purchase everything from contact lenses to children’s braces. With the cost of braces being as high as $7,200, this tax provision will play an unwelcome role in everyday kitchen-table health care decisions. The cap will also affect families with special-needs children, whose tuition can be covered using FSA funds. Special-needs tuition can cost up to $14,000 per child per year. This cruel tax provision will limit the options available to such families, all so that the federal government can squeeze an additional $13 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.

The targeting of FSAs by President Obama and congressional Democrats is no accident. The progressive left has never been fond of the consumer-driven accounts, which serve as a small roadblock in their long-term drive for a one-size-fits-all government health care bureaucracy.

For further proof, note the ObamaCare “medicine cabinet tax” which since 2011 has barred the 13.5 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts from purchasing over-the-counter medicines with pre-tax funds.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor July 6, 2012 | 12:05 p.m.

(cont.)

4. 123 billion Tax
The ObamaCare Surtax on Investment Income. Under current law, the capital gains tax rate for all Americans rises from 15 to 20 percent in 2013, while the top dividend rate rises from 15 to 39.6 percent. The new ObamaCare surtax takes the top capital gains rate to 23.8 percent and top dividend rate to 43.4 percent. The tax will take a minimum of $123 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.
And, last but not least...
5. 86 billion tax
The ObamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax increase. This tax soaks employers to the tune of $86 billion over the next ten years.
As you can understand, there is a reason why the authors of ObamaCare wrote the law in such a way that the most brutal tax increases take effect conveniently after the 2012 election. It’s the same reason President Obama, congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media conveniently neglect to mention these taxes and prefer that you simply “move on” after the Supreme Court ruling.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 6, 2012 | 12:52 p.m.

@Mike

If we wanted to read a Fox News OPINION article, we would go to Fox News.

May I remind you of what Frank said earlier?
- "Rather than watch and determine for yourself, you accept the rant of a few liberal blogs as "book learnin"."

I guess what he said doesn't apply if you get your info from a conservative blog as opposed to a liberal one?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/0...

(Report Comment)
mike mentor July 6, 2012 | 1:59 p.m.

@Rich
I'm confused. Clearly you have your head in the sand, but I am not sure about what.

Are you doubting the serious failure of Owebama's Stimulus? He spent billions with the specific intent to create jobs and after spending billions we can see a factual comparison to other presidents that didn't spend billions and had better numbers. We all know Owebama is a joke compared to Reagan, so I threw in "W", the favorite whipping boy of the progressives, and your own slick Willie to be fair. As you can see from the numbers, Owebama FAiLED !!!

Or

Are you doubting that at least two of the taxes in Owebamacare are direct taxes that affect the middle class after Owebama promised no new taxes for the middle class as often as he takes a breath?

Nevermind the "penalty tax" that Owebama, the legal scholar (Ha!), swore over and over again wasn't a tax, taxes #2 and #3 above are directly going to affect the middle class. Taxes #1 and #5 will indirectly affect the middle class. Finally, tax #4 will affect some middle class folks and some richies.

So, clearly Owebama has lied and continues to lie by saying he will not sign any bill that raises the tax on the middle class. He already did!

Let me know what of the above you have problems with and I will try and explain better to help you out. That's the kinda guy I am ;-)

(Report Comment)
Ken Geringer July 6, 2012 | 4:02 p.m.

Rich, the lesson is, don't bother, they are beyond reason. Just skip to the new names.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor July 6, 2012 | 4:27 p.m.

or...

Try to pick on someone who doesn't have facts to turn you back with...

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 6, 2012 | 4:38 p.m.

TonyB; Cry all you want, but things are great for me.
___________________

Me, too.

I've got munis out the whazoo.

And a few other nifty things.

And I retired at the ripe ol' age of 52.

I want the same for all others, but I prefer they practice sound strategies to get it.

Liberalism is not a sound, general strategy to get there for most folks.

PS: Most of the whining I hear comes from liberals who did not take advantage of wonderful opportunities, did not practice sound financial strategies, didn't pay attention in school, and wouldn't know a good long-term decision if it kicked them in the ass. They are good at blaming "bad luck" or someone else, tho.

PSS: For example, the America Next essays published by the Missourian have been excellent examples of a variety of life choices. Poster responses from that area of Missouri have been excellent, also, and even more diverse.

I have EASILY been able to pick out those I would hire, and those I would not.

PSSS: Good charts. Pick and choose the data that fits your arguments.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-job...

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote July 6, 2012 | 4:39 p.m.

@mike mentor

You criticize Obama for raising taxes at the same time you criticize him for running up the deficit. That doesn't quite add up. Higher taxes = lower deficits...at least in the reality based community it does.

Also, with respect to Obama's jobs numbers (he doesn't really have that much power...but i'll play along anyway) a significant factor affecting them is government spending or the lack thereof. If you compare Obama to Reagan at the same time post recession (1984 vs. 2012), government spending per capita was up 14.6% for Reagan compared to 6.4% for Obama. Rather striking which one's labelled the socialist...no?

If we were to follow the lesson from Reagan, as you suggest, we would need to greatly increase government spending to address our unemployment woes. I'm going to guess you would disapprove of that action. Perhaps as an example of weathering an economic downturn you shouldn't cite a classic Keynesian case if you think government spending is an obstacle and not a solution to high unemployment.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 6, 2012 | 6:27 p.m.

Good ol' Chris. Tho he knows better, his agenda prevents his acknowledgment of difference between tax cuts across the board, allow every payer to keep more of their money, Reagan and "targeted" tax cuts directed to those preferred, in the hope that they will create beneficial action while they donate and vote for the governmental donor, Obama.

Chris will still deny that Reagan's across the board cuts created 19 million jobs and nearly doubled the governmental take (500B$-Carter, 900+B$ Reagan). Jobs never enter Chris's computations, cost to "government" is only concern in the static numbers he compiles to show conservatives bad, liberals, good.

Ken G. - Warning Rick C. about posters? I know I'm on the list. If you are sincere, you will add this one.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor July 6, 2012 | 6:30 p.m.

@Christopher
First off, let me say I agree with you that we need to do something with regards to our deficits. Lowering taxes and raising spending isn't going to get it done. I feel we have plenty of room to cut spending to lower deficits without raising revenues. You seem to disagree. Fine. No problem. We can agree to disagree on that.

My problem with Obama is his truthiness. He has promised all along that he would not raise taxes on the middle class and he would create jobs with his monumental spending bills. At what point does this man get called on his shortcomings? If he said all along that he was going to raise taxes and increase spending (liberal agenda), I would disagree with this policy, but would be very quite right now if it had worked. The problem is he said all along he wasn't going to raise taxes and he was going to create jobs and neither of those things turned out to be true. Who knows. If he had spent the stimulus money wisely and actually created jobs, he may be in a much better position. What he did do is take the stimulus money and dole it out to freinds and family as fast as possible and guess what? It didn't work! He thought he could shake off all the bad economic news as long as he had all those rich dems he gave money to in his back pocket? That's the only way I can rationalize what he did. Or maybe he thought with much of the voting country getting it's information from places like the nightly network news casts that all of his failures would stay a secret? I am at a loss to explain this ones arrogance. He is still saying things are a step in the right direction and it's all W's fault. Still...

That is not leadership in my book. A quote I have heard on leadership is, "Leadership is getting people to do what they don't want to do to acheive a goal they want to achieve." IMHO, this seems to follow along with a more conservative view of responsible spending now for a brighter future later.

I would say Obama's leadership style has been promise candy to everyone, give out candy to everyone you can, deny, deny, deny, and hope the house of cards doesn't crumble until after the election.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 6, 2012 | 6:48 p.m.

Reagan spent like a drunken sailor. Tripled the debt. That blind spot "conservatives" have for the connection between massive military $pending and the deficit is straight out of the twilight zone. Walls in their brains!

Fact is, it wasn't the tax cuts that made the economy recover. Tax cuts never completely pay for themselves. It was the massive deficit Keynesian spending on the military that made the economy pop.

Too bad the wealthiest fraction of a percent now suck so much wealth out of the economy so fast, that stimulus doesn't really work anymore. Even Reagan's tripling of the debt wouldn't have worked if the wealthy had been capturing 20% or more, instead of 10% or less.

All the stimulus / deficit spending / fed action / whatever in the world isn't going to improve the economy under these conditions. It all just goes straight into the pockets of the wealthy. That's why I'm ready to call their bluff and pull the plug on ALL of it.

Doomsday cuts: tick, tick, tick, tick... and if Congress can't actually do something constructive (during election season no less)... BOOM!

It's the only thing that will actually get the deficit under control. And the "conservatives" are going to squeal like stuck pigs over it. Go figure. When you're done figuring, the answer can't be anything but, "Rank Hypocrisy."

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 6, 2012 | 8:27 p.m.

This is my only problem with 1st Amendment. If ever changed, the above will be the reason for it. Should we be forced to listen, read the lies of one or others, time after time, with the only alternative being, "turn away"?

The above poster, DF, having been sent home probably 1 dozen times with the falsity of his statements dragging behind is able to again, lie, knowing he lies, only for purpose of professing the benefit that might be received from the policies of the greatest liars of all time. He reeks of "Rank Hypocrisy."

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 6, 2012 | 8:54 p.m.

"Should we be forced to listen, read the lies of one or others, time after time, with the only alternative being, "turn away"?"

Frank, I ask myself this very same question every single time I come across a comment with your name tagged above. However, I usually fail as the stupidity usually begs for rebuttal...Or at the very least, a snarky comment.

Also, I don't think quotes from Rush Limbaugh or Fox News ever make "DF" drag behind a falsity of statements. Hypocrisy at its best.

(Report Comment)
matt arnall July 6, 2012 | 9:01 p.m.

LOOK IN THE MIRROR FRANK!!!

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 6, 2012 | 9:06 p.m.

See? I usually don't respond to Frank, but... Wanting to curtail the 1st Amendment to shut me up? You can't get any more un-American or un-patriotic than that. Or moronic.

I'm the one paying for his Social Security and Medicare. Ungrateful freeloader. People like Frank are the reason I'd love to see "Social Spending" cut. It would get rid of dead wood like him. With the money I saved on taxes, I'd put a rose on his grave.

If you don't like this country and my right to speak the truth, why don't you leave, Frank? I heard there's no regulations, taxes, or liberals in Somalia.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 6, 2012 | 9:27 p.m.

Frank's probably still mad at the knucklehead who posted the Constitution was an antique badly in need of revision.

The knucklehead might have even been referring to Amendment #1, but there was no clarification.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 6, 2012 | 9:31 p.m.

I must admit....hearing a liberal baby boomer use a paraphrase of "Love it or leave it" is a real hoot.

Full circle in 45 years or less.

My, how things stay the same while they change.

A little age brings out the...um...age in us.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 6, 2012 | 9:51 p.m.

"Wanting to curtail the 1st Amendment to shut me up?" More crap! Not shut you up! Somehow require you write the truth!

The revision of our history, by the likes of you and your ilk, over the years, is the reason our country is on the brink of disaster. The posts of two simpletons preceding your defensive tirade are proof thereof.

", why don't you leave, Frank? I heard there's no regulations, taxes, or liberals in Somalia." You've got Cuba, Hugo Chavez and the EU, with plenty of liberals to preach to. Why don't you go there, instead of working so hard to change our country?

"the reason I'd love to see "Social Spending" cut. It would get rid of dead wood like him. With the money I saved on taxes, I'd put a rose on his grave."

This one not a lie, just stupid! The government you want is never going to give you "money I saved on taxes," (12 of the 21 new tax increases with OCare will be on those earning under $250,000. The lie probably is that you would put a rose on my grave. What a bunch!

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 6, 2012 | 9:55 p.m.

I usually read most of the posts.

I can't remember any liberal telling the "knucklehead" to love it or leave it.

Did I miss it?

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 6, 2012 | 10:32 p.m.

"(12 of the 21 new tax increases with OCare will be on those earning under $250,000"

The ones mentioned in the Fox News OPINION article?

What's your main beef with ObamaCare? For years, we've heard all of this moaning and complaining from Republicans about the mandate. Only...Then they nominate Romney who flippin' pioneered it. Hell, Romney even claims that the current system is the "ultimate form of socialism" and that the mandate is "ultimate conservatism".

But let's face it, Romney's damn good at shaking that etch-a-sketch. He REALLY wants to be President.

Link to Romney video #1: http://youtu.be/JIPynMZuQtI

Link to Romney saying he liked that ObamaCare copied the mandate from RomneyCare:
http://youtu.be/XI5JjBHq8_0

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 7, 2012 | 12:23 a.m.

Since December, 2006, a month before Democrats took over the House and Senate, the labor force participation percentage has dropped from 66.4% to 63.8%. This 2.4% drop in the labor force is not figured into the unemployment rate. If it were, the real unemployment rate would be 10.6%, not 8.2%. The left would have you believe that this difference is due to baby boomers retiring. This is entirely wrong. The employment percentage by older workers has actually risen under Obama. This is because of the devastating effects the economy has had on the retirement savings of older workers - both in stock losses and layoffs resulting in older workers having to access their retirement savings earlier and the associated tax penalties. The net result is that older workers are having to put off retirement ... particularly those who have exhausted their retirement savings, in addition to their unemployment benefits.

Unemployment when the Democrats took over congress on January 2, 2007 was 4.4%. By the end of December, 2007, the unemployment rate had risen to 5.0%. From January, 2008 to December, 2008, unemployment rose steadily from 5.0% to 7.3%. Since President Bush didn't write any laws in 2007 and 2008, and the congress was 100% Democrat, it would seem most of the blame should be laid at the feet of Democrats. After all, President Bush could only sign laws sent to him by the Democrat controlled congress. Further, it was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who told Americans there were no problems at Freddie and Fannie...a falsehood that created the financial meltdown. It was also Democrats who forced lending institutions to make poor loans, telling lending institutions they must find a way to make loans to people who did not qualify, or congress would do it for them.

January, 2009, in comes President Obama and a full Democrat congress, filibuster proof at that, and they give the new President everything he asks for. Now how do his results after four years measure against those of President Reagan, who never had a full Democrat controlled congress? See the results posted above if you're not sure.

(Report Comment)
matt arnall July 7, 2012 | 1:17 p.m.

How many times can the same half-truth garbage be repeated by this tiny group of aging, bigotted, self-serving, angry men? The answer is always one more. There is enough failures of government that in reality, most if not all of these politicians have failed us, from both sides of the isle. They all suck. Our system sucks. So we have to choose which sucks less. The "Dog Pack" loves the party that loves war, corporations, less education, more pollution, and damn the middle class. All they can regurgitate from their foaming mouths is nonsense about socialism and anti-christian values. Church has no place in government. We are all allowed to believe as we do. The health care issue, believe it or not was originally a republican idea presented to Clinton in the 90's. Like it or hate it, something has to be done about the health care system. Like it or hate it, your nominee is the one who created the model for it. Like it or hate it, your conservative supreme court just upheld it. It is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. If your party had any ideas that would improve it, they would be welcome to present them, but since the never have I am left to believe they have no ideas that would help the situation. Blindly cutting all programs is not going to help anything. We all need carefully thought out decisions, and from what I have seen, the GOP is not the greatest at carefully doing anything. This group on here is a great representation of how I view the party as a whole. Loud-mouthed, right-wing, bigotted, self-rightous individuals that believe winning an arguement is accomplished thru being abrasive and louder than their opposition. Compromise is completely out of the question. It is their way or the highway, and they will out shout you or stand stupid longer than you can to "win". Democrats want sensible spending. They want strong business and military. They just have different beliefs of how to get there, and so frequently are drownd out and shouted down by right wingers till they just give up interacting. I hadn't commented here in months because it is just so sickening to deal with this small group, but it is just not right to play the game the way you do. Divide and conquer should be the moto of the GOP or at least the people that represent it the way you all do.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 7, 2012 | 2:08 p.m.

The GOP loves war?

WW1 draft Wilson Dem,
WW2 draft FDR Dem,
Korea draft Truman Dem,
Vietnam draft LBJ Dem.

GOP hasn't STARTED a draft during war since Lincoln, AND THAT WAS TO FIGHT SLAVE OWNING DEMS!!! Dems not only love war, they love to draft people to fight their wars, and they love their slaves, regardless of the method by which they keep them.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 7, 2012 | 2:09 p.m.

Matt, no half truths on my statistics. Just recorded facts. So me which statistic I presented that was inaccurate or a half truth?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 7, 2012 | 2:23 p.m.

matt arnall July 7, 2012 | 1:17 p.m.
The health care issue, believe it or not was originally a republican idea presented to Clinton in the 90's.

Matt, you have got to be kidding! You have a pretty short memory of the Hillarycare fiasco of the Clinton administration. The secret meetings and the the liberal DC courts stating Hillary was exempt from FACA seem to be lost to your memory. Clinton's plan had the employer mandate. It died a total failure in both congress and the court of public opinion.

In November of 2010 voters showed how they felt about Obama's plan. The worst defeat for Dems in congress in 72 years. Loss of 5 governorships. Loss of 20 state legislatures. You'll see it again this November.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 7, 2012 | 2:29 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Rich C. July 7, 2012 | 4:19 p.m.

" then write this dog pack crap, containing not a sliver."

Again - Pot calling the kettle black.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 7, 2012 | 5:40 p.m.

Mr. Warhover - A hate filled text of matt arnall's post at 1:17p today, remains above. I wrote him noting his errors and thought I was engaging in conversation that might calm his continual angst at the "conservatives" that he believes treat him unfairly here. My post has been removed.

A post from last evening telling me I should leave the country and not subtly, indicated that the poster would be glad to see me dead, still remains since 9:06p, last night. Is something wrong here? Should I feel a sense of discrimination?

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 7, 2012 | 6:06 p.m.

Don Milsop wrote: The GOP loves war?

WW1 draft Wilson Dem,
WW2 draft FDR Dem,
Korea draft Truman Dem,
Vietnam draft LBJ Dem.

What an incredibly disingenuous, myopic and stupid way to look at history. First off, WW1; after lots of debate and controversy Wilson only declared war after immense provocation. Heard of the Lusitania Don? A British ship, but over 100 American citizens were killed as a result of its torpedoing. How about the decoded Zimmerman telegram? Are you telling me that Republicans would be loathe to draft men to defend the US under such extreme provocation?

Need I even bother with WWII? Heard of a place called Pearl Harbor? It's in Hawaii.

Korea? I thought the right-wing were all about preventing the spread of the red menace. You're telling me that Truman was wrong to send troops to Korea? That the GOP would have done differently? Same goes for Viet Nam really. We all know Kennedy was very reluctant to get too embroiled in that part of the world and we all know the extreme right-wing detested him for his attitude to committing American servicemen to fighting the Commies, whether it be in Cuba or south-east Asia. Look where it got THAT particular democrat. I would have thought LBJ would be right up your street, having committed hundreds of thousands of troops to the cause of fighting communism! Nixon (a Republican if I remember correctly) didn't exactly scale things down much did he? And which side of the political spectrum tended to be most against the draft...well we all know that Rush Limbaugh, Ted Nugent et al were personally against it, but if I remember correctly the left were typically anti-draft.

Now how about some more recent conflicts? I assume you're all gung-ho about the various Iraq wars and Afghanistan (at least until 2008). Who was it who took our troops into Iraq based on falsehoods? A democratic President?

Anyway, you're presumably happy that democratic President Obama brought the boys and girls home from Iraq. That he is scaling down things in Afghanistan? Noooooo....he's weak on terror!

Your point about Democrats being pro-slavery, because the democratic party of the 1850s and 60s had to be beaten by Republican Abraham Lincoln is asinine. As if ANY party of 150+ years ago can be compared with its modern counterpart.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 7, 2012 | 7:23 p.m.

Steve S. - Your post is the most disingenuous, here, surpassing even "The "Dog Pack" loves the party that loves war" from Mr. Arnall. Arnall never offered any explanation for his contention. Why should you feel it necessary to try to negate the simple truth of Milsops statement in that regard? Oh yes, I forgot the necessity of defending a liberal statement, right OR Wrong.

Is the one with the comment, "zapper" coming? Hopefully....

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 7, 2012 | 8:38 p.m.

There's more than one post that should have been removed.

After all, "aging, bigotted, self-serving, angry, regurgitate, foaming, loud-mouthed, bigoted [sic], self-righteous [sic] individuals" isn't exactly milk toast.

Heck, with all that frothing, I thought he had rabies or sumpin'.

Of course, if that kind of discourse is OK with the Missourian, the opportunity to expand the forum vocabulary increases dramatically.

Hopefully, the Missourian has simply made an oversight.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 7, 2012 | 8:41 p.m.

frankchristian...your last post was infantile and added nothing to the conversation. You pretend to know history, yet from what I have seen of your "grasp" of the subject your entire outlook comes from one simple, hard-line political perspective. Yours is an authoritarian, dogmatic world, where R is good and D is bad.

I'll answer your question "Why should you feel it necessary to try to negate the simple truth of Milsop's statement in that regard?" The entire premise made by Mr Milsop is that Democrats are war-mongering, draft-loving slave-owners. Furthermore, the implication of his words is that the United States should not have fought these wars. While I agree there is room for debate in this regard, particularly with Korea and Viet Nam, and possibly, to a much lesser extent, WWI, do you and Mr Milsop really think Democratic President Roosevelt was wrong in declaring war, and ultimately defeating the Axis Powers of Germany and Japan? If you do then all I can do is shake my head in wonder. And if that's the case, it indeed says a hell of a lot about you frankchristian. And you Don Milsop.

Please, just read over what you just wrote...it was drivel. Why don't YOU try to refute what I wrote regarding politics and the origins of these wars?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 7, 2012 | 9:19 p.m.

Steve: I think one underlying point is that liberal presidents are generally considered weak on the world scene and can be easily taken advantage of. I happen to think this notion has historical merit, and I also think a preponderance of US citizens think Dems are strong domestically but weak in foreign policy, while Repubs are the opposite..

For example, you can make the case that Adolf Hitler thought the US was sufficiently isolationist, and the president sufficiently weak, that the US would never enter the war against him.

Of course, Japan changed that in a real hurry.

Another great example would be Jimmy Carter and the Iran fiasco. I also think Clinton didn't help our position against terrorism very much.

For the most part, Dem presidents do well once a war is waged. That's not my point here. My point is that the rest of the world sees liberal US presidents as weak and reluctant.

And I think that tends towards trouble.

Which is why Don was able to make his correlation.

PS; It might be fun to identify which party held the presidency at the END of the various wars and police actions since 1950. I start there because everyone already knows who was in the office at the end of WW2.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 7, 2012 | 9:51 p.m.

Okay Steve, let's see. I’ll need two posts to get all of this in. Lusitania. Wilson’s cabinet made no attempt to enforce neutrality laws. US banks had $2.5 billion in loans to the allied powers. Weeks before Wilson asked war be declared, European bankers met with administration officials and told them that unless the US came into the war, they would default on these loans. By early 1917, these credit lines had been overdrawn an additional $500 million. Remember that Germany put notices in 50 U.S. newspapers warning citizens that British merchant ships were being used to ship war material, and were subject to attack. The Wilson knew we were clearly violating the Neutrality Act. Wilson even went so far as to chastise other cabinet members who brought it up. Democrat administration clearly deceiving the American people on the true nature of events that brought us into World War 1.

Pearl Harbor - again, you have a democrat administration who knew about the ambitions of Japan, which they had clearly demonstrated from 1933. Now, as to the state of American readiness, I will blame the GOP post WW1 for allowing our military to go into such a state of complete disrepair. The Roosevelt administration did little to begin reversing this trend until 1940. My father was at Pearl Harbor in 1940. He was there at the time of the attack. Every time I leave my home I get to the top of the hill, look down at Pearl Harbor, and know my father rests there. So I do know a bit about Pearl Harbor. I am also a past member of the Nimitz Museum and foundation, participating and assisting in several symposia on WW2 in the Pacific. You may call Helen MacDonald or Admiral Grojean at the Museum in Texas if you wish to verify this.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 7, 2012 | 9:51 p.m.

Korea - a case where Truman and the Dems learned nothing from WW1 and WW2 about not being prepared. An army woefully understaffed and poorly trained. It was the Marines who were shoved into Pusan that saved Truman's butt. Truman had tried very hard to disband the Marine Corps. He hated them. Truman even remarked, which generated a great public outcry, that the Marines had a propaganda machine second only to Stalin. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, in classic Marine fashion, merely stated he would attempt to find out why the Soviets had a better propaganda machine. In late 1950, Truman sent a friend from WW1, MGen Frank E. Lowe to Korea to find out why the Army was performing so poorly, and the Marines so well. The answer came back - because the Army doesn't train and think like Marines. Good thing congress didn't let Truman have his way.

Vietnam could have been over in weeks if we'd bombed North Vietnam like we did in November and December, 1972, and applied such bombings as often as necessary. Can you tell me why LBJ failed to do so?

Now let's review Iraq. In 1991, we signed a CEASE FIRE to end that conflict. Over the ensuing 12 years, Iraq repeated violated that cease fire by firing on our aircraft patrolling the no fly zone. He continued to brutalize his citizen. It was not up to us to prove Iraq had WMDs. It was up to Iraq to prove they did NOT have WMDs. Iraq had WMDs, they used WMDs, they failed to prove they destroyed WMDs, they blocked efforts to discover what happened to the WMDs. Only an idiot would think they did not have WMDs. Further, it was CIA Director George Tenet, hired by Bill Clinton, who told President Bush that it was a "slam dunk" that Saddam still had WMDs. It was Democrats and the liberal media predicting we would have 10s of thousands of deaths from WMDs if we invaded Iraq.

Look up Snopes words of mass destruction, and see all the quotes from Democrats before Bush was even elected that state Saddam has WMDs.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 7, 2012 | 9:51 p.m.

Infantile. If you sincerely wanted to show my lack of knowledge of history, wouldn't some specific point be more applicable than your opinion, "your entire outlook comes from one simple, hard-line political perspective. Yours is an authoritarian, dogmatic world, where R is good and D is bad."?

"The entire premise made by Mr Milsop is that Democrats are war-mongering, draft-loving slave-owners." Please Mr. Simmons, why not start at the beginning? This would be where Arnall posted exactly what you now condemn Milsop for answering. Would it not?

Both Eisenhower and Nixon ran for election with the intent of stopping WAR. In regard to a Draft, Charles Rangel,Democrat, NY. :http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/draf-j12.shtml If history is part of an argument, All of it should be considered. I'll write again, progressive liberals, of necessity, only concern themselves with that portion of our history having occurred since 1960. Observe, please, now, a pause in my drivel.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 7, 2012 | 10:12 p.m.

Come on Steve. Democrats have just replaced the plantation with the ghetto. Democrats want to keep minorities in perpetual slavery by providing them minimum/low standards and handouts to keep them on the plantation and pacify them so they vote Dem. Conservatives believe that anyone, regardless of their background, can achieve by adopting high personal standards of conduct and education. Those of us who have been involved with government programs to give minorities training can tastify that the vast majority of these programs are a total waste of time because they do not actually require the students show up, they do not require they pass the course, and they do not attempt to recover monies from those students who do so. I short, it's another liberal handout. Further, the classroom participation by the majority of those there are a severe detriment to those students who are actually trying to learn.

Until Democrats adopt as a policy of high standards in all facets of life, there will never be a hope that minorities can escape the slavery that Democrats have foisted upon them since our country began.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 7, 2012 | 10:19 p.m.

Steve, wasn't my comment about Dems and the draft every bit as valid as Matt's about the GOP being the party of war?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 7, 2012 | 10:54 p.m.

If I had a son who was President and didn't know beans about history, he'd look like Barrack Obama.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 7, 2012 | 11:22 p.m.

"If I had a son who was President and didn't know beans about history, he'd look like Barrack Obama."

And, if He'd been educated for the job, as has BO, the actions to decimate our economy would be the same as those we are supposed to believe BO is claiming will save it. From another: "No one wants to, believe that BO wants to destroy our economy. But, if he did, what would he do differently, than what he has done?"

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 8, 2012 | 3:41 a.m.

@ Don Milsop:

We have a "plantation system" at University of Missouri System too. The mansion with the big columns is located in Columbia, Missouri, while the "field hands" reside in Kansas City, Rolla and St. Louis. It's a BIG plantation.

The Thirteenth Amendment applies only to "involuntary servitude" of individuals, not to university campuses.:

[The Devil made me say that.])

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 8, 2012 | 11:27 a.m.

Don-I apologize for trivializing your knowledge of the origins of these wars. I think though that you do your argument a disservice by simply equating the drafts in these conflicts with a democratic President, since you obviously realize things aren't that simple.

It's clear that you disapprove of US involvement in WWI but again you don't acknowledge the full picture; unrestricted submarine warfare, secret treaties to bring Mexico into the war on Germany's side etc. Granted, Administrations throughout the years have used subterfuge and misinformation to embroil the US in conflicts which might be unpopular. I'm sure you're aware of the theory that FDR and Churchill had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor, and did little to prevent it, knowing that the US would be finally committed to war. That's why the main carrier fleet was nowhere in sight, safe out at sea. Possibly conspiracy theory nonsense but who knows?

You and I will never agree on the legitimacy of the most recent Iraq conflict. I maintain that unlike Afghanistan in 2001, it was one of choice, not of necessity. Surely you can see that Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and company woefully underestimated the entire thing and misled the population as to costs, likely casulaties etc. Why on earth, when we had forces fighting in Afghanistan, did the Bush administration take their eye off the ball and turn their attention to Iraq? Even if Saddam Hussein had had WMD there was no reason to believe he was suddenly, in 2003, going to start launching them against us! And simply to say that democrats voted for it does nothing to assuage guilt. They were wrong too.

I'd certainly go along with Michael's assertion that democratic Presidents are often considered weak. Happily, their foes generally live (or don't live) to rue their decision to take on a perceived weakling. I don't need to reel off a catalog here but I'm sure bin Laden, despite the possible acquisition of 6 dozen virgins, wishes he had taken President Obama a little more seriously!

As for the slavery/ghetto "correlation" and "Democrats wanting to keep minorities in perpetual slavery" that's just a slogan. It means nothing. It's like a liberal saying Republicans hate poor people or conservatives hate women. Simplistic trivializations.

Finally, thanks for a civilized discussion. I'll try to reciprocate!

frankchristian....er...I hope you'll join me in welcoming the slightly cooler weather.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 8, 2012 | 2:13 p.m.

Steve, you missed the mark on several points. My point was that you failed to play fair because you said nothing about Matt's comment about the GOP being the party of war. You're not dealing even handedly. My point was not that the Dems are responsible for any of those wars. My point was that if you're going to allow Matt to get away with stupid posts, then you shouldn't be pointing fingers at me.

Further, I did not disagree with WW1. I disagreed with the Wilson administration lying to the American people about the war. Had they told the truth, likely they would not have received public support to enter the war. England had already generated a great deal of false propaganda about German atrocities meant to keep up support at home and fan the flames of war here. The Wilson administration was very adept at using the media, with willing participation, to lie to Americans throughout the entire war.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident, which ushered in our real involvement in Vietnam was half fabrication. Senator Jeremiah Denton, who spent almost 8 years as a POW in North Vietnam, was one of the response pilots on the second Gulf of Tonkin incident. He reported that he saw no enemy vessels in the area. The first Gulf of Tonkin incident two days earlier resulted in battle damage of a single 14.5 mm round striking the USS Maddox....which could have occurred after we fired on their vessels. In short, it was flimsy as an excuse to go to war in Vietnam when air power could have done so much more. But then again, LBJ had a long term, very close relation with Brown and Root (later Halliburton), who did the lion's share of the construction contracts in Vietnam.

Now please show me comparable incidents of deception by the GOP as an excuse to go to war. I gave my evidence on how the Bush administration was justified in going back into Iraq. You may not like it, but it's there. Additionally, we did find WMDs in Iraq, contrary to what many believe who are not educated on the subject. You can find my posts on that if you go in and view my posts from earlier months. These are House and Senate Select Intelligence Committee papers.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 8, 2012 | 2:21 p.m.

Steve, FDR and Churchill both did know about Pearl Harbor. FDR clearly stated that if war was to come, he wanted Japan to strike the first blow.

That being said, I blame mostly Admiral Kimmel and General Short for the lack of patrolling and readiness that morning.
Short's bunching up of the aircraft to prevent sabotage was stupid. The lack of continuous long range patrolling by both Army and Naval aircraft was criminally negligent in my book. That being said, if we were to be attacked, the method by which it occurred was the best possible result. Of the ships sunk or damaged, only 3 did not return to full service. Had they been alerted and sent to sea, they would have been sunk in deep water and never recovered.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush July 8, 2012 | 2:47 p.m.

Southern Democrats like
Wallace were conservatives.
Reagan's "State's Rights" speech.

Quite convenient: Lee
Atwater strategically
Unmentionable.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 8, 2012 | 4:48 p.m.

Gregg, Wallace was a bigot, not a conservative. Had he been a conservative, he would not have been a bigot. Now, let me know how you can cure poverty without the application of high standards of conduct and education, which liberals seem so willing to forego.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 8, 2012 | 4:49 p.m.

Don-as I said earlier, you will never convince me that our invasion of Iraq was justified. There were conflicting reports, misleading information (yellow cake from Niger, anthrax vials waved about in front of the UN by Colin Powell), which, while possibly not amounting to outright lying, certainly made the case for war cloudy and very very muddled. I am aware that very limited amounts of chemical reagents were found over a few years, yet these hardly constituted the imminent threat suggested by the Bush administration. I am not aware of nuclear materials, or biological agents such as anthrax. If you have references proving the existence of nuclear and biological weapons or significant quantities of chemical weaponry in Iraq I'd love to see them. Let me ask you this, if Bill Clinton had put forward exactly the same rationale for taking out Saddam Hussein, then weeks later strutted about on an aircraft carrier in front of a "Mission Accomplished" sign, only to have the whole WMD case blow up in his face, would you have the same opinion about the whole enterprise? How about if the conflict had dragged on for another 5, 6, 7 years, with mounting US dead? Would your opinion differ, given that President Clinton had overseen the whole debacle?

I daresay you'll sneer at the link below but that's fine:

http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/prira...

I will ask again, why was it ESSENTIAL to go in right then, in March 2003 when we were stretched militarily in Afghanistan?

I resent being accused of not playing fair. I don't answer for Matt's comments, just as I would not expect you to answer for anyone elses. My original point was that you were not being fair making a list of all the major wars and then correlating them with democratic Presidents, the implication being that one political party (the Democrats) irresponsibly led this nation into all the major conflicts of the 20th century while the other was powerless to protect the nation from such reckless adventurism!

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 8, 2012 | 5:15 p.m.

@ Don Milsop:

George Wallace did amuse many hard-working Americans years ago when he continually branded his adversaries as "pseudo-intellectuals."

George is no longer with us, but it seems we're still up to our eyeballs in pseudo-intellectuals. :)

"But I'm going to buy some bugaboo
And that'll be the end of you..."

[From a once popular song called "Kissin' Bug."]

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 8, 2012 | 5:37 p.m.

Here you go Steve: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq...

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle....

Again, it was not up to us to prove Saddam did not have WMDs. It was up to Saddam to prove he did not have them. That was part of the cease fire. He had 12 years to provide the info. He continually obstructed the process and failed to provide the information. The two links above prove he was lying. He fired on our planes patrolling the no fly zone on multiple occasions. He ignored several UN resolutions. Kofi Annan's son was complicit in helping Saddam violate trade restrictions. I would say we were extremely patient. The body that was supposed to enforce trade regulations against Saddam was corrupt.

Your link, amazingly, fails to cite the information in the links above...which are not GOP oriented links.

Now Steve, are you going to be intellectually honest and say that Matt was out of line with his comment about the GOP being the party of war?

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 8, 2012 | 5:47 p.m.

Steve - Your neighborly entreaty regarding our weather is appreciated, but I did not receive enough rain to wet my driveway, while wife told of a nice shower around VA Hosp.

I still wonder at the continual, complete rejection by the left of the Iraq invasion. W's intention to protect our people from the threat of 9/11 by destroying the attackers at their source, surely must not be condemned by one truly interested in this protection. The Taliban, booted from control in Afghanistan, put al Qaeda on the run and to consider leaving the next worst enemy to the U.S. in place would surely be last in that plan. Don has examined the previous Presidential actions in war and you surely must note that none have received anything like the hatred heaped upon Bush and the ridiculous effort of those on the left to prosecute him and those around him.

Mr. arnall proclaims, "Our system sucks.". Are you in his boat with this attitude, as well? Can these feelings and attitudes be caused by anything other than ideology? As they say, "Just askin'".

(Report Comment)
matt arnall July 8, 2012 | 5:56 p.m.

Don, there are many articles about the individual mandate was something that was strongly favored by the GOP in the 90’s, just like I stated. Just google republican health care plan in the 1990’s and you too can read up on your parties past beliefs. As was stated earlier in this discussion by a member of the pack, in times past there was not such a huge division between GOP and Dem. My statement about the GOP being the war party is in reference to the GOP that exists today. I completely agree that things were much better in government in the past than they are today. That is all that I saw that was refuted by you fellas from everything else that I stated earlier, so I am assuming that you all agree with my other statements from my last post. A bigot is one that is unwilling to tolerate the view points or beliefs of others. Not accept or adopt, tolerate. I believe conservatives that hold to their principles in a civil manner are great. If people believe that way and conduct themselves in a pleasant manner towards people that carry an opposing view point, they are welcome in my view. However, that is not the case in this setting. Statements implying that I am an idiot or uneducated as Don did earlier in regards to the FACT that it was the GOP that supported the very thing they are freaking out about today have no place in an adult discussion about issues that hamper us today. For one who is so versed in the ways of the GOP, how Don were you unaware of these facts? I really whipped you guys into a frenzy and I truly regret that I was unable to read Frank’s post that was deleted. I am sure it was a doozy. I am sure I may have less education than some on here and I am sure that I have less years than some, but this does not lessen my opinion. I do take the time to study affairs that have an impact on my life, and my points of view are carefully constructed by mixing that information with the morals and values I have. I cannot support giving oil companies billions while gutting our education budget. I want a strong military, but wars can and should be fought differently today than in times past, therefore making it possible to make cuts in defense spending along with reasonably cutting back in other areas in balance. To go anywhere, we must compromise. You are passionate in your beliefs and I support you being that way. But when you are blind to compromise and assaulting in your replies I will give as I have received. Ultimately, though, this kind of back and forth gets us nowhere. You guys have had the same demeanor for the 2 to 3 years I have been reading Mr Miller, and occasionally I think you need to be knocked back to reality. I don’t agree with your view points but I strongly support your right to have them. When I state my views, there is no need vilify me for my opinion. I have every right to believe as I do, and occasionally I am right.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush July 8, 2012 | 6:02 p.m.

Stay classy, Ellis.
Keep recycling Wallace.
You wear it so well.

(Report Comment)
matt arnall July 8, 2012 | 6:04 p.m.

“you surely must note that none have received anything like the hatred heaped upon Bush (Obama) and the ridiculous effort of those on the left (right) to prosecute him and those around him.” Beauty is in the eye of the beholder? or something like that.
Our system is dysfunctional. Our system is broken. Which adjective would you prefer, Frank? You think otherwise?

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 8, 2012 | 6:22 p.m.

Don-I will repeat my question. If Bill Clinton (or ANY Democrat) had been President between 2000 and 2008 would you have supported them if they had engaged in EXACTLY the same course of action as President Bush?

The piddling amounts of mustard gas and degraded munitions dating from the 1980s hardly justify the fear of imminent attack we were all subject to courtesy of the Bush administration. You're seriously suggesting that our 8 years or so in Iraq, with thousands of US dead, were worth that? You never answered my question...why March 2003 when we were already embroiled in Afghanistan?

I'm still waiting for the references detailing nuclear and biological capability.

And please....if you want a justification for Matt's comments...just look up the names Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld...

And for the record, I was 100% behind President Bush's actions in Afghanistan, his ousting of the Taliban and his destruction of Al Qaeda training facilities. I just wish he'd not tried to multitask.

frankchristian...no I don't think our system "sucks". I think it's flawed and could use improvement, but then I daresay you and I would disagree 180 degrees on how that improvement might be attained.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 8, 2012 | 6:49 p.m.

Steve - I was writing while you were posting. I had not read "you will never convince me that our invasion of Iraq was justified." Never mind my request.

"George Bush made that clear in his Sept 20, 2001 speech to the nation when he said,

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated....

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

No mention of WMD, oil, or anything except the intention of eliminating the haven of any terrorist that would harm Americans. Why shouldn't this be accepted as the reason for these wars (which, while rife with error as have been them all, seem to have been quite successful. At least 6 nations that formerly harbored or sponsored terrorists, no longer do and we have experienced no further attack. This one always laughed at by the left.)?

You'd rather respond to those digging up WMD claims while refusing to mention any of the dozens that having close access to the information thought and proclaimed that WMD must be in Iraq, Bill Clinton, prominent here.

You will have a tough time convincing me that leftist ideology is not the sole reason for this and most of your ideas regarding our country and it's politics.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 8, 2012 | 6:55 p.m.

Steve, since the end of WW2, it has always been part of our military planning that US forces would be capable of fighting TWO high intensity conflicts, simultaneously, anywhere in the world. As military actions go, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have ever qualified in a military parlance as high intensity. We haven't had that since WW2. During the final year of WW2, our battle deaths were 500 every day of the year. During Vietnam, at the height of our involvement in 1968, our combat killed in action never exceeded an average of 320 per week. In our top 74 most populous cities in 2010, we had 5,672 murders in 2010, more than we lost in 11 years in Iraq. Cook County/Chicago had more murders in 2008 than we had combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan combined for that year.

No loss of one of our brave warriors hurts more than it does to the family or those they serve with. I've carried those body bags. I've done family notifications. And I've seen that green Marine Corps sedan pull up to my front door and brought that officer with a telegram into my own home. But you must put all of this into a historical perspective. The left has used our combat deaths during these engagements as a tool to divide our nation. They've had no interest in the well being of our warriors. You need only look at the number of liberal cities that have banned military recruiters, parades, advertising, etc. to know this is true.

So no, we weren't spread to thin. And it served a valuable purpose. Khadafy immediately gave up his nuclear program, allowing the United States and Great Britain to come in and dismantle his program. They were stunned to discover he was likely only a year away from having nuclear weapons. Many seem to forget that. Do you think he would have done so had he not believed that the United States would do what it says? From 1991 to 2003, Saddam thumbed his nose at the world, brutalized his people, and violated the cease-fire.

I should think you would be happy that parents no longer are having their daughters sent into rape rooms, parents no longer have to watch as their children are dropped down wood chippers, and Iraqi women can vote. Those purple thumbs should be a huge measure of what this war was about.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 8, 2012 | 7:00 p.m.

Actually yes, I do believe most conservatives would have supported Bill Clinton had he taken the same action - particularly if it did not appear to be done so to divert attention from his own misdeeds. And I believe Dems would have screamed just as loudly.

Now Steve, you don't appear to be able to rebuke Matt for making unjustifiable comments. So I'll end my conversation with you here. That's what I referred to about your not being even handed. If you're going to say his comments are valid, than my position about Dems being the war mongers that got us into most of our wars that produced by far the largest number of casualties is every bit as valid. Sad that you choose such intellectual dishonesty.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 8, 2012 | 7:02 p.m.

Steve, matt - "Our system is dysfunctional. Our system is broken."

"I don't think our system "sucks". I think it's flawed and could use improvement,"

There are many that believe the only way to improve our system would be to destroy the economy and rebuild it with the "improvements" they perceive would achieve perfection in government. Many more believe this effort is now ongoing.

What might be your opinions on these thoughts?

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 8, 2012 | 9:59 p.m.

Don...maybe I am guilty of using intellectual dishonesty. However, I didn't say this:

"Liberals however, would be much more likely to put a boot on your neck and a bayonet in your back to stop conservatives from expressing their ideas, and certainly would not put their life in harms way to defend us."

YOU did, on May 31st.

As far as I am concerned that one comment makes all your emotional words above so much hot air. Far far worse than anything Matt might have said because in that one hateful sentence you put down every liberal, every democrat who fought, who came home in a body bag or who lost limbs, eyes or sanity in the defense of their country and their defense of YOU.
.
Thanks for corresponding. You taught me a lot.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 9, 2012 | 4:11 a.m.

Steve, please, don't compare the Democrats of today with the Democrats of 50 years ago. They have nothing in common. Can you imagine the backlash from today’s liberals to a Republican uttering these words:

For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forbears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago.

And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Were JFK a Republican today delivering that speech, he'd be attacked from every quarter by you and the liberal media.

And the treatment of conservatives by the left at colleges, city councils, and your so-called fairness doctrine are apt examples of the reason I made that statement. It's true. Count the number of times conservative speakers at universities have been physically attacked, not allowed to speak, or canceled because of fear of violence by university officials. It is the left that had the violence at Wall Street and other cities. It is the left that riots and loots during economic conferences. You can have an anomaly on the right like Timothy McVey, but you can have the same thing with the left for the likes of Joe Stack and Ted Kaczynski.
Look at the tea party rallies. Millions of people. No violence. No arrests. Grounds left immaculate. Show me a similar gathering of liberals where they place was not left trashed. No, the left is the problem. They are tyrants. And we will stop you.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 9, 2012 | 4:17 a.m.

In the last 15 years, which party has been caught:

1. Involved in massive illegal voter registration thru ACORN?
2. Giving candy to the mentally retarded to get them to register and vote?
3. Giving cigarettes to street people as an inducement to vote?
4. Giving drugs to people as an inducement to vote.
5. Had an elected official caught with a voting machine in their car?
6. Sought to have the overseas ballots of our military thrown out?
7. Caught not mailing ballots to military personnel?

Steve, how's that for disrespecting every democrat who served, fought, was injured, or died? Seems you need to police your own party because a group of people caught doing that time and time again to thwart the right to vote is a party of tyrants.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 9, 2012 | 6:18 a.m.

The results of a federal study, conducted by the Department of Agriculture, suggest that application of any spray insecticide intended to kill crawling insects is more effective than trying to kill pseudo-intellectuals by stepping on them.

Cost of the study, $150 million.

A study of the sexual proclivities of penguins is now being conducted.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 9, 2012 | 7:25 a.m.

Ellis - Your words always come from such a high level of intelligence that some of us are not able to understand.

Please explain, can one who derives his opinion of another by subtracting all other provided evidence, from one sentence, "Liberals however, would be much more likely to put a boot on your neck and a bayonet in your back to stop conservatives from expressing their ideas, and certainly would not put their life in harms way to defend us.", while so admitting his procedure, be referred to as a pseudo-intellectual? We can be certain his words come from his ideology, not his intellect, so how can we know?

Btw, I first heard the term on the lawn of the Boone County Court House, from Democratic Rep. Richard Ichord, Chair of House Committee on Un-American Activities. He referred to Vietnam War protestors as pseudo-intellectuals. Ichord was a Democrat, not a liberal. It must be noted, Steve does not know the difference.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 9, 2012 | 8:35 a.m.

@ Frank:

Now I'm confused. I didn't utter or write what you have quoted.

If my post, shown above yours, seems out of context I'd direct your attention to postings yesterday by Gregg Bush and myself.

BTW, when one steps on a pseudo-intellectual it utters a distinct whining sound. On the other hand, pseudo-intellectuals utter the same sound when not being stepped on. :)

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 9, 2012 | 9:18 a.m.

Don-earlier you wrote "Steve, please, don't compare the Democrats of today with the Democrats of 50 years ago. They have nothing in common." HA HA HA!! Just two days ago YOU compared the Dems of today with their Confederate slave-owning counterparts of the 1850s and 60s. There's no need for me to even comment further on THAT absurd position.

I take it you stand by your rotten statement regarding liberals. In response I'll just give you the following link:

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

It's reallly classy of you to smear patriots like Max Cleland, John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, Tammy Duckworth, Jimmy Carter, John Kennedy......I say thanks to them AND thanks to John McCain, Bob Dole and any other Republicans who sacrificed for us.

If you want to play the game of "your side is worse than mine" here goes;

You graciously mentioned Timothy McVeigh, though of course failed to mention his co-conspirator(s), who were responsible for the worst case of domestic mass murder, including the wiping out of a child's day-care center. You also failed to mention the likes of Jim David Adkisson, Daniel Cowart, Paul Schlesselman, James Cummings, Keith Luke, Eric Rudolph, Michael Griffin, Rev. Paul Jennings Hill, John Salvi, James Kop and Scott Roeder. I can find more if you like. These are "men" who have murdered or attempted to murder in the causes of right-wing ideologies, anti-abortion etc. I realize many of these are way out on the fringes, but YOU were the one who brought up Ted Kaczynski, who hardly represents mainstream liberal politics! As for Joe Stack, if I remember correctly he was disgruntled with government in general, believing a wild mix of left and right ideologies, so to characterize him as simply a liberal terrorist is not accurate.

frank...I am well aware of distinctions between Democrats and liberals thank you. It's you who simply lump them all together as being, in your opinion, destructive to this nation so I think a mirror is in order. Try reading some of your old posts.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 9, 2012 | 9:34 a.m.

Ellis - I seldom read Gregg Bush. That may be the reason for the mix up.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor July 9, 2012 | 10:07 a.m.

^^^^^^
July 9th 8:35am

Thanks Ellis!
;-)

(Report Comment)
matt arnall July 9, 2012 | 10:17 a.m.

This has turned into quite a show. So with Don and Ellis making veiled threats to Democrats and liberals about how they will stop them or step on them, I will excuse myself from this exchange. Very classy, gentlemen.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 9, 2012 | 10:28 a.m.

Ellis - Since you are apparently receiving applause for your non-answer to my question. I am bound to advise you that I was "quoting" S. Simmons from a post directly above and was asking a question of you in that regard.

Drop in anytime, Mr. "I'm on your side" Mentor.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 9, 2012 | 10:50 a.m.

Frank sez, "I seldom read Gregg Bush." Obviously, Frank, you are more discerning in your reading habits than some of us. I commend you.

It was nothin', Mr. Mentor.

At Arnall: Who, except you, has suggested that pseudo-intellectuals are per se Democrats? Not me. Hell, "Joe Miner" can't even spell that term.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 9, 2012 | 11:10 a.m.

Steve S. - ".I am well aware of distinctions between Democrats and liberals thank you." Sayin' it don't prove it! I have separated Senator Mark Warner, in writing, from those clearly being destructive to our country. Warner, advocating a 4T$ spending cut for the budget deal, wanted on the Super Committee. He sheepishly admitted on nat'l TV, "They're never going to allow me on that committee!" He is a Democrat, led by liberals.

During some part of your long rhetorical defense of your political favorites, please answer my previous query: "There are many that believe the only way to improve our system would be to destroy the economy and rebuild it with the "improvements" they perceive would achieve perfection in government. Many more believe this effort is now ongoing.

What might be your opinions on these thoughts?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 9, 2012 | 12:49 p.m.

Steve, you can't site any point where conservatives attempt to interfere with the right of free speech by liberals. Conservatives win in the marketplace of free ideas. When liberals try it, their rating are meager in comparison. Air America is a classic example. The closest attempt I know if is where Bill Maher was taken off the air after great public protest against his comments on suicide bombers being braver than our military. But that's a real liberal standard.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 9, 2012 | 1:19 p.m.

frank-I'm not aware that I wrote a "long rhetorical defense of my political favorites" but if you say I did then it must be so.

I honestly can't see the point in dialoging with you regarding "achieving perfection in government" since that's not possible. However, here goes...to save trillions of dollars a year I think welfare as we know it should be abolished. I think social security, Medicare and Medicaid should be abolished, that workers should be allowed to keep all the profits of their labors so they can invest and provide for their futures and their retirement. All health care should occur via the free market; those who are either too old or too sick to get health insurance should, after declaring bankruptcy, rely on their families or go to charity hospitals. Since income tax is abolished, we will rely on a "fair tax", whereby we all pay somewhere around a further 30% on the food we eat, the health care we use, the clothes we wear and the new homes that we buy. Perhaps there will be a "prebate" for food purchases but maybe not if it's not economically viable. Public schools will be abolished, saving further trillions and there will be no compulsory schooling. Government programs such as the FDA, the EPA and the FAA will be wiped out, so that safety regulations on new drugs, food and air travel will not eat into corporate profits. Following the abolition of federal safety regulations, the ability to sue companies for deaths resulting from bad drugs, contaminated meat and air crashes will be severely curtailed as a means of combating "frivolous law suits". National Parks will be opened up to corporations; we will therefore have the McFaithful Frothy Geyser in Pepsicostone Park and the GrandMart Canyon. Central government will exist for the sole purpose of confiscating condoms, enforcing the carrying to term of all pregnancies, including those fetuses with severe abnormalities, the prosecution of anyone burning a flag and the promotion of "family values". Wayne LaPierre will be President, Louie Gohmert VP and Sarah Palin Foreign Secretay, though we may not need a FS since we won't be dealing with other nations for fear of becoming part of a "one world government". Ted Nugent will be Secretary of Defense.

I think that just about covers it but if I have any more ideas I'll let you know Frank.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 9, 2012 | 1:36 p.m.

"Steve, you can't site (sic) any point where conservatives attempt to interfere with the right of free speech by liberals."

Don-here's one:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/...

Remember that? The busing in of political operatives, masquerading as angry Floridians, to stop the recount in 2000? Using intimidation to stop the count.

Here's another. You must have a very short memory Don, or perhaps you didn't see the footage of tea party members shouting down speakers at town hall meetings on health care reform.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/...

Why do right-wingers have to constantly spout these Sean Hannity-ish slogans such as "Conservatives win in the marketplace of free ideas." Just try taking a sentence like that apart and maybe you'll realize the comic foolishness of such utterances. Puerile sloganeering.

Citing Bill Maher on suicide bombers and then saying "but that's a real liberal standard" makes me sick. I assume then that as a conservative YOU go along with EVERYTHING Limbaugh, Hannity and Michael Savage says?

A word of advice Don-stick to military history. I freely admit I underestimated your knowledge on that score-my mistake, but once you leave that safe haven and get into generalities you sound just like the rest of the foaming-at-the-mouth gang!

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 9, 2012 | 2:46 p.m.

Steve, it was Democrat elect Irving Slosberg that got caught with the voting machine in his car in Florida in 2000, not a Republican. It was Democrats in Florida in 2000 that tried to take ballots behind closed doors and out of the sight of election judges, not Republicans. It was Democrats in Florida in 2000 that designed the ballot that voters in their own district couldn't understand....but 4th graders could. It was Democrats in Florida in 2000 that wanted recounts in selected counties, not Republicans. It was Democrats in Florida in 2000 that blocked absentee votes by our military, not Republicans. Every recount by every party in Florida in 2000 gave the vote to Republicans...NOT Democrats.

I will never forget watching Tim Russert and four other reporters trying to make a dimpled/hanging chad. None of them could do it. Then the election judge sitting with them showed them how it was done...putting 4 to 6 ballots in all at once. So who was caught with the voting machine in their car?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 9, 2012 | 2:49 p.m.

FYI Steve, I am not in favor or murdering abortion doctors. It's not the law. But I have far more compassion for the millions of murdered unborn children than I do for the abortion doctos. And I am pro choice....let the baby decide.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 9, 2012 | 3:53 p.m.

Don-the voting competency of aging Floridians is not the issue. Neither is the question of a recount, though I was praying all along that a state-wide recount would be instituted. That's what the Gore team should have demanded.

You challenged me to provide you with examples of the right using intimidation against their opponents and I did. Two damn good examples. You don't refute them do you?

If shooting abortion providers were legal would you be in favor of murdering them? Your post suggests so. And by the way, while I am pro-choice in the conventional sense of the term, I find abortion in all but the most essential cases personally repugnant, so please don't try that old "liberals use abortion as a means of birth control" stuff with me.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 9, 2012 | 4:25 p.m.

Aging Floridians?

Here's some demographics from Palm Beach Florida in 2000; this is where the alluded "butterfly ballot" caused so many problems:

"In the city, in 2000, 21.3% of the population is under the age of 18, 9.8% from 18 to 24, 31.5% from 25 to 44, 21.4% from 45 to 64, and 16.0% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 37 years."
_________________________

I'd say those "aging Floridians" must look older than they really are. Too much sun, I guess.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 9, 2012 | 4:40 p.m.

OK Michael...that was a bit of poetic license on my part. How about "inept Floridians of varying chronological status"?

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 9, 2012 | 5:02 p.m.

S. Simmons - I also asked if you deemed the actions of this Administration might indicate Their intention to create a crisis, then create a more perfect government from the shambles. Rahm Emanuel gave us, "never let a good crisis go to waste". He later explained he only meant that important things could be accomplished during a crisis that would not be considered before. Wow! You have decided to omit candor and waste opportunity for an honest answer, tho the silly fiction was noteworthy, unless you copied it somewhere. Imo, one not in favor of changing our government thru economic crisis would have no problem discussing that thoroughly. Imo, favoring change thru crisis might be Only reason to back this prez and his destructive actions. I certainly do hope you find "other ideas"!

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 9, 2012 | 5:02 p.m.

Steve, again your memory fails you. Most of the town halls were limited to identified constituents. The non residents were kept outside...including Kenneth Gladney in St. Louis, a black conservative who was brutally beaten by SEIU thugs.
The November, 2010 election clearly showed what the voters thought of Obamacare. Again,the action against voters from the left. Should we talk about the New Black Wussies intimidating white peole with clubs and denying them entrance to vote? Where was Eric Holder on this one?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 9, 2012 | 5:06 p.m.

Steve: Yeah, that poetic license sure causes headaches for all of us. Before ya know it, someone accuses us of hyperbole which is either an STD or a one-syllable-short line in a haiku... I don't know which....but it's sure to cause an argument either way.

Personally, I figure if someone can't read and follow directions in the voting booth and/or figure out if they've made a mistake (that means...check your work), my sympathy for a subsequent gripe session is rather low.

But then I also think if someone can't figure out a way to get a photo ID needed in so many other aspects of life, they shouldn't be voting anyway.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 9, 2012 | 5:09 p.m.

Economic crisis?

We don't need no stinking economic crisis.

Really bad crises usually lead to a form of government NONE of us want....

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 9, 2012 | 5:13 p.m.

I believe Eric was right there on the job. Though eye witnesses and video of the incident were available he found reason Not to prosecute!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/...

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 9, 2012 | 5:15 p.m.

You need a valid picture ID to get into any government building. This includes court rooms. So you can be denied a right to get into your own trial, and your juries can be denied the right to get into the court. Proving that there are instances where your constitutional rights are still contingent upon having a voter ID.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 9, 2012 | 5:25 p.m.

Steve, regarding this link: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/......

I am hoping you are merely ignorant of the truth behind the picture, and not attempting to foist an outright lie. That picture is the angry reaction of those Republicans in the room in when Democrats took ballots OUT of the main counting room, and took them behind closed door and would not let the press or Republicans into the room, in clear violation of Florida's sunshine laws.

Please tell me you knew nothing of the background of the picture.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 9, 2012 | 5:29 p.m.

Steve, regarding this website, http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/......

Do you really, really think that all that anger towards Obamacare at those town halls was orchestrated, and resulted in the massive defeat of the Dems at the polls in Nov, 2010? Is that what you honestly think?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 9, 2012 | 5:33 p.m.

Don, yer links ain't workin'......

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 9, 2012 | 5:49 p.m.

Michael, they are the same links as Steve's posting today at 1:36 PM.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 9, 2012 | 5:56 p.m.

Steve's exchange with Don is called "tit for tat" He's having trouble with "tat".

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 9, 2012 | 6:02 p.m.

Frank, I never have trouble with, uh, oh, well, nevermind.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 9, 2012 | 6:07 p.m.

Liberals never think they are going to get caught in the deception. Just ask Dan Rather, or any other person smeared by the continual selective editing on liberal networks. They just never seem to learn, and those who "innocently" repeat them are just to lazy to fact check what they post.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 9, 2012 | 6:19 p.m.

The only time I can think of that a liberal had a physical problem with conservatives was in 1988. It was Memorial Day in Houston. We were having a large Vietnam Welcome Home Parade. I was marching next to former Marine sniper and NBC Channel 2 anchor Bill Balleza and a friend of his.

Travis Morales, avowed communist and one of the leaders of the Moody Park riots in Houston was verbally harassing the veterans as they went by. When the Marine contingent passed him though, Morales made a really stupid mistake. He charged into the crowd and attempted to take away the Marine Corps colors of one group. After having the living snot kicked out of him and being redeposited on the curb, Morales decided not to attend any future veteran's functions in Houston.

See, SOME liberals are capable of learning from history.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 9, 2012 | 6:20 p.m.

Don:

Odd. His work, yours don't.

For yours, the first link shows a leaking boat when Washington crossed the Delaware.

The second says, "forbidden".

I figure that on the "forbidden" one, you prolly got blacklisted in the last 4 hours or so, lol.

Me, too.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 9, 2012 | 6:23 p.m.

Don: Yeah, I'd say dat was pretty stoopid.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 9, 2012 | 11:00 p.m.

Don-I just spent the evening entertaining guests, barbecuing, siphoning a mosquito larva filled kids' paddling pool and thinking up oh so clever responses to your most recent comments. Refute this, deride that, mock the other. But then I thought about it and concluded what's the point? What IS the point??

You are convinced that the tea partiers are all made from the Sir Launcelot mold, spreading truth and light, whereas "my side" are all stinking, bearded anarchists hell bent on the cultural and economic destruction of this great nation. Never the twain shall meet. You've made your points, I've made mine. I have enjoyed actually learning something from your historical knowledge, though I'm disappointed at your use of stock conservative slogans. It's clear you've learned nothing from me.

I think I realized quite some time ago one of the chief differences between me and you.

I honestly don't know whether I am right. I often THINK I am right, but there are usually questions and doubts I have about my political leanings, my reasonings behind what I think about economic and moral matters. I don't believe that's true with you and frankchristian and a number of others on here. You know you ARE right. You're positive about it. To admit otherwise would be a sign of weakness. I honestly don't know whether the country would be better off with a second term for President Obama. Personally I hope he wins, I like him and I think, from my perspective we'll be better off, but I can't say with certainty that the country will ultimately be a better place. I don't think I am being presumptious in assuming that you KNOW that the nation will benefit from anybody other than President Obama.

Having said all that you know what? I'd much rather be me than you.

One more thing; your dogmatic attitudes do absolutely nothing to convince your opponents that you're right. Quite the opposite in fact. Take a note from Michael Williams' book; I know he's conservative but he seems to be at least open to discussion and willing to entertain opposing viewpoints with decency and civility. Consequently, he's far more likely to sway people towards his way of thinking.

P.S. I don't recommend mosquito larvae as an appetizer.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 5:37 a.m.

Steve Simmons July 9, 2012 | 11:00 p.m.

You know you ARE right. You're positive about it. To admit otherwise would be a sign of weakness.

You see Steve, there are certain immutable truths which you liberals refuse to recognize. I won't go over them with you. That would be pointless. I do confess I don't know if it's willful stupidity, or a genetic deficiency. Whichever it is, liberals can't grasp concepts of life involving logic and common sense. They don't learn from history. They can't discern the differences between national and cultural failings, which needed correction, and immoral conduct and fiscal idiocy, which they uphold to the detriment of our entire nation.

However, I have clearly shown here how the left are willing to take basic morals and corrupt them, how the left is willing to steal elections, and how the left is willing to lie about any issue that suits their purpose. You would never understand the folly of your conduct until it slapped you in the head with a 4 X 4 of consequences. Unfortunately, if we let you go on, all of us would have that same 4 X 4 applied to us. My family doesn't deserve that. Neither does yours or anybody else’s for that matter.

So we will take this election from the liberals within the law. We won't need to entice the homeless or retarded with candy or cigarettes or drugs. We won’t need fraudulent voters. We won't need to have ballot machines hidden in our cars. We won't need to block the votes of the military. We won't need to have clubs at the door to frighten away voters. We will just watch you like a hawk to ensure we catch you when you cheat. And this time, with a new attorney general, it will be a whole different ball game.

And you know they'll cheat. The Democrats always do. Like I said, you can't win in the court of public opinion, so cheating is all you have left. Won't work this time. We are watching you too close now for that to succeed.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 10, 2012 | 7:46 a.m.

Steve S. - You didn't write to me, but about me, so might I add? You marvel that conservatives "know" that they are right. This is not a superiority of that group. I repeat that our educational system changed with the advent of liberalism around or before 1960. As conservative author Tammy Bruce, former LA, NOW president wrote, "everything bad became good and every good became bad". I Think that you are in the group that has suffered from this incursion (liberal banker David Rockefeller has written that "sovereignty" was so deep in the feelings of Americans, that education would be the only way to change them. I Think you and the liberals of today believe that, opposition to religion, patriotism, capitalism, all came from the natural gain of knowledge among intelligent people. That is not the case! The source of these changes can be easily traced (1960's on) to liberals in education, news media, government. Conspiracy Theory? Check it out. I guarantee you will have to read some conservative sources.

This is why conservatives "know" they are right. They know or have learned of the greatness of our country and the happiness, content, and togetherness of the American people before the given date. I Think you have been led to believe that those prior years were the "dark ages". When people have had a treasure that they love, they resist mightily when someone tries to take it away. When they argue about it, they Know they are right. "One more thing; your dogmatic attitudes do absolutely nothing to convince your opponents that you're right." You are thinking about it! Keep thinking.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 10, 2012 | 7:49 a.m.

SteveS says, "Take a note from Michael Williams' book; I know he's conservative but he seems to be at least open to discussion and willing to entertain opposing viewpoints with decency and civility."
______________________

Well, I hardly know what to say, blushing and all.

I'll start with thanks.

But you need to know 2 things: (1) There are some here who would disagree vehemently with you, and (2) I've been on triple-super-secret-can't-post-without-editor's-review-for-a-week probation twice for...um...incivility.

I'm not sure I've learned my lesson, either.

;^)

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 10, 2012 | 8:08 a.m.

Steve: I do agree with Frank on one sizable issue, that of the changes seen in our society since 1960.

I believe my generation (baby boomer) did a lot of harm, and we're still doing it.

I could cite example after example pertaining to education, self-respect, faith, work ethic, financial acumen, etc., but there's no time, no space, and no need; if you've lived through this entire time period, you've seen the changes, too.

We likely disagree on the "harm" part, tho.

How do these changes occur? Slowly, with baby steps and constant prodding, with an evolving educational system and complicit legal and media entities.

And parents who delegate their children's upbringing.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 10, 2012 | 8:40 a.m.

It *used* to be called "creeping socialism".

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 10, 2012 | 10:08 a.m.

Don-you make my point BEAUTIFULLY in the following paragraph;

"You see Steve, there are certain immutable truths which you liberals refuse to recognize. I won't go over them with you. That would be pointless. I do confess I don't know if it's willful stupidity, or a genetic deficiency. Whichever it is, liberals can't grasp concepts of life involving logic and common sense. They don't learn from history. They can't discern the differences between national and cultural failings, which needed correction, and immoral conduct and fiscal idiocy, which they uphold to the detriment of our entire nation."

You tar everyone who you regard as liberal with the same brush because you KNOW you are right. Your statements are rigid, hyperbolic and stupid. They make massive assumptions that are based on a dogmatic paternalistic view of the world, that YOU ALWAYS KNOW WHAT'S RIGHT. Incidentally, you clearly don't have a basic grasp of genetics, otherwise you would realize that a gene conferring liberal tendencies has never been identified, neither has one conferring conservatism so you can't, I'm afraid claim to be genetically superior based on your biological heredity.

frankchristian follows this with an equally dogmatic and ridiculous statement, though he does at least have the sense to paraphrase it with "I think";

"I Think you and the liberals of today believe that, opposition to religion, patriotism, capitalism, all came from the natural gain of knowledge among intelligent people."

How do you know I am opposed to religion, capitalism and patriotism frank? How do you know ME? For your information, we have done quite nicely as a consequence of the capitalist system. It's a system that I know full well is the most practical one for benefiting the majority of the population. It's also here to stay. How dare you question my patriotism? Again, such arrogance to assume that a liberal can't be patriotic. You probably agree with Don's disgusting comment regarding liberals not putting themselves in harm's way to defend us.

"This is why conservatives "know" they are right. They know or have learned of the greatness of our country and the happiness, content, and togetherness of the American people before the given date. I Think you have been led to believe that those prior years were the "dark ages"."

OK so you do at least admit your folly in "knowing you're right". Your naivete is stunning frank. Your assertion that everything was sweetness and light prior to 1960 (so you must have adored FDR), only to go downhill since is simplistic to say the least. The funny thing is...I tend to agree with you and Don on some levels about education, attitudes towards saving and welfare. But then how could I? I'm a liberal and you KNOW me.

contd.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 10, 2012 | 10:09 a.m.

Don underlines his woeful blindness when it comes to politics in his assertions that ONLY democrats cheat, mislead and steal elections. As if Republicans are the noble party who would never stoop to anything to disenfranchise or slant the outcome of an election. Why is it that in the absence of any election fraud (and I mean actual fraudulent votes cast), Republican-led states are working to restrict early and absentee voting and same-day registration? I'm not talking voter ID here because I think voters should have an ID to vote. Below is just one link illustrating this:

http://prospect.org/article/who-stole-el...

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 10, 2012 | 12:27 p.m.

Don-How remiss of me to forget the following example of a right-winger urging violence against Democrats, and the sheep dutifully obliging him:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Do you still contend that political thuggery ONLY exists on the left?

Incidentally, this particular anti-government idiot (who says he was a socialist until he had an "epiphany" and became libertarian) apparently lives on government disability checks.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 1:18 p.m.

Steve, how many times have we seen where Democrat offices were vandalized, and when the investigation was done, it was found that it was the democrats themselves who did the vandalism to try and make conservatives look bad. You go look that up and get back to me. In the meantime, check out all the news stories in the link below of Democrats slashing the tires of Republicans. Doesn't appear to be an isolated incident, does it:

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-informa...

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 1:22 p.m.

Sorry, that was just one story. Try this for multiple stories of Dems slashing the tires of Republicans:

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Ag5j...

By the way, in my search, I did NOT use the word Democrat, Dem, etc.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 1:22 p.m.

Steve, would you like to see the story of the Dem union thugs breaking into a GOP office and breaking the arm of a senior citizen there?

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 10, 2012 | 1:54 p.m.

What's the point Don? As I said before...D's evil cheating thugs, R's honorable knights in shining armor.

Since you're fond of lumping all liberals/Democrats together I will turn it around on you. I abhor the slashing of tires, smashing of windows etc whichever side does it. I assume you abhor the actions of right-wing terrorists but until there is a liberal who matches the exploits of Timothy McVeigh and friends, I suggest you cease this line of argument.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 10, 2012 | 3:23 p.m.

I saw the various riots of the late sixties and I'm pretty sure I remember which political persuasion was instigating and participating.

And I'm pretty sure I generally know the age and political persuasion of those same folks today.

Given subsequent events since those days, involving the same folks and younger generations, you'll have a hard time convincing me liberals and conservatives are equivalent in the bad behavior department.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro July 10, 2012 | 4:05 p.m.

The Ten Point Plan:
http://www.blackpanther.org/TenPoint.htm...
New Black Panther - 10 point platform:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news...

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 10, 2012 | 4:14 p.m.

Michael..I'm certainly not denying that the riots of the 60s were carried out by left-wingers, who were generally angry at the war and the draft (which is where this whole discussion began). Even as a liberal I don't feel much affinity with the long-haired hippies of the Woodstock generation, though a lot of the music was good! However, to say that today the left is the only side with extremists prone to violence is just not true. See the following;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar...

I'll go back to Tim McVeigh. If politically-motivated murder were an Olympic sport, he is the Michael Phelps of his discipline, and he comes out of the right. Name me a left-winger who, in comparison, merits even a single bronze medal.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 4:49 p.m.

At 3,000 murdered unborn children every single day of the year for 38 year, I'd say nobody can hold a candle to you left wingers for violence against the innocent.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 4:55 p.m.

Steve, one huge difference. Conservatives found the acts of McVeigh repugnant. Liberals seem to have absolutely no problem with the violent and illegal acts of the left. You're just sorry they get caught. Show me the outcry from the left on all the election misdeeds by the left. It's virtually zero.

By the way Steve, are you ready to admit that your characterization of

Remember that? The busing in of political operatives, masquerading as angry Floridians, to stop the recount in 2000? Using intimidation to stop the count. http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/...

was a total misrepresentation, and it was actually angry Republicans reacting to Democrats taking ballots behind closed doors and out of sight of the press and election judges? You never admitted to that.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 4:57 p.m.

Steve, do you say that McVeigh was a neo Nazi?

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 10, 2012 | 5:04 p.m.

What a stupid copout of a response! It says a lot about you Don. You're telling me a conservative has never had an abortion? Only left-wingers have abortions!!! Ha Ha Ha! Any justification for your point of view just went down the toilet. And I notice you have never even criticized McVeigh. Unbelievable!

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 10, 2012 | 5:11 p.m.

Don-I didn't say McVeigh was a neo-Nazi. Here is what Wikipedia says of McVeigh's political and religious affiliations and beliefs;

"McVeigh was a registered Republican when he lived in Buffalo, New York in the 1980s, and had a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the military,[82] but voted for Libertarian Party candidate, Harry Browne, in the 1996 presidential elections.[83] McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic.[84] During his childhood, he and his father attended Mass regularly.[85] McVeigh was confirmed at the Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York, in 1985.[86] In a 1996 interview, McVeigh professed belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."[84] In the 2001 book American Terrorist, McVeigh stated that he did not believe in Hell and that science is his religion.[87][88] In June 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News identifying as agnostic.[89] Before his execution, McVeigh took the Catholic sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.[90]"

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 10, 2012 | 5:18 p.m.

OK so you just said that "Conservatives found the acts of McVeigh repugnant". That's a relief since I assume that includes you.

Don, as I said before I don't condone ANY violent acts that are politically motivated. The difference between you and me though is that you will not admit that there are EVER any violent acts coming from your side. As long as you maintain your head in the sand attitude of D's violent thugs, R's white knights, there is no point in continuing this.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 5:32 p.m.

No Steve. I'm saying that acts of violence and voter corruption are much more endemic to Democrats, and much more accepted by Democrats. I listed all the actions of voter fraud several times above, and there is virtually no condemnation on the part of the left. Conservatives don't need to cheat or threaten Dems to win. Dems on the other hand, are much more prone to use these tactics.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 10, 2012 | 5:54 p.m.

"Dems on the other hand, are much more prone to use these tactics."
____________________

This is Don't point.

And, based upon my observations of last 40+ years, I agree completely with him.

Yes, you can easily find atrocities from both sides; but liberals are more prone to violence. I cannot see how anyone who has lived over 40 years can deny this.

I also agree with Don's point that conservatives wanted McVeigh to fry. Conservatives wanted nothing to do with him.

Don also said, "Liberals seem to have absolutely no problem with the violent and illegal acts of the left. You're just sorry they get caught."

And I agree with this, also. I hear nothing from the liberal crowd about the two Occupy morons that wanted to blow up a bridge (did you even KNOW they were Occupy morons?), nothing about the new black panther agenda, no criticism about Al Sharpton and his past, nothing about....nothing. No criticism at all.

And, in the absence of any fair-minded criticism of their own, what am I to conclude except that such behavior is supported, condoned, and favored with sly snickers for "sticking it to the man?"

Show me 20 separate US videos from the last 40 years (with no context) of a guy throwing a brick or firebomb, and let me bet you an amount determined by me that I can guess the political persuasion of the idiot.

I'll get rich off you in a real hurry; I may lose a few, but I'll win a whole lot more.

I also think I can successfully bet on the origins of voter fraud.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 6:02 p.m.

I will confess that liberals view any attempt by conservatives to ensure they stay within the law as threats. On the other hand, conservatives don't mind at all if liberals are looking over their shoulders. Nothing to see or hide. And if there is, we want to know about it.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 6:07 p.m.

How did this get by me:

Ellis Smith July 8, 2012 | 3:41 a.m.
@ Don Milsop:

We have a "plantation system" at University of Missouri System too

Ellis, are you saying this system doesn't exist at the Colorado School of Mines?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 6:46 p.m.

Steve, you've not denied any of these things are true:

1. Involved in massive illegal voter registration thru ACORN?
2. Giving candy to the mentally retarded to get them to register and vote?
3. Giving cigarettes to street people as an inducement to vote?
4. Giving drugs to people as an inducement to vote.
5. Had an elected official caught with a voting machine in their car?
6. Sought to have the overseas ballots of our military thrown out?
7. Caught not mailing ballots to military personnel?

You've not denied that many times damage to Democrat offices was done by democrats themselves.

You can't show similar actions by Republicans as a clear and recurring pattern in many states. You don't have Republicans urging illegals to vote like Calif. Dem Francine Busby, who was actually caught on tape saying it. Al Franken won his seat by 312 votes. In the Milwaukee area, 341 convicted felons, who had not had their voting rights restored because they were still serving out probation or parole, voted. You don't have Republicans winning seats with illegal votes.

No, time after time after time, it's Democrats corrupting the system. If you didn't have such a history of voter fraud across this nation for more than 50 years, we wouldn't we looking so closely at you. In one county in Texas in 1948, LBJ won 200 of 201 ballots, and people voted in alphabetical order.

So it's a long history for Dems. We won't even go into Illinois or New York elections with unions and the mob. Democrats run a corrupt machine. We know it. We're watching you. And with cell phone cameras and the internet, it's just gotten really difficult for you to get away with it now.

Terrible, isn't it?

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 10, 2012 | 7:16 p.m.

Don-is this massive voter fraud perpetrated by the Democrats over the years the reason why Republicans throughout the nation are engaging in massive voter suppression? Why is it that in Texas, if the new voter ID law passes, a gun license will be a valid form of ID but a student ID will not;

"The law, SB 14, requires voters to show one of a very narrow list of government-issued documents, excluding Social Security, Medicaid, or student ID cards. Gun licenses, however, are acceptable."

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/0...

How about Republican "dirty tricks" specifically misinforming Democratic voters:

"In recall elections for the Wisconsin State Senate in 2011, Americans for Prosperity (a conservative organization that was supporting Republican candidates) sent many Democratic voters a mailing that gave an incorrect deadline for absentee ballots. Voters who relied on the deadline in the mailing would have sent in their ballots too late for them to be counted.[15] The organization said that the mistake was a typographical error.[16]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppr...

More recently,

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/061...

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Michael...I CONDEMN the black panthers. They give me the creeps, as do armed-to-the-teeth right-wing militias. Did you read the Guardian article?

You still seem to regard McVeigh's act as just another outrage..yes a dastardly deed carried out by someone who just happened to be a right-winger and a registered Republican, but there are just sooooo many bad acts perpetrated by left-wingers. No Michael..McVeigh's cowardly mass murder was the Mount Everest of domestic political violence, at least to this point! It leaves the violent acts of the left in the dust!

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 7:57 p.m.

Steve, don't get stuck on stupid. Student ID does NOT establish residency for voting. You should know that.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller July 10, 2012 | 8:10 p.m.

Mr Simmons,

An intellectually honest individual would never stoop to the use of an obviously biased and intellectually dishonest hatchet job link such as "http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html." The left has long wrongly accused former President George Bush of being AWOL regardless of the facts showing otherwise. My primary objection to this site is that it painstakingly selects Democrats who served and just as painstakingly cherry picks Republicans who did not--you should be ashamed of that.

Additionally your site lists John Murtha as a 37 year career Marine, a statement which is patently false. Murtha served on active duty for 3 years as a Marine Lieutenant and went into the reserve. To boost his credits for political office, Murtha requested and was granted a year of active duty as a major in Vietnam which was spent in a Regimental HQ far from combat. Those who served with him in the 3d Marine Regiment had no recollection of his being wounded--his explanation was less than plausible.

I am not even going into the shenannigans he used for promotion while serving in Congress...Murtha was not respected by his peers--I served on active duty with him and was Marine Corps Liasion to Congress when he was elected to the House.

I also find it odd that you post a site that praises Dick Gephart for serving in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War but castigates George Bush for doing the same.

The posting of such an obviously biased link as factual does your credability little good.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 10, 2012 | 8:22 p.m.

If McVeigh was Mt. Everest, what was the riot period from 1964 through 1972?

By saying McVeigh was Mt. Everest, are you saying that liberals get "violence" free throws to even things out?

Kind of a 10 for 1 deal on a minor terror event, but perhaps 100 to 1 for a "McVeigh?"

Hope not, but I don't know how else to interpret your statement.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 8:23 p.m.

Colonel, unlike Steven, I always pull my sources from major news services or military publicans. I never use anything from Free Republic, The National Review, or any other blatantly conservative source.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 10, 2012 | 8:26 p.m.

JKarl: I did not know that about Murtha.

Kinda hard to refute someone who was there.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 8:34 p.m.

Steve, wouldn't you say that Ted Kaczynski was just as anti government as McVey? But, no Republican was hanging out with either of them. However, Obama was very close to unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers. Got any Republicans hanging around with somebody similar to Bill Ayers? Bill Ayers, who had participated in several terrorist attacks. His girlfriend and his best friend killed building bombs that were to be used to attack a family dance on an army post. Got any GOP candidates with friends like that? Bill Ayers who said they didn't go far enough. Bill Ayers stomping on the American flag. Rev. Wright who was led that racist church and every time he uttered an anti American, racist statement, the congregation cheered and shouted. Obama in this church for 20 years, but doesn't know that attitude is endemic to that "minister and his congregation". What a pathetic lie on Obama's part.

By the way, for those who say George Bush was a coward, let me strap you into a jet fighter, flying at 500 knots and 100 feet AGL, with a full bomb load, and see if you don't think that is brave. And that is just training.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 8:46 p.m.

Same Murtha who made accusations about Marines acting like terrorists, then not apologizing when the facts came out showing otherwise. You can serve in the military, but those in the Democrat party today are anathema to what our military believes. To be a Democrat today is to betray everything our military stands for. Much more akin to Benedict Arnold than Chesty Puller. You would be hard pressed to find a person in the military admit to being a Democrat. It's been that way since the 1960s.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 10, 2012 | 9:33 p.m.

Colonel Miller-I resent being called intellectually dishonest, especially when I am arguing in this blog with someone who took a hell of a long time to condemn McVeigh and then compared his mass murder with "liberal abortions". Perhaps the Bushawol site was poorly named, but much of its info IS accurate. I seem to remember that Joe McCarthy also puffed out HIS military service, but he was ok since he went after those Hollywood elite commies right? Also, who's campaign was it that trashed a man with a damn sight more military service and sacrifice than him? Remember the Bush campaign's disgraceful treatment of John McCain in 2000?

Don-you continue your descent into the slime with this;

"To be a Democrat today is to betray everything our military stands for. Much more akin to Benedict Arnold than Chesty Puller."

Do you seriously think all those Hispanics in the military today are Republicans? How about all the blacks who served in Viet Nam in the 60s and 70s? Democrat Benedict Arnolds eh?

You should be ashamed of yourself. Colonel Miller....any comments on that statement by Don?

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 10, 2012 | 9:38 p.m.

Yes Don, Ted Kaczynski was just as anti-govt in his own way. Was he a registered Democrat and a member of the NRA?(I honestly don't know but I DO know that McVeigh was a registered Republican). How many did Kaczynski murder?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 10:42 p.m.

Steve, both McVeigh and Kaczynski are pikers compared to 3,000 murdered unborn children every single day of the year for 38 years. That's over 41 million. Even worse than Hitler or Hirohito. When it comes to workplace violence, you liberals outdo anybody in history.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 10:50 p.m.

Steve, I could understand why you would resent being called intellectually dishonest. You must hate being caught in that condition post after post after post. But I pointed out you were doing that two days ago. Sorry if I didn't make that clearer to you. The colonel isn't alone in exposing you for being that way. I'd bet every conservative here knows you are. The other liberals seem to have abandoned you. Maybe they see it too.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 10:52 p.m.

Steve, I'm sure the colonel will answer you as soon as you can explain why voter fraud is so endemic to Democrats. We've been asking you about that for days, but you can't seem to generate a response.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 10, 2012 | 10:56 p.m.

Do you seriously think all those Hispanics in the military today are Republicans?
________________________________

Speaking for myself, I don't know.

But, I fully expect a preponderance of Hispanics to be conservatives within a generation or two or three.

Those folks are upwardly mobile and quickly figuring out how to get where they want to go. They'll figure out liberalism is a poor strategy. They will use gov't help as a stepping stone, not as an end or goal.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 10, 2012 | 10:56 p.m.

Steve, by the way, how many of those that Joe McCarthy went after later admitted McCarthy was right? The responses we've been getting from you would be like something I would expect more from Charlie McCarthy or his cousin, Mortimer Snerd.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 10, 2012 | 11:37 p.m.

Don,

You've lost.

Sincerely,
Everyone with a brain.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 11, 2012 | 2:58 a.m.

Rich, we'll see in November. I will keep your post though and let you know how valid it was. If November of 2010 is any barometer, it shouldn't be worth much as an opinion.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 11, 2012 | 5:58 a.m.

Don Milsap:

I note that in the miscellaneous ramblings posted here there is a tendency for posters to admonish other posters to "stick to the facts." Let's stick to the facts.

Colorado School of Mines (1874) is NOT a subdivision of University of Colorado. It has a president, not a chancellor. It has less than half the enrollment of MS&T.

Now you know.

New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology (1889) is NOT a subdivision of University of New Mexico. It has less than 2,000 students! It has a president, not a chancellor.

Michigan Technological University (1874) is NOT a subdivision of University of Michigan. It has more students than MS&T. It has a president, not a chancellor.

Having a president when you have a relatively few students may seem excessive, but a typical academic "administrator" doesn't know their posterior from a telephone pole when it comes to running a technical institute.

However, Don, we (1870) have cause for joy. In 2007 the curators voted to allow us a name change (a name WE chose); enrollment almost immediately took off.

As for Old Massa, would you like to hear our suggestion for what he can do? It's graphic.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 11, 2012 | 7:31 a.m.

It's pretty obvious that Don doesn't have much to hang his hat on, since he's still using all those "murdered" "unborn children" as evidence for...nothing. You do realize that the term "murder" has a legal definition, right? Abortion wasn't murder even before Roe v. Wade, so please, do everyone a favor and lay off the drivel.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black July 11, 2012 | 7:44 a.m.

Nope, haven't abandonded Steve. He must be a newcomer and doesn't know when to stop wrestling that pig. Finally got back to Ayers and Rev Wright, eh? Took a while.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking July 11, 2012 | 7:49 a.m.

Don Milsop wrote:

"Conservatives don't need to cheat or threaten Dems to win. Dems on the other hand, are much more prone to use these tactics."

To the extent they are used at all, you may be right. But outright voter fraud (misrepresenting your identity to register or vote) is negligible. I see statistics of thousands' of a percent in state elections. The main problem is outdated or inaccurate voter registrations, and ID requirements won't fix that. A national voter registration database, and requiring registrations to be renewed periodically, would go much further to fix those problems.

Do you really think the only way Democrats win elections is because of voter fraud? Some of your writing seems to suggest such. Conservatives have no corner on the market of public opinion. In fact, the country tends more liberal in good times and more conservative in bad - that's why the Republican gains in 2010. It's not "Obamacare", it's not voter fraud, it's the economy, Period. Unfortunately there's not much the government can practically do about that.

DK

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 11, 2012 | 7:54 a.m.

And since we're apparently keeping score of who's more violent, we can chalk up to the conservative side all the abortion-clinic bombings, death threats, and overall despicable behavior toward women.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 11, 2012 | 9:10 a.m.

Tony, you're absolutely right. I need to know when to stop wrestling that pig. In all the back and forth between Don and I, my major bone of contention with him has been his unapologetic disrespect for the portion of our military who are Democrats. His assertion that somehow a liberal member of the military is not as much of a soldier, indeed that liberals will not even defend us, disgusts me. His notion that true patriots have a large R tattooed on their forehead is unconscionable. Anyway, his playing of the "Hitler card" I think destroys any scintilla of credibility he might have so I'd say that's a good place to leave it. I cringe whenever a liberal uses that hackneyed and stupid comparison to attack Republicans. I hope his conservative compatriots are likewise embarrassed.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black July 11, 2012 | 9:19 a.m.

Yep. Steve, as soon as you realize all us Democrats are stupid lazy freeloaders who don't care about our country and are not in the least patriotic, the better off you'll be.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 11, 2012 | 9:32 a.m.

Steve: There are reasons why the Democratic Party does not particularly care for military voting trends.

It might be good to discuss what those reasons are....current and historical.

Such a discussion may clarify REASONS for the anger and...yes...disrespect.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements